Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v15_6/v15no610.txt

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 31KB

Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 05:10:30
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #610
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Wed, 30 Dec 92       Volume 15 : Issue 610

Today's Topics:
                        ADVICE ON PAPER TOPIC
                  Aluminum as rocket fuel? (3 msgs)
                 DC vs Shuttle capabilities (2 msgs)
                     fast-track failures (2 msgs)
             Justification for the Space Program (4 msgs)
                      Magellan Update - 12/29/92
           Overly "success" oriented program causes failure
                           SSTO vs. 2 Stage
Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (2 msgs)
         Who can launch antisats? (was Re: DoD launcher use)

    Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
    "[e-mail]", and (un)subscription requests of the form
    "Subscribe Space <your name>" to one of these addresses: listserv@uga
    (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle
    (THENET), or [e-mail] (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 15:43:27 PST
From: Mike <[e-mail]>
Subject: ADVICE ON PAPER TOPIC

This is a total blind shot; your name was on a Sept 92 list of current
usenet/Internet lists.  I'm a new user.  I'm writing a concept paper
(does not need to be overly technical--it's more "what if") on the
possibility of unmanned autonomous vehicles (in the future) that can
be launched from space (possibly many garaged on a platform) to do
sensor passes, etc. over crisis areas--the paper is for the Naval War
College Continuing Education program in national security decision-
making.  Topic might involve aerodynamic feasibility, robotics, AI,
and other concerns such as "why do this when we have satellites."
I'm writing to you because you might know some points or questions I
should consider based upon space probes for Venus, Mars, etc.--or, whom
else I should write to on Internet etc.  Appreciate any help you can
give me as NWC isn't offering any.  As background, I spent 2 years in
the navy as an aerospace psychologist, 5 yrs at SAIC doing human-computer
interface design on Suns, and now am a senior policy analyst for info
policy for the state of Washington.  Phone:  [phone] (wk).

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

Date: 29 Dec 92 22:18:33 GMT
From: Jordin Kare <[e-mail]>
Subject: Aluminum as rocket fuel?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>Another source of information is the External Tank Study published
>by the Space Studies Institute. Cutting up ETs for their aluminum
>was listed as an option. Impulse of such an engine would be in the
>330 second range. Very viable as a Lunar based fuel source.

It is my understanding that there are serious technical difficulties in
making a workable aluminum/oxygen rocket.  While I'm by no means an
expert, I believe the problems include:

Injection:  How do you transport Al?  How do you get it to mix with the O2?
    Premixing them into a slurry (i.e., using the LOX to transport the
aluminum) is possible, but
a stochiometric slurry of Al powder in LOX is apparently a very
unstable system with a tendency to detonate.  It is my recollection that
Wickman Co's approach is to stabilize such a slurry with (proprietary)
additives.  Even if you transport the Al separately (say, with a flow of
hydrogen gas) it's not clear that you can achieve stable combustion; things
like Al particle size are probably very critical.

Cooling:  The combustion temperature of Al and O2 is very high (or they
wouldn't give even ~300 s Isp).  Conventional engines are regeneratively cooled
by the fuel.  Regenerative cooling with O2 is difficult -- O2 tends to
oxidize engine parts :-(.

Exhaust flow properties:  AlO2 is both refractory and abrasive.
I don't know (and I wouldn't be surprised if no one knew) just what the
condensation properties of AlO2 would be in a rocket exhaust, but it
seems likely that the exhaust will chew up most throat and nozzle materials
and may not provide very efficient thrust.

None of this makes an Al-O rocket impossible, just difficult -- enough so
that there are probably easier ways of getting mass off the moon.

    Jordin Kare

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

Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 02:05 GMT
From: Karl Dishaw <[e-mail]>
Subject: Aluminum as Rocket Fuel?

I dug into my notes from Aero/Astro project lab, we tried to make a
fuel feeder for an aluminum/oxygen rocket:

Isp = 118 sec (after accounting for loss due to solid particles)
Must run oxidizer-rich since Al2O3 is a solid.
Main hazard--oxygen getting into Al storage tank.

I'd love to see some info on the Wickman project.  The Isp is too low to
be really useful, but it would be great for circularizing orbits on mass
driver-launched payloads, or maybe cheap transport on the lunar
surface.


Karl
sold my soul to Uncle Sam . . . now marked down for resale.

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

Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 00:16:30 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Aluminum as rocket fuel?

-From: [e-mail] (Jordin Kare)
-Subject: Re: Aluminum as rocket fuel?
-Date: 29 Dec 92 22:18:33 GMT
-Organization: LLNL

-It is my understanding that there are serious technical difficulties in
-making a workable aluminum/oxygen rocket.  While I'm by no means an
-expert, I believe the problems include:

-Injection:  How do you transport Al?  How do you get it to mix with the O2?

Maybe they'll have to get some technical assistance from the John Deere
company (maker of agricultural combines). :-) [Combines use a mechanical
feed to transport the harvested grain.]

For final injection, it occurs to me that using gaseous oxygen to "blow"
the powdered aluminum in might be an option.

The final mix probably needs to be oxygen-rich if you want to maximize
specific impulse.

-Cooling:  The combustion temperature of Al and O2 is very high (or they
-wouldn't give even ~300 s Isp).  Conventional engines are regeneratively cooled
-by the fuel.  Regenerative cooling with O2 is difficult -- O2 tends to
-oxidize engine parts :-(.

I suspect they'll eventually have to go for something like ceramic linings.

-Exhaust flow properties:  AlO2 is both refractory and abrasive.
-I don't know (and I wouldn't be surprised if no one knew) just what the
-condensation properties of AlO2 would be in a rocket exhaust, but it
-seems likely that the exhaust will chew up most throat and nozzle materials
-and may not provide very efficient thrust.

According to Henry, there may also be problems with Al2O3 building up deposits
on the inside of the engine. Aluminum-oxygen engines will probably be
single-use for the forseeable future.

-None of this makes an Al-O rocket impossible, just difficult -- enough so
-that there are probably easier ways of getting mass off the moon.

A linear launcher (or laser launcher - plug, plug :-) might be better in the
long run. Aluminum engines might have an advantage in the short-to-medium
run by virtue of lower startup costs. The first lunar launch systems will
probably use fuel imported from off-moon. Combinations of the above might
be useful. Other factors - possible eventual availability of volatiles
from the asteroids, and dual-use laser systems for both launching and
landing payloads on the moon.

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: 29 Dec 92 20:25:46 GMT
From: Edmund Hack <arabia!hack>
Subject: DC vs Shuttle capabilities
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>
             [e-mail] (Edward V. Wright) writes:
[stuff deleted]
> There is no reason to believe that there will be more practical

>technical problems involved in building DC than in building the B-777,
>except that you *want* to believe that is true.

I think that there are quite a few reasons to believe that an SSTO
vehicle will have more "practical technical problems" than the B-777:

1. The B-777 is one in a series of airliners built by the same
engineering organization.  No one has built a man-rated space vehicle
with the design goals of the DC-1 project, and certainly not at MacDac.

2. There is limited experience with composite airframes in routine
operational use.  Certainly less with composite cryo tanks, if that
route is taken. (The exceptions to this lie in the B-2 program and the
kitplane market, but the B-2 is very early in the flight programs. There
may be some data from "black" programs that MacDac has access to.)

3. The throttled RL-10 with nozzle extender is a new and essentially
untried engine. Engine development is more art than science and has a
history of being subject to delays.

4. The servicing goals and rapid turnaround requirements of the vehicle
are doable on paper, but have been held out as very risky by an
independent study.

5. The weight margins on the vehicle are very tight, a historical source
of problems in spacecraft and aircraft design.

Even given all that, the DC-X, DC-Y, DC-1 progression is a valid and
prudent way to develop this class of vehicle.  There is one other source
of risk that is hard to quantify at this point: MacDac is an ailing
company, in substantial risk of major cutbacks.  Given that the company
is throwing a lot of IR&D money into the project, it could founder on
the rocks of a major financial crisis in the company.  I also give
MacDac high marks for the management approach, which I have heard the
project manager give a talk on.  It is modeled on the Lockheed "Skunk
Works" approach.

Hopefully, the incoming administration will see the value of the
vehicle, there will be a safe and successful flight test this summer and
it will proceed with the DC-Y.  I consider the DC development program a
prudent use of the government's risk capital.  However, we need to keep
an eye on alternatives in case the DC program stubs its toe.
--
Edmund Hack - Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co. - Houston, TX
[e-mail] - I speak only for myself, unless blah, blah..
"You know, I think we're all Bozos on this bus."
"Detail Dress Circuits" "Belt: Above A, Below B" "Close B ClothesMode"

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

Date: 29 Dec 92 23:17:17 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC vs Shuttle capabilities
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Edmund Hack) writes:

>1. The B-777 is one in a series of airliners built by the same
>engineering organization.  No one has built a man-rated space vehicle
>with the design goals of the DC-1 project, and certainly not at MacDac.

No one has ever built an airplane with exactly the same specifics
as the 777 before, either.  Not even Boeing.  You assume that, for
some reason, an aircraft capable of reaching orbit is harder to
build than a 777.  But you can't say why.

BTW, the Boeing 777 is man-, woman-, and child-rated.


>2. There is limited experience with composite airframes in routine
>operational use.

Really?  I bet the Rutan brothers would be surprised to hear that.


>3. The throttled RL-10 with nozzle extender is a new and essentially
>untried engine. Engine development is more art than science and has a
>history of being subject to delays.

I think the 777 will use engines, too.  Airbreathers, in fact.  Potentially
much more troublesome than a simple rocket.


>4. The servicing goals and rapid turnaround requirements of the vehicle
>are doable on paper, but have been held out as very risky by an
>independent study.

Ee, gads!  An independent study!  Well, boys, I guess that settles it.
Don't you believe everything you see in black and white?


>5. The weight margins on the vehicle are very tight, a historical source
>of problems in spacecraft and aircraft design.

The weight margins are probably tighter on the 777.  It can tolerate
more weight growth and still fly, but if it loses too much of its
payload capacity, no one will buy it.

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

Date: 29 Dec 92 21:43:11 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: fast-track failures
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:

>Ask your company's accounting department what they figure it costs to
>keep a productive engineer on the payroll.

Don't have to.  I already know the figures.


>$100,000 a year is on the low side. Most companies figure it's
>closer to $250,000.

The ones that are no longer in business.

If we spent that much on each employee, personnel costs would exceed
gross revenues.  And that allows *nothing* for manfacturing, materials,
etc.

But then, I'm not working for Gary Coffman, Inc.


>That engineer not only has salary, insurance, workmen's comp, and
>paperwork costs, he also has to have office space and the tools of
>his trade, usually at least a workstation. Plus there are the supporting
>secretaries, managers, janitors, and of course the accounting department.

But you just said you weren't going to provide any of those things,
Gary.  The engineers were going to live at Motel 6 and work at home.
And it was still going to cost you over $100,000.

Weasel, weasel.

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

Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 21:55:25 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: fast-track failures
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:

>How many billions have you got? It takes almost no time at all to add
>zeros to a check. Engineers can spend money faster than a woman with
>a gold card in Saks if you let them.

Well, there are engineers and engineers.

Suffice it to say that Kelly Johnson probably in the SR-71 for less
than your DoD-approved methods would budget for development of an
electric toothbrush.

The difference is, he spent most of the money on engineering, rather
than paperwork.

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

Date: 29 Dec 92 21:25:06 GMT
From: John McCarthy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Justification for the Space Program
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space,alt.rush-limbaugh

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
   References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
   Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
   Lines: 16

   In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Dietz) writes:
   >World-wide, nodules are estimated to contain billions of tons of
   >copper and nickel, and enough manganese to supply current mine demand
   >for that element for roughly 10,000 years.  Additional sources of
   >metals (such as copper and cobalt) are available as crusts on the sea
   >floor, and in massive sulfides deposited at mid-ocean ridges...

   We'll be mining in space long before we exploit any of the sea-bottom
   resources.  The socialists rule the oceans and don't want any dirty
   capitalist mining venture making money off the "common property of
   mankind".  The US State Department was on the brink of giving them the
   rest of the universe too, but the L5 Society (may it rest in peace)
   managed to block Senate ratification of the infamous Moon Treaty.
   --
   "God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
      -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

According to Paul Dietz, the U.S. never even signed the Law of the Sea
treaty.  The problem at present is merely that there are much cheaper
sources of metals.  Prices are still declining.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

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

Date: 29 Dec 92 23:24:13 GMT
From: Paul Dietz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Justification for the Space Program
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space,alt.rush-limbaugh

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:

> We'll be mining in space long before we exploit any of the sea-bottom
> resources.  The socialists rule the oceans and don't want any dirty
> capitalist mining venture making money off the "common property of
> mankind".  The US State Department was on the brink of giving them the
> rest of the universe too, but the L5 Society (may it rest in peace)
> managed to block Senate ratification of the infamous Moon Treaty.

But...

(1) The US never ratified the Law of the Sea Treaty either, and

(2) Estimates of the metal content of the Gorda Ridge polymetallic
  sulfides -- which are in the US economic exclusion zone -- range
  up to 10^9 tons (although noone knows for sure, as they are not
  economical at this time.)  These deposits are somewhat different
  from nodules, containing significant silver and gold.

Also, some of the Pacific nodules are within 200 miles of various
island nations, so only those nations, not the UN/etc., must be
dealt with the exploit those resources.

    Paul F. Dietz
    [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 21:01:29 GMT
From: Mike Kirby <[e-mail]>
Subject: Justification for the Space Program
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article [e-mail], [e-mail] (Paul Dietz) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>> Let me add to the previous post the estimate that the total amount of
>> matter humanity has processed in its history is less than 10^12 tons.
>
>Some interesting facts:
>
>Estimated mass of manganese nodules on the ocean floors:  ~ 10^12 tons.
>
>Average concentration of metals in nodules (percent)
>
>    Element        World Average    Pacific Clarion-Clipperton Zone
>    --------------------------------------------------------------
>      Mn           18.6            25.4
>      Fe           12.47         6.66
>      Ni             .66         1.27
>      Cu             .45         (not listed, > .45)
>      Co             .27         1.02
>
>
>World-wide, nodules are estimated to contain billions of tons of
>copper and nickel, and enough manganese to supply current mine demand
>for that element for roughly 10,000 years.  Additional sources of
>metals (such as copper and cobalt) are available as crusts on the sea
>floor, and in massive sulfides deposited at mid-ocean ridges and then
>carried away by plate motion.
>
>    Paul F. Dietz
>    [e-mail]


This is great except that companies are limited to mining only nodules that
occur withing their territorial waters.  All other nodules are considered
"property of the earth" and are to be shared by all nations equally.  Needless
to say this removes much of the profit motive for sea bed mining.

There is a U.N. Treaty that covers undersea resources. (with the possible exception
of oil).  Does anyone know what the treaty precisely says?

Mike Kirby
Xerox Corp
E-mail: [e-mail]

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

Date: 30 Dec 92 03:13:55 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Justification for the Space Program
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space,alt.rush-limbaugh

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Dietz) writes:
>> We'll be mining in space long before we exploit any of the sea-bottom
>> resources.  The socialists rule the oceans...
>
>But...
>(1) The US never ratified the Law of the Sea Treaty either...

However, almost everybody else did, I believe.  This makes the US a lone
holdout against accepted international law, and there will be considerable
pressure on it to toe the line even if it has not formally agreed.  By
contrast, almost nobody has ever ratified the Moon Treaty, so it can safely
be ignored.

>(2) Estimates of the metal content of the Gorda Ridge polymetallic
>  sulfides -- which are in the US economic exclusion zone...

How far does the LotST recognize the concept of "economic exclusion zone"?
My (admittedly vague) recollection is that its rules still mostly apply
in there; the zone just adds a national veto power over ventures there.
I could be wrong.
--
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 30 Dec 92 00:15:00 GMT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Magellan Update - 12/29/92
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

Forwarded from Doug Griffith, Magellan Project Manager

                        MAGELLAN STATUS REPORT
                          December 29, 1992

1.  The Magellan spacecraft continues to operate normally, performing
a desat (desaturation of the reaction wheels) in each 3-hour orbit,
a starcal (star calibration) on every other orbit, and transmitting
a carrier signal (plus X-band telemetry) which is precisely tracked
by the DSN (Deep Space Network) stations to extract gravity data.

2.  On Sunday, December 20, the spacecraft performed two radio
occultation experiments.  As the spacecraft passed behind Venus (as
viewed from Earth), the S- and X-band signals were carefully monitored
at the DSS-14 station at Goldstone.

3.  Magellan performed a limb-tracking maneuver on both ingress and
egress.  In this way, the received signal passed through the
atmosphere of Venus as it was refracted around the limb.  S-band
communication was maintained through the entire period of occultation.
The X-band signal was tracked partway through both in entry and exit
portions of the occultations.

4.  Radio science investigators Dr. Paul Steffes of Georgia Tech, and
Dr. Jon Jenkins of the SETI Institute/NASA Ames Research Center,
expect the data to yield information on the thermal structure and
abundance of sulfuric acid vapor as well as average electron density
profiles of the Venus atmosphere.

5.  The spacecraft has completed 6426 orbits of Venus; 790 so far in
Cycle-4, which will end on May 25, 1993.  Cycle-4 is 43% complete.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Choose a job you love, and
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | you'll never have to work
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | a day in your life.

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

Date: 29 Dec 92 20:10:21 GMT
From: Chip Salzenberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Overly "success" oriented program causes failure
Newsgroups: sci.space

According to [e-mail] (Gary Coffman):
>                        Tzu-Pei Chen
>"The design of AUSROC II was in many ways too "positive". [...]
>Obviously, greater testing of each component may have shown up some
>of these problems earlier.  This simply highlights the very limited
>resources with which the group currently works.

What an obvious straw man, Gary!  You picked an underfunded project,
which by simple lack of money was _forced_ into a schedule that
allowed for little unit testing.  You then use its almost inevitable
failure as a bludgen to beat up the well-funded DC-1 program.

For shame.
--
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT  <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
  "you make me want to break the laws of time and space / you make me
   want to eat pork / you make me want to staple bagels to my face /
   and remove them with a pitchfork" -- Weird Al Yankovic, "You Make Me"

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

Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 03:36:34 GMT
From: Greg Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: SSTO vs. 2 Stage
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bruce Dunn) writes:
>
>>        We have been launching staged rockets for nearly half a century.  I
>>think the problems of staging, if not trivial, are solvable.  Certainly,
>>historical evidence indicates that staging is less of a technical challenge
>>than SSTO operation.
>
>Bingo!
>
>Okay, now we've gotten to the crux of the problem.
>
    Ayup, we have.  You want people either to lead, follow or get
out of the way.  Yet, when someone suggests a technique that MAY give
a five-fold increase in lbs to orbit, you immediately jump down
their throat.  Si I guess leading is not there, so I guess that leaves,
Following or getting out of your way.

>You simply do not understand the difference between a converted
>artillery rocket, which we have been launching for nearly half
>a century, and a single-stage-to-orbit *spaceship*.
>
>Saying that launch vehicles should be multistaged like ICBMs
>makes as much sense as saying that airplanes should be shaped
>like cannonballs.
>
    I don't know about cannonballs, but artillery shells and
airplanes tend to have similar shapes in their bodies.  But,
your analogy is only half meritted.  The reason DC-1 may be a lot
less expensive is due to a LOT of factors, only one of which is
related to staging costs.  And, if you approach the problem of
staging the same way DC-X is approaching some other problems,
you MAY find that it can be done cheap enough to merit the work.
If you don't, hey, they you go on.  Not every idea for a DC-1
follow-on will work.  Some will, some won't.  Let's give
it some time and find out what our needs are.  Perhaps we find for
whatever reason that 90% of our payload to orbit is about the
right size for DC-1, and the remaining 10% needs a lift capacity
of 8 times DC-1.  Well, in that case, economics dictates that
a DC-0 WOn't work.  But ther may be economic scenarious where
it does work.

    The biggest objection I have to DC-0 right now, is that
I don't see a market for it.  That may change.  It depends on
if cheaper access to space prompts people to launch bigger payloads,
or more smaller ones.


>
>
>

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

Date: 29 Dec 92 22:55:38 GMT
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>Shuttle's costs were all accounted for too. The customer, the US
>taxpayer, wanted R&D done to develop a reusable spacecraft. NASA
>did it, and that public domain database of technologies is what
>the taxpayer got for his money, not bent metal. NASA's prime mission
>is R&D. The customer wanted an operational vehicle, and NASA contracted
>to have them built. NASA is not supposed to be in the fabrication business.
>The Orbiters only cost the bent metal cost, administrative overhead,
>and contractor profit, Rockwell says that's $1.5 billion per each.



Unfortunately, gary the 30 billion spent on the shuttle developement program
wasnt R&D money,  it was mostly DDTE money, a lsightly different concept
from the accounting world.

THe X-15  was an R&D program.  the X-24  was a R&D program.
a major percentage of the money spent on the shuttle was not on breaking
into new areas, (Science)  but on doing design studies (Engineering)
and building facilities (Manufacturing).

Now while there were R&D portiions of the shuttle program,  tiles developement
engine developement,  the major costs were in paying rockwell toset up
a factory and build the damn things.   now if we had gone and built
30-50 of the things,  then that cost would be well amortized,  but as
a small program,  these production costs  dominated the vehicle costs.

Oh well.  just my 0.02.

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

Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 22:56:59 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Edmund Hack) writes:

>How do they have to pay except for copying costs?  Certain parts of the
>shuttle design may be either classified (i.e. the comm crypto gear) or
>proprietary (some of the COTS equipment), but the bulk is available for
>copying costs.  If I want a copy of the schematics, I find a copying
>cost charge reasonable.

You can get a copy of a government patent for copying charges,
yes.  You can get a copy of *anybody's* patent for copying charges.
But if you use it without paying royalties, you're in big trouble.

Do you find legal costs reasonable also? ;-)

If you don't believe this, look at a publication called NASA
Tech Briefs.  It contains brief descriptions of NASA patents
that are available *for licensing*, along with instructions
on who to contact if you want to license them.

Software developed by NASA is available from the COSMIC information
service.  I am told the cost for these programs typically runs several
thousands per tape.  Do you believe that this is a copying charge?


>Please cite the _exact_ basis for this statement, i.e. the part of the
>U.S. Code or the appropriations laws that make it illegal to fabricate
>things.  Either that or be more careful in your flaming.  Accusing NASA
>of illegal acts without basis is impolite at the minimum.

The applicable law is the NASA Act.  It charters the agency to conduct
research and development.  Period.  Not to build and operate a national
transportation system.  It is illegal for government agencies to conduct
unauthorized activities.


>Also, this thread has gone about as far as it can go.  Please save
>bandwidth and disk wear and tear and _drop it_.  Please.

Your concern for wear and tear is touching.  Almost as much as
your desire to get in the last the last word. ;-)

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

Date: 29 Dec 92 21:38:41 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Who can launch antisats? (was Re: DoD launcher use)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:

>Only the US and the former USSR have demonstrated knocking out orbital
>satellites. Those other nations have the ability to achieve precision
>orbits, so they should be able to do the same, but they haven't attempted
>to do so.

Achieving a precise orbit is not necessary to knock out a low-orbit
satellite.  All of the nuclear powers have ballistic missiles capable
of lofting a warhead to orbital altitude, if not into orbit.  Detonating
a small nuke in the general vicinity of a satellite, at the right
altitude, would do the job.



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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 610
------------------------------