Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V15_2/V15NO258.ZIP/V15NO258

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 35KB

Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 05:02:01
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #258
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Tue, 29 Sep 92       Volume 15 : Issue 258

Today's Topics:
                              Alan Bean
         Atlas E and F questions ( Actually Pershing missile)
                  Clinton and Space Funding (2 msgs)
              Hypersonic test vehicle proposed (4 msgs)
           NEAR asteroid mission (but wait! There's more!)
                    Self-genociding space colonies
                   Space and Presidential Politics
             Space Life Sciences Training Program (NASA)
         Wealth in Space (Was Re: Clinton and Space Funding)

    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: 28 Sep 92 16:36:05 GMT
From: Curtis Roelle <roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu>
Subject: Alan Bean
Newsgroups: sci.space

In 1984 I saw some examples of Alan Bean's art at a gathering of lunar
astronauts, including Bean, "Buzz" Aldrin, Sen. Schmitt, and others, at
the Air & Space Museum in Washington.  The event was to commemorate the
15th anneversary of the first manned lunar landing.

Bean said Eugene Cernan told him about a regret he had concerning his own
lunar experience.  Cernan had wished he would have inscribed his daughter's
name in the lunar soil, but of course the astronauts were too busy.  Bean
then showed a painting of Cernan, in his red-striped commander's spacesuit,
standing next to a large lunar boulder.  In his and was a hammer or some
other tool.  On the boulder was written his daughter's name.

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

Date: 28 Sep 92 16:34:29 GMT
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Atlas E and F questions ( Actually Pershing missile)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>First, a correction:  Scout is *not* a light rocket, it's an orbital
>launcher at the extreme upper end of the sounding-rocket category.
>It can be used as a super-heavy sounding rocket -- the user's manual
>includes some information on this -- but it seldom is.
>

Okay,  i knew the scouts were orbitals, i didn't know light implied unable to
reach orbit,  i was just referring to it's rather small payloads to leo.

>The Pershings would probably make okay sounding rockets, if the treaty
>language was suitable.  (There are problems here, which is why the treaty
>called for destruction and set time limits.  A sounding rocket sitting in
>a warehouse awaiting launch needs only a warhead and a launch truck to
>become a weapon again.)  But why bother?  Sounding rockets are not that
>hard to come by and it's a reasonably competitive market, I believe.
>
>Oh, if you let the Pershings go as government surplus at fire-sale prices,
>they'd be cheaper than commercial sounding rockets.  Of course, this has
>a good chance of bankrupting some of the sounding-rocket companies by
>flooding the market with government-subsidized competition.  What happens
>when you run out of Pershings and there's nobody left to provide ongoing
>sounding-rocket service?  You can devise safeguards against this, but it
>gets tricky, and the existing companies will fight you tooth and nail in
>Congress and in the courts.  Is it worth the trouble?
>--

Well, given that everyone is always bitching about the costs of flight/lb
and given that this once in a blue moon chance came by i figured
everyone would snap at the chance.  i think the russians burned a bunch
of ss-20's as sounding shots, so why not us.   basically i figured
we could take a bunch of electronics and other packages that people
wanted to build and shoot them and get one big set of hardware
launch qualified.  if it works on top of a ss-20, it'll probably
survive shuttle launch conditions, if it doesn't find out why not
and not have to debug as much on rare and expensive shuttle missions..

is it worth the trouble?  that's a management issue, but i would have
thought some of the space groups would have proposed it.
as for the sounding rocket companies.  pay them to run the launches.
then they get the profits from launch.  set it up so that universities
and non-profit get first crack and real good rates,  everyone wins.

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

Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 19:37:48 GMT
From: Nick Haines <[e-mail]>
Subject: Clinton and Space Funding
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,talk.politics.space,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:

   Let's see, ole Chris landed in the New World in 1492, the first viable
   colony landed in 1620. Apollo landed on the Moon in 1969. So we should
   expect private enterprise to land a commercial colony on the Moon about
   2097. Let's call it New Plymouth. In the meantime, I guess we'll have
   to let the great navigators be funded by the government. The maps have
   to be filled in in those spaces that now say "Here there be dragons."

Hold on, hold on. Weren't the Spanish getting large quantities of gold
(etc) from the west coast of North America back in the 16th century,
down El Camino Real to what is now Panama?

Nick Haines [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:38:19 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Clinton and Space Funding
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>> Well, we haven't visited Mercury or Pluto *yet*.
>
>Didn't one of the Mariner probes flyby Mercury?

Mariner 10 was primarily a Mercury mission, in fact.  It made three Mercury
flybys after doing a Venus gravity-assist maneuver.
--
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 28 Sep 92 15:56:52 GMT
From: "Robert B. Whitehurst" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hypersonic test vehicle proposed
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes:
>I saw an interesting article on p 27 of the September 14 AW&ST.
>
>Apparently Ames has proposed a Mach 10 class manned research aircraft as a
>more conservative approach to building NASP.  The idea would be to collect data
>on hypersonic flight before trying to build a full orbital vehicle.
>
>The Hypersonic Air Launch Option (HALO) would be a piloted vehicle that would
>be launched from an SR-71 at Mach 3 and 70,000 ft.  It would use a LH2/LOX
>rocket to reach Mach 9, then test variations on a scramjet engine at speeds up
>to Mach 10-12.  It would be designed to fly 50-100 flights over a period of
>several years.
>
>Proponents say it is a more rational approach to building NASP and more
>fiscally acceptable.  Opponents say that it's an unnecessary sidetrack that
>will delay NASP and end up costing more money.
>
>Personal Opinions:
>   I tend to agree with the proponents.  I'm not sure if that's because it
>sounds like better engineering technique or becuase I like the idea of stapling
>a scramjet to the top of a Blackbird :-)  I don't know enough about the current
>state of the art in NASP technology to know if it's needed though.
>
...
>Josh Hopkins                 Of course I'm a solipsist - Isn't everybody?

    My worry is that, while it may give some useful data, the
SR-71/HALO proposal would siphon $$ out of other necessary propulsion
research.  There is still an awful lot of research needed in the
(non-black) propulsion program.  Detailed diagnostics of the primitive
flow variables associated with these combustors is spectacularly
scarce, and the flying models they are proposing will not have the
instrumentation necessary to get that detailed information.  The
prototype engines built to date (that I know of) have a lot of "seat
of the pants" style engineering in them.  That's not bad, but with the
slim margins we'll likely have between success (technical and fiscal)
and failure (anything from Challenger-style to just wretched
efficiency), I'd like to see more detailed info.  Of course, then
there's possible black programs...who knows how long it will be before
that data would be public.
    Then there's the possibility of losing a SR-71 mother ship,
like the M-12 that got destroyed in the previous drone launches.  They
can say they won't lose another, but...

--

Brad Whitehurst    |   Aerospace Research Lab
[e-mail] |   We like it hot...and fast.

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

Date: 28 Sep 92 16:44:39 GMT
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hypersonic test vehicle proposed
Newsgroups: sci.space

I saw something on the X-15 on the discovery channel last night.
they were talking about the last flight of the A-2 which got burned
up and retired.  they said that budget constraints forced it's retirement
not damage.  it was damaged, but not totalled.  also they siad that
the damage was avoidable and that they could fix and work their way
up to mach 8, maybe higher...  so to test scramjet technology.

maybe we should look at dusting off some of those.  certainly cheaper
then a whole new program,.  maybe it's old, but it's paid for
and with budgets so tight, we cant be picky.

does anyone know what the Vmax for the X-15 was?  what were the structural
limits on the birds and engines?

pat

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

Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:37:07 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hypersonic test vehicle proposed
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>         Aurora
>         TSTO/XB-70 like aircraft (AW&ST, August 24, 1992)
>         X-30                     (AW&ST, September 14, 1992)
>         HALO                     (AW&ST, September 14, 1992)
>         HL-20
>         SSTO/DCX/DCY
>         others ?
>
>Could somebody on this list explain the differences between these
>projects ?

Okay, here's a quick rundown.

There may or may not be something called Aurora.  If so, it's secret
and so is its performance.  Same comments for AW&ST's spaceplane/B-70ish
combination.

The X-30 is/was a project to build a high-hypersonic aircraft ultimately
capable of reaching orbit.  It is dying because the pricetag for flight
vehicles is too high.  The project has done some useful work on things
like high-temperature materials, which other projects may use.

HALO is a *proposal* to build what is essentially an X-15 followon, a
medium-hypersonic research aircraft launched from an SR-71.  Most people
like the idea (the prominent exception is the X-30 lobby), but it's still
a paper project.  No money, no commitment.

The HL-20 is a small design study to build a lifting-body reentry craft
which would be launched on an expendable booster, probably a Titan.
Think of this as more or less an Apollo-capsule followon.  Many people
like the idea, and it has been studied in small ways, but there is no
commitment to build it yet.

DC-X is a suborbital (in fact subsonic) test vehicle now being built for
the SSTO project.  DC-Y would be the orbital prototype, not yet approved
or funded.  SSTO goes by at least one other set of initials depending on
who you're talking to.  It's aimed at building a one-stage fully-reusable
space launcher, unlike the X-30 in that it is a wingless rocket-powered
vehicle that takes off and lands vertically, also unlike the X-30 in that
it is avoiding unnecessary new technology, and finally unlike the X-30
in that it should cost an order of magnitude less to find out if it works.
--
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 17:43:23 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hypersonic test vehicle proposed
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Mary Shafer) writes:

>And to tie this to another thread, I've just been made HL-20 Chief
>Engineer at Dryden.  Langley Research Center is the Lead Center for
>HL-20, of course.

Goodie. When ya going to bend metal? :-) Got any rough estimates for first
flight?

For that matter, is there a price tag on HL-20 yet? I know it's all been R&D
money so far...


                 Play in the intelluctual sandbox of Usenet

  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 20:09:25 GMT
From: Nick Haines <[e-mail]>
Subject: NEAR asteroid mission (but wait! There's more!)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:

   In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
   >The fixed 1.5 m X-band dish allows (at 1 AU from Earth) 20.8 kbits/sec
   >using DSN's 34-meter ground stations, 83.8 kb/sec with the 70-m
   >dishes.  Solid-state data recorder would  hold 5E5 bits. (Now that I
   >look at my notes, that seems a bit small! Maybe I transcribed it
   >incorrectly.  Think that 5 coulda been an 8?)

   Indeed, they'd be pulling a Magellan. :-)  Unlike Magellan, they might
   not have the clout to get tons of DSN time, and would lose the data
   instead.  'Tis not a good thing to skimp on storage, especially in
   an era of many small missions, all competing for DSN time.

5E5 bits is only 64k, I can't believe that. 5e8 is more plausible, but
at 64 megs might be more than they'd put in (me, I'd go for a gigabyte
:->).  Maybe 5e5 bytes (512k??)

Nick

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

Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 19:55:38 GMT
From: Nick Haines <[e-mail]>
Subject: Self-genociding space colonies
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:

   [...]

   Perhaps, but technology has been decreasing the cost and increasing
   the effectiveness of birth control faster, and our expectations for our
   children rise as fast as the economy.  For example, nowadays many
   middle class couples will delay having children until they can pay
   for their college; an extremely high expectation in historical
   and world-wide terms, but seemingly normal for us and probably
   sub-normal is a space colony; they will want their children to
   get PhD's.

Alternatively maybe whoever ends up in space will have a more
enlightened attitude to the benefits of government-financed education.

Nick Haines [e-mail]

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

Date: 28 Sep 92 16:50:00 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Space and Presidential Politics
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, Mark Goodman <[e-mail]> writes...
>
>Reply-To: [e-mail]
>
>This newsgroup has recently contained some rather absurd opinion
>and speculation about the effect of a Clinton/Gore administration
>on the space program.  The simple facts are that neither party has
>said much about what they would do and that the issue is rightly
>peripheral to the campaign.  Most reasonable people understand
>this.

Aiming to get the upper hand by describing anyone that does not agree with
this post as unreasonable.  Sometimes called and "Ad Hominim" attact.

>I would like to comment on some of the more egregious
>extrapolations that have been made.  For example, Allen Sherzer
>accuses Al Gore of being insufficiently enthusiastic about the
>space program because his subcommittee (Science, Space, and
>Technology) has not produced an authorization bill for NASA in
>years.  All the action in the Senate takes place in the full
>committees, not the subcommittees, so this complaint is more
>properly aimed at the full committee (Commerce, Science, and
>Transportation) Chairman, Fritz Hollings.  In fact, the real
>action in the Senate is in the Appropriations subcommittee, where
>Barbara Mikulski is the main player.

Al Gore has consistently only supported only projects that either directly
support his state or has pushed his obsolete Club of Rome environmentalist
book sales.

>Allen Sherzer has also complained that Clinton and Gore are
>relying on the advice of space pundit John Pike, whom he accuses
>of being skeptical (heaven forbid) about the prospects for SSTO
>technology.  Consorting with a known agnostic!  I know John Pike,
>and if he has a fault it is that he is too much of a space
>enthusiast.

I have read John Pike for years and he has never supported anything that
NASA does that does not fit his political agenda

>Others have followed the bizarre chain of logic that 1) Clinton
>wants to spend a little bit of money on what appear to be sensible
>things, 2) he will have to cut something else and 3) NASA is the
>only game in town (ever hear of agricultural subsidies?), so 4)
>Clinton will clobber NASA.  Another chain of logic seems to go
>like this 1) Clinton wants to cut military spending a tad more
>than Bush does, 2) a lot of defense is aerospace, 3) NASA is
>aerospace, so 4) Clinton wants to cut NASA.  If anything the true
>political logic works the other way: be kind to NASA so aerospace
>doesn't suffer too much.

SSTO is sensible.  Inexpensive access to space is crucial to furthering
the economic development of the United States in the 21st century. Look at
the efforts that are taking place in Korea, Taiwan, China, and Japan.  They
seem to think it is very important to their future.

>I can only conclude that if you care about space so much that you
>would base your vote on the issue you have 1) little to go on and
>
>2) loose marbles.  Get real!  Space is not and should not be a big
>issue in this Presidential election.  The issues are how to
>strengthen the economy and give people real opportunities to
>improve their lot while reducing the deficit and the burden of the
>national debt and healing the divisions in our society.  Without
>that, NASA is going nowhere.  Only a prosperous and united society
>will support space exploration.

This is the same stupid argument that has been advanced since the early 1970's.
You cannot strengthen the economy or give people real opportunities without
a growing economy that is developing new industrial infrastructures. The status
quo in established industries is far biased to supporting the current workforce
and not rocking the boat.  It is in new industries that opportinites have
opened up such as in computers and the space industry.  The undercurrent of
the posters paragraph is that opression must be ended for minorities.  We all
agree to that. Fortunatly it is in the new 21st century industries relating
to space where that will most fully be accomplished.

As to reducing the deficit. Slick Willie's plans will enlarge the bread and
circuses give aways, enslaving more and more poor minorites to the ultimate
master of government.  Have you never read history where that is what the
Roman Senate did to control the people?  The Slick Willie plan to "Help the
Poor" is no more than a regurgitation of the government policies that have\
brought our republic to the edge of bankruptcy.  There are currently 26 million
people on public assistance. Would it not be better to create jobs and
promote education by expanding man's presence into space rather than giving
more and more away, thereby destroying what is left of initiative in this
country by your taxes?
>
>So don't lose the forest for the trees.  Vote on the big issues.
>Vote for Bush and Quayle if you really believe that they are
>better for the country as a whole (I certainly don't), but don't
>vote on the basis of dimly defined space policies.

We have not forgot anything. You are just looking at an old worn out forest
that was planted by Franklin Delano Roosevelt fifty years ago.  It is time
that the forest that he planted was burned and replanted with one that
will guide us for the next fifty years till our own needs to be changed.

We believe space to be the big issue. Why? Because that is our future.  The
place where wealth will be created for individuals and nations in the next
century.  If your statement had been made a century and a half ago, it would
have meant not expanding west till we were "prosperous and united".  Hate
to break the news to you bud, but that was not the case in America then.  We
still made it through that century and if we can get rid of the democratic
dinosaurs we might make it through this one.  It was said in 1936 by the
Republican opposition to the rising tide of welfare that we were sacrificing
our childrens future by adopting the pernicious doctrine of income redistribon.
This prophesy has come to past in our financial crises of the 1990's. (And
don't give us that tired lie of Regan defense buildup it does not wash)

Give me a Fish and I eat for a Day. Teach me to Fish and I eat for a lifetime.
Your party and your creed have forgotten this very simple and basic aphorism
Slick Willie has lied to you and to our nation. Yes we will vote, and that
vote will be for the future.

>Mark W. Goodman

Dennis Ray Wingo, University of Alabama in Huntsville

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

Date: 28 Sep 92 16:45:23 GMT
From: SLSTP <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Life Sciences Training Program (NASA)
Newsgroups: sci.engr.biomed,bionet.jobs,sci.bio,sci.space,sci.space.shuttle,misc.education,soc.college,sci.med

***** ANNOUNCEMENT OF OPPORTUNITY *****
      American Undergraduates

1993 Space Life Sciences Training Program
A Summer Program at the Kennedy Space Center, Florida

Sponsored by NASA, Bionetics Corporation, Florida A&M University


The Space Life Sciences Training Program (SLSTP) is an investment in
tomorrow. It is an intensive six-week training program at the Kennedy
Space Center in Florida for college students interested in Life
Sciences, Pre-Medicine, Bioengineering or related fields. The program
will allow students to participate in the conceptualization,
preparation, preflight and postflight testing, data analysis, and
report preparation phases of space flight experiments and NASA life
sciences research.

The program is scheduled for mid-June through the end of July 1993.
After the successful completion of the program, five semester hours
of tuition free college credit will be offered to each student through
Florida A&M University, which is also responsible for program promotion,
student recruitment, selection, travel, housing, program evaluation,
and academic consultation.

The purpose of SLSTP is to attract college students interested in research
germane to the NASA field of Space Life Sciences. Participants will gain
insight into how space life sciences flight experiments are conducted as
well as explore future research opportunities in space life sciences.
After completion of this program and subsequent professional training,
the end result should be a pool of talented research scientists employed
in universities, industries, and NASA with practical experience in the
flight of life sciences experiments in space.

The six week SLSTP curriculum will involve morning lectures by leading
research scientists, managers, engineers, and astronauts from NASA Centers,
distinguished universities, and industry. Tours of the KSC shuttle and
payload facilities will provide students firsthand knowledge of the
processes involved between arrival of a life sciences flight experiment
at KSC and final integration of that experiment into the shuttle. In the
afternoons, students will be actively involved in the planning and
execution of experiments that span the range of life sciences research
of current interest to NASA. These experiments have been chosen to provide
the trainees with experience in as many aspects of flight experiment
development as possible - from experiment conception and design to timeline
development, protocol testing, and actual flight operations. Evening
and weekend activities will be scheduled to include informal discussions
with visiting lecturers and astronauts and work on special projects. The
curriculum will emphasize the unique features of experiments conducted
in the spaceflight environment which include weightlessness, space
limitations, and issues of compatibility with other on-board experiment
requirements.

Some of the potential flight experiments in which the students may become
involved include plant studies, animal development projects, human studies
of sensory conflict, and environmental studies related to spaceflight.
Student activities will include the opportunity to participate in
development and testing of operational protocols, performance of ground
based control experiments, direction, analysis, and evaluation of
postflight testing sessions, as well as participation in the implementation
of actual shuttle flight experiments when possible. Students will be
divided into groups of 9 to 10 and work in a rotating schedule on each
of the experiments, with opportunity for additional emphasis in at least
one project.

Students will receive round trip transportation between their home and
the Orlando International Airport in Florida, free accommodations in the
Cocoa Beach area near Kennedy Space Center, and local transportation to
and from the space center. Students will also receive a daily meal
allowance which should also cover other expenses. This program costs
nothing to the student - there is no registration fee.


***** HOW TO APPLY *****

Student enrollment is limited to 36 to 40 currently enrolled undergraduate
college students:

-> Eligibility is limited to currently enrolled undergraduate students who
are pursuing their first undergraduate degree.

-> A minimum cumulative GPA of 3.00 or higher at the time of application
is required.

-> Graduating seniors (those students who complete their senior year
prior to the start of the program in mid-June are not eligible to apply.
Fourth year seniors going to their fifth year are eligible.

-> Minimum age requirement is 16 years old

-> United States citizenship is mandatory. There are no exceptions.

-> Eligible majors include: Animal Sciences, Biochemistry, Biology,
Biophysics, Biostatistics, Chemistry, Computer Science, Ecology,
Engineering, Geology, Life Sciences, Mathematics, Pharmacy, Physics,
Plant Sciences, Pre-Medicine, Psychology.

If you have a question about the eligibility of your major, please call
the program office at 904-599-3636.

-> Previous SLSTP participants are NOT ELIGIBLE FOR A SECOND EXPERIENCE.


Application materials include:

-> A completed SLSTP Application form filled out in BLACK INK

-> An official transcript from every college or university attended up to
and including Fall 1992. Transcripts in the possession of the applicant
will not be accepted.

-> A SLSTP postcard on which you will write you address. It will be
sent back to you when all of you application materials have been received
in our office.

-> A 500 word typed double spaced essay which will be used to evaluate the
applicant's experience and written communication skills. The essay should
relate to the classroom, laboratory and research experiences of the
applicant in the sciences. Moreover, the career goals of the applicant
should be concisely stated. Print you full name on each page of the essay.

-> Three completed reference request forms from persons familiar with
you academic record. This is very very important.


Application requests should be sent to:

Program Director, SLSTP
Florida A&M University
College of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences
106 Honor House
Tallahassee, FL 32307

or call [phone]


The following application materials must be post-marked no later than
January 31, 1993 and be sent to the same address. ALL necessary credentials
must be on file before an application will be processed.

Applicants will be notified of their acceptance or non-acceptance no
later than March 31, 1993.

This is a worthwhile experience. Most of the students that participate
in SLSTP regard it best educational experience of their lives. If you
have any interest in space, please apply. I was a student in 1990 and a
staff member in 1992. If you have any questions regarding the program
(that are not of an application nature), you can contact me at
[e-mail]

For questions regarding the application, contact the program office.

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

Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 17:50:27 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Wealth in Space (Was Re: Clinton and Space Funding)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,talk.politics.space,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton

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

>Nick, Nick, Nick, don't you ever read the reports about recently discovered
>near Earth Asteroids?  There is one of the found in 1987 (I forgot the
>designator) that is confirmed by albedo and spectral studies to be nickel
>iron, as are about 10% of all meteorites found on earth.  The size of this
>asteroid is about 1.7 miles by .8 miles.  It was estimated in the
>article that I read, that based upon similar fractions found in metorites on
>the earth of that type, that there was approximately 90 billion dollars worth
>of gold and 1 trillion dollars worth of Platinum, give or take a few million.

That's before you bring it home. Actual price of gold and platinum on earth
would drop, ASSUMING you can bring home the metals for a price less than or
equal to the price of extracting them using current and near-term methods.

Basic laws of supply and demand. More goods, prices drop.

I dunno, maybe everyone could have gold-plated fixtures in their bathrooms? :)

> From the day of the first contract
>to the moving out to Pad 39, it was only five years for the first Apollo.
>We can do it IF we have the will.

If it is deemed necessary, sure. So far, it hasn't. Same reason why we haven't
built powersats or space colonies or anything else up in the sky. No need.


                 Play in the intelluctual sandbox of Usenet

  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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


From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Lunar landing in 2002
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: 28 Sep 92 12:42:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: ke4zv.1992Sep28.124207.3862
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Lines: 60
Sender: [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>...US private industry won't fund
>>a return to the Moon because the results won't show up in their bottom
>>lines in the less than six months timeframe that institutional investors
>>will allow them for venture investments.
>
>This is silly socialist rhetoric.  Chevron, among others, is planning
>their oil operations in Siberia out beyond 2030 -- forty years.  The
>government rebudgets every year, with priority on pork that will get
>the congresscritter reelected in two years. Which sector has
>the longer term thinkers?

Chevron, and other utilities and quasi-utilities do make long range
investments, but the overall risks are low and well understood. When
the risks of space exploitation reach similarly low and well understood
levels, there won't be a problem with investor owned utilities working
in space. Comsats have already reached that point. Chevron knows that
the old J Paul Getty adage is true that drilling lots of wells will
find oil. They've done it for a long time and have a solid track record.
They know they can afford 10 dry holes for every well they hit because
they have a firm understanding of the large return that one well will
generate. Nowhere has anyone yet hit a gusher in space that justifies
a lot of dry holes.

Governments, though subject to year to year political infighting, can
make long range high risk commitments since they aren't required to
show a quarterly profit to their investors, the taxpayer. Even Chevron's
long range plans are subject to political pressures both inside the
corporation and outside the corporation. A new management team may
decide to scrap old plans, or regulations or the political climate
may change in ways that force the company to rethink their plans.
It's really not that different from government operations except for
the expectation of both short and long term profits.

A company has to insure a continuing cash flow to carry it to the point
where a long range investment starts to pay off. Thus they limit the
amount of capital they will put at high risk and keep their long range
investments either low risk or low cost or both to insure that the company
won't be in trouble if they don't pan out as expected. Most space ventures
aren't low risk or short term enough to meet with utility approval.

Venture firms are different. They tend to bet the farm on one high
risk idea. If it doesn't pan out, they fold. Therefore venture capitalists
tend to only fund companies working in a "hot" area, and place demands on
the company to generate a large return in a short time. Since most
space exploitation projects don't have short timeframes on their returns,
venture capitalists tend to avoid them.

Only the government has both deep pockets and the ability to wait
long periods for a high risk economic return.  Governments must,
however, have a quick and continuing *political* return. Basically
that means grassroots support among the voters, and/or large political
contributions from contractors. Thus government programs tend to be
both Buck Rogers and expensive, fulfilling both objectives. The critical
difference is that government at least *does* projects in space while
private industry takes a less risky road of riding a government contract
or investing only in safe established space activities like comsats.

Gary

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 258
------------------------------