Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_5/V15NO509.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 33KB

Date: Sat,  5 Dec 92 18:10:10
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #509
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Sat,  5 Dec 92       Volume 15 : Issue 509

Today's Topics:
                             DC-X status?
          Japanese Solar Mission_Yokoh:comparisons? (2 msgs)
                       NASA employement outlook
                    NSSDC Data on CD-ROM (2 msgs)
         Rush Limbaugh says problems with HST is a DoD hoax!
                            Saturn V fates
                     Shuttle replacement (4 msgs)
                  Shuttle Replacement/Shuttle Costs
                STS-48 and "SDI": Oberg vs. Hoagland
             Two-Line Orbital Element Set:  Space Shuttle
             Voyager's "message"... What did it *say*?!?

    Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
    "[e-mail]", and (un)subscription requests of the form
    "Subscribe Space <your name>" to one of these addresses: listserv@uga
    (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle
    (THENET), or [e-mail] (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1992 04:33:05 GMT
From: Mary Shafer <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X status?
Newsgroups: sci.space

On Sat, 5 Dec 1992 00:22:06 GMT, [e-mail] (Rich Kolker) said:

R> That's a good source so far as I'm concerned.  Is that the date for beginning
R> hover / taxi testing.  It has been my understanding that DC-X will undergo
R> a very typical new aircraft checkout (given it's an SSTO).

It's not an SSTO.  DC-X is going to go to a maximum altitude of
30,000 ft.  It's not going to orbit.  It's not even going sub-orbital.
It's not leaving the atmosphere.  DC-X IS NOT AN SSTO.

It's also not getting a "very typical new aircraft checkout"; it's
getting a very typical technology demonstrator/experimental vehicle
checkout.  The two types of checkout are very different, as they have
entirely different objectives.

DC-X IS NOT AN SSTO.

Got it?
--
Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
[e-mail]                    Of course I don't speak for NASA
 "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."  Unknown US fighter pilot

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

Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1992 02:12:01 GMT
From: Robert W Murphree <[e-mail]>
Subject: Japanese Solar Mission_Yokoh:comparisons?
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,sci.physics

The Japanese Space agency, ISAS, launched its newest Solar observation
satellite a year ago.  It has soft and hard x-ray imaging devices with
resolution around 6-7 arc seconds(I think I remember that).  And it
has two x-ray spectrometers.  How does this compare to the U.S. satellite
Solar Max?  Is it any improvement over Solar Max?  Does it lack capacities
that Solar Max had?  I know it weighs a lot less.  The U.S. has
cancelled its follow-up to Solar Max.  How would that follow-up US
satellite have compared to Yokoh?

On a unrelated note, it appears to me from reading the literature
ISAS sent me that the Japanese will have a very wide range of space
capabilities, including a medium lift vehicle, capability for
communication over planetary distances, earth resource satellite,
communications satellites by 1995.  The only thing they will lack
will be a manned capacity (not a flaw to my way of thinking) and
a heavy lift vehicle-like Titan IV or Energia.  They have already
approved a mars orbiter for launch in the middle 1990's, focusing
on the ionosphere and plasma science.
They are working on a penetrator seismic/heat flow mision for the
moon.  If they decide to spend the
money they could easily launch a major observatory or planetary
mission by 2000.  Will they?  Any japanese observers out there
have any idea what it might be that they will pursue after 1996?  6
Will they go for the big missions or keep launching small and
medium missions at the same quick rate?  Tune in in 5 years...

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

Date: 5 Dec 92 08:07:11 GMT
From: hiroki hihara <[e-mail]>
Subject: Japanese Solar Mission_Yokoh:comparisons?
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,sci.physics

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert W Murphree) writes:
>If they decide to spend the
>money they could easily launch a major observatory or planetary
>mission by 2000.
>Will they?

No, I don't think so.  Japanese funds for space science/development
are too small compared to that of the United States.
That's why our strategy is to have small satellites every year constantly.
In addition to that, many of the mission equipments are developed in
the United States, because their technology is very advanced and they
have a lot of funds.

I envy American people, because they have a lot of funds.  They can built
large rockets, big satellites, and shuttles.

I have an interesting story.  A salesman from the U.S. visited our
plant.  He said that their small satellites are very cost effective.
However, there was big perception gap.  200 ~ 300kg satellites are
big enough in our common sense.

>On a unrelated note, it appears to me from reading the literature
>ISAS sent me that the Japanese will have a very wide range of space
>capabilities ...

Remember, almost all of the people in ISAS are scientists, and one of
sceientists' job is to express their vision (or dream).
However, we engineers are developing satellites with very resricted
cost.


-- NEC Space Systems Development Division
   $B1'Ch3+H/;v6HIt!!Ek:\5!4o3+H/It(J
   Hiroki Hihara
   $B[X86(J $B90<y(J

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

Date: 5 Dec 92 02:22:28 GMT
From: Claudio Egalon <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASA employement outlook
Newsgroups: sci.space

* There are absolutely no conditions under which a foreign national
*  can work for NASA

That is not true! I know of a guy that works here at NASA Langley
who was hired as a NASA employee before becoming a citizen and, as
I  recall, he did not even have a green card. These are VERY, VERY
RARE exceptions but they do exist!! In order to put a guy  like that as
a NASA employee you have to have all sorts of justifications but it is
possible. That is how non-citizens are hired. In my case (I am a
Brazilian) I am a contractor for NASA and  work here in the field.
The chances for a foreign national to become a NASA contractor (like
working at JPL), versus a NASA employee, of course are much larger.

Claudio O. Egalon

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

Date: Sat, 5 Dec 92 03:36:43 GMT
From: Ryan Korniloff <[e-mail]>
Subject: NSSDC Data on CD-ROM
Newsgroups: sci.space

>Xref: mnemosyne.cs.du.edu sci.space:27435 alt.sci.planetary:363 alt.cd-r
m:6194
>Path: mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!mercury.cair.du.edu!copper!vexcel!ncar!ames!el
oy.jpl.nasa.gov!kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov!baalke
>From: [e-mail] (Ron Baalke)
>Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary,alt.cd-rom
>Subject: Re: NSSDC Data on CD-ROM
>Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
>Date: 3 Dec 92 13:26:48 GMT
>References: <[e-mail]>
>Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet)
>Reply-To: [e-mail]
>Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
>Lines: 65
>News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4
>Nntp-Posting-Host: kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
>
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Robert
J. Kinder) writes...
>>I'm thinking of buying the NASA CD-ROM's for the "Voyager Spacecraft to
>>the Outer Planets from the Planetary data System (PDS)" from the Nation
l
>>Space Science Data Center.
>>
>>The description of this says "Compressed and browsed images accessed
>>through the IMage DISplay (IMDISP) retrieval program.".
>
>The Voyager images are 800x800 pixel resolution.  The budget to do the
>Voyager CD-ROMs allocated 12 CD-ROMs, so the images were compressed so
>that they would all fit.
>Software to uncompress the images is on the CD-ROMs.  The images are abo
t
>670K when uncompressed.
>
>The browse images are smaller versions of the images.  They are 200x200
>pixel resolution or 1/16 the size of the original.  These images are
>not compressed and can be viewed directly off the CD-ROMs.  All of the
>browse images for a particular planet are on single CD-ROM.
>
>>CD-ROMs are available for Uranus (6538 images), Saturn (4000) images,
>>Jupiter (6000 images), and Neptune (10,000 images).
>>
>>Has anyone looked at these images?  Are the pictures very detailed and
>>diverse?
>
>Yes.  Keep in mind the images are the raw unprocessed data from Voyager.
>The images are black and white.
>
>>Or do you just see 4000 pictures of Saturn a little closer each
>>time?
>
>Also, yes.  The images are stored by spacecraft clock time, and in the
>order that Voyager took them.  If you viewed them in the order, you will
>see the planet as a small dot, and it gradually gets bigger and bigger.
>Then suddenly the planet gets so big, and the entire planet no longer
>fits in a single image.  Then the spacecraft is past the planet, and
>looking at it backlit against the sun, and starts to shrink.
>
>If you want to get a feel for this, then use the BROWSE command from the
>IMDISP program.  First, insert the CD-ROM that has the browse images,
>go to to browse directory where all of the browse images are.  Then cd
>into one of the planets or moon directory and type:
>
>BRO SIZE 200 ALL
>
>This will display all of the browse images on the screen.  But I warn
>you, this may run for a couple of hours if you select Jupiter or Saturn.
>
>Alternately, typing:
>
>BRO SIZE 100 SUB 2 ALL PAUSE NOLABEL
>
>will display the images at 100x100 resolution without the labels, and wi
l
>pause when the screen gets full, continuing when the enter key is hit.
>
>>Which is the most interesting data set to buy first?
>
>Since you can get all 12 of the Voyager CD-ROMs for only $86, I'd sugges

>that you get the whole set.
>     ___    _____     ___
>    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
a.gov
>    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
> ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | The 3 things that ch
ldren
>/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | find the most fascin
ting:
>|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | space, dinosaurs and
ghosts.


Black and white!? Well, I understand that Voyager's camras took 3 pictures
to make a complete color image - in a green, then red, then blue (was it
yellow??) filter. Then, on the ground, the images were processed to make
the color image. Can this be done with IMDISP or any other image
displaying software? I was relly excited with the prospect of purchasing
CD-ROMs of the images. Now I'm not so sure it would be worth it for me.
Is it the same for Magellan?? And what about the Mars Observer in the
future? Are thoes images going to be in B/W?

Ron, where ya been? I've left you email several time in the past few days.
Are you sill backed up from the Thanks Giving holiday?

        -- Ryan Korniloff
        -- [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1992 03:35:57 GMT
From: Kenneth Porter <[e-mail]>
Subject: NSSDC Data on CD-ROM
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary,alt.cd-rom

> Yes.  Keep in mind the images are the raw unprocessed data from Voyager.
> The images are black and white.

So where does the color come from that we see in the news? Is the
original data in color and the CD just omits it, or is the color
synthesized somehow?

And does the retrieval software have all of the neat histogram stuff
that we saw as the images came in live? It would be cool to play with
false color on these images. [Coming soon to a rock video near you?]

The lack of good marketing on this stuff demonstrates once again why
the space program needs to be in private hands (unless it's Commodore!).

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

Date: Sat, 5 Dec 92 02:56:21 GMT
From: Ryan Korniloff <[e-mail]>
Subject: Rush Limbaugh says problems with HST is a DoD hoax!
Newsgroups: sci.space

Wait a minute.. for thoes of you who thought I believed any of this, that
is not the case. I was merely presenting the info with some resoning.
Although I know that it isn't possible to detect radio emissions with an
optical instument, I did fail to state this in my original message. I
don't like the guy either. I think he is a radical right-wing GOP who pays
no mind to any opinions contrary to his own.

So, we can put this crap to rest. And as you can see from a previous post
there have been other rumors - most likely because of what Rush said. That
is all they are, just rumors.


        -- Ryan Korniloff
        -- [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri,  4 Dec 92 20:28:50 PST
From: Brian Stuart Thorn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Saturn V fates
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space

>Bear in mind that they didn't *know* it would never fly, at the time.
>That decision wasn't made until the mid-70s, when they decided that the
>shuttle modifications to KSC would not preserve Saturn compatibility.
>Until then, there was some possibility that the remaining Saturn Vs
>might get used for something if funding could be found.

     I was under the impression that once Shuttle got final approval
     in 1972, the Saturn program was terminated completely. Shuttle
     modifications to KSC began immediately after the SkyLab 1 launch,
     if memory serves. While the SkyLab Saturn 1Bs and ASTP were flying,
     NASA was already busy tearing up Launch Pad 39A for Shuttle mods.

>According to Stages To Saturn (NASA SP-4206), as of June 1975...
>
>SA-513, originally for Apollo 18, had been used to launch Skylab, except
>that its third stage, unused, was in storage at KSC.

...Lots of good info deleted for space...

>Finally, to add further confusion, bear in mind that the second set of
>Apollo cancellations scrubbed not Apollos 18 and 19, but Apollos 15
>and 19.  The Saturn Vs were used in sequence even so, but the Apollo 15
>CSM was used for Apollo-Soyuz and the Apollo 15 LM never flew.
>--
>Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology

 Do you mean that the Apollo 18 mission was targeted for Hadley, not 15?
 Why did the pass over the Apollo 15 LM, hardware problems? Is this the
 LM now on display at the Smithsonian?
 By the way, what about Apollo 20?

 -Brian


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

Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1992 00:12:12 GMT
From: Carl Hage <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle replacement
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
: In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Carl Hage) writes:
: >Come on, it doesn't make sense to fly DC-1 from John Wayne airport.
:
: DC-1 is taking things from *specific places* on Earth to space.  Would
: you claim that it doesn't make sense to fly 747s from Dallas-FtWorth?  I
: mean, it surely *is* cheaper to use surface transport as far as JFK or LAX
: and then fly from there, isn't it?  Surely a continent doesn't really need
: more than one or two intercontinental airports?

A Texan with 7 days vacation doesn't want to drive to JFK in order to fly
to Paris. They might end up taking a short flight to DFW, then stop at JFK
even though there were non stops available because of cost and available
connections.  They don't regularly fly 747s out of John Wayne.

You are claiming ground vs air is analogous to air vs space. All I'm
claiming is that it's more practical to ship via commercial air freight or
a chartered 747 or C5-A from John Wayne, Long Beach, Moffet Field, SFO, or
whatever to a single space port, rather than either to the closest of a
few spaceports, or operate DC-1 out of all of these.

From a time point of view, if a payload took 2 years (OK 1 year in the
new new NASA, or 6 mo in HS Space Systems, Inc.(HSSS)) to build, 1 week to
ship by ground or 5 hours to ship by air freight, saving a week or a
few hours won't make a difference in shipping time. A single high volume
spaceport (well run of course) would probably have better availability,
perhaps a few flights per day in the distant future. If there were a time
critical situation, e.g. a replacement part on a space station, it would
be much more likely to get a flight on short notice at a high volume
spaceport. Turnaround and maintenance would be better at a facility with
more spare parts and personell.

Existing ground and air freight is reasonably efficient, inexpensive,
and widely available. The volume of air freight capacity will be a couple
of orders of magnitude more available than space flights, and ground
freight capacity a few orders of magnitude more than that. I would claim
that the shipping hassle will be less than getting an available
space flight at a low volume spaceport.

: As the folks trying to get Galileo's antenna open will tell you, shuffling
: spacecraft from point A to B on Earth is not always desirable.

If it weren't desirable to ship, then they would built it at KSC. The
folk's at JPL are probably saying it isn't a good idea to launch a
mothballed satellite. Improved availability and reliability from DC-1
would help reduce the damage due to excessive shuffling.

It probably wouldn't be desirable to ship DC-1s from point A to B on
Earth.

: >...cheaper to ship the payload to the DC-1 launch complex rather than
: >build multiple launch complexes, or operate out of existing airports. You
: >can't get a non-stop flight from John Wayne to Antarctica...

: But you *can* get a non-stop flight from John Wayne to New York (or I'd
: expect so, anyway).

Actually, I don't think so. But LAX is pretty close. If you want to go
to New York, driving to LAX is faster than taking a stopover flight via
John Wayne. Also, there will be lots of flights to NY from LAX at various
times whereas there may only be one from John Wayne.

The airlines have switched mainly to hub and spoke, and with the acquisition
of small commuter airlines, offer service to small communities. Federal
Express flies everything to and from Memphis (I think). Likewise, the
spaceport will be a hub for space freight, and maybe in the far future,
tourists.

: The crucial assumption here is that spaceflight is always going to be

: rare and expensive, with small numbers of very costly payloads launched
: infrequently.  The whole reason why so many people are praying so fervently
: for the DC series to work is that it could well destroy that assumption.

Sure, I agree and hope it will happen.

: If spaceflight becomes relatively cheap and commonplace, there is going
: to be considerable interest in making it more convenient, e.g. by avoiding
: hassles like transcontinental shipping of delicate payloads.  The ground
: facilities needed for a DC-1 are potentially modest enough that it would
: be realistic to have quite a few spaceports.

Yes, it's realistic but not ecomonic due the economy of scale in cryogenic
fuel, spare parts, maintenace personell, multi-payload missions,
turnaround time, other support, etc. When or if it becomes so commonplace
that there would be more than a few to a dozen flights per day, it would
make sense to build more spaceports due to crowding. If that happens, just
think how long the NORAD list will be.

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

Date: Fri,  4 Dec 92 20:26:50 PST
From: Brian Stuart Thorn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle replacement
Newsgroups: sci.space

>Actually how many instances of total power loss have their been?
>The brits lost one after an engine fire on a 757 and the pilot
>then shut down the remaining good engine.  Their was Gimli and
>and an incident when a US airliner lost all engines when a mechanic
>forgot an o-ring on all foour engines.   there was also the avianca?
>(Columbian airline)  that ran out of fuel enroute to JFK.
>Have their been any other isntances?  i am sure the military has lost a
>few this way also.


The U.S. airliner in question was an Eastern L-1011 flying out of Miami.
All three engines shut down in the incident in which I first heard the
word 'O-ring'. The aircraft made it back to Miami, barely, after getting
one engine running again. The incident scared the hell out of the
passengers, of course.

-Brian

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

Date: Fri,  4 Dec 92 20:27:30 PST
From: Brian Stuart Thorn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle replacement
Newsgroups: sci.space

>So what....  i think the disintigration of the CIS/USSR/Pick your name
>only proves my point.  National security is a big thing and the
>loss of any one single system only incrementally affects it.
>also, in 1987, we were down to our last KH-11.  those flews on titans.
>the reason we had trouble in the KH class was because they were developing
>the KH-12 to fly on the shuttle and the program was draining money from
>the 11.  they could have kept flying 11's
>but they were expecting the 12 to fly on a certain date.
>shuttle troubles and delays on the 12 pushed this back leaving us with
>decaying orbital asssets.
>this is similiar to the problem with GOES.  GOES NEXT wiped all resources
>and it's still not ready to fly.  if we werent getting weather data
>from Defense and european sats we'd be screwed.  And believe me, that
>is at least as large a national problem as a delayed KH-12 flight.

 I wouldn't be too quick to blame the spy-satellite shortage on the
 Space Shuttle. Afterall, the USAF/CIA had bought Titan 34D to be a
 backup for the Space Shuttle, which was well behind schedule. Both
 the primary (Shuttle) and backup (Titan) systems failed in 1985-86.
 The KH-12 was waiting for a launch from Vandenberg, tentatively
 scheduled for September, 1986 at the time of Challenger, but there was
 very little chance of meeting that schedule. They couldn't "have kept
 on flying 11s" because there was no launcher available after two
 Titan failures (Sep 85 and Apr 86, both carrying 11s, I think) and
 Challenger (Jan 86).

 The GOES shortage is the fault of the Delta booster. GOES had been
 pulled off the Shuttle manifest long before the Challenger accident,
 and the loss of GOES (5? 6?) was due to an extremely rare failure of
 the Delta booster. A 1-in-30something bad break.

 Lets not forget that the Shuttle's replacement, Titan IV, has not been
 a model of efficiency. Shuttle has flown 23 missions in the time its
 taken Titan IV to fly 6. And folks call the Shuttle 'the hangar queen'!
 USAF/CIA reportedly has a new spy satellite in orbit, thanks to the
 Space Shuttle. Sure Titan is cheaper, but what good is a cheaper system
 that doesn't get off the ground? (The latest Titan is presently getting
 a massive dose of Rust-oleum. Discovery's payload is orbiting.)

 -Brian


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

Date: Fri,  4 Dec 92 20:28:11 PST
From: Brian Stuart Thorn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle replacement
Newsgroups: sci.space

>I dont know,  while we went distance x with shuttle,  the russians
>using their aging protons and those goofy soyuzes went 10X.
>who holds the records for manned spaceflight.  who has the record
>for spacewalks.  who understands more LEO lifescience.
>We took one path, the stuck to the old one.  i bet they think they
>made the better choice.

  First... Since April 1981, Space Shuttle has flown 52 missions with
  one mission failure. The Soyuz has flown 27 missions with one mission
  failure. Soyuz undoubtedly costs less, but exact figures are very
  difficult to measure in the communist world, so who really knows?
  Soyuz on its own is much less capable that Shuttle, being used solely
  as a ferry to Salyut/Mir in this timeframe.

  Second, the U.S. holds the records for spacewalks, not the Russians.
  (STS-49, 8.5 hours 13 May 1992... world's longest spacewalk). Prior
  to this, longest was 8 hours plus on lunar surface (Apollo 17) and
  8 hours in August 1985 (Shuttle Mission 51I).

  Third, while the Russians have an excellent system in Mir, and I do
  not want to detract from their successes, I do not know how advanced
  their medical research programs are, but I think that in any single
  week of NASA/ESA Spacelab research versus any single week of Mir
  research, the Spacelab is more productive.

  Now if we'd just get off our rears and get something up their for
  long durations... Freedom will be nice, but it's a condo when we'd
  have been better off with a mobile home five years ago. Even the
  old MOL idea is starting to look good now.

  -Brian




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

Date: 04 Dec 92  22:19:32
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Shuttle Replacement/Shuttle Costs
Newsgroups: sci.space

Richard A. Schumacher writes:

>Nonsense. It will never cost less than $500 million to launch a
>shuttle. Are you claiming otherwise?

   Just to maybe add some data to this flame-fest.

   In 1985 there were 9 Shuttles launched in 12 months.  Total cost
(according to the NASA budget numbers for that year) was less than
$1.6B, yielding a cost/flight of less than $170M (including
operations, and production of expendable elements).   This
translates into about $3400/lb to orbit in 1985 dollars - and less
than $5000/lb in 1990 dollars.  (This is a DEMONSTRATED capability
by the shuttle to be operated at a competitive cost/lb.
   These numbers are not fictional or hypothetical - you can check
my sources.  I used "Aerospace Facts and Figures 1986-1987" for the
budget numbers, and "TRW Spacelog 1990" for the launch rate.  I see
a lot of flaming about costs by people who evidently haven't
researched the numbers, or are trying to "prove" a conclusion by
mis-interpreting costs in their favor.  You can prove just about any
cost/lb by just picking a specific single data point - for example
in FY 1990 the Titan-IV $/lb was INFINITE (About $1.1 B in funding
and NO flights.  Last year it was, what?  2 flights and $1.5 B?)
   So why do people claim shuttle costs are so high?  The primary
reason is annual number of flights launched - which has a major
political component as well as a technical factor.  To get an
estimate of the real cost per flight of the shuttle you have to
break shuttle costs down to fixed and variable costs and look at
more than 1 year of operation.  Fixed costs are primarily from
paying the ground crew at KSC and JSC (which are pretty independent
of the number of flights launched each year), and the variable costs
are the costs expended per each flight (ET, SRB refurb, flight ops,
etc).
   If you look at the shuttle, it has a very high fixed cost and a
rather low variable cost. The fixed costs are the majority of the
costs - now running around $2.0B in today's dollars (note: the
annual fixed costs have gone UP about 20% since the Challenger
disaster, but are slowly dropping back down).  The variable cost for
a single flight - marginal cost- has been estimated as low as $55
M/flight, but I think around $80-100M is more reasonable.   If you
fly the shuttle 2 times per year you get costs of $1100M/flt
($22,000/lb).  If you launch it 12 times a year you have flight
costs of $270 M/flt ($5400/lb).
     This indicates, that by political choice, (noting the
government is now the sole user, and has demonstrated that political
choice is the driver rather than cost), you can demonstrate a rather
large range of $/lb or per-flight shuttle costs by merely chosing
how often you chose to fly it.
   [I should note that I have not included either an amortization of
sunk development costs, nor any Pre-planned Product Improvement
(P^3I) Program  -- such as the ASRM or ASA.  It should also be
noted, that with any other comparative system, that such
improvements and or amortization must be added to their costs, in a
fair one-to-one comparison.]

    I have to add the bottom line on this, that saying "we'll just
not fly a shuttle mission and save $ 500 M" is rather naiive --
politically, financially, and technically.   Flying one less
shuttle mission per year will only reduce the costs by the marginal
cost of the unprocured elements, and will have the effect of
increasing the average cost of the remaining flights.

    When, and if, we have a new proven system, and and we can
somehow wave a magic wand and get rid of the entire NASA bureaucracy
involved with a launch process, then we can get dramatically lower
prices.

    But until that system is proven, I'm going to be from Missouri
(The "Show Me" state).  In that light, I support the DC-X program,
and the dem/val program for the SSTO Phase 1 program.  They'll
answer SOME of the questions that are clouding the issue.  I also
support development of a NASP vehicle to answer a different set of
questions, and the demonstration of sea-launched and large pressure-
fed engines as well.
   But I don't think we have enough data yet to say the "VTVL
McDonnell-Douglas SSTO" will solve all of our problems.  I think it
shows promise, and should be investigated ASAP.
   But until we have a good replacement system established, I think
we should use the shuttle system to its limits, and I think we
should also aggressively invest in upgrades and improvements to it.
I don't think that it's capabilities have been fully used or used in
a cost-effective manner.  An upgraded shuttle system is also a
viable alternative for the next generation space transportation
system -- particularly, if some of the new systems don't pan out as
well as they look on paper.
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
 Wales Larrison                           Space Technology Investor

--- Maximus 2.00

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

Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1992 09:00:08 GMT
From: Jeff <[e-mail]>
Subject: STS-48 and "SDI": Oberg vs. Hoagland
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.astro,sci.space,alt.alien.visitors

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>James Oberg will _of course_ have an explanation.  He is a member of
>PSICOP and works with Philip Klass, THE well-known skeptic "nothing-
>is-real" other famous member of PSICOP.  I've been seeing more and
>more things from Oberg lately, and I *never* see this connection
>mentioned, only his NASA ties.
>
>Robert Sheaffer may be "Skepticus Maximus", but for the rest of us
>with open minds, please consider the source.
>
>Barb



THANKYOU, BARB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I love it when Oberg is on the TV or radio, and he says:

"So the UFO people say that the government has known about UFO's for
over 40 years, and has managed to keep a secret all this time. Now
how likely do you think that is?"

It's not what he says, but HOW he says it that registered "FALSE" in
my intuitive lie detector...

I trust more of what "Uncle Mitty" has to say, since he most likely
stole it from sources that know what they are talking about.

Jeff-

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

Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1992 23:06:32 GMT
From: TS Kelso <[e-mail]>
Subject: Two-Line Orbital Element Set:  Space Shuttle
Newsgroups: sci.space

The most current orbital elements from the NORAD two-line element sets are
carried on the Celestial BBS, [phone], and are updated daily (when
possible).  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
BBS may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300, 1200, 2400, 4800, or 9600 bps using
8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

Element sets (also updated daily), shuttle elements, and some documentation
and software are also available via anonymous ftp from archive.afit.af.mil
(129.92.1.66) in the directory pub/space.

STS 53
1 22259U 92 86  A 92339.11215509  .00053286  00000-0  25599-3 0    72
2 22259  56.9970 165.8788 0010253 263.6136 246.0012 15.82183490   241
--
Dr TS Kelso                           Assistant Professor of Space Operations
[e-mail]                    Air Force Institute of Technology

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

Date: 5 Dec 92 04:26:12 GMT
From: Brian Stuart Thorn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Voyager's "message"... What did it *say*?!?
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

>>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Rick Miller, Linux Device Registra
r
>) writes:
>>Does anyone know (or know who knows, or where to find out) what the heck
>>the "message" on Voyager's gold plate was supposed to 'mean'?
>
>        It says, "We've just elected an actor President of the most
>powerful nation on Earth!  SEND HELP!"
>
>:)
>
>Doug Ingram -- [e-mail] // "Carpe Datum."
>

Actually, Voyager was launched in 1977, well before our Acting President.
-Brian

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 509
------------------------------