Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_3/V13_331.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 19KB

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/YbxMOva00WBwEUGk4u>;
          Sun, 31 Mar 91 01:50:36 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 91 01:50:30 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #331

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 331

Today's Topics:
        Re: Value per pound vs. cost per pound
           Commercial Space News (10 of 12)
Re: NASA to feature Space Station Freedom at Paris Air Show (Forwarded)
          Re: Government vs. Commercial R&D
             Re: Shuttle Velocity
            Re: Japan Moon Probes article
             Re: I want to go to orbit...

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: 24 Mar 91 22:52:15 GMT
From: swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123![e-mail]  (Wales Larrison)
Subject: Re: Value per pound vs. cost per pound

Glenn, you had asked:
>What I'd really like to see discussed is Nick's contention that
>launch costs for ELV's can't be reduced much below $5,000/lb
>because of limitations intrinsinc (sp?) to Expendables (feel free
>to correct me if that's not what you're saying, Nick :-).  What do
>people out there think the cost limiters are?  It's certainly not
>fuel.  --
   Probably the best recent data I've seen on the cost of ELVs for
LEO transportation is from two sources: 1) the USAF/NASA Advanced
Launch System (ALS) Phase 1 and Phase 2 contract studies, and 2) the
current cost and design studies for the SSX, These sources, while
not available in your local bookstore are available.  The ALS
studies, done by Martin Marietta, General Dynamics, Hughes,
McDonnell Douglas, Rockwell and United Technologies Corp have been
summarized and published as IAF and AIAA papers, as well as summary
articles and descriptions published by NASA and the USAF.  Since
they were contracts, the contractual reports should be available
through NTIS.  The SSX cost and design studies are also available as
IAF and AIAA papers, with the best cost data I've seen on the SSX
published in the "Journal of Practical Applications of Space
Technology" as "Cost Implications of True Spaceships". (I'd give you
a better reference, but I loaned out that copy of the JPAST and
haven't got it back yet.)
   These studies provide a good overall discussion of the costs of
chemical rocket technology - both reusable and expendable.  The SSX
paper makes the case with 1990's technologies, a reusable
chemically-powered rocket system could operate at less than $100/lb
to LEO.   I think this is approximately true, but my reservations on
those results are tied to the rapid turnaround time, very high
reliability, high number of flights, and low maintenance cycle per
flight of the SSX.  I would like to see a bit more directed design
and technology studies on this - which the current SDIO studies of a
Single Stage to Orbit (SSTO) system are providing.  (See the last
issue of Space News for an overview of the SSTO contracts).
   If you are looking for a lower risk, more near term solution, the
ALS studies provide a good set of baselines.  During the ALS
studies, the starting design point was $300/lb into LEO with a
payload of 150,000 lbs.  Each contractor proposed, in my opinion, a
feasible engineering solution - but said a couple of key points:
you have got to take a close look at how you manufacture, assembly,
plan, launch and operate your system in the light of reducing costs.
Every contractor independently came up with the solution to build a
new system from scratch rather than trying to kludge the $300/lb out
of an existing system - and every contractor said to get the cost
down, you have to have at least 500K -1,000K lbs of launch demand
flying through the system to get payback.
  (As a disclaimer, I did work on one of the ALS contracts - but in
my position I scrubbed the technical solutions and cost estimates
very closely, and I really think the ALS could be put in place
before the end of the decade for a reasonable ($4-5 billion) cost.)
   The limiting factor, from my viewpoint, is the hardware.  Right
now, space hardware (not launch vehicles) costs a minimum of $30,000
per lb.  Some (Galileo, for example, or some military programs) go
in the $100,000 to $150,000/lb range or higher.  In a typical
program, launch costs are only 20% or less of the overall life
cycle costs, so reducing launch costs is very low on their priority.
Until we can get the costs of space hardware down, the mass market
which will drive costs of everything else down, will not occur.
                                                - Wales -



--
Wales Larrison
Internet: [e-mail]
Compuserve: >internet:[e-mail]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 26 Mar 91 05:28:42 GMT
From: sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123![e-mail]  (Wales Larrison)
Subject: Commercial Space News (10 of 12)

GET READY FOR THE WARC
   One of the primary drivers for the sat communications business is
the availability of GEO locations and radio frequencies in which
each satellite operates.  As can be expected, the allocation of
frequencies and GEO locations ("slots") is important to avoid
interference with other satellites and to provide simple coverage of
the targeted market area on the Earth below.  These allocations are
handled in the U.S. by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
which allocates slots and frequencies assigned to the U.S. by the
international Telecommunications Union (ITU).  Allocation of slots
and frequencies are done every 5 years at the World Administration
Radio Conference (WARC), which is planned to meet next year in
Geneva.  This next WARC is important as there are several changes in
the market to be addressed and resolved before several planned
communications ventures can become real - mobile communications,
high-fidelity audio, high-definition TV, and TV broadcast.
   Chief concern is the allocation of additional radio spectrum for
mobile communications services.  Several firms have mobile
communications services on the market (Inmarsat, for example), and
other firms (like Motorola's "Iridium") have proposed competing
mobile communications services.  To accommodate expected growth in
this area, frequencies currently allocated to users may have to be
given to mobile communications users.  This may force changes in the
global allocation of GEO slots and frequencies, and may force some
fixed services (telephone relay, video broadcast, etc), to move off
satellites onto ground systems like microwave or fiber optics nets -
which would seriously effect current commercial operators. The U.S.
FCC has been able to accommodate WARC changes with minimal
modifications to U.S. services, but this WARC may have a more
substantial impact.  It expected fixed satellite services will not
change where alternatives, primarily fiber optics nets, are not
available or feasible.  This primarily effects telecommunications
services outside industrialized North America, Japan, and Europe -
but where satellite communications traffic and services are the
heaviest, some services may have to move to fiber optics to make
room for mobile communications services.
  Other concerns include making more frequency spectra available for
proposed new services for satellite broadcast of high-fidelity ("CD
quality") audio programs, for broadcast of high definition TV
signals (now under test in Japan), and for direct broadcast of TV
directly from satellite to homes, as well as the usual concerns
about allocating frequencies for navigation services, and slot
allocations to individual nations (Tonga, for example, has made 30
filing, requesting 13 slots).
   [Commentary:  The importance of government and international
regulating bodies is not well known or appreciated in the space
enthusiast community, and this will hopefully expose some of the
importance of these relatively unknown, but crucial, aspects of the
space business.  GEO over the Western Hemisphere is getting crowded,
and the traditional huge allocation to the U.S. is under a lot of
pressure from other countries wanting GEO slots for their own -
Argentina, Mexico, Cuba, Brazil, Columbia, and a consortium of
Central American nations have filed for new or additional slots.  We
must expand GEO services to higher frequencies (go ACTS, go!) or
figure out how to more efficiently use the current frequencies and
slots.  If not addressed now,  this could put the brakes on the U.S.
communications satellite market, and seriously restrict the advent
of new services.  Fortunately, the FCC is really trying to do a good
job, and they, the rest of the Department of Commerce, and the State
Department are tooling up to hit the WARC fully prepared.]



--
Wales Larrison
Internet: [e-mail]
Compuserve: >internet:[e-mail]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Wed, 27 Mar 91 15:33:53 -0500
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: NASA to feature Space Station Freedom at Paris Air Show (Forwarded)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Cc:

Debra J. Rahn
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                            March 27, 1991
(Phone:  [phone])

RELEASE:  91-47

>NASA TO FEATURE SPACE STATION FREEDOM AT PARIS AIR SHOW

    The Space Station Freedom will highlight the NASA exhibit at
the 39th Paris Air Show, Le Bourget, France, June 13-23.  The
centerpiece of the 7,000 sq. ft. exhibit will be a full scale mock-up
of a Space Station Freedom module.

        When asked about the difficulty of transporting the full scale
module, NASA Administrator Richard H. Truly replied: "No problem. I'll
put it in the overhead bin or maybe under the seat in front of me".

:-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-)

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

Date: 26 Mar 91 15:51:10 GMT
From: usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!nss![e-mail]  (Paul Blase)
Subject: Re: Government vs. Commercial R&D

to: [e-mail] (Nick Szabo)

 NS> In article <[e-mail]>
 NS> [e-mail] (Paul Blase) writes:
>>Maybe it is more
>>subtle than I thought.  I was saying that for the most part, it is only
>>the government that has the need and the money to fund the development
>>                            ----         -----
>>of the first useful product from advanced research, especially if that
>>product is the first of its kind.

 NS> If understand your point, it is that government money is
 NS> needed, not necessarily government lab work.

More than just government money, rather a market for the first product
from a technology.  From experience, developing the first marketable
product from a technology can cost as much or more than the laboratory
research that developed the product in the first place.

 NS> The patent
 NS> statistics and analysis of major inventions show that industry
 NS> does indeed develop first products, sometimes with some
 NS> government money, sometimes not, but nearly always without
 NS> government intervention in the design process.

First of all, a patent has nothing to do with whether or not a technology
is actually on the market.  There are lots of patents for things that
never made it out of the lab.

 NS> More basic
 NS> scientific advances are usually the products of university and
 NS> commercial research labs, often with government funding but
 NS> again with little intervention in the technical specifications.

I suggest that you go and look at the amount of research and development
that takes place in and because of military and government laboratories.
I spent some time in Dayton, Ohio working for the Avionics Laboratory,
Wright Aeronautical Laboratories, Wright-Patterson AFB.  There is an
enourmous amount of research taking place there, and indeed at all of the
other military laboratory bases.  Some of this has to do with the direct
development of weapons systems, much more has to do with the basic research
necessary to develop technology that will be used.  A great deal of this
research is 'farmed out' to university research centers, such as the
University of Dayton Research Institute.  A fair amount also is subcontracted
out to industrial firms.  I should point out that much of this research
is NOT classified; it can be and is used for commercial purposes also.



As an example, I should like to use a project with which I am currently
involved.  It is an electro-optical system, meaning that it uses computers,
lasers, optical stuff, and a fair amount of other state-of-the-art
gadgetry.  The chief researcher, an Air Force scientist, has spent the past
15 years developing the theory behind the system.  I had the pleasure of
working for him at Wright-Patterson.  All well and good, the system has
pretty well gotten through the research stage and there are three
laboratory prototypes working at various facilities.  Funding for this
system has come from a variety of sources, including the Air Force and NASA.
Now comes the hard part.  For a variety of reasons, the funding for
fundamental research comes from a different pot than does the funding for
development of technology.  The prototypes so far are fairly large piles
of instrumentation and gadgetry, spread out over optical benches and lab
tables.  They are perfectly functional, but - whenever he gives a tour to
the people that have the <development> money, they say "Yuck, I don't want
that pile of stuff in my manufacturing facility/laboratory/office."  What
<they> want is a fully packaged, compact, rugged prototype that they can
try out on site.

Now the research to date on this system has probably cost
on the order of $10 million.  The company for which I work is helping him
to develop the packaged prototype, and I estimate that development
of a basic version (meaning that non-optimal materials, manual
adjustments, and off-the-shelf parts wherever possible) will cost about
another $.5 million.  To develop a full prototype, that would meet all
of the customer's real requirements, and which would involve the design
and manufacturing of a fair amount of custom computer hardware and
software, will cost around $5 million.  There is nothing particularly hard
about this work, the research has all been done - it is just a lot of
engineering.

The problem, which we are slowly solving, is that the <research> funding
will not pay for this <development>, and the potential customers, who
might pay for the <manufacturing> of the system want to see the
manufacturing prototype first - NOT the lab-bench setup.

This problem exists throughout industry and government.  It is fairly
easy to get funding to do research - that is what the National Science
Foundation and university research facilities are for.  It is far more
difficult to get the $ to turn your research into something that you
can actually manufacture and sell.  Especially (and this is my major thesis
here) if your whatever is an entirely new technology, and not just an
extrapolation of existing technology.

--- via Silver Xpress V2.26 [NR]
--
Paul Blase - via FidoNet node 1:129/104
UUCP: ...!pitt!nss!Paul.Blase
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

Date: 28 Mar 91 05:37:33 GMT
From: uvaarpa!murdoch!astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU![e-mail]  (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: Shuttle Velocity

Henry Spencer writes:
#However, I suspect your
#number is nevertheless wrong, because liftoff accelerations generally are
#lower than that.  I could be wrong; my references aren't handy.

I don't have nearly the references that Henry does, but that sucker
does MOVE during the launch.



--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      [e-mail]
 UUCP:        ...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w

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

Date: 27 Mar 91 07:52:43 GMT
From: littlei!intelhf!agora![e-mail]  (Roadster Racewerks)
Subject: Re: Japan Moon Probes article



I agree that US deficiencies can hardly be blamed on the Japanese.

Small example from an entirely different frame of reference.... My boyfriend is
a custom cabinet maker and furniture designer-builder. I went to the cabinet
hardware dealer with him yesterday. There I saw a gold-plated, very top-of-the
line bathtub spigot in the shape of a swan's neck. In this *supposedly* top
quality $800 faucet, they could not be bothered to screw the decorative wings
onto the neck straight!

If our manufacturers cannot be bothered with quality control of a very minimal
nature, in a non-technical application, in a *luxury* item, well I think that
speaks volumes as to why Japan (or whoever) is beating us all over the economic
map...

And you can't blame it on outsiders.

Suze Hammond
[e-mail]

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

Date: 27 Mar 91 22:34:23 GMT
From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!dsinc!bagate!cbmvax!amix!vanth![e-mail]  (Jim Shaffer)
Subject: Re: I want to go to orbit...

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark SOKOLOWSKI) writes:
>
>    Hi,
>
>    What are the steps in order to build a reliable space-shuttle like
>spaceship in order to send myself to orbit for the summer holidays?

Personally, I'd forget "shuttle-like."  I'd forget chemical rockets too.
There are several excellent public-domain text files explaining how to
build your own flying saucer.  Or you could simply look up Thomas Townsend
Brown's patents.  (There are also PD plans for a spacetime-warping coil,
but it's dangerous -- if the power fails at high output, the backlash tends
to violently disrupt any matter within the field.  If you plan work along
such lines, be sure to read Carl Meredith Allen's warnings in his
correspondence with Dr. Morris K. Jessup.)

--
*  From the disk of:  | [e-mail]             | "You know I never knew
Jim Shaffer, Jr.      | amix.commodore.com!vanth!jms | that it could be so
37 Brook Street       | uunet!cbmvax!amix!vanth!jms  | strange..."
Montgomery, PA 17752  | [e-mail]    |             (R.E.M.)

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #331
*******************