Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_4/V16NO436.TXT

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

Date: Thu,  8 Apr 93 05:23:23
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #436
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Thu,  8 Apr 93       Volume 16 : Issue 436

Today's Topics:
      Aerospace companies cooperate in reusable vehicle market.
                             Biosphere II
               Comet in Temporary Orbit Around Jupiter?
                   DC-X: Vehicle Nears Flight Test
            FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY for Spacecraft/Colonies
                      interested in microrovers
                      I would like some feedback
                petrochemicals (was Re: nuclear waste)
                 Question- Why is SSTO  Single Stage
                      Shuttle-C cost estimating
                       Space Research Spin Off
                          SR-71 Replacement?
                            UARS & STS-56
                 Will the launch be visible from NJ?

    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: 8 Apr 1993 00:28:49 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Aerospace companies cooperate in reusable vehicle market.
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
|What we need, at this point, is to build an orbital demonstrator.  It
|need not be a full-scale transport prototype, and indeed it need not be
|manned, but it must go into orbit repeatedly.  This is the final proof
|that the approach is workable, and it is a step we will be ready to
|take after the DC-X tests (if we aren't already -- a debatable point).
|There is no need to waste time and money repeating the preliminaries
|yet again.


Do you think the LockHeed Vega or Ford Tri-Motor were the
prototypes for the DC-1?   THis is kinda  a trivia/speculative
question.   The DC-2 then DC-3  really made long haul air transport
possible.

Given how little we know about SSTO,  would it be worth  taking an
S-II or S-IVB  out of mothballs and rigging them for  technology
testing?  there should be at least two  still around?  and the support
gear is still mostly there.

Maybe we could use them for testing effective  behaviors,
and even to test teh aero-spike nozzle concepts.

pat

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

Date: 8 Apr 1993 00:33:17 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Biosphere II
Newsgroups: sci.space

Why is everyone being so critical of B2?

It's ed Basses money,  why should we care.
If he spent it on Cocaine and hookers, no-one would care.

Be glad he didn't buy an S&L instead.

pat

besides it's  holistic science,  they are attempting to establish
an inbalance eco-sphere.  they don't need to know neccesarily
each interaction,  they need to know wether or not it will
self sustain.  to date,  it seems they are having O2 balance
problems.  It's like a farm.  if the crops grow it's a success.

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

Date: 8 Apr 1993 05:09 UT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Comet in Temporary Orbit Around Jupiter?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
> According the IAU Circular #5744, Comet Shoemaker-Levy 1993e, may be
> temporarily in orbit around Jupiter.  The comet had apparently made a
> close flyby of Jupiter sometime in 1992 resulting in the breakup of the
> comet.  Attempts to determine the comet's orbit has been complicated by
> the near impossibility of measuring the comet's center of mass.

I want to stress that the orbital computations for this comet are very
preliminary.  It is not known for certain that the comet is in a temporary
Jovian orbit.  This will take weeks or months of observations to know for
sure.  Brian Marsden sent me a message saying he based his computations on the
assumption that since the comet had broken up, it must of made a very
close flyby of Jupiter.  If he's right, then the comet may remain in
Jupiter orbit into the next century.  Otherwise, all bets are off and the
comet will head off on its merry way.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Being cynical never helps
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | to correct the situation
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | and causes more aggravation
                                                  | instead.

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

Date: 8 Apr 1993 04:44:05 GMT
From: Greg Wilkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X: Vehicle Nears Flight Test
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article [e-mail], [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <2736@snap> [e-mail]-mrc (Paul Johnson) writes:
>>How is
>>the transition from aerodynamic flight (if thats what it is) to hover
>>accomplished?  This is the really new part...
>
>It's also one of the tricky parts.  There are four different ideas, and
>DC-X will probably end up trying all of them.  (This is from talking to
>Mitch Burnside Clapp, who's one of the DC-X test pilots, at Making Orbit.)
>
>(1) Pop a drogue chute from the nose, light the engines once the thing
>    stabilizes base-first.  Simple and reliable.  Heavy shock loads
>    on an area of structure that doesn't otherwise carry major loads.
>    Needs a door in the "hot" part of the structure, a door whose
>    operation is mission-critical.
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Why is it mission-critical, if there are the three other alternatives you outlined
that could be used as a backup.

ie.  pop the chute, if that doesn't work switch off stability, if that don't
work turn the engines on and "fly" it around?

-gregw


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

Date: 7 Apr 93 18:25:17 -0600
From: [e-mail]
Subject: FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY for Spacecraft/Colonies
Newsgroups: sci.space

     The Technologies described below could be used to power spacecraft, space
colonies, etc.:


                            FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY
                       by Robert E. McElwaine, Physicist

               Ninety to a hundred years ago, everybody "knew" that a
          heavier-than-air machine could not possibly fly.  It would
          violate the "laws" of physics.   All of the "experts" and
          "authorities" said so.

               For example, Simon Newcomb declared in 1901:  "The
          demonstration that no possible combination of known
          substances, known forms of machinery and known forms of
          force, can be united in a practical machine by which man
          shall fly long distances through the air, seems to the writer
          as complete as it is possible for the demonstration of any
          physical fact to be."

               Fortunately, a few SMART people such as the Wright
          Brothers did NOT accept such pronouncements as the final
          word.  Now we take airplanes for granted, (except when they
          crash).

               Today, orthodox physicists and other "scientists" are
          saying similar things against several kinds of 'Free Energy'
          Technologies, using negative terms such as "pseudo-science"
          and "perpetual motion", and citing so-called "laws" which
          assert that "energy cannot be created or destroyed" ("1st law
          of thermodynamics") and "there is always a decrease in useful
          energy" ("2nd law of thermodynamics").  The physicists do not
          know how to do certain things, so they ARROGANTLY declare
          that those things cannot be done.  Such PRINCIPLES OF
          IMPOTENCE are COMMON in orthodox modern "science" and help to
          cover up INCONSISTENCIES and CONTRADICTIONS in orthodox
          modern theories.

               Free Energy Inventions are devices which can tap a
          seemingly UNLIMITED supply of energy from the universe, with-
          OUT burning any kind of fuel, making them the PERFECT
          SOLUTION to the world-wide energy crisis and its associated
          pollution, degradation, and depletion of the environment.

               Most Free Energy Devices probably do not create energy,
          but rather tap into EXISTING natural energy sources by
          various forms of induction.  UNLIKE solar or wind devices,
          they need little or no energy storage capacity, because they
          can tap as much energy as needed WHEN needed.  Solar energy
          has the DIS-advantage that the sun is often blocked by
          clouds, trees, buildings, or the earth itself, or is reduced
          by haze or smog or by thick atmosphere at low altitudes and
          high latitudes.  Likewise, wind speed is WIDELY VARIABLE and
          often non-existent.  Neither solar nor wind power are
          suitable to directly power cars and airplanes.  Properly
          designed Free Energy Devices do NOT have such limitations.

               For example, at least three U.S. patents (#3,811,058,
          #3,879,622, and #4,151,431) have so far been awarded for
          motors that run EXCLUSIVELY on permanent MAGNETS, seemingly
          tapping into energy circulating through the earth's magnetic
          field.  The first two require a feedback network in order to
          be self-running.  The third one, as described in detail in
          "Science & Mechanics" magazine, Spring 1980, ("Amazing
          Magnet-Powered Motor", by Jorma Hyypia, pages 45-48, 114-117,
          and front cover), requires critical sizes, shapes,
          orientations, and spacings of magnets, but NO feedback.  Such
          a motor could drive an electric generator or reversible
          heatpump in one's home, YEAR ROUND, FOR FREE.  [Complete
          descriptive copies of U.S. patents are $3.00 each from the
          U.S. Patent Office, 2021 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA
          22202; correct 7-digit patent number required.  Or try
          getting copies of BOTH the article AND the Patents via your
          local public or university library's inter-library loan
          dept..]

               A second type of free-energy device, such as the 'Gray
          Motor' (U.S. Patent #3,890,548), the 'Tesla Coil', and the
          unpatented motor of inventor Joseph Newman, taps ELECTRO-
          MAGNETIC energy by INDUCTION from 'EARTH RESONANCE' (about 12
          cycles per second plus harmonics).  They typically have a
          'SPARK GAP' in the circuit which serves to SYNCHRONIZE the
          energy in the coils with the energy being tapped.  It is
          important that the total 'inductance' and 'capacitance' of
          the Device combine to 'RESONATE' at the same frequency as
          'EARTH RESONANCE' in order to maximize the power output.
          This output can also be increased by centering the SPARK GAP
          at the 'NEUTRAL CENTER' of a strong U-shaped permanent
          magnet.  In the case of a Tesla Coil, slipping a 'TOROID
          CHOKE COIL' around the secondary coil will enhance output
          power.  ["Earth Energy: Fuelless Propulsion & Power Systems",
          by John Bigelow, 1976, Health Research, P.O. Box 70,
          Mokelumne Hill, CA  95245.]

               During the 1930's, an Austrian civil engineer named
          Viktor Schauberger invented and partially developed an
          'IMPLOSION TURBINE' (German name, 'ZOKWENDLE'), after
          analyzing erosion, and lack of erosion, in differently shaped
          waterways, and developing sophisticated mathematical
          equations to explain it.  As described in the book "A
          Breakthrough to New Free-Energy Sources", by Dan A. Davidson,
          1977, water is pumped by an IMPELLER pump through a
          LOGARITHMIC-SPIRAL-shaped coil of tubing until it reaches a
          CRITICAL VELOCITY.  The water then IMPLODES, no longer
          touching the inside walls of the tubing, and drives the pump,
          which then converts the pump's motor into an ELECTRIC
          GENERATOR.  The device seems to be tapping energy from that
          of the earth's rotation, via the 'Coriolis effect', LIKE A
          TORNADO.  [It can also NEUTRALIZE GRAVITY!]

               A fourth type of Free Energy Device is the 'McClintock
          Air Motor' (U.S. Patent #2,982,261), which is a cross between
          a diesel engine (it has three cylinders with a compression
          ratio of 27 to 1) and a rotary engine (with solar and
          planetary gears).  It burns NO FUEL, but becomes self-running
          by driving its own air compressor.  This engine also
          generates a lot of heat, which could be used to heat
          buildings; and its very HIGH TORQUE makes it ideal for large
          trucks, preventing their slowing down when climbing hills.
          [David McClintock is also the REAL original Inventor of the
          automatic transmission, differential, and 4-wheel drive.]

               Crystals may someday be used to supply energy, as shown
          in the Star Trek shows, perhaps by inserting each one between
          metal capacitor plates and bombarding it with a beam of
          particles from a small radioactive source like that used in a
          common household smoke detector.

               One other energy source should be mentioned here,
          despite the fact that it does not fit the definition of Free
          Energy.  A Bulgarian-born American Physicist named Joseph
          Maglich has invented and partially developed an atomic FUSION
          reactor which he calls 'Migma', which uses NON-radioactive
          deuterium as a fuel [available in nearly UNLIMITED quantities
          from sea water], does NOT produce radioactive waste, can be
          converted DIRECTLY into electricity (with-OUT energy-wasting
          steam turbines), and can be constructed small enough to power
          a house or large enough to power a city.  And UNLIKE the
          "Tokamaks" and laser fusion MONSTROSITIES that we read about,
          Migma WORKS, already producing at least three watts of power
          for every watt put in.  ["New Times" (U.S. version), 6-26-78,
          pages 32-40.]

               And then there are the 'cold fusion' experiments that
          have been in the news lately, originally conducted by
          University of Utah researchers B. Stanley Pons and Martin
          Fleischmann.  Some U.S. Navy researchers at the China Lake
          Naval Weapons Center in California, under the direction of
          chemist Melvin Miles, finally took the trouble to collect
          the bubbles coming from such an apparatus, had them analyzed
          with mass-spectrometry techniques, and found HELIUM 4, which
          PROVES that atomic FUSION did indeed take place, and enough
          of it to explain the excess heat generated.

               There are GOOD INDICATIONS that the two so-called "laws"
          of thermodynamics are NOT so "absolute".  For example, the
          late Physicist Dewey B. Larson developed a comprehensive
          GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe, which he
          calls the 'Reciprocal System', (which he describes in detail
          in several books such as "Nothing But Motion" (1979) and "The
          Universe of Motion" (1984)), in which the physical universe
          has TWO DISTINCT HALVES, the material half and an anti-matter
          half, with a CONTINUOUS CYCLE of matter and energy passing
          between them, with-OUT the "heat death" predicted by
          thermodynamic "laws".  His Theory explains the universe MUCH
          BETTER than modern orthodox theories, including phenomena
          that orthodox physicists and astronomers are still scratching
          their heads about, and is SELF-CONSISTENT in every way.  Some
          Free Energy Devices might be tapping into that energy flow,
          seemingly converting "low-quality energy" into "high-quality
          energy".

               Also, certain religious organizations such as 'Sant Mat'
          and 'Eckankar' teach their Members that the physical universe
          is only the LOWEST of at least a DOZEN major levels of
          existence, like parallel universes, or analogous to TV
          channels, as described in books like "The Path of the
          Masters", by Julian Johnson, 1939, and "Eckankar: The Key to
          Secret Worlds", by Sri Paul Twitchell, 1969.  For example,
          the next level up from the physical universe is commonly
          called the 'Astral Plane'.  Long-time Members of these groups
          have learned to 'Soul Travel' into these higher worlds and
          report on conditions there.  It seems plausible that energy
          could flow down from these higher levels into the physical
          universe, or be created at the boundary between them, given
          the right configuration of matter to channel it.  This is
          supported by many successful laboratory-controlled
          experiments in PSYCHO-KINESIS throughout the world, such as
          those described in the book "Psychic Discoveries Behind the
          Iron Curtain".

               In terms of economics, the market has FAILED.  Inventors
          do not have enough money and other resources to fully develop
          and mass-produce Free Energy Equipment, and the conventional
          energy producer$ have no desire to do so because of their
          VE$TED INTERE$T$.  The government is needed to intervene.  If
          the government does not intervene, then the total supply of
          energy resources from the earth will continue to decline and
          will soon run out, prices for energy will increase, and
          pollution and its harmful effects (including the 'GREENHOUSE
          EFFECT', acid rain, smog, radioactive contamination, oil
          spills, rape of the land by strip mining, etc.) will continue
          to increase.

               The government should SUBSIDIZE research and development
          of Free Energy by Inventors and universities, subsidize
          private production (until the producers can make it on their
          own), and subsidize consumption by low-income consumers of
          Free Energy Hardware.

               The long-range effects of such government intervention
          would be wide-spread and profound.  The quantity of energy
          demanded from conventional energy producer$ (coal mining
          companie$, oil companie$ and countries, electric utilitie$,
          etc.) would drop to near zero, forcing their employees to
          seek work elsewhere.  Energy resources (coal, uranium, oil,
          and gas) would be left in the ground.  Prices for
          conventional energy supplies would also drop to near zero,
          while the price of Free Energy Equipment would start out high
          but drop as supply increases (as happened with VCR's,
          personal computers, etc.).  Costs of producing products that
          require large quantities of energy to produce would decrease,
          along with their prices to consumers.  Consumers would be
          able to realize the "opportunity costs" of paying electric
          utility bills or buying home heating fuel.  Tourism would
          benefit and increase because travelers would not have to
          spend their money for gasoline for their cars.  Government
          tax revenue from gasoline and other fuels would have to be
          obtained in some other way.  And energy could no longer be
          used as a MOTIVE OR EXCUSE FOR MAKING WAR.

               Many conventional energy producer$ would go out of
          business, but society as a whole, and the earth's environment
          and ecosystems, would benefit greatly.  It is the People,
          that government should serve, rather than the big
          corporation$ and bank$.


               UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this
          IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED.


                                   Robert E. McElwaine
                                   B.S., Physics, UW-EC

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

Date: Wed, 07 Apr 93 13:24:28 EST
From: "S.K. Whiteman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: interested in microrovers

For anyone interested in microrover technology there is an article in
April 1993 issue of NASA Tech Briefs, vol 17 no 4, on page 36. The
article describes some of the nifty things the 15 Kg machine can do.
There is a TSP, technical support package, available; NPO-18543. The
work was done by David Miller, et al., of JPL.
        \       /___________________         Sam
         \_____/         1794-1994 |         IBM Systems Programmer
Chicago/ |                     *   |  O      Indiana University -
    I    |               Ft. Wayne |  H      Purdue University at Fort Wayne
    L    |                         |         Fort Wayne, Indiana USA

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

Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1993 03:26:38 GMT
From: Pacific Knowledge <[e-mail]>
Subject: I would like some feedback
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech,sci.physics,sci.psychology,sci.research,sci.space,de.sci.misc,aus.general

Last week I posted an article in misc.entrepreneurs and sci.anthropologists.
I won't bore you with the same posting.  It's probably still there if you
want to read it.  But, I got an incredible response to the posting.  So,
I thought I would abreviate it a litte and share it with other people.

It has long been my desire to have a company that could integrate the
best of both industry and academmia.  For years I worked as a roboticist
and laser engineer.  My interests ran far beyond these fields.  I lusted
for knowledge in many areas of life.  But, the story goes, when you have
to work, school pretty much stops.  You have a skill set, you are hired
for it, you perform, and you get paid.  Hopefully, your job is interesting
and expands your horizons. Yet, horizons are never expanded as they are in
an academic research environment.

That isn't to glorify the academic research environment.  It has its own
problems, not the least of which is no money for research or salary. Long
hard hours are spent making someone else famous at the conferences...

I knew that there had to be a way to make money while being able to do
the kind of research I wanted to do.  Two years ago I started Pacific
Knowledge with my son and 2 friends.  The mission was to create a
multi-disciplinary research company.  To fund this company we would work
doing what we were all good at: computer programming.

As a company, I would say we have been fairly successful.  We have lasted
2 years and grown from the four of us to a staff of 15 full time permanent
employees enjoying nice salaries and benefits.  Our staff now offers program-
ming, telecommunications, media, research and computer service.  We have not
really been successful at creating the wonderful multi-disciplinary research
company we had hoped for.  The idea of being self-funded rather than rely
on grants or venture capital has been both tough and gratifying.  It has
kept us from growing quicker, and a little hungry at times, but left us with
complete control.

I run this company.  I haven't got a clue how to create the very progressive
company we all want to have.  I am clutching at straws to lead us in the right
direction.  I am posting this because I want feedback from people actually
in the research field on what kind of company they would like to see and how
they see it working.  I am asking whole heartedly for your assistance.
We are not in any danger of going under. Quite the contrary.  We are getting
busier by the day.  We are making some strides toward adding resources that
will aid us in becoming the kind of high tech research company we envision.

I need assistance because I have, until my posting I spoke of, run into a
wall of 8 - 5 "employees" with all the vision of a blindered myopic carriage
horse. Now I suppose I'll tell you how I really feel...  I need to find others
that believe that education does not have to stop.  We believe that the kind
of company that will succeed in the future is a learning organization.

I remember hearing the story of how Japanese car engines are so much better
designed because of the systems approach to design. Example: All of the bolts
are the same size instead of the American design of as many sizes as there are
bolts.  A multi-disciplinary approach to design is the approach we hope to take
with our company in the future.

Well, this has become incoherent rambling.  I hope you will respond with
some feedback.  Thanks.

Ted Coombs
Pacific Knowledge
[e-mail]
510-687-5960

--
=====================================================================

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

Date: 8 Apr 93 01:14:50 GMT
From: Paul Dietz <[e-mail]>
Subject: petrochemicals (was Re: nuclear waste)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] ("RWTMS2::MUNIZB") writes:

> I remember hearing that: oil is more useful (worth more?) as
> petrochemical products such as plastics and fertilizers than as a fuel
> since there are other energy sources that can be used, but no other
> readily available feedstocks; but oil is still used because of energy
> density/storability probelms with alternate sources.

There are actually plenty of other feedstocks for plastics, its just
that petroleum is currently the cheapest (and likely to remain the
cheapest as long as the Saudis are selling oil).

BTW, fertilizer is not made from oil.  Nitrogenous fertilizer is made
from ammonia, which is made from air and natural gas (rather, hydrogen
obtained by steam reforming natural gas).  Phosphate and potassium are
mined, as are the trace elements.  The closest you might come to oil
is the sulfuric acid used to process the phosphate rock, but that can
be and is obtained from other sources (sulfur from "sour" gas, as a
byproduct of some coal desulfurization technologies, and ultimately
by thermal decomposition of sulfate minerals).

Plastics themselves make up a rather small fraction of the petroleum
use (I think its something like 3%).  The major ones at least can be
fairly easily made from other sources.  For example, if you have
carbon (coal or pyrolyzed biomass, say), you can make acetylene via
the calcium carbide route.  Then,

    acetylene + hydrogen --> ethylene --> polyethylene and
                          alpha-olefins

    3 acetylene --> benzene,
     then benzene + ethylene --> ethyl benzene -->
        styrene --> polystyrene

    acetylene + hydrogen chloride --> vinyl chloride --> PVC.

This handles most of the major commodity plastics (PET and
polypropylene I left out, but propylene at least should be
manufacturable, if only by cracking of medium molecular weight olefins
from partial condensation of ethylene.)

You can also make ethylene from ethanol, and there is the route from
syngas (CO + H2) to hydrocarbons by the Fischer-Tropsch reaction
(syngas is already used to make methanol, ammonia, formaldehyde,
acetic anhydride and methyl acetate.)  We can expect all these
chemical processes to become easier in the future as better catalysts
are found.

    Paul

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

Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1993 22:43:08 GMT
From: "Carlos G. Niederstrasser" <phoenix.Princeton.EDU![e-mail]>
Subject: Question- Why is SSTO  Single Stage
Newsgroups: sci.space

    My question is as follows.  As I understand it the main theme behind
SSTO is quick, cheap, and good.  The idea is to get a operational launch
vehicle designed and tested as quickly as possible, and then to have a fast
and cheap operation cycle.  But why use only one stage?
    I can see where one stage reduces the complexity involved, since with
two stages you have more systems.  However, we pay a very high penalty on
payload capability.
    For instance, how about a two stage vehicle in which the top stage is
essentially the current DC format which goes up and then reenters turns around
and lands.  But then there is also a first stage  that never gets out of the
atmosphere and can parachute, or even better land, back to its base.  Could
most operations still be kept at an airliner-type level?
    I would think that by applying all the concepts of SSTO to a double
stager we would get nearly the same price and time performance, but with
higher payload capabilities.

---
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Carlos G. Niederstrasser        |  Only two things are infinite,  |
| Princeton Planetary Society     |      the universe and human     |
|                                 |   stupidity, and I'm not sure   |
|                                 |   about the former. - Einstein  |
| [e-mail]   |---------------------------------|
| [e-mail]     |    Ad Astra per Ardua Nostra    |
---------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 8 Apr 1993 00:17:34 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle-C cost estimating
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:
|[e-mail] (Pat) writes:
|
|
|>NASA drops 4 Billion  for 8 STS  missions,  most of that is fixed costs.
|
|Love your accounting method:
|
|(1) ignore upfront R&D and tooling costs (more of which would be
|necessary to build a Shuttle-C)
|(2) pick the very best year for your numbers.  Equally valid would
|be to say that NASA drops $4 billion a year for zero STS missions (1986
|and 1987), so that STS costs are infinite.
|

Down Nick.   All STS developement costs have been written off
as Sunk COsts.  A typical government accounting method.  Also a
typical free market accounting method.   It part of the GAAS.

Also  Most of Shuttle -C  has been engineered for,  and the shuttle
fab line is still at Palmdale.  Start up costs,  i threw in
under the 100 million dollar figure.

|Adding up _all_ costs that have been incurred to develop and support
|STS, including interests costs, and dividing by the total number of
>flights gives us well over $1 billion per flight.  Of course, there is
>no shortage of creative accounting schemes that allow one to
>ignore various costs and bring down the cost estimate as low
>as you like.
>

Hey,  given the projected flight Rate of teh STS  until 2006,  the projected
end of the system, assuming no more orbiter construction,  assuming a
fixed cost to money  gives about 1.5 billion per flight.  Abou;t the
constant dollars cost of Saturn V  missions.

We've been down the shuttle mission cost road before.  WHy bother bringing
it up?  Dennis thinks it's 27 Million a shot.  Alan thinks it a billion
a shot.  Me I go with the Av Week and GAO numbers.  It's better for
current conditions.

>The lesson here is that for Shuttle-C we will have new R&D costs,
>new tooling costs, etc.  If done the way STS was done we will


WHo says the SHuttle C needs all new tooling?  In fact, it should be
faster and easier then a STS.  No wings,  simple control electronics.

Payload doors  only need to work once, use explosive bolts to blow them
if neccessary....

THe big problem with the C,  is given the high cost of flight rate,
we are looking at 500 million per C mission  plus 2-3 hundred million
per bird.

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

Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1993 01:51:58 GMT
From: Nick Szabo <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Research Spin Off
Newsgroups: sci.space

Michael Adams:
>>Question is can someone give me 10 examples of direct NASA/Space related
>>research that helped humanity in general? It will be interesting to see..

Pat> TANG :-) Mylar I think.

There were both developed in the private sector before NASA came along.

Ditto for Teflon, developed by DuPont in the 1930s.

Pat>[composites, fly by wire]

NASA did not originate either of these and played only a minor
role in developing them.

[e-mail] (Mary Shafer) writes:
>Swept wings. Winglets.

Germany, WWII.

> Area ruling.  Digital fly by wire.  Ride smoothing.
>Microwave landing systems.  Supercritical wings.  General aviation
>air foils.

The U.S. military and commercial aviation played larger roles in
developing all of these than NASA.   The same is true of pacemakers
and telemetry, two other alleged NASA spinoffs.  Furthermore most
of this stuff is aeronautics research, not space research which was
the original question.

In any case most of this stuff is trivia.  Let's look at some of
the inventions more fundamentally important to the space program
and civilization in general, where they came from:

Rocket, liquid fuel: Goddard, Oberth, et. al.  Over 90% of the
basic design of today's liquid fuel rockets was completed in the
private sector by the late 1930's, most of that work funded
by private clubs and research foundations.
Transistor: Bell Labs, 1949, privately funded.
Integrated circuit: Texas Instruments, 1965, privately funded.
Klystron: Varian Brothers, 1937, privately funded.

It's stunning, really: over 90% of space R&D funds have been spent
by governments, but the overwhelming majority of inventions important
to spaceflight come from the private sector.  It's very sad to think
about how much talent and effort has been squandered, but on the
other hand it may show us the way towards a greatly accelerated
R&D effort in the future.

The benefits of space research are (a) learning more science, which
benefits the economy in the long run across the board, and (b)
building industries that directly use space, such as communications
satellites, navigation, enviromental monitoring, and defense
uses.  It has never made sense to do research in one application
for the purpose of spinoffs to another application; much more
progress is made by working directly on the desired application,
and taking advantage of unpredictable spinoffs to other areas as
they come along.




--
Nick Szabo                     [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1993 18:27 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: SR-71 Replacement?

Does anyone have any info on a replacement for the SR-71 aircraft.  A
friend claims he saw an article around Dec 92 or early 93 which had a
plane making the USA - Europe flight in just about an hour (Shades of
Lens Crafters).   My understanding is nothing is currently in inventory
or about to come on line to replace the SR-71s capabilities.

+---------------------------+-------------------------------+
| [e-mail]  |   THINK!..If you are already  |
|                           |   thinking, please disregard  |
|   John Pomeroy            |   this message.               |
+---------------------------+-------------------------------+

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

Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 17:22:00 GMT
From: Lee Matheson <[e-mail]>
Subject: UARS & STS-56
Newsgroups: sci.space

From: [e-mail] (Lee Matheson)
Subject: UARS & STS-56

Does anyone know if the Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite (UARS)
project plans to coordinate any of their observations with the upcoming
STS-56 mission?

Lee Matheson
Ottawa

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

Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1993 22:19:57 GMT
From: "Carlos G. Niederstrasser" <phoenix.Princeton.EDU![e-mail]>
Subject: Will the launch be visible from NJ?
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space

The subject says it all.  I'm in central NJ, little southwest of New York
City.

Please answer by e-mail, since I probably will not check news before the
launch.

---
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Carlos G. Niederstrasser        |  Only two things are infinite,  |
| Princeton Planetary Society     |      the universe and human     |
|                                 |   stupidity, and I'm not sure   |
|                                 |   about the former. - Einstein  |
| [e-mail]   |---------------------------------|
| [e-mail]     |    Ad Astra per Ardua Nostra    |
---------------------------------------------------------------------

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 436
------------------------------