Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/v08/V8_293.ZIP/V8_293

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 19KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/po2.andrew.cmu.edu.4674.0.0>;
          Sun, 24 Jul 88 22:07:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q006/QF.andrew.cmu.edu.22ea97c6.c25ee6>;
          Sun, 24 Jul 88 22:07:04 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA03804> for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Sun, 24 Jul 88 22:05:57 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA00398; Sun, 24 Jul 88 19:04:53 PDT
    id AA00398; Sun, 24 Jul 88 19:04:53 PDT
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 88 19:04:53 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #293

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 8 : Issue 293

Today's Topics:
          Ron Paul's Libertarian Party Space Policy
            Re: Space Shuttle Differences
     Re: advance space news from June 6 AW&ST -- Pegasus!
              Re: Rocket engine
               Von Braun quote
     Re: advance space news from June 6 AW&ST -- Pegasus!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!trout.nosc.mil!pnet01!jim
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 88 12:55:47 PDT
From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim (Jim Bowery)
To: crash![e-mail]
Subject: Ron Paul's Libertarian Party Space Policy

Dale Amon presented me with a copy of Ron Paul's space policy and I felt
it appropriate to post on the net, especially since Dale claims to have
contributed to this policy and is available for discussion of it on
the network.  Here it is:

======================================================================

Ron Paul's Space Policy
Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate

Time after time NASA has developed capabilities at great expense then
discarded them:  a space station larger than the Soviet MIR, a heavy
lift vehicle competitive with the new Soviet Energia, a nuclear engine
twice as efficient as the space shuttle main engine, and a well-tested
Earth-Moon transport system.

The fate of the Saturn V heavy lift launch vehicle is one of the saddest
examples of this folly.  Production was intentionally halted and
portions of its tooling were "lost."  This bridge burning ensured
support for the next aerospace welfare program:  the space shuttle.
Now we have a grounded government shuttle that can lift only a third
as much as the Saturn V for the same cost per pound.  That's progress,
government style.

Even worse, this failed state monopoly is now wrecking businesses to
avoid well-deserved embarrassment.  American companies desparately
need to get their satellites into space.  But they have been blocked from
using the cheapest, most reliable launcher in the world which
unfortunately happens to be the Soviet Proton.

NASA has cost our nation a full twenty years in space development,
twenty years that has seen the Soviet union surpass us to such an
extent that may well be irreparable.  It is inconceivable that
a private firm could have committed such follies and survived.  NASA
deserves no better.

Our only hope now lies in the power of free individuals risking their
own resources for their own dreams.  We must recognize the government-
led space program is dead and the corpse must be buried as soon as
possible.  Any defense functions should be put under the military, and
the rest of NASA should be sold to private operators.  The receipts would
be applied to the national debt.  Then, all government roadblocks to
commercial development of space must be removed.

It is not the business of the Defense Department of a free society to
veto business decisions of remote sensing or launch companies.  The
interests of liberty would be well served by a bevy of mediasats
that put any future Iran-Contra affair under the full glare of live
television coverage.  Maybe, besides the competition, that's what our
government is afraid of.

There's really only one proper role for the military in space or on
Earth:  the protection of America.  Otherwise, the new frontier of
Space should opened to all.  Space pioneers will generate knowlege and
wealth that will improve the lot of all people on earth.  We should not
let government get in their way.

SPACE -- INTERNATIONAL POLICY

Our government is not only short-sighted in its negotiations on
space issues, it's downright antiAmerican.  Sometimes it's hard to
decide whose principles the State Department is defending.  They
certainly aren't those of the Founding Fathers.

About the only anti-property treaty this country hasn't ratified
is the odious "Moon Treaty" written by our own Satate Department.
If not for an alert group of citizens (L5 Society), the United
States would have ratified this treaty under President Carter and
embraced control of all of the rest of creation by a World Government.
Under "the common heritage of mankind" space would be the heritage
of no one.  The vast wealth of resources and energy in our solar
system would remain untapped instead of being explored by entrepreneurs
who would improve the condition of all humanity.  It's time this sick
treaty is repudiated once and for all.

We must also demand a revision or understanding to the 1967 Outer
Space Treaty so individual property rights are recognized.  If
there are no implementing protocols for property rights within a
specified time limit we should withdraw from the treaty entirely.
In any case, we should immediately open a land office and accept
claims of Americans to specific pieces of land, subject to occupancy
within fifteen years.

Back in the late 1950's a project called Orion seriously considered using
small nuclear explosions to power a spacecraft.  The lifting capacity
would have been vast, measured in thousands of tons instead of
the miniscule abilities of today's mightiest rockets.  This brute-
force approach was simple enough to be considered feasible 30 years ago.
Unfortunately, the idea was shelved by the 1963 Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

If we truly wish to see the opening of the space frontier, we must
not prevent businesses from working on futuristic ideas like fusion drives
or matter-antimatter engines.  Such technologies will one day open the
solar system to commerce the way the clipper ship opened the oceans
in the 19th century.

A time may also come when industrial nuclear explosives are needed in
deep space for extraction of the vast wealth of resources inside
comets and asteroids.  Modification of the 1963 Test Ban Treaty and
other understandings to clearly allow such non-military use of nuclear
technology is in the best interest of all space-faring peoples.

But perhaps most basic of all, we should question why governments of the
20th century Earth assume they have the right to make laws for unknown
environments, at distances of millions of miles and a time decades or
centuries in the future.  If the arm of government can reach that far,
freedom on Earth is precarious at best.

======================================================================

End of policy statement by Ron Paul.

======================================================================

I've heard only one justification from Dale for his vocal and impassioned
arguments for full NASA funding under its business-as-usual approach of
"wrecking businesses to avoid well-deserved embarrassment" in the words
of Dale's own candidate.  This explanation is that he is speaking as an
official of the National Space Society and is, thus, under an obligation
to argue and promote the official views of the Society as determined by
the Legislative Committee.  Others, such as Henry Spencer, have offered
their uninvited justification for Dale's actions in terms of political
pragmatism of some kind, although Dale has yet to offer these justifications
himself.

Given the fact that Dale is under no obligation to speak on behalf of
the National Space Society, that the policy which he claims to have
contributed to is clearly an impassioned plea to put an end to NASA's
anticompetitive and wasteful practices, that Dale signs his own name
to his impassioned pleas for full NASA funding and that he has yet to
offer any believable political strategy in which identifying full NASA
funding with the most viable political strategy for opening the space
frontier is more than a thinly veiled attempt to mask his own hypocrisy,
I call on Dale to now present such a justification or offer the honest
truth about why he is talking out of both sides of his mouth.

UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim
ARPA: crash!pnet01![e-mail]
INET: [e-mail]

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

Date: 10 Jul 88 01:08:41 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle Differences

>  Are all the operational shuttles the same, ie. in terms of lifting
> capability, weight, etc. ? Or are there functional differences?

There are no major functional differences, but the later orbiters are
lighter and hence can carry heavier payloads.
--
Anyone who buys Wisconsin cheese is  |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
a traitor to mankind.  --Pournelle   | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 9 Jul 88 23:41:43 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: advance space news from June 6 AW&ST -- Pegasus!

> Private development is not new-- Space Services Inc. of Houston has
> designed, built and *flown* the Conestoga using private funds...

No they haven't.  They built and flew what amounted to a big sounding
rocket.  The various Conestoga satellite-launchers are still paper
designs.  And do remember that that one launch was something like five
years ago.

> And they
> are offering their launchers to DARPA on a strictly commercial basis.

Precisely what OSC+Hercules are doing with Pegasus, I believe.

> If DARPA commits to buying launches on a vehicle which is still in the
> development stage, how is that significantly different from them paying
> for development?

Having the government as a customer is very different from having it
as a partner.  Unless I am much mistaken, DARPA will pay only for launches,
not for promises.  That's a BIG difference.

> What happens when there are cost overruns and production delays?

Presumably, existing contracts would have to be renegotiated (unless there
were provisions for such already present), leading to possible loss of
business.  Same as what happens when Boeing hits delays or overruns on
a new airliner.

> The article also raises questions about possible
> hidden subsidies: How much are OSC and Hercules paying for use of the
> NASA B52?  How much are they paying for computing at Ames?

This I don't know.  I would speculate that the B-52 is being provided on
a basis of "until we have our own carrier aircraft, the customer has to
supply it".  Ames is presumably involved in this for its own reasons, and
may consider free computing time justified.  Remember that NASA *is*
charged with advancing aerospace technology for use by private industry.

> Hercules and OSC claim that they will develop, build and certify not
> one, not two, but three new motors with $45M, and in one year...

I confess that the motor development sounded a bit ambitious to me too.
However, the standard rule of thumb is that doing things privately and
accepting some risk is an order of magnitude cheaper than having the job
done by the government.  $450M for government development of three small
solid motors, by an experienced company, doesn't sound too bad.  Likewise
a time of two years (not one -- this project is already well underway,
remember) doesn't sound too bad for motors that don't involve new technology.
They should represent a fairly routine engineering job.

That, actually, deserves some expansion.  Although I wish OSC+Hercules
success, and gobs of money, their most important contribution will be
their first successful launch.  If they go broke despite technical
success, that will still establish the crucial point:  getting into orbit
is routine engineering now, and does not require a billion dollars, ten
years, thousands of people, or government funding.  If they can pull it
off technically, and I suspect they can, that will be an enormous
contribution to convincing investors that private spaceflight is realistic.
There are two problems with investors:  convincing them that you can do it,
and convincing them that you can make a profit on it.  The first problem is
the hard one, especially since NASA is all too eager to assure the investors
that billions of dollars and thousands of engineers are absolutely necessary.
Proving that assertion a lie is very important; so far it hasn't been done.
The problem with Space Services is that they've taken so long to deliver;
the problems with Amroc and Pacific are that they insist on developing
new technology, and that they too are showing signs of having trouble
delivering soon (I for one consider it a bad sign when the design of the
vehicle changes repeatedly, over a period of years, before anything actually
flies).  If Pegasus works, it will demonstrate that a short development
program using existing technology is sufficient.  That would make a vast
difference to getting funding for private-spaceflight projects.

> One of the more important aspects of this article is the tense...
> Hercules and OSC have far to go before this project amounts to much more
> than the inflated claims of a marketing campaign...

One of the more important aspects of this article is the timing:  after the
project is well underway, not before it gets started.  I doubt very much
that an official announcement could possibly have been postponed any longer,
actually.  Given the way the aerospace industry usually ballyhoos its
back-of-the-envelope design sketches, OSC and Hercules have actually shown
remarkable restraint.
--
Anyone who buys Wisconsin cheese is  |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
a traitor to mankind.  --Pournelle   | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 10 Jul 88 01:12:31 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Rocket engine

> ... I could be wrong, but I got the *very* strong impression that
> the process was one of "diddle with it until it works".

Well, one can sometimes get hints from knowing how similar problems were
solved in the past, but I believe that's basically correct.  Even the
definition of "works" is rather ad-hoc; testing includes things like
exploding small bombs inside the engine to try to stimulate any instabilities
that might be lurking.
--
Anyone who buys Wisconsin cheese is  |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
a traitor to mankind.  --Pournelle   | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 10 Jul 88 00:36:11 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Von Braun quote

> > Man is the best computer we can put aboard a spacecraft. --Von Braun
>
> Last week's successful Ariane-4 launch put AMSAT Phase 3-C and two other
> satellites into [a very precise] orbit...  I'd like to see some fighter
> jock/astronaut do as well by flying a launch manually...

"The Lord has delivered him into my hands."  -Huxley

Yup, the computer did a fine and very precise job.  Now, Phil, cast your
mind back a little ways, to the Ariane launch of AO-10 (I think it was).
Much the same computer, running much the same software, controlling much
the same booster, put AO-10 into a nice precise orbit.  After which the
same computer, mindlessly following orders, proceeded with a venting
procedure that caused the third stage to catch up with and collide with
AO-10, damaging it seriously and causing a lot of headaches for you and
the rest of the Amsat crew.  The greenest student pilot could have
prevented that, if he'd been there.  You, of all people, should not be
lauding the unmanned nature of Ariane as an unmixed blessing.

I think we all agree that machines are generally superior for boring
jobs that have to be done exactly right, especially when there are tight
response-time requirements.  Even Von Braun, after all, built computer-
controlled launchers.  And I think we would all agree that humans
are generally superior for adapting orders to situations and coping with
the unforeseen.  Both the Solar Max repair and the Palapa/Westar retrieval
succeeded (despite one or two false steps along the way) even though the
original carefully-built equipment simply didn't work.

The debate centers on the extent to which unexpected situations and
unforeseen problems can be removed by advance planning.  NASA, Arianespace,
etc. have been insisting for a long time that nothing is left to chance and
everything is foreseen.  They have consistently been proven wrong.  Sometimes
the equipment can be convinced to cope, and this is trumpeted as further
proof that humans are unnecessary in space.  Sometimes the equipment just
isn't up to handling a new situation, and this is written off as Just One
Of Those Failures One Has To Expect -- even if it wouldn't have been a
failure with a human on hand.  Do I detect a small inconsistency here?

Automatic equipment is the appropriate response to a well-understood,
simple, repetitive job like relaying communications, taking pictures, or
guiding a launcher.  Humans are the appropriate response to complex,
variable, unforeseen, one-of-a-kind situations like equipment failures,
unexpected changes in environment, and exploration of planetary surfaces.
To pick a close-to-home example, the success of satellite repair/retrieval
procedures has been inversely proportional to the reliance placed on
automatic equipment rather than humans -- compare the equipment-intensive
Solar Max repair, a near-disaster, with the human-intensive Leasat repair,
which worked so well that it was boring.

> Perhaps you should limit the scope of this statement somewhat.

If we're being pedantic, note that Von Braun did:  he said "spacecraft",
not "launcher", so Ariane isn't relevant.
--
Anyone who buys Wisconsin cheese is  |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
a traitor to mankind.  --Pournelle   | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 10 Jul 88 12:24:25 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (John F Carr)
Subject: Re: advance space news from June 6 AW&ST -- Pegasus!

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:

>Remember that NASA *is*
>charged with advancing aerospace technology for use by private industry.

Has anyone told them this?  While I've seen evidence of an interest in
airplanes, they don't seem to have done much to help with launchers.
Or are they helping while the rest of the government works against them?

   John Carr             "When they turn the pages of history,
   [e-mail]     When these days have passed long ago,
                          Will they read of us with sadness
                          For the seeds that we let grow?"  --Neil Peart

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

End of SPACE Digest V8 #293
*******************