Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_2/V16NO283.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 37KB

Date: Sun,  7 Mar 93 05:07:02
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #283
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Sun,  7 Mar 93       Volume 16 : Issue 283

Today's Topics:
                           Gaspra Animation
                 Jupiter and Venus followons (2 msgs)
       Jupiter and Venus followons (was Re: Refueling in orbit)
             KNOWLEDGE DISCOVERY IN SCIENTIFIC DATABASES
           Need the SEDS student space organization address
                     SOLAR gravity assist?  NOPE.
           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: 6 Mar 1993 05:44 UT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Gaspra Animation
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

                       ==============================
                              GASPRA ANIMATION
                                March 5, 1993
                       ==============================

     A Gaspra animation is now available at the Ames Space Archives.  This
animation is courtesy of Jeff Alu.  The animation was formed from 11 images
taken by the Galileo spaecraft shortly before its closest approach to the
asteroid in October 1991.  The animation is in FLI format.  Using anonymous
ftp, the animation can be obtained from:

        ftp:      ames.arc.nasa.gov (128.102.18.3)
        user:     anonymous
        cd:       pub/SPACE/ANIMATION
        files:
                  gaspra.fli
                  gaspra.txt (see below)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
gaspra.txt

     This animation consists of 11 images taken by the Galileo
spacecraft as it flew by the asteroid 951 Gaspra on October 29, 1991.
The animation shows Gaspra growing progressively larger in the field
of view of Galileo's solid-state imaging camera as the spacecraft
approached the asteroid.  Sunlight is coming from the right.
Gaspra is roughly 17 kilometers (10 miles) long, 10 kilometers
(6 miles) wide.

     The first frame of the animation (smallest image) was taken
5 3/4 hours before closest approach when the spacecraft was 164,000
kilometers (102,000 miles) from Gaspra, the last frame (largest image)
at a range of 16,000 kilometers (10,000 miles), 30 minutes before closest
approach.

     Gaspra spins once in roughly 7 hours, so these images
capture almost one full rotation of the asteroid.  Gaspra spins
counterclockwise; its north pole is to the upper left, and the
"nose" which points upward in the first image, is seen rotating
back into shadow, emerging at lower left, and rotating to upper
right.  Several craters are visible on the newly seen sides of
Gaspra, but none approaches the scale of the asteroid's radius.
Evidently, Gaspra lacks the large craters common on the surfaces
of many planetary satellites, consistent with Gaspra's
comparatively recent origin from the collisional breakup of a
larger body.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     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: 6 Mar 93 04:47:50 GMT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Jupiter and Venus followons
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>Whose bus did Magellan use?  Mariner derived?  I know at that point in
>NASA's mind-set all vehicles were designed based upon previous history
>and commonality.
>

Here are all of the "spare" parts that Magellan is comprised of:

   Medium Gain Antenna        - Mariner
   High and Low Gain Antennas - Voyager
   Equipment Bus              - Voyager
   Star Scanner Design        - IUS (Inertial Upper Stage)
   Radio frequency TWTA       - Ulysses
   Attitude Control Computer  - Galileo
   CDS (Main Computer)        - Galileo
   Thruster Rockets           - Voyager
   Electric Power Dist. Unit  - Galileo
   Pyrotechnic Control        - Galileo
   Solid Rocket Motor Design  - Space Shuttle PAM
   Propellant Tank Design     - Space Shuttle Auxiliary Power Unit.

Also, about 45% of the code for the main computer was lifted unchanged from
Galileo.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     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: 6 Mar 1993 05:12 UT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Jupiter and Venus followons
Newsgroups: sci.space

The Grand Plan for exploring the solar system is a simple four step process:

    1. Flyby
    2. Orbiter
    3. Unmanned Landing
    4. Manned Landing

We've already done all four steps with the moon.  The other bodies in
the solar system take a little longer because they are farther away, and
they each follow their own individual time scale.
If you look at this closely, you'll realize that the Galileo and
Cassini missions are the second step in the Grand Plan and are the follow ons
to Voyager.  With Venus, we sent the flyby missions with Mariner 2 and
Mariner 10; we've done the orbiters with Pioneer Venus and Magellan, so
the next logical step would be to send a lander (the Soviets have sent
landers, but the US hasn't).
The Fast Pluto Flyby mission is the start of the first step for Pluto.
The proposed MESUR mission is step 3
for Mars and will eventually help pave the way to a manned landing.
It may not always be obvious but there is plan, and it has been in effect
for over 30 years.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     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: 6 Mar 93 04:25:47 GMT
From: "Peter G. Ford" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Jupiter and Venus followons (was Re: Refueling in orbit)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>Whose bus did Magellan use?  Mariner derived?  I know at that point in
>NASA's mind-set all vehicles were designed based upon previous history
>and commonality.

Magellan uses a spare equipment bus from the Voyager project. To quote
the specs from Martin Marietta Corp. "it is a bolted aluminum structure
with aluminum cover plates. The bus is 16.7 inches high and approx 6
feet across". The radar iself is not located on the bus, but in a
separate equipment module (5.3 ft by 3 ft by 4 ft) which was developed
specifically for Magellan.

Peter Ford
MIT and Magellan Project
<[e-mail]>

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

Date: 5 Mar 93 22:02:13 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: KNOWLEDGE DISCOVERY IN SCIENTIFIC DATABASES
Newsgroups: sci.psychology,sci.math.stat,sci.space,sci.research,sci.geo.geology,sci.bio

                   CALL FOR PAPERS:
          KNOWLEDGE DISCOVERY IN SCIENTIFIC DATABASES

       A Special Session of the Second International Conference
            on Information and Knowledge Management
                 November 1 - 5, 1993
            Double Tree Hotel, Washington D.C., USA


Scientific disciplines from astronomy to earth sciences to biology are faced
with extraordinary growth in the complexity and volume of data that must be
examined to gain new scientific insights.  To cope, researchers have turned to
techniques for automating their analyses with the goal of making discoveries
that might otherwise be missed due to the sheer mass of data.  Knowledge
discovery in databases is an emerging research area that draws from information
management and machine learning, among others, to address the problem of
uncovering nontrivial, implicit information in databases.  It offers
considerable potential for automating at least some aspects of the scientific
discovery process.

The International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM)
will host a special session on Knowledge Discovery in Scientific Databases to
explore recent results in both the theory and practice of the methodology.
Contributions from researchers and practitioners in the fields of information
management, statistical and heuristic machine learning, knowledge acquisition,
knowledge representation and allied technologies as applied to the problem of
scientific discovery are welcome.

General information on CIKM is enclosed at the end of this message.  For
further information on the session, contact:

G. Christian Overton
U. of Pennsylvania
422 Curie Blvd
CRB 475
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6145
phone: [phone]
fax: [phone]
internet: [e-mail] or [e-mail]

IMPORTANT DATES

Deadline for paper/tutorial/exhibit submission:  April 1, 1993
Notification of acceptance:  July 15, 1993
Camera ready papers due: September 1, 1993

Please indicate in the cover letter that the submission is for the special
session on Knowledge Discovery in Scientific Databases.


============================================================================

                     CALL FOR PAPERS
             Second International Conference on
            Information and Knowledge Management
                   November 1 - 5, 1993
           Double Tree Hotel, Washington D.C., USA

Sponsored by ISCA in cooperation with AAAI, ACM (Pending Approval),
IEEE, and University of Maryland, Baltimore County.

The conference provides an international forum for presentation and
discussion of research on information and knowledge management, as well
as recent advances on data and knowledge bases. Authors are invited to
submit papers, proposals for tutorials and proposals for exhibits
concerned with theory or practice or both. The focus of the conference
includes, but is not limited to, the following:
Application of knowledge representation techniques to semantic data
modeling;  development and management of heterogeneous knowledge bases;
automatic acquisition of data and knowledge bases especially from raw text;
object-oriented DBMS; optimization techniques; transaction management;
high performance OLTP systems; security techniques; performance evaluation;
hypermedia; unconventional applications; parallel database systems;
physical and logical database design; data and knowledge sharing;
interchange and interoperability; cooperation in heterogeneous systems;
domain modeling and ontology-building; knowledge discovery in databases;
information storage and retrieval and interface technology.

INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS

All submissions must be accompanied by a cover letter containing a list
of all authors, their affiliations, telephone numbers, electronic mail
addresses, and fax telephone numbers. Papers should be at most 20 double
spaced pages and must include an abstract of 100-150 words with five
keywords. All submissions will be reviewed and will be judged with
respect to quality and relevance.  Authors must submit 7 copies of each
paper, tutorial or exhibit proposal to the program chairman:

Prof. Bharat Bhargava
Department of Computer Science
Purdue University
West LaFayette, Indiana, 47907
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

For more information about the conference (as opposed to paper
submissions), send e-mail to [e-mail]

STUDENT PAPER AWARD

The author of the best student paper will receive an award for his/her
submission.  To be eligible, the student must be the first author and
primary contributor to the paper.  The cover letter must identify the
paper as a candidate for this competition.

IMPORTANT DATES

Deadline for paper/tutorial/exhibit submission:  April 1, 1993
Notification of acceptance:  July 15, 1993
Camera ready papers due: September 1, 1993


STEERING COMMITTEE
Bruce Blum
Tim Finin
Keith Humenik
David Jefferson
E. K. Park
Yelena Yesha

GENERAL CO-CHAIRS
Tim Finin
Yelena Yesha

PROGRAM CHAIR
Bharat Bhargava

PROGRAM VICE CHAIRS
Nabil Adam
Rafael Alonso
Jay Gowens
Sushil  Jajodia
P. A. D. De Maine
Kia Makki
Chris Overton
Niki Pissinou

EUROPEAN VICE CHAIR
Hans Schek

AWARD VICE CHAIR
Stanley Su

PUBLICITY VICE CHAIR
Arie Segev

LOCAL ARRANGEMENTS VICE CHAIR
Keith Humenik

TUTORIAL CHAIR
Charles Nicholas

TREASURER
E. K. Park

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

Date: 5 Mar 1993 20:50 PST
From: "Horowitz, Irwin Kenneth" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Need the SEDS student space organization address
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Simon E. Booth) writes...
>
>I saw the SEDS mailing list address in the faq but I copied it down wrong.
>
>Could someone re-post it please??
>
Simon,
    Currently our "permanent" mailing address is:
        MIT SEDS
        W20-445 MIT
        77 Massachusetts Avenue
        Cambridge, MA  02139
        [phone] (phone/FAX)
        [e-mail]
however, this is likely to be changing in the coming months.  An alternate
address is here at Caltech (location of the "floating National HQ"):
        Caltech SEDS
        112-58  Caltech
        Pasadena, CA  91125
        [e-mail]

Of course, if you have a specific question about SEDS, I should be able to
answer it (after all...I've been a member of SEDS longer than anyone else :-).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Irwin Horowitz                        |
Astronomy Department                  |"Whoever heard of a female astronomer?"
California Institute of Technology    |--Charlene Sinclair, "Dinosaurs"
[e-mail]                |
[e-mail]                 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Sat, 6 Mar 1993 05:17:36 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: SOLAR gravity assist?  NOPE.
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert M. Unverzagt) writes:
>> >Do I need to go any further to show that there is no net benefit
>> >of doing this? ...
>> Sure you need to go further -- one data point does not a graph make,
>> much less a proof...
>
>No claim for giving a proof was made.

You asked why anyone thought there was net benefit in this.  The answer
is, because in the right circumstances, there *is*.

>> It turns out that the crucial question is:  do you want to reach more
>> than solar escape velocity, and if so, how much more?
>
>No, I don't.  I want to go to Pluto.  Why would you want to
>go on a hyperbola?  The trip time is shorter, but so what? ...

Try computing travel times for doing outer-solar-system exploration
using minimum-energy trajectories.  The one-way trip time to Pluto
on a Hohmann ellipse exceeds thirty years.  To get places in the
outer solar system in reasonable amounts of time, you *must* use
hyperbolic trajectories.  The distances are simply too great otherwise.

>... And what
>about the probe's relative velocity once it gets to Pluto --
>is it only in the neighborhood for a two speed-blurred photos
>as it heads towards interstellar space?

This is a problem.  But at perihelion, Pluto is slightly over
140 km/s-years away, meaning that if you want to hold trip time
down to (say) ten years, your average velocity has to be at least
14 km/s.  Your encounter speed won't be much lower than that, and
there is no practical way to do aerobraking or any such.  So yes,
you do make a very fast flyby.  This is why the Pluto Fast Flyby
people are planning two spacecraft -- Pluto's rotation period is
6-odd days, so a single fast flyby will not get you full imaging.

With chemical propulsion, nothing short of an Energia launch will
get you a reasonable trip time and enough delta-V to decelerate
for a slow encounter.  The PFF baseline uses a dedicated Titan IV
with two solid kick motors and a probe weighing only about 150kg.

>> sqrt(i^2 + 2/p) + 1 - sqrt(2 + 2/p)
>> -----------------------------------
>>     sqrt(i^2 + 2) -1
>>
>> It is therefore obvious :-) that if i > sqrt(2), the ratio is less than 1.
>
>OK.  If we call this quantity J, what's the partial derivative of
>J with respect to i?  (I too lazy to chain-rule it out, and I
>suspect that Henry has this handy, since it's an obvious question :-).

I've got the partial derivative of the numerator with respect to i
somewhere, but not the whole thing.  It's not particularly interesting
in any case, because there is no optimum.  For i <= sqrt(2), you want
p = 1, i.e. forget the gravity-well maneuver.  For i > sqrt(2), you
want to shave the Sun as close as you possibly can, because J increases
all the way down.

If i = 2 and p = 0.005 (just above the nominal solar surface), J is
about 0.72, a considerable saving.  Even at p = 0.1, it's 0.83, still
quite substantial.  As i rises, at first the situation improves pretty
much across the board, but as i gets really large, the middle of the
graph moves up again and you start needing quite low perihelion to
see a major advantage.
--
C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
effect since OS/360.                    |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 5 Mar 93 18:47:31
From: Steinn Sigurdsson <[e-mail]>
Subject: SSF Resupply (Was Re: Nobody cares about Fred?)
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

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

Maybe we should move to t.p.s?

   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.

Ah, STS can take 40,000 lbs or so up, that's already three
12,000 pound modules - now tell me, what's the volume of
the shuttle bay, density of hydrazine and volume of the
full module as opposed tank+pump+hookup

   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.

 ...

   |   >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.

Fuel is a primary payload. You're arguing they could fly more per
mission and that weight is the limiting factor, I respectfully
suggest it isn't.

   |   >   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.

Nope. A total stand down does not mean they're considering termination.

   |   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.

How many of your anecdotes were NASA employees?
Oh, and where did "happy" come in?

   |   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.

Bzzt. #2 supercedes #3 - if I'm wrong demonstrate it and leave
out the name calling.

   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.

Somehow I suspect you do not know what any of the Capitalised
words above mean. Make for nice meaningless jargon spouting though.
I suppose I should feel insulted...

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

Would JM Keynes do?

   |   >   |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.

Go read the NASA budget. $400mill is about the entire planetary
exploration budget (excluding launch costs, they're hidden in ops)
NASA does not have the authority to throw that sort of money around.
The total development and construction budget for Fred was $2 billion
per year, you think they can divert 20% and still build it on schedule
(without procurement rule changes that NASA does not control)?

   |   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.

An exaggeration, several do, they are not omnipotent and usually
the choice is play by the book or leave.

   |   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.

Excuse me, maybe you can tell us which government outlays are funded
from the deficit - you seem to know NASA is, that leaves another
250-300 billion, I guess the rest are then funded from revenues only.

   |   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.

Nope. You seem to think the payloads are buying a fixed cost service,
they're not. The launch+payload is a service, that accountants
have decreed that the satellite development and construction
is in a separate budget from launch operations is irrelevant.
Try to think of the payload+launch as a ongoing project with
most of the revenue an intangible return to the government.
Now, you can argue that the launch component could be
achieved at less cost - but that then requires a new development
and the money is not available to both keep launching and
to develop new launchers. Stupid, but under the accounting rules
NASA has to operate under funds appropriated each year.

   |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.

I make the same cracks about the tax system, frequently. I also
pay the taxes.
Accounting rules are not natural law, they're man made rules,
they differ between nations, and in time, that a group of
self-designated accountants have decreed that a particular system
should be used does not make it rational or effective, or even
consistent.

   |   >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.

I think in reality this is a part of SSFs mission. It was decreed
so by _your_ law makers, not me.

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

Well, gosh, you've already determined I'm a communist, right?

   |   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??????

Yup. And I hope DC works, but until DC has a demonstrated capability
I cannot support terminating STS.
There is still the problem of _how_ to fire the NASA employees,
in practise most would probably go to other projects.

   |   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.

Come now, you just said that NASA was funded by T-bills only.

   |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.

And, quite franky, IMHO, that is totally ludicrous and
I don't care how many current US accounting rules proclaim it
to be the Right Thing.

   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.

Sure, lots of people. Some on here on the Net even.

   |   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.

Yeah, but they still don't actually have to pay the launch costs.
Although NASAs new accounting rules require that the mission cost
reported now includes the launch cost. Of course these are some
of the same people who planned missions on HLVs and suffered
the cost overrun when those were not available - but that was
NASAs fault too.

|  Steinn Sigurdsson    |I saw two shooting stars last night        |
|  Lick Observatory    |I wished on them but they were only satellites    |
| [e-mail] |Is it wrong to wish on space hardware?        |
| "standard disclaimer"    |I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983    |

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 283
------------------------------