Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_5/V15NO589.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 36KB

Date: Thu, 24 Dec 92 05:00:16
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #589
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Thu, 24 Dec 92       Volume 15 : Issue 589

Today's Topics:
                                Aurora
                      DC vs Shuttle capabilities
                           DoD launcher use
                         fast-track failures
           Galileo's Atmospheric Probe Passes Health Checks
             Justification for the Space Program (3 msgs)
                        NASA Get Away Specials
                 numerous/ 1:ASAT 2:Water 3:misquotes
    Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX?
             The Real Justification for Space Exploration

    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: Wed, 23 Dec 92 15:55:43 MET
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Aurora

Many thanks to you all who answered, privately or on sci.space,
about the definition of "chase planes". I sort of understand that:
- in aeronautic American, "to chase" means "to fly along with",
- in plain American, "to chase" is kinder and gentler than "to hunt".
As "chasser" means "to hunt" in French, I misunderstood the word
"chasing" in the AW&ST article. I really thought it meant "hunting".
Once again I apologize.

So, contrary to what I thought, this April 1991 sighting, reported
in AW&ST, August 24, 1992, is perhaps the most serious of the handful
of sightings reported in this article: daytime, comparison possible
with a known plane (the F-16). But was it Aurora? It was not flying
at Mach 6-8, since an F-16 was flying along with it. It was a large,
"primarily delta-shaped" aircraft, "dwarfing an F-16 chasing it". A
B-2 is large, "primarily delta-shaped", and can easily dwarf an F-16
(Wing span: B-2 172 ft, F-16 31 ft). Could it be a B-2? The observer
quoted in the article (only one observer ?) said it was light colored:
the B-2 is dark, but with reflections of the sun and objects at high
altitude, it is sometimes difficult to judge safely.

J. Pharabod

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

Date: 23 Dec 92 16:07:13 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC vs Shuttle capabilities
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Craig Keithley) writes:

>   What if we don't accept your points, don't want to follow you (blindly)
>and and don't want you to redistribute the $$$ in a way we disagree with?

We'll do the job anyway, so that a couple decades from now, while
you watch the 6:15 to orbit, you can lie to your grandkids and say,
"I knew it was a good idea all along."


>        Lets see a straw man proposal that clearly indicates (using the
>published Shuttle schedule for the next few years)...

In other words, let's take NASA's word that it can follow a
published schedule it has never been able to follow before.

And while we're at it, let's pretend that all the safety problems
uncovered before and after the Challenger crash have been solved.
Let's pretend that there will never be another Shuttle, that Congress
won't shut down the Shuttle program for at least another two years
(and perhaps forever) when there *is* another Shuttle crash, and
that the Shuttle orbiters will last longer than their 100-mission
design life as NASA is now saying (although the engineers who work
on them say 25-to-50 missions is more realistic).


>   If the Shuttle "detractors" wish, produce a schedule that replaces every
>Shuttle flight starting with the next one.  This would used purely as a
>center for discussion, because it would have to ignore the political
>realities with cancelling the shuttle *today*.

And let's see you show how continuing the Shuttle program will lead
to real space development.  When does your flight schedule allow
for a *real* space station.  Not a trivial, insignificant nothing
like SS Freedom, but a modest-sized station (say 50 people) initially,
capable of growing to 500 or more over the following decade.  A return
to the Moon and the establishment of a self-sustaining lunar colony.
Manned missions to Mars, the asteroid belt, and beyond?  The construction
of *big* orbital telescopes, which make Hubble look like a toy.  Large
numbers of unmanned "sailing ships" to probe every part of the solar
system.  A manned station in polar orbit for meteorological research.
Space tourism.  Space manufacturing.  Solar power satellites.

A true space transportation system would make all these things possible.
Since you demand that we show "a long term vision," you must believe
the Shuttle can also.  Please tell us when these flights are planned.

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

Date: 23 Dec 92 11:19:23 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: DoD launcher use
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:
>>>we should look to develope cheap sats to go with DC-1.
>>>
>>   I thought we were already developing cheap sats, but these are to
>>   go up with Pegasus, Taurus, etc.
>
>There's cheap and there's cheap.  The satellites being developed for
>Pegasus etc. are *relatively* cheap because they're small... but they
>still (usually) cost millions each, and they're typically built to the
>same gold-plated zero-failures ten-year-life specs.  Drop prices by
>two orders of magnitude (not out of the question for DC-1) and many
>things would have to change.

Satellite costs have dropped dramatically since Sputnik in capability
per dollar, both in space and at the Earth stations that use them.
The absolute cost of satellites has increased, but their capabilities
have increased at a much greater rate. A ten year life zero defects
GEO comsat like K2 is much cheaper than a 1 year life package
that costs 20 times less. That's because most of the investment is
not in the satellite, it's in the Earth based terminals that use it.
Satellites cheap in the absolute dollars sense are only cheap in the
systems sense if their capability per dollar is high and their reliable
delivery of wanted services is high. Since the satellite represents
a single point failure node in the system, and since for most orbits
the satellites aren't retrievable or repairable, and DC won't change
that, gold plated zero failure satellites will continue to be the
cheapest approach for many systems uses.

Gary

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

Date: 23 Dec 92 11:46:01 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: fast-track failures
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>>When fighter development from concept to flying prototype cost less
>>than $100,000, normally funded internally by the company, and took
>>less than a year, planes were simpler then, that was an acceptable
>>approach.
>
>I think The SR-71 cost a little bit more than $100,000.  Even
>if you fail to account for inflation.

Of course the SR-71 was a black program funded by clandestine government
agencies to the tune of we don't know how many billions of dollars. It
was designed to meet a performance spec dictated by cold war requirements
and was never intended to be a commercial system that was cheap to
produce or cheap to operate. This model of development is so at varience
with commercial practice that it has no relevance to commercial space.
It is similar to Apollo where national prestige was on the line and
the costs and risks be damned in achieving the objective. Nearly any
program can be accomplished if cost is no object, but commerical
enterprises don't have the limitless deep pockets of the taxpayer
to back them up if the program doesn't live up to it's advanced
billing as a fast track system, and many don't.

>>Now with development costs running into the billions, and
>>usually taxpayer funded, the financial risks of a failed project have
>>become too high to take such a cavalier approach.
>
>This is a self-fulfilling prophesy.  Your "failure-oriented
>management," with its army of beancounters and its endless
>review and approval cycle is what caused development costs
>to run into the billions.  It prevented failures, either,
>only reduced the number of successes.

All technical development programs are subject to failure. You only
have to look at the number of discarded prototype designs in any
industry to see that. Any management program that doesn't plan for
the failure of certain subsystem developments to come in on spec,
on time, and on budget, is going to have programs that fail more
frequently than those that do plan for such contingencies. Now that's
not to say that *any* program can't be mismanaged, they certainly can.
With major development programs today costing as much as they do, using
a management style that doesn't plan for contingencies and have substitutes
and work arounds for subsystems that don't live up to their promise is an
invitation to financial disaster for a commercial enterprise. Only if the
limitless pockets of the taxpayer are underwriting the costs can a fast track
high risk program be undertaken with any assurance of ultimately meeting
performance goals at a profit.


Gary

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

Date: 23 Dec 92 16:10:41 GMT
From: Bryan Carpenter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Galileo's Atmospheric Probe Passes Health Checks
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:

>...
>New York in 90 seconds.  Deceleration to about Mach 1 -- the speed
>of sound -- will take just a few minutes, causing a buildup of heat
>so intense it will be like flying through a nuclear explosion.
                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>...

>     Its incandescent shock wave will be as bright as the sun and
                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>reach temperatures up to 28,000 degrees Fahrenheit.  After entry,
>...

I wonder if there is any quantative meaning to these statements.
Or did someone get a bit carried away with the superlatives?

Bryan

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

Date: 23 Dec 92 11:05:09 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Justification for the Space Program
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.space,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Paul Dietz) writes...
>[stuff deleted]
>>This is all *so* ludicrous.  You are refering to results from the
>>infamous "Limits To Growth" study.  It's been widely disparaged as so
>>simplified as to be useless (for example, aggregating all "pollution"
>>into a single variable.)  It's propaganda masquerading behind computer
>>models.
>>
>You are half right. The limits to growth study did not consider space
>resources at all, thinking that they would have zero impact.  The models
>that are usually grouped into the "Malthusian" box to derive their genesis
>from the Club of Rome studies.

The limits to growth study didn't include space resources because they
are essentially irrelevant to the problem. Matter can neither be created
nor destroyed, aside from some nuclear processes whose effects on a large
enough scale would make the existance of the Earth moot at any event. All
the iron, copper, lead, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, etc that existed on
Earth in prehistoric times still exists here, other than the tiny amounts
we have tossed into space. What changes is the chemical forms of the
materials. This too is irrelevant given sufficient energy resources
since all of the important chemical reactions are reversible through
one pathway or another.

>>Much more believable results have been obtained by actually studying
>>specific resources here on earth.  When you do that, and when you take
>>into account technological improvements, the idea that things are
>>going to necessarily go to hell just evaporates.
>
>Believable by whom? You? Well all of these extrapolations and any belief in
>them are acts of faith. You believe what you choose. Sophmore calculus teaches
>the fallacy of extrapolating a value beyond the known data point.

A point that should be kept in mind when talking about speculative space
resources. Using *known* data points, it can be shown that we already
have the processes in place to use ores of lower concentration than are
commonly used. An example is copper. US copper mines work with ores that
are considered tailings in South American mines, but US copper mines
remain competitive with those mines because we are using different
processes. Also you are not considering the fundamental fact that matter
is not destroyed by use. All the copper that's ever been mined is still
here on Earth. Recycling is not just a buzz word of the environmentalists,
it's a economic reality in several industries today, for example the
aluminum can business. It's only because raw ores remain so plentiful
and so cheap to process that we don't recycle more than we do. Some
landfills are richer sources of materials than the ores we are processing
today.

>>The 1500 year figure you present is a figment of your imagination.
>>Come on -- technology is going to be rather different by the time the
>>year 3500 rolls around, space exploration or not.  You can't possibly
>>have any idea what technology will be like even 100 years down the
>>road, let alone 1500.
>
>Yes technology will be a lot lower, if we let those who are vigorously
>promoting a turn from technology development to get the upper hand. Doubt this
>you do? Look then at the trends in funding for technology development worldwide.
>It was a great surprise when I read in Pliny's (Roman naturalist) how he
>decried the loss of the impetus to develop new technology and how this lack
>was coming back to drain the Empire of its very life and vigor. (Pliny 214-xx)

That is a great surprise, about as great as the Victorian patent office
head who said that they might as well close the patent office because
all the worthwhile inventions had already been made. It's only been since
WWII that the idea that research and development must be done by vast
armies of white coated savants funded by public monies has become the
popular idea of what research must be. Quite frankly most major breakthru
developments have not come that way. I need only point to Steven Jobs
and the Apple to dismiss that idea.

>>The fundamental limit to resource exploitation is imposed by
>>availability of energy, and space exploitation is *not* needed to get
>>essentially inexhaustible supplies of that.
>
>Oh really? Tell us how you intend to accomplish that? No one else has. True,
>if we get cheap fusion we can drive the cost of energy way down. Too bad we
>are a long way from that. The demand for energy to support a world population
>at a standard of living comparable to the industrialize nations would mean
>a two order of magnitude production increase in the supply of energy, and
>material resources, with it's attendant pollution, both chemical and thermal.
>To blithly deride the space option by pointing to technology tha does not
>exist or is even on the horizon is irresponsible.

To name only one technology that has this capability, nuclear fission.
With breeders, of which we have working examples, and reprocessing,
again of which we have working examples, we can supply world energy
demands at levels several orders of magnitude above current consumption
for hundreds of thousands to millions of years. And that's only one
energy technology, others include geothermal and the various "alternative"
technologies that depend on the influx of solar energy. Some of those,
like hydropower dams, coal, oil, and biomass burning are well developed,
others like photovoltaics and solar thermal are in their infantcy but
their potential is clear. Essentially all our energy resources come directly
or indirectly from nuclear processes today. As we increase our technical
ability to get closer to the ultimate source, energy becomes increasingly
available and cheap. Note that cheap has a different meaning to a wealthy
society than a poor one. $10 a gallon of gasoline equivalent is cheap to
a populace with an average income of $200,000 a year. And incomes are
rising at a rate beyond anything our ancestors dreamed thanks to the
synergy of an increasingly skilled population applying more and more
advanced technology. We are only near the beginning of the value added
spiral of wealth creation.

>>The argument *against* spending money on unprofitable space activities
>>is that our descendants would be better off if we spent the money on
>>capital formation here on earth, so that they will be more prosperous
>>(and, if they like, go into space).  We are able to launch rockets now
>>not because the Victorians wanted to go the moon, or because they sent
>>explorers to Antarctica, but because they had the industrial revolution.
>
>Captial formation means wealth. This has been the driver of civilization for
>at least four thousand years. Where there is wealth there is plenty. In the
>past, wealth generation has come in Three ways:
>
>Natural resource explotiation
>Economic activity redistributing the wealth to the more productive
>War and conquest

You forgot the most important creator of wealth, value added labor.
The raw materials in a new car cost less than $600, it's the value
added by creative labor that brings the price to over $10,000. The
real wealth generator in a technical society is always a leveraging
of knowledge into productive value added labor. If raw resource
exploitation were a primary wealth producer, farmers and miners
would be the wealthiest people in society. Since that's not the
case, your argument must be flawed. Note that it was the case in
pre-technical times that farmers and miners were the wealthest
people, but times and technology have changed to where these are
now bit players in wealth generation.

>The only truly platible, long term solution to the problem of not enough wealth
>is clearly option one. Option two breeds option three by the jealousy endengered
>by the winner of the economic war. (Remember Japan went to war with the US
>because we were denying them natural resources, "economic sanctions")

War is seldom a net producer of wealth since most productive labor
is diverted to the task of killing other potentially productive laborers.
Japan is a good example. War did not enrich the Japanese. Indeed it
impoverished them. That's because they didn't fully understand the
real sources of wealth in a modern society because they were stuck in
a feudal economy. Now after losing the war, they have become vastly
wealthy *without* owning substantial natural resources. That's because
they've come to understand the importance of value added labor.

>Sorry Paul but go to any freshman chemistry class in college today and listen
>to the litany of scarce resources. We are still going forward because we are
>taking resources from the third world. What happens when those are gone?
>What happens when the third world wakes up and says that they are gonna keep
>their resources to fuel their own climb to prosperity?

Try going to a class above the freshman level for a change. Some of
our basic industries are still using 1900 technology, the steel industry
for example, and depend on a flow of raw ores. Even with access to cheap
ores, they are having their lunch eaten by more modern processes such as
those practiced by Nucor and the Japanese. We don't need the resources of
the third world unless we fail to modernize.

Note that the third world understands that selling their raw resources
is the road to wealth for them because they don't yet have the skilled labor
resources needed to do the real wealth creation generated by value added
labor. In the few cases where they have tried to "modernize" by using
their own resources, the classic examples are the steel mills furnished
by the ex-Soviets to some of their client states, they found that 1900
technology wasn't a wealth creator at all and most of those mills are
now idle. The real wealth creating technologies require a highly skilled
workforce. By selling their ores to the first world, the third world
can generate the revenues necessary to build the infrastructures necessary
to educate their masses. At that point they will be able to adapt truly
modern technical means of wealth creation that aren't enslaved to raw
resource ownership.

>Without the temporary diversion of resources to build a solar system wide
>transportation structure that will allow the exploitation of the nearly
>limitless resources of the solar system, we will eventually hear the
>beating of the hooves of the four horseman of the Apocalypse. The gulf
>war and Somalia are only the first shots in a new an dangerous era. How much
>more expensive will it be in lives and dollars spent, to continue as we
>are today?

Of course we will no more continue as we are today than the Victorians
or Og the caveman continued as they were. Technical progress, based on
skilled labor and energy, will continue to change the face of economic
activity. In 50 years, struggles over petroleum will seem as quaint as
struggles over whale oil. We will more closely approach the source of
all energy, the atom, by tapping more tightly into the Sun and by using
fission. Both sources will be available in quanities beyond our ability
to use for millions of years to come. That cheap raw energy will allow
us to recycle any material into any other material we need without having
to import from space.

Large scale imports from space face a dire problem in any event. What
are we going to do with all that extra mass? Earth's gravitational
field will so increase that no one will be able to stand if we bring
in too much from space. Ultimately we have no choice but to use and
reuse the materials here on Earth. Fortunately that is getting easier
and easier as technology advances.

Gary

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

Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 14:14:08 GMT
From: Brad Whitehurst <[e-mail]>
Subject: Justification for the Space Program
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Greg Moore) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brad Whitehurst) writes:
>>>
>>    Well, Paul, I won't even try to convince you with facts.  We'd
>>still have flat-earthers if somebody hadn't run out to the "edge" and
>>tried jumping off, despite all the great Greek geometry.
>
>    Actually, before you start blaming the Greeks, keep in mind
>that they had a good idea the earth was curved.  They even developed
>a rough approximation of the diameter based on the shadow of the sun.
>
>    It was a Greek (the name escapes me) that described a
>heliocentric solar system.  Unfortunately Plotemly had better press.
>
    I KNOW IT!!!!  Why do you think I made the allusion?  I'M NOT
BLAMING GREEKS!!!  Alright, for the metaphorically impaired:  Greek
mathematicians (don't remember name..started with "T") showed the
Earth was round and estimated diameter using the relative positions of
shadows at the bottoms of wells.  DESPITE this marvelous scientific
work, the general belief that the world was round did NOT become
accepted until some damn-fool sailors went out and PROVED it.  That
was my whole point...that otherwise perfectly intelligent people hold
to certain views until some daredevil goes out and DEMONSTRATES the
contrary, usually by doing something that everyone tells him will get
him killed!
*Flame off*
    Sorry, but sometimes I despair at getting a net.point across
with any attempt at subtlety or metaphor.  Loosen up a little and
avoid too much literalness! :-)
    Anyway, time to pack the bags and the presents, go tune up the
sleigh, and file some flight plans! :-)***
    Peace on Earth (and off!), and goodwill to all men.

Merry Christmas!

--

Brad Whitehurst    |   Aerospace Research Lab
[e-mail] |   We like it hot...and fast.

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

Date: 23 Dec 92 16:37:54 GMT
From: George Coleman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Justification for the Space Program
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

>why waste your time setting up a straw man?  If the space station freedom was
>able to keep a 7:1 return then it would have no problem recieving funding.

Ok, maybe they wouldn't be able to keep a 7:1 ratio.  I still feel thing that
even a small portion of that would make it profitable for *private* investment.
Do some quick math.  Even SSF making 15% of the net benifit it still amounts to
an more than an 85% return on investment for R&D on top of actual work done
there.  Even if there is a need for goverment sponsered R&D I would think the
money could be better spent on a special program for R&D.

>We can't keep all humanity on earth.  What about an astroid....

For that matter what about the Fermi paradox?  If we go poking around in space
it makes us very visable to (agressive) aliens.  Maybe we should turn off
radio broadcasts and hide on the earth as long as possible.  There are
calculated risks for astroid strikes.  From these calculations you can apply
logic rules for operating under uncertanty.  If you disregard logic than the
Fermi paradox could be just as valid as astroid stikes.

All goverment programs take money out of society.  I personally feel the free
market is much better at figuring out cost/benifits than goverment dispersment.
 There is value in exploring and using space.  The government should just get
out of the way.  They should ignore the leage of nations B.S. about space being
all man's property and every country should have equal developement.  The
should get rid of the artificial obsticels and let free enterprise explore
space. There is one big exception I can think of, defense.  If there is an
effective defense program that involves space, great.  For example, armouring
satilites with astroids would be good.  Current weapon arsinals are deployed
with the idea that most of the satilites will be knocked out.  If we armour
satilites we can reduce weapon arsonals- that easy.

 Ed Coleman

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

Date: 23 Dec 92 14:01:13 GMT
From: Dave Michelson <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASA Get Away Specials
Newsgroups: sci.space

There have been some discussions about the NASA GAS program in recent
weeks.  I thought the following short note from Optics and Photonics
News might be of interest.

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

                         NASA "Get Away Specials"

...

Since the first "Get Away Special" payload flew on the Space Shuttle Columbia
a decade ago, 87 payloads have flown on 18 missions, representing customers
from industry, educational institutions, domestic and foreign governments,
and individuals.

Payload costs range from $8000 for a payload weighing 27.22 kg with a
volume of 0.071 m^3 to $27,000 for a 90.72 kg [payload] with a volume
of 0.142 m^3.  Charges for U.S. educational institutions range from $3000
to $10,000.

To receive general information on the Get Away Special program or to make
a reservation, contact Robert Tucker, Office of Space Flight, 202/453-2347.
For programmatic or technical questions, contact Lowell Primm, GAS Program
Manager, Office of Space Flight, 202/453-1922.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Michelson
[e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 15:30 GMT
From: Daniel Burstein <[e-mail]>
Subject: numerous/ 1:ASAT 2:Water 3:misquotes

A few points related to recent discussions:

1) ASATS:

  While very few nations have the capability to destroy orbiting
satellites, countries have another option.  It is relatively
trivial  to "blind" or otherwise disable
an overhead platform.  In simplified terms, just take a few
megawatts of power, hook it up to a radar unit, slide through
a few frequencies, and there go the satellite systems.
   While producing permanent shutdown is tricky, short term
disruption is simple.

2) Materials from space:

  Some very new research published in "The Sciences" (by the NY
Acad of Science, Jan/Feb 1993, author: Raymond Jeanloz) describes
the possibility that water gets locked into otherwise "dry" rock
when under extreme pressures.  He suggests this hidden water
(in deep Earth) may be ten times the amount in the oceans.

   I'm not familiar enough with his conclusions, or current thoughts
about astro-geology, to state this with any certainty, but
his work would -possibly- suggest that there may be a lot more
water available in extra-terrestrial rocks than currently thought.

   (Could someone "out there" in netland check into this further?)

3) Mis-quotes:

a) Just being a stickler for accuracy here, but if any group should
get this one right, it would be a science-oriented discussion
like this one.  Numerous people have made reference to the
program that developed the first nuclear weapons by the
United States during World War two.

   Contrary to popular belief, the actual name for this
was the "Manhattan District." (I won't print the wrong one)
                   ^^^^^^^^
b) On a different topic, some people have given the
wrong attribution to the saying "because it's there."
As per Bartlett's sixteenth edition, p. 593, this quote
was -not- from "EH", but was by George Leigh Mallory, who
used it to explain why he wanted to climb Everest.

Yours in Fussbudgetness...
Danny Burstein

<[e-mail]>

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

Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 13:28:24 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Greg Moore) writes:

>    I thought you said that McDac or SDIO was going to treat
>development costs of DC-1 as sunk costs.  Or is that just DC-X (in
>which case, what exactly does that mean?).

DCX and DCY are proof of concept vehicles which the government is paying
for. Nither are operational vehicles. DC-1 will likely be a very different
sort of craft altogether. It will incorporate lessons learned on DCY, it
may have a much larger payload and be a larger vehicle. DC-1s delta v on
orbit and crossrange will depend on market requirements. It will in effect
be a whole new development effort.

I would oppose having the government pay for the development of DC-1 but
would encourage government purchase of DC launch services. My estimates
indicate that DC-1 can pay its own development costs, build and operate
vehicles and still offer major cost reductions over Shuttle and even over
commercial expendables. It is the first launch vehicle which can make this
claim.

A small number of DC's could provide for the entire current launch market
and still have excess capacity available at very small incrimental costs.

>If this is teh case, than
>you have to treat the shuttle development costs as sunk costs.

I have no problem treating the research vehicles which supported
Shuttle (like X-24) being treated as sunk costs but I don't think
development costs should be. That simply makes commercial development
that much harder.

>As for amortization of the orbiter, the same rule applies to that
>as any aircraft or spacecraft, including, DC-1.  The more you
>fly it, the less this matter.

Correct. But Shuttle is now flying at or very near its maximum rate.
A working DC (if it works) will have much higher flight rates and can
thus amoritze over more flights.

>Right now, if you stopped all flights,
>you could argue this cost (excluding interest) is about $150 million
>a flight. (10 flights/orbiter, $1.5 Billion per orbiter).

You left out the $34 billion (in 86 $$) development costs which must
be amortized.

>    As for interest based on the national debt, that's a slippery
>one what I won't touch.

It is still a cost. All projects must include the cost of money.

>One question I have though, will you treat
>any government financing for DC-X,Y the same way, i.e. consider
>interested on national debt?)

Even worse. I want DC-1 to be built with private funds which will need
to pay even higher interest rates.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------122 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 23 Dec 1992 13:23:59 GMT
From: David Toland <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Real Justification for Space Exploration
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
[
It seems to me that all of these spinoff arguments, Malthusian
arguments, and "dinosaur killer" arguments miss the point.

Asking "why explore space?" is like asking "why feed the starving?",
"why create art?", or "why do basic science?"  It all comes down to
basic human drives, and I would argue that the drive to explore is
just as basic as the drive to help, to create, or to learn.

The major achievement of Apollo was not Teflon.  The major achievement
of Apollo was putting a man on the moon.

When Sir Edmund Hillary was asked why he climbed Everest, he answered,
"Because it's there."  The same answer is just as appropriate for why
we explore space -- because the entire universe is out there...

Yes, there are pragmatic near-term benefits of space commerce, but
most of those don't extend far beyond geosynchronous orbit.  And there
are many long-term benefits likely to accrue from interplanetary space
development, but most of those will be _very_ long-term.

At some level, perhaps the most honest answer to the "why explore
space?" question is the simplest -- "If you have to ask, you'll never
understand."
]

Well put.  However, for those who "don't get it and never will", there
are concrete benefits to proceding and real risks (low probability
but high stakes) to not doing so.

The only real argument I have seen *against* an aggressive commitment to
space exploration and exploitation is the old song that the money could
better be put elsewhere.  I think there's more than enough government
money wasted in economy-sapping transfer payments that could better be
used for a real space program.  That would create jobs in the short
term and stimulate the economy with new technologies in the somewhat
longer term.  This I firmly believe, but I also realize that I am
unlikely to convince those that see a solution in social programs.
I have even been recently been referred to as a zealot (first time
for everything, I guess!).  Well, I have listened to the arguments,
I've simply not been convinced by them.

In any case, make no mistake.  Although I see concrete reasons for
a stronger commitment to space exploration, I am also a dreamer who
wishes he were born at a time when he could walk on sands yet unseen
by any human.


--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
All opinions are MINE MINE MINE, and not necessarily anyone else's.
[e-mail]   |  "Laddie, you'll be needin' something to wash
                           |  that doon with."

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 589
------------------------------