Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v13_2/v13_240.txt

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 17KB

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/sbpS=6m00WBwEKMU4X>;
          Thu,  7 Mar 91 01:50:47 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <EbpS=[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Thu,  7 Mar 91 01:50:42 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #240

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 240

Today's Topics:
                meteor
             Re: NASA technology choices
              Re: Space Profits
               Quayle On Mars Reference
      Re: Why bother? (was Re: Terraforming, sun shield)
Re: German conference highlights doubts about ESA's manned space plans
          Re: Government vs. Commercial R&D

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: 6 Mar 91 17:57:03 GMT
From: unhd.unh.edu![e-mail]  (David W Kimball)
Subject: meteor

Last night (March 6, 1991) at about 2:55 AM EST I observed an unusual
meteor just as I left the main library here at the University of New
Hampshire. It was moving southwest to northeast, and was moving much
too quickly to be an aircraft. It was in view for two or three seconds,
disappeared behind Thompson Hall, and was then in my view again for about
five more seconds before it was lost over the horizon. It was completely
silent. I have never seen a meteor like it - though moving very rapidly,
it was slow for a meteor. It was blue-white in color, much like Sirius, and
did not leave any appreciable trail. In fact, it was rather like watching
a -5 or -6 magnitude blue-white star move quickly across the sky.
Did any one else see the thing? It was so odd for a meteor, I've wondered
if it may not have been something else. Were any satellites or anything
falling out of orbit last night? (or would that just look the same as a
meteor?)


--
     &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
           David W. Kimball        &&  beware of 9-foot plaid flying
     University of New Hampshire   &&    Presbyterian cucumbers!!
     &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&> You rang? --Lurch <&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

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

Date: 5 Mar 91 15:12:44 GMT
From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!nss![e-mail]  (Paul Blase)
Subject: Re: NASA technology choices

>> ...Why
>> doesn't NASA develop a space pod like those used in 2001?  It would almost
>> have to be cheaper and less risky (from an R&D point of view).  Any
>> thoughts?

 PS> As a matter of a fact the Flight Telerobotic Servicer bears a
 PS> fair resemblance to a Discovery pod; it's just squashed because
 PS> there's no person inside.  After all, if you're going to limit
 PS> your dexterity to that which can be obtained by waldos, then
 PS> there's no reason why you shouldn't just put the operator
 PS> inside the space station and use teleoperation; no delay at
 PS> that distance.

But the FTS is a horrendously complicated device with a lot of autonomous
robotics built into it.  Wouldn't a space-pod be considerably simpler,
easier to build, and cheaper?  Why is NASA so hesitant about EVA's anyway?
The Soviets don't seem to have much trouble with them.

--- via Silver Xpress V2.26 [NR]
--
Paul Blase - via FidoNet node 1:129/104
UUCP: ...!pitt!nss!Paul.Blase
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

Date: 6 Mar 91 19:37:41 GMT
From: mojo![e-mail]  (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: Space Profits

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] ("Allen W. Sherzer") writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> Nick Szabo writes:
>
>[Lunar oxygen]
>
>>* All customers would have to add refueling equipment to their
>>  satellites
>
>Yes but I doubt it would be that hard when it is done in a standard
>way and everybody does it. This would also have the advantage of allowing
>satellites to be refueled thus making their operational lives much longer
>and reducing costs. Remember, a replacement for a satellite which is in good
>working order but just ran out of fuel will set you back hundreds of
>millions. It would be worth a lot of money to be able to refuel it.

Assuming that your satellite will last as long as the capability to refuel it.
It's probably cheaper to send up a new-improved (com) sat, with better
capabilities than to refuel an (older, less capable) one, even over time.

>>  LOX to LEO
>>  must achieve a large price reduction over LOX from LEO (probably at
>>  least 2:1) in order to cover these extra customer costs.
>
>It just needs to be cheaper. Just having the capability to refuel is worth
>millions.

To whom? There's not any industry which is clamoring for LOX now. Nor in the
near future, aside from NASA research projects.

>>* The amount of LOX used for OTV and stationkeeping is less than 100 tons
>>  per year, which at half current costs to LEO is $150 million,
>
>100 tons at current launch costs to LEO is closer to $1 billion per year.
>If we can interest the Soviets in a joint venture then that market size
>would double.

The Soviets are barely covering costs these days. As I have mentioned
previously, if they think they can make a profit, they'd do it themselves.
They aren't. They might be interested around, oh, umm, 2010-2020, when they'll
make a go for the Red Planet.

Maybe the Japanese? The Japanese might try it around 2000.

     Reform may be dying in the Soviet Union, but we have the right to
                introduce it to the DECUS Board of Directors.

  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

Date: Wed, 6 Mar 91 09:28:38 PST
From: [e-mail]
X-Vmsmail-To: UTADNX::UTSPAN::AMES::"[e-mail]"
Subject: Quayle On Mars Reference


Here is the quote as originally cited in SPACE Digest:

"Mars is essentially in the same orbit.  Mars is somewhat the same
 distance from the Sun, which is very important.  We have seen pictures
 where there are canals, we believe, and water.  If there is water,
 there is oxygen.  If oxygen, that means we can breathe."
 -- J. Danforth Quayle, APS, Volume 35, Number 1 (1990), page 2

The _Quayle Quarterly_ also ran this quote citing CNN as a source and giving
a date of 18-NOV-1989.  I think he said this while on a visit to JPL, since
a fellow in Germany sent me the following information:

>P.S.: Did you know that Quayle, when visitig JPL in 1989, had quite an
>argument with a scientist in front of a model of HST - Dan repeatedly wanted
>to know which planet it was heading for. [This is no urban legend! I heard it
>from someone who stood next to him and who told me the same day...]

Few may recall that Bush at one time said he would appoint Quayle to lead
to drug "war".  Probably what happened is the Prez and Cabinet were meeting
to discuss such appointments and when Quayle's name came up somebody made
reference to what's inside the Veep's head which, of course, was
misinterpreted to mean J. Danforth should have something to do with space.

_____________
Dale M. Greer, whose opinions are not to be confused with those of the
Center for Space Sciences, U.T. at Dallas, UTSPAN::UTADNX::UTDSSA::GREER
"Who would have predicted...that Dubcek, who brought the tanks in
in Czechoslovakia in 1968 is now being proclaimed a hero in Czechoslovakia.
Unbelievable." -- Dan "just-a-heartbeat-away" Quayle 10/2/89
[Note to the historically impaired: Dubcek tried to keep the Russians out
 and was subsequently sent into internal exile.]

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

Date: 6 Mar 91 16:50:47 GMT
From: mcsun!ukc!harrier.ukc.ac.uk![e-mail]  (R.J.Gibson)
Subject: Re: Why bother? (was Re: Terraforming, sun shield)

test

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

Date: 6 Mar 91 21:53:59 GMT
From: sun-barr!newstop!exodus!norge.Eng.Sun.COM![e-mail]  (John McKernan)
Subject: Re: German conference highlights doubts about ESA's manned space plans

[e-mail] (Daniel Fischer) writes:
>  [Deleted: a long and cogent discussion of why
>   the German manned space program, and by extension the world's other
>   manned space programs, are a waste of money.]

I agree that current manned space programs are largely a waste of
money, although I do think a little bit of useful basic research falls
out of the massive engineering projects. That does not mean that manned
space research is a bad idea though, just that the current way of doing
it is wrong. Manned space research is very valuble science and
technology R&D, because the room and resouces found in space are very
important to Mankind.  The only reason vast numbers of people aren't
living in space now is that we don't have the technology to get them
there, to live there, and to extract and utilize the resources that are
there. However at some point in the distant future we will have this
technology.

Therefore the purpose of manned space research should be to do the
basic R&D needed to develope the technology for the mass colonization
of space.  Note that this basic research is likely to be quite
different from a mammoth engineering project to drop a few people onto
Mars and bring them back.

John L. McKernan.                                                  [e-mail]
Disclaimer: These are my opinions but, shockingly enough, not necessarily Sun's
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   "It's kind of a macho thing,
    programmers are always trying to be weirder than their machines."

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

Date: 5 Mar 91 14:28:39 GMT
From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!nss![e-mail]  (Paul Blase)
Subject: Re: Government vs. Commercial R&D

I'm responding to this response in two parts, since two issues were raised.

>>
>>....the really advanced R&D that drives
>>technological advance is VERY expensive and, in general, no private company
>>(with the possible exception of Bell Labs) can afford (or is willing to risk)
>>the 10-20 year lead times and the billions of dollars necessary.

 NS> This is false.

This is true.

 NS> * Of U.S. patents granted in 1989, 79,088 (76%) were issued
 NS>   to corporations, 23,624 (23%) to private individuals, and
 NS>   700 (1%) to government laboratories.  While some of the
 NS>   private individuals are government funded, clearly the bulk
 NS>   of innovation comes from outside the government laboratory
 NS>   sphere.

How many of those corporations and individuals were working under government
contracts.  Anyway, I was not talking about invention in general, rather
making the FIRST production model of something.  In general, laboratories
build proof-of-concept models: full of bugs and kluged fixes.  There is a
long, and expensive, path between a proof-of-concept model and something
that can actually be used.

For instance, the company for which I work is attempting to collaborate in
the development of a particular computerized electro-optical system.
The person who developed the system has worked on it for 20 years.  The
theory is proven, three laboratory prototypes are functional and in use.
We are having a devil of a time finding the funding to build a PRODUCTION
prototype, one that can actually be used in a field situation.
Everybody says "show me a production prototype and I will buy 10".

The difference between a laboratory prototype and a production prototype is
the difference between a room full of gadgetry, mostly on optical benches,
and a neatly packaged system with all of the bugs worked out.  Robert Goddard
developed liquid fueled rockets on his own funds, true.  The German Army,
and Von Braun, however, poured several million Marks and years of
development into making the V2.

 NS> * Historically, most fundamental advances come from a
 NS>   commercial or university lab and a handful of people.
 NS>   Here is a list of important 20th-century technology
 NS>   advances that most greatly impact space travel today, and
 NS>   what kinds of people or groups developed them:

 NS>         * Airplane (bicycle shop)

Model #1 sold to the US Army.

 NS> * Computer (many small groups in universities &
 NS>   corporations)

Model #1 (through probably #100) sold to US Army, mostly for work on
ballistics calculations, code breaking, and the Manhattan project.

 NS> * Liquid-fuel rockets (physics professor on a
 NS>   farm)

Model #1 sold to the German Army (V2), Model #2 sold to the US Air Force
(ICBM's)

* Nuclear fission (German university research lab)

Model #1 sold to the US Army (The Manhatten Project).

 NS>         * Transistor (Bell Labs)

I can't win them all, although the military and NASA paid for most of
the early computers, radios, and other items that used transistors.

 NS> * The "lead times" for most of the successful work vary widely,
 NS>   but average 5-10 years rather than 10-20 years.

OK, so what?

 NS> * For both normal patents and fundamental new technology, the
 NS>   yearly budget for any particular project is usually less than
 NS>   $10 million (in today's dollars).  The number of people
 NS>   involved are usually between 1 and 100.

I'm not talking about fundamental research, rather I'm talking about the
cost of bringing a fundamentally new product, based on radically new
research, to market.  GM brings out a new model of car every year.  It took
the German Army, the US Army, and NASA about 20 years to work
enough of the bugs out of liquid fueled rockets to where people could launch
communication satellites with them.

>>The only organization capable of supporting this long-term R&D is the U.S.
>>government, and the only government organizations doing so are NASA and the
>>military.

 NS> Large government organizations have a poor record of
 NS> producing both fundamental technological advances and more
 NS> incremental innovation.   Dollar for dollar, government
 NS> projects are inefficient generators of progress.

Yes, but they have the money to do it at all, where others do not.


>>In war, the side with the most advanced tools wins (see the
>>laser-guided bombs and such being used in the current Persian Gulf conflict).

 NS> Lasers were invented by Columbia University grad students and
 .
 . <diatribe on the invention of lasers edited>
 .

 NS> This is but one example of the radical
 NS> mis-scaling of technology, a symptom of economic illiteracy,
 NS> that runs through the larger socialist research labs.

You miss my point entirely.  The development of lasers has nothing to do
with the argument, except that the military has the money to fund the
development (from theoretical work) of such things as laser guided bombs.
This development gives the laser industry an initial boost in two ways:
1) it proves to investors that useful items can be built with lasers, and
2) it allows the companies that develop lasers to work out most of the
   manufacturing bugs for a customer that can afford to pay for the process
   (which is several orders of magnitude more expensive than inventing the
   thing in the first place).

The military and NASA have two things in common: Each must have the very
best equipment in order to preserve lives - indeed in order to get the
job done at all, and each has the money to pay for state-of-the-art
technology to ensure that it has the very best.  The military must have
the very best because, as demonstrated in the recent Persian Gulf conflict,
it allows soldiers to strike at a distance with minimum danger to themselves,
and minimum destruction of civilian life and property.  NASA must have the
very best because space is a very dangerous and rugged place to work in
under any circumstances.  The environment and the very high cost of
transportation demand that spacecraft be simultaneously very light,
very durable, and very complex (under terrestrial circumstances these three
are mutually contradictory).

My whole argument was that military spending will be going down (and this
is probably for the better).  This leaves NASA as the prime agency that
can support the leading-edge development of high technology; that can
afford to pay the millions of dollars that it takes to do something USEFUL
with the products of the research laboratories.

--- via Silver Xpress V2.26 [NR]
--
Paul Blase - via FidoNet node 1:129/104
UUCP: ...!pitt!nss!Paul.Blase
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #240
*******************