Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V09_4/V9_428.ZIP/V9_428

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 19KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/QYOcHbG00UkZFXv050>;
          Fri, 12 May 89 03:16:55 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 12 May 89 03:16:46 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #428

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 428

Today's Topics:
         Private spending for space science (summary)
                  Semiotics
          Re: Spaceplane mailing list--where is it?
            Re: Upcoming Launches
               Re: more 747 drop tests?
          Life, the Universe and Everything
        Re: funding large scale space hardware
               Re: SPACE Digest V9 #419
               Reminders for Old Farts
          Re: space news from March 27 AW&ST
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 9 May 89 09:05:49 EDT
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Formerly: National Bureau of Standards
Sub-Organization: National Computer and Telecommunications Laboratory
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
    and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Private spending for space science (summary)


>From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
>Subject: Re: Private spending for space science

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:
>>Can you think of a plausible scenario by which private industry would
>>undertake to send sophisticated probes to Venus or Jupiter at its own
>>expense in the next 20 years? ...

>Why assume that *industry* has to do it?  What about the National Geographic
>Society?  Or a university consortium? ...
Good ideas, within the parameters of the funding available. A university
consortium could conceivably get private funding, or, even if funded by the
government, *might* be able to do the job more efficiently than through
direct government control.

>It *would* help a lot if the launch costs came down, though.
Yes, for both government and private payloads.

>But there are few plausible scenarios for such things as long as it looks
>easier to convince Congress to pick the taxpayers' pockets to pay for it.
More on this topic later.
>----------------------------------

Among the others who posted ideas on plausible private funding for research:

>From: phoenix![e-mail]  (Keith P. Mancus)

>  ...I think this is especially true if you consider that NASA has never
>made any real effort to make money off of the very real demand for
>color photos of various objects in the solar system.  Presumably the NGS
>would not overlook this chance to get some of the money back.  Perhaps
>when NASA's budget falls low enough...
NASA makes its images available as the public-domain results of publicly
funded research, and allows private companies to handle the marketing.
Picture sales might be good for partial compensation, but as the sole
source of funding I don't think they would be adequate. Prices would probably
be high, especially for publication rights, and you might have to sign
"nondistribution" agreements. As a partial analogy, consider the commercial
imaging systems in earth orbit.
>-------------------------------------------------------------------

>From: mentor.cc.purdue.edu!l.cc.purdue.edu![e-mail]  (Herman Rubin)
>Subject: Re: Private spending for space science

>We have millions of people who believe in funding space research.  What I
>have been proposing all along is that these people be allowed to set up
>corporations, profit and non-profit, for this purpose.  More than one will
>be needed, because we have the manned vs unmanned dispute.
I think I agree. Did you have in mind some of the organizations running on
money from investors, and others working with charitable donations?

>These corporations could act in concert with governments and industrial
>firms.  But the US government must allow these corporations to act without
>governmental approval.
Not too likely (reread that last sentence :-). But the approval process could
and should be facilitated. Something on the order of the approval process for
a new airplane design and of a commercial flight plan might be adequate.
>------------------------------

>From: [e-mail]
...
>I am aware of at least three different models. One is the industry
>consortium like MCC. Another is the private research institute, like
>SSI. The third is the private foundation that specializes in assisting
>research of a particular type. I'm certain that creative minds can come
>up with lots of others.
>------------------------------

I think a number of these approaches could be workable. I would suggest
that those activists who feel that privately-funded interplanetary space
science is both practical and desirable at this time look at these and
other approaches for initiation of an actual project to show that it can
be done. (Probably several organizations are already doing this.) Among
the projects that might not be too ambitious for an initial attempt are
a lunar orbiter, as suggested by Henry, or a rendezvous with an earth-
intersecting asteroid, as suggested by Paul Dietz and others.

In the meantime, I would urge against making too strong an effort to
boot NASA out of the planetary space science business. It would be similar
to the decision several years ago to throw out proven booster technology
(Saturn and other expendables) in favor of the eventual development of
other technologies. NASA has shown at least some ability to conduct
planetary space science. I regard the ideas of privately funded research
of this kind and of greatly lowered launch costs through private enterprise
as "plausible but unproven."

Responses to various claims of NASA interference with private planetary
space science (paraphrased):

 - "NASA has traditionally tried to discourage private launches"
  True, but this is supposed to be going away, and I think there are ways
  to encourage NASA not to drag its feet, short of totally closing it down.
  Any ideas?

 - "NASA gets all the money. People have to pay taxes to support NASA, so
    they can't afford to invest in space."
  This is similar to the manned vs unmanned budgetary debate. NASA gets
  only a small fraction of the total tax revenue. If NASA were abolished,
  I do not think that the average taxpayer, upon receiving his ~$50/year
  refund, would be likely to donate/invest any significant portion of it
  in space exploration. In other words, the funding sources for NASA and
  completely private exploration are not closely coupled.

 - "NASA is hogging up all the good places to send probes, so there's no
    incentive for anybody else to send up probes."
  I don't think NASA should be condemned for the interplanetary probes
  it has managed to send up. A few months ago, I posted a question asking
  what action would be advisable for the space program if "unlimited"
  information on space were already available free. The general response
  was that such a scenario was inconceivable; that there will always be
  highly desirable information that is not yet available.
                                John Roberts
                                [e-mail]

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

Date: 9 May 89 21:04:50 GMT
From: sei![e-mail]  (Robert Firth)
Subject: Semiotics

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>"Name calling -- giving an idea a bad label -- is used to make us reject and
>condemn the idea without examining the evidence. Symbolized by the ancient
>sign of condemnation used by the Vestal Virgins in the Roman Coliseum, a
>thumb turned down."

It wasn't the Vestal Virgins; the signal to the victorious gladiator could
be given only by the magister ludi (though the crowd freely prompted him).
And the signal for "kill the loser", as any true Roman knows, was what
we now call THUMBS UP.

>"Card stacking involves the selection and use of fact or falsehoods, illus-
>trations or distractions, and logical or illogical statements in order to
>give the best or worst possible case for an idea, program, person, or
>product. Symbolized by an ace of spades, a card traditionally used to
>signify treachery."

Wrong again.  The card in question is the Nine of Diamonds, familiarly
called "The Curse of Scotland" as a consequence of the historical
incident in question.

Obligatory spacey content: has Russia announced any plans for a new
Mars probe to replace the lost Phoboses? (phoboi?).  Given their
engineering attitude, I'd have expected one by now.

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

Date: 9 May 89 17:00:17 GMT
From: asuvax!enuxha![e-mail]  (Norman C. Kluksdahl)
Subject: Re: Spaceplane mailing list--where is it?

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Keith P. Mancus) writes:
>
>     What happened to the spaceplane mailing list?  Is it defunct?
> I received one startup message stating the list existed and requested
> that I confirm reception, which I did.  Since then I've heard nothing.
> I tried sending mail to Norman but received no answer.  So, what
> happened?  Have I "fallen off" of it, or did it quietly disappear?
>
The summary line says it all.  Recently, I have had scads of problems with
my mail software (and the whole blasted system, for that matter!!!).  Seems
the system has been doing its yo-yo act--up, down, up,....
I'm trying to keep the list going, but it's rather trying under these
circumstances.

YES!  The dream is alive.
YES!  I want to see something done, and be a part of doing it!
YES!  I'm still here.
YES!  I'm working on solving the problems I had.
YES!  You should be receiving all the backlisted updates soon.

Thanks for your patience.


**********************************************************************
Norman Kluksdahl              Arizona State University
            ..ncar!noao!asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah
alternate:   [e-mail]

standard disclaimer implied

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

Date: 8 May 89 19:22:10 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!warwick!inmos![e-mail]  (Conor O'Neill)
Subject: Re: Upcoming Launches

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David "Mephisto" Birnbaum) writes:
>Can anyone tell me how to find out a launch schedule for June at Kennedy
>Space Center?  I'll be in Florida from June 1 to 4, and I'd like to see a
>launch if at all possible.

Ditto for the end of June and beginning of July.


--
Conor O'Neill, Software Group, INMOS Ltd. JANET:    [e-mail]
Disclaimer: All views are my own,         UUCP:     uunet!inmos!conor
            not those of INMOS.           INTERNET: @col.hp.com:conor@inmos-c

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

Date: 9 May 89 21:47:55 GMT
From: vygr![e-mail]  (Mike Ekberg, Sun {GPD-LEGO})
Subject: Re: more 747 drop tests?

Er...Pardon the dumb question, but what is the use of the
crosswind tests?


# mike (sun!mae), M/S 8-04
"I'd rather sniff French shit for 5 years then eat
Chinese shit the rest of my life"  -Ho Chi Minh-

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

Date:         Tue, 09 May 89 17:49:00 EDT
From: Chip Dawes <[e-mail]>
Subject:      Life, the Universe and Everything

Hi There,

     Let me breifly introduce myself before I say goodbye.  I'm Chip Dawes.  I'
ve been listening in this semester while I've been student teaching.  Bitnet wa
s just opened to the students at Akron U and this has been my first experience
on the nets.
     I applaud you on your foreward thought.  Both the Nasa supporters and bash
ers seem to have the same thought in mind despite the fact that they disagree o
n how to accomplish it.  As a Non-techie I enjoyed the look at how engineers an
d (non-life) scientists think.
     Before I go, I wanted to tell you a bit of what I've experienced over the
semester.  As I have student taught, I have seen the effects of the lack of mot
ivation and the lack of independant thought have had on the experience of high
school students.  I ask you to remember that for every person like you there ar
e thousands of people who do not understand the importance of the projects that
 you work on.  Unfortunately, in an alleged democracy these are the people who
are makeing the decisions via their votes.
     I wish you luck as you try to solve the problems that face your dream.  I
urge you to put down your separate adgendas and organize so that something cons
tructive can be done despite the long odds that the government and the electora
te have decreed.  I'll be seeing you...


                                             Chip Dawes

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

Date: 8 May 89 19:36:13 GMT
From: aablue![e-mail]  (John B Scalia)
Subject: Re: funding large scale space hardware

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer)
writes:
>[mucho deletions]
>
>Boeing spent $1 billion of its own money on the 747.  (Note:  not even
>borrowed money, *its own* money.)  And did the same thing again with
>$2 billion for the 757 and 767.  Airliners have payback periods somewhat
>longer than three months.  Nobody has yet mounted a takeover attempt.
>
>Boeing actually is a good bet for a company that just might get into the
>space business.  It's been interested for a long time.  And it has money...
>(The current price of a 747 is $100M+.  The profit margin is reputed to be
>25% or more.  The airlines would dearly love to see a competitor for the
>747, but none is in sight, so Boeing has a captive market.  747s are
>selling like crazy; Boeing is building them as fast as it can.)  Remember
>that they (with Hughes) offered to build the Jarvis heavylift booster out
>of their own pockets, if NASA and the USAF would guarantee a market.

True, Henry. However, and I believe the Boeing people could respond to this,
the 747 series was originally designed for a DOD request for a large troop/
cargo carrier. Boeing lost to the C-5 design. Essentially, they were then
stuck with a huge craft which most knowledgable aircraft people predicted
would be a white elephant in the commercial sector. Obviously, these
people were wrong. Thus, Boeing didn't design it for altruistic reasons.
The 757 & 767 were designed in response to Boeing's internal marketing
surveys and in response to the tremdous demand by nearly all the world's
airlines for improved, quieter, more fuel efficient, etc., versions of
their imminently successful 727 & 737 series.

Yours and other postings here reflect the nature that all of us "commercial"
as opposed to "academic" types have to deal in: IF WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS
WE HAVE TO MAKE MONEY AT IT! Given a rich, untapped market that some
company could exploit which its competitors cannot (at least as well),
guarantees this activity. Prove to me that I can make money there, and
obviously a whole lot of money, and I'll race to the bank to arrange
my products and people being there.

--
A A Blueprint Co., Inc. - Akron, Ohio [phone] voice
UUCP:       {uunet!}aablue!jb    Marriage is a wonderful institution, but who
FidoNet:   1:157/697        wants to spend their life in an institution.
EchoNet:   US:OH/AKR.0

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

Date: Tue, 9 May 1989 16:22-EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #419

> afterlife in dimension 5 that Zzyzzybalubah has prepared for you.
> And if you don't get the message, we're going to roast the whole planet."

Which I only wish I could consdier this humorous. Unfortuneately the
Cretins and Muslins did essentially this to their "worlds". Maybe the
aliens are here and their trying to keep our blood thirsty religions
quarantined...

                        Hail Eris!
                        Dale Amon

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

Date: Tue, 9 May 89 04:00:15 PDT
From: Eugene Miya <[e-mail]>
Subject: Reminders for Old Farts

Hints for old users (subtle reminders) You'll know these.

Minimize cross references, [Do you REALLY NEED to?]
Edit "Subject:" lines especially if you are taking a tangent.
Send mail instead, avoid posting follow ups. [100 mail messages mean more than 1
follow-up.]
Read all available articles before posting a follow-up. [Check all references.]
Cut down attributed articles.  Summarize!
Put a return address in the body (signature) of your message (mail or
article), state institution, etc. don't assume mail works.

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

Date: 9 May 89 13:35:34 GMT
From: att!cbnews![e-mail]  (Neil A. Kirby)
Subject: Re: space news from March 27 AW&ST

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doug Davey) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:

[Henry suggests that Enterprise be used for more tests]

>
>The 747 that was used for the drop tests is the same one that is
>used to ferry the orbiters from Edwards to KSC.  Currently, there is
>only one such specially modified 747 in existence.  It is therefore
>one of the single points of failure for the entire shuttle system.

    And there are four (oops, no, three) launch capable Orbiters.  And only
    one place to launch them from.  With any activity there is risk and
    expense.  Rather than test a $2.2G orbiter durring rentry, lets risk a
    museum piece and the 747.  For what another orbiter costs, you could
    almost buy Boeing (well not quite).

>Without it, shuttles don't get ferried and the system stops.

    Boeing, who is under market pressure to be quick and efficient, can
    probably turn out another modified 747 way before the board of inquery
    for any accident meets, much less decides anything.  I know that they
    have long lead times, but if they have space in their delivery
    schedules they could bump one up the pipeline.

>I hope NASA uses it only for missions that it alone can carry out.

    Like dropping the Enterprise in flight tests.

>Since there is at least a possibility of doing crosswind landings
>and/or hard surface braking tests each time the orbiters land, without
>risking the 747, it would be imprudent to revive the drop tests until
>a second ferry vehicle is available.

    So this gives us say 4-6 tests per year?  How often did Enterprise fly?
    Once a week?  Once a month?

    Let's do the thing that the Russians do so well - use what we have.
    Enterprise is PAID FOR.  Let it go back to work.

    Neil Kirby
    ...cbsck!nak

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #428
*******************