Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v13_1/v13_169.txt

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 19KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from hogtown.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/EbjrBbi00WBwE=t053>;
          Mon, 18 Feb 91 01:25:44 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <sbjrBTe00WBwQ=[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 91 01:25:36 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #169

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 169

Today's Topics:
    re:  request for documentation of space prog benefits
            Re: 30 foot telescopes
               Space Philosophy
            Re: SPS, Shuttle, Gaia
            Commercial Space news (3 of 5)
            Commercial Space news (5 of 5)
      Re: You can help clear cloud over MIR SWEERSTAKES.

Administrivia:

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

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

Date: 18 Feb 91 02:47:52 GMT
From: taco![e-mail]  (Bill Seward)
Subject: re:  request for documentation of space prog benefits

I started to send this direct to the original poster, but decided it
might be of wider interest...)

While it is not as recent as you ask for, Ben Bova's book _The High Road_
has exactly the sort of thing you are looking for.  The book is a
impassioned plea for 'further and faster' space exploration/exploitation
written sometime in the 80s, as I remember.  In it, he documents many
figures for such things as ROI (Return On Investment) for items such as
the Apollo program.

Very good book.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Bill Seward -- Analyst, Programmer, System Manager, User Training,         |
|                Operations and whatever else needs doing.                   |
|       Cutaneous Pharmacology & Toxicology Center, NC State University      |
| [e-mail]                            [e-mail] |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Bill Seward -- Analyst, Programmer, System Manager, User Training,         |
|                Operations and whatever else needs doing.                   |
|       Cutaneous Pharmacology & Toxicology Center, NC State University      |
| [e-mail]                            [e-mail] |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 18 Feb 91 00:39:42 GMT
From: swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!news.cs.indiana.edu!ariel.unm.edu!hydra.unm.edu![e-mail]  (Bruce Carlson)
Subject: Re: 30 foot telescopes


        Oops, 30 ft not 30 meters, sorry, but the other stuff is still
correct.

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

Date: 17 Feb 91 16:38:43 GMT
From: pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!uflorida!mailer.cc.fsu.edu!geomag![e-mail]  (Joe Cain)
Subject: Space Philosophy


    There was to be a conference at FSU this spring entitled
"Space and Human Destiny" with humanities orientation. For political
and economic reasons this did not get off the ground. I would like to
pursue this for the future and would like input from anyone interested
in contributing ideas. Some of the major thoughts I had are listed
below. This is not the organizers list, though they did not have time
to get much organized before it was dropped. One way they had of going
about the organization was to ask the question as to why we should be
putting human resources into space when there is so much needed on
this planet.


The list I would make out include:

1. Science: You don't know what you can use the information for until
you get it. Only by space probes (sometimes including human
accessories) can most of this information be obtained. Few new
scientific discoveries are completely worthless (please don't start a
thread following up this possibility!) and most are of high value.

    There is also a counter argument that if you don't learn much
new maybe you can't do so much damage. I generally counter this with
the point that engineering and technology are applications of
science which require judgement; that science itself is only offering
the options.

2. Species Security: There are likely future experiments or technological
developments you might want to try say on the back side of the moon
that could lead to catastrophies on Earth if something happened. One
serious initial concern by those who were making the first atomic bomb
test was whether there was the possibility that it would ignite other
nuclear processes about which the fledgling science was unaware and
consume this planet. Maybe there are, but so far we have not found
them. There are probably biological experiments you would want to try
only in pretty isolated circumstances as well.

3. Species survival: The self replicating biological units on this
planet seem to be doing a good job of doing each other in this week.
There is always a danger of the big one going up and total
extinction. (No, I would not like to argue the details). I wonder what
it would be worth to humanity to know that there were others
independently living on some other planet which included their
offspring. There must be some genetic instinct for species perpetuation.

Along these lines I learned in talking to someone in Anthropology that
homo sapiens has experienced only social evolution for the past
100,000 years or so. Perhaps it is time to consider genetic
engineering to allow planetary habitation to be done more easily.
Certainly there are serious problems not solved about the genetic
damage from cosmic rays that human tissue would sustain from long
exposure in an environment not as shielded by an atmosphere and
magnetosphere as is ours. How do roaches turn out to be so resistant
to radiation damage anyway?

4. Inspiration: Even us non-theists can use some of this. Focussing
goals on "space" seems to have an international appeal. Under this
heading I would also put the fallout theory that NASA has pushed so
hard. That is, our society seems to get lazy in making technological
breakthroughs unless there is some challenge. Better space than
paranoia? Well, under "Security" above I should note that there are
those who think that some day we actually will meet the little green
men and we would be well advised to be as technologically as
comptetent as possible in the event they decided this planet needed
sanitizing for their own use.

    Well, this may not be the best start. What do you think important?

Joseph Cain        [e-mail]
[e-mail]        scri::cain

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

Date: Sun, 17 Feb 91 20:59:50 -0500
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: SPS, Shuttle, Gaia
Newsgroups: sci.space
Cc:

In article <`$-&[e-mail]>:
>>Vehicle                   Cost/flight          Cost/pound payload

>>Shuttle [1]                 $428M                $8,570
>>(7 flights/year)

>>Shuttle [2]                 $375M                $7,500
>>(8 flights/year)

>I've said it before, and I'll say it again.  Allen, you're playing a
>numbers game on us (perhaps unintentionally).

To some extent this is true. When dealing with the dark world of
government accounting with it's ignoring development costs, subsidies,
and other juggeling it is very hard to establish actual cost.

However, I stand by my numbers. I gave the Shuttle every break I
could and used the most expensive price for the Titan I could find.

>I think we're in the old flyaway cost vs. program cost debate here.  You're
>using flyaway cost for the expendables but program cost for the Shuttle.

The 101ST Congress appropriated $4.2B for Shuttle Operations and Structural
Spares. I allocated $1.2B to spares (although since that is 60% the cost
of a new Shuttle that must be far too high) and $3B to operations. Divided
by seven or eight flights we get the figures above. This therefore is a
conservative estimate of what the Shuttle costs the taxpayers every year.

Now I grant that I can only estimate Titan costs. However, unless we
assume that Martin Marrietta is donating launch services then the
figure must be at or above their costs. Indeed since Martin seeks to
make a profit and the government doesn't that Titan's costs are
lower than the estimate I gave. Especially when you realize that the
number I gave is 'list price' and is therefore a maximum.

>If I called NASA and asked them how much a Shuttle mission cost [1], I'd get a
>number of about $193 million.  ($193M / 52kip = $3700 / lb).

I don't doubt that at all. However, the figure they charge doesn't include
the subsidy the taxpayers would give you for the launch. Consider: for
eight launches they (using your price figures) collect about $1.5B yet
they spend over $3B for those same launches. If the Shuttle was a
commercial venture, they would be loosing well over $1.5B per year.

This money comes from the taxpayers and is holding other programs
back.

>As we're currently using the Shuttle, all flights require either a manned
>presence or the unique capabilities of the Shuttle.  Your argument assumes
>that we could substitute an ELV for the Shuttle or vice versa.

Well, in this case I am just pointing to costs. All I am saying here is
that the Shuttle is by far the most expensive way to put a pound into
space. However, since you brought it up, there are payloads going up
which need the Shuttle. Even those payloads that do need the Shuttle
would be better off waiting a few years, building a reasonable space
station and flying them there.




   Allen

--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Allen Sherzer |A MESSAGE FROM THE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT TO THE PEOPLE OF KUWAIT: |
|[e-mail]   |       "If rape is inevitable, enjoy it!"                     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: 16 Feb 91 04:26:34 GMT
From: pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!oliveb!felix!dhw68k!ofa123![e-mail]  (Wales Larrison)
Subject: Commercial Space news (3 of 5)

COMET CONTRACTS SIGNED
  The negotiations with the contractors for the Commercial
Experiment Transporter (COMET) have been completed, and the
contracts were signed this week.  The COMET team of Space Industries
Inc, Space Services Inc, and Westinghouse has gotten formal
authority to proceed.  The team is now in final negotiations on the
contract, to meet a NASA funding line of $10.5 M in FY 1991, $20 M
in FY 1992, $24.6 M in FY 94 and $10 M in FY 95.  This funding was
negotiated to be sufficient to commercially design, develop, and
launch a single COMET vehicle.  Future launches are dependent upon
future NASA or commercial funding becoming available - and it is not
expected that NASA funding will increase over the $20 M/year level.
   SSI has proposed to launch the 1,800-pound COMET experiment
carrier spacecraft into a 300 nautical mile, 40 deg  orbit from
either Wallops Island VA, or Cape Canaveral using its Connestoga
solid-fuel booster. Recovery of the payload will be in the
Southwestern U.S. probably at White Sands, although a private site
in Texas is also being considered.  SII is responsible for
integrating the system payloads onto the carrier, planning and
controlling the orbital operations, and providing the recovery
capsule.  Westinghouse is responsible for overall systems
engineering and has subcontracted the construction of the service
module to Fairchild Space Co.  As systems integrator, Westinghouse
will have representatives at each of the other primes facilities,
and will manage overall configuration control.  They will also take
the lead in marketing COMET services internationally.
   While NASA is providing the basic initial funding for the first
launch of this system through their Office of Commercial Programs
down through their Centers for Commercial Development of Space
(CCDSs - which will probably be the primary market for users), the
operation of the system will be under a commercial license and
regulations from the Department of Transportation.
  [Commentary:  The COMET program is now firmly a "go".  While FY 92
funding has not been approved yet by Congress, there is little doubt
$20 M will be found for this program.  This amount still requires
SSI, SII and Westinghouse to do a lot of work for a little bit of
money.  Since this is a "firm price" commercial procurement, the
firms are hoping to recover the costs of this work from future uses
of this system.  With several new competitors also entering the
market (including a recently announced team of Battelle/E'Prime,
Italy's Carina, and a possible new entry from CNES/ Aerospatiale/
Arianespace) this makes it a sporty proposition for the firms.
   It should also be noted that NASA/JSC is also developing a
competitor to this program - called Lifesat.  Lifesat is requesting
$20 M in the FY 92 NASA budget - and from what I have seen of the
specifications, they are very similar.  Lifesat is targeted at
supporting long-duration missions with life science experiments
whereas COMET is focusing on more of the materials science research,
but the payload sizing and orbital durations are roughly the same.
This similarity, and that NASA is developing a competitor to a
commercial venture should be addressed and resolved in the
Congressional hearings on the NASA budget.   My guess is that
Lifesat will be merged with COMET.]



--
Wales Larrison
Internet: [e-mail]
Compuserve: >internet:[e-mail]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 16 Feb 91 04:29:11 GMT
From: olivea!oliveb!felix!dhw68k!ofa123![e-mail]  (Wales Larrison)
Subject: Commercial Space news (5 of 5)

3 MORE COMMERCIAL LAUNCHES LICENSED
   The Department of Transportation, responsible for licensing
commercial launches of spacecraft, has licensed three more
commercial launches.  These include the launch of Telstar 401 and
402 on General Dynamics Atlas launch vehicles in 1993 and 1994, and
the suborbital launch of LEAP-4 (Lightweight Exoatmospheric
Projectile) by Orbital Sciences Corp for the Strategic Defense
Initiative Organization in April 1992.
  [Commentary:  Nothing surprising about this.  DOT is in charge of
regulating the launch business, and this is their job.  GD needs the
business for their Atlas launch vehicle - they just took a $300 M
writeoff in their latest financial statements to reflect a loss in
developing the Atlas II family to upgrade their launch vehicle. But,
this business has been booked as a "win" for them for some time, and
shouldn't affect their outlook.
  The LEAP-4 is another of a continuing series of suborbital
technology development/test flights by SDIO.  Although not announced
here, this sub-orbital launch is probably from White Sands, and will
be done through the sounding rocket subsidiary of OSC, which is
their primary revenue-producing business base.]

GENERAL DYNAMICS POSTS $300 M LOSS FROM COMMERCIAL SPACE
   General Dynamics ended 1990 year at $577.9 M in losses, according
to their year-end report.  Last year they took writeoffs of $1.334
Billion before taxes ($881.1 M after taxes), or more than $20 per
share. Most of the losses were due to their military aircraft
business area which lost $639 M on $3.66B in sales - which includes
writeoffs to cover their involvement in the A-12 program. (The
program, jointly contracted between McDonnell Douglas and General
Dynamics, to build a new Navy attack aircraft, was recently
terminated by DoD Secretary Cheney after costs had grown
dramatically.  The losses are prudent financial accounting to carry
these losses now, and not to wait until all the final negotiations
and litigation about the contract termination are completed.)
   The GD Missiles, Space and Electronics systems area also had a
substantial loss - losing $118.6 M on $2.15 B in sales.  GD stated
in their end of year report, that their space business had been
substantially impacted by increasing competition from other
international launch service companies.  Because of this uncertainty
in the market, GD has booked fewer launches in 1990 and 1991, and
has seen an increased cost in their launch service operations.  This
was recognized as a loss booked as $300M in the last quarter of 1990
from their Atlas launch services program.
   [Commentary: GD has gambled big on the Atlas program.  They have
committed to building a sizable number of their vehicles (42?)
without having customers lined up for them.  This included a sunk
investment of hundreds of millions of dollars, which from this
financial report, they are not ever expecting to recover.
   McDonnell Douglas and Martin Marietta, the other two U.S. players
in the commercial launch industry are also hurting.  Meanwhile,
Arianespace continues with full support of ESA and the French
government, and the Chinese government's Long March vehicle is also
being aggressively marketed.]

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Wales Larrison                             Space Technology Investor
"Great edifices can be built on foundations of financial speculation
- but don't stand near them when the wind changes"



--
Wales Larrison
Internet: [e-mail]
Compuserve: >internet:[e-mail]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 17 Feb 91 13:10:03 GMT
From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!caen!sdd.hp.com!hp-col!hpldola!hp-lsd!oldcolo![e-mail]  (Keith Hamburger)
Subject: Re: You can help clear cloud over MIR SWEERSTAKES.

It has been stated that this is not the way we do science in the USA...

Well, I agree.  It is obvious that science cannot support a space program on
it's own.  Business and marketing and sales are what is needed to support the
type of space program most of us would like to see and these are the first
people I have seen to try and accomplish something with a real possibility of
success.

Keith L. Hamburger
Chairman, Colorado Libertarian Party
VP, Pikes Peak L5 chapter of the national space society
Secretary, Hummingbird Launch Systems

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #169
*******************