Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_2/V16NO264.TXT

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

Date: Thu,  4 Mar 93 05:27:14
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #264
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Thu,  4 Mar 93       Volume 16 : Issue 264

Today's Topics:
                            Aurora Update
                                Blimps
                   Book Computers/AI in Shuttle-SSF
                           Bullets in Space
       Develop it when we need it? (was Re: Refueling in orbit)
                     Galileo Earth-Moon Animation
               Industrial Designers w/the Space Shuttle
                    Magellan Venus Globe Animation
                           Mars exploration
                          Refueling in orbit
           SSF Resupply (Was Re: Nobody cares about Fred?)

    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: 2 Mar 93 06:15:00 GMT
From: Donald A Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Aurora Update
Newsgroups: sci.space

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "This program. code-named AURORA, has been confirmed by a retired
Air Force official, who said, ' USAF has had this type of aircraft on the
drawing board for many years now.'"

- Designed and built at Lockheed Skunkworks in Burbank Ca.
- Top Speed: 3,800 m.p.h.
- cruise range: 5,750 miles
- operational altitude: 100,000 to 150,000 ft
- funding in 1985: $2.3 billion
- 25 operational from tonapah Base Area 30 in Nevada
- personnel: 2 or 3 seated in tandem
- body shape: double-delta design, with conformal wings and fuselage blending
- low Radar Cross Section - approximately .1 to .2 square meters

    "According to another retired DOD official, ' With the SR-71 Blackbird,
they [the soviets] knew we were there, but they can't touch us.  With the
Aurora, they won't even know we're there"

    -- Taken from "Stealth Technology - The Art of Black Magic" by Joseph
        J. Jones, 1989 TAB Books
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't vouch for the authenticity ........ I just pass it as I see it

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

Date: 2 Mar 93 06:07:04 GMT
From: Dave Rickel <[e-mail]>
Subject: Blimps
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Frank Crary) writes:
|> If we are assuming a pre-existant base, I think chemical energy would
|> be the best option: It's quite easy to seperate carbon dioxide into
|> carbon monoxide and oxygen. It would be fairly easy for a base to
|> produce, and exploration vehicles to burn, this sort of fuel.

And it could be useful as a rocket fuel.  It's quite a bit less energetic than
H2/O2, but then Mars has a lower escape velocity.  It should be easier to
build an SSTO on Mars burning CO/O2 than an SSTO on Earth burning H2/O2


david rickel
[e-mail]

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

Date: 2 Mar 1993 00:23:51 -0500
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Book Computers/AI in Shuttle-SSF
Newsgroups: sci.space

One of the Air Force missions was testing some sort of
IR communications system.  I believe the point was to
increase security, so people on earth couldn't eavesdrop
on conversations.   I thought it was for use in the Bay.

pat

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

Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1993 02:18:47 GMT
From: Frank Crary <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bullets in Space
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Herman Rubin) writes:
>>An object's orbital period depends only on the semi-major axis of
>>it's orbit, and the semi-major axis in turn depends only on

>>the object's energy. Since the shot increased the bullet's energy
>>(because of the direction in which it was fired), the bullet's
>>semi-major axis will be reduced and therefore it's orbital period
>>will be shorter...

>My reasoning comes out the other way.  Since the laws of physics are
>invariant under time-reversal, and no more energy is applied after the
>shot, the orbit will be the same as if the current position-momentum
>data was projected backward in time, but under gravity alone.  Clearly
>the maximum distance from earth would be increased.

The bullet's maximum distance from Earth has certainly increased. But
at the same time, it's minimum distance has decreased. The semi-major
axis, the average of the minimum and maximum distances, will have
decreased.

                                               Frank Crary
                                               CU Boulder

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

Date: 2 Mar 1993 04:02:58 GMT
From: Jon Leech <[e-mail]>
Subject: Develop it when we need it? (was Re: Refueling in orbit)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
|> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:
|> >     ... When
|> >     we need it, we'll develop it. Hasn't that *always* been the way?
|>
|> The same way we were going to develop ion propulsion for CRAF (which really
|> could have used it)?

    Gee, I thought we were going to develop ion propulsion for the Halley
rendezvous. Or solar sails, depending.

    Jon
    __@/

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

Date: 2 Mar 93 04:03:06 GMT
From: Michael Nolan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Galileo Earth-Moon Animation
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert M. Unverzagt) writes:
>Does this movie exist in any other format, like .gl?  Sorry

We're working on producing a .fli movie, which should be playable on a PC and
under X using free software.  We're not done yet, sorry.

Mike Nolan nolan@{lpl.arizona.edu,arizona.bitnet,looney.span}
Lunar and Planetary Laboratory, University of Arizona, Tucson AZ 85721 USA
Phone [phone]; Fax [phone]

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

Date: Tue,  2 Mar 1993 11:31:51 -0500
From: "William F. O'Dell" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Industrial Designers w/the Space Shuttle
Newsgroups: sci.space

This may not be the best place for this, but this board seems to be
filled with knowledgable people.

Does anyone know if Rockwell (builder of the space shuttle-out in CA)
employs industrial designers?-the guys that would design the layout of
the cotpit, the crew quarters, the parts of the suttle that envolves
man/machine interaction (ergonomics). I figure the answer is yes. But
who do I get in touch with to find out for sure? I talked to someone at
Rockwell but he didn't know what I was talking about.

Also, who designs the space suits? MMU?

Sorry for the spelling-I'm in a hurry.
Thanks
Furman
[e-mail]


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

Date: 2 Mar 1993 05:44 UT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Magellan Venus Globe Animation
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

                       ================================
                        MAGELLAN VENUS GLOBE ANIMATION
                                March 1, 1993
                       ================================

     A Venus Globe animation has been released by the Magellan project, and
is available at the Ames Space Archives.  The animation consists of 72
frames derived from data from the Magellan CD-ROMs, and has been converted to
different formats so that it can be run on the IBM PC and Macintosh computers.
Additional versions of the animation have been created to run under the
After Dark program.  The animation is available using anonymous ftp to:

        ftp:      ames.arc.nasa.gov (128.102.18.3)
        user:     anonymous
        cd:       pub/SPACE/ANIMATION
        files:
                  venus.zip - Venus Globe Animation in FLI format
                  venus.bmp - Venus Globe Animation in Windows bitmap format,
                              may be used with After Dark
                  venus.hqx - Venus Globe Animation, Mac version, Binhex format
                  venus.cpt - Venus Globe Animation, Mac version, MacBinary
                              format
                  venus.txt - Animation Documentation (see below)

     A viewer to play the animation on an IBM PC is also available at Ames:

        cd:       pub/SPACE/SOFTWARE
        files:
                  play.zip

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
venus.txt

The "venus.zip" contains a compressed animated "rotating globe" of
Venus based on the topography (surface elevation) data collected
by NASA's Magellan mission.  The animation is in FLI format and consists
of 72 frames of 200x200 pixels every 5 degrees around the planet's equator.
The surface elevation is color coded so that the highest elevations
appear bright, while the lowest appear dark.  The colors approximate
the colors actually seen on the surface by the Soviet Venera landers.
The venus.zip file was compressed with PKZIP.  The frames were created
by re-projecting the sinusoidal "browse" image of surface topography from
the GxDR CD-ROM of Magellan's data from Cycle 1.  Some data from Cycle 2 is
included in this browse image to partly fill gap in Cycle 1 coverage caused
by Superior Conjunction.  The dark areas represent regions not yet
mapped at the time the CD-ROM was made.

The "venus.bmp" file is a Windows "bitmap" file which can be used with the
Windows version of "After Dark" with the "Globe" module to create a
rotating, drifting Venus globe similar to the Macintosh version.

There are 2 different versions of the animation for the Macintosh:
"venus.cpt" is in Macbinary, while "venus.hqx" has been "binhexed" so that
it can be transferred as a text file.  Both versions have been compressed
with Compact Pro.  The color scheme on the Macintosh versions is different
than that on the DOS version.  Rather than using the same color lookup
table used on the previous JPL computer flyovers, a 32-color table from
the "NIH Image" was used, which was shifted "down" by one step to make the
background black.  The result is to show a "blue planet" which, although not
typical of Venus surface colors, seemed to capture the range of topography
well.  The surface elevation has been color coded, with red representing the
highest elevation and blue the lowest.  The Macintosh version consists of
72 frames of175x175 pixels, one every 5 degrees around the planet's equator.
The frames were produced similarly to that of the DOS version.

The Macintosh files contains a compressed copy of a PICS "stack" which
can be used with either "NIH Image" or with the "After Dark" screen
saver module "PICS Player".  The Macintosh files has been compressed with
the "Compact Pro" program.  The de-compressed files can be opened directly
as a "stack" with "Image", and one can modify the size, color lookup table,
or rate or rotation.  To use it as a screen saver, select the "PICS Player"
module in "After Dark" and then select this movie as the file to be used.

The altimetry CD-ROM, like all other Magellan CD-ROMs, may be obtained from
NASA's National Space Science Data Center at Goddard Space Flight Center
([e-mail]).
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | It's kind of fun to do
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | the impossible.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | Walt Disney

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

Date: Mon, 01 Mar 93 20:40:00 PST
From: Joe Chum <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mars exploration
Newsgroups: sci.space

In the  PBS series "Space Age", the first episode was devoted to Mars and
the future plan to explore.  One  of the topic most interesting is the
part  where divers were simulated by an underwater vehicle; they wore a
helmet which they could see the vehicle with a camera attach to it.  The
feeling described  is really great.  They  want the human mind to explore
the terrain of Mars first before a man actually land there.   By using
Virtual Reality, the astronaunt can feel what's it like on the surface of
the planet without really being there.  This idea is so marvelous.  Why
didn't they use it in the moon first.  I like to hear more comments about
this hopefully.  So, if you great scientists out there can please spare
a knowledge to the little curious one here.

--
INTERNET:  [e-mail] (Joe Chum)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!woodpker
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA [phone]

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

Date: 1 Mar 93 20:53:01 GMT
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Refueling in orbit
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:
|>Well.  Would the phrase faster, cheaper, better come to mind?
|>As TOm munoz pointed out,  the THrusters carry 6,500 lbm of fuel
|>and weigh 5,000 lbm.   given the fact you are having to haul the
|>thrusters back to orbit that's a lot of money.  at 10,000 dollars/pound.
|>that's 50 million dollars.  Doesn't money mean anything to you?
|
|   Of course it does, but lives mean more. As I said, NASA chose the
|   safer of two methods. You have not made any comment on that point.
|

Demonstrate how any Automated Refueling system  based on the shuttle
is More Dangerous then PM changeouts.  I would imagine it is safer to
connect hoses up and let automatic pumps transfer fuel then to have
to move a 12,000 lbm module on the end of the canadarm.

It's easy to scream lives count, but demonstrate the risk.I believe re-fueling
is actually safer.

|>COnsidering that means you'd save 1 shuttle mission for every two
|>refueling flights compared to thruster changeout.  maybe you'd even
|>a 2:1 savings.  At 500 million a shuttle flight, that adds up fasst.
|>But then again. I forget.  if it hasn't been done , why it must be impossible?
|
|   Huh? What hasn't been done? Shuttle demonstrated refueling capabilities
|   in 1984. Not cryo, but a good place to start if we need to do cryo
|   refueling.
|
Well, considering, SSF decided not to even looka t refueling.  then I'd
say it isn't being done.

|>Sure.  galileo could have used centaur re-fueling,  but my post speculated
|>that any number of other missions could also have used the high performance
|>centaur stage.
|
|   Can you be more specific, please?
|   The next one that I know of is Cassini. Since it's to be launched
|   in 1997, there is no reason NASA can't practice cryo refueling next
|   year and have it ready long before '97. You talk as if it's too late
|   now, since NASA didn't demonstrate this in 1985, it can't be
|   available in 1997?
|
I imagine  ACTS would have enjoyed a nice high performance
stage,  and as i said, the lack of off the shelf hardware meant
many things died on the drawing boards.

|   (Here me out: Launch a Shuttle with a fair-sized cryo tank in the
|   payload bay. Then launch Titan IV with Centaur and Cassini. Shuttle
|   to rendezvous with the Centaur/Cassini and top off the tank. Reignite
|   Centaur. Cassini on its way somewhat faster.)
|

The concept I proposed, was launch a shuttle with Centaur/cassini
only partly fueled.  Direct ascend to high orbit.  Then pump dregs
fuel from the ET into centaur for topping off.  then you do it
with one shuttle mission, and have the benefit of astronauts around to
manage any payload difficulties.

|>I don't know what you are talking about.  Lunar rendevous and docking
|>is ultimately no different from earth rendevous.  Also  apollo would
|>dock the LEM while in circum terra space.  they would burn for luna
|>and then turn around to dock the LEM.   Apollo was a success because
|>docking was a proven reliable technology.  The soviets at that time
|>were having a tough time with their own docking program.
|
|    Okay, maybe I screwed this up. My understanding about Apollo planning
|    was that there were three methods in consideration:
|
|    1) Direct Ascent on a Nova.
|    2) Earth Orbit Rendezvous with CM and LM launched atop two seperate
|       boosters.
>    3) Lunar Orbit Rendezvous with CM and LM launched to Moon on Saturn 5,
>       seperating at the Moon.
>
>    From what I've read, it was a long and heated debate on which method
>    to choose. Your argument that EOR and LOR are equal comes with the
>    benefit of being 30 years after the fact. They didn't know this at the
>    time, which seems to be the relevant factor in this topic.
>

No my argument was that it would have been stupid to take all the gemini
experience in docking and then say.  Docking is not reliable,
lets do Apollo using NOVA boosters.

EWssentially a similiar error is being made on SSF.  The FPMO
has decided that REfueling is a difficult dangerous technology, even
though it has been proof tested in earlier shuttle ops, and they are
going for the heavier, much more expensive method of hauling up
sealed propulsion modules.

>>If the computer business was run the way the Manned space business
>>is run, we'd still be using IBM 704 computers and Guys like you and
>>Gary would be shouting about how RISKY Semi-conductors are and that
>>Tube Technology is marvelous because it is the only technology.
>
>     I've lost track of the number of times someone argued against the
>     Shuttle by pointing out that the Russians are using their trusty,
>     40-year-old technology while we sit and wait. "Stick with what
>     works" they say.
>
>     So, which side of this fence are you on? You seem to want both.
>

Sometimes you have to take risks, sometimes you do things the old
reliable way.  My feeling is cost and capability have to be weighed
and measured.  My feeling is that NASA for political reasons has made
technically bad decisions for the last 10-15 years.

>>I'd be willing to bet that there are more payloads on average that backed
>>up waiting on STS then on T-4, T-3, atlas or Ariane.  And that doesn't
>>count the payloads that planned on shuttle and switched away.
>
>     I was just trying to point out that Shuttle is not the only launch
>     system susceptible to failure, delays, and down-time. This point
>     seems lost on you.
>

Yes,  but  if an atlas gets delayed, you can get a titan.
If Titan isn't around, book an ariane, proton or long march.
 THe shuttle is such a uniquely different configuration, that to
be tied to it,  without contingency plans invites disaster.

>
>     Your argument is that we should develop cryo refueling techniques
>     because some theoretical, nonexistent project could use it. I'm
>     simply saying that the Russians have done quite well without it
>     (hell, without cryo propulsion at all!) so maybe its not quite the
>     priority you imply.
>
Many of our projects are significantly different from the russians.
Our large, heavy planetary program requires significantly better
performance for our gear then theirs.

THings like the long dead OTV Orbital Transfer Vehicle would have needed
this.   Lack of a space tug, has harmed numerous space operations plans.

>
>     Is *that* what I said? Good heavens, what's PortalX doing to my
>     messages???
>
>     Actually, if anything I was saying that governments were better
>     than commercial firms at launching boosters. But that's not what
>     I was trying to say. I was saying that GD and MM have not done
>     particularly well since they took over the Atlas and Titan launch
>     operations, respectively.
>
They are having a run of bad luck.  but their losses hurt their
shareholders.  NASA's losses hurt the taxpayers.

>     Rational arguments, indeed!
>
>>
>>My argument is that NASA should be out doing research.  testing concepts
>>and materials.  let private industry turn it into profit.
>>By your logic.  All nuclear power plants would be run by the department
>>of energy.  why look at TMI and browns ferry.  Private utilities
>>are incompetent at running nukes.   No the DOE should be testing
>>reactor concepts  inherently safe, breeders,  liquid metals, etc...
>>and eltting  the GE's, westinghouses and B&W's of the world build
>>these.
>
>      Shall I get some paint and make that soapbox of yours nice and spiffy?
>      I haven't figured out how we got from arguing Space Station Refueling
>      versus Space Station Module Swapout to the Department of Energy,
>      but it was one hell of a ride. ;-)
>
That it has been.  But i've been very dissapointed by the lack of long term
planning within NASA.  As Dennis and Henry pointed out,  The F-1 were
being worked on, years before anyone ever heard of apollo.

NASA should be working on proofing long range technologies, and
getting moer things on the shelf for mission designers.

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

Date: 1 Mar 93 20:09:32 GMT
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: SSF Resupply (Was Re: Nobody cares about Fred?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
|   What's the Point of this Stein?  Get Away Specials ride the STS super Cheap.
|   But there is a significant difference between a GAScan and a 12,000
|   lbm Thruster module.   YEah, I can hitchHike occasionally on the
|   interstates,  but do you think I could get some trucker to
|   take me and 5,000 pounds of cargo, even though he has deadhead space?
|
|The point of this was to continue a rather minor sidethread
|where Allen and you were arguing that any freight is always
|charged at full amortised cost.
|
|You have forgotten that the question was about fuel only
|or fuel+thrusters, the claim was that the weight difference
given the thrusters weigh more then the fuel, and impose
major configuration difficulties, they are not marginal.

|was costing NASA $X00million per flight, when in fact the
|fuel has to be flown anyway and the extra weight of a new
|thruster pack does not mean the supply flight now costs
|twice as much just because the refuelling component is
|twice the weight.
No.  the mission costs 500 million, even if it flys emptry.

|_If_ ditching the thrusters would allow them to fly
|say a TDRSS or a comsat with the fuel you might have a case,
|but in practise I expect they'll be carrying people
|and lots of little stuff which are marginally affected by
|the extra weight of the thrusters.
|

According to Tom munoz at JSC, a legitimate expert.  PM changeout
missions were scheduled as Dedicated missions.  2 PMs  at 12,000 lbm
each, were the only cargo, other then asteroids.   Somehow, I think
if you could save 5-9,000 lbm,  then something useful may ride up
in the spare room.
I could imagine something stupid, like Lab racks,  or food and water
or spare solar cells  being dragged up in the weight savings.
Also with a designed tankage system for the bay, maybe they could even haul
up  around 40,000 lbm of fuel and tankage,  and refuel up to 6
PMs  at a throw.  get three of fuel at a go.

Only you and wingo suggest some sort of arbitrary costing, of if the
bottom 30% of the manifest must fly,  then the top 2/3rds are free to me.

Try to charter a truck. tell it to go to jerk-water, Iowa.  Say
it's 10,000 lbm of cement.  get your price quote, and then say.
Oh.  I've got another 5,000 lbm of mixers to go.  they go free.
You are going there anyway...

|   >on standby figuring (correctly) that the marginal cost is negligible,
|   >the price charged to regular standbys is what the market will bear,
|   >based on how big a discount people will demand to accept the
|   >uncertainty of not getting a flight.
|
|   And Launcher companies sell secondary payloads much less then primaries,
|   but then you accept the orbit,  and the mass restrictions they stick you with.
|   Do you think 12,000 pounds is a secondary payload?   and can SSF
|   accept uncertainty on when the next Shuttle will arrive witha PM?
|   I don't think so.
|
|Any launch method you use has uncertainty, name a booster that
|can launch 6000-12000 pounds that might not be grounded for 1-3 years.
|Remember the shuttle has to go to Fred anyway to bring people and
|other consumables, do you know that there is the volume to use
|the "extra" 6000 pounds for anything you can charge for?
|

I could name one thing.  More fuel.  Every pound dragged up now, saves
it from a future manifest.

You still can't answer the Basic question.  IS 12,000 lbm a Secondary
Payload, subject to bumping?  the answer is No,  and as such, it has to be
charged as a primary payload.

|   >   Wingo was trying to claim that thrusters fly for free.  Allen pointed
|   >   out that was a crock.  You then come up with some argument on the
|   >   cost being the operating cost divided by payload.   Sadly, that's
|   >   allen's point, too.  The cost of dragging thrusters to orbit does
|   >   cost 10,000/pound under any rational accounting scheme.  any claims to
|   >   the contrary is a fiction.
|
|   >This is false; you repeatedly assume that the cost per pound is the
|   >total operation cost+amortised cost divided by pounds flown; it is
|   >no such thing - if NASA stopped in its tracks and flew nothing
|   >it would still cost several billion per year.
|
|   Stein.  What do you mean.  NASA has the capacity to put up about 8-12
|   Shuttle flights per year.   We the taxpayers pay them 4 and some Billion
|   a year to do this.  Now every SSF devoted mission means somebody else
|   waits for a mission.  Now if NASA went to a total stand-down
|   it would mean they are considering terminating SHuttle Ops.  That means
|   Manned SPace division gets re-organized.
|
|No, it could mean they're doing a safety review, or that Greenpeace
|has sued them to stop SRB emissions...

Like I said.  If they go to a total stnad-down.  They(someone) is
considering terminating shuttle ops.  Wether they stand down due to costs
or legal actions, it means someone wants to end it.

|
|   If they stand down for a few months, things ride,  but if they stand down
|   for 3 years like post challenger, believe me,  people get sacked....
|
|Oh yeah, name one.
|

Well. In February 1987,  I interviewed for a Job in Melbourne Florida,
just down the road from KSC.  I noted rents seemed abnormally cheap and
companies were giving leasing bonuses.  I asked why, and was told that
due to the SHuttle Stand-down.  numerous people had been laid off,
and that people were breaching leases like crazy and leaving town.

I also talked to a small sttellitte company in DC, 6 months later
and they said they were on the brink of chapter 11, because
all Non priority shuttle tasks were halted, and that was killing
their projects.

Name a source that said, people were fully employed and happy through the
STS grounding.

|   Now if they terminate SHuttle,  lots of people go overboard.  If you say
|   they shouldn't because NASA is A JOBS Program,  then that's communism.
|   it didn't work there, it doesn't work here.
|
|Bzzt. Usenet rules of debate number 2, gratuitous invoking of
|Communism out of context, you lose.

Bzzt.  Usenet debate rules three.  Screaming foul when in the wrong.

Hey.  I call it as I see it.  You claim that no-one should
get sacked, even if their program gets terminated.  That these people
have a right to their jobs, and the political might to see that it
occurs.  Well, that's Stalinist Lumpen Proletarian thinking.

You cite aany Milton Friedman Text, that says.  People must always
stay in the same job, despite it becoming a sinecure.

|
|   >   |
|   >   |Allen, what is the development cost of learning how to do
|   >   |automatic refuelling and over how many flights will you amortise it?
|   NASA has a 13-14 billion dollar budget.  THey could fund any program
|   ona multi-year basis.  They just odn't choose to.  They want to waste
|   money.  it justifies jobs better.
|
|Excuse me? You claim to know Public Administration and also claim
|that NASA could divert $4billion from Congressional allocation
|into a development program like that. Right.
|
   You claim to know so much?  Out of a requested 36 billion dollar
DDTE budget for SSF  and an expected 3 Billion dollar O&M buidget
for the program,  They can't do a 5 year DDTE on a refueling
program??????

Allen's estimates were that even if they spent 4 Billion,  A
real Generous estimate in my book, they could do a shuttle tankage
and transfer system.  Now that would work out to 400 Million over
10 years, and still make money.  And i seriously doubt it would
cost that much, even using Government costing.


|
|   Ah.   The mind of the bureaucrat takes over.  The more we spend, the
|   more we get.  Not do more with less.
|
|That is part of the reality of the system in which NASA operates,
|if you can change it, more power to you.
|
And which they have a vested interest in maintaining.
Nobody at NASA Senior Staff has an interest in shaking up the world.

|
|   You could argue, given the Deficit, that NASA Borrows it's entire
|   budget on the open market.
|
|No you could not.
|

Cite somebody on this.

|   Steinn.  Have you ever studied business or government?   Rate of return
|   analysis applies wether you are a government or a business.  it only
|   becomes problematic, when one is investing in a public good.
|   The shuttle is a very measurable Service, provided bt hte governemnt,
|   and as such ROI and ROR are normal measures for it.
|
|Is it now, can you tell me how much investment was made in the
|shuttle, how much of that was strictly STS development and how
|much was generic development on materials, space suits, hypersonic
|flight etc that _is_ a public good?

If you wish to Wingo it,  You can write off ALL shuttle DDTE as Sunk,
and just look at O&M costs as service fees.  Let's do that and we
still come to 500 million a flight.  If we amortize the developement
costs over the expected 150 flights before the shuttles are retired,
then we get.  30 Billion/ 150 flights,  about 700 million a flight.

Of course,  we hashed this one out a long time ago.  The problem with the
shuttle is it carries about 3.9 billion in fixed overhead.
that is billable against the measured unit service provided.

|    What charges can you claim against public good launches?
This is irrelevant and you know it.

|Do you put a hidden charge on "commercial" launches of National
|Security missions because the development costs on those were sunk
|by the government?

No.  The general method is to sink all DDTE monies and bill services
on the BASIS of O&M, for annual accounting.  For total costing,
you measure DDTE.


|
|   Stick to astro-physics.  you won't be so off.
|
|I don't think it were astrophysicists that generated the system
|NASA operates in, I do believe most of the culprits had MBAs or PA degrees,
|or law. And very few were communists [sic].
|

What's the relevance of this comment.  I pointed out you didn't know
how the Government accounting system, and you get all snide.
Do you make this same crack about the Tax System.  If you argued with
a CPA, he'd tell you to stick with astronomy also.

|   >This is pure nonsense. NASA is not a group of trading companies,
|   >and its purpose is to find out how to carry out certain objectives,
|   >if possible, given this years budget. They can't borrow upfront costs
|   >and they are not free to buy from arbitary suppliers, a significant
|   >part of their mission has been to find out how to carry out certain
|   >objectives in space and to maintain a group of people who have the
|   >experience of carrying out those activities.
|
|   IT is not the Mission of Freedom to be a welfare program inside of
|   NASA.  By your reasoning, now SHuttle has no raison d'etre other then
|   th fly SSF.  If SHuttle is a good, practical system, then it will
|   support other missions.  If it isn't it will die.   That's evolution!
|
|Isn't it? I think in reality it actually is part of Fred's mission,
|and it sucks, unless you happen to be one of the NASA people hoping
|to hang on until there is funding for some real missions. Who do you
|think defines Fred's mission, and what do you think it is.
|

So you agree.  SSF is a welfare program for Shuttle.  and should look
to waste as much shuttle resources as it can, so as to keep the
NASA army employed.

Well, I hope you stick up as much for welfare, when it's  black ghetto
youth.


|   By your reasoning, if someone invented a 10 dollar anti-gravity drive
|   that needed no maintenance, and meant a buick could make a good
|   rocket, then  it should be scrapped because it would not employ the
|   NASA Shuttle Army and it's political power.
|
|Nope, but if you claimed you needed only $4billion to develop
|the anti-gravity drive and why don't they scrap the STS and fire
|100,000 people to let you fund development you might encounter
|a little resistance...
|

So if DC-Clipper works out and turns to need only a few dozen support
workers, will you support laying off, most of the shuttle
support Army??????


|   NASA borrows all sorts of up-front money.  all decisions are based
|   upon investment vs payback  how do you think shuttle was developed.
|   They borrowed 30 billion  and threw out saturn, which only cost
|   500 million a launch.
|
|No, NASA is funded from current operating revenues, at most about 20%
 No. NASA is funded from the General Expenses.  Now tax revenues happen
to cover about 80% of the expenses.
|of its funds can currently be considered borrowed. If the US
|government ever splits the budget into "investment" and "current
|expenses" it will be interesting to see what fraction of the NASA
|budget is considered "investment" and funded on borrowed money...
|
Doesn't matter.  We don't differentiate long term capital investment
from O&M money.  it all comes from the same pool.  And it is costed
out at the T-bill rate for oppurtunity cost comparison.

Instead of funding NASA,  the USGovernment could put 14 billion
in the treasury, for loan at the T-Bill rate.  Currently 6.9%

Stop hand waving, and look at the basic economics.

|
|   Again.  I challenge you to find any text on Public Administration that
|   says Allens accounting is wrong.
|
|A lot of the world's problems seem to be tracable to MBAs and
|microeconomists overapplying limited models of toy worlds to reality.
|

So I guess, you can't find any one who says Allens accounting methods
are wrong.

|   Allen is wrong to consider ALL of Nasa a small business, but in terms of
|   flight operations.  THey Are.
|
|   NASA's research branches and Advanced test labs are "Public Goods".
|   they are not and never should be considered businesses.  But NASA's
|   communications  group is a service.  and is measured against public
|   companies, and is contracte d for as often as is provided in-house.
|
|   Shuttle operations are again a measurable service, and as such should
|   be run in something approximating business rules.
|
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

|
|Yeah, yeah, of course it would do ever so much better in a _real_ free
|market...
|


It may be quite an idea.  The Space science people are
in favor of using cheaper ELV's ratehr then the shuttle for most mission
planning.  Now that they are not held hostage to the shuttle Mafia,
they are looking at a number of smaller launch vehicles.

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 264
------------------------------