Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_9/V16NO943.TXT

Text File | 1993-08-03 | 42KB | 858 lines

Space Digest                Fri, 30 Jul 93       Volume 16 : Issue 943

Today's Topics:
                           Cats in zero gee
                DC-X Prophets and associated problems
                         DC-X Update 07/28/93
               Hubble solar arrays: how'd they foul up?
          Low Tech Alternatives, Info Post it here! (2 msgs)
              NASA's planned project management changes
        Omnibus Space Commercialization Act (Title II: Assets)
                           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: Thu, 29 Jul 1993 13:58:00 GMT
From: Tim Harincar <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cats in zero gee
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, Kevin William Ryan <[e-mail]> writes...
>[e-mail] (Keith Mancus)
>>> Not a cat you like certainly.  And by the way, cats do not take well to
>>> microgravity--it's been tried.
>>
>>  Could you give me a reference to this?  I wasn't aware it had ever been
>>tried.
>
>    I recall seeing a reference to this in Tom Wolfes 'The Right Stuff'.
>Basically, nobody at the time thought the question worth a flight of the
>Vomit Comet, so the sent a cat up in a fighter with a camera in the
>cockpit. Most of the film shows the pilot trying to pull the cat off his
>arm. When he finally did, the cat 'magically' levitated back to his suit
>and remained there for the rest of the flight despite his best efforts.
>
>    In other words, the only time _I_ know of it being tried the cat
>wasn't too happy about it, and the pilot wasn't doing a very good job of
>maintaining zero G due to the cat distracting him by attempting to claw
>through him.
>
>    I haven't personally heard of anyone doing it in that larger airplane.

My wife and I were discussing this thread last night (we have 3 cats so
they tend to occupy a lot of our attention... :)

I don't think it would be a problem to *train* a cat for zero g. Starting
with a kitten, you could acclimate it well enough to the people on its
mission and flying so that it wouldn't freak out on a plane. Then you
could start testing the zero g part. [How many cats like cars? Not many,
but one of our doesn't mind it - we started him early as a kitten, when
my wife and I were dating she always brought him with to my apartment].

The basic problem with lofting it with the crew on the shuttle, though,
is the litter box... ;) You want to talk about a 'Waste Management
nightmare'.

--
tim harincar
[e-mail]

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

Date: 29 Jul 1993 09:50:33 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <236t0m$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael C. Jensen) writes:
>: STS Missions.
>
>:      Cargo to earth.    RV's do this much cheaper.
>
>Um, which systems are those? I still havn't seen many large volume or
>payload return systems out there.. am I missing something?
>

Look at the russian capsula systems,  the Discovery satellitte
systems.  The Big Bird satellittes used to daily even
weekly return film capsules.   If necessary the systems can
be scaled up.  Apollo was essentially a medium payload return system.

Most payloads don't need to be returned.


>:      On orbit science missions (Untended)  GAS cans, SPAS, LDEF
>:      ELV's with RV's  do this much cheaper.
>
>I find it enjoyable to see that all three of the specifically named
>programs are shuttle payloads.. the first (GAS) which is a specific
>project by NASA to bring space related research within the reach of
>college students who otherwise would be denied such experiences..
>

Look at ALexis,  pound for pound the same price as a GAS Can,
yet far more productive.   Look  at the APollo  materials
science experiments.   Look at the whole constellation of
orbiting scienc birds.  COBE  is far cheaper  and far more
productive then say ASTRO.

I named the three big shuttle  science missions i thought of
off hand  so you could compare them to things like explorer,
Mariner,  Landsat,  Nimbus.     which ones are  doing the working science.


>:      ON ORBIT Bio science experiments.  RVs  and MIR do this
>:      for far less.
>
>I've heard a lot of conflicting opinion about this one.. in relations to
>MIR that is.. I still don't see any high quality RV's out there outside
>shuttle..
>


Look at Skylab.  it did far more bio-science work then shuttle will
in it's entire program life.   And it had a high quality RV.

the Apollo CSM.

Plus apollo-soyuz.  those were very serious science  missions
conducted during the  rendevous.  at least as good as
Shuttle mid-deck experiments.



>:      On ORbit system repair (satellitte rescue, etc)
>:      It is cheaper  or nearly so to AIP the system and launch replacements.
>:      HST cost 1.6 Billion in DDTE(according to wales.)  the HST
>:      repair mission is costing 800 Million.  It's a judgement
>:      call on what's cheaper.
>
>You know.. it's entertaining to see the 5+5=39.6 logic sometimes shown
>in these "accurate" cost compilations.. we really outta count the cost
>of the development of aircraft, windtunnels, chemeical processing which
>produces LOX etc in these costs sometime if we really wanna be accurate..
>

I would like to see you produce some "Accurate costs "  then.

as for accounting for  aircraft,  windtunnels,  chemical processing,

it is in the commercial price paid for these systems.

So do you agree that it's  really the same price to build new HSTS
as it is to repair the old one?




--

God put me on this Earth to accomplish certain things.  Right now,
I am so far behind, I will never die.

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

Date: 29 Jul 1993 08:35:37 -0500
From: [e-mail]
Subject: DC-X Update 07/28/93
Newsgroups: sci.space

                        DC-X News, July 28th, 1993

       Copyright 1993 by Henry Vanderbilt and Space Access Society.


                         DC-X Test Program Status

DC-X Background (no change in this background section since 7/14 report)

DC-X is a low-speed flight regime testbed for a proposed reusable rocket-
powered Single Stage To Orbit (SSTO) transport, McDonnell-Douglas Aerospace's
"Delta Clipper".  DC-X is intended to prove out rocket-powered vertical
takeoff, nose-first lifting-body to tail-first flight transition, and tail-
first landing.  It is also intended to prove out rapid turnaround of a
reusable rocket by a minimal ground support crew.

DC-X has already pretty much proved out rapid low-cost development of an
advanced aerospace X-vehicle type engineering testbed by a small highly-
motivated engineering team on a tight budget.  Of course, that's been done
before -- just not recently.

DC-X stands 40 feet tall, is 13 feet across the base, and is roughly cone-
shaped, with a circular cross-section forward blending into a square base.
The vehicle has four maneuvering flaps, one set into each side near the base,
and sits on four landing legs.  DC-X masses 22,300 lbs empty and 41,630 lbs
fully fuelled, and is powered by four 13,500 lb thrust Pratt & Whitney RL-10-
A5 liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen rocket motors, each able to gimbal +- 8
degrees.  The RL-10-A5 is a special version of the RL-10-A designed for wide
throttling range (30% to 100%) and sea-level operation.

The single DC-X vehicle was officially rolled out of its construction hangar
at MDA's Huntington Beach CA plant at the start of April, then trucked out to
White Sands, New Mexico for ground and then flight tests.


DC-X Test Program Chronology

 - Saturday, April 3rd -- The formal DC-X vehicle rollout took place at
 McDonnell-Douglas's Huntington Beach plant, with speeches by various
 luminaries plus free hot dogs for all.

 - Mid April -- DC-X was trucked out to White Sands, New Mexico for ground
 trials on a borrowed NASA rocket test stand.

 - Thursday, May 20th through Thursday, June 17th -- DC-X underwent a series
 of nine engine firings/vehicle systems exercises, including two firings in
 one day with complete defueling/vehicle servicing/refueling in between.

 - Friday, June 18th -- The DC-X crew began breaking down the ground support
 equipment and moving it to the White Sands Missile Range (WSMR) flight test
 site, a distance of about fifty miles.  DC-X was stored in a hangar.

 - Friday, July 16th -- Ground support equipment move was completed.  DC-X
 was taken out of storage, trucked out to the flight test site, and hoisted
 upright on its launch pad.

 - Monday, July 19th -- The DC-X crew began running a series of ground tests
 to make sure everything had made it over intact and was hooked back together
 properly.


Latest Flight Date Estimates

This brings us up to the present.  Final pre-flight testing is still
underway, taking a bit longer than the DC-X crew had hoped.  New Mexico is in
the middle of "monsoon" season, with frequent thunderstorms and blowing dust
to gum things up.  Chances are the minor glitches normal to this sort of
experimental program also contribute to the slow going.  The test crew does
seem to have a commendable determination not to give in to "schedulitis" and
fly before they're ready.  Things are running about a week to ten days behind
the tentative target dates posted at the start of July.

The ground tests currently look like culminating in a "burp test" late next
week.  This will be a four-second "hot firing" of DC-X's engines on the
launch pad to check that all the plumbing is OK.

If the hot firing doesn't find any problems, the "bunny hop" flight stability
test series should start shortly afterwards, possibly during the week of
August 9th.  These hops will consist of takeoff, sideways transition of
several hundred feet, and landing, done under varying wind conditions.  A lot
of people will be keeping their fingers crossed during the initial "bunny
hop", as it will be the first real-world test of DC-X's stability at low
speed and altitude, a critical and hard-to-simulate part of the envelope.
Fingers crossed, everybody.

The official first DC-X flight will actually be the initial flight of the
second test series, when they'll be going for higher speeds and altitude.  At
this point the "first" flight looks like taking place in mid-to-late August.
This will be the one with speeches, hoopla, VIP's, and media coverage, but
alas still no admission of the general public.  Chances are good for TV
coverage though, between NASA Select, local TV stations, and the national
networks.  Chances are too that you'll have a better view on TV, since the
"VIP" viewing site will be five miles from the pad.

The end-for-end transition maneuver won't be tried until the third, final
flight test series.



                     DC-X Followon: Political Status

Background (no changes in this background section since 7/22 report)

The current DC-X program is funded through flight test and data analysis this
fall, and ends after that.  There is an ongoing effort to get the US Congress
to fund a three-year followon program, currently called SX-2 (Space
Experimental 2).  This tentatively looks like being a suborbital vehicle
powered by 8 RL-10-A5 engines, capable of reaching Mach 6 (about 1/4 orbital
velocity) and 100 miles altitude, built with orbital-weight tanks and
structure, and able to test orbital grade heat-shielding.

The SX-2 program goal will be to demonstrate all remaining technology needed
to build a reusable single-stage-to-orbit vehicle.  Once SX-2 has been
tested, all that should be necessary to produce a functioning reusable SSTO
is to scale up the SX-2 structures and install new larger rocket engines.

Proposed FY '94 funding for SX-2 startup is $75 million.  The money would
come out of the $3.8 billion BMDO budget already pretty much agreed on for
the coming year.  Total SX-2 program cost over the next three years would be
very much dependent on the contractor chosen and the details of the design,
but would be on the order of several hundred million.  This is the same order
of magnitude as typical recent X-aircraft programs such as the X-29 and X-31.

SX-2 would start out under BMDO (formerly SDIO), so support from members of
the House and Senate Armed Services Committees (HASC and SASC) is vital.  The
actual name they know SX-2 by is "followon funding for BMDO's SSRT (Single
Stage Rocket Technology) program."  The specific action we're calling for is
for Congress to authorize $75 million in existing BMDO funding for this
project next year -- we are not asking for any new funding authority, but
rather for reallocation of existing funding toward a DC-X followon.


Update, Wednesday 28 July

Representative Schroeder's House Armed Services Committee Research and
Technology Subcommittee (HASC R&T for short) marked up their version of the
DOD FY '94 Authorization Bill on Monday the 26th.  They included the $75m
we've been asking for a DC-X followon program startup next year, as well as
$5m for winding up the current DC-X program.  We've won a major battle in the
fight for affordable access to space, and everybody who's worked on this
deserves congratulations.  Three cheers for us!

The full HASC marked up yesterday, and we have no reason to believe there were
any changes in DC-X followon funding.  The actual text of the DOD bill they
approved won't be out for a few more days though.

The $75m was, we are told, accompanied by language directing that DC-X
Followon be transferred from BMDO to ARPA, the Advanced Research Projects
Agency, but also directing that the current BMDO DC-X management team be kept
on the project.  One way of looking at this is that BMDO will run SX-2 as a
contractor for ARPA -- this is a normal way of doing business for ARPA, which
has a very small staff coordinating a lot of projects.

This may or may not be good news.  ARPA in theory is a more appropriate place
for developing an X-rocket, but the current arrangement at BMDO is one we
KNOW works.  Practically speaking though, BMDO is likely to be under heavy
political pressure over the next couple of years.  Chances are that they
wouldn't have been allowed to continue developing a reusable X-rocket in-
house anyway.  The move to ARPA was probably inevitable.  We'll just have to
watch how the program goes over the next few years, and be ready to raise a
fuss if it shows signs of the sort of bureaucratic bog-down BMDO has been so
good at avoiding.

Meanwhile, we need to stay awake for the next couple of weeks.  The next step
is for the full House of Representatives to consider and vote on the DOD
funding bill.  This may or may not happen before the one-month Congressional
recess starting August 9th.  It's not likely, but there is always a chance
our project could be cut when this goes to the full House.  Moving from BMDO
to ARPA is probably a plus here; BMDO is a likely target of further attempts
to reduce defense spending on the House floor.

Once the full House approves the Defense bill, the next milestone is the
House-Senate Conference Committee, when the two bodies will resolve
differences in their versions of next year's DOD budget.  You may recall that
we got very little of what we need in the Senate version - a single $30m line
item in the USAF budget for SSTO, NASP, and Spacelifter combined.  We'll need
to make a maximum effort to let both sides of the Conference Committee know
what we want when the time comes.  That almost certainly won't be until after
the recess, however.


SAS Action Recommendations

You might drop a note to Representative Dellums, Representative Schroeder and
any other HASC members you have been in touch with, thanking them for their
support.  If you have any contacts in the Senate Armed Services Committee, go
on working them low-key -- there's no telling who will be on the Conference
Committee, and we'll need all the help we can get on the Senate side when
that eventually gets underway.

Other than that, stay tuned for updates, and enjoy the summer.


 Henry Vanderbilt              "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere
 Executive Director,                in the Solar System."
 Space Access Society                              - Robert A. Heinlein
 [e-mail]                    "You can't get there from here."
 602 431-9283 voice/fax                                 - Anonymous


 -- Permission granted to redistribute the full and unaltered text of this --
 -- piece, including the copyright and this notice.  All other rights      --
 -- reserved.  In other words, intact crossposting is strongly encouraged. --

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

Date: 29 Jul 1993 09:57:32 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hubble solar arrays: how'd they foul up?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>This is done pat. The ACTS satellite flying on the shuttle next week is an
>example of a completely new communications technology (Including componets,

Actually ACTS is a 12 year old completely new communications
technology.

ACTS is nice,  but we do need more and faster  experimental
test beds.

>operational methodologies, and a new bus) that will be tested along with
>their ground based compliments. The STRV satellite being built by BMDO and

I don't know about STRV.  But we do
need to get more testing and qualification
programs.

>
>Also, on many shuttle flights now we are flying new stuff that is being
>qualified, such as our MacIntosh SI Experiment controller. This obviously will
>help to lower the costs of experiment hardware flown on the shuttle.
>

WE are doing stuff on shuttle,  except  it's not a regular committed
program  just to test  and qualify.  it's a loose ad-hox type thing.

A specific test program with test targets  is far better.


>is inherent in the "let the commercial people" do everything. Fear of failure
>in government usually only gets you re-assigned. Often in the commercial

Failure in government has a tendency to get one promoted
as long as the paper trail doesn't point back to you.


>be nowhere without it.  Many of the components of SEDSAT 1 are from
>military programs that either lost their flight or are giving these to us
>for the technology demonstration. Why? Because if we mess up it is not their
>cookies in the fire.


All the more reason for a regular  flight test office.

If the test office breaks something,  why it's
part of the mission.

pat

--

God put me on this Earth to accomplish certain things.  Right now,
I am so far behind, I will never die.

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jul 93 09:05:07 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Jim Bowery)
Subject: Low Tech Alternatives, Info Post it here!

Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary> writes:
>Big dumb vehicles like Saturn were horrifingly expensive, $500 million
>per launch and you threw away the vehicle after one use.

Truax would find this use of the phrase "big dumb" downright disgusting.

>For a really big rocket, Sea Dragon comes to mind, shipyard materials
>and shipyard techniques make sense. But for the run of the mill small
>rockets we use, and the small numbers we launch, we can use the best
>materials so we can get the most from each launch. The cost of launcher
>materials is one of the smaller costs in the total picture of getting
>a payload into orbit and operating it there.

Given the prior abuse of the phrase "big dumb" I'm sure Truax wouldn't
be surprised at this further confusion over the scale-economics of
rocket engineering.

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

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jul 93 09:06:24 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Jim Bowery)
Subject: Low Tech Alternatives, Info Post it here!

Paul Dietz <[e-mail]> writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
writes:
>
>> Autos are produced by the millions, rockets by the tens. Hand built
>> Ferraris use $1,000/lb exotic composites too.
>
>Hardly that expensive!  The composites used in low volume auto
>manufacturing are mostly fiberglass, which is more expensive than
>steel, but not enormously more expensive.  Commercial E-glass costs
>only a few dollars per pound.  Note, however, that the fiberglass is
>used in places where very high strength is not important.

>The fact that things are built by hand does not necessarily make
>expensive materials better.  Consider the experience with the
>prototype steel tanks manufactured (by hand) by Boeing for the cost
>optimized booster project in the late 60s.  They found reduction in
>the per-pound cost of fabricated, tested steel tanks of an order of
>magnitude over then-standard aluminum alloy tanks.  The reduction in
>cost was due to a more forgiving, if lower performance, material, and
>wider margins.  I shudder to think what those tanks would have cost if
>made of aerospace grade graphite-epoxy.

I think there is some confusion between carbon-carbon and graphite-epoxy
here.  The densification process that goes into the highest performance
carbon-carbon is exceedingly expensive and results in the thousands of
dollars per pound figures.  Graphite-epoxy is simply a higher grade of
"fiber glass" that isn't all that expensive -- tens of dollars per pound.

I've seen a graphite-epoxy materials that are in striking distance of
replacing sheet metal ship yards.  Serious negotiations are taking
place right now in San Diego.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Never attribute to ignorance that which can be attributed to self interest.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 29 Jul 1993 14:01:06 GMT
From: "Michael C. Jensen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASA's planned project management changes
Newsgroups: sci.space

Okay.. I've been areading again and have some interesting data to share
with those of you interested in an efficient and responsible NASA..

According to Gene Krantz, director of Missions Operations Directorate,
(the organization which manages all manned space operations, training,
and such) NASA is on the brink of implementing a new NASA-wide
policy of project management.. here is a brief synopsis..

All future and most currest NASA projects will implement a new
system of project management and operations taken from experience
and knowledge gained in successful commercial and government programs.
All new projects will be developed and used in the following procedure..

NASA will internally determine the plans, requirements, and specifications
of project X and implementation Y. This will be mostly done "in-house"..
ie civil servants will determine what the goals of the project are, and
the requirements of a system to meet those goals.. then the project will
be opened for bidding, and a contractor (commercial) will receive the
project X's specifications and requirements. The conractor will be free
to develop system Y to meet project X's goals and requirements however
the contractor wishes, as long as it meets the requirments. The contractor
will then deliver finised product Y back to NASA, who will test, and the
launch and use the product. This will give clear responsabilties to
all involved. If the project X fails due to failure to meet the specifications,
it'll be the contractors fault, and appropriate penalties will be given..
if it fails due to improper or insufficient requirements or plans, it's
NASA's fault, and the appropriate people will suffer..

In conjunction with this, the following guidelines will be in place..
any project which runs 10% over budget will be reviewed by HQ and
may face cancelation.. ANY project which runs 15% over budget will
be cancled period.

This system is planned to be implemented over the next year.. at least
that's the system as I've understood it from what I've heard and read..
(ie this isn't a official set in stone law that will be enacted
no matter what.. **shameless disclaimer**)

This system will apparently be implemented on ALL NASA programs and
projects.. comments?

Mike

--
Michael C. Jensen   Valparaiso University/Johnson Space Center
[e-mail]  "I bet the human brain is a kludge." -- Marvin Minsky
[e-mail]  *WindowsNT - From the people who brought you edlin*
---Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are my own... ---

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jul 93 09:12:07 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Jim Bowery)
Subject: Omnibus Space Commercialization Act (Title II: Assets)

TITLE II--DISPOSITION OF GOVERNMENT OWNED SPACE FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT AND
OTHER PROPERTY.

SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be referred to as the "Space Privatization Act".

SEC. 202. INVENTORY OF FACILITIES.
        (a) INVENTORY.--The Comptroller General shall conduct a comprehensive
inventory of all space launch and launch support facilities,  other facilities
related to providing space goods and services,  all government equipment at
such facilities or at contractor sites owned by the United States Government,
all patents and other intellectual property,   and shall identify such
facilities,  equipment and other property which are surplus to public and
national security needs.  This inventory shall be carried out in cooperation
with the Department of Defense,  the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration,  the Department of Transportation,  the Department of
Commerce,  and the General Services Administration.
        (b) REPORT.--Not later than 12 months after the date this Act enters
into law,  the Comptroller General shall submit to the Congress a report
containing the inventory and indentification required under subsection (a),
including an item by item justification of why any facilities or equipment are
not identified as surplus.  Portions of such report relating to the war
fighting capabilities of the United States Department of Defense may be
classified and protected from public disclosure if absolutely essential.
        (c) REFERRAL FOR SALE.--All facilities and equipment not identified as
requiring continued government ownership in whatever report will have been
filed by the deadline under subsection (b) above shall be considered surplus
and shall be referred to the General Services Administration for disposition.
All surplus real property and structures suitable for general commercial or
other private use,  and all other property deemed appropriate by the General
Services Administration shall be transferred to the Resolution Trust
Corporation to be disposed of through their usual procedures.  All income from
such sales shall be treated as income from any other sales conducted by the
Resolution Trust Corporation.

SEC.  203.  CRITERIA FOR SALE OF SURPLUS GOVERNMENT PROPERTY.
        The General Services Administration shall attempt to maximize the net
present value to the government of the surplus property disposed of by
choosing the appropriate time and means of sale,  and by requiring the
Government to immediately change procedures as required to use the facilities
or equipment in a more businesslike manner so as to make them more attractive
to prospective bidders.
        The Resolution Trust Corporation shall liquidate all properties turned
over to it in acordance with its usual procedures.
        In general,  there shall be no qualifications required of the
purchaser other than the ability to pay the price asked or bid.

SEC. 204. SALE OF FACILITIES WITH LIMITED EXCEPTIONS
        All space and suborbital launch facilities and associated equipment
shall be sold by January first,  1997.  All facilities,  such as the Space
Telescope Science Institute,  which are intended to operate spacecraft or
otherwise provide space services,  shall be sold,  and the portion of the NASA
budget previously allocated to them shall be divided among the nongovernmental
users of the facility as grant support.  All government owned,  contractor
operated  facilities shall be sold at pubic auction within two years of the
date this act enters into law.

SEC. 205. SALE OF SURPLUS EQUIPMENT.
        All government owned equipment located at facilities owned by NASA
contractors,  or purchased by them, or government owned equipment located at
facilities sold pursuant to this title,  shall be sold by January first,
1997.  Any such equipment not sold within this period shall be abandoned in
place.
        All space transportation vehicles and space transportation vehicle
components owned by the government shall be sold by January first,  1997,
with the exception of space transportation vehicles owned by the Department of
Defence,  and neccessary to war fighting capability.
        All space transportation vehicles and components which become surplus
to their originally intended government need shall be sold at public auction
within 180 days of becoming surplus.

SEC. 206. SALE OF SPACE SHUTTLES AND RELATED FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT.
     (a) THE SPACE SHUTTLE--The space shuttle shall be privatized by January
first,  1997,  and all monies authorized and appropriated for its direct or
indirect support shall be apportioned among the various NASA centers in
proportion to their share of the remainder of the NASA budget at that time.
     All civil servants who currently work in direct or indirect support of
shuttle flight operations or continuing shuttle development shall be retired
by January first,  1997,  or on the date title to the space shuttle orbiters
is transferred to private parties,  whichever comes first.  In recognition of
their support of the U. S. Space Program,  they shall all be retired as if
they had ten additional years of service (or minimum service to merit
retirement,  if this is greater).
     Those portions of the Johnson space center devoted to Shuttle mission
planning,  support, and control,  as well as those portions devoted to
engineering support for the shuttle,  shall be sold by January first,  1997.
    The shuttle assembly,  servicing and launch facilities at the Kennedy
Space Center shall be sold by January first,  1997,  along with all other
launch facilities.
     The various shuttle related equipment and facilities owned by the Federal
Government,  such as the 747 carrier aircraft,  shall be sold by January
first,  1997.
        FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SPACE PROPERTY--Property relating to the provision
of space services or manufacture of space goods shall be acquired, owned,
maintained, or operated by the Federal Government only if procurement of all
major subsystems and subsystem elements is carried out according to section 5,
 and only  as required under circumstances described elsewhere in this Act.
        (f) PHASE-IN PERIOD--Subsections (a) and (e) shall not apply to
existing activities for one year after the date this act enters into law.
Thereafter,  all remaining property shall be sold by January first,  1997.
        (g) All shuttles and related facilities and equipment shall be sold at
public auction by January first,  1997.  Once privatized,  space shuttles may
be used to fly government payloads as long as they comply with all other
requirements of this Act,  and as long as the companies owning and operating
them have no cost plus or level of effort contracts with the United States
Government.

SEC. 207. DISPOSITION OF GOVERNMENT HELD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
        (a) INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY--All space related patents,  trade secrets,
and other intellectual property rights the United States government posesses
shall be privatised as follows:
        (1) Licensed rights shall be quitclaimed to the current licensee;
        (2) All other intellectual property shall be sold at public auction by
January first,  1997;  and
        (3) All intellectual property not disposed of above shall be placed in
the public domain.
        (b) AUCTION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY.-- The GSA shall hold public
auctions no less frequently than once every six months to dispose of all
intellectual property to be disposed of under subsection 2 above.  All
intellectual property shall be offered at each auction,  with minimum bids
being selected by the GSA to ensure the greatest net present value to the
government of the auction returns.

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

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jul 93 09:04:25 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Jim Bowery)
Subject: Retro Aerospace

George William Herbert <[e-mail]> writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jim Bowery) writes:
>>George William Herbert <[e-mail]> writes:
>Well, OSC turned a profit, which is just about a first among
>Aerospace startups.  This has to count for something.

I don't want to totally discount OSC.

Here's what OSC deserve(d) credit for:

1) They were perhaps the ONLY aerospace startup run by guys born after
1950. (ie: late boomers not in a demographic position to abuse a huge
 influx of naive, underpaid and well educated workers to cover up all their
 stupid management decisions and therefore suffer the corresponding lack
 of disciplin)  Pretty much anything else I have to say positive about
them derives from this fact.

2) They recognized that the primary value in the aerospace industry had
sunk to the bottom -- in the underpaid subcontractor shops and bottom
rung employees that serve the big porkbarrel paper mill giants -- and
that this represented an enormous untapped market inefficiency.

3) They had what it took politically to start and run an aerospace
business in the exceedingly pathological climate of the last decade.

These were enough to make them a going concern and serve as DARPA's
well-controlled "free enterprise" token to be paraded around for
political purposes.  OSC's primary purpose in life is to pretend
to be a true entrepreneurial space start up (when they are totally
 dependent on their government connections) and then make noises
about doing every idea for a space business that some guy like you
or I might come up with -- with the implication that they have the
political connections to scare our sources of financing away unless
we too play the "strategic partner" game.  This serves the existing
socialist (actually national socialist) structure of the aerospace
industry very well.

>Well, the holding company will be Fortune 500 if I'm lucky and
>they all work out...  I think we're arguing over semantics.
>I classify a bunch of small skunk-works like organizations operating
>under one owner management as one big business,
>whereas you're saying it's a bunch of small ones.

This is the Cypress Semiconductor used by T.J. Rogers.  It's not
bad compared to the "one big happy bureaucracy" of companies like Intel.
I believe it is inferior to the model Paul Barron uses in his startups,
which is a loose confederation of highly selected collegues that come
together and go their separate ways in different combinations to exploit
the rapidly changing environment.  I always envisioned Paul as Mr. Briggs
on Mission Impossible sorting through his folder of pictures.

Come to think of it, Paul IS pretty tight with the spooks... (or more
 accurately, they are tight with him).

>It could be three, two, one, twenty, who knows... but my market models
>indicate that to sustain development and keep dropping prices, you want
>to fly about 10 rockets a year per company.

You're assuming too much vertical integration and too little potential
for early innovation.  Remember, we've been suppressing cost/lb
innovation in space transport for literally decades.  There is a lot
of pent-up technology waiting to be applied if a reasonable commercial
market actually emerges from our bureaucratic malaise.

When the price drops by a factor of 2 (which will happen almost immediately
 in the emerging commercial market) the $ volume of business will actually
go up... that means the launch rate will more than double.  How far this
will go gets into the market flexibility issue again.  I think you are
better off thinking "cars" than "rockets" or even "airplanes".  In the
automobile industry, the U.S. adopted the "big 3" model while the Japanese,
who are much better at running such large businesses, have on the order
of 10 integration companies and hundreds if not thousands of job shops.

Since the Japanese kicked our big 3 buttocks in the 1970's (thank God,
 or the Emperor or whoever, you little slanty-eyed bastards came along
 and knocked some sense into us -- keep it up) innovation has picked
up again from where it was stopped about the time Tucker was put out of
business by the big-3 based on arguments of the type you are now
presenting.  And rocket/space transport has a LONG way to go compared to
automobiles.

PS:  Aviation is in pretty much the same condition that automobiles were
in the 60's and 70's -- too monopolistic, using the "its just too expensive
 to afford the luxury of competition" argument and just begging to have
its butt kicked around the block by some more of those oriental bastards.

Here's a tip to kids in college:  Now's a really good time to learn
Mandarin, grab some suppressed aviation inventors here int he U.S. and
find a few wealthy refugees from Hong Kong who want to start innovative
aviation businesses with manufacturing on mainland China.

>Look at what's happening to personal computers right now as an
>example... we've got a horde of cheap clone makers with no
>engineering staffs driving the per-item costs off a cliff.
>Great for the consumer today, but Apple (which was a leading technical
>development innovator) is in serious trouble now, which is endangering
>the next two or three generations of computers.  And it's not just
>apple, everyone's being hit hard.

You're looking at the cheap clone makers and not at the industry
they're based on.

I'm not sweating the situation, but for reasons you would find
incomprehensible.  The Intel/Microsoft axis is losing its strangle-
hold grip on comeptition within the basis of the industry.

Besides, the lack of vertical integration you seem so worried about
all the time is precisely what has driven competition and therefore
innovation in electronics.

>>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.
>
>Royalty arrangements like this are very difficult to make happen.
>This may turn out to work, but I'm not optimistic.  If it does
>work, I'll probably adopt that model...

That's only because, for a while, our government thought it was being
clever by serving our domestic bureaucrats at the expense of our
independent innovators.  This got so out of hand that Bush even started
exchanging intellectual property issues for manfacturing issues
during trade talks.  However, someone in the Clinton administration
is giving good advice and has started paying attention to intellectual
property as our primary national strength.  If this trend continues, and
I have good reason to believe it will, such royalty arrangements will
become standard business practice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Never attribute to ignorance that which can be attributed to self interest.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

From: John McGlaughlin <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: sci.space

Subject: Happy 35th NASA
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Sender: Merlin News System <[e-mail]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: mac.dev.cdx.mot.com
Organization: Motorola Codex, Canton, Massachusetts
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1993 12:23:32 GMT
Lines: 6
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

Happy Birthday NASA....
Let us hope that Gov.t gets their act together to give you at least 35 more
-jftm-
--

-jftm-

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 943
------------------------------