Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v12_5/v12_507.txt

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 22KB

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/cbCXQoC00VcJ81pk4j>;
          Thu,  8 Nov 1990 23:57:24 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Thu,  8 Nov 1990 23:56:54 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #507

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 12 : Issue 507

Today's Topics:
             Re: Theory for Life
             Re: Navy UFO Post Explained
 LLNL Great Exploration (was Re: You Can't Expect a Space Station...)
          Re: Space Station Design Lifetime
              Re: LLNL Proposal
       Re: You Can't Expect a Space Station to be Cheap

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: 28 Oct 90 19:08:32 GMT
From: uceng!minerva![e-mail]  (Daniel Mocsny)
Subject: Re: Theory for Life

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
> - considering the
>numerical superiority of invertebrates on our own planet,

...not to mention in my apartment... ;-)

>Can you consider hive-or-nest-building a primitive technology?

A "complex system" consists of a large collection of similar,
relatively simple entities that interact with each other according to
a relatively set of rules/equations. Despite the apparent simplicity
with which we may describe the parts of the system, it may exhibit
arbitrarily complex "emergent" (or "epiphenomenal") behavior.

"Mind" may emerge from the interactions of a large number of relatively
simple neurons. Could it emerge from other complex systems?

Communication appears to be a determining factor in transforming a
collection of parts from a "colony" or "mob" into an "entity" or
"self". I.e., if each component part of the system has an internal
communication bandwidth which greatly exceeds the inter-part bandwidth,
then the capacity for the overall system to act like a unit probably
suffers.

This is intuitively observable in the behavior of human organizations
and communities. People have a hard time holding social structures
together---nations and businesses collapse, are overthrown, ethnic
groups balkanize, etc. This is easy to predict from the simple fact
that every particular individual enjoys a much richer communication
between parts of his own brain than with other brains. The result is
endless misunderstanding and conflict between humans. Conversely, the
more people "talk" to each other, USENET notwithstanding ;-), the more
likely they are to identify with a group than with themselves as
individuals. (More than just "talk" is involved, of course, since human
brains obtain information from the environment in several ways.)

In practical terms, the most essential component of all successful
social organizations is how well they manage information. In light of
modern organizational failures, one wonders how the great empires of
ancient times managed to "exist", or what this "existence" really
meant in the day-to-day affairs of people living in them.

Getting back to the hive-mind possibility:

I suspect that any "Mind" emerging from a community of bees might not
develop much of an IQ. The problems:

1. The maximum practical size of a hive is limited. The human brain
has about 1e+11 components. A single bee is more complex than a single
neuron, of course. However, in terms of its interaction with the hive,
it is probably not vastly more complex. For the small system of
a few thousands of bees to become "Mind", each bee would have to
embed a comsiderable degree of intelligence. This brings us to the
next problem.

2. Intra-bee communication is by neural pathways. This is several
orders of magnitude faster than inter-bee communication, which is
by tactile, visual, and chemical pathways. Unless bees can come up
with a way to "talk" faster, the overall performance of the hive-mind
will be very slow. If it is too slow, it will only be able to respond
to environmental phenomena that operate with slow characteristic times.
For example, the hive-mind can track changes in the location of the
best pollen fields.

The slow inter-bee communication also probably limits the extent to
which the hive subsumes each individual bee. For example, each bee
is capable of existing in the real world (to some extent) independently
from the hive. This is not possible at all for a neuron in the brain.
The hive-mind simply isn't fast and powerful enough to safeguard the
momentary existence of each bee. Thus each bee must be a self-contained
survival machine. This gives each bee a self-interest and identity
apart from the hive. To the extent that each bee can stand on its
own six feet, the hive-mind must be limited.


--
Dan Mocsny                Snail:
Internet: [e-mail]    Dept. of Chemical Engng. M.L. 171
      [e-mail]        University of Cincinnati
513/751-6824 (home) 513/556-2007 (lab)    Cincinnati, Ohio 45221-0171

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

Date: 28 Oct 90 19:53:16 GMT
From: zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!sequent!crg5![e-mail]  (Greg Smith)
Subject: Re: Navy UFO Post Explained

In article <1050400044@cdp> [e-mail] writes:
>
>Readers of this list protesting the entry of "Navy Witholding
>Evidence" may wish to know that the person entering the article
>was not authorized to use the ID in question, and that this ID
>has been revoked by the supporting network.  The person in charge
>of the organization which held the ID knows who made the post and
>is working with that individual to prevent future incidents.  The
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    Ohmygod! They've probably flown him out to AREA #51 for brainwashing.
    And now all traces of this poor individuals existence will be
    wiped out. WHERE WILL THIS ALL END.

    :-) :-) :-)

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

Date: 29 Oct 90 02:20:49 GMT
From: rochester!sol![e-mail]  (Brian Yamauchi)
Subject: LLNL Great Exploration (was Re: You Can't Expect a Space Station...)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] ("Allen W. Sherzer") writes:
   If it does work, we will have a space
   station in three years

Actually, the article in AW&ST (Jan 22, 1990) says that if Great
Exploration is started this year, we could have both the Earth station
and the gas station in orbit by mid-1991.

   and almost an order of magnitude reduction in launch
   costs for large payloads. All that is needed to demonstrate the concept is
   about 5% of one years spending on Freedom.

What's more, for less than NASA's FY 1991 authorization, we could have
a manned lunar base by mid-1994, and a manned Mars base by late 1997.

This sounds a lot better than $400 billion and 25 years.

   In article <[e-mail]>:
   >>Any of those guys coming to southern California any time soon ?
   >+ Invite them down
   >Hah !  I value my job too much.

   That's an interesting remark. Why would inviting some speakers in get
   you fired?

I'd be curious to know the answer as well.

I'm sure that there are smart and creative people working for NASA.
Why can't they come up with a Space Exploration Inititiative that
takes less than 25 years to get to Mars?
--
_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi                University of Rochester
[e-mail]        Computer Science Department
_______________________________________________________________________________

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

Date: 28 Oct 90 18:17:49 GMT
From: uceng!minerva![e-mail]  (Daniel Mocsny)
Subject: Re: Space Station Design Lifetime

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>The point is that the stations will be obsolete in 5 or 10 years.  Even
>if it is not totally useless at that point, an upgrade and refurbishment
>will be necessary anyway.

Yes, but you forget that bureaucrats themselves have design lifetimes
of 30 years ;-)


--
Dan Mocsny                Snail:
Internet: [e-mail]    Dept. of Chemical Engng. M.L. 171
      [e-mail]        University of Cincinnati
513/751-6824 (home) 513/556-2007 (lab)    Cincinnati, Ohio 45221-0171

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

Date: 28 Oct 90 04:23:12 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: LLNL Proposal

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Fraering Philip) writes:
>It's not just the chance that another orbiter will be lost. It's the
>chance that $ 3,000,000,000.00 (count those zeroes and imagine) worth
>of sophisticated hardware will be broken up into bite-sized pieces, then
>picked up off of the ocean floor again (at great cost) and then cemented into
>an unused missle silo.

Actually, I think Phil has misread this one.  Nobody gets too upset when
the USAF loses a quarter-billion Titan IV with a cost-top-secret spysat
on top.  Delta, Ariane, and Titan all had major failures in 1986, with
almost no public fuss made.  What really gets the uproar going is deaths.
This is thoroughly irrational -- look at military flying statistics for
January 1986, and compare the number of deaths to those who died in space
shuttles that same month -- but it's the way things are.  NASA will not
be in one-tenth as much trouble next time if the crew survives.  (Getting
money for a replacement orbiter won't be fun, to be sure, but there will
be no serious prospect of shutting down the whole program, as there will
be if the crew dies.)  It'll be another costly NASA screwup, producing
some hostile questions in Congress but otherwise largely forgotten after
the next successful mission.  Apollo 13 cost the taxpayer a lot more than
Apollo 1 in lost hardware, but the former is remembered as a narrow escape
and the latter as a disaster.
--
"I don't *want* to be normal!"         | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
"Not to worry."                        |  [e-mail]   utzoo!henry

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

Date: Sun, 28 Oct 90 16:10:37 -0500
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: You Can't Expect a Space Station to be Cheap
Newsgroups: sci.space
Cc:

In article <[e-mail]>:
>+ So what? I can la+unch a LLNL station every ten years for thirty
>+ years for about 20% what Freedom costs. Of course I suspect we
>+ will learn a lot about space stations in that ten years and
>+we may very well want something different. With LLNL we can
>+change the design if we want. With Freedom we will be stuck with it.

>It boils down to the credibility of the cost projections   Have
>you ever had the experience of awarding a subcontract to a
>company who presents a beatiful prposal, then two years later you
>find they cannot deliver what they promised ?

Sure. I have also seen times where it did work.

>Every day occurrence in the aerospace industry.

No in all of the aerospace industry. The commercial airline industry
does this sort of thing as a matter of routine. Boeing just sold United
a bunch of planes which don't exist yet. Sold them for a fixed price before
beginning the design in detail.

Besides, what do we have to loose? If it doesn't work, I'll join you to be
the first to call for killing it. If it does work, we will have a space
station in three years and almost an order of magnitude reduction in launch
costs for large payloads. All that is needed to demonstrate the concept is
about 5% of one years spending on Freedom.

>+ Now all other things being equal wouldn't we be better off
>+using the LLNL design and send a new one up every ten years?
>
>  Sounds good in theory.   See previous comment on credibility.

I think they have very good credibility. You have yet to demonstrate
ANY serious flaws in their approach.

>+Why? If Freedom used expendables instead of insisting on using
>+ the Shuttle their costs would also drop. At $500 to $900 a pop
>+ those assembly costs add up fast. Why is that apples and
>+oranges?
>
>  I thought the HLV would be reusable....

No, that would make them too expensive.

>There is some psychology
>involved, Shuttle exists, HLV does not.

What psychology is involved?

>There is a risk in
>betting that a non-existent HLV will work.  Once again, the
>problem of credibility.

NASA is claiming ten Shuttle flights a year for assembly. This
flies in the face of the past ten years operational experience
with the Shuttle, ignores problems with an ageing fleet, and
discounts problems with the fleet being grounded. The last is
an important factor since the Shuttle has been grounded for
about a third of it's operational life. Because of this, Freedom
could well end up being deployed in Australia next to Skylab.

The LLNL Earth Station on the other hand, uses cheaper technology.
They assume launchers will be grounded in their schedules. They
assume things won't work and plan for backup approaches when they fail.
If the HLV is gounded, they could use Titan, Delta, or even the Shuttle.

From where I sit it is NASA by failing to plan for Shuttle alternatives
which is taking the high risk, low credibility approach.

>>Does LLNL figure in the cost of developing HLV in their costing ?

>+ Does Freedom figure in the cost of developing the Shuttle in
>+ their costing?

>They don't have to because Shuttle exists and its development is
>previously paid for.

No, the cost still needs to be amoritized. I just flew back from
Dallas in a new 767. I'm sure part of the cost of that aircraft
was to pay for the design. Just because it exists doens't mean
you don't need to pay development costs.

>+ they also use subsidized numbers.
>
>The tapayer is subsidizing himself ?  I do not understand.

Somebody from Lewis posted the numbers Freedom was being charged
for Shuttle flights. The amount only reflected about a third of
the operational costs of the Shuttle. NASA is subsidizing Freedom's
budget by moving money from Shuttle to Freedom. One bad effect
of this is that it hurts the domestic launch industry.

>+ The LLNL plan however, does figure both development and the
>+ true operational cost.
>Sounds too good to be true......

Can you be more detailed? What part do you think soundt too good?

>+ They have two qualified contractors signed up to do it for a
>+ fixed fee.
>Last time I bought into a proposal like that I regretted it....

Last time I did it I was very pleased with the results. Now tell
me, what specific objection do you have? Your past experience is
not relevant to the technical proposals of the two contractors.
What is wrong with their proposals?

>+ This HLV will cost less than ONE shuttle flight to  develop.
>+It will lift twice what the Shuttle lifts for a quater to half
>+the launch costs.
>
>Sounds good.   Good enough to get private venture
>capital.....right ?   So why don't they just go do it ?  Why do
>they want the taxpayer to underwrite it ?

No because the market does not exist. If the market existed, you
would be correct. Remember, a major reason for all this it to
create the market.

>+ In addition, doing it in one launch with deployment in shirt
>+ sleves reduces risk. No EVA is required for station
>+ construction.
>Provided it works.  Remember Skylab ?

If it fails, they can fix it with EVA. Remember Skylab?

It is cheaper to design for no eva and do eva if needed than to
require eva.

>+ Besides, they plan to fly it 20 times. Maybe somebody else can
>+ also use it. However even at one use it will be far far cheaper
>+ than using the Shuttle.

>Now you have taken the bait......who is going to pay for those 20
>flights ?

LLNL will pay for the 20 flights. The entire Great Exploration program
uses 20 HLV flights for the Earth Station, Gas Station, and Lunar Base.
Three flights are for the bases and the rest are for fuel and resuply.

>They are proposing a scenario based on a projection
>of non-existent traffic.  Increased traffic of course reduces the
>cost, but to submit a proposal to reduce cost by assuming 20 non-
>existent customers will appear from nowhere waving their
>checkbooks is, shall we say, "optimistic".

As I said, the customer does exist as part of the plan. However,
even if we only fly the Earth Station the HLV is still a good buy.
The first one can be bought for half a Shuttle flight yet is lifts
twice as much. Now if Freedom would use it, their assembly transport
costs would drop by an order of magnitude.

>+ Now *THAT'S* risky. The above HLV's are all based on existing
>+ technology. Over 90% of the parts can be bought today. SSX
>+on the other hand requires a lot of new stuff. It would be
>+ far more risky for LLNL to use SSX.
>
> Not at all, SSX is also 90 % off the shelf.  And for a traffic
>projection of 20 flights will be cheaper than an expendable HLV.

SSX will require major modifications to the RL-10 engine. It must
be made throttable and operational at sea level. The nozle must
be replaced with the Aerospike. None of this has been done. The
HLV's mentioned do not require new moving parts of modifications
to their engines. In addition, using SSX will require much EVA
for assembly which will greatly add to program risk.

That being said, if SSX becomes a reality (it is currently being
funded by SDIO) I have no problem with using it. I just want us to
get up there. I don't care what technology we use or who makes it.

>>Then why did they bother proposing amorphous Silicon ?
>+Because it will save the taxpayers a couple of million $$. I
>+ think that's a great reason.
>
>No, it ignores the classical new technology risk.   If the new
>product fails its qualification program, then it costs a lot
>more.

It may or may not. Depends on how much the tests cost. Also, if
it works, it will be an advancement in the state of the art. It
will reduce costs for many other programs as well. If it fails, they
will still get up for 5% the cost of Freedom. Looks like a good idea
to me.

This sort of high risk high reward effort is normal for good
research organizations.

>>Could be a design detail.   Maybe LLNL have some new exotic
> >variant of NiH cells.
> + Nope. They are off the shelf.

>Have they flown ?  I would prefer to use the existing commercial
>designs than an unknown quantity.  Let LNNL pay to get thenm
>qualified first.

They will, and they will do it for 5% of NASA's costs.

>>Any of those guys coming to southern California any time soon ?
>+ Invite them down
>Hah !  I value my job too much.

That's an interesting remark. Why would inviting some speakers in get
you fired?

>+ Quite correct. But then since the LLNL approach costs 5% as
>+ much as the station and half the cost of a new orbiter and the
>+ LLNL station has an ACRV, this risk is justified.
>
>Ok, I gotta ask, what is LLNL's magic formula which makes their
>ACRV cheaper than NASA's ACRV ?

The right attitude in getting it built. A better question is why
does it cost NASA so much to get an ACRV? This is an important
question when you realize you can buy them off the shelf for under
$10 million.

>+Of course the odds of anybody being in a breached module is
>+lower in the LLNL station. I would assume therefore that it is
>+ actually safer in this respect.
>
>No.   We need to consider the probability of the event occuring
>in the first place, which for LLNL I believe is higher.

As a safety engineer can you qualify that remark? Why is the risk
higher for LLNL? What is the risk?

>+ LLNL is about as risky as Apollo,
> I am not convinced of that.

Can you provide more detail?

> >NASA keeps asking for assured crew return vehicle, congress
>> keeps deleting it from the budget.
> + Given the cost of the NASA ACRV this comes as no suprise. Why
>+ not just buy a Soyuz?
>
>Because that opens other questions, like why not launch Freedom
>or LLNL using Energia ?

Well I'm not afraid of those questions. Why not launch from Energia?

> >As the cost of aerospace systems escalates, the tendency to
>> "push the envelope" naturally falls off.
> + NASA's *JOB* is to push the envelope.
>
>That is NASA's dilema.  Whenever they have a failure the media
>come down like a ton of bricks, they forget about NASA's job of
>pushing the envelope.....the media have got into too negative an
>attitude.   And bad publicity means smaller budgets.  A double
>incentive to take fewer risks, despite the primary goal of
>pushing the envelope.

That's begging the question. In building the Shuttle NASA said it
was safe and reliable. This was why it costs so much to build and
operate. Yet it turns out it is nither safe nor reliable.

If NASA was insisting all along that this was dangerous, why did
they fly two senators and a school teacher?

  Allen

--
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer      |         What should man do but dare?            |
|   [e-mail]         |             - Sir Gawain                        |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

End of SPACE Digest V12 #507
*******************