Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_2/V13_217.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 17KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from hogtown.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/MbnU70O00WBwE9F05e>;
          Fri,  1 Mar 91 02:24:48 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Fri,  1 Mar 91 02:24:41 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #217

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 217

Today's Topics:
              Re: Space Profits
              Re: Space Profits
        NASA Prediction Bulletins ftp site ??
          Re: Government vs. Commercial R&D
         Re: Whither Lunar Observer in FY92?
         Re: Whither Lunar Observer in FY92?
             chimps in space -- question
              Magellan Update - 02/28/91
              Re: Space Profits

Administrivia:

    Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to
  [e-mail].  Other mail, esp. [un]subscription requests,
  should be sent to [e-mail], or, if urgent, to
             [e-mail]

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

Date: 28 Feb 91 06:08:20 GMT
From: zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!sequent!crg5![e-mail]  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Space Profits

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael Wallis) writes:
>The likely first lunar export will be oxygen, mined from the soil, and used to
>fuel ships on the Earth-Luna run. It's cheaper to refine and ship it to Earth
>than to haul it up the gravity well from the surface.

Isn't this rather self-referential?  Why are the ships going to Luna?


>There's also He3, the "miricle" fusion fuel. If it can be proven useable, the
>helium export will be a very valuable contract.

There is an outside chance He-3 will become a necessary part of
economical fusion.  If so, it has the qualities required of a good frontier
export: a large market back home and a high value/mass ratio.  The
closest source energy-wise is likely to be the surfaces of several
near-earth asteroids.


>The main thing, though, is that we won't know what's valuable until
>we're there.

If by "we" you mean our senses enhanced by technology, I agree:
we won't find things until we explore in detail, all over the solar
system, not just in Death Valley.  The good news is that with latter
20th and early 21st century automation technology this is relatively
inexpensive.


>Columbus sold Isabella on his voyage because of spices. What he gave Spain was
>CONSIDERABLY more valuable, and could not have been predicted in 1491.

Interestingly, the first voyage of Columbus was not funded by Isabella.
In fact it was financed like so:

    Santa Hermandad (Holy Brotherhood): 1,000,000 maravedis
    Columbus (via loan from a wealthy shipowner): 500,000 maravedis

The Holy Brotherhood was one of the many large, wealthy Church
organizations of the day which together owned a good chunk of the valuable
land in Europe.  Sort of a cross between Billy Graham and the oil companies
(scary thought, huh?  :-) The 1,500,000 maravedis paid rent for three
caravels.  Only after Columbus brought back gold and claimed he had
discovered India did Queen Isabella finance a 17-caravel expedition.
She pretty much lost her "jewels", too, while Da Gama raked in the bucks
from the round-Africa spice trade.  Gold and silver in large amounts did
not start flowing from America for nearly 50 years.

Reference is the _Encyclopedia Brittanica_ article on Columbus.
If anybody knows how 1492 "maravedis" roughly translate into 1991 dollars
in terms of GNP, gold, or whatever, I would be highly grateful.

Remember the "intangible benefit" was unknown in Columbus' time:
Colombus himself died thinking he had found another route to India.
The financial investments were motivated primarily by the promise
of financial rewards.


--
Nick Szabo            [e-mail]
"What are the _facts_, and to how many decimal places?"  -- RAH

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

Date: 1 Mar 91 01:28:00 GMT
From: hub.ucsb.edu!ucsbuxa![e-mail]  (Charles Frank Radley)
Subject: Re: Space Profits



The advantages of lunar oxygen (Lunox):-

Delta-vee to LEO from Luna is much less than from Earth to LE O

Hence getting LOX to LEO is cheaper if it originates from the
Moon.

LOX is a very valuable commodity to have in LEO because it can be
used to boost satellites from LEO to high orbit, eg
communications satellites.  It can also be used to prevent
spacecraft in LEO  (eg Space Stations) from decaying.

GEO comprises Oxidizer.   Cheap Lunox would thus dramatically
reduce the cost of launching spacecraft into GEO.

This is my main criticism of LLNL.  They propose to bring up
their oxidizer from Earth, they have no plans to use Lunar
Oxygen, which IMHO is the door to open the High Frontier.  Lunox
will make Mars missions much cheaper for example, and should be
the TOP PRIORITY, even before Freedom Space Station on which my
livelihood depends.

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

Date: 1 Mar 91 02:39:47 GMT
From: hal![e-mail]  (Steve Masters)
Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins ftp site ??


Can someone please send me (or post here) an ftp site for the NASA orbital
prediction bulletins.  I realize they are posted here periodically but I
would also like to know an ftp site if I need a copy quickly.  I tried
"nachos.sseco.com" today via the Princeton FTP server but the site was
unknown.  I have retrieved the bulletins from this site in the past.

Steve Masters   [e-mail]
ENSCO, Inc.
Melbourne, FL  32940
[phone]

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

Date: 28 Feb 91 21:12:40 GMT
From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Government vs. Commercial R&D

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:
>AMROC's big mistake is not in their technology, but in their business
>practices.  With a strategic partner willing to help build a "rocket
>clone" to launch existing satellites with the safer AMROC hybrid fuel,
>they would stand a reasonable chance of success.

I'd say they'd stand zero chance of success by that route.  Why would
anyone bother?  The existing boosters are adequately cheap and adequately
safe for launching existing satellites -- in the opinion of the customers --
and any new booster would have an uphill struggle with things like launch
facilities.  The only way Amroc, or any of the new companies for that
matter, can possibly succeed is to pioneer new markets, not try to elbow
their way into existing ones already crowded with much larger government-
subsidized companies.

>>... These technologies would progress further and faster if there
>>was research done by people who weren't betting the farm on success.
>
>Here I disagree.  We _do_ have hybrid fuels _and_ air-launched vehicles
>that bring the entry level cost of space down by a factor of 4.  We have
>them today...

Note that I said "further and faster".  We've made some small progress on
these things, progress which could easily have been made 20 years ago.
Saying that "we have" these things is even a bit of an overstatement in
most cases; the hybrid fuels will die if Amroc dies, and a serious cost
reduction as a result of any of these innovations is unproven.

>The reason we have them is precisely because of private
>investors willing to bet big chunks of their farms...

And how many such investors are there?  Amroc almost went under in the
wake of the stock-market slump, and Challenger almost killed OSC in
pre-Pegasus days.  Private investors, by and large, are not very happy
about betting the farm on new technology.  It's gone out of fashion.
People are a lot happier about investing in commercialization of
technologies that have been successfully demonstrated by someone who
doesn't have to worry about next quarter's results.

>People and organizations
>working with other people's involuntarily proferred farms simply don't
>have the same motivation to innovate in commercial or economically viable
>ways...

Ah, this explains why high-bypass turbofans, supercritical airfoils,
winglets, riblets, etc. were all invented by the commercial aviation
industry?  (For the benefit of the spectators :-), NASA invented all of
these and all have been or are being enthusiastically adopted by commercial
aviation.)

>For more advanced technologies (eg non-chemical-rockets, though even
>here Rocket Research Company is at the forefront of electrical propulsion)
>and basic science government has a large role in funding the exploration
>of as many avenues as possible.

As I've mentioned before, it is utterly incorrect to claim that chemical
rockets are not advanced technology.

>>There is nothing wrong with improving chemical rockets, and indeed it
>>badly needs doing.
>
>Good, let it be done by privately funded industry that has the incentive to
>do it right.

But they *don't* have the incentive to do it right.  The ones with
money have incentive to do very small incremental improvements in
performance and reliability; note the absence of the word "cost".  The
ones with the incentive to do something bold and innovative don't have
the money.

>The idea that per-pound launch costs can be _radically_ lowered by
>chemical rockets is nonsense.  Space settlement, and perhaps also
>the large-scale industries leading up to it, require such a radical
>lowering of launch costs -- by over a factor of 10.

I'm really surprised to hear the Launcher Cartel Official Party Line from
you of all people, Nick.  This is exactly what the subsidy-bound big
launch companies will tell you.  The little companies, the ones you were
praising a few lines earlier like Amroc and OSC, will tell you that
chemical rockets can lower per-pound launch costs *at least* a factor
of 10 and perhaps 100 or 1000... and could do it within a few years, given
enough of a market to justify the investment.
--
"But this *is* the simplified version   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
for the general public."     -S. Harris |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 28 Feb 91 22:11:53 GMT
From: zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!sequent!crg5![e-mail]  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Whither Lunar Observer in FY92?

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

>If LLNL gets the go ahead within the next two years they just might have
>a base on the moon before Lunar Observer is even launched.

And we'll all enjoy the nice exports of green cheese.  :-)



--
Nick Szabo            [e-mail]
"What are the _facts_, and to how many decimal places?"  -- RAH

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

Date: Thu, 28 Feb 91 10:14:50 -0500
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Whither Lunar Observer in FY92?
Newsgroups: sci.space
Cc:

In article <[e-mail]> Henry writes:

>>No, it's easy, you just collect it on a return trip from one of the
>>regularly scheduled supply runs to the lunar base, right?

>Assuming you've got a lunar base with regular supply runs.  That definitely
>isn't going to happen in time for Lunar Observer, since LO will be one of
>the first parts of a renewed lunar-exploration program.

If LLNL gets the go ahead within the next two years they just might have
a base on the moon before Lunar Observer is even launched.

   Allen

--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Allen Sherzer |A MESSAGE FROM THE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT TO THE PEOPLE OF KUWAIT: |
|[e-mail]   |       "If rape is inevitable, enjoy it!"                     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: 26 Feb 91 22:02:59 GMT
From: hsdndev!husc3.harvard.edu!husc4.harvard.edu![e-mail]  (Elijah Millgram)
Subject: chimps in space -- question


Can anyone tell me about instances of chimpanzees
being sent into space (name and date of mission,
purpose and results of mission, name of chimp, etc.)?

And a subsidiary question:  does anyone know of movies
in which chimps are sent into space?

Many thanks,

Lije

--



Elijah Millgram                            [e-mail]

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

Date: 1 Mar 91 01:07:20 GMT
From: swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jpl-devvax!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Magellan Update - 02/28/91


                         MAGELLAN STATUS REPORT
                           February 28, 1991

     The Magellan spacecraft and its radar system are performing nominally.
All STARCALS (star calibrations) and DESATS (desaturation of the reaction
wheels) during the past 24 hours were successful.

     The command sequence presently executing includes the solar panel
offpoint and 10 minute early turn from mapping in order to maintain
spacecraft temperatures at acceptable levels.

     DMS-A (Data Management Subsystem) Test #3, the playback of tape recorded
data patterns, started yesterday and will continue through orbit #1602 this
evening.

     Spacecraft controllers are continuing to see the effects of solar
occultation, as measured by the solar panel output and declining temperatures.
A decision is expected tomorrow to resume the full 37.2 minute mapping passes
as part of tomorrow's command sequence update.
      ___    _____     ___
     /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|      Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
     | | | |  __ \ /| | | |      Jet Propulsion Lab | Is it mind over matter,
  ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |___   M/S 301-355        | or matter over mind?
 /___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /|  Pasadena, CA 91109 | Never mind.
 |_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                      | It doesn't matter.

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

Date: 28 Feb 91 22:37:57 GMT
From: zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!sequent!crg5![e-mail]  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Space Profits

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] ("Allen W. Sherzer") writes:
>[I write]
>>Why are the ships going to Luna?
>
>They are going there to support the infrastructure on the moon. There are
>other markets as well.

Don't keep us all in the dark, let's hear them!


> [more grossly uneconomical LOX scenarios conventially avoiding the mention
> of numbers]

>>we won't find things until we explore in detail, all over the solar
>>system, not just in Death Valley.
>
>the preliminary survey is done.

We have not look at _one_ asteroid close up.  We have not sampled
any comets or Galilean moons.  Most of the surfaces in the
solar system remain unmapped.  The survey has barely started.


>Robots are not good enough to do all that themselves.

The typical Luddite point of view, the same one that keeps our Detroit
factories inefficient while the Japanese fill theirs with robots.

This isn't a matter of opinion, it is a matter of historical fact.
Human-teleoperated probes are orders of magnitude better than any manned
space missions: for example, Voyager has by rough estimate generated 10
times the references in the scientific literature for 1/50 the cost of
Apollo: a factor of 500 more useful to our knowledge base per dollar.
Another way to look at it: Voyager explored four planets and dozens of
moons, while discovering over a dozen new moons.  Apollo explored one old
moon.  I could go on and on; the capabilities and efficiencies
of unmanned probes simply dwarf what can be done with the monstrous,
budget-greedy manned proposals.


>Exactly. No profit making enterprise would ever have funded the
>colonization of the new world.

This comment is beyond comprehension.  Please, please, read your history
before attempting to comment.  Do any of these ring a bell?

Oriental spices
Inca gold
Peru silver mines
Tobacco/Jamestown
Fur/Hudson's Bay Company
Sutter's Mill

The payoffs were often dramatic (for example the 400% gross margins
on Da Gama's spice trade), with risk/payoff and time cost of money
factored in, and all used properly scaled technology available at the
time.


--
Nick Szabo            [e-mail]
"What are the _facts_, and to how many decimal places?"  -- RAH

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #217
*******************