Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_9/V16NO938.TXT

Text File | 1993-08-03 | 43KB | 864 lines

Space Digest                Thu, 29 Jul 93       Volume 16 : Issue 938

Today's Topics:
     Buran Hype? (was Re: DC-X Prophets and associated problems)
     Cold Fusion and its possible uses (if it is proven to exist)
            DC-X Prophets and associated problems (2 msgs)
               Manned space flight reference literature
          Omnibus Space Commercialization Act (definitions)
        Omnibus Space Commercialization Act (Title I: Policy)
                           Retro Aerospace

    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: Wed, 28 Jul 1993 16:47:27 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Buran Hype? (was Re: DC-X Prophets and associated problems)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dennis Newkirk) writes:


>"When the decision on the development of the Soviet aerospace system was
>made, the Molniya Scientific Production Association, which Lozino-
>Lozhinskiy heads, proposed to take as a basis its "ancient" (13 years
>had been lost) Spiral design. However, it was rejected with a quite
>strange explanation: "This is not at all what the Americans are doing." "
>[Moscow KRASNAYA ZVEZDA (First edition) in Russian 31 Jul 91 p 4, [Article
>by Colonel M. Rebrov "The Revolutions of 'Spiral'. A Biography and
>Portrait of the Chief Designer of the Buran Space Plane"]
>FBIS-UPS-91-004, 8/20/91]

>"[The Spiral] was very good project, but it was one more mistake of our
>government. They said Americans didn't have a space shuttle and we
>shouldn't have one [either] and it was destroyed. And then after you
>made your space shuttle, immediately they demanded a space shuttle.
>It was very crazy of our government."
>[Interview with cosmonaut Georgi Grechko by Dennis Newkirk, 4/6/93]

So just what did 'Spiral' look like and why did it make sense where
Buran/Shuttle do not?  Was it more like the original proposals for the
Shuttle system?  Just where was it different?

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

Date: 28 Jul 93 17:33:38 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Cold Fusion and its possible uses (if it is proven to exist)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.space

`]In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
> I can't agree that it's "just a matter of rate."  That answer seems
> to hide a more fundamental truth.  I presume that the rate of
> cold fusion according to standard QM tunnelling calculations at
> room temperature is so incredibly small that you could never hope
> to actually measure it in a real experiment on the desktop.

True, traditional QM measurements do say just that, but, listening
to Pons at his Indiana University talk shortly after his press
sonference and also reading the Conressional Committee's report, all
CF people aren;t claiming a fundamentally new process, they are
mereyl saying that the chemical activity present in such a cell
can be though of as pressure which pushes the two nuclei closer
together than their normal equilibrium distances.  QM tells you
that the fusion rate is dramatically dependent on distance, so
the only new process being postulated is something that pushes
the nuclei closer, increasing rate.  The only new thing they proposed
was fusion without the emission of gammas and netrons, since they
couldn't measure enough.  Thus, they propose new DECAY mechanisms, not
new FUSION mechanisms

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

Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1993 17:28:57 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

>>A valid one according to my research. We are now looking at TWO repair
>>missions upping the total cost to well over $1B. If we assume that HST..

>Blessed are those who re-write history in order to suit their own agendas, for
>they will find "facts" to support their arguements.

Please Doug, no whining.

>Hubble was designed to be repaired in orbit.  Now how much of those "repair"
>missions are regular maintenance?  Certainly gyro replacement is.  Some of
>the other instrument replacements is expected wear and tear.

well, I suppose almost all of them are for maintenance. But since each one
costs more than building and launching a brand new HST, your statement is
rather pointless. When a car costs more to repair than replace, we call the
car 'totaled' and get rid of it and this is no different.

>Perhaps you'd like to pull out what costs are not expected and put them on the
>table?

I already have but if you want to see them again, OK. According to a recent
article in The Economist, the repair will cost $540 million plus Shuttle
flights. It will take one or two missions for the repair so we are
looking at a cost of between $1.6 billion and $1.1 billion for the repair.

Now at the same time, a NASA study (The Economist, June, 26, 1993) states
that NASA spends, on the average, six times what the private sector does
for development projects. So assuming HST is a typical program then a
commercially procured HST would cost less than $300M (using Wales's figures).
With a quanity buy, HST's can be had for even less, but we'll use the
$300M figure. BTW, another article (The Economist, July 17, 1993) mentiones
a BMDO project which could make a similar telescope for $300M which tends
to confirm my number.

So we take our $300M HST, and send it up on a Titan III (with a kick
stage to boost to a higher orbit) or a Titan IV. Either vehicle can
be had commercially for less than $200M.

This gives us a total cost for a replacement HST at less than $500M
which is half to a third of what NASA will spend to repair the old HST.

>Perhaps you'd also like to place a dollar value on the downtime between
>launching replacments, since you have the magical mystical spreadsheet?

I know it seems magical and mystical to you Doug, but it's just simple
arithmatic. You yourself could do it if you got yourself a calculator!

As to the value of the downtime, there would be no downtime and we would
gain the advantage of having access to multiple telescopes over time.

>Perhaps, you could also establish how you could GUARANTEE that the money for a
>replacement could be found?

There are no gurantees in life Doug. We need to make a choice between a
pork laden space program which doesn't work very well, costs too much, and
hangs by a thread or a cost effective space program that does more, costs
less, and hopfully, will enjoy more public support.

You might do well to look closer at the experience on DC. It went from
being an unknown small effort to gaining wide acceptance in a very short
time. In Congress, the House supports it and the Senate opposes it. The
House has been briefed by insiders and activists (many of whom are on the
net) and believes it to be a change from the buisness as usual you advocate.
The Senate, on the other hand, hasn't been as extensively briefed and thinks
SSRT is just another launcher project to fund the production of view
graphs and opposes it for that reason.

This shows that Congress will support a cost effective program but is
loosing patience with the waste we have seen to date.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------9 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX------------------------+

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

Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1993 17:40:13 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems
Newsgroups: sci.space

I'm not sure who wrote this:

>>: PS.  The plan called for a maned mars mission in seven years, for 40
>>: billion!

However, I should point out an error. The LLNL plan was that the $40B
(+- about $10B) was for a permanent Lunar base only. The plan had
the preliminary design for a Mars vehicle but wanted to wait until then
to cost out a Mars effort.

  Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------9 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX------------------------+

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

Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1993 16:49:49 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Manned space flight reference literature
Newsgroups: sci.space

I have *started* a list of reference literature for manned space flight.
I would also like to supplement this list with films and video.
Please send additions, updates/corrections to:
        [e-mail]

Does the US Government Printing Office have an email address?
Maybe this could be submitted to the FAQ when complete.

--
"An Administrative History of NASA, 1958-1963", National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, Washington DC, 1966.

"Apollo 10 (AS-505) Flight Summary", Manned Spaceflight Center, Houston
Texas, The NASA History Series, NASA SP-TBD, US Government Printing Office,
Washington DC.

"Apollo 11 Mission Commentary", Transcript July 16-24 1969, Johnson Space
Flight Center, Houston Texas, Public Affairs Office.

"Apollo 11 Mission Minutes, Mission Control, July 20, 1969", Videotape,
Johnson Space Flight Center, Houston Texas.

"Apollo Expeditions to the Moon", The NASA History Series, NASA SP-350, US
Government Printing Office, Washington DC.

"Apollo Launch Complex 39", US Army Corps of Engineers, Merritt Island
Florida, The NASA History Series, NASA SP-TBD, US Government Printing
Office, Washington DC, 1967.

"Apollo", Murray and Cox.

"Apollo: Ten Years Since Tranquillity Base", Richard P. Hallion and Tom D.
Crouch, National Air and Space Museum,  Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington DC, 1979.

"Appointment on the Moon", Lewis.

"Carrying the Fire: An Astronauts Story", Michael Collins, Random House, New
York, 1974, ISBN 0-374-11919-8.

"Challenger: A Major Malfunction", McConnell and Malcolm, Doubleday, Garden
City New York, 1987.

"Chariots for Apollo", CR Pellegrino, ISBN 0-8306-2932-8.

"Chariots for Apollo: A History of Manned Lunar Spacecraft", Courtney G. Brooks,
James M. Grimwood, Loyd S. Swenson, Jr., The NASA History Series, NASA SP-
4205 (maybe SP-4303?), US Government Printing Office, Washington DC,
1979.

"Countdown: An Autobiography", Frank Borman, with Robert J. Stirling, Silver
Arrow Books, New York, 1988.

"First on the Moon: A Voyage With Neil Armstrong, Mike Collins, and Edwin E.
Aldrin", Gene Farmer and Dora Jane Hamblin, Little, Boston, 1970.

"For All Mankind", Harry Hurt III, Queen Anne Press, 1989, ISBN 0-356-
17887-9 (a companion book to the feature film "For All Mankind" produced and
directed by Al Reinert).

"Handbook of Soviet Lunar and Planetary Exploration", Nicholas L. Johnson,
Univelt, San Diego, 1979.

"Handbook of Soviet Manned Space Flight", Nicholas L. Johnson, Univelt, San
Diego, 1988.

"Investigation into the Apollo 204 Accident: Hearings", House Committee on
Aeronautical and Space Sciences, US Senate, 90th Congress, First and Second
Sessions, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 20402, April 10 -
May 10, 1967.

"Jane's Spaceflight Directory", Jane's, New York, 1984.

"Journey to Tranquillity", Young, Hugo, Bryan Silcock, and Peter Dunn,
Doubleday, New York, 1970.

"Liftoff: The Story of America's Adventure in Space", Mike Collins, Grove Press,
New York, 1988.

"Men from Earth", Buzz Aldrin and Malcolm McConnell, Bantam Books, 1989,
ISBN 0-553-05374-4.

"Moonport, A History of Apollo Launch Facilities and Operations", Charles D.
Benson and William B. Faherty, The NASA History Series, NASA SP-4204, US
Government Printing Office, Washington DC, 1978 (Stock Number 033-000-
00740-0, Catalog Number NAS 1.21:4204).

"Moonwreck", (About Apollo 13) Henry Cooper, 1975.

"Of a Fire on the Moon", Norman Mailer, Little, Boston, 1971.

"On the Shoulders of Titans: The History of Project Gemini", Barton C. Hacker and
James M. Grimwood, The NASA History Series, NASA SP-4203, US Government
Printing Office, Washington DC, 1977.

"Pioneering the Space Frontier: An Exciting Vision of Our Next Fifty Years in
Space", Thomas O. Paine, Chairman, National Commission on Space, Bantam
Books, New York, 1986.

"Prescription for Disaster", Joseph Trento, Crown Publishers, New York, 1987.

"Project Apollo: The Way to the Moon", PJ Bucker, GC Frewer, and GKC Pardoe,
Published by Chatto & Windus, London, 1971.

"Project Mercury: A Chronology", James M. Grimwood, Manned Spaceflight
Center Publication HR-1, The NASA History Series, NASA SP-4001, US
Government Printing Office, Washington DC, 1963.

"Red Star in Orbit", James E. Oberg, Random House, New York, 1981.

"Report of the Apollo 204 Review Board to the Administrator, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration", NASA History Office, US Government
Printing Office, Washington DC, April 5, 1967.

"Return to Earth", Col. Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin Jr., with Wayne Warga, Random
House, New York, 1973.

"Russia Meant to  Win the 'Moon Race'", James E. Oberg, Spaceflight, Volume 17,
Number 5, November 1975.

"Russians in Space", Evgeny Riabchikov (Guy Daniels trans.), Doubleday, New
York, 1971.

"Soviet Science", Zhores A. Medvedev, Norton, New York, 1976.

"Soyuz 1 Ten Years After: New Conclusions ", James E. Oberg, Spaceflight,
Volume 19, Number 5, May 1977.

"Space Dealers", Hoyt.

"Space History", Tony Osman, St. Martin's Press, New York, 1983.

"Space Travel: A History", Wernher von Braun, Frederick I. Ordway, and Dave
Dooling, Harper & Row, New York, 1985.

"Stages to Saturn", Roger E Bilstein, The NASA History Series, NASA SP-4206,
US Government Printing Office, Washington DC, 1980.

"The All American Boys", Walter Cunningham, with Mickey Herkowitz,
Macmillan, New York, 1977.

"The Apollo Spacecraft: A Chronology, Volume IV, January 21, 1966 to July 13,
1974", Ivan D. Ertel and Roland W. Newkirk, with Courtney G. Brooks, The NASA
History Series, NASA SP-TBD, US Government Printing Office, Washington DC,
1978.

"The Decision to Go to the Moon: Project Apollo and the National Interest", John
M. Logsdon, MIT Press, Cambridge Massachusetts, 1970.

"The Eagle Has Wings", Andrew Wilson, Unwin Bros, London, 1982.

"The Encyclopedia of Soviet Spacecraft", Douglas Hart, Exeter Books, New York,
1987.

"The Heavens and Earth: A Political History of the Space Age", Walter A.
McDougall, Basic Books, New York, 1985.

"The Hidden History of the Soyuz Project", James E. Oberg, Spaceflight, Volume
17, Numbers 8 and 9, August - September 1975.

"The Kremlin and the Cosmos", Nicholas Daniloff, Knopf, New York, 1972.

"The Right Stuff", Tom Wolf.

"The Rocket Team", Frederick I. Ordway and Mitchell R. Sharpe, MIT Press,
Cambridge Massachusetts, 1979.

"The Rocket: The History and Development of Rocket and Missile Technology",
David Baker, Crown, New York, 1986.

"The Russian Space Bluff", Leonid Vladimirov, Dial Press, New York, 1973.

"The Soviet Manned Space Program: An Illustrated History of the Men, the
Missions, and the Spacecraft", Orion Books, New York, 1988.

"Thirteen: The Flight That Failed", Cooper.

"This New Ocean: A History of Project Mercury", Loyd S. Swenson Jr., James M.
Grimwood, Charles C. Alexander, The NASA History Series, NASA SP-TBD, US
Government Printing Office, Washington DC, 1966.

"Uncovering Soviet Disasters: Exploring the Limits of Glasnost", James E. Oberg,
Random House, New York, 1988.

"Wernher von Braun", Eric Bergaust, National Space Institute, Washington DC,
1976.

"Where No Man Has Gone Before: A History of Apollo Lunar Exploration
Missions", WD Compton, The NASA History Series, NASA SP-4214, US
Government Printing Office, Washington DC, 1989.

--
The NASA History Series is available for sale in paperback by the NASA
Superintendent of Documents, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC,
20402.
--
Use this address: [e-mail], NOT the other one.

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

Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1993 17:11:50 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Omnibus Space Commercialization Act (definitions)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jim Bowery) writes:

>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Never attribute to ignorance that which can be attributed to self interest.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, just what is your self interest here, Jim?  There sure seems to be
more than enough that needs to be attributed to *something*.

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

Date: Wed, 28 Jul 93 10:54:22 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Jim Bowery)
Subject: Omnibus Space Commercialization Act (Title I: Policy)

TITLE I--STATEMENT OF UNITED STATES SPACE POLICY

SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.
        This title may be referred to as the "Space Policy Act of 1991".

SEC. 102.  INTENT OF CONGRESS.
        (a) IN GENERAL.--The intent of Congress is that America and the
American way of life should expand onto the space frontier.  Space shall not

remain a preserve of the Government.  Activities in space shall have the
greatest possible protection under all parts of the Constitution,  Federal
law,  and Common law.  The Federal Government shall allow the free market to
operate in space related activities with the minimum possible interference.
The major responsibilities for space development shall be shifted from the
public to the private sector.  The intent of Congress is laid out in section
103,  interpreted to enumerate goals in section 104,  and detailed
implementation is specified in the rest of this title.  The rest of the
omnibus space commercialization act is derived from,  and subservient to title
I.  Title I supersedes any past legislation,  as well as taking precedence
over future legislation which does not specifically amend it to prevent this.


SEC. 103.  ASSUMPTIONS AND MOTIVATIONS FROM WHICH UNITED STATES SPACE POLICY
SHALL DERIVE.
        (a) ASSUMPTIONS.--
        (1) America's lasting prestige in space will come from the
accomplishment of her private citizens making use of the opportunities they
find on this new frontier.
        (2) Government subsidy of several points of demand is preferable to
government subsidy of supply or a single point of demand.
        (3) The government should only engage in direct subsidies and
expenditures to generate new knowledge which cannot be held as intellectual
property and will be placed in the public domain.
        (4) All space related goods and services can and should be provided by
the private sector rather than the government.
        (5) The development of a robust commercial space industry  is required
to maintain the health and growth of the economy and sustain the position of
the United States as a world power.
        (6) The United States government's attempts to fill the role of the
private sector in opening and profiting from the space frontier have been
unsuccessful.
        (7) Only the private sector operating in a commercially reasonable
environment can control costs so as to develop more economical space
transportation vehicles,  spacecraft,  and other payloads and space related
services.
        (8) The United States government should not use its special legal
powers in conducting space related business,  but rather should act just like
any other commercial customer unless so doing directly affects the Military's
war fighting capabilities.
        (9) The constitution presumptively protects the rights of Americans to
take any desired data or imagery from space as from any other public place,
at any desired resolution,  or to purchase such data from or sell it to any
source,  and to use it for any lawful purpose,  without restriction.  The only
exceptions which can be made to this are for national security reasons during
a declared war.
        (10) Research is needed in many areas where industry does not yet have
enough scientific knowledge to innovate.  The United States government has not
adequately supported basic research.
        (11) Once enough research is done,  tremendous new wealth and
opportunity will be created on the space frontier through private economic
activity.
        (12) The exploration and understanding of space holds the potential to
motivate vast new commercial enterprises which will benefit the people of the
United States,  and all mankind.
        (b) MOTIVATIONS.--The space frontier:
        (1)     provides great opportunity to discover new and useful
knowledge;
        (2) provides great challenge and inspiration to the human spirit;
        (3) should be accessible to all,  without regard to race, creed,
color,  sex,  or social standing;
        (4) holds the seeds of America's future greatness;
        (5) ensures future global stability if the opportunities available on
it can be beneficially utilized through the creative engine of free
enterprise;

SEC. 104. GOALS OF THE UNITED STATES IN ITS SPACE ACTIVITIES.
        (a)  DOMESTIC.--
        (1) To create a spacefaring civilization through private endeavor,
which will contribute to America's stature and economic growth through the
accomplishments of private citizens on the space frontier.
        (2) To understand the universe and our place in it,  starting with the
origin,  evolution and present state of the solar system.
        (3) To expand knowledge of the Earth,  its environment,  the solar
system,  and the Universe.
        (4) To discover and characterize the economic resources of the solar
system and encourage private industry to utilize them.
        (5) To characterize and understand  the unique properties of the space
environment and to encourage industry to make economically productive use of
them.
        (6) To open the space frontier to the American people for whatever
uses they see fit to make of it.
        (7) To ensure the minimum practical government regulation of private
space activities.
        (8) To ensure that American persons shall operate in the milieu of
free enterprise and political and social freedom in their space related
activities.
        (9) To encourage the private sector to undertake commercial space
ventures,  and to stimulate private sector investment,  ownership,  and
operation of space assets.
        (10) To have the government utilize commercially available goods and
services to the fullest extent feasible.
        (11) To avoid government actions that may preclude or deter commercial
space sector activities.
        (12) To extend the jurisdiction of the United States into Outer Space
just as it extends to the Arctic,  Antarctic and the high seas.
        (13) To remediate various U. S. individuals and commercial entities
for their unfortunate experiences when collaborating with NASA.
        (14) To restructure Federal activities to be consistent with the
requirements of this Act as rapidly as practicable,  but in no case more than
five years subsequent to the date this Act enters into law.
        (b) INTERNATIONAL -
        (1) To cooperate in the exploration of the Universe and in the
discovery and publication of new knowledge.
        (2) To foster the peaceful economic interactions of all persons
wishing to do business in space.
        (3) To remediate various loyal allies for their unfortunate
experiences when collaborating with NASA.
        (4) To encourage other countries to give US commercial space goods and
services providers access to their internal and government markets,  and in
return to allow appropriate foreign commercial providers full and fair access
to United States commercial and government markets.
        (5) To encourage free and fair trade in commercial space activities.
        (6) To encourage and assist other nations in extending jurisdiction
into outer space.

SEC. 105. UNITED STATES SPACE POLICY.
        In addition to the policy promulgated elsewhere in this title:
        (a)     GOVERNMENT NOT TO CONDUCT DEVELOPMENT.--No federal agency,
except the Department of Defense as provided for in section 904 below,  shall
directly support, or provide mangement oversight for,  any development project
under any circumstances.
        (b)     GOVERNMENT NOT TO COMPETE WITH PRIVATE SECTOR.--No federal
agency,  except the Department of Defense as provided for in section 904
below,  shall engage in any development or operational activity which any
private entity believes is in direct or indirect economic competition with
him,  either in appearance or in fact.
        (c)     GOVERNMENT TO CONDUCT SPACE RELATED RESEARCH ONLY.--The
principal means of federal support for space activities shall be through
grants for the conduct of research.  Such grants shall include sufficient
funding to procure all necessary goods and services from the private sector
and shall include no accounting offsets.
        (d) GOVERNMENT TO PRICE SERVICES COMMERCIALLY.--The use of any
government owned or operated test facility (e. g. wind tunnels) shall be
priced high enough that capacity is not fully utilized.  If it is believed
this is preventing an adequate amount of research from being done in this
facility,  then the problem shall be redressed through increased grants for
research in this area,  and not through price reductions.
        (e)     PROCUREMENT OF SPACE GOODS AND SERVICES.--
        (1) When the Government procures any space good or service,  bids
shall first be solicited for the most general requirement in such a way as to:
        (A)  ensure that private companies are able to compete fairly and
equitably for payloads when they posess a newly developed capability;  and
        (B)  keep the Federal Government cognizant of private capabilities.
        (2)     All procurement decisions on research grants shall be the
responsibility of the principal investigator,  who shall have final authority.
 If the principal investigator wishes,  these procurement decisions can be
delegated to government personnel.  Whether such procurement decisions will be
made by the principal investigator or by government personnel may not be
mentioned or discussed in any solicitiation,  grant proposal, pre-award
discussions or negotiations,  or award document,  but may only be determined
after irrevokable award of a grant.
        (f)     ALL AWARDS MADE ON THE BASIS OF ATTRIBUTED REVIEWS.--Contract
and grant awards shall generally be made on the basis of attributed reviews by
experts not employed by the government.
        (1) WRITTEN DEBRIEFING AND JUSTIFICATION OF AWARD.--A written
statement of the reasons any proposal is accepted or declined,  and a written
debriefing discussing the salient features of the proposal,  shall always be
provided to the bidder in a timely manner.  For successful proposals this
shall become a matter of public record along with the proposal itself and the
attributed reviews.
        (2) EXCEPTIONAL AWARDS FOR INNOVATIVE PROPOSALS.--In occasional
circumstances where proposed research with great potential is given poor
reviews due to its innovative nature,  the awarding official may make an
initial award to establish feasibility,  so stating and justifying in the
public written justification of award.
        (g)     GOVERNMENT TO PHASE IN CHANGES.--  Whenever a substantial
change in government activities which directly affect the economics of private
business is called for,  it is to be clearly announced in advance,  and phased
in over a five to ten year period.  Changes shall take place evenly over the
phase in period.  Once a phase in schedule is established,  it shall not be
extended by administrative ruling or regulation.
        (h) ACCOUNTABILITY FOR BUREAUCRATS.--  Civil Servants participating in
government funded space activities shall be held to a high standard of
accountability for their acts and omissions.  They shall in general be held to
performance standards appropriate to the private sector if they are in
management positions,  and performance standards appropriate to academia if
they personally perform research but do not control substantial budgets or
manage other people.  Especially high standards will be enforced in phasing in
policy and programmatic changes.  Pursuing,  or failing to pursue,  actions
such as to cause the preponderance of the change to occur at the end of the
phase in period shall be considered cause for termination of employment of
civil servants regardless of intent.  Failing to provide a detailed schedule
for any mandated transition within six months of the date of the ruling, or of
the legislation entering into law shall also be cause for termination of
employment of the responsible civil servants.

SEC. 106.  ENFORCEMENT OF POLICY.
        (a)  PUBLIC REVIEW OF PROPOSED REGULATORY ACTION.--All  proposed
changes or additions to regulations affecting space policy shall be publicly
announced well before they come into effect,  and shall be subject to
extensive public discussion and review.
        (b)  INDEPENDENT CHALLENGE.--An independent mechanism to challenge
proposed or existing regulations, as not consistent with space policy or law
shall be established by each agency or department which issues them including
but not limited to,  the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the
Department of Commerce, the Department of Transportation, and the Department
of Defense.
        (1) Such challenge may be brought by any private entity.
        (2) A determination by the government of inconsistency shall include a
proposal for an amendment to regulations which would provide consistency.
        (3) A proposal under (2) above would itself be subject to review as
required above.
        (4) Use of this mechanism shall not prevent or delay any private party
from using any other remedy allowed by law to challenge the regulation if it
so wishes.
        (5) Such regulations or proposed regulations may always be challenged
by suit in a common law court.
        (c)  LIMITATION ON AUTHORITY TO REGULATE.--The authority to regulate
is strictly limited.
        (1) It is assumed that everything is allowed if it is not specifically
prohibited.
        (2) All prohibitions shall derive from specific,  explicit legislative
language or treaty requirements.
        (3) There shall be no blanket prohibitions as this is not consistent
with innovation.
        (d)     ENSURING ADHERENCE TO POLICY.--Proper adherence to policy
depends on the personal character and good judgement of the officials
responsible for following it.
        (1) Any interested party may at any time request administrative or
judicial review of the past actions of any government official engaged in the
review of proposals,  award of contracts,  or writing or review of
administrative regulations.
        (2) If a preponderance of the evidence fails to show that the official
has acted in ways that furthered the policy enunciated in this Act,  that
official shall be stripped of all such responsibilities for a period of ten
years.
        (3) Officials stripped of contracting and management authority shall
be given the opportunity to conduct appropriate research sponsored by the
agency for which they work.
        (e)     ALL POLICY QUESTIONS MAY BE HEARD IN COURT.--All policy
questions arising under this Act may always be heard before a common law court
if this is desired by any interested party,  any administrative ruling,
regulation or action notwithstanding.
        (1)     When tried in court as above,  each agency must report to the
chairman of its House and Senate authorizing committees and subcommittes
within 180 days of the ruling on the verdict reached and how the agency has
complied with the remedies later ordered.
        (2)     In order to appeal such a verdict,  the agency must have met
the reporting deadlines above,  and later request permission of the
appropriate House and Senate authorizing committee and subcommittee chairmen
to appeal.
        (3) Permission to appeal must be received from all four chairmen
before any appeal is filed,  and must be received within one year of the
original verdict,  or no appeal may ever be filed.
        (4) The procedure in (3) above must be followed for all subsequent
appeals.

SEC. 107.  PROPERTY RIGHTS IN SPACE,  AND GOVERNMENT HELD PROPERTY.
        (a)  PROPERTY RIGHTS IN SPACE.--Property rights in space shall be
regulated as they are on Earth.
        (1) Property may be held,  the rights to use it,  modify it,  exploit
it or dispose of it in whatever way the owner wishes shall be unabridged
except to the extent required for public safety and other compelling
interests.
        (2) Additionally,  all common law immunities and priveledges,  and all
rights under every portion of the United States Constitution shall apply to
all persons while they are within the boundaries of property in space held by
US entities,  as well as when they are engaging in activity primarily centered
on or involving such property.
        (3) Space property includes but is not limited to space objects
registered to the United States,  and territory on celestial objects being put
to practical use by US entities.
        (b)  MINIMAL GOVERNMENT SPACE PROPERTY SHALL BE HELD.--The United
States government shall hold the minimum practicable amount of property in
space.  Such claims to federal ownership of property may only be established
using the mechanisms established for private entities in Title VIII of this
Act,  and the same mechanisms for abandonment apply.
        (c)  NO SOVEREIGN CLAIMS.--Nothing in this section shall be
interpreted to allow the United States to make irrevokable or sovereign claim
to property in space.  Property rights in this case derive from practical use,
 are intended to ensure that practical use is made of valuable property,  and
will be defended by the United States as it has been found that property
rights are essential in the long term to ensure that socially and economically
beneficial practical use, including but not limited to uses such as nature
preserves,  or sites of special scientific interest, is made of property.

SEC. 108. ACTIVITIES OF VARIOUS FEDERAL AGENCIES IN SPACE.
        (a)  ALL RESEARCH AGENCIES INCORPORATE SPACE IN THEIR PURVIEW.--All
federal agencies which support research shall determine how to fit appropriate
space related research into their program,  shall develop a plan to do so and
follow it,  and shall report periodically to the Congress on progress in
supporting space related research,  and on needed policy changes and
legislative action to enhance their ability to do so.

SEC. 109.  DESIRED RESULTS OF UNITED STATES SPACE POLICY.
        It is declared to be a goal of national policy that all actions of the
United States government relating to space activities should:
        (1) strengthen the security of the United States.
        (2) obtain scientific,  technological,  and economic benefits for the
general population.
        (3) improve the quality of life on Earth through space-related
activities.
        (4) create new opportunities for use of the space environment through
the conduct of appropriate research.
        (5) encourage continuing United States private-sector investment in
space and related activities.
        (6) promote international cooperative activities.
        (7) cooperate with other nations in maintaining the freedom of space
for all activities that enhance the security and welfare of mankind.
        (8) expand human presence and activity beyond Earth orbit into the
solar system.

(to be continued)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Never attribute to ignorance that which can be attributed to self interest.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Wed, 28 Jul 93 11:21:57 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Jim Bowery)
Subject: Retro Aerospace

George William Herbert <[e-mail]> writes:
>I was sort of hoping Delta Clipper would be such competition,
>regardless of where it's coming from.  If you insist on more
>competition, go ahead and start some.

;-)

>>>and won't go much lower.  I'm not sure there will be
>>>enough market demand to push that lower until 2005-2010.
>>
>>You sound like the mainframe or mini manufacturers of the early 70's
>>talking about the demand for computers.  The market is a lot more
>>flexible than anyone now imagines -- given a reasonably free market.
>
>Space access has never been, ...

part of our free enterprise system ...

>and is not likely to soon be, as
>cheap as computers ever have been expensive.

Nor do I make that claim.  My claim is that market flexibility is far
greater than the established experts like to claim it is.

>Damn right that
>the market is flexible, but _how_ flexible, how quickly,

Very and very.

>Gee, and one of the first five employees of OSC was telling me the
>exact same suggestions Diamandis had, too.  I guess you're the last
>word, Jim.

Oh, you look at OSC as having credibility as well as ISU?  How soon
can I short your company's stock?

>>>The only problem with this is that Space isn't inherently a small-business
>>>environment.
>>
>>No, but high technology startups ARE inherently small-business environments.
>
>And high-technology startups that succeed rapidly grow.
>I'm not planning on having anywhere near 50 employees when
>flights begin.  Is this small enough?

Wait, first you say that space isn't inherently a small-business
environment, then you say your not having anywhere near 50 employees...

But then you even go on to say...

>I'm amazed at how much you can divine from my posts, Jim.
>Nearly all of it wrong.
>
>My eventual plan is to form a number of related small companies
>to handle various business areas I want to get in to; launch
>services, orbital operations, science, commsats, etc.
>These are not planned as big companies...

So who was it that said space is not inherently a small business
environment?

>I would like to know how you expect the companies to stay
>small, Jim; if say 3 companies end up sharing the current world
>market,

The big three economic model.  Your bureacratic tendencies are showing
again.  Why not just come out of the closet?

The actual situation will be a few big companies in countries like Japan
enjoying the majority of the market with the minority of the profitability
using mature technologies for which they are paying royalties to people
like you, so you can develop your next regime of space access technology
despite their desires that you would retire.  Of course, it would help
a lot if our State Department started aggressively enforcing our
intellectual property rights rather than fighting for supposedly "job
protecting" protectionist policies that actually gut our economy.


>I don't want to sell out to someone who can "manage a production
>stream" because they'll then become a monolith who are unlikely
>to approve of further radical changes in the launch services
>market, which I would eventually like to see happen in a second
>wave past what I want to do.

Nonsense.  Royalty streams don't imply management control.  Your
bureaucratic tendencies are showing AGAIN.  You may as well accept
your bureaucratic orientation so you can either get used to it or
fix it.

>Who knows, though.  I may eventually end up making that move.
>But I'll do it for my reasons, at my time, not because you
>think I'm structurally incapable of making a tight and light
>company appropriately sized for the environment.

Such independence of thought!  You're on the road to recovery!

>I may be
>a "Loony Inventor", but I have enough social and management
>skills to see a project through all the way to long-term
>production, and if I have my say about it the company will
>damn well be structured to let me keep on inventing and
>innovating as well.  If that doesn't work, we'll see what
>happens then.

Despite our differences, I wish you well.

May the best business win.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Never attribute to ignorance that which can be attributed to self interest.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 938
------------------------------