Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V16_9/V16NO926.ZIP/V16NO926

Text File | 1993-08-03 | 35KB | 827 lines

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 925
Space Digest                Tue, 27 Jul 93       Volume 16 : Issue 926

Today's Topics:
   $12M Houses and sci.space (was: Funding private space ventures)
Cold Fusion and its possible uses (if it is proven to exist) (2 msgs)
                Cryogenic Rockets - Controversy betwee
Cryogenic Rockets - Controversy between U.S, Russia and India (3 msgs)
            DC-X Prophets and associated problems (3 msgs)
                      Good news on Delta Clipper
                  GPS in space (was Re: DC-1 & BDB)
              Low Tech Alternatives, Info Post it here!
                     space news from May 31 AW&ST

    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: 26 Jul 1993 18:04:58 GMT
From: "Michael C. Jensen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: $12M Houses and sci.space (was: Funding private space ventures)
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] wrote:
: usual Usenet noise.  NASA can use these ideas in forming its future
: directions -- and NASA does use them, through the inputs of people like
: me.  Some of the thoughts we have discussed here found there way into
: NASA's Vision, Missions and Values statement last year.

: Don't give up hope, fellow Internauts.  We in sci.space are helping
: develop the ideas which will underly the space missions of tomorrow.
: (Meanwhile, rec.arts.sf.* is diligently working on the day after tomorrow.)

: -- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/DE44, Mission Operations, Space Station Systems
:       [e-mail]  [phone]

Ditto :)

Mike
--
Michael C. Jensen   Valparaiso University/Johnson Space Center
[e-mail]  "I bet the human brain is a kludge." -- Marvin Minsky
[e-mail]  *WindowsNT - From the people who brought you edlin*
---Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are my own... ---

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

Date: 26 Jul 93 19:47:27 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Cold Fusion and its possible uses (if it is proven to exist)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
> Wierd question time:
>
> If "cold fusion" is possible, as some what explained in this month popular
> science.
>
> Ho wbig would a basci unit be, how much power would it put off/out, and could
> it be used in a space craft? or other places that a "small" nuclear
> generator/reactor would be nice to have..
>
> Basically what I am saying, is what uses would it have?? If it was or became
> possible. Room Temperature Fusion.. Interesting..
>
> ===
> Ghost Wheel - [e-mail]



Firstly, we know that cold fusion does occur-whether it is in the
Palladium/heavy water cells aka Pons and Fleischmen or whether
it is muon-induced, the question is one of rate.  Cold fusion is simply
an example of quantum tunneling:  There is an energy barrier
resisting fusion, but sometimes particles tunnel through that barrier.
The bigger the barrier, the less likely the tunneling.  What was
startling about Pons and Fleischman's claim is that the RATE at which
they claimed to observe the tunneling (the fusion) was incredibly
larger than anything expected.

For those who still are researching cold fusion, the entire question
is still about RATE.  The faster you can make the fusions occur,
the more power you can generate.  So, the size of the cell and the
amount of power it can generate will not be determined until someone
can give us some reproducable experiments that measure the rate of
cold fusion.

My personal interpretation of the data is that the rate of cold
fusion is no larger in the Pons/Fleischman type cells than one
would calculate based on Nuclear Physics and Quantum Mechanics,
indicating that the power output is essentially nil and
there is no new physics going on.


Jay Wile
Prof. o' Chemistry

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

Date: 26 Jul 1993 14:16 PST
From: SCOTT I CHASE <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cold Fusion and its possible uses (if it is proven to exist)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.space

In article <1993Jul26.144727.21019@bsu-ucs>, [e-mail] writes...
>
>For those who still are researching cold fusion, the entire question
>is still about RATE.  The faster you can make the fusions occur,
>the more power you can generate.  So, the size of the cell and the
>amount of power it can generate will not be determined until someone
>can give us some reproducable experiments that measure the rate of
>cold fusion.

I can't agree that it's "just a matter of rate."  That answer seems
to hide a more fundamental truth.  I presume that the rate of
cold fusion according to standard QM tunnelling calculations at
room temperature is so incredibly small that you could never hope
to actually measure it in a real experiment on the desktop.

P&F are essentially demanding a new mechanism to account for the
relately huge amounts of energy they claim to see.  And that new
mechanism is either real or not real.  Different rates require different
mechanisms.  So we're not just quibbling over how much cold fusion
there is or isn't.  We're arguing about whether P&F have discovered
qualitatively new physics.

-Scott
--------------------                         Physics is not a religion.  If
Scott I. Chase                               it were, we'd have a much easier
[e-mail]                         time raising money. -Leon Lederman

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

Date: 26 Jul 1993 16:04:52 -0500
From: Uday Shankar <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cryogenic Rockets - Controversy betwee
Newsgroups: sci.space

> >>    Leaving the politics aside, Can any knowledgeble nettor comment on
> >>    whether cryogenic engines can be used for missiles.
>
> >No, except for the first generation of missiles (US and Russian),
> >nobody's ever used cryogenic (especially LOX/LH2) motors in missiles.
>
> In other words, the answer is yes.
>
> I think the restriction and U.S. interference is kind of silly..

I read something in some of the Indian press about the US stopping
the sale due to the commercial potential of a possible Indian entry
into the space launch market. Do cryogenic engines have such a
significant impact on commercial space launch applications ? What exactly
are they anyway ? Also, are they incredibly difficult to build ?

Uday
________________________________________________________________________
Uday Shankar      [e-mail]       [phone]

      |
_____(0)_____      Go flyin' - put a spin on life
   0     0

Any views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those
of J.P.Morgan and/or its subsidiaries.


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

Date: 26 Jul 93 13:51:53 MST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Cryogenic Rockets - Controversy between U.S, Russia and India
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <22rqcc$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Dennis Cuy) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Herman Rubin) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
>>>In article <22qica$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (George William Herbert) writes:
>>>>[e-mail] (Savita Kaveti) writes:


(snip)


> With solid motors, all you have to do is
> worry about the guidance and other avionics boxes from going down
> - they're far better as strategic forces.
>

While solids are clearly better as strategic forces it is not at
all true that all you have to do is worry about guidance and avionics
boxes.  The solid motors require a considerable amount of
assessment activity to determine if the effects of age are going
to kick in some unpredicted failure mode.  Keep in mind that the
Minuteman solids are probably the oldest still kicking around in
the world.  When will they "age-out?" How will they age-out?
Can we detect and predict when it will happen? Answers to these
questions are essential to the continued use of Minuteman assets.
These motors do age-out, and regrettably one stage usually will
age-out before the others...then what...throw the whole missile
away? rebuild? Although the motors are older technoloy, trying
to answer these questions involves the cutting edge of propellant
and liner chemistry, nondestructive (and destructive) test methods,
modeling, data analysis, etc. and for each critical item of the motor
as well as the system.  However, I don't believe the effort is
anywhere near what's required for liquid motors.


Bret

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

Date: 26 Jul 1993 16:08:44 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cryogenic Rockets - Controversy between U.S, Russia and India
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <22va6e$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (George William Herbert) writes:
>In article <22rg9d$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>>I would be surprised if any country  first developes  solids.
>
>Israel's Jericho missiles and launch vehicle (yes, they orbited something
>with one) are all-solid, and I don't think they have any indigenous
>liquid fueled hardware.
>

Jericho was developed as a military vehicle,  so i wouldn't
doubt they wanted it solid fueled.   the question is how much
us technology did they apply in the program?  Solid fuels
are not something one natively starts out with  when developing
commercial launchers.  solids  have to have the burn rates
carved into the material during casting.


>I believe the Australian launch vehicle was all-solid.  So was the British.
>

Well, there goes a good rule down the drain.


>More importantly, India already has large-sized solid IRBMs, though
>their launch vehicles are at least partly liquid-fueled.
>

So then why all the worry about them getting LH2/LOX technologies?

THis is the same stuff Ariane  uses,  and  Japans  H-2.




--

God put me on this Earth to accomplish certain things.  Right now,
I am so far behind, I will never die.

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

Date: 26 Jul 1993 13:49:53 -0700
From: Dennis Cuy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cryogenic Rockets - Controversy between U.S, Russia and India
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <22rqcc$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Dennis Cuy) writes:
>(snip)
>
>> With solid motors, all you have to do is
>> worry about the guidance and other avionics boxes from going down
>> - they're far better as strategic forces.
>>
>
>While solids are clearly better as strategic forces it is not at
>all true that all you have to do is worry about guidance and avionics
>boxes.  The solid motors require a considerable amount of
>assessment activity to determine if the effects of age are going
>to kick in some unpredicted failure mode.

[Good description on aging & surveillance deleted]

>
>Bret

Bret,

Sorry for generalizing, but I guess that's what I get.  I indicated
that all you have to do is worry about the can and other avionics
boxes because they should tend to fail more frequently than motors
while in strategic alert.  Assessment of motors is an ongoing
regularly scheduled event, I'd imagine, utilizing all the NDT that
you can get.  However, I wouldn't think that you could accomplish
this without knowing that you had to take a particular missile down.

You've got a point, there are more things to worry about than just
the guidance and other avionics.  My point was that the decreases in
missile availability are probably most related to guidance and avionics.

Dennis
email:  [e-mail]

[These are my opinions and no one else's!]

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

Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1993 16:22:12 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>>Which claims are extravagent? Sure, it's moderately risky but it's
>>>not extravagent.
>
>>Claims of 50 flights per year per vehicle are extraordinary. No other
>>space launcher has come close to these rates.
>
>The Russians have. It's also within a factor of two of what Titan or
>Atlas could launch at with existing facilities if the demand was there.

The Russians have *not* flown the same vehicle more than once, much
less 50 times in a year. What they've done is fly the same *type*
vehicle, once per each, more than 50 times in a year. That's a totally
different thing.

>>The claim of $400 a pound to LEO is also extraordinary.
>
>I'm using figures of $500 to $1,000. These are very close to what the
>Russians do it for and a factor of 3 or so (at the high range) with
>what we can do with our existing 30 year old launchers. Hardly an
>extrodinary decrease. It is a extrodinary reduction compared to Shuttle,
>but that doesn't count.

Shuttle is the only other *reusable* vehicle with which to compare.
Expendibles are totally different animals, and don't count.

>>There's only been one other, Shuttle, in spaceflight,
>
>Well, the Russians built two. We also have our Shuttle and now DC.

The Russians did one unmanned test flight of Buran, and an orbital
DC only exists as a viewgraph.

>>though the phrase "Too cheap to meter" should haunt you as well.
>
>Are you asserting that DC will fail because nuclear power failed?

I'm asserting that extravagant claims made when technologies are
at the benchtop demonstration phase, or earlier, are usually wrong.

>>Not true. US experience has been that unmanned launchers have had higher
>>failure rates.
>
>We don't have statistically significant numbers to make that claim. At
>best it's about the same. Maybe it's a bit safer, but we don't know.

There have been two dangerous in flight failures of US manned hardware,
one deadly, Apollo 13 and Challenger. The Russians have had one for
sure, and maybe more. On the other hand, the failure rate of unmanned
launchers has been much higher, 15% for Atlas in unmanned service as
one example. Atlas is particularly noteworthy because it has been used
both for manned flights, where it's record is perfect, and for unmanned
launches, where it's record is less than sterling. Unmanned launchers
have success records that range in the 80-90% area, with some better,
and some worse at the extreme ends. Manned spaceflight has a record
of 98+% success, in many cases with the same hardware. The difference
is due to differences in procedures under man-rated rules. Those
procedures are expensive in hour$ and manhour$, but they do seem
to work.

Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |

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

Date: 26 Jul 1993 18:00:05 GMT
From: Doug Mouser <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems
Newsgroups: sci.space

....Text deleted....


> :     Sorry for the ranting but I just read the specs on brilliant condems a
> : week
> : or so ago and I'am still pissed.......arrrrrrrrh
> Actually, most of the management fixes being put in place come from
> industry, and should prove a big improvement.. and specs on brilliant
> condems? <gives a blank look> Never heard of it.. what's upsetting
> about it? (and what does it have to do with NASA?)
>
> Mike
> --
        Brilliant condems or "Great Explorations"...LLNL's plan for an inflatable
space
station and a maned mars mission.  Effectivaly kill by NASA's turf fighting
and
politics.

Doug


PS.  The plan called for a maned mars mission in seven years, for 40
billion!

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

Date: 26 Jul 1993 19:26:52 GMT
From: "Michael C. Jensen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems
Newsgroups: sci.space

Doug Mouser ([e-mail]) wrote:
:         Brilliant condems or "Great Explorations"...LLNL's plan for an inflatable
: space
: station and a maned mars mission.  Effectivaly kill by NASA's turf fighting
: and
: politics.

: Doug

: PS.  The plan called for a maned mars mission in seven years, for 40
: billion!

..and you blame NASA for that? $40Bil is a LOT of money.. (why not
compare that to the yearly budget of NASA for instance..) it's
important to note also that a significant portion of NASA's budget
is spent on non-space related research and development.. (the first
A in NASA stands for Aeronautics.. and NASA does a LOT of aeronatical
research..) I don't see where this is NASA's fault, unless you think
that if NASA was eliminated, all of it's funds would go to that projects,
which in it's own way is far fetched.. I'll admit I know little
(more like nothing) about this set of inflaables.. but I strongly doubt
it's all the big bad NASA's fault that it isn't being flown/developed..

Mike
--
Michael C. Jensen   Valparaiso University/Johnson Space Center
[e-mail]  "I bet the human brain is a kludge." -- Marvin Minsky
[e-mail]  *WindowsNT - From the people who brought you edlin*
---Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are my own... ---

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

Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1993 19:36:26 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Good news on Delta Clipper
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

The House Armed Services Committee Subcommittee which authroizes
SSRT finished their markup about an hour ago (2:00). Preliminary
indications (and they ARE preliminary) indicate that they authorized
$80M for SX-2. This is $5M within BMDO and the rest in ARPA. If it all
turns out to be true, it is everything we where asking for and gives us
a good position for the conference. Remember: this is a preliminary
report and has not been confirmed. It could be wrong.

BUT, we aren't out of the woods yet. There is still the full committee
markup which should happen this week and the conference to iron out
differences with the Senate version.

For the next 24 to 48 hours there will be nothing to do. However, don't
relax since we may need calls and faxes on short notice; stay tuned.

Finally, please get ready to call and fax thank you letters to Rep.
Schroeder. If she did what we asked, she deserves thanks and lots
of thank you letters will tell her we noticed what she did. This is
a good motivator for the future. Don't send anything yet: we still
need to find out exactly what she did.

   Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------10 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

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

Date: 26 Jul 1993 18:48:13 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: GPS in space (was Re: DC-1 & BDB)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <22rhmm$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>|You're trying to argue that funding is gu-an-damn-teed on a multi-year basis.
>|And as we've seen both recently and in previous examples, it ain't so.

>Nothing is guaranteed,  but GAO rules allow  transfer of small
>fractions between fiscal years.
>If the state didn't do that, you wouldn't have gotten your 26th paycheck
>last year.

Small fractions between years to meet payroll doesn't equal multi-year
expenditures to buy equipment.  Any number of pieces of hardware have been
scrapped mid-way through a project, both due to financial difficulties (i.e.
Congress wouldn't micromanage the money) and other considerations.

Basically, Freedom is a year-by-year project which happens to have an extended
outlook. Not a multi-year funding-guaranteed project.

>|>Commercial yes.  but for gear that is large, heavy and can use man tending
>|>STS is still it.  much as I like DC-1,  until it starts flying
>|>we do need to stick it out with the shuttle.
>|IF it is brought to term.  IF.
>Remember this line folks.

Yes, please do.

Currently, the Space Shiites are having to rally the followers Yet Again to get
Congress to plug in a paltry $75 mil, and hopefully get a foot in the door to
get a total of $475 mil down the road (yah, another example of how funding is
year-by-year Pat).

A full-scale DC-1 prototype will be a large line item, say a couple of billion
dollars outlay.  For a new program start under tight fiscal conditions, it will
be an uphill battle.  It also assumes:

        A)  DC-X works and doesn't get bent during a test flight.
        B)  SX-2 is funded, works, and doesn't get bent.

>|>Of course,  MTPE  keeps scaling down so badly,  that SSF  may end up
>|>being a significant working platform.
>|Scaling down?  No, they decided not to build mega-project satellites, using
>|smaller platforms with less risk.
>|
>Another euphemism for scaling down.  The original version of MTPE
>was for 70 some birds.  in all altitudes.

Seventy?  Gosh, been watching the sci-fi channel too much.

> now it looks like 4-6. 2 most likely.

NO, it was not.  Originally, they were going to build two mega-birds until
someone said "Oh wait, didn't we put all of our eggs in one basket with
Hubble."

Now, they're going to break it up into 4-6 satellites, each one smaller, and
distribute the experiements out.

Keeps the costs spread out too.

>|Gee Pat, it's amazing to see such ENTHUSIASM for marginal uses of SSF,
>|considering your avowed skepticism that it will ever fly.
>Well, considering i find the Bio-medical excuse  ridiculous,  and i
>have doubts about the science return  from the Materials science.
>that only does leave one other mission.

Oh, good, more of your own biases.  We're still learing about both materials
and bio-med, so they'll probably the two primaries.  Maybe you'll see some
earth observation and astronomy from SSF, but it won't be in the primary goals.

>|Actually, you'll see Taurus and probably one or two other companies with 30-60
>|day launchers by 1998.  DoD/Air Force recognizes the need for rapid launch turn
>|around exclusive of whatever NASA requirments exist.

>IF it is brought to term.  IF.
>Funny,  you apply one set of rules  to a SSRT project  and another
>to an ELV project.

They've already got money, committments and sign ups for the first launch.
You are trying to compare apples and oranges.  Taurus is relatively low-risk,
and based upon established 30+ year experience with unmanned solids.

What's that I hear ? Hmm. I didn't know you could warble, Pat.

>|>true.  but our  track record for fed-ex type launching is poor.
>|There's been no defined need before. DoD/AF is working on this, as noted above.  It is
>The need has been defined since the 70's.  it was why STS was supposed
>to have a rapid sortie rate.  And why the USAF spent  4 billion
>on Vandenburg.

The Air Force also recognized the vulnerability of both Vandenburg and KSC. And
we're in the 1990s; our dependence on satellites for war-fighting has
increased and the usefulness of sats for war-fighting has been demonstrated.

Post-Challenger, the AF went cold turkey and started buying expendables.
However, current expendables do not have the turn-around time which would
result from a Taurus-like launcher.

>|a recognized problem within the Air Force that putting sats on orbit on demand
>|is a weakness, especially given the need for putting up payloads during Desert
>|Storm.
>Desert Storm  just tore the bandage off the wound.

You're cute Pat, but the recognized need has been there in the books for a
while.  Current expendibles just couldn't cut it, along with longer lead
time/more expensive mega-sats....

>|>I am convinced SSF won't meet operational spec.
>|Nice of you to back off your previous assertions.
>Considering i include  long term manned tended capacity as one of those
>specs,  i wonder what you mean.  SSF  is a large welfare program,
>for the aero-space corporations.  Any attempt to produce
>flight hardware is just a unwanted by-product.

Pat, it's neo-socialiist crap like this which you always fall back on without
tangible proof other than Sherzer's ravings about conspiracies and secret
inside sources of COVERUPS and LIES to Congress.

>>>Dave McKissock is a decent guy.  most of the program is full of decent
>>>folks,  but the program is not oriented at producing good flight
>>>quality hardware.
>>And what makes you qualified to judge that?  I can think of a lot of engineers
>>you've just insulted.  Your brush is as large as Sherzer's anymore.
>Well,  let's wait and see what the program produces.

Wait and see?  No, you were asked a question.  You are Mr. Demanding. What
makes you qualified to judge?  It's a fair question, given that you are
blanketly accusing any number of project engineers who allegedly like to sit
on their ass and collect paychecks rather than bend metal.

>>Sure. Because they will have to skimp up front to stay below the $2.1 bil
>>ceiling and pay for it later.
>
>HEy,  if they can't build a product with 20 billion dollars  they should
>get out of the game.  that's a cop-out doug.

Pat, you are the one who is not recognizing reality.

They are NOT getting a $20 billion lump-sum to spend as they wish. They are
CAPPED to spending $2.1 bil a year.

There's a big difference between the two concepts.

>>>SSF has far too many risk activities in it.
>>Yet you wanted to make it more risky by launching it into higher inclinations.
>>Oh geez.
>What additionalrisks does the program take by higher inclination orbit?

I'm not going to repeat what has already been discussed.  If you need
refreshing of your memory, go read past messages.

>And actually, it's not just me, this time.  It's also the Vest Panel.
>Are you going to call them names too?

I didn't know you personally spoke for the Vest Panel.

>  but the Reagan plan had already
>>>screwed up everyone.
>>
>>Pat, what a crock.  Blame it all on the Republicans.  Typical.  Congress
>>has equal blame to assess here, as does the way the United States government
>>does business.

>I didn't know the NASA chief works for Tom Foley.

No, but the NASA chief spends more goddamn time sitting up on the Hill being
grilled about operations, budgetary costs, and trying to get money out of
Congress than he does in the White House.

Or do you think that "pork" magically comes from the President?

No, it comes from CONGRESSMEN who want to make sure they get re-elected. Or is
it just concidence that the Senators and Congressment from California and Texas
start to become concerned when it looks like NASA will take a funding hit?

When Allen wants to beat the drum for DC-X follow-up money, does he flood the
White House with faxes and calls?  NOooooo, he gets the phone tree to call
key Senate and House members who sit on committees to make the money move from
out of YOUR pocket to the NASA budget. :)

>  Oh and next time
>some small country gets invaded,  should they  go see Jim Wright for
>assistance?  It's the presidents job to get funding.

You really need to go back to high school and look up "division of powers."
Along with "budgetary authority."

Let me explain it to you in little steps:

    A)  The president proposes a budget
    B)  The budget gets mangled into general terms by the House and Senate
    C)  House and Senate sub-committees take the large chunks of money
        and start designating them for individual projects.
    D)  Everyone votes on, it eventually becomes law (if not, then
        repeat B & C until law).

The president may articulate goals and vision, but he does not provide the
money for these projects.

>  Reagan had no trouble
>getting 70 Billion dollars a year for Black world prohjects....
> Look at the real world funding increases he got for the DOD.

We still had something called the Soviet Union back then. The Berlin Wall.
KAL-007.  Shooting of East German refugees trying to make it to the West.
Do these little trivial pieces mean anything?  Probably not, you were too busy
whining about how evil that old coot Ron was...

How easily you forget.


     January 1993 - John Scully embraces Bill Clinton.
     July 1993    - Apple Computer lays off 2500 workers, posts $188
            million dollar loss.

  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

Date: 26 Jul 1993 22:09:39 GMT
From: George William Herbert <[e-mail]>
Subject: Low Tech Alternatives, Info Post it here!
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Jim Bowery) writes:
>Appropriate about one year's shuttle budget to build a whole bunch of
>jail space and provide for, say, 5 years imprisonment for most of the
>upper level federal civil servants and the upper level managment of the
>pseudo-private "contractors" they do business with.  Enjoin them from
>ever being employed by federal agencies (including the pseudo-private
> ones) or receiving any federal funds ever again.

You've been listening to John Logsdon on bad days, haven't you...

>That would open up competition in space transport to the degree
>that the cost per lb to LEO would drop by a factor of 2 every 3 years
>for the forseeable future.  It would have the side-effect of enabling
>a general politico-economic recovery in this country, but we can ignore
>such benefits as being "in the noise" relatively speaking.

Lesse, that's $1500/lb by 96, $750/lb by 99, $375/lb by 02, and $190ish
by 2005...

Retro plans to offer $1000/lb in 5 ton quantities sometime around
96 if my test stand doesn't blow up in the near future (i.e. no
fundamental flaws).  That should slowly decay off towards $600/lb
by 2000ish and won't go much lower.  I'm not sure there will be
enough market demand to push that lower until 2005-2010.
With the side effect that we don't have to kill the existing
industry and government people first. 8-)

>>Or maybe some NASA system designers need to take come classes in small
>business
>>and economics? Might give them a perspective of how to do things truely on a
>>shoe string, and a dead line..
>
>Oh, you mean like an International Space University class on how to
>run a small business? ;-)

Ok, which year were you at ISU?  You _have_ to be an alumni...
[Side note to the uninitiated: Peter Diamandis, one of ISU's
founders, is currently on his second launch services company
and does a graphic "this is what starting a business is like"
lecture.  8-) -gwh ISU '92]

>But seriously, you might be onto something -- another really low tech way
>to achieve essentially the same thing:
>
>Put NASA personnel (including their contractors) to work in small businesses
>by eliminating NASA, ARPA, their contractors and any other bureaucracies
>that might try to lure such personnel into their control by offering "job
> security".  Make small space businesses and their employees exempt from
>tax -- something we might actually be able to do if we can get rid
>of Rostenkowski (the main barrier to incentives for private technology
> investment in this country).

The only problem with this is that Space isn't inherently a small-business
environment.  The business plan for Retro for example, at the _lowest_
expected flight rate, is making ten million dollars a year in 1995 or 96,
and the high end of the possible growth curve has us in the half-billion
range by 1998.  So do I become a bad guy once I start making serious
money?

-george william herbert
Retro Aerospace

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

Date: 26 Jul 1993 18:07:47 GMT
From: "Robert A. Lentz" <[e-mail]>
Subject: space news from May 31 AW&ST
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>...
>Eureca, scheduled for shuttle pickup soon (although the schedule has
>slipped again because of flawed springs in the turbopumps), has problems.
>There have been several anomalies seen, the worst of which is that the
>number 1 solar wing has seen unexpected drops in performance of some
>of its sections.  It is not clear why wing 1 is suffering and wing 2
>is not, although there is suspicion that it may be materials failures
>associated with the fact that only wing 1 got the full battery of
>pre-launch acoustic-stress tests.

How wonderfully ironic.

Kind of goes along with something I heard not too long ago: they do

    not do as harsh ground testing as they used to because the
    spacecraft now are too fragile to handle it...

(So much for all those wonderful tests I used to read about in the old space
books in the school library when I was younger...)

>...
>A further problem is that some of Eureca's hydrazine valves are acting
>up -- three times, a valve has opened inadvertently -- and this could
>present safety problems if more than one opened (which has not happened).
>Nobody is quite sure what's going on.  NASA has agreed to waive normal
>safety rules and go ahead with the retrieval anyway.

How does one not present a safety problem?

I guess since it happens so rarely that this was a prudent management
decision, rather than another case of overriding practical safety
considerations? (Though kind of makes me wonder, since they knew they would
be out in the bay for the space walk, and then when they had to actually
interact with the satellite. Or was it "safed" sufficiently by then?

Thanks,
-Robert Lentz

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 926
------------------------------