Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V16_0/V16NO011.ZIP/V16NO011

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 31KB

Date: Thu,  7 Jan 93 05:00:11
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #011
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Thu,  7 Jan 93       Volume 16 : Issue 011

Today's Topics:
                            averting doom
                             DC-Y funding
                           DCX INFORMATION?
                         Latest Pegasus news?
                     Moon Dust, Soviet Disasters
                     Moon Dust For Sale (2 msgs)
           Overly "success" oriented program causes failure
                        Post-StarWars Detritus
             pub/SPACE/GIF at ames.arc.nasa.gov EMPTY ???
     Question:How Long Until Privately Funded Space Colonization
       Retros & doors opening (was Re: Soviet space disaster?)
          Solar Sail Race. Was Russian Solar Sailer (2 msgs)
                 Space Questions and more.. (2 msgs)
   Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity (3 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: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 15:52:12 GMT
From: Andrew Poutiatine <[e-mail]>
Subject: averting doom
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,sci.physics,sci.environment

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Richard Ottolini) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>from a U.P. story
>>
>>         WASHINGTON (UPI) -- Life on Earth as we know it will
>>     come to an end in 1,500 million years and the planet will
>>     look more like its dusty, volcanic sister Venus in 2,500
>>     million years, scientists said Wednesday.
>
>If we can't model the weather more than 5 days in advance nor agree on
>climate prediction in 50 years, who would have any confidence in this
>speculation?

I believe the above prediction is based not on earth climate and weather
considerations (for which I must agree predictions of more than a few days
are not very dependable), but rather on the evolution of the sun.

I am not an astronomer, but as I recall, theory predicts that stars of our
sun's size go through a stage in their evolution at the end of their lives
when they become hotter and expand.  It is this, I believe, that would
parch the earth, killing life "as we know it."

-AIP

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

Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 08:41:44 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-Y funding

-From: [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer)
-Subject: DC-Y Funding (was: How many flights are Orbiters designed for? )
-Date: 6 Jan 93 01:04:41 GMT

-DoD it the only thing. Much as I wish it where otherwise, the fact
-remains that the launcher buisness is a small market, not profitable
-for anybody, competes with government subsidzed competition, and currently
-suffers from an oversuply of launchers and too few payloads.

The Shuttle only launches about eight times a year, and represents relatively
few subsidized GAS cans, mid-deck experiments, etc. Is the market really
*that* small?

(And if these incidental payloads were not subsidized, the market
might be even smaller.)

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: 5 Jan 93 23:13:00 GMT
From: George Gassaway <[e-mail]>
Subject: DCX INFORMATION?
Newsgroups: sci.space

I'm new to this conference, and have read it with interest.
All this info about DC versus shuttle in terms of costs, could someone
please give some information about the DCX itself, the proto to be
launched this summer?
Approx size? (height, diameter)
Liftoff mass, liftoff thrust?
Test fliht profile, suborbital (how high) or orbital?
re-entry technology, ablative, shuttle type panels, regen. cooling?
landing method - parachute or power-on descent?
Thanks.


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

Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 03:51:13 GMT
From: Mary Shafer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Latest Pegasus news?
Newsgroups: sci.space

The latest Pegasus news I have is that the NB-52B and the two-seat
F-18 safety chase depart for KSC on Tuesday, 5 Jan, and return on
about 11 Jan.  Why KSC?  Equitorial orbit, of course.

I got this info from Fast Eddie, who was supposed to fly chase but
will be staying at Dryden to fly the F-18 HARV, as it has priority.
--
Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
[e-mail]                    Of course I don't speak for NASA
 "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."  Unknown US fighter pilot

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

Date: Wed, 06 Jan 93 09:15:00
From: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Moon Dust, Soviet Disasters

[e-mail] (Tim Harincar) writes, re NASA profitability:
>I thought part of the initial selling point of the
>shuttle was that NASA could recapture its investment through the "putting
>stuff in orbit" business.
>
>What about the big RCA logo on the Delta rockets (as seen in "the
>Illustrated Encyclopedia of Space Technology")? I hope RCA had to pay
>for that.
>
>I am not trying to start an arguement or anything, it just seems that
>what you said seems to contridect some of the things I've seen from
>NASA. And the wonderful publications - I hope you make money on those,
>it would be stupid not to.

Isn't NASA a "not-for-profit" organization?  I can see them recouping (sp?)
their costs, but not making a profit off of them.

And Dennis Newkirk <[e-mail]> writes, re Soviet space
disasters:

>Yes. This last one sounds like stories about the Soyuz 1 accident.
>There were rumors for years about someone listening to Komarov
>as he decended to Earth and the parachutes failed (this part is true,
>he was the first spaceflight fatality). Its very  unlikely his wife
>would even have been in contact during his short and troubled mission.
>Also, for any manned spacecraft yet constructed I'm sure it would be
>impossible to reach the Sun by a failed retro burn, there just isn't
>enough performance. It's probably impossible to even intentionally fly
>to the Sun.

Reading the discussions of this topic, especially the part about the
cosmonaut's wife listening in as he goes crashing into the sun, reminds me of
the David Bowie song, "Major Tom."  Any idea if the song was based on this
story?

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

Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 15:56:53 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Moon Dust For Sale
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

In reply to a seemingly-intelligent suggestion about NASA selling
moon rocks, I, [e-mail], wrote:

>>NASA is part of the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government.  As such,
>>it receives its funding from the U.S. Congress.  Under the U.S. Code,
>>NASA can't engage in this kind of fund-raising efforts, nor can it sell
>>advertising on rockets, hold bake sales, or even accept volunteer labor
>>from corporations (several of which have offered free services to the
>>under-funded Space Exploration Initiative).  NASA gets what funding
>>Congress allows it and no more.  And that funding is not enough to get
>>us "back to the moon... this time to stay."  If you have a problem with
>>that, write your Congresscritter.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tim Harincar) writes:
>How does that work with NASA as a launch service? For example,
>providing launch facilities/personell to universities who have
>constructed payloads and purchased a launch vehicle from the
>manufacturer. Or launching a communications sattellite from the
>shuttle, owned & operated by a private sector corporation? I thought
>part of the initial selling point of the shuttle was that NASA could
>recapture its investment through the "putting stuff in orbit"
>business.

All of the "compensation for services provided" which NASA receives for
this kind of activity is carefully done to be in compliance with the
strict regulations Congress places on Federal agencies.  I'm not sure
exactly where the money goes in the tangled web of money sources and
sinks, but it can't just be used to fund whatever project NASA (or the
rest of the Executive Branch) has in mind without the approval of
Congress.  That would subvert the Constitutional power of Congress to
fund the Federal Government.  (This kind of subversion is at the heart
of the Iran/Contra scandal, where the Executive Branch supposedly sold
arms to Iran, then used the money to fund the Contras without going
through Congress.)  Yes, NASA does get money from providing some
services.  But there are many different "colors" of money.

>What about the big RCA logo on the Delta rockets (as seen in "the
>Illustrated Encyclopedia of Space Technology")? I hope RCA had to pay
>for that.

Under the terms of some contracts with the Government, suppliers are
allowed to label the items they provide.  This may have been the case,
here.  Under some contracts, the Government buys "launch services," in
which case the launch service provider has more freedom to put other
things (including logos) on their rockets.  But there are limits, and
NASA has a dozen legal departments which sort through the tangles of
contracts, laws and codes to figure out what logos are allowed to be
placed where and when.

>I am not trying to start an arguement or anything, it just seems that
>what you said seems to contridect some of the things I've seen from
>NASA. And the wonderful publications - I hope you make money on those,
>it would be stupid not to.

There are always exceptions and some contradictions which can't be
resolved.  They can get messy.  Sometimes, they go to court.

The "wonderful publications" you refer to, like NASA Spin-Off and
NASA Magazine, are prepared under contract from NASA.  I don't think
NASA "makes money" on any of them.  But making money isn't our job.

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

     "[I swear] I will support and defend the Constitution of the
      United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I
      will bear faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this
      obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of
      evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties
      of the office on which I am about to enter.  So help me God."

        -- Standard Form 61, Appointment Affidavits, the oath taken
           by all new Federal employees.

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

Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 05:22:01 GMT
From: Mary Shafer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Moon Dust For Sale
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

On 3 Jan 93 02:20:54 GMT, [e-mail] (Brian Stuart Thorn) said:

>I heard on Paul Harvey radio two days ago that former Gemini and Apollo 15
>astronaut David Scott had been charged with fraud.  No further information
>was presented.  Does this auction of the piece of tape have something to
>do with the story report on P.H./ABC News?

B>    It might have something to do with the Apollo 15 stamped-covers
B>    scandal of 1971. Don't know if Scott, Worden, and Irwin were ever
B>    charged with any legal violations, though.

That was resolved _long_ ago--they got the covers.  Even if it were not,
there was no violation of a law, just a NASA regulation.  And there are
statues of limitation--22 years is much too long for anything but a
capitol crime, which fraud is not.  They can't even get you for income
tax fraud after seven years, after all.

I suspect it was for some sort of business shenanigan.  After the way
he behaved with SST (Scott Science and Technology), I'd would not be
surprised that his behavior might be sufficiently less than honorable
to end in an indictment.  I know that some of his associates in that
company are in serious trouble with the IRS.  Perhaps the IRS has
dropped the hammer on him.

I haven't seen Dave for years, by the way, and I'm just speculating.
However, I'm certain that it's not the 1971 covers.

You may be amused to know that Dave's nickname here at Dryden was
"General Delivery", as he had retired from the Air Force shortly
before he came to us to be our Center Director (this was before
we became a part of Ames).

--
Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
[e-mail]                    Of course I don't speak for NASA
 "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."  Unknown US fighter pilot

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

Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 15:14:49 GMT
From: Chip Salzenberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Overly "success" oriented program causes failure
Newsgroups: sci.space

According to [e-mail] (Gary Coffman):
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>>According to [e-mail] (Gary Coffman):
>>>                        Tzu-Pei Chen
>>>"The design of AUSROC II was in many ways too "positive". [...]
>>>Obviously, greater testing of each component may have shown up some
>>>of these problems earlier.  This simply highlights the very limited
>>>resources with which the group currently works.
>>
>>What an obvious straw man, Gary!  You picked an underfunded project
>>[...] to beat up the well-funded DC-1 program.
>
>DC-1 is well funded? Last I heard MacDD hadn't found *any* sugardaddy
>to fund it *at all*.

Um, okay... that's true.

>They've latched onto some SDIO money to fund DC-X, but that's just an
>atmospheric test article, not a SSTO vehicle.

And they have enough money for it so far.  No guarantees of future
funding, of course.  (But then, even if they had promises from the
government, Congress changes its priorities every year anyway.)

>Their strawman paper budgets for an eventual DC-Y prototype and follow
>on DC-1 production vehicle are underfunded by historic standards of new
>spacecraft development programs.

No doubt.  But "historic standards" are the live-by-the-paperwork NASA
mindset of today -- which I think everyone agrees is a more expensive
model than, say, Kelly Johnson's skunk works.  And which organization
would _you_ choose as the core of your new enterprise?

>For shame indeed.

Quite.  I shouldn't have claimed that DC's funding puts it out of
danger of too little testing.  Instead, I'll try asserting that DC-X
and DC-Y are themselves the tests.  After all, DC could be like NASA
and spend all that money on CAD and simulations, and have the first
bent metal become DC-1 (or, more likely, DC-0.5 :-)).
--
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT  <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
  "you make me want to break the laws of time and space / you make me
   want to eat pork / you make me want to staple bagels to my face /
   and remove them with a pitchfork" -- Weird Al Yankovic, "You Make Me"

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

Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 15:52:25 EET
From: [e-mail] (F.Baube x554)
Subject: Post-StarWars Detritus

Dave Jones <[e-mail]> writes:
> F.Baube x554 ([e-mail]) wrote:
> >
> > There could also be megabits of nugget-sized space
> > junk to ventilate any later space vehicles.  But also,
>
> Nope.  The warhead wouldn't be in orbit and its doubtful if any fragments
> would attain orbital velocity of any kind during the explosion.

I'm thinking of some 80's studies that forecast lots of space junk.
Perhaps they were describing shooting matches between orbiting platforms.

> > if plutonium warheads are "destroyed" by Smart Pebbles
> > (or whatever they're being called now), couldn't the
> > atmosphere be filled with enough plutonium dust to
> > give every person on the planet bone cancer ?
>
> A lot of interception technology is based on giving the target enough of
> a shock to disable the high-tech firing mechanisms and/or guidance systems.
> Nuclear warheads don't explode when intercepted.  They just don't go off
> when they get to the target, if they get there at all.  You just wind up
> with a lot of small, very dangerous impact craters on the ground.

But aren't (or, weren't) some interceptor proposals based on
physical collision with a warhead ?  This could blow one to
plutonium-rich dust.  Or is the idea some sort of proximity fuse ?

--
* Fred Baube         * when you think your Toys  you hear Laughter
* Optiplan O.Y.           * have gone Berserk    cracking through the Walls
* [e-mail]       * it's an illUsion     you're sent Spinning
* #include <disclaimer.h> * you Cannot Shirk     you Have No Choice

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

Date: 6 Jan 93 16:08:00 GMT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: pub/SPACE/GIF at ames.arc.nasa.gov EMPTY ???
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Paul van Harn) writes...
>Can someone please enlighten me as to what has happened with the FTP site
>ames.arc.nasa.gov, directory pub/SPACE/GIF ? I tried to get some of the
>Galileo images as described in one of Ron Baalke's messages, but I couldn't
>find ANY files in that directory, and I'm sure there used to be LOTS of them !

The hard disk that the GIFs are on sometimes goes offline.  When this
happens just let me or Peter Yee know, and we'll get it back online.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Choose a job you love, and
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | you'll never have to work
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | a day in your life.

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

Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 14:48:41 GMT
From: Herman Rubin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Question:How Long Until Privately Funded Space Colonization
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Randy Burns) writes:

>>What are the current estimates of folks in this newsgroup of how long it
>>will be until the world starts to see privately funded space colonization?

>Short answer: Soon after the we see privately financed space
>industrialization.  Some opinions to the contrary, industry
>is not going to spend billions of dollars on space colonies
>until there's something for people to *do* there.

Short answer: Soon after the governments get out of the way.
That is, if you mean when will the effort be started.  As to
when there will actually be colonies, the problems to be solved
cannot be solved on earth, and only partially in small space
stations.

>And no, a few communications satellites don't count.  To
>reiterate, industry is not going to spend billions of dollars
>on space colonies until there's something for *people* to do
>there.

Are the first colonies going to be for products for earth consumption
or for research or for places to live?  But 10 people in a space station
or in a lunar dome do not a colony make.

>This assumes you mean a for-profit venture.  It's possible
>that a charitable organization such as the National Geographic
>Society might foot the bill for a colony before industry has a
>need for it, but the cost of such a venture would be formidable.

We have estimates of setting up a lunar colony for as little as
10 gigabucks.  Even at 100 times that, the money can be raised if
the governments would just get completely out of the way.  Can one
reasonably expect people to do things when the government can step
in at any time and say no, or say that what you have done belongs
to it?
--
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: [phone]
[e-mail] (Internet, bitnet)
{purdue,pur-ee}!snap.stat!hrubin(UUCP)

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

Date: 6 Jan 93 11:48:00 GMT
From: Charles Packer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Retros & doors opening (was Re: Soviet space disaster?)
Newsgroups: sci.space,soc.history

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Stan Krieger) writes...
>parachute deployment that killed the solo astronaut, and the second was
>an apparent opening of the door of a 3 man spaceship when the retro-rockets
>were fired (and the cosmonauts weren't wearing space suits).
>
>Because of this second accident, NASA made it a rule that spacesuits had
>to be worn during all rocket firings.




This is bizarre. It suggests that Russian and American spacecraft
doors are designed by the same company...


Followups should go to sci.space.

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

Date: 6 Jan 93 12:15:27 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Solar Sail Race. Was Russian Solar Sailer
Newsgroups: sci.space

IS the solar sail race supposed to be a manned mission or what.. Why must it be
a manned mission? Why not a robot mission.. A race in miniture.. Why not to
test the concept.. After all the race would neewd some form of chase plane to
be there incase of a accident.. So why not a unmanned mission. Unless I missed
the point or mentioned of unmanned. IF I did, forgive my ignorance..



Michael Adams
Alias: Morgoth/Ghost Wheel
[e-mail]

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

Date: 6 Jan 93 16:51:10 GMT
From: Dave Michelson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Solar Sail Race. Was Russian Solar Sailer
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>IS the solar sail race supposed to be a manned mission or what.. Why must it be
>a manned mission? Why not a robot mission.. A race in miniture.. Why not to
>test the concept.. After all the race would neewd some form of chase plane to
>be there incase of a accident.. So why not a unmanned mission. Unless I missed
>the point or mentioned of unmanned. IF I did, forgive my ignorance..
>

ALL solar sails are designed to be unmanned.  They take too long to
get from A to B to even think about putting people aboard.  The life support
requirements would be horrendous otherwise.

--
Dave Michelson
[e-mail]

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

Date: 6 Jan 93 12:29:12 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Questions and more..
Newsgroups: sci.space

Multiple questions:

Does anyone here know if the Planetary Society has a BBS, preferable netted?
If so, what is its phone number, or address.. Also any other organizations
have BBSes or net addresses?

When DCX flys, why not use it as a way to lift a small payload such as the
"solar Sail Race" contestants into space? That is if the contestants are
unmanned..

Is there a central clearing house for space organizations projects, a place to
pass info from one organization to another, to bring about better use of
materials.. One organization might have an idea that they would liek to persue,
but don't have the money, time, info, or whatever, but that another
organization might be more able to do it..

I know there is quite a small group of Space Organizations from the Fan to the
real hard technical bases..


Michael Adams
Alias: Morgoth/Ghost Wheel
[e-mail]
PS: Any suggestions??

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

Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 16:30:40 GMT
From: Mary Shafer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Questions and more..
Newsgroups: sci.space

On 6 Jan 93 12:29:12 GMT, [e-mail] said:

MA> When DCX flys, why not use it as a way to lift a small payload such as the
MA> "solar Sail Race" contestants into space? That is if the contestants are
MA> unmanned..

Probably because DC-X is only going to 30,000 ft.  This is not
space.  737s go higher (cheaper, too).
--
Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
[e-mail]                    Of course I don't speak for NASA
 "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."  Unknown US fighter pilot

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

Date: 6 Jan 93 12:07:30 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:

>>Facilities costs can be paid with the interest on the savings.

>It's statements like this that make me wince when I read your posts.

>You can't get interest on money just because you don't spend it;

It's just an expression! All I am saying is that the cost of facilities
is only a few hundred million $$. I realize that nobody is going to
actually collect any interest; I was simply using an expression to show
how small the expense would be compared to the savings.

>Besides, even if we do save all the money you claim, I don't see it being a
>fair trade for scrapping chunks of the U.S. aerospace industry in favor of
>the Russian industry.

Far from scraping, this will SAVE large chunks of US aerospace. The
Russians will get contracts worth maybe $250M per year. In return, the
US commercial launch market will roughly double producing about $1.5
billion in new MLV orders.

More importantly, US space will be working not to maintain an
albatros but to reducing the cost of space access and growing the
space market. We will see a stronger growing space effort to replace
the dying and stagnant one we suffer with today.

      Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------108 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: Wed, 06 Jan 93 16:51:48 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

>For station logistics, we should use Atlas(Titan)/Soyuz for crew transfer
>and Zenith Star HLV's for material. This will save us $2 to $3 billion
>per year (we can start on the Lunar base with the savings) PLUS produce
>significant reductions in overall US launch costs.

Uh oh, it's "Kill the Shuttle and tons of money become available" again.

>There is no need to man rate. It adds cost but doesn't affect
>safety. If it where your money would buy the $70 million 98% safe
>Atlas or the $90 million 98% safe Atlas?

YOU say there's no need to man-rate. The astronaut community and anyone who
goes up on it IS going to disagree with you.

I realize you'd like to treat people as another type of expendable, but it just
ain't so in the Western World.

                    I have talked to Ehud, and lived.
  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

Date: 6 Jan 93 17:16:01 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
>
>>>Facilities costs can be paid with the interest on the savings.
>
>>It's statements like this that make me wince when I read your posts.
>
>>You can't get interest on money just because you don't spend it;
>
>It's just an expression! All I am saying is that the cost of facilities
>is only a few hundred million $$. I realize that nobody is going to
>actually collect any interest; I was simply using an expression to show
>how small the expense would be compared to the savings.

No, the problem is there are enough money-grubbers in Congress who do the math
will  figure it's cheaper to subcontract launches to the Russians, and push for
full-up assembly in the United States.

LOTS less risk in buying a Soyuz and Russian booster than buying a Soyuz and
integrating it onto a U.S. booster. MUCH less money too.

"Gosh, we can take that money and spend it on roads and bridges at home, thank
you Mr. Sherzer, goodday, don't let the door hit you on the way out."

>>Besides, even if we do save all the money you claim, I don't see it being a
>>fair trade for scrapping chunks of the U.S. aerospace industry in favor of
>>the Russian industry.
>
>Far from scraping, this will SAVE large chunks of US aerospace. The
>Russians will get contracts worth maybe $250M per year.

In a previous post, you stated they'll be 10 to 20 launches a year. Now, how do
you get $250/year?

If it's such a brilliant idea, why isn't US aerospace proposing it on its own.

It's time for the periodic reality check:

    A) Alan will fight for Freedom and favor it over renting space
       on Mir, yet Freedom has yet to be launched. Mir Exists.

    B) Alan will fight to shut down the 4 Shuttles, a multibillion
       dollar program ) and replace them with a
       Soyuz sitting on a U.S. booster. Which hasn't been launched, but
         with a few hand-waving tricks, manages to respark the whole
       U.S. aerospace industry.

What is wrong with this picture?

> In return, the
>US commercial launch market will roughly double producing about $1.5
>billion in new MLV orders.

So, according to Alan's inflated numbers of $500 million * 8 flights a year
that's $4 billion.

Now, $4 billion of current work - $ 1.5 billion in new orders =

    $2.5 billion worth of cutbacks in the aerospace industry.

The "saved" money will end up being stuffed somewhere else; HUD or Head Start.
Take your pick. It's not going to magically roll back into NASA for other
projects.

>More importantly, US space will be working not to maintain an
>albatros but to reducing the cost of space access and growing the
>space market. We will see a stronger growing space effort to replace
>the dying and stagnant one we suffer with today.

You forgot "America the Beautiful" here.


                    I have talked to Ehud, and lived.
  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 011
------------------------------