Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V15_1/V15NO116.ZIP/V15NO116

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 40KB

Date: Sun, 16 Aug 92 14:58:03
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #116
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Sun, 16 Aug 92       Volume 15 : Issue 116

Today's Topics:
               ACRV/Soyuz P # of Passengers (5 msgs)
              Energya and Freedom and Soyuz ACRV and...
NASA statement on Earth Data System proposals [NTE 92-71] (Forwarded)
             SPS feasibility (WAS: SPS fouling astronomy)
U.S. Go'vt Procurement (was: Energiya's role in Space Station assem) (2 msgs)

    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: 15 Aug 92 20:57:01 GMT
From: Greg Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: ACRV/Soyuz P # of Passengers
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes...
>>In article <h-aym4#@rpi.edu> [e-mail] (Greg Moore) writes:
>>
>
>You may be right here Allan, The Soyuz is usually pretty much automated.
>
    So is the shuttle.  But we still use two flight-qualified
astronauts.

>>In ten years of operation Shuttle has not come down in price very much.
>>As to additional flights reducing cost, it won't happen since Shuttle if
>>flying at maximum rate now and CAN'T fly any more.
>
>What is your source for this statement Allan. The maximum flight rate for the
>Shuttle is about one per month.  This comes from over three years of reading
>the daily reports of shuttle launch turn around operations.  Even before the
>addition of Endeavour there were times when all Three Shuttles were stacked
>with two on the pad and one in the VAB.  The constraint on the launch rate
>today is the payload processing from what I have seen.  Any comment from the
>Shuttle ops people out there?  Notice another thing Allan the overall yearly
>costs involved in Shuttle ops do not change much no matter how many or few
>that have been launched in the past few years.  By far most of the cost is
>associated in maintaining the standing armies at the centers that support the
>Shuttle.  A ten  launch per year rate is certainly possible now.  Also I have
>not heard any comments from you regarding the greaat increase in Shuttle
>reliability and schedule.  It is funny that around here there is grumbling
>about that fact in that researchers cannot count on a delay anymore when
>their schedules slip.
>>
>>A government report (I think it was 'Launch Options for the Future') said
>>that there is plenty of facilities available to greatly increase the
>>rate of Atlas launches. HL Delta goes up from an unused launch complex and
>>all the costs you mention are included.
>>
>I wonder where all of these facilities are at. They certainly aren't at KSC.
>Both MacDac pads (17A and 17B) are in constant use with almost a one shot
>per month average off of the pads. Also both Atlas pads (36A and 36B) are now
>operational.  One of the two Atlas pads have been recently brought back on line
>after over twenty years of non-use. The old Titan pads from the Gemini days
>are gone. The old Atlas pads from the Mercury days are gone, so to Get the
>HL Delta or Atlas going will require new pads and probably new fire control
>centers.  Also, new clean rooms and payload integration facilities at these new
>pads will have to be built.  It ain't all there Allan.
>
    This more clearly illustrates my point Allen.  You have to include
the use of clean rooms and pif's etc.  They are not always available.
(I am not talking building costs, those are one shot and are amortized over

the years, becomimg I would assume a small part of the cost).  BUt
for more flights you have to increase the number of "standing armies" of
technicians, the number of facilities (so that at least one is always
available at the pad you want to use.

>
>>
>>The relevant government reports says larger launch rates can be sustained.
>>This will provide better utilization of ground facilities which will reduce
>>costs even more.
>>
Up to a point.  This is like saying that the more cars that use a toll-bridge
the better, since it makes money faster.  Until you reach the carrying load
of the bridge and it now takes twice as long for each person to pay and get
across.  Then your profit drops in half.

>see the above
>
>
>
>Does this mean I can bid my Saturn Derived Vehicle (SDV) ?
>
    If you can build it (and fly it) tehy will come! (with contracts
in hand!)

>Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville
>


--
<------------------------------------------------------------------------->
Greg d. Moore                  |  [e-mail]
Green Mountain Software        |  "All that is gold does not glitter."
Carpe Diem                     |

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

Date: 15 Aug 92 21:12:59 GMT
From: Greg Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: ACRV/Soyuz P # of Passengers
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>>Allan you have still not addressed with numbers the propostion that the
>>Shuttle will become MORE useful as the return of large payloads grows more
>>common in the SSF era.
>
>The biggest payload identified is about 15K pounds. The only larger payload
>(LDEF) can be easilly broken up in LEO and individual experiments sent back
>with new ones added (saving launch costs).
>
>A simple return craft can be built to return these payloads in a suitable
>environment. Estimate the cost of this anyway you want.
>
    Hmm, sorry, I don't have my figures for EVA handy.  I know
it is more than non-EVA time.  Besides, NASA has been doing everything
that it can to REDUCE EVA time.  Hmm, will you throw in the cost of
the hard suit too?  Pretty please? :-)

    [stuff deleted]
>
>>A ten  launch per year rate is certainly possible now.
>
>That is a bit less than the one per month you quote above and also
>unrealistic. Ten flights has only been acheived one time and it ended
>with Chalenger.
>
>>Also I have
>>not heard any comments from you regarding the greaat increase in Shuttle
>>reliability and schedule.
>
>Since it achieves less reliability than commercial systems costing a fraction
>as much I don't think it is anything to boast about. Let's see it go on
>for a few years.
>
    How? If you kill it?  Compare the reliability of the first 50 flights
of the shuttle with the first 50 of any booster.  When we get more
shuttle flights under our belt, we use that as a better data set.
    (BTW, I am in agreement with at least one thing: "Man-rating" is
probably a myth that only adds to cost.)

>>I wonder where all of these facilities are at. They certainly aren't at KSC.
>
>HL Delta would use Complex 37. As for Atlas, the report I mention does
>say that the additional six flights can be acheived.
>
    Ok, so, let's see... under YOUR plan, you need at least 2 Soyuz
flights to recrew that station, 4 times a year.. gives 8 flights.  Ok,
so where do the extra 2 come from?  Given my numbers of min 3 flights
gives you 12 flights a year, twice the 6 you quote.  Now, where do we
launch the Progress and other resupply flights?

>
>If I'm wrong, give me the cost of a new Atlas facility and I'll add it
>to my estimates.
>
    Ok, giving it MAX capacity (which until I see numbers I think is
pushing things) of 12 flights a year, that eats up your Soyuz and Progress
flights.  And if you can't meet 12 flights a year?  What then?  What happens
when an Atlas is grounded (for whatever reason, I believe that you are
reasonable enough to admit that sometimes ANY booster can be delayed
somewhat) on the pad you're planning on launching your resupply mission?
Commadeer a commericial launch, or force a commercial launch to wait
while you rebuild the stack to include your resupply materials instead
of their cargo?  Who gets first dibs?  Government (with a crew in orbit)
or industry?  Both have paid for services.  Ultimately both will get them,
BUT one has a crew waiting.

>>Also, new clean rooms and payload integration facilities at these new
>>pads will have to be built.  It ain't all there Allan.
>
>What isn't there is included in the estimated development costs. Like I
>said, the HL Delta designers know what they are doing.
>
    I've neer seen you quote the money to be spend on intergration
facilities, etc.  If the number you have for HL Delta is not just for
the rocket, but for everything else, Pad, integration facilities, etc,
I'd appreciate it if you could brek them out and post them.

>Look, McDonnell Douglas offered the government 20 HLV flights at a fixed
>price. If the government signed, they wouldn't pay a penny until the
>flights happened. If the flights didn't happen or the launcher didn't
>meet specs then the government doesn't pay.
>
    Oh Allen? What do we need 20 flights for?  Not to launch
Fred, that can be done in 4 or 5.  What else?  Not to launch or
return large payloads according to you.
    So, can MacDac do it for only 4 or 5 launches?

>This is EXACTLY the way Boeing operates.
>
>>McDonnel Douglas is trying, but their cash position is not near as safe as
>>Boeing and I guarantee that the stockholders will not authorize the
>>expenditures of large amounts of company cash even if the government decides
>>to say they will guarantee the number of flights.
>
>And yet they made the offer. Perhaps the executives at McDac know more
>than you about finance and what the stockholders will go for.
>
>>BUT there ain't no way on God's green earth that
>>any of these guys would go for a contract that says "no deliver no pay"
>>without a hefty insurance policy.
>
>I'm sure that is true. The operative word is 'insurance'. Launch companies
>offer a wide range of services from 'we'll do our best but your on your own'
>to 'we're your one-stop shopping center for launches'.
>
>>Does this mean I can bid my Saturn Derived Vehicle (SDV) ?
>
>I would encourage you to. Although I doubt very much you can beat
>Zenith Star launcher prices.
>
>   Allen
>--
>+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
>|  [e-mail]     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
>+----------------------251 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+


--
<------------------------------------------------------------------------->
Greg d. Moore                  |  [e-mail]
Green Mountain Software        |  "All that is gold does not glitter."
Carpe Diem                     |

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

Date: 15 Aug 92 21:59:25 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: ACRV/Soyuz P # of Passengers
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Greg Moore) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>>In article <h-aym4#@rpi.edu> [e-mail] (Greg Moore) writes:
>>
>>>    Soyuz is great, Soyuz is God, Soyuz can carry ONE passenger.  The
>>>other two occupants must be qualified as pilots.
>>
>>>    The Shuttle is lousy, the shuttle is the eater of money, the shuttle
>>>can carry 5 passengers (or more).
>>
>>I would like to see a source for this. The Soviets tended to prefer automated
>>hardware and didn't let their crew do much if they could avoid it. There
>>shouldn't be too much trouble qualifying crews.
>>
>
>    Source? Look at any Soyuz flight.  If it were so easy, I'd think that
>the CIS would be willing to fly TWo paying passengers, rather than one.
>Also, looking at I believe the last 4 or so missions I recall 2 were done
>with manually docking.  Finally, recall Mercury and the Capsule passengers?
>Oh, excuse me, the ASTRONAUTS who fought to have flight control.  Trying
>to convince NASA and/or its astronauts to sit in a capsule while it flies
>without I think would be harder than convincing Congress of your ideas.
>
>>But I point out that if in fact you are correct, this is still a problem
>>for Shuttle. Soyuz WILL be the ACRV. Congress isn't going to fund anything
>>else.
>>
>    This was my fault, the subject is misleading.  As ACRV I do believe
>that Soyuz has its merits.  As a method for exchanging crews, I have serious
>doubts.  And you haven't made an argument yet.  Just some simple handwaving
>about how easy it would be to qualify crews and that it would all be done
>automatically.
>    Heck, the shuttle can fly automatically except for landing gear
>deployment (and that will change soon).  Why bother flying with a
>Commander AND a pilot.  Heck, dumpt them and you have 7 or more passengers.
>
>>Therefore if this is a problem, both approaches will sove it the same
>>way.
>>
>    Not sure what you are saying here?
>
>>>    With shuttle, you only need one shuttle flight.  AND the shuttle can
>>>supply the station in the same flight.
>>
>>And if we have enough money that we don't mind wasing most of it, this
>>is just fine.
>>
>    I've just demonstrated that your costs may be higher than you're
>admitting, and all you can do is say how much the shuttle can costs.  You've
>gone from 2 Soyuz flights (3+1 or 2+2) to recrew the station to possibly as
>many as 4, doubling your cost of Soyuz.
>
>>>    If the station EVER (and I doubt this for a LONG time) gets to
>>>8-person capability you will need 6 Soyuz flights to recrew.
>>
>>I'm assuming three although even with six we still save money.
>>
>>>    An added cost comes up with these multiple flights.
>>
>>In ten years of operation Shuttle has not come down in price very much.
>>As to additional flights reducing cost, it won't happen since Shuttle if
>>flying at maximum rate now and CAN'T fly any more.
>>
>    Non-Sequitor.  I never argued that shuttle costs would come down.
>I argued that your non-hardware costs would go UP.  Assuming you want to
>change the crew within a short period of time (i.e. in a week or so) you've
>got to launch 4 Soyuz's in the space of a week.  HOW?
>
>>>Before you argue
>>>that costs would go DOWN as a result of a larger production line, keep in mind
>>>that you will need more launch pads, more ground support, etc.
>>
>>A government report (I think it was 'Launch Options for the Future') said
>>that there is plenty of facilities available to greatly increase the
>>rate of Atlas launches. HL Delta goes up from an unused launch complex and
>>all the costs you mention are included.
>>
>    As you mention in a later post, there are ADDITIONAL facilities
>around, I would not say PLENTY!
>
>>>You can't
>>>simply double or triple the flight rate of any rocket without taking into
>>>account the cost of these factors.  Therefore, I don't think your savings in
>>>production quantity would help, it would end up being eaten in launch support
>>>costs.
>>
>>The relevant government reports says larger launch rates can be sustained.
>>This will provide better utilization of ground facilities which will reduce
>>costs even more.
>>
>>>    Finally, as my recent post concering the EOS system asks, why is the
>>>cost so low.
>>
>>1. It is a commercial procurement. The government isn't buying a launcher
>>but launch services. If the contractor doesn't deliver the payload, he
>>doesn't get paid. The govenrment will not be paying for the development
>>of HL Delta nor will it own the design. The contractor has every incentive
>>to keep costs in line since he looses $$ otherwise.
>>
>    Sorry, my argument was not clear here.  EOS should be handled the
>same way your are arguing for HL Delta etc.  But, clearly the government
>does NOT want to work this way.
>    One poster sent me a message explaing partly why.  It's typical for
>contractors to underbid and ask for more money later.  And I think this would
>happen with McDonnell Douglas.  "Well, gee, we underbid and well, we are
>going to lose so much money that A) we can't build what you want and B)
>we're going to go out of business, taking hundreds of jobs with us."
>
>    And what has the government done in the past?
>
>>2. The vehicles in question use mostly off-the-shelf parts with wide safety
>>margins. This works to reduce costs and increase reliability.
>>
>>>    Your answer taht you've talked to teh engineers, ro that Boeing does
>>>it with aircraft all the time doesn't hold water with me.  First:  the
>>>companies in question have a tradition of giving lower figures, why change
>>>now?
>>
>>Because the rules are different. Before with cost plus contracts it was
>>to a companys advantage to add costs. With this effort where only services
>>are being purchased, that won't work.
>>
>>>Two: Boeing is operating in the real world with real customers who
>>>WON'T allow them to underbid and get away with it.
>>
>>EXACTLY. Since we are making the government a real customer it will
>>work just like Boeing. Now the govenrment is simply another buyer of
>>launch services just like Intelsat (which McDonnell Douglas and GD
>>already serve).
>>
>>Don't get hung up on HL Delta or Atlas. We aren't paying to develop
>>them. All we are doing is buying launch services from the lowest bidder
>>and it may not be either of those vehicles who get the contract.
>>
>    Me hung up?  Look around. :-)
>
>>   Allen
>>--
>>+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>>| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
>>|  [e-mail]     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
>>+----------------------252 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
>
>
>--
><------------------------------------------------------------------------->
>Greg d. Moore                  |  [e-mail]
>Green Mountain Software        |  "All that is gold does not glitter."
>Carpe Diem                     |


--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  [e-mail]     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------251 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 15 Aug 92 22:18:37 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: ACRV/Soyuz P # of Passengers
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Greg Moore) writes:

>>A simple return craft can be built to return these payloads in a suitable
>>environment. Estimate the cost of this anyway you want.

>    Hmm, sorry, I don't have my figures for EVA handy.

Well when you can attach numbers to your complaint I will address it.
Otherwise, it can't be considered credible.

>>Since it achieves less reliability than commercial systems costing a fraction
>>as much I don't think it is anything to boast about. Let's see it go on
>>for a few years.

>    How? If you kill it?  Compare the reliability of the first 50 flights
>of the shuttle with the first 50 of any booster.  When we get more
>shuttle flights under our belt, we use that as a better data set.

Shuttle deserves to die on the basis of cost alone. Its generally
poor relaiblity is just iceing.

>>HL Delta would use Complex 37. As for Atlas, the report I mention does
>>say that the additional six flights can be acheived.
>>
>    Ok, so, let's see... under YOUR plan, you need at least 2 Soyuz
>flights to recrew that station, 4 times a year.. gives 8 flights.  Ok,
>so where do the extra 2 come from?

They go up on the HLV along with the resuply.

> Given my numbers of min 3 flights
>gives you 12 flights a year, twice the 6 you quote.

Only eight Soyuz are needed. If we need 12, that simply raises the cost to
$1.6 billion per year. Instead of saving $ billion per year we will only
save $3.4 billion.

>Now, where do we
>launch the Progress and other resupply flights?

the HLV of course.

>What happens
>when an Atlas is grounded (for whatever reason, I believe that you are
>reasonable enough to admit that sometimes ANY booster can be delayed
>somewhat) on the pad you're planning on launching your resupply mission?

Since it can happen to any vehicle it can happen to Shuttle. Since we
resuply with unmanned vehicles, gounding is a far more serious problem
for Shuttle.

I also point out that unlike Shuttle, the alternate approach has
backups and assumes things will fail. If Shuttle fails, your dead
in the water. If Atlas fails, you launch on Titan. If HL Delta
fails, you use Titan V.

>>What isn't there is included in the estimated development costs. Like I
>>said, the HL Delta designers know what they are doing.

>    I've neer seen you quote the money to be spend on intergration
>facilities, etc.

Nevertheless they ARE included.

>>Look, McDonnell Douglas offered the government 20 HLV flights at a fixed
>>price.

>    Oh Allen? What do we need 20 flights for?

That represents ten years of station resuply.

    Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  [e-mail]     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------251 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 15 Aug 92 22:20:03 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: ACRV/Soyuz P # of Passengers
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Greg Moore) writes:

>>I would like to see a source for this. The S[Soyuz must have 2 pilots]

>    Source? Look at any Soyuz flight.

In other words, you don't have a source.

>  If it were so easy, I'd think that
>the CIS would be willing to fly TWo paying passengers, rather than one.

They don't fly two paying passengers because the other two are needed to keep
Mir operating. the passenger stays up a few days and returns with the
other crew.

>to convince NASA and/or its astronauts to sit in a capsule while it flies
>without I think would be harder than convincing Congress of your ideas.

We aren't talking about astornauts. Soyuz doesn't need two pilots.

>    I've just demonstrated that your costs may be higher than you're
>admitting, and all you can do is say how much the shuttle can costs.  You've
>gone from 2 Soyuz flights (3+1 or 2+2) to recrew the station to possibly as
>many as 4, doubling your cost of Soyuz.

We need eight Soyuz flights to provide crew rotation. Two go on HLV
and the rest go on Atlas. The HLV also provides logistics. This adds
up to about $1 billion per year. Doubling the number of Atlas flights
brings the cost to $1.6 billion; still a bargin.

>    Non-Sequitor.  I never argued that shuttle costs would come down.
>I argued that your non-hardware costs would go UP.

You did assert that but the government estimates of Atlas launch capicity
don't bear those assertions out. It is therefore not a problem.

>Assuming you want to
>change the crew within a short period of time (i.e. in a week or so) you've
>got to launch 4 Soyuz's in the space of a week.  HOW?

We don't. We launch one every siz weeks and rotate crew that way. This
may even be to our advantage since Freedom will then have somebody who
has been around for a while on board. This experience could be valuable
in repair and other activities.

>    Sorry, my argument was not clear here.  EOS should be handled the
>same way your are arguing for HL Delta etc.

Indeed it should.

>But, clearly the government does NOT want to work this way.

With the exception of payloads which MUST go on the Shuttle, the
government is REQUIRED to act the way I propose according to public
law 101-106.

Freedom resuply does not need to go on Shuttle.

>    One poster sent me a message explaing partly why.  It's typical for
>contractors to underbid and ask for more money later.

When the government is paying for hardware to be developed this can indeed
happen. This can't happen when the government is only buying services. Like
anything else, if the service is not provided, the contractor isn't paid.

>    And what has the government done in the past?

since you ask, when the government buys launch services instead of launchers
it generally saves 30 to 50%.

   Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  [e-mail]     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------251 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 15 Aug 92 15:40:27 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Energya and Freedom and Soyuz ACRV and...
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Garry Holmen) writes:
>Reading the subject header of this posting gave me a great idea....
>
>Why don't we just strap the shuttle onto the Energia and throw the soyuz into
>the shuttle's cargo bay. This takes care of heavy lift capability, cheap
>escape vehicles and low G returns of space hardware. I'm sure we can get
>that fellow from South Africa to supply the propellent for the whole project
>if we donate the raw sugar, salt peter and a large candle.
>
>The total price for this scheme would be :
>
>    Energia        2 pairs 501 jeans and Rolling stones CD
>            ( equivalent to 10,000,000 rubles in the black market)
>
>    Shuttle        1 Billion US $. (No red tag special here....)
>
>    Soyuz        Macdonald franchise for St. Petersburg.
>
>for a grand total of     1 billion plus spare change.
>      plus tax        3 billion.
>
>(PS.... I think Allen can get all this for about 200M if we just let him
>work with the numbers for awhile.)

Well that sounds like a plan, but there's another way that doesn't
require any engineering work to mate all that hardware. The Shuttle's
current high launch cost is mostly labor, a new ET and fuel are piddling
expenses. So let's fire all those Rockwell guys and hire Russian rocket
scientists, they work for $12 a month. A Shuttle launch then runs about
$10 a pound. Can anyone say "too cheap to meter"? I knew you could.

You say Russian labor costs are going to go up now that they are becoming
a free market economy? Damn right! And the price of Energia and Soyuz
are going to skyrocket right along with those wages. *That's* the flaw
in the "let the Russians do it" plans. We can refine and bend metal as
cheaply as anyone. It's the skilled labor costs that make the difference.

Gary

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

Date: 15 Aug 92 16:20:25 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: NASA statement on Earth Data System proposals [NTE 92-71] (Forwarded)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <===[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Greg Moore) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter E. Yee) writes:
>    [stuff deleted for brevity's sake and Mike's sake]
>
>>    As prescribed by NASA source selection regulations,
>>the evaluation of proposals included a "most probable
>>cost" analysis of each proposal as reflected in the
>>"best and final offers" submitted by the offerers.
>>Despite NASA's repeated attempts during the solicitation
>>and evaluation processes to encourage the submission of
>>realistic cost estimates, the government's analysis
>>clearly indicates that the offerers significantly
>>underestimated the cost of the respective technical
>>approaches.  Accordingly, NASA is unwilling to select an
>>offerer for further negotiations leading to award of a
>>contract.
>>
>    Now, am I reading this right?  Every submitter said they
>could do it for around $X and NASA and the government is saying,
>oh no... you can't do it for $X, it's a lot more than that!  Until
>you say it will cost more we won't award the bid.
>
>    It seems to me that if EVERY contractor said they could do
>it cheaper than the government says it will cost, maybe the
>contractors know something?  After all, I'm sur they are in there
>to make money, not lose it.
>
>    I can understand if one company was way low.  In that case,
>sure you probably don't want to go with the lowest bidder.  But if
>EVERY company is way low? Come on.
>
>So, please, if I'm misunderstanding this, please let me know why
>the goverment wants to spend more money?
>(And no, the answer is not that every company is using Soyuz. :-)

A thorny problem the government faces in all cost plus development
contracts is the practice of low balling the original figure then
jacking up costs as the program progresses. With a cost plus deal
a company can't lose at this game. NASA has decided in this case
that it doesn't want to play the escalation game and get embarressed
in fromt of Congress yet again when huge cost overruns appear down
the road. They're telling the bidders that their lies are too blatent
this time and NASA isn't going to play.

They could put the project out as a fixed price procurement, but that's
risky in a developmental project. They could end up paying out a lot of
progress payments and not wind up with a system that met their needs.

Gary

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

Date: 15 Aug 92 15:11:08 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: SPS feasibility (WAS: SPS fouling astronomy)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (R. Cage) writes:
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
[deleted]
>
>Also, you have the earth's energy budget wrong.  The disc area
>is about pi * (6.4e6 m)^2, or 1.28e14 square meters.  The solar
>constant is about 1360 W/m^2, so we get about 1.75e17 watts, or
>175,000 TW of incident sunlight.  Not 140 TW.  You're off by 3
>orders of magnitude!

Yeah I know. :-( I calculated in English units for Earth's area and
screwed up the conversion to square meters. Heat load isn't a significant
factor in any event, even with my wrong numbers it's still piddling.

>Adding another 4 TW of heat is literally a drop in the bucket.
>Spread it out and you'll have a very hard time detecting it.

Yep.

>>By contrast, for Earth based solar collection, there is no net increase
>>in heat flux. The energy is striking the planet anyway whether we use it
>>or not.
>
>3.)    You're assuming that the albedo of the earth's surface and
>    a solar collector are the same.
>
>In a word, WRONG!  Solar collectors are a lot blacker than most things.
>
>If you counter that the collectors can be interspersed with light
>colored areas to reflect light and keep the balance the same, you
>can do that without solar collectors too.  It's not an argument
>for ground-based.

No, all energy that reaches Earth's surface is eventually re-radiated
to space. The time scale is different if it is immediately reflected
rather than being used as electricity first, but that doesn't matter
to the long term energy balance. It's still a piddling amount as you
noted above.

>>Now what's happening on the Moon? Gas lasers are very inefficient devices.
>
>Free-electron lasers aren't.  Neither are amplitrons.
>
>>I don't have CO2 numbers at hand, but He-Ne efficiencies are around 0.1%.
>
>I believe CO2 lasers have reached 20%; someone please correct me.
>
>>Now solar energy striking the top of the Earth's atmosphere, or
>>the surface of the Moon, is 1 kW/m^2.
>
>Close enough.

Yeah it's 1.4 but round numbers are close enough for this calculation.

>>So our 1 TW delivered to the busbar on
>>Earth requires a solar collector area of 1E14 square meters on the Moon.
>
>This assumes a system efficiency of 1%.  That is about 10x too low.  Solar
>cells are over 20%, conversion equipment to microwaves is well over 50%.

Actually that's an efficiency of 6% total from Lunar solar capture to
Earth busbar. The figure includes Lunar photovoltaics or thermal at
roughly 30% efficiency and CO2 lasers at 10%. It doesn't include any
transmission or conversion losses at either end. The number could be
2X either way and still be reasonably close. Since this is the Loony
Laser we're debunking, microwaves don't count.

>>requires a square 10,000 km on a side, or about 6,000 miles on a side. Sorry
>>gentlemen, the Moon isn't that big.
>
>More like 3,000 km on a side.  Just about the area of Luna.

Numbers could be 2X either way. That's still a near *planetary* body
we're talking about plating with solar cells in any case. That's so
unreal I'm surprised *anyone* would seriously consider it.

>>Now if we discard the laser, the Moonbase
>>with it's 6000 mile on a side collector, and simply use the same collector
>>field we were going to use for the laser on Earth, we still gather in 1E10
>>watts, or 10 GW, and we haven't spent an improbable fortune on the Moon.
>
>You can't use the same collector.  It's out of the sun a lot more than
>half the time, has to be built to deal with WATER and WIND, and a whole
>lot of other things that limit its life and output.  Vacuum and low G
>has the advantage that it's very friendly to most equipment.

No, it *is* the same collector. The one on Earth to catch the *laser*
beam from the Moon. It's already built to deal with the elements. It's
only 6 miles on a side.

>>A Lunar collector array would be in darkness 2 weeks out of 4, so storage
>>for two weeks would be required on Earth.
>
>Wrong.  You'd put collectors on both sides of the moon.  When power
>is only hitting the far side, it's the far side collectors which feed
>the transmitters.  Transmission lines are easy in 1/6 G and vacuum.

Plate the *whole* Moon? Really now. Transmission lines would have to
be superconductive in any case at the power levels we're talking about.
1/6 G doesn't really enter in, the damn things would have to be buried
below the solidly plated surface. Vacuum could be useful for the cryogenics.

>>Therefore, at least half of
>>Earth's capture arrays would be in daylight at any given moment. That's
>>at least 7 times better than the Loony Laser.
>
>Wrong.  Receivers not in direct view of Luna could be fed by
>reflectors (easy for lasers, a little harder for microwaves).
>If a receiver can take a feed from more than one reflector at
>a time, then interruptions from the reflector going behind
>Earth as seen from Luna will be avoidable.

Ok, now you're going to orbit huge reflectors as well as plate the
Moon with solar cells. Note that reflectors capable of handling
terawatts are tricky beasts at best.

>>But solar *thermal* is workable *today* in certain cases.
>
>Yes, mostly peaking power or fossil displacement.  Not replacement,
>not base-load.  The whole point of Lunetta or SPS is base-load power.
>
>IMHO, if there is the capability to build that much collector
>area on the moon, a single catapult can put it into orbit and
>leave it in sunlight 24 hours per day, all month.  Having many
>feed angles and immunity from lunar eclipses and beam
>occultation by Earth is another big advantage.  This is why I
>think SPS has a better future than Lunetta.

A few fast breeders deal with the problem with *today's* technology
for *trillions* less. I think that they're *all* loony.

Gary

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

Date: 15 Aug 92 21:38:04 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: U.S. Go'vt Procurement (was: Energiya's role in Space Station assem)
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

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

>Dan Goldin, in a recent press release, announced that he's going to
>reform NASA procurement practices.  I don't know how, since NASA is
>bound by the same laws as everybody else (except Congress).

Goldin CAN set up a different system if he wants. Most of this is federal
regulation and not law.

The advantage of the FAR's is that it keeps your ass well covered. If your
project fails miserably but you followed the FAR to the letter, your safe
and can even be promoted (as has happened).

You can choose not to follow the FAR if you want but your ass is no longer
covered.

  Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  [e-mail]     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------251 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 15 Aug 92 20:39:09 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: U.S. Go'vt Procurement (was: Energiya's role in Space Station assem)
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Gary Coffman) challenges us to:
>                         Name *one* major military procurement that
>proceeded on a fixed price basis with *no* adjustments. Congress is
>notorious for "stretching out" procurement in a way that saves money
>this year, but adds horrible extra costs in the "out years" if the
>full procurement ever is actually filled. Recent examples include B1B,
>B2, and Seawolf. ATF is travelling down the same road.

FAR be it for me to defend the procurement system with which Congress
has saddled the rest of the U.S Government, but you do get a very
skewed view of the process by reading about it in the Press.  The Press
is only interested in stories that are "news," and procurement actions
which are on-time and under-budget are not considered newsworthy.

Challenging us to name a "major military procurement" which worked
"properly" is quite a challenge, since we never hear about them if
everything goes well.  I'd point to NASA's recently-completed $2B
purchase of OV-105 (Endeavour), but since NASA did the final work on
the new Orbiter at KSC, it's debatable whether Rockwell really did come
in on-time and under-budget.  (It's hard to tell when the rules change
in mid-contract, and they always change on a big procurement.)

The U.S. space program operates under the same procurement regulations
that DoD and the Department of Agriculture do.  Whether it's rockets
or bullets or tractors, it's the lowest qualified bidder, or you'd
better have a darned good JOFOC (that's Governmentese for Justification
for Other than Full and Open Competition).

Dan Goldin, in a recent press release, announced that he's going to
reform NASA procurement practices.  I don't know how, since NASA is
bound by the same laws as everybody else (except Congress).  I applaud
him for the effort, but true changes can only come from Congress, and
they have so much crap built into the procurement rules, they'll never
get rid of it all.

On the sunny side, it looks as though Dan Quayle, Friend of the Space
Program, may come to the rescue.  His "National Council on
Competitiveness" is taking a serious look at procurement reform.  I
doubt he'll be able to get anywhere, either, but at least he's trying.

Let's take this to talk.politics.space where it belongs.

-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
      [e-mail]  [phone]

     "Better.  Faster.  Cheaper." -- Daniel S. Goldin, NASA Administrator

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 116
------------------------------