Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_3/V13_350.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 15KB

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/gbyM54200WBwEi9U4q>;
          Wed,  3 Apr 91 02:16:21 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Wed,  3 Apr 91 02:16:15 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #350

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 350

Today's Topics:
            SPACE Digest V13 #344
              Re: "Face" on Mars
            Commercial Space News (4 of 5)
            Commercial Space News (1 of 5)
         Re: Commercial Space news (5 of 12)
              Re: More cost/lb. follies
                Re: "Follies"

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]

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

ReSent-Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Resent-Date:  Tue, 02 Apr 91 15:32:10 EST
Resent-From: Tom McWilliams <[e-mail]>
Resent-To: [e-mail]
Date:         Tue, 2 Apr 91 04:13:03 EST
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
Subject:      SPACE Digest V13 #344
Comments: To: [e-mail]
To: david polito <[e-mail]>, Tom McWilliams <[e-mail]>

Re: Launch protectionism
From April1,1991:

>  On the other hand, the US launch vehicle market, the biggest in
>the world is protected.   Foreign companies are not allowed to
>launch US government satellites.   On the other hand, foreign
>governments do use US launchers......Arianespace complains
>that the US is engaging in unfair protectionism....

And......

>The US doesNOT believe in fair open markets.   On the contrary.
>The US government refuses to allow foreign companies to bid to
>launch US government satellites.   Foreign governments, on the other
>hand, make extensive use of US vehicles.

I think a distinction needs to be made here.  The problem is not protectionism
per se, but rather preventing the exportation of high technology to foreign
governments, especially Russia, which is our leading competitor (right now).
Not only in terms of launch costs, but politically and militarily, too.

There is certainly the possiblity that this is just a fancy justification for
protectionism, but until launch costs get low enough to make launching non-high
technology wothwhile, we'll never be able to test the theory.

If I remember right, G.M. was petitioning congress at one point to allow the
export of a satellite to Russia for launch, since they were so much cheaper.
I think the end result was that they had to cover it up in a Gov. approved way,
to prevent the dirty ruskies from learning how MTV works.  I'm sure it wasn't a
regular broadcast bird, but they were allowed to do it.

I don't have references, at least not good ones.  Anyone want to give me a
reality check?

P.S> It's pretty bad when a socialist nation can out compete us, the
     free marketeers.

Tommy Mac
18084tm@msu
Acknowledge-To: <18084TM@MSU>

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

Date: 2 Apr 91 13:10:03 GMT
From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!caen!hellgate.utah.edu!csn!oldcolo![e-mail]  (Keith Hamburger)
Subject: Re: "Face" on Mars

Perhaps, if one is interested, he should check his local library for a copy of
the book.  If the ideas prove worthwhile he could then purchase other books on
the subject.  (please note that I am not going to even get it at the library,
I don't need to be told that I should take anything on faith just because it
might be possible.)

Keith

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

Date: 1 Apr 91 03:52:34 GMT
From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123![e-mail]  (Wales Larrison)
Subject: Commercial Space News (4 of 5)


   This would also pretty much solve the issues over the "NASA/DoD
Joint Management Plan", since the services would be provided as
commercial launch services, requiring much less government oversight
of the contractors.  Costs should also be pretty much the same or
less - and I think that the government could fund two launch teams
into a "launch off" of competing prototypes for about the same
money. (This would probably require some coordination between the
two systems to allow them to use the same basic launch facilities,
though - a good role for the government).  This would also encourage
the competing teams to consider commercial applications - as a
backup if they should lose the competition, and to figure out
faster, better ways to recoup their prototyping costs.
  But I am not impressed with the commercial prospects for the NLS.
It's another system designed by the government, built by the
government, to be operated by the government, for government needs -
and giving lip-service to kluging a "commercial version" is only
political maneuvering. Let's get real, folks.]

SOVIETS MAY BUY WESTERN COMSATS
   In a rather surprising development, representatives of the Soviet
Union are reported to be checking out the possibility of buying
Western hardware as the basis for a new Soviet domestic satellite
communications network.  Apparently, the Soviets have approached two
firms in Germany and Spar Aerospace in Canada to act as suppliers
for a proposed new Soviet Ku-band domestic network known as
"Romantis"
   This system would be coordinated by a Soviet entity called
Informcosmos.  As proposed, Glavcosmos and Intersputnik would
consult to this organization (of Soviet communications bureaus),
installing western Ku-band transponders on Soviet satellites
(previously's Intersputnik's responsibility) and launching them on
Proton rockets (presumably Glavcosmos' responsibility).  Up to
300,000 ground stations have been proposed to link with this system,
and the Canadian and German firms approached have also proposed to
provide these as part of the package (or provide the technology and
expertise for them).
   Key issues still be resolved with this venture include the split
of who builds what ground stations with whose technology, technology
transfer issues under COCOM restrictions on space hardware transfer
to the Soviets, and Soviet payment in non-convertible currency.
Current turmoil in responsibility between the Russian Republic and
the central Soviet government have also complicated this issue.
  [An interesting development with interesting ramifications - but
one which will probably not pay off for some years. This Soviet
business venture is even more speculative than average since the
Soviets have been very proud of their space hardware expertise, and
have been trying to sell their communications satellite technology
on the world market.  Buying western hardware or technology will
soak off hard-to-find hard currency, and is a challenge to the
Soviet space bureaucracy.  Adding the current confusion in Soviet vs
Republic responsibility means it will be difficult to find anyone
with the resources and authority to approve and fund such a system.
  Also, the Soviets have in the past been very insistent in
providing their own satellite systems, including forming a
competitor to the Intelsat international telecommunications system
called Intersputnik which used all-Soviet hardware.  This program
would be the death knell for Intersputnik.]



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

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

Date: 1 Apr 91 03:49:14 GMT
From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!wuarchive!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123![e-mail]  (Wales Larrison)
Subject: Commercial Space News (1 of 5)

This is the sixth in an irregular series on news from the commercial
space business.  The commentaries are my own thoughts on these
developments.  Posted in 5 messages (My apologies - message length
restrictions at my up-load point).

Contents -
 1- OSC REVEALS PROTOTYPE COMMERCIAL COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE
 2- ARIANE-5 PROGRAM ON SCHEDULE
 3- NEW NASA/USAF HLLV PLANNED TO HAVE COMMERCIAL ROLE (2 msgs)
 4- SOVIETS MAY BUY WESTERN COMSAT TECHNOLOGY
 5- NASA SUED FOR BREECH OF COMMERCIAL CONTRACT BY HUGHES

Articles
------------------------------------------------------------------
OSC REVEALS PROTOTYPE TO COMMERCIAL COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE
   Orbital Sciences Corp (OSC) recently showed off its experimental
precursor of a small, low-orbiting store/dump communications
satellite.  As described by OSC, the ORBCOMM-X satellite is about 35
lbs in weight and use about 8 watts of power.  It is planned for
launch as a "hitchhiker" smallsat payload on an upcoming Ariane-4
launch in May.  The Ariane will deploy the ORBCOMM-X satellite into
a polar orbit of about 480 miles altitude while inserting another
polar orbiting satellite.  The ORBCOMM-X satellite will demonstrate
the capability to receive a communications from its ground station
in Virginia, store it, and then retransmit it to the ground on its
next pass.  This will demonstrate prototype operations for a
proposed network of 20 similar satellites to provide continuous data
communications, messaging, and position determination to customers
worldwide.
   [Commentary:  OSC has had a division of its organization working
on this small communications satellite for some time.  This system
can be seen as two things - a potential competitor to the Motorola
Iridium system, and as a potential competitor to Geostar/Locstar, It
should be noted that the proposed OSC system would not provide the
cellular phone service that Iridium would provide, but would compete
directly with the Geostar system.
   As Geostar has run into financial problems, this system might
have some attraction for the U.S. market, but between Locstar in
Europe, and other competitors entering the market in the U.S., it
might find hard going to enter into these markets.  Similarly,
Iridium has the ability to preempt much of this market - if they can
lock up the international market through the international
consortium they are rumored to be trying to construct for the
Iridium system.  However, the ORBCOMM system would require less
orbital frequency spectrum, and might be a little easier to sell on
the international market.  But it would not offer the same services
as Iridium.  Either way, this would only influence a future business
area for OSC, and the jury is still out on both systems.
   It should also be noted the Soviet Union has also offered to sell
a polar-orbiting store/dump communications satellite system at
bargain basement prices.  I don't believe this system offers the
same capabilities as advertised for the OSC ORBCOMM system or the
Iridium system, but it has the advantage of being proven in service.
A similar (identical?) system is used for USSR global military and
intelligence communications, and a constellation of satellites is on
orbit (they are not for sale).  There have been no takers for this
system yet, but the satellites (and presumably launch services for
them) are now for sale on the market.]


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

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

Date: 2 Apr 91 16:25:51 GMT
From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Commercial Space news (5 of 12)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Charles Frank Radley) writes:
>The US doesNOT believe in fair open markets.   On the contrary.
>The US government refuses to allow foreign companies to bid to
>launch US government satellites...

In fact, the US fought (successfully) against any hint of letting Arianespace
launch comsats for NATO (most of whose members are European).
--
"The stories one hears about putting up | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
SunOS 4.1.1 are all true."  -D. Harrison|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 2 Apr 91 17:40:02 GMT
From: usc!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!linus!linus!cyclone![e-mail]  (S. J. Okay)
Subject: Re: More cost/lb. follies


>>Another alternative: if you will buy a lot of 58 engines Rocketdyne (sources
>>say) will sell you F-1 engines rated at 1.8 million pounds of thrust for
>>$12.7M each. Say we buy five for ~$65M and figure another $85M for the rest
>>of a rocket (payload fairing, tanks, and avionics).

This brings up a question I've been wanting to ask:
Namely, how much are parts like this interchangeable? Is your standard
Delta or Titan a made-to-order unique vehicle, or are there certain things
that are more or less off-the-shelf parts.
Could you get an engine assembly from Engines 'R' Us, mate it to an third-party
fuel tank and then wrap your own external skin around it?

I realize avionics are pretty specific and probably wouldn't apply here, but
I am curious about the other items I mentioned above.

Thanks,
---Steve

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

Date: Tue, 2 Apr 91 09:14:40 -0500
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: "Follies"
Newsgroups: sci.space
Cc:

In article <[e-mail]>:

>"W> ALS will not achieve an order of magnitude reduction in launch costs.

>The design goal for ALS is $300/lb at 25 launches per year
>The ALS is a Big-Dumb-Booster concept, far simpler than the shuttle.

The first Shuttle designs where also simple designs with a goal of
$300/lb to LEO. It was later when they (the various committees involved
in specifying Shuttle requirements) made it complex.

Look at it this way, think of all the reasons the Shuttle ended up the
way it did. All of those reasons are still valid today. The Shuttle
budget sank and we are in even deeper budget problems now. The Shuttle
was designed by a committee and so is ALS. Nothing has changed and
therefore ALS will fail for the exact same reason the Shuttle failed.

A heavy lift vehicle would indeed be a nice thing to have. However we
have better designs available today. These launchers could be available
in less than half the time for 5% of the development cost of ALS. These
are the systems we need to buy (not develop, buy). The effort on ALS so
far has demonstrated that we have not learned anything from the history
of launcher development in the US. It therefore seems that we are doomed
to repeat it.

  Allen

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #350
*******************