Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_3/V16NO359.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 34KB

Date: Thu, 25 Mar 93 05:00:21
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #359
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Thu, 25 Mar 93       Volume 16 : Issue 359

Today's Topics:
                  Asteroid Laser 'Drill' Speculation
                           Aurora spotted ?
                          Clueless Wingoisms
   Compound catadioptric Maksutov-Cassegrain Telescope Sale - cheap
                                 DC-X
                        Earth Stop Rotating!?
        Flight time comparison: Voyager vs. Gallileo (2 msgs)
                            HST detectors
                         Life in the Universe
                        Skysurfing from Orbit
                           SSF Redesign....
                      temperature of Lunar soil
                  Why use AC at 20kHz for SSF Power?

    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: Tue, 23 Mar 1993 19:24:01 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Asteroid Laser 'Drill' Speculation
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ralph Buttigieg) writes:
> hte> Note that any hardware capable of doing a manned lunar mission is also
> hte> capable of doing a short manned visit to a near-Earth asteroid (given
> hte> beefed-up life-support for a mission lasting a couple of months)...
> hte> There was a proposal to do this with the Apollo 18 hardware...
>
>Do you know what asteriods they were thinking of visiting? I know some minor
>planets require minimal delta V to get to. But I thought round trip times
>for an actual rendezvous were rather long, longer then a couple of months

It's been a long time since I saw mention of this, and I retain no details.
(As I've commented before, it is damnably difficult to find information on
missions that were proposed but not flown.)

However, the crucial fact you are missing, I'm pretty sure, is that this
proposal did *not* have to minimize delta-V; it had lots to draw on, given
a system designed for lunar landings.

The obvious way to do it -- there may be better methods -- is to launch
outward at modest velocity for a relatively long cruise phase, meet the
asteroid well before its Earth encounter, do a *big* burn to match its
orbit, spend a few days on the asteroid, and then do a modest burn to
alter your trajectory to intercept Earth at about the same time as the
asteroid's closest approach.  The S-IVB would suffice to get you into
cruise trajectory, both stages of the LM would be expended in the big
burn, and the CSM engine would do the work for the final burn.  Since
the LM would be used only as a propulsion system, considerable weight
could be saved by stripping it of all unnecessary equipment.
--
All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                    - Kipling           |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1993 22:26:14 GMT
From: "Robert J. Niland" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Aurora spotted ?
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] writes:

: 2) There is at least one inconsistency: if Aurora were that excellent,
: why does it need to fly at rather low altitude and supersonic speed
: over the Los Angeles area? "Airquakes" seem not pleasant. Common sense
: suggests that Aurora has some major flaw or drawback, otherwise it
: would avoid these airquakes.

That assumes that the airquakes are due to compression shock waves from
supersonic flight.  One of the rumors surrounding this (or these) black
aircraft is that the propulsion is a shock wave rider, using explosions
of fuel behind (external to) the vehicle.

Another rumor is that the thing (or one of the things) is unmanned.
A space-age buzz bomb.

Regards,                                            1001-A East Harmony Road
Bob Niland                                          Suite 503
Internet:  [e-mail]                              Fort Collins CO 80525
CompuServe: 71044,2124                              [phone]

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

Date: 24 Mar 93 00:38:00 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Clueless Wingoisms
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes...
>[e-mail] writes:
>

>Since any return on investment would come from public funs, this is
>only private sector money in a trivial sense.  The big problem I'm
>pointing out here is that your mindset is overwhelmingly divorced from
>any need to meet people's voluntary wants and needs in the marketplace.
>The source of your funding, and even more so the fact that you have
>been deluded into believing it is "commercial", shows how such a
>clueless vision of the future can be perpetuated.
>
>

What in the world do you mean by this? The private sector that I am speaking
of here is a Coal Company in my home state. Did someone from NASA molest you
as a child? Do you know even what trivial means? The fact that I got this
money from a company that is totally divorced from any government contract is
simply a re-affirmation that there is interest outside of the narrow stream
for what we are doing.  This is what I have been talking about of late Nick.

I don't know why I even bother answering you and in the future I won't.

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville

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

Date: Tue, 23 Mar 93 09:56:20 +0200
From: dima <[e-mail]>
Subject: Compound catadioptric Maksutov-Cassegrain Telescope Sale - cheap
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,sci.environment

>From dima Tue Mar 23 09:46:13 MSK 1993
"ALTER" - COMPOUND CATADIOPTRIC MAKSUTOV-CASSEGRAIN TELESCOPE
High transmission coating, precise worm gear clock drive,
quartz electronic drive system, regulatiable illuminated reticle,
manual slow motion controls.
       PARAMETERS:
Clear aperture, mm                    150
Effective focal lenght, mm           1500
Guide clear aperture, mm               60
Guide effective focal lenght, mm     1500
Finderscope, mm                     10*30
Visual magnification rang          30-360
Resolving power, arc-second           0.8
Format film, mm                        40
Periodic error, arc-second              7
Weight (case including), kg            29
       ACCESSORIES:
Photo-adaptor M42*1
Eyerieces:  31 mm, 18 mm
            3x Barlow lens
IF you have more information, we can to send you Instruction manual
for it by fax.
Price - 1090$ + transport (post) costs.  Made in RUSSIA.
Our address: RUSSIA, 119021, Moscow, L.Tolstogo st. 22/5 "SCAN"
E-mail: [e-mail]
tel: [phone],  425-74-14
Belov Dmitry

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

Date: Tue, 23 Mar 93 19:13:30 GMT
From: Rex Jolliff <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John R. Manuel) writes:
=Are there any articles in Aviation Week, or somewhere similar, about DC-X
=that someone can refer me to? I'm curious to see the design of the thing
=and in particular, how it will manage re-entry and still be re-usable.

Feburary 3 1992 issue (p55 i think) is an article on the project. included
is a sketch and picture of the (incredibly small) 12000 lb thrust motors.
It looks nothing like I pictured it.

                                Rex.

--
Rex Jolliff  N7PCF  ([e-mail], ...!jimi!otto!rex)
Teleguide/Hospitality Network  |Disclaimer:  The opinions and comments in
Your In-Room Casino Cash Source| this article are my own and in no way
          $$$$$$$$$$           | reflect the opinions of my employers.

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

Date: 23 Mar 93 18:24:45 GMT
From: Brad Pennock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Earth Stop Rotating!?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Lai) writes:

>Hi netters

>    I'm faced with a strange question.  What will happen to the
>climate, magnetic field, plate tectonics, and us if this happened??
>Any comments or suggestins?

                                David.
There is a good argument about the stopping and restarting of the Earth's
rotation in Carl Sagan's book "Broca's Brain."  In it he gives a detailed
account of what would happen (not pretty) and basically refutes the account
of Joshua's witnessing the Sun stopping in the sky (i.e. the stopping of
the rotation of the Earth, and it's later restart)...but then again, God
can do anything =)

:wq

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

Date: 23 Mar 93 23:34:26 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Flight time comparison: Voyager vs. Gallileo
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>   The first mention of Titan-Centaur I can find is the 1968 debate over
>   whether Viking should be an austere Titan mission or a more ambitious
>   Titan-Centaur mission.
>
>I thought the original Viking concept (then named Voyager!?)
>was for a _Saturn_ launched mission, with a seriously massive
>lander? ...

"Viking" has always referred to the more modest post-cutbacks version.

The original Voyager project was indeed a super-Viking, launched in
pairs on Saturn Vs.

The debate of which I speak revolved mostly around whether there was
going to be any sort of orbiter as part of the Viking mission.  It was
resolved in favor of the more ambitious mission, with the orbiter, which
required Titan-Centaur.
--
All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                    - Kipling           |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 23 Mar 93 12:19:23
From: Steinn Sigurdsson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Flight time comparison: Voyager vs. Gallileo
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

   In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes...
   >Galileo was going to use the heaviest booster combination the US
   >had -- Shuttle plus Centaur.

   There was one thing the planetary probes before the Shuttle era had that
   Galileo didn't have - an alternate backup launch vehicle.  In the 1960's
   and 1970's, NASA always had a backup in reserve when they were developing
   their latest rocket.  For example, ...

Ah well, no worries, in the future there will be the DC-1
to launch from, won't need any backup launchers, might as
well terminate existing systems now to fund it and terminate
all other launcher development (such as it is...)

;-)

|  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    |

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

Date: 23 Mar 93 19:36:47 GMT
From: Steve Willner <[e-mail]>
Subject: HST detectors
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
> I think HST used a line CCD array, instead of a CCD matrix, because that
> was all that had been space qualified.  of course, HST sat on the shelf
> 5 years waiting launch, but that's a whole nother flame war.

You may be thinking of the digicon detectors in the Faint Object
Spectrograph.  (There are no "line CCD arrays" on HST, as far as I
know.)  Technological maturity was one issue in the selection, but
the main one was lower read noise.

The Wide Field/Planetary Camera undertook a CCD development program.
It uses an array of four chips, each 800 pixels square.  For a while,
these were the most advanced CCD's available, though they have now
been superseded in both format and read noise.
--
Steve Willner            Phone [phone]         Bitnet:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                 Internet: [e-mail]
  member, League for Programming Freedom; contact [e-mail]

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

Date: 24 Mar 93 00:01:44 GMT
From: "Blair P. Houghton" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Life in the Universe
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.space,talk.bizarre

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Alfred M. Kriman) writes:
>On pg. 302 of _Adventures of a Mathematician_ (Charles Scribner's Sons, New
>York, 1976), Stanislaw Ulam quotes Fermi:
>    "Where is everybody?  Where are the signs of other life?"

Is it really important to us?  We sit here, naked, eating
fish and cocoanuts, watching the sun set over the lapping
waves, and arguing the nuances of the gods.

Perhaps it is just as well that Xardoz Columbus has passed
without noticing, or not yet departed, or stopped at an
eastward constellation, mistaking them for the East
Aldebarides.

Galactic economics will be dominated by the struggle for
control of infinitesimal matter in an infinity of space.
Anyone reaching us is sufficiently equipped to proclaim
themselves our masters.  Is it necessary to inject that
certain horror as a wastrel fear into what is otherwise an
idyllic existence?

                --Blair
                  "Pass the bananas."

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

Date: 23 Mar 93 22:41:32 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Skysurfing from Orbit
Newsgroups: sci.space

: > Robert Magee ([e-mail]) wrote:
: > : I could use a little data on re-entry for a short story I am laboring on.
: > : 3) How deep into the atmosphere must the shuttle descend before the wings
: > : generate sufficient lift to provide control?

: In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ken Jenks [NASA]) writes:
: > "Entry Interface" is at 400,000 feet.

Keith Mancus ([e-mail]) wrote:
:   Ken, doesn't "Entry Interface" (which [does] indeed occur at 400,000 ft)
: refer to the first touch of atmosphere, which causes deceleration to begin
: in earnest and heat shield temperatures to rise?  I don't think you get
: any aerodynamic *control* via control surfaces until you are significantly
: lower.  Correct me if I'm wrong, though.

That may be true.  Actually, we've never tested it.  The aero surfaces
don't even try to do anything interesting until much lower, so we don't
really know how low we'd have to be to start getting some control
authority.  We wouldn't want to get into some weird tumble at 200,000 ft.
All we've ever done at 400,000 ft is to stick with a boring 40-degree
angle of attack, with no attempts to manipulate the control surfaces.

But it sounds like a good Develomental Test Objective (DTO).

-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
      [e-mail]  [phone]

     "NASA turns dreams into realities and makes science fiction
      into fact" -- Daniel S. Goldin, NASA Administrator

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

Date: 23 Mar 1993 21:07:08 GMT
From: Andy Cohen <[e-mail]>
Subject: SSF Redesign....
Newsgroups: sci.space

*** Forwarding note from HBAKER  --TMISMAIL 03/22/93 14:37 ***
From: HUGH BAKER

A note to try to keep you apprised of the happenings on redesign/cost
reduction effort by the Program.

Friday afternoon, Bob Moorehead held a Level II All Hands here at Reston
and teleconed it to the Center LII Offices.  The subject was the results of
the LII redesign/cost reduction activity that the program has been engaged
in over several weeks.  Elements of this activity have been in the study
stage under the auspices of the Engineering Design Council for a few
months, so this is not completely brand new thinking.  With the Goldin
letter to change some of the driving top level requirements on the Station,
it was possible to make some of these ideas real.  The results and
recommendations for a slimmer, trimmer Space Station Freedom were briefed
to the Shea Team on Friday morning.  It is reported that the presentation
was well received.

First of all, virtually the entire SSF redesign used existing designs.
Some may require relatively minor modifications.  The redesign accomodates
the International Partners without requiring them to undergo costly
redesign.  On the latter, our activity at Reston had their full support and
participation, which the Shea Team has not had to date (and may not have).
The Goldin letter groundrules changed that had the most effect on the
decisions here were the ones having to do with making the Station
man-tended instead of permanently manned, slipping the man-tended date
requirement about a year, and reducing the design-to life of the Station
from 30 to 10 years.  There were beneficial effects from other groundrule
changes as well.

The result of the changes leave us with a Station with no port truss (may
be scarred for growth option), no HAB module, two IEA/PVAs for 37 KVA of
total power (15 KVA to users), no ACRV, and one two-loop TCS radiator.  It
will take 9 assembly flights to reach a sustainable MTC, and three flights
to accomodate the Internationals.  Unless growth option is started, NASA's
costs for assembly are finished at MTC because the Internationals pay for
their assembly flights. The result of this is that total costs come down
considerably, and the annual cost to MTC are also significantly reduced to
less than $2B/year, but the exact amount is still being worked.  I
understand that direction from the Administrator's office is to consider
the SSF redesign as part of the Shea Team, and some of the cost
restrictions have been relaxed to permit that to happen.

Operations costs limitations were also part of the groundrules (about a 50%
reduction from $2B/year to about $1B/year.  Interestingly enough, one of
the things that got us into trouble on operating costs is that we did not
take credit for the 28% of the operations costs that the Internationals
reimburse us.  MOD has developed a new approach that will probably
accomodate that.  The approach includes consolidation of operations
centers, reduced training, single fully staffed shifts, etc.  The MOD
approach is less well developed than the redesign.

Numerous management changes are also under consideration such as combining
Level I and Level II (again proposed), the potential for combining some
Shuttle and Station function and requirements, "relaxation" of S&PA
requirements, and others.  On the relaxation of S&PA requirements, this
deals with such things as contamination, factors of safety, fault
tolerance, the interpretation of fracture control requirements, etc.  Most
of these have to do with what may be overly conservative approaches to
implementation and interpretations.  For example, one contractor is adding
a 1.2 factor over the SSF required FOS, and is using elastic strain of an
elastic ("spring") member to define "failure."  The fault tolerance
argument gets back to whether we still have to meet the FOS of 1.4 after
the second failure, or can we meet simply a 1.0.  We are working with the
teams that have been established here to work these.  I know most of you
are hard into design reviews, but we would like to discuss some of the
proposed changes with you before they become baselined.

This week the SSF Reston redesign teams are engaged in individual efforts
and costing.  We reconvene next week.  The Internationals stated this
morning that they will agree to participate in the Shea Team only is a list
of conditions is met, among them that one of the three concepts to be
considered is a SSF derivative, but not necessarily the one the Program has
developed.

The note is already longer than I'd intended, but I think this is info you
should have.  If you have any questions or comments, please let me know and
I'll try to answer them.

Hugh

OK.....let the flames begin....

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

Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1993 20:39:27 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: temperature of Lunar soil
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Russ Brown) writes:
>Since the measurements were only made in the top few metres of the
>regolith, and those, of necessity, were all made during transients, the
>1.3K/m extrapolation is probably of little value.

I agree that the extrapolation is of little value.  Indeed, there are
hints in the data that the rate of increase is falling as depth increases,
but it's impossible to be sure with such scanty data.

Note, though, that the measurements were not made "during transients".
(I'm not quite sure what that is meant to mean, but I suspect the intent
was "during visits".)  The sensors were part of the ALSEP packages that
were left on the Moon; the measurements covered a number of months.
(This is why we can separate day-night variation from steady-state
temperature.  The day-night variation is zero at the depths in question.)
--
All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                    - Kipling           |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 23 Mar 1993 15:25:37 -0500
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why use AC at 20kHz for SSF Power?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>In article <1oicaq$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>

Im sorry stein, I think you don't understand the difference between
engineering test beds and operational mission platforms.  When you
want to try something new,  you expect anywhere between a 5% - 30%
risk of failure.  Look at the original Redstone and Atlas Launchers.
they were blowing up at a phenomenal rate.  You don't sign contracts
to put up a package on an untested platform,  or uncertain platform.

On operational platforms, you expect no more then 1-3 % risk of
failure or serious underperformance.  THe reason the Saturn V was
so successful was in most senses it was a very off the shelf
launcher.

I would have been very pleased to see NASA conducting engineering
test launches of platforms that ran a 20KHz secondary bus,  but
to place a $40 Billion dollar program at jeopardy to such a risky
technology for such few gains is just stupid.   Design it instead
to accept the technology as things grow.  They could have designed in
redundant AC Busses.  Put in Switching to feed 60Hz/400 Hz,  and as
20 KHz improves,  then switch the 400 hz to 20Khz.   Sure there
is a weight penalty,  but on the other hand you gain so much
flexibility and redundancy.


|
|Pat, NASAs primary purpose, as I understand it, is to do the
|leading edge innovation, not to wait for someone else to do it.

Absolutely and what do you think the HARV program is.
or the Swing wing test program,  or the supersonic test program.

But I don't see them scheduling other programs to depend on HARV availability.
These are one off test vehicles.

|As I recall their primary purpose is to find out how best to
|get objects and people into orbit, secondarily to put such

Then explain the shuttle.

|objects and people up there as the US government wants them
|to and thirdly to tell others (in the US) how to.
|
Somehow, I doubt most people are interested in learning how
to increase risk in their products.

| ...
|
|   Space engineering should develope and fund those areas it has to, not
|   serve as a pet slush fund for every pet boondoggle that comes ou;of someones
|   ear.  Who funds Closed and semi-closed life support?  NASA, Why?  because
|   they need it.  IF the Air FOrce were to,  that would be a boondoggle.
|
|Gee, I suppose the Navy isn't allowed to either.
|
Stein, by your reasoning,  the first Submarine the Navy builds should
carry Ballistic missiles,  Gas Cooled Nuclear reactors, closed cycle
life support, and be built from composite materials with Boron
supports.  The electrical gear should be 50KHz, and the comms
systems have all been fiber optics.

|   Stein, you get so fascinated with someting being new,  you forget the
|   utility value of money and the risk reduction.  The DOE national labs
|   should be testing High Frequency power,  NASA should only leap on this
|   when MASS becomes a crisis, and fat as FRED is,  it wasn't necessary.
|
|NASA should research all areas that appear to be relevant to finding
|the _best_ way of getting to and operating in space. If the Labs or
|other agencies had done work on 20kHz AC power distribution then NASA
|should look at it, if not, and they have reasonable cause to think
|it might be of use then NASA should have the leeway to investigate it.
|Same with materials, propulsion technologies, battery technology
|and even food processing.
|

Investigation is significantly different from keying vital programs
to a technologies success, with no driving reason.

| ...
|
|
|NASA has a lot of plans beyond SSF, none are funded and all
|are speculation until the US government sets a plan. Hell, currently
|NASA technically doesn't have a plan for SSF - they are waiting for
|another government approval.
|
a
What plans are these?

|They use what is available, no one package can justify developing a
|new system unless the existing systems won't do at all - that does
|not mean the current system is optimal. Oh, and it is not a good idea
|to always wait until you _need_ to deploy a new system before doing
|any development on it.
|

Exactly.  and that was the problem with 20KHz.  Lewis i am sure
has done some interesting work with it,  but by no means was it ready
for flight.

|
|   No stein.  THe time to place new systems is after you have developed
|   the technology and worked down the risk factors and  understood
|   the system implications under all circumstances.
|
|You just don't get it, you're never going to have the technology
|and low risk factors and you certainly won't understand the
|implications because no one ever deployed it because they have
|accountants looking over their shoulders who think Harvard business
|school depreciation schedules are natural law.
|
You must have never worked in any design shops.
Accounting is a pain in the ass, for any engineer, but cost is a
major criteria in any design.  Reliability and performance are
two others.  Lot's of stuff gets designed in that's new,
but it's kept off the critical path map.

Look at the problems the shuttle had.  The tiles were new technology,
and the problems delayed the program for years.   Had they gone
with less risky materials,  and placed tiles in non-critical areas
with the option to replace and upgrade,  the shuttle might have
been flying years earlier.

|
|   Because aluminum is better understood in the Vacuum environment.
|   Gee Stein, why aren't you bellowing for an all composite station?
|   Ab inito, if htey weren't doing this, why then no-one would.......
|
|By your argument the composites would never have been developed
|because aluminium would always have been sufficient - so much
|for the DC series then. Of course the development costs on the
|DC composites have already been sunk by DoD and NASA which get derided
|for wasting money while MD is applauded for applying this new yet
|well understood technology...
|

Do you know anything about the developement hsitory of composites?
Do you know how they were integrated into aircraft systems?
Do you know anything abou;the experience base developed before they
started building all composite wings?


|
|   It's not posturing bullshit, it's contemptous dismissal of an idea
|   that is plainly ridiculous and a absolute waste of my tax dollars.
|          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|In other words you only want research into systems that you know
|will work ahead of time...
|

No,  but i want to see engineering performed on systems
that have a low risk qqqquotient.  You must not know
much abou;engineering to understnad the difference.

|
|   Sorry, Stein, nobody accounts for anything with more then a
|   25 year lifespan.  If you need a 100 year payout, you are
|   looking at  technological obsolesence.
|
|Some people do. Some technological development has lead times
|far longer then 25 years - of course in an accountants world
|those technologies don't exist.
|
You name anything where they account with longer then 25 year paybacks?
Lots of technologies take decades to develope, that's why they
aren't placed into operational systems.

|
|   Nasa doesn't look into new alternatives without worrying about
|   immediate return for projects.   Every program manager works
|
|They should.

Yes, they should.  They desperately need an independent
engineering developement group.

|
|   hard at risk reduction on his particular program because if the
|   program goes south, he's out of a job.  A major complaint I and Henry have
|   about NASA is they don't have an ongoing engineering research and
|   testing program.
|
|Well, how could they, they have to show return on all their programs
|and god help them if one should actually not pan out, they'd get fried
|for wasting your tax dollars on such obviously ridicilous ideas...
|
Technically, no NASA program has a ROI.  rather they have a sink budget.
they are allocated money, with a theory of expense.  Wether it pans
or peaks, is irrelevant.  There is no Dollar return on any
science package, because they aren't in the revenue business.

rather then flame, why don't you write congress and urge that NASA
get an independent hardware developement program office.

|   It is the purpose of every project to succeed.  and gratuitous slurs
|   about the Royal society are un-needed.  ANd if you knew more about
|   history then about stars,  you'd know the brits were very big on
|   tying innovation to existing technologies.
|
|Oh, really, how long did it take for them to get a return on
|electromagnetic induction? Did they manage to scrape in under
|the 25 year deadline. Of course if the silly sods had just invested
|the salary they paid Faraday in an interest bearing account they'd
|be rolling in it now.
|
ANd of course, if they had built the Navy counting on Induction motors
to hoist all the sails,  we'd be speaking spanish or French.

Do you know that the British navy poured almost a 100 times as much
money into Babbages Difference engine for no result as the Royal SOciety
poured into John Bull's Steam Engine?  Guess which one changed the
victorian world more.

Some things are just too ambitious for the state of the art.
> ...
>
>I suppose now is a bad point to bring up the recent series of
>papers by some relativist friends of mine on time machine design...
>probably not cost effective anyway, they should be out there writing
>accounting software.
>

You seem to have a real hang up about cost accounting.
Do you balance your checkbook or budget your expenses?
This full speed ahead, and damn the expenses mentality,
Has mortaged our nations future,  and crippled NASA>

The GAO, did a re-audit of the shuttle,  and based upon the
amount of money poured into shuttle developement, we are
spending 1.5 Billion dollars/ flight.

There is now serious talk in congress about sinking the STS
entirely.  If so, it's because nobody gave a damn about life
cycle costing, and political realities.

>
>   Then if most devices are hand built,  then don't usse that as an excuse for
>   your petty argument.
>
>The point was that since they're handbuilt it is relatively easy
>to make use of whatever is available, switching to a 20kHz power
>supply is not that big a deal if that's what you get.
>

Of course, Fans, Motors, switches and all that non-sexy power hardware
is not hand built, and would have to be for the space station.
That is a big deal.

>
>   Gee stein, I hate to say this,  it must hurt your perfect little
>   world,  but Boeing's commercial market is probably 2 orders of magnitude
>   larger then NASA.  NASA spends about 1-2 billion/year on hardware,
>
>Hot damn, Boeing's turnover is $trillion? I never appreciated they
>made up 15% of the US economy...
>
Boeings revenues. are probably not more then 15 billion,  but
they are now sharing that market with Lockheed, McDac, Airbus......

The COmmercial aviation market is probably 100 Billion.

Look at the size of airports,  the number of passenger miles and
think.

Chicago O Hare is as big an entity as KSC, and think how many large airports
are in the US alone.

PS.  Aviation is a fairly large segment of the US economy.  Larger
then you think.   Dallas, Wichita, Seattle and St Louis make
aircraft a substantial part of their business.

>   Boeing probably sells 15 Billion / year on aircraft.
>
>Which, funnily enough is about the size of NASAs budget
>

But Nasa, only buys maybe 10% of that annualy as flight gear.

>   NASA buys about 10-12 rockets/ year.   Boeing sells 2-300 aircraft
>   per year.
>   Believe me,  THese guys have their own markets.  Some things they
>   glom off NASA and AF programs, but this one they don't need to.
>   And besides, stein, if 20 KHz was so hot, why aren't any other
>   nasa programs pursuing it?
>
>Oh, they've learned by now not to try anything new.
>

Cute.

>
>   Gee stein,  advocating terrorism.  Poor occupation for an astronomer.
>
>It's a historical allusion. Refers to the fact that post-war
>Germany and Japan modernised their plant and became rapidly
>competitive, while for example Britain was stuck with outdate
>plants.
>

Which do you think is cheaper.  Building plants and buying machine tools
in the midst of total devastation,  or just buying and upgrading
machine tools.

The problem was american and british companies failed to invest.
That's stupid management.

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 359
------------------------------