Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v13_7/v13_740.txt

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 15KB

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/scP2cJy00WBwM1805i>;
          Sat, 29 Jun 91 02:35:02 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 91 02:34:57 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #740

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 740

Today's Topics:
            Re: Fred Vote Thursday
               Re: Freedom Cost
      Re: Excavating (minig) gold in the space by NASA.
            SPACE Digest V13 #625
                   Balloons
        Re; Government GEO Communications R&D (2 of 2)
                 Re: Balloons
              Re: Fred's Operatic Death
           Re: Regular postings of Sky + Telescope

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: 12 Jun 91 10:30:16 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!ptimtc!nntp-server.caltech.edu!juliet.caltech.edu![e-mail]  (Lydick, Carl)
Subject: Re: Fred Vote Thursday

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Charles Frank Radley) writes...
>>>Maybe this near-death will scare the Freedom people into getting some
>>>hardware built...

OK, I'm about to play devil's advocate here (I'd personally like to see a space
station built and manned in the near future).

>The schedules we have been working to do not require delivery of
>hardware until 1993.
>   We have been on schedule all along.     Why do people
>keep complaining the hardware has not been built, we have to design
>it first.....and we have not even had a PDR yet.

There are lots of ways to design and build just about anything.  Some
techniques tend to work better than others.  The technique that I've found
works best over a wide area of technology is what I like to call "design by
successive approximations".  First you come up with a fairly flexible
architecture (i.e., if one component of the architecture turns out to be
unrealizable, the architecture is flexible enough to allow you to redesign
things without scrapping the entire architecture).  They you make similar plans
for each subsystem.  Iterate until you've gotten to the level where you can
start building hardware.  If you've taken the attitude of keeping things
flexible (opponents of this strategy will use the term "vague" here), this
doesn't take nearly as long as coming up with an inflexible top-down design.
At this point, you start building hardware.  If you run into problems with a
particular piece of hardware, escalate the problem to the next level, where you
change the design to use some sort of hardware that CAN be produced.

This technique requires a LOT of communication between those working on
assorted subsystems.  But it DOES take into account the fact that you don't
know, when you start the project, how to build it.  It DOES involve duplication
of effort (but then again, how many different methods of building an A-bomb
were simultaneously explored by the Manhattan District?  If you don't know at
the outset how to do something [i.e., you're not just making a copy of
something off-the-shelf], duplication of effort can be a good thing).  But it
means that you find out about problems early in the project, when it's cheaper
to fix them.

Anyway, that's at least one argument as to why some people would like to see
SOME hardware for Fred before it comes time to assemble all the pieces (which
we'll invariably find don't fit together properly, given the current way of
doing things).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick    HEPnet/NSI: SOL1::CARL    Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: 12 Jun 91 21:51:13 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ub!galileo.cc.rochester.edu!rochester![e-mail]  (Brian Yamauchi)
Subject: Re: Freedom Cost

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dani Eder) writes:

>The wide range of numbers quoted for the Space Station may all be
>correct, because they refer to different costs.

>Now for some examples:

>Initial development cost quoted to Congress in 1984: $8 billion
>Budgeted development cost in 1988, in 1984$:    $10 billion
>Budgeted development cost in 1988, in
>    then-year dollars (dollars spent
>    in future years adjusted for expected
>    inflation)                $16.5 billion
>Program Funding over life of program
>    (includes 30 years of operations)
>    Development    $16.5B
>    Production    1-2B
>    Operations    $50B
>    Total                    $68 billion
>Life Cycle Cost
>    Program Funding    $68B
>    Launch costs (160 shuttle launches
>        @ $340M each=$54.4B
>    NASA personnel costs @ 20% of above
>         = $25B
>    Total                    $147.4 billion

Thanks for an informative post.  A couple questions...

>Operations Cost: Everything that happens after Development and
>Production, i.e. launch, assembly in orbit, and use.  Most of
>the life cycle is incurred here.

But if the the shuttle launches are a separate ($54.4B) item here, and
so are personnel costs ($25B), what does the $50B under Operations
Cost pay for?

Does this figure include additional modules?  (It seems that expanding
the station would probably fall under either Development or
Production.)  Or do they just expect it to cost 1.25B/year for
maintenance, supplies, and repairs?

Where does the oft-quoted $30B figure come from?  Is this development
costs + shuttle launches for the initial configuration?

Finally, does this mean that NASA is only 25% over their original
proposed cost ($10B vs. $8B)?  And was Congress aware in 1984 of the
difference in expense between the proposed cost and the life-cycle
cost?
--
_______________________________________________________________________________

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

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

Date: Wed, 12 Jun 91 16:56:32 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Gabriel C. Lopez Walle)

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

Date: 12 Jun 91 22:35:59 GMT
From: csusac!cindy!petunia!kestrel.edu![e-mail]  (Tom Pressburger)
Subject: Re: Excavating (minig) gold in the space by NASA.

What's the density of these materials in sea water?  I heard there were
billions and billions of bucks in the riches of a cubic mile of ocean.

-tom

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

ReSent-Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Resent-Date:  Wed, 12 Jun 91 19:55:59 EDT
Resent-From: Tom McWilliams <[e-mail]>
Resent-To: [e-mail]
Date:         Sun, 9 Jun 91 02:06:28 EDT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
Subject:      SPACE Digest V13 #625
Comments: To: [e-mail]
To: david polito <[e-mail]>, Tom McWilliams <[e-mail]>

Subject: Re: Infrastructure

>I would simply like to point out to Nick that having a government
>intervention that produces the same thing as the free market (but
>faster) may not be entirely possible.

What, No smiley?   Can I suggest an _Unerstatement_Award_ for sci.space?

Tom                                                :-)
Acknowledge-To: <18084TM@MSU>

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

Date: 13 Jun 91 07:03:48 GMT
From: bonnie.concordia.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!bison!sys6626!inqmind![e-mail]  (Norman Paterson)
Subject: Balloons

Any of you with involvement with high altitude research ballons, I,d be
indebted if you could tell me if you've had any experience working with a
gas other than helium in such craft. Thank you, P.S. If you,ve got an
address of any airship manufacturers handy don,t be shy to pass 'em over,
thanks.
Norman Paterson Wpg. MB CANADA

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

Date: 13 Jun 91 06:03:33 GMT
From: iggy.GW.Vitalink.COM!widener!dsinc!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!nss![e-mail]  (Wales Larrison)
Subject: Re; Government GEO Communications R&D (2 of 2)


   During this period of time (1972-1985), your thesis seems to hold

true in the U.S.  Commercial firms in the U.S. launched several

dozen comsats.  However, their market position was rapidly being

eroded by R&D funded by foreign governments.  While some R&D was

being spent by U.S. companies, the U.S. and INTELSAT market was

fairly small, and the U.S. R&D effort was estimated to be only $10-

15 million annually in the early 1980's. In comparison, the European

R&D investment in 1982 was estimated at over $55 million and Japan's

at over $100 million.  This situation was made worse since U.S.

firms could not compete for most foreign national satellite

communications systems in Europe and Asia since these systems were

launched and operated by national PT&T (Postal, Telephone &

Telegraph) services, which are a branch of the national government.

Since the GATT (General Agreement on Trades and Tariffs) only covers

government entities individual countries specify as being under its

coverage, and virtually all countries place their PT&T under it, US

firms were eliminated from the competitions as a matter of policy.

   As an example, Kopernikus 1 and 2 comsats were developed by the

Deutsche Bundespost (W. Germany's PT&T) and specifically contracted

to MBB in Germany.  Similarly, the French Telecom I satellite was a

directed development effort to the French aerospace industry under

the direction of the DGT (Direction General des Telecommunications)

- the French PT&T.  Coupled with aggressive support by national

governments to export these satellites to other countries (lots of

subsidized prices, below-market credit rates, and offset agreements

- including special packages for launch services),  the U.S.

export/import balance for telecommunications went from about +155

million in 1978 to -1705 million in 1985.  This was primarily driven

by a 10x increase in imports.  U.S. firms could not compete for

foreign sales, and fced competition in the U.S. subsidized by

foreign governments. In particular, Japan ad France were singled

out by the U.S. Trade Representative's office as practicing unfir

trading practices and were challenged through the OECD.

   In recognition of this the U.S. Congress added funds to the NASA

budget in 1985 to develop the Advanced Comunications Technology

Satellite.  As of 1990 (the last year I have data) about $400M rom

NASA had been spent, with the prime contractor being GE, with

participation byTRW, Comsat, Motorola, Hughes, and Electromagnetic

Services.  Another $100-120 millio is estimated as parallel

investment by the commercial firms using their own R&D on hw to use

the ACTS or otherwise closely related to the program. This will

culminate i a proof of principle test satellite for the U.S.

communications satellite industry. References on request - I'm

short on time).

   Your statement about "in the early 60's, ... NASA was barred from

participating in comsat development and operations" seem incorrect.

I can find several useful, successful programs since this time. I

apolgize for the length of this reply, but I felt supporting data

was needed. I agree wit you that we want the government out of

development of standard, operational space sytems.  However, I

think a case can be made for government funding for long-term,

spculative research and development which in time scale or in

financial scale is beyondthat of any firm, or to address

requirements specific to governmental use.  However, te government

cannot develop this technology or system only for  government use,

andit MUST be turned wholly and completely over to private industry

to further applicatins.  The government should never be the

operator of any system when a private firm ca do the job.

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

Wals Larrison                            Space Technology Investor


--- Opus-CBCS 1.20.v
 * Origin: NSS BBS - Ad Astra! [phone] *HST* (1:129/104.0)
--
Wales Larrison - via FidoNet node 1:129/104
UUCP: ...!pitt!nss!Wales.Larrison
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

Date: 13 Jun 91 19:04:25 GMT
From: pyramid![e-mail]  (Lon Stowell)
Subject: Re: Balloons

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Norman Paterson) writes:
>Any of you with involvement with high altitude research ballons, I,d be
>indebted if you could tell me if you've had any experience working with a
>gas other than helium in such craft.

  You CAN use hydrogen in most of these, but it is kinda
  flammable......

  Can't tell your location from yr e-dress, but you may have
  access to military surplus....the army and af use sodium
  hydroxide/aluminum gas generators for making hydrogen at
  sufficient pressure to inflate most ballons.   This is
  practically obsolete due to the dangers compared to helium
  which...although it has less lift, is considerably less
  dangerous.

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

Date: 11 Jun 91 18:40:15 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!emory!wa4mei!ke4zv![e-mail]  (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Fred's Operatic Death

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>Meanwhile, Freddy Kreuger is back, and ready to start slashing away
>at space science, NFS, development of commercial space projects like

Wow, now Fred is after Network File Systems. :-)

Gary

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

Date: 13 Jun 91 00:17:40 GMT
From: comp.vuw.ac.nz!waikato.ac.nz![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Regular postings of Sky + Telescope

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Tom McWilliams) writes:
> Re: Sky and telescope postings
>
> This thought just occured to me.
>
> Would anybody be interested in regular factoids from Sky + Telescope
> magazine, similar to what Henry does with AW&ST?
>
> BTW, does any one know the legal situation of such an idea?  (assuming
> anyone's interested, of course).
>
> Tom
> Acknowledge-To: <18084TM@MSU>

    Yes Please.

    No idea on the legal aspects (too nice a guy to be a lawyer :-).

Pete Smith
Uni of Waikato (Y-cat-O)

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #740
*******************