Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V13_3/V13_338.ZIP/V13_338

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 17KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from hogtown.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/cbxhUNC00WBwEX5U4G>;
          Mon,  1 Apr 91 01:50:01 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Mon,  1 Apr 91 01:49:56 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #338

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 338

Today's Topics:
          Re: Government vs. Commercial R&D
              Re: SPACE Digest V13 #326
          ESA and CSA sign 5 new agreements
             Toward 2001 - 01 Apr

Administrivia:

    Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to
  [e-mail].  Other mail, esp. [un]subscription requests,
  should be sent to [e-mail], or, if urgent, to
             [e-mail]

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

Date: 29 Mar 91 21:04:41 GMT
From: zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!sequent!crg5![e-mail]  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Government vs. Commercial R&D

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Blase) writes:
>
> NS> If understand your point, it is that government money is
> NS> needed, not necessarily government lab work.
>
>More than just government money, rather a market for the first product
>from a technology.

Hold on.  If a market doesn't exist, why are you building the thing in
the first place?  A government is the poorest judge of markets I can think
of, bar none.

I can think of jillions of examples of this, but right off the bat
there is one that hit close to home: upper stages.  In the dozens
government studies of nuclear, electric, and other advanced upper stages
I have read, use for boosting satcoms to GEO is rarely, if ever, mentioned,
even though this is by far the largest use of upper stages.  Rather,
the devices are to be built for specialized, speculative, one-time,
far-future uses, such as Mars Missions.  The government then typically
proceeds to design the technology on a scale totally inappropriate for the
real markets, proceeds to heavily procrastinate on getting their hands
dirty with the technology (since it is "long term"), and as a result
the thing never gets built.

Meanwhile, Rocket Research Company and OSC, with no help from the
government, have teamed up to finally bring electric technology to the
market where it is needed most, satcom stationkeeping and upper stages.
If government was knowledgable about markets they would realize that
this is the direction to go, and help OSC/RRC in their efforts.

A second close-to-home example is launch technology.  Not coincidentally,
OSC also initiated the Pegasus and Taurus projects, a reduction
in the scale and entry-level cost of space launch by a factor of 5,
projects which would not have been needed if the government had not
wastefully mis-scaled the technology in the first place.  Finally a
tiny corner of government called DARPA said "oh, that's a great idea"
and bought a few launches, but it was OSC that conceived of and designed
the system.  Other companies eyeing commercial business more than
government contracts, such as Motorolla, AMROC, and E Prime, are also
designing for this more economical scale.


> NS> The patent
> NS> statistics and analysis of major inventions show that industry
> NS> does indeed develop first products, sometimes with some
> NS> government money, sometimes not, but nearly always without
> NS> government intervention in the design process.
>
>First of all, a patent has nothing to do with whether or not a technology
>is actually on the market.  There are lots of patents for things that
>never made it out of the lab.

Do you seriously think government patents have more chance of getting on
the market than private patents?  If anything, the patent statistics
greatly understate the efficiencies of private R&D.

A review of the statistics: of U.S. patents granted in 1989, 79,088 (76%)
were issued to corporations, 23,624 (23%) to private individuals, and
700 (1%) to governments.  Some of the corporate and individual patents
are aided directly or indirectly by government money, of course.  But
the bottom line is that direct DoD, NASA, DOE, etc. work accounts for
only a very small fraction of our technological advances.


[story about how government is involved in his R&D project]

This is fine, but with all due respect you have not demonstrated that all
this R&D effort is in any way productive, much less that it is _more_
productive than a privately directed effort.


--
Nick Szabo            [e-mail]
"If you want oil, drill lots of wells" -- J. Paul Getty
The above opinions are my own and not related to those of any
organization I may be affiliated with.

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

Date:         Sat, 30 Mar 91 16:44:38 EST
From: Tommy Mac <[e-mail]>
Subject:      Re: SPACE Digest V13 #326

Re: Follies / Chemical Rockets

It has asserted that:
 1 Chemical rockets cost too much and must be replaced
 2 Chemical reckets will get signifigantly cheaper
 3 No they won't
 4 Yes they will
 5 Chemical rockets will only get a little cheaper
 3 Chemical rockets would be useful, given a space mining system
 4 Chemical rockets are the only thing available for LEO launches
 5 Chemical rockets preclude man-in-the-street space travel

If the goal is building a space-mining-infrastructure (a very GOOD goal, IMHO)
then it should be obvious that SOME kind of rocket will be needed in large
volume.  At least for crew carrying, if nothing else.

If our 'Launch Window' is as short as some think, we should get going as soon
as we can, possibly sacrificing some cost savings for speed.  i.e. we might go
ahead, without making newer, better, faster, and better launch systems, and use
the stupid rockets.  If the resources in space are as rich as the optimists
believe, than waiting five years for the system that saves $1e6/launch will
COST us trillions, becuase the infrastructure eventually will show a profit of
1e12/year.  Specualtory, but so is "with advances in technology, we can..."

If we use the stupid rockets, and we need, say, 1000 launches/year at peak
operating capacity, then the focus should not be on the rocket, but the factory
that makes them.  Henry Ford did essentially the same figuring (although he
also kept an eye on the cars, too) and ended up not only making himself rich,
but building millions of cars that any shmo like you and me could buy (and fix,
back then).

Reusability IS a sound concept, even if the shuttle became so complex that the
difficulties out-costed the savings and launch volume advantages

It seems that with signifigant speeding up of the rocket-builidng factory, and
a little scaling down of the complexity (do we really need LH/LOX with all its
associated costs?) we could make chemical rockets cheap enough to afford that
cool Mining/Communications/Energy Production Infrastructure that we all want
jobs in some day.

If we can get the MCEPI off the ground (so-to-speak) does it really matter
if we spent too much in the startup phase?  Especially if it means doing it
NOW, instead of waiting an indeterminate amount of time for R&D, retooling,
testing, space-testing, and all the beaureaucraticness that ANY OTHER launch
system would require?

Besides, what else are we going to use?  And if that MCEPI isn't the goal,
what is?

Tommy Mac             Discliamer:  If people can go on TV representing the
18084tm@msu           "University Community" in favor of pot-legalization,
Mich. St. U           abortion and surrendering to the Iraqis, then I can
                      write a stupid note in favor of "Space Imperialism."
Acknowledge-To: <18084TM@MSU>

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

Date: 1 Apr 91 01:02:44 GMT
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!nss![e-mail]  (Bev Freed)
Subject: ESA and CSA sign 5 new agreements

European Space Agency
8-10 Rue Mario Nikis
75738 Paris Cedex 15
Telephone: [phone]
Telex: ESA 202 746
FAX: [phone]

FOR RELEASE: MARCH 21, 1991   #7

THE EUROPEAN SPACE AGENCY AND THE CANADIAN SPACE AGENCY
SIGN FIVE NEW AGREEMENTS

At the ESA Council meeting held at the Agency's headquarters in Paris
on 20 and 21 March, 1991, the Director General of the European Space
Agency, Mr. Jean-Marie Luton, and the Director General of the
Canadian Space Agency, Dr. Larkin Kerwin, signed five agreements on
Canada's participation in ESA programmes.

HERMES

Canada is taking part in the Hermes spaceplane development programme.

EARTH OBSERVATION

Canada is taking part in the development and exploitation phases of
the ERS-2 programme, to provide a successor to the first European
remote-sensing satellite.  ERS-1 is going to be launched on 3 May 1991.
Canada is already a participant in the ERS-1 programme.

In 1997, ERS-2 will be replaced by the polar platform, which is one of
the three elements of Columbia, the European contribution to the
International Space Station.

Canada is joining the first polar orbit Earth observation mission using
the polar platform (POEM-1).

TELECOMMUNICATIONS

Canada will be taking part in phase 4 of the advanced systems and
technology programme (ASTP-4).

It is also going to be a participant in the data relay and technology
mission programme (DRTM).

It should be stressed that Canada is a long-standing contributor to
ESA's telecommunications programme, having had, for instance, the third
largest involvement in Olympus, the powerful communication satellite in
June 1989.

After the signing of the five agreements, Dr. Kerwin announced that
Canada had adopted its national long-term space programme and voted
the budgets to fund it.

Canada's links with ESA go back to the mid-1970's, when it was granted
"observer status".  Since 1979 it has maintained still closer ties
with ESA, under the terms of three successive cooperating agreements.
The European Space Agency is also cooperating with Canada, alongside
the United States and Japan, in the International Space Station project.

With these new agreements, almost twenty years of close cooperation is
going to be strengthened further.  Canada and ESA's member states
have many important interests in common, and the climate of confidence
established between them augurs well for future successes.

For further information, please contact:

Beatrice Lacoste               Heidi Graf
ESA/Paris                      ESTEC Noordwijk (NL)
Tel: [phone]        Tel.: [phone]

Ria Weiland                    Evelyn Leoffler-Stegen
ESOC Darmstadt (FRG)           ESRIN Frascati (I)
TEL: [phone]        Tel.:  [phone]

For further information contact the above address or
ESA Washington Office
L'Enfant Plaza, S.W., Suite 7800
Washington, D.C. 20024
Tel: [phone]
FAX: [phone]

--- Opus-CBCS 1.14
 * Origin: NSS BBS - Ad Astra! [phone] *HST* (1:129/104.0)
--
Bev Freed - via FidoNet node 1:129/104
UUCP: ...!pitt!nss!freed
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

Date: 30 Mar 91 21:05:14 GMT
From: mips!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!nss![e-mail]  (Bev Freed)
Subject: Toward 2001 - 01 Apr


                            ***********
                            TOWARD 2001
                            ***********
                        Week of 1 April 1991
                 A Weekly Feature of SPACE CALENDAR
                   + = Domestic (USA) Earth event
                   * = Domestic (USA) space event
                   o = International Earth event
                   # = International space event
--------------------------------------------------------------------
                        REPRINT INFORMATION
This information is reproduced by permission of the Space Age
Publishing Company.  All rights reserved.  Copyright April 1, 1991.
Reproduction in any form without written permission violates federal
statute with penalty of up to $50,000.  SPACE CALENDAR is edited and
published on the Big `Space' Island of Hawaii.
====================================================================
                           * * * * * * *
o American - Soviet Space Trade
Washington DC / Moscow USSR

The possibility of an exchange whereby an American astronaut would
spend up to six months aboard the Mir 1 space station and a Soviet
cosmonaut would fly aboard the Space Shuttle appears to be growing.
Industry watchers believe the deal will be cut at a superpower
summit in May.
                           * * * * * * *
o Japan Moon Mission
Tokyo, Japan

Japan will become the third nation to land probes on the Moon
following a decision by the Space Activities Commission to approve a
US$100 million plan. The Lunar A satellite will deploy 3 probes to
explore up to 3 m below the lunar surface for data explaining lunar
quakes.
                           * * * * * * *
o Citizen Ambassador Program
Washington DC / Beijing, China

A delegation will tour space industry facilities in China from 22
June through 10 July 1991. China's aerospace societies will host the
group during tours of Xichang Launch Facility and several other
industry sites.
                           * * * * * * *
+ Sofia Stratospheric Observatory
Mountain View CA

The National Research Council is backing a proposal to construct a
$230 million flying observatory to study far-infrared astronomy. The
joint effort between NASA and DARA, the German space agency, would
replace the Kuiper observatory managed by NASA Ames Research Center.
                           * * * * * * *
+ Swords Into Plowshares Challenge
Washington DC

The Pentagon is struggling to determine how, when, and if it should
sell retired ballistic missile boosters to commercial launch
providers. Space Applications International Corp recommended
establishing a fair market value of around $1.2 million per stage.
                           * * * * * * *
+ NASA Lewis Arcjet Thrusters
Cleveland OH

AT&T's Telstar-4 comsat will use technology developed by Lewis to
save several hundred pounds in fuel. The company has not decided
whether it will opt for a longer life for the satellite or a smaller
launch vehicle.
                           * * * * * * *
o ESA / Romania Talks
Paris, France

Romania desires to work with ESA in the areas of space science,
remote sensing, microgravity experimentation, and
telecommunications. A delegation led by Prof Stefan Ispas of
Bucharest Academy of Technology met with ESA reps on 13 March.
                           * * * * * * *
+ Astronauts Memorial Foundation
Kennedy Space Center FL

Will dedicate the `Space Mirror' Astronauts Memorial on 9 May in
ceremonies to be attended by NASA administrator Truly, state and
federal dignitaries, former astronauts, and representatives from
industry and education.
                           * * * * * * *
+ EOSAT
Lanham MD

Beginning its 6th year in space, the satellite has exceeded its
design life by 150 percent and has completed over 37,000 orbits.
Landsat 6 is scheduled to be launched in 1992.
                           * * * * * * *
+ Lunar Footnote (Statistic)

6,682 Days since Moon last visited by humans.
                           * * * * * * *
o International Space Year 1992 (Quote)

      The most important policy objective of the ISY . . . is
  to instill a new Space Age frame of reference in the thoughts and
               actions of governments and individuals."
                  -- The late U S Senator Spark M Matsunaga, Hawaii
--------------------------------------------------------------------
                        ABOUT SPACE CALENDAR
Space Calendar provides a weekly preview of upcoming events in the
space industry.  It is published weekly by the SPACE AGE PUBLISHING
COMPANY from offices in Kailua-Kona Hawaii.  For a free sample of
the printed publication, use the address, telephone, or fax numbers
for the Hawaii office listed below.
SPACE AGE PUBLISHING COMPANY also publishes SPACE FAX DAILY from its
offices in Cupertino California.  For information about SPACE FAX
DAILY use the address, telephone, or fax numbers for the California
office listed below.
HAWAII OFFICE:  75-5751 Kuakini Highway, Suite 209, Kailua-Kona HI
96740; 808-326-2014, fax [phone].
CALIFORNIA OFFICE:  20431 Steven Creek Blvd, Cupertino CA 95054;
408-996-9210, fax [phone].
====================================================================


--- Opus-CBCS 1.14
 * Origin: NSS BBS - Ad Astra! [phone] *HST* (1:129/104.0)
--
Bev Freed - via FidoNet node 1:129/104
UUCP: ...!pitt!nss!freed
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #338
*******************