Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v12_0/v12_078.txt

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 18KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from beak.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/Yacf9bu00VcJEQRU4i>;
          Tue, 17 Jul 1990 02:38:33 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 1990 02:38:03 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #78

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 12 : Issue 78

Today's Topics:
             Re: Personnel Launch System
                 Re: Asteroid
                NSS testimony
              NASA in the media
           Re: grim tidings for the future
              Re: buying Soyuzes
                 Re: Energia
          Re: The Decay of NASA's technical culture

Administrivia:

    Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to
  [e-mail].  Other mail, esp. [un]subscription notices,
  should be sent to [e-mail], or, if urgent, to
             [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 16 Jul 90 08:29:22 PDT
From: Edmund Hack <[e-mail]>
X-Vmsmail-To: AMES::"[e-mail]"
Subject: Re: Personnel Launch System

In a reply to my posting on the Presonnel Launch System:
>pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!
>usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!aero![e-mail]  (Thomas F. Smith)
>Subject: Re: Personnel Launch System

>In article <[e-mail]>
>[e-mail] (Edmund Hack) writes:
>...
>>a system called the Personnel Launch System (PLS).
>>...
>>doing work on booster concepts (Titan 4 class vehicle).
>>...
>>The PLS is expected to have 12 or so vehicles and a 20 year lifetime.
>
>I realize that you said Titan IV "class" vehicle but who else [in the USA]
>but Martin Marietta makes a vehicle in that class?  MMC has a contract
>for 48 Titan IVs that will keep them busy for the next decade.  And
>the payloads are NOT the kind that NASA can preempt.  Any <real> systems
>out there?

I don't know what Marshall is looking at, as the article was concerned with
the work going on here at JSC.  I would assume that the Heavy Lift Delta
that has been discussed here would be one possiblity.  I also would think
that there is some cross-fertilization with the Advanced Launch System
group at Marshall.  Again, to others on the net, note that I said "booster
concepts", not boosters.  Direct commercial buys may be unfeasable in the
short run due to the need to man-rate the vehicle (except maybe from
Glavcosmos).

One note: an email message asked for the weight of the PLS: 20,000 lbs. is
the current estimate.  [PLS already meets one criteria for a government
program.  It has a TLA (Three Letter Acronym). ;-) ]

Edmund Hack
[e-mail]
This is my opinion, produced on privately owned equipment (of course, we
probably got an investment tax credit for buying it, or at least depreciation
on the decreasing value of it ....) using a government-supported network
that benefits the Techno-Elite of Western Civilization.  So There!

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

Date: 16 Jul 90 16:25:05 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!helios!tamuts![e-mail]  (Lee Cox)
Subject: Re: Asteroid

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jason J. Levit) writes:
>  Anybody hear about this new asteroid that passed within 3 million
>  miles of earth?  If not, here's the details...
>  [details omitted]
>  So, another "near miss".  They're coming closer and closer and
>  closer....how many would have liked to nuke this one?  :-)

Yep, it's about time to a few more Saturn V IPBMs (Inter-Planetary
Ballistic Missiles).

************************************************************************
 Lee Cox                          BITnet: H1C5962@TAMSTAR
                                  HEPnet: FNBIT::TAMHEP::THOR::H1C5962
 Asst. Systems Manager          Internet: [e-mail]
 Academic Computing Services        SPAN: UTSPAN::UTADNX::THOR::H1C5962
 Texas A&M University             THEnet: THOR::H1C5962
 College Station, TX 77843-3154   GTEnet: [phone]
                     Paranoia is our profession.
************************************************************************

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

Date: 16 Jul 90 23:38:50 GMT
From: dsl.pitt.edu!pitt!nss![e-mail]  (Bev Freed)
Subject: NSS testimony

I'm posting the following testimony as provided by NSS
headquarters...

Before the Senate Finance Committee, Subcommittee on
International Trade
PREPARED TESTIMONY OF LORI GARVER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
SPACE SOCIETY

REGARDING THE TRADE AGREEMENTS COMPLIANCE ACT,
H.R. 4661 / S. 2742

Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee:
     I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify
concerning the Trade Agreements Compliance Act.  As I am not an
expert on international trade issues generally, I will confine my
testimony to a discussion of the U.S./China Launch Services Trade
Agreement, and the difficulties in enforcing it under current
law.  First, however, I will provide a bit of background on NSS,
the Agreement, and why this question is important.

NSS, Launch Services Trade, and the Agreement
     I represent the National Space Society, a nationwide space
activist organization with almost 30,000 members.  Although a
number of launch companies are corporate members of NSS, by far
the greatest part of our membership and support come from
individuals.  NSS is committed to the creation of a truly
spacefaring civilization -- a goal that we share with President
Bush.

     For such a civilization to exist, the cost of transporting
people and material to Earth orbit must be lowered dramatically.
I stress that I refer to cost, not simply price -- cost being the
total amount of societal resources required to do the job.
Subsidies can shift costs from one group to another -- say, from
U.S. satellite manufacturers to Chinese taxpayers -- but merely
shifting payment around cannot lower the actual cost of space
activity.  It is the position of NSS that free market competition
is the best means of seeing those costs go down.  The experience
of this century teaches that when competition takes hold,
technological capabilities go up and costs come down.  That is
why NSS opposes anti-free market practices such as dumping and
operational subsidies.

     When the Chinese entered the market in 1985, there was
serious concern that they would sell their launch services at
below cost, driving free-world launch providers out of business.
After considerable discussion the United States and China arrived
at an agreement on launch services.  In exchange for being
allowed to launch Western satellites, the Chinese agreed to price
at levels on a par with Western launchers, and to limit the
quantity of launches that they made available.

Enforcing the Agreement
     There is now substantial evidence that the Chinese are not
abiding by this agreement.  Yet enforcing the agreement is no
easy matter.  Under existing law, one mechanism for enforcing the
Agreement is a petition under Section 301 of the Trade Act of
1974, as amended, either filed by a private party such as a
launch company or a group like NSS, or self-initiated by the U.S.
Trade Representative.  Absent prompt, firm action by the
Administration, this may be the only option.

     Since self-initiation by USTR is a rare event, this means
that the burden of enforcement, as a practical matter, falls on
private parties.  In the launch services industry, and no doubt
in many others, this poses a difficult problem for members of the
industry.  For any one company to file a petition exposes it to
retaliation by the foreign government, while its competitors
receive a "free ride" from its actions.  Even where a consortium
of companies files, it runs the risk that the foreign government
will retaliate against it by purchasing from third nations.  And
in the case of the U.S. industry, many of its most
technologically-innovative and dynamic companies are simply too
small, and too preoccupied with getting their businesses
established, to take the lead in what they see (rightly or
wrongly) as peripheral matters.  Of course, there is the issue of
the expense in terms of time and money of a Section 301 case.

     In the context of the China launch agreement, NSS has
attempted to remedy these problems by taking the lead in publicly
asking the Administration to enforce the agreement as written.
We are willing to do this, since we feel very strongly about the
importance of lowering launch costs, and believe very strongly in
the role of free market competition in doing that.  But our
involvement is very much a "second best" solution, for in a
better world the Administration would oversee trade agreement
enforcement without prodding from private groups.

     At present, however, there appears to be a structural bias
in the system against the enforcement of international trade
agreements.  That certainly has been the case in the context of
the Chinese launch services agreement, and I suspect that it is
true for many other industries as well.  To the extent that the
Trade Agreements Compliance Act would remedy this bias, NSS
believes that it should be enacted.  Those supporting enforcement
of the trade agreements should not be forced to file Section 301
cases in every instance where a breach occurs.


--- Opus-CBCS 1.13
 * Origin: NSS BBS - Ad Astra! [phone] *HST* (1:129/104.0)
--
Bev Freed - via FidoNet node 1:129/104
UUCP: ...!pitt!nss!freed
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

Date: 17 Jul 90 00:38:41 GMT
From: thorin!grover![e-mail]  (David Becker)
Subject: NASA in the media

The ``Grim Tidings'' thread has extended into the national media.
The effort the media puts into this story is as good a gauge as any to
the popular interest in a space program and there has been a fair amount
of coverage.

The urge to critique and investigate NASA is not limited to the bashers
on the net.  For those who sleep in cots beside their workstations,
here is what I've seen:


Newsweek cover.  Just documented NASA had a mess.
Businessweek column.   Commentary saying NASA should adopt a for-profit
    style of management.  NASA needs management that can handle
    billion-plus dollar projects.

Nightline.  Ted had Al Gore, a NASA deputy admin and a reporter on.
    Gore: Couldn't believe Hubble wasn't tested as a system.
    NASA deputy: Shuttle is the most reliable and cost-effective
        launcher in the world.  [practically a direct quote]
        Koppel asked if we could use Soviet stuff and he
        responded that it was not reliable enough.
    space-beat reporter:  The shuttle is ham-stringing NASA.

McNeil/Lehrer.  Guests included Dr. James Van Allen, Sen. Barb Mikowski,
    who is Rep.Gore's counterpart in the Senate, and  NASA Director
    Admiral Truly.

    Van Allen: Unmanned robotic probes are the only way to go.
    Sen. Mikowski:  The current station design will not fly in Congress.
        Mission to Earth has lots of congressional support.
        NASA has consistenly claimed projects will do more for less
        the last decade.  She's been told the station design is
        overweight, oversized and needs too much maintainence.
    Truly: He met with Quayle today.  The commission announced today
        will be used for long term planning of the space
        station era of the agency.  Asked to reply to the
        overweight, oversize and overEVA'd design, he said most
        NASA projects, listing Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, SkyLab
        and Shuttle, had exactly the same problems during in their
        designs.  He said NASA would not be facing the critics if the
        Hubble, Shuttle and station problems hadn't coincided
        and therefore NASA is really OK.  He emphasized these
        projects are very complex and extremely difficult to manage.

[any inaccuracies are due to faulty biased memory :-]
--

Impressions:

Truly sounded as far from "can do" as possible.  The station, a shuttle
launch, and a mission to Mars were all extremely difficult and complex.
He is eager to design the agency needed to support the station.  He is
completely confident is will happen fairly close to how it is designed
today and that the Shuttle can do the job.

The space-beat reporter, a free lancer I believe,  sounded like
he'd been reading the net and echoed many of Shuttle judgements seen here...
NASA has to work on the basics like getting to space before tackling the
station or a Mars trip.

Neither Truly or that Deputy on NightLine sounded like they had any
intentions of trying to change the status quo and only had praise for
the Shuttle.

Few shows or articles even mentioned that commercial companies exist.

The Livermore station ideas were not mentioned at all but Mikowski hinted
her committee is looking into alternatives.

Did Truly fly any Apollo missions?

--
David Becker        Gotta love a machine that hangs on
[e-mail]        your every word.

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

Date: 14 Jul 90 13:59:16 GMT
From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123![e-mail]  (Charles Radley)
Subject: Re: grim tidings for the future

Challenger caused a policy reversal in the US adminstration.
Pre-Challenger, the commercial US space ELV industry was dismantled to
allwo Shuttle to have monopoly.
Post-Challenger they are desperately trying to reconstruct the ELV
indsutry to carry all non-government payloads on a commercial basis.
Your argument has a fallacy.  The government controls the launch market
in the US, private industry is not ALLOWED to compete, unless the
government wants it to.


--
Charles Radley
Internet: [e-mail]
BBS:      714 544-0934   2400/1200/300

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

Date: 14 Jul 90 13:24:37 GMT
From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123![e-mail]  (Charles Radley)
Subject: Re: buying Soyuzes

On the contrary, the US has just announced a major change of policy
here.   They are allowing a US company to purches soviet Zenit boosters
for use in Cape York.
Gentlemen, the floodgates are now open.   You can have your Soyuzes
built by slave labor with people paid 10 cents per hour.   Can you
compete with that ??


--
Charles Radley
Internet: [e-mail]
BBS:      714 544-0934   2400/1200/300

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

Date: 16 Jul 90 05:11:18 GMT
From: bfmny0![e-mail]  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Energia

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:
>>From: mojo![e-mail]  (Doug Mohney)
>>B) If they trust Buran and their cargo with it, why shouldn't we? I guess
>>   it's cuz they're Foreigners, eh?
>
>You may not have noticed, but they don't trust Buran. Something on the first
>flight scared them, and they've been trying to fix it before they risk
>another launch.

I thought it was the price tag -- duplicating our money-waster for the
sake of prestige no longer looked worth it amid the economic realities
of Soviet perestroika.  Is there a specific reference for the notion
of a Buran failure in flight?

--
"Of course, this is a, this is a Hunt, you   |*==|  Tom Neff
will -- that will uncover a lot of things.   |===|  [e-mail]
You open that scab, there's a hell of a lot
of things... This involves these Cubans, Hunt, and a lot of hanky-panky
that we have nothing to do with ourselves." -- RN 6/23/72

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

Date: 16 Jul 90 19:38:09 GMT
From: skipper![e-mail]  (Al Bowers)
Subject: Re: The Decay of NASA's technical culture

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Charles Radley) writes:

>the problem NASA has hiring and keeping people.  They are not permitted
>to pay salaries to compare with those available in private industry.
>Congress keeps vetoing pay raises.

As a participant in the particular survey in question, there are a
couple of points I would like to make.  Many of the politically
motivated questions were very leading and those that leaned the
`wrong' way were deleted.  The questions survived the `editing' but
the responses were specifically not to be made or it would invalidate
the entire response from that person.

In particular there is a quota for performance reviews at NASA.  Only
a certain number of certain catagories of responses can be made.  In
this way it is possible to limit the advancment of engineers (or any
other group for that matter).  Also the pay issue is minor, but it is
a pain to be expected to do your best at a particular function when
every contractor employee you are working with earns 15 to 40% more
than you do, it isn't good for morale.

One other pet peeve of mine involves the number of new hires we are
allowed to make.  As our organization is `over complement' we aren't
allowed to hire young engineers.  It is interesting to note that even
though we are over complement, every one is _expected_ to work
overtime (at straight pay or on comp time) to get the job done.
Again, contractors get compensation.  A prime example of this has
happened over the past 5 years in a particular area of research here,
an old timer with years of experience trains a younger engineer.  The
younger engineer, realizing his predicament in the `silly service',
goes back to school to get a degree in business.  Old timer retires.
Young `fresh out' takes over the job.  `Fresh out' goes away for a
year to earn master's degree.  Bingo, we're stuck.  Loss of
continuity, loss of experience and loss of competence.

Another opinion...

--
Albion H. Bowers  [e-mail]  ames!elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov!bowers

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

End of SPACE Digest V12 #78
*******************