Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_2/V16NO227.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 39KB

Date: Fri, 26 Feb 93 05:04:31
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #227
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Fri, 26 Feb 93       Volume 16 : Issue 227

Today's Topics:
            ALTERNATIVE Heavy Element Creation in Universe
                  Biosphere help needed! Interested?
                           Flight sim books
                        Image Processing Leads
                            Neil Armstrong
                              Rocketeer
         Space Technology Investor/Commercial Space News #21
              Turpedo Tube in Reverse Missle Launchers.
                           UN Space Agency?

    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: 24 Feb 93 02:12:43 GMT
From: no one of consequence <[e-mail]>
Subject: ALTERNATIVE Heavy Element Creation in Universe
Newsgroups: sci.space

<SIGH> Just when you thought it was safe to take him out of your killfile...



--
/----------------------------------------------------------------------\
|Patrick Chester                             [e-mail]|
|If the Earth is our Cradle, then why are we still here?               |
|Everything your side says is Truth. All else is Propaganda....        |
|I only speak for myself. If I *did* speak for UT, would anyone listen?|
\----------------------------------------------------------------------/

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

Date: 23 Feb 93 23:34:32 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Biosphere help needed! Interested?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space,sci.astro

Hello I have a friend who has an organization trying to design and build a
Biosphere as a non-profit organization. If you would liek to help or have info
on how a biosphere works and such.. please send email to me or to
[e-mail]


==
Michael Adams, [e-mail] -- I'm not high, just jacked

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

Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 20:42:09 GMT
From: Lee Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: Flight sim books
Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.dsp,comp.graphics,comp.lang.idl,comp.lang.idl-pvwave,sci.space,sci.image.processing,comp.soft-sys.matlab

>> Can anyone point out some good (any) books on flight simulation?

Try:
    Rolfe, J.M., and K.J. Staples, eds. "Flight Simulation",
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.  ISBN 0-521-30649-3 .


Lee Moore -- Webster Research Center, Xerox Corp. --
Voice: [phone]
Arpa Internet:    [e-mail]

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

Date: 24 Feb 93 05:04:10 GMT
From: Thanos Karras <[e-mail]>
Subject: Image Processing Leads
Newsgroups: sci.space

I am looking for any leads in getting a job as an image processing engineer
in a space relating project. I have four years experience in inventing,
designing, and maintaining image processing algorithms. Some of the aspects
of my work include segmentation, motion analysis, application of statistical
and morphological operators, image enhancement, etc.

Any leads would be truly appreciated.
Please e-mail any responses at [e-mail]


Thanks

Thanos Karras.

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

Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1993 04:54:00 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Neil Armstrong
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (George Wm Turner) writes:
>
>
>
>> Does anyone know the current whereabouts of Neil Armstrong?
>> What does he do these days?
>
>
> last i heard he was an engineering professor at the
> University of Cincinnati, Ohio.

Ah, at last a reply!
No one replied with the great man's whereabouts, can he have disappeared
off the surface of the planet again?
Please email any current status you have at all.
I will explain reason in email.

-Tony Ryan, "Astronomy & Space", new International magazine, available from:
Astronomy International, P.O.Box 2888, Dublin 1, Ireland.
6 issues (one year sub.): UK 10.00 pounds, US$20.00 (surface, add US$8.00).

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

Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1993 01:21:22 GMT
From: Dave Rickel <[e-mail]>
Subject: Rocketeer
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Russell Mcmahon) writes:
|>  H2O2 I believe with an Isp of around 100 (or less) and a flight time
|> of around 20 seconds.

Sutton says that the theoretical Isp of 90% H2O2 is 147 seconds.  I don't know
what the actual Isp of the Bell rocket pack was.


david rickel
[e-mail]

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

Date: 23 Feb 93 12:48:40
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Technology Investor/Commercial Space News #21
Newsgroups: sci.space

   This is number twenty-one in an irregular series on commercial
space activities.  The commentaries included are my thoughts on
these developments.

   This column starts what will be a recurrent feature in tracking
space-related investments through the establishment of three stock
indexes covering space investments.  The status of these indexes
will be reported periodically in this column.

CONTENTS:
1- ANNOUNCING THE SPACE TECHNOLOGY INDEXES
2- JOINT VENTURE TO PRODUCE SAT BROADCAST RECEIVERS IN CHINA
3- HUGHES LANDS CORE PROGRAMMING FOR DIRECTV BROADCAST SATS
4- RUSSIAN "TDRS" SYSTEM NOW IN COMMERCIAL USE FOR EAST-WEST COMM
5- AMROC SUCCESSFULLY TEST FIRES HYBRID ROCKET ENGINE
6- RUSSIANS CLAIM U.S. MISSILE CONTROLS STIFLE SPACE VENTURES
7- LOCKHEED AND KRUNICHEV FINALIZE DEAL
8- FOR SALE:  ADVERTISEMENTS ON US LAUNCH VEHICLE
FINAL NOTES

ARTICLES
--------------------------------------------------------------------
1- ANNOUNCING THE SPACE TECHNOLOGY INDEXES

   [The following section is a commentary.]
   Over the past couple of years I've been tracking commercial space
firms and identifying where and how individual investors could
invest in space businesses.  However, there is very little published
data to indicate if space investments are good investments in
comparison to other investments.
   To partially remedy this situation, this issue of Space
Technology Investor/Commercial Space News marks the start of regular
reporting on three stock indexes designed to track portfolios of
common stock of firms involved in space related businesses.   These
stocks are all publicly traded and available to individuals.
   I should also point out that talking about space related stocks
and investments is neither a solicitation to buy these stocks, nor
advice to buy such stocks. It is only provided as information for
interested parties.  Before making any investment, research the
investment and be aware of the risks associated with it.  If you are
interested in any of these stocks, call or write for their
prospectus and their annual report and then read them closely, crank
the financials, and look at the company and its market before
investing your money.  Be aware of the risks involved with any
investment.  Many of these stocks are volatile investments, and

their prices (and the value of your investment) may fluctuate
wildly.
   The three indexes shown are:
   The Space Technology Index --  Comprising a weighted portfolio of
48 common stocks which are significant players in the space market.
Each stock price is weighted by the percentage of space revenues in
the company compared to overall sales.  This index is primarily
comprised of stocks of US-based firms, but also includes stocks of
European, Japanese, and Canadian firms.  For non-US firms, the index
is adjusted to be denominated in US $.
   The Commercial Space Technology Index -- Comprising a weighted
portfolio of the same 47 common stocks, each weighted by the
percentage of commercial space revenues compared to overall sales.
This index is intended to separate out the effects of government
space spending from purely commercial revenues.
   The Space Technology Pure Play Index --  Comprising a portfolio
of 9 US common stocks which were judged to be "pure plays" for space
activities, in that space activities were judged to be the
predominate business activity of the firm.  It should also be noted
that within these stocks approximately 80% of the revenues are
revenues from commercial space revenues.  As a point of interest, a
portfolio of 100 shares of each of these firm's stocks would cost
$18,087.50 as of 30 Jan 1993 (not including broker's fees, taxes, or
dividends).
   To help judge the progress of these portfolios, a comparison to
the Standard & Poors 500 common stock index (the "S&P 500") will be
also made.
   As other investment opportunities are identified, they will be
added to the indexes.  Firms currently included in the index were
chosen to represent the full range of space activities, ranging from
large NASA and DoD contractors to small equipment manufacturers, and
to cover every aspect of the space program-- they include (among
others) communications services, satellite manufacturers, Earth
observation data providers, and launch services providers.
   The indices should track space business results fairly closely.
There's about $50 B annual in space activities where individual
investors might be able to participate -- the US, Europe, and Japan.
The Space Technology Index tracks about 28% of that space activity
directly, and tracks another 5-10% indirectly.  This is a
sufficiently large market fraction that there should be good
correlation.  In the commercial space market, the Commercial Space
Technology Index directly tracks about 50% of the US commercial
market activities directly, again indicating there should be good
correlation.
   The decision to use revenues to track the space market rather
than earnings is a conscious decision.  Sales rather than earnings
were chosen since many space firms are still in the process of
building up their business base and plow a lot of their free cash
flow back into the business as R&D or expansion.  This would reduce
their earnings, yielding a low index value while  masking the health
or growth of the industry.  The indices track the market valuation
of space sales, as represented by weighted stock price.
   Index results as of January (with a look back over 1992) shows
the Space Technology Index did quite a bit better than the market as
a whole.  The Commercial Space Technology Index did somewhat better
in 1992 than the overall space index, but is lagging somewhat in the
first month of 1993.  This may be an artifact of the valuation
methodology, which may allow some "bleed through" of price runup in
stocks with diverse revenues.  Note the Space Technology Pure Play
Index also did quite well, and tracks the other two indexes pretty
closely.
   INDEX RESULTS FOR JANUARY
                           Beginning  Beginning      30 Jan
                           1992       1993           1993
                           -------    --------       --------
   S&P 500                 416        436  (+4.7%)   439  (+0.7%)
   Space Tech Index        267        304 (+13.6%)   348 (+14.7%)
   Comm'l Space Tech Index 167        194 (+16.3%)   210  (+7.0%)
   Space Tech Pure Plays   147        169 (+15.4%)   183  (+7.9%)

2- JOINT VENTURE TO PRODUCE SAT BROADCAST RECEIVERS IN CHINA
   A new joint venture is planning to produce receiving equipment
for digital satellite broadcasting services in China.  The joint
venture group reportedly includes Toshiba and Mitsui Corp of Japan,
General Instrument Corp. of the U.S., and Star TV and a sat TV
station based in Hong Kong. The new venture is planned to be
headquartered in Shenzhen, China and is reported to represent an
investment of $100 M by the partners.
   [Commentary: Satellite receivers are becoming a big international
business area.  I note this specific event because it involves a
rather diverse set of participants -- Japan, US, and East-Asian
broadcasters.  Production of products in China can be seen as move
to use China's relatively low wage rate to try to gain a cost
advantage, but it also has a significant strategic advantage of
being within the largest potential market for sales of satellite
receivers (estimated to be a potential market for up to 500 MILLION
receivers of different types).  China's State Statistical Bureau
reportedly estimates about 11 million households in China are now
receiving satellite TV of some kind.
   This is a good example of some of the market moves being made in
the rapidly growing sector of East-Asian satellite communications.
   Besides market growth, it is also interesting to note some
potential social changes here as well.  From recent events, the
previous barriers to the inflow of outside information to China are
being "shattered" as satellite dishes are starting to appear in many
Chinese households, capable of receiving foreign broadcasts. Under
current laws passed by the Chinese Communist Party, it is illegal
for Chinese citizens to watch foreign TV broadcasts, but enforcement
of this ban is being given a very low priority by the government.
   Part of the lax enforcement may be economic -- the government
owns one-third of AsiaSat, which leases transponders to Star TV
through the China International Trust and Investment Corp.
Similarly, the Chinese government is a primary owner of the APT
Satellite Co. Ltd., also based in Hong Kong, which is planning two
new satellites in 1994.  Shutting out reception of these satellite
broadcasts would affect the earnings or future earnings from by the
Chinese government itself.
   There is an interesting dynamic here -- the self interest of the
government to maintain its earnings from this business venture,
versus control of the influx of outside information.  By buying into
the satellite broadcast ventures in this region, the government of
China can maintain some measure of control of them, but it is also
encouraging the development of an infrastructure that can also
provide sources of independent outside sources.  An interesting
approach ... ]

3- HUGHES LANDS CORE PROGRAMMING FOR DIRECTV BROADCAST SATS
   Hughes Communications has announced it has signed Paramount
Picture and the Disney Channel to provide programs for their DirecTV
satellite broadcasting venture.  The exact terms of the deal were
not disclosed and Eddy Hartenstein, president of DirecTV, claimed
negotiations for programming from two other Hollywood studios and
with six other cable channels were underway.
   DirecTV is a $500 M direct-to-home broadcasting venture by
Hughes.  2 Hughes HS-601 satellites are planned to provide signals
to small 18-inch diameter satellite dish antennas, feeding a Hughes
decoder box.  Subscribers would pay $ 700 for the setup, and would
receive monthly cable-type programming as well as $5 pay-for-view
movies and special programming.  Hughes believes the service will
have 10 million U.S. subscribers by the year 2000 and will generate
$1 billion in annual sales.  Hughes plans to launch the first
satellite this year and, by March 1994 to offer up to 60 movie
channels, 30 sporting events and dozens of special-interest programs
simultaneously.
   [Commentary:  There are several Direct Broadcast Satellite TV
(DBS-TV) ventures in the works for the US.  DirecTV is the best
developed venture and farthest along from the information I'm
seeing.  This article is of some importance as it directly addresses
the achilles heel of DBS-TV ventures -- programming.  While it is an
interesting technical problem to design and build a good, cheap
satellite receiving system (satellite and ground side), several
previous ventures have floundered in that they haven't been able to
provide programming that people want to watch.
   Up to now, Cable TV networks have been rather reluctant to
provide programming to such competing services.  However, two
developments have made this much more likely.  First, several cables
systems have found that they have been able to make more money by
producing and distributing programming than by operating cable
systems (the "Discovery Channel" carried on may cable systems, for
example, is owned by a consortium of cable systems).  Furthermore,
in last year's US Congress there was action to re-regulate cable
systems, and to place caps on annual price increases to subscribers.
This increased the attractiveness of new revenues from increased
distribution of signals over a lowered expectation of increasing
revenues by increasing prices to existing cable customers.
   Secondly, a law passed by Congress last year requires networks to
make themselves available to emerging competitors, such as DBS-TV
ventures.  Again, this has encouraged networks and programming
sources to move out in getting on board competing ventures, as
laggards in a market expected to be fiercely competitive could find
themselves having to battle entrenched competition for market share.
   I expect to see more deals being announced between DBS ventures
and programming sources over the next year.]

4- RUSSIAN "TDRS" SYSTEM NOW IN COMMERCIAL USE FOR EAST-WEST COMM
   The Russian "Western Satellite Data Relay Network", which has a
similar function to the US Tracking and Data Relay (TDRS) system is
now in use for commercial telecommunications.  Transworld
Communications, Inc. of Washington DC has opened a service based
through the WSDRN comsat at 16 Deg West, and now offers "network
quality" full-motion video, audio, and data services to the Eastern
US, Central and South America, Europe, Africa, and the Middle East.
Primary hubs for the system are through existing international
teleports in Washington DC and Moscow, Russia regions, with
additional hubs added through 2-meter air- and ground-portable Ku-
band stations as needed.  This system has been tested through low-
level operations between Moscow and the Washington International
Teleport in Alexandria, Virginia since August.
   According to Transworld chairman Richard Millman, the US FCC has
issued Transworld a Common Carrier license and a US Earth Station
operating authority.
   [Commentary:  Some issues ago in this column, I noted Columbia
Communications was planning to use the US TDRS system to provide
commercial services through unused TDRS capabilities.  Here is a
similar venture, based upon the Russian version of TDRS.
   There are some interesting associations with Transworld.
Transworld is reportedly associated with the Russian entities
`Mercury' and `Smolsat Association'.  Mercury is linked to
economic conversion of ex-military Russian space systems, while
Smolsat is the commercial agent and overall project coordinator for
similar ventures.  (Smolsat also manages the commercial version of
the Russian ex-military "Gonets" ("Messenger") store/ dump smallsat
constellation). And it should be noted one of the three members of
Smolsat, and one of the members of "Mercury" is NPO Applied
Mechanics of Krasnoyarsk, Russia which manufactured several ex-
Soviet military GEO communications systems, including the Gorizont,
Express, Ekran, and Raduga series.  If you add up the number of
satellites in the constellations attributed to NPO Applied
Mechanics, there's a pretty significant number there.  The
Transworld ventures indicate NPO Applied Mechanics is looking to get
into the broadcasting and distribution side of the GEO
communications business as well as producing satellites.
   When putting this article together, I ran a search through my
database on Columbia Communications.  As a comparison, Columbia
Communications is marketing similar C-band services through unused
transponders on 2 of NASA's TDRS satellites, 1 over each of the
Pacific and Atlantic oceans. The Columbia Pacific TDRSS transponders
can provide video, telephone and dataservices between the
continental U.S. into the major market regions of East Asia north of
Hong Kong, including Korea, Taiwan, Eastern China, and Japan.  The
Atlantic TDRSS used by Columbia allows communications from North
America to all of Europe, including Eastern Europe, Scandinavia, and
the Mediterranean east to Instanbul.  Since opening their doors in
1991, Columbia has racked up an impressive set of market openings,
and tied up TRW as a major tenant (TRW is using Columbia to enter
the market for trans-Pacific communications, and is a major
financial backer of Columbia.  It should be noted that TRW built the
TRDS satellites, and has filed to enter the commercial
communications market both as a satellite manufacturer and as a
service provider).
   Countries which have approved services from Columbia include the
US, Belgium, the United Kingdom, Hong-Kong, Germany, the
Netherlands, Sweden, Luxembourg, the Bahamas, France, Israel,
Jamaica, Mexico, and Portugal.  Part of their market success is they
are virtually the only alternative to Intelsat and Inmarsat for
international services, which they have been offering at about 20 %
lower prices, plus providing higher user schedule flexibility for TV
exchanges.
   This last factor has been important to their market acceptance as
TV transmissions eat bandwidth yet are greatly desired by global
news services.  Existing capabilities (Intelsat) are very much
focused on providing for long-term customers, and not "fast
breaking" news-type stories, which needed bandwidth on a "need it
now" basis.  While any service provider would prefer to have their
system filled with long-term steady clients,  premium prices can be
charged for on-demand high bandwidth services, and Columbia has been
offering very attractive capabilities at discount prices.  As global
news and information services increase, systems like  Columbia
Communications may prove to have a very profitable market niche.
   And if Transworld can follow in a similar market model, focusing
on the Russian/Eastern Europe to the US telecommunications market,
they may also find themselves in a very attractive market niche as
the economic ties between the two regions grow.]

5- AMROC SUCCESSFULLY TEST FIRES HYBRID ROCKET ENGINE
   American Rocket Company (AMROC) successfully fired a 220,000 lb
thrust hybrid rocket engine on 22 Jan.  The 15-second test at
Edwards AFB in California was the first test firing of AMROC'S 250
klb class motor.  AMROC claimed the engine performed within 5% of
predicted thrust levels.  In an announcement of the test, AMROC said
"Today's test demonstrates hybrid propulsion at a scale which is
competitive with the solid and liquid motors powering America's
current launch vehicle fleet."  AMROC's  Development Motor No. 1
burned an inert synthetic rubber as fuel, with liquid oxygen as
oxidizer and was cast at Vandenberg AFB, California.
   [Commentary: This test indicates that AMROC is still around and
actively pursuing its hybrid motor product line.  Hybrids are an
interesting technology -- but AMROC still has not found a strategic
partner to break into the commercial launch or supplier business.
AMROC is still bidding to develop a small launch vehicle (the
"Aquilia"), and has submitted bids in several small satellite
launcher competitions, including for Iridium.  And it appears they
have also been looking at providing hybrid motors as strap-on
boosters for other launch vehicles.  This test was apparently
supported by Martin Marietta Manned Space Systems, which sent
representatives to witness it, possibly indicating an interest by
Martin in using such strap-ons for their Titan program.  (It was
reported elsewhere in the press that a Titan II plus strap-ons was
one of the options Martin was examining for the MLV-3 bid.)
   However, market prospects for AMROC have dimmed somewhat as
NASA's MSFC is rumored to be discussing issuing demonstration
contracts to other firms to develop hybrid rocket motor
technologies. If true, this would remove much of AMROC's proprietary
edge in the market, and erode their tenuous financial position.
   Concerns have been raised that MSFC should not be awarding the
tax-payer's money to other firms to develop hybrid booster
technology when AMROC has invested private investor's money as a
commercial development, and is reportedly willing to share their
data with the government for a price.  Meanwhile, NASA is being
directed by Administrator Goldin to include commercial and
competitiveness decisions as part of the NASA technology planning
process.  (See STI/CSN No. 19)
   I haven't seen the details of the rumored MSFC hybrid technology
program, such considerations should be included in review of this
procurement from MSFC. ]

6- RUSSIANS CLAIM U.S. MISSILE CONTROLS STIFLE SPACE VENTURES
   Russian officials have charged the U.S. government of using the
Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) regulations to keep Russian
products from the world market.  A draft agreement on the MTCR was
submitted by US negotiators during mid-January as part of on-going
"rules of the road" negotiations between the US and Russian
governments.  Russian acceptance of the MTCR was rejected by the
Russian government after discussions with the Russian parliament.
From the Russian interpretation of the proposed MTCR agreement, it
would have prohibited a number of valuable technology export deals
(including space technology) to established customers in Brazil,
China, Egypt, India, and other nations.
   Published reports on the Russian reaction to this agreement focus
on the economic impacts of the MTCR, and claim it's imposition on
Russian trade was to exclude Russian firms from export markets.
"...The Americans, as experience shows, stubbornly defend their
economic interests," complained Sergei Chuvakhin, a Russian Ministry
of Foreign Economic Relations, reportedly involved in the closed
door negotiations.
   About 2 weeks later, Russian President Boris Yeltsin on a state
visit to New Delhi, pledged to honor a contract to sell cryogenic
rocket engine technology to India.  This contract has been the cause
of much international attention since the US government imposed
limited sanctions upon Glavkosmos in Russian and the Indian Space
Research Organization, claiming the $200 M contract violated the
MTCR.  Russian diplomats said Yeltsin decided to go ahead with the
deal after concluding that the Moscow-supplied cryogenic engines
would be unsuitable for the ballistic missiles India was developing.
  [Commentary: The issue of international regulation and control of
missile technology to limit the spread of ICBM technology has proved
to be a sticky point for international space business.  Technology
suitable for use in space launchers looks very much like technology
useful in ICBMs.  And technology restrictions put in place to limit
the spread of militarily-useful technology also can limit the sales
of commercial space hardware.
   From some perspectives, this limitation is seen as being used as
a barrier to lock new players out of the post-cold war commercial
space business.  For example at a recent Moscow news conference on
plans for the Russian Space Agency, Yuri Koptev, head of the Agency,
targeted the use of Russian launchers for commercial payloads as a
key goal for the RSA.  Identifying a market of about $ 1B over the
next 4 years, he pointed out that four-fifths of commercial
satellites were US-made and needed specific export licenses before
they could be shipped to Russia for launch.  Getting these licenses
has been a real problem for commercial ventures using Russian
launchers.
    New, even more restrictive MTCR regulations haven't made this
situation any better.  Under new rules adopted in early January, the
scope of the MTCR was extended to cover technology for missiles
capable of delivering biological and chemical weapons, as well as
those specifically directed at delivering nuclear weapons.
According to U.S. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher there
will be "a strong presumption of denial on transfers of any missiles
regardless of their payload or range which are judged to be intended
to carry any weapon of mass destruction..."   These new restrictions
looking at the "intent" of potential uses, brings weapons not
previous covered under the MTCR.  Previously, the MTCR was only
applied to weapons able to carry an 500 Kg payload over a range of
300 kilometers, but the new definition could cover items such as
artillery shells-which can carry small nuclear, biological or
chemical warheads-or even relatively large ship-to-ship or ship-to-
surface missiles, which could be made to carry biological or
chemical warheads.  This may be the source of the Russian government
rejection of the MCTR agreement, as it could significantly limit
current military hardware exports.
   And it should be noted, the Russian approval of the Glavkosmos/
ISRO cryogenic engine technology transfer deal has to be seen in the
light of other Russian/Indian negotiations.  Another purpose of the
Yeltsin visit to India was to seek to resolve a major difference
between the two nations for debt repayment.  India was the Soviet
Union's largest export trade partner, and before the Soviet
government disentegrated, it provided military and economic credit
to India on very favorable terms -- reportedly at 3 percent annual
interest rate with a 15-year repayment period.  These ruble-
denominated debts are now coming due, and India is proposing to
repay them at the current ruble exchange rate, which is about 10X
lower in comparative US $ than the previous booked amounts.  Russia
badly needs hard currency, and insists the value of the loans be
calculated in dollars at the exchange rate prevailing at the time of
purchase. There's about $10 B riding on the results of the loan
value negotiation, and there is no political way the Russian
government could reject the high-visibility rocket technology deal
(worth only $200 M) without risking losing a lot more in the loan
value negotiations.
   But all this has merely moved the situation forward without a
concrete resolution.  I predict MTCR issues with space trade deals
will come back within the next year.  Brazil and South Africa are
still proceeding with national space launch systems, and other
countries are in the market for space technology from the MTCR
signatory countries of the U.S., Japan, France, Britain, Germany,
Canada and Italy.  And many countries have programs which fall under
the new MTCR restrictions.  Judging "intent" will be difficult and
such findings can spark rancorous international trade actions.
We'll hear more about MTCR and space technology trade restrictions
over the next year. ]

7- LOCKHEED AND KRUNICHEV FINALIZE DEAL
  Lockheed Corporation and Krunichev Enterprise finalized their
agreement to cooperate in marketing the Russian Proton launcher on
23 Jan. during a ceremony at Lockheed's Sunnyvale, California
facility.  Acting quickly after President Bush approved the
partnership, the two companies signed an agreement establishing
Lockheed-Krunichev International.  Although financial terms were not
disclosed, it was reported that Lockheed will make a "substantial
long term investment" in the partnership.
   [Commentary:  Well, I blew the projection in the last issue of
STI/CSN.  Much to my surprise, President Bush signed off an approval
for this space venture (as well as several others) in what were the
final few hours of his administration.  There were several
classified caveats attached to the approval dealing with fair
pricing for Russian products on the open market, technology transfer
provisions, and that the Missile Technology Control Regime
restrictions be followed.
   As mentioned in a previous article in this column, following the
MCTR has been rejected by the Russian government and Parliament. The
approval that Krunichev requested from the Russian government
included that LKI will comply with the MTCR, which should get them
pretty much off the hook, at least for this phase of the venture.
In the words of one Lockheed executive, "Krunichev only asked for
approval by the Russian government for them to comply."
   There is still an unresolved trade sanction investigation on-
going of Krunichev in the transfer of cryogenic engine technology to
India, but the current administration approval will allow the
venture to proceed until this investigation is completed.
   I'm also hearing unconfirmed reports that LKI has gotten a very
positive reaction from the market to their announcements.  The
initial target for a commercial LKI Proton launch was set for late
1994, but apparently some firms desiring earlier commercial Proton
launches have appeared, and an earlier commercial Proton launch by
LKI may be announced, dependent upon the successful completion of
negotiations.
   This venture looks like it is off to a good start.]

8- FOR SALE:  ADVERTISEMENTS ON US LAUNCH VEHICLE
   The Conestoga launch vehicle planned to launch the Commercial
Experiment Transporter (COMET) recoverable satellite payload this
spring may also carry paid advertising to a new height.  While
advertisements have been flown as a trial program on Russian launch
vehicles, and other launch vehicles have had the name of their
manufacturer and satellite payload emblazoned on their sides, no US
launcher has carried paid advertisements.
   The Georgia consulting firm, Space Marketing, has been hired to
sell the advertisements on the 58-foot high Conestoga, and calms it
has received over 60 inquiries from companies and advertising
agencies.  The reported price for the advertising would be $ 500,000
per ad.  Any revenues would be split between the Space Industries,
Inc., Westinghouse, and EER Systems Corp., the three partners
building and launching the COMET spacecraft.
   [Commentary:  An interesting advertising opportunity.  However,
this is being received with some skepticism within the business
community.  An advertiser buying ad space on the Conestoga would
have to either use photos of their ad in another advertising
campaign, or hope to get sufficient "free media" coverage from the
launch coverage to make their advertisement pay off.  If the
advertiser was very intimately associated with the COMET or
Conestoga, or had a very closely related product then the
advertisement might make sense.  But for an un-related advertiser
$500,000 is a bit steep for a single-shot ad  -- as a point of
comparison, that's about 2/3 the price of an advertising "unit" for
the superbowl.
    I haven't heard of any advertisers stepping forward, yet.  So
we'll just have to see what turns out on this.]

FINAL NOTES -
   After a rather slow start to the year, things are really starting
to accelerate in the commercial space world.  I finally managed to
get the stock indexes I've been working on into a usable format and
written up to include in this column.  Looking ahead, I've got
several other articles in the works for the next issue of this
column on new happening with Iridium, statistics on the overall US
commercial space market, and a new US commercial remote sensing
venture.  But after feverishly reducing the size of the piles of
data from last year, they're starting to grow again.  I'm going to
have to accelerate my processing of data to avoid a repetition of
those inch-thick folders and megabytes of unread data.
   And as always, I hope you folks find this stuff useful and
interesting -- Any and all comments are welcome.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wales Larrison                          Space Technology Investor
"Le bein de la fortune est un bien           P.O. Box 2452
 est un bien perissable: quand on       Seal Beach, CA 90740-1452
 batit sur elle, on batit sur le sable"

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

Date: 24 Feb 1993 02:48:17 GMT
From: steve hix <[e-mail]>
Subject: Turpedo Tube in Reverse Missle Launchers.
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>Idea for a way to deploy a missle without having to have hard points or a
>"bombbay"..
>
>Have a "bombbay" that opens to drop off the missle. Kind of like a torpedo
>tube on a submarine in reverse.
>
>The missle would get its lock from the airplanes sensors..
>
>Im not sure how to describe my idea.. So tell me what it sounds liek and Ill
>say yes or no..

It's been done.

In several different ways.

    1. Tunnel between fuselage-mounted engines, expelling missile
       or bomb to rear, as in North American A-5 Vigilante.

    2. Recessed into depression in fuselage (in various places on
       various aircraft).

    3. In internally-mounted tray insided fuselage, tray being
       extended outside aircraft for firing, retracting back in
       after firing.  One surface of tray = outside surface of
       aircraft.

    4. Launched laterally to aircraft flight path from tube.  This
       one has been used from 1930's (or earlier) for launching
       everything from signal flares, to sonobuoys (a la Lockheed
       P-3 Orion), to ordnance, to anti-IR-missile-flares or
       chaff dispensers.


--
-------------------------------------------------------
| Some things are too important not to give away      |
| to everybody else and have none left for yourself.  |
|------------------------ Dieter the car salesman-----|

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

Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1993 00:37:34 GMT
From: "Carlos G. Niederstrasser" <phoenix.Princeton.EDU![e-mail]>
Subject: UN Space Agency?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
> Is there a UN Space Agency and if there is can someone post info here and
> forward the info to me here: [e-mail]
>


They have the Committee for the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPOUS)

Chair is a Mr. Jasentuliyana (Sp?)

---
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Carlos G. Niederstrasser        |   It is difficult to say what   |
| Princeton Planetary Society     | is impossible; for the dream of |
|                                 | yesterday, is the hope of today |
|                                 |   and the reality of tomorrow   |
| [e-mail]   |---------------------------------|
| [e-mail]     |    Ad Astra per Ardua Nostra    |
---------------------------------------------------------------------

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 227
------------------------------