Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V10_4/V10_407.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 17KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from beak.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/kZf2SgS00VcJI5FU5y>;
          Thu, 11 Jan 90 01:29:02 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 90 01:28:32 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #407

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 10 : Issue 407

Today's Topics:
          NASA Prediction Bulletins:  Space Shuttle
          Still more HR2674 testimony (part 1 of 2)
                  .
            Re: Nuclear Reactors in Space
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Jan 90 23:56:40 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!hellgate.utah.edu!helios.ee.lbl.gov!ncis.tis.llnl.gov!blackbird![e-mail]  (TS Kelso)
Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins:  Space Shuttle


The most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are
carried on the Celestial RCP/M, [phone], and are updated several times
weekly.  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this
system.  As a service to the satellite user community, the most current
elements for the current shuttle mission are provided below.  The Celestial
RCP/M may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300, 1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data
bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

STS 32
1 20409U 90002  A 90 10.79513865  .00052462  00000-0  25599-3 0    72
2 20409  28.4982 131.8483 0014729  53.7862  53.6237 15.80679580   209
--
Dr TS Kelso                           Asst Professor of Space Operations
[e-mail]          Air Force Institute of Technology

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jan 90 15:09:59 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!samsung!umich!sharkey!itivax!vax3![e-mail]  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Still more HR2674 testimony (part 1 of 2)


Testimony of

COMSTAC Subcommittee on Procurement

to

Subcommittee on Space Science and Applications

on

Implementation of the Commercial Space Launch Act
and its Amendments
and Space Transportation Services Purchase Act
of 1989

9 November 1998

Mr. Chairman:

My name is Dennis Dunbar.  I am the Vice President of
Programs and Technical Operations for General Dynamics
Commercial Launch Services, Inc.  Today I am representing
Mr. Ron Stoneburner who is the chairman for the COMSTAC
Subcommittee on Procurement.  Unfortunately, Mr.
Stoneburner is out of the country at this time, and I have
been asked to represent the views of this subcommittee.

Some time ago, COMSTAC recognized the extreme importance of
the USG procurement policies and their effect on viability
and growth of a U.S.  commercial launch industry.  This led
to the formation of COMSTAC's special subcommittee which
has been in effect for about two years.  Members include
representatives for every U.S.  launch vehicle company.  It
also includes several of the spacecraft companies.  The
most recent product of this committee was a model Request
for Proposal (RFP) and a model contract illustrating how
the government can realize the maximum benefits in buying
commercial launch services.  This report was approved by
the COMSTAC and forwarded to the Secretary of
Transportation with the recommendation that it be forwarded
to apropriate government departments and agencies as well
as to key members and staffs of Congress.

The Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984 and the Ammendments
of 1988 recognized the importance of a commercial launch
services industry to our nation, from both the economic and
national security perspectives.  Your committee is to be
commended for their foresight and for establishing
reasonable policies for aiding the development of the U.S.
commercial launch services industry.  However, it is a long
step from setting policy to actual implementation.
Statements such as "the government shall procure launch
services in a commercial reasonable manner" are subject to
a variety of interpretations.  It requires a complete
change of mind set on the part of those doing the procuring
for the government to realize the full benefits of
commercial procurement in this arena.

The commercialization of this industry has come a long way
in the past two years.  While we have seen significant
changes in the thrust toward the concept of procurement of
commercial launch services by the government, cultural and
institutional changes are far from total in their
acceptance and implementation.  Some government
organizations previously charged with procuring launch
vehicles and overseeing contractor work struggle to find
new roles.  Other government agencies continue to prefer
traditional government procurement methods.

The mutual objectives of government and industry can only
be met by continued open and frank discussion of these
issues -- issues that clearly require our mutual
cooperation for their resolution.  I commend you, Mr.
Chairman and your committee, for your continued commitment
to these issues.

Our industry is now producing commercial launch services to
provide services for various commercial customers.  There
are some key advantages to the government procuring
services in the same manner.

1.  The commitment to block production of vehicles on the
part of the company provides to the government the economic
and schedule benefits fo multiyear procurements but with
annually funded requirements.

2.  With common government approved, specifications, costs
are lower because of volume production.

3.  Common hardware provides flexibility and a shorter
call-up capability from a large production base.

As a result, the cost of commercial launch services is
lower to the government than that obtained through
traditional government procurement.

Let me give you specific example: The Air Force MLV II
request for proposal recognized these advantages and called
for specific tailoring by the offerors to accommodated the
commercial aspects of the program.  General Dynamics
responded by requesting some specific tailoring of the
government specifications and offering a very attractive
price based on a combined commercial/government program.
In fact, if we compare the recurring costs to put a payload
into orbit for the last contract under full-up Federal
Acquisition Regulations and untailored military
specifications, and the cost we have estimated for the
launch service for the Atlas II (our vehicle for the Air
Force MLV II) we are confident that it results in a **64%
reduction** in cost per pound to orbit.  Of this 64%
reduction, some 20% is attributed to our commercialization
approach, 18% is the result of performance improvements,
15% is due to rate and learning (going from an equivalent
of manufacturing one and one-half vehicles per year to
eight per year), and 11% is attributed to configuration
changes.  Our performance to these estimates is
substantially dependent on the actions or lack of actions
on the part of our government.

I would like to review some my company's experiences with
several other recent procurements.  By coincidence, General
Dynamics received a request for launch services from a
commercial company about the same time we received one from
the government.  This was early 1987.  Both were for
spacecraft of similar size, to be delivered to similar
orbits.  Our proposal to the commercial company required 91
pages; our proposal to the government required 4,250 pages!
After spirited negotiations, GD was able to convince the
government that many of their usual requirements just did
not fit in a commercial buy.  There were many arguments --
we won some and lost some -- but there was a healthy
movement in what we consider the right direction.  However,
a later procurement from the same government agency had
many of the same procurement clauses that had been
negotiated away in the previous procurement -- a step
backwards!  Subsequent proposal requests from the same
government agency show positive improvements, th4e last of
which could be answered in 500 pages and encouraged bidders
to propose alternate commercial clauses to the standard
government clauses -- a large step forward.

I think that this is indicative of the difficulty in making
such a drastic change from the previous way of doing
business.  Procurement officials have a large volume of
Federal Aquisition Regulations (FARs) that they live by.
There is a personnel risk in their waiver of specific FARs,
but thre is not commensurate reward.  With the exception of
Congress, who established certain policies in the
Commercial Space Launch Act and its Amendments, there have
not been specific policy instructions promulgated by the
Administration (ie.  by the Office of Federal Procurement
Policy).  It seems to our committee that this is a very
important missing ingredient.  Lacking this, our committee
established this model RFP and model contract, hoping that
government officials procuring launches will accept all or
most of the provisions that we recommend.

Let me provide to you a few examples of our recommendations:

1.  Payment Schedule -- Formerly, the government made
progress payments based on a percentage of completion of
the work.  Our model contract includes a fixed payment
schedule rather than progress payments.  This change is
necessary because quantities of launch vehicles are being
produced on speculation, at contractor risk, and not
allocated to specific missions until just before
completion.  Therefore, there is no specific relationship
between the cost of an individual vehicle and the price or
payments of an individual launch service contract.

2.  Statement of work -- It is limited to mission
requirements.  This is a "performance type" work statement
that specified mission peculiar orbit requirements,
interfaces, and environments.  How that performance is
achieved is within the discretion of the Contractor.  It is
very important that procurement officials keep in mind that
the contract is for launch services not for procurement of
launch vehicles.

3.  Inspection -- The model contract provides that the USG
will have access to all data and a right of examination of
all work in progress.  However, the USG would only have an
approval right at some specified event prior to launch
(most likely a Flight Readiness Review or a Quality Report
and System Review).

4.  Launch Schedule Adjustment -- The contract includes a
procedure whereby both parties can adjust the launch
schedule without penalty as long as adequate notice is
given and as long as the cumulative adjustment is not
beyond one year or some similar specified period of time.
If adequate notice is not provided, a schedule penalty is
imposed.  If adjustments are beyond the specified period,
the contract is subject to possible termination.

5.  Termination -- If the USG elects to terminate for
convenience, the termination liability is fixed in the
contract.  This amount will vary with time and become
larger as the termination date approaches the launch date.
Because the vehicles are being built in continuous
production runs, the precise termination costs are
impossible to determine.  The vehicles may continue to be
built with attempts to sell to another customer.

If the USG termination is for default, the the contractor
will refund all payments made by the USG.  The contractor
will not be liable for excess procurement costs because
launch services from different suppliers are not comparable
and because the excess liability could vastly exceed the
value of the contract.

6.  Cost or Pricing Data -- The contract imposes the
requirement for certification of cost or pricing data only
in regard to changes made after contract award.  Because
the vehicles are built in continuous production runs, there
is no cost or pricing data available that pertains only to
the specific launch services procured.

The key to the viability to our U.S.  commercial launch
services industry is tha the U.S.  Government must be a
positive force by participating through the purchase of
launch services (or space transportation services) on a
commercial basis.  While there may be valid reasons for the
government to wish to except launch of certain high value
national resource payloads from commercial procurement,
these exceptions should be extremely limited and
discouraged.

Mr.  Chairman, we applaud the past two bills that you have
passed and believe that the new bill proposed by
Congressman Packard puts more teeth in earlier policy
statements.  We agree with and support the intent and
spirit of this new bill.

I appreciate the opportunity of appearing here and I am
available for questions.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks to Catherine Rawlings for sending me all the HR2674
hearings testimony (she's Packard's aide for the Space
Science and Applications Subcommitee), and to the
Industrial Technology Institute for letting me type this in
during my lunch hour on a Lisp machine with a decent editor
(what a waste, but it sure beats banging away at 1200 baud
on my home laptop).
------------------------------Tihamer Toth-Fejel [e-mail]----


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Allen W. Sherzer                    |  Is the local cluster the result   |
|  [e-mail]                        |  of gerrymandering?                |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

ReSent-Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
ReSent-Date: Wed, 10 Jan 90 19:36:24 -0500 (EST)
ReSent-From: "Todd L. Masco" <[e-mail]>
ReSent-To: Space <[e-mail]>
Date:     10 JAN 90 02:05:15 CDT
From: MARK KINSLER <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Subject:  .
Comments: Answering received message

Re: Gyroscopes whose weight seems to change:  They were doing a great
deal of flywheel research about ten years ago.  They were able to
spin 700 lb wheels at zillions of rpm in a vacuum.  The idea was to
use them to store energy, and somebody actually built a bus powered
by a flywheel (kept running by dynamic braking and a small engine
after an initial spin).  I doubt, however, that flywheel researchers
weighed their apparatus.

<[e-mail]>

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jan 90 21:07:27 GMT
From: vsi1!daver!lynx![e-mail]  (Neal Woodall)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Reactors in Space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tim Maroney) writes:

>>No, they consistently use the phrase "generators".  If there is an
>>error, it's mine.  And yours; there are obvious similarities between
>>conventional reactors and RTGs.  "Completely different"?  Sure, sure.

>Outside of the fact that both use similar fuel I don't see much similarities.

Sure, there is a fundamental similarity: both use nuclear processes to "store"
their energy (as opposed to chemical proceses in a battery). Beyond this, they
are dissimilar.

It is the fundamental differences which are much more important:

1) The reactor uses a fissionable form of Plutonium which emits fast neutrons
and is capable of sustaining a nuclear reaction, while the RTG uses a non-
fisionable form of plutonium which emits only (I believe) beta particles.....
which you you rather be hit by, a bunch of fast neutrons or a bunch of beta
particles?

2) The nuclear reactor gets its power from a sutained nuclear reaction, and
as such has the potential to get out of hand, while the RTG gets its power
strictly from nuclear decay...no chance of a runaway chain reaction here.

3) Because the nuclear reactor actually has a sustained nuclear reaction going
on inside of it, it needs active control systems to dampen the reaction....thus,
it is much more complex. The RTG, on the other hand, has no sustained reaction
going on, and needs no active control systems....it is much simpler and safer.

4) Of course, the nuclear reactor can put out a lot more energy per its own mass
because it is a sustained nuclear reaction.

In all, the RTG is an excellent trade-off of safety and power: because it uses
nuclear fuel, it has a very high energy density....much higher than chemical
batteries. However, because the fuel is not fissionable, it is much safer.
Also, because there is no nuclear chain reaction, it is safer than a reactor.




Neal

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V10 #407
*******************