Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v16_3/v16no348.txt

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 14KB

Date: Sun, 21 Mar 93 05:18:30
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #348
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Sun, 21 Mar 93       Volume 16 : Issue 348

Today's Topics:
                  Asteroid Laser 'Drill' Speculation
                           Aurora spotted ?
   Clueless Szaboisms (Was Re: plans, and absence thereof) (3 msgs)
                 SSTO: A Spaceship for the rest of us
                  Why use AC at 20kHz for SSF Power?

    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: Sun, 21 Mar 1993 05:34:42 GMT
From: Nick Szabo <[e-mail]>
Subject: Asteroid Laser 'Drill' Speculation
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary

We are very, very far away from being able to cook an asteroid
with a laser from earth.  However, illuminating asteroids in
specific wavelengths for spectroscopy -- time it with probe
flybies or big-telescope observations from earth -- might be
a good idea.


--
Nick Szabo                     [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 21 Mar 93 05:16:58 GMT
From: Dean Adams <[e-mail]>
Subject: Aurora spotted ?
Newsgroups: sci.space

Lawrence Curcio <[e-mail]> says:
 >In reply to Dean Adams:
Where?  I didn't see any real "reply".

 >The UFO folks are certain that the "Information" they have
 >is reliable as well. Reliability is a value judgement that is,

Fine.  When you can tell me who the PRIME CONTRACTOR is for your "ufos",
where they were built and are operated from, what their primary mission
is, and what the flight/propulsion characteristics are... *THEN* you will
have the makings of a "point" that ufos and Aurora have the same level of
"evidence/arguments" attached..

Hey, has anyone out there been "abducted" by an Aurora yet?  :-)

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

Date: 20 Mar 1993 19:25:03 -0500
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Clueless Szaboisms (Was Re: plans, and absence thereof)
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Pat) writes...
>
>On the NASA contract side we have won contracts because we are consistently
>cheaper than anyone else and we get the job done.  The reason that my
>contract pay is low is that I have a 2 year degree in a University
>town environment. A 2 year degree and a cup of coffee are both worth 50 cents
>here.

While you are on staff, do you get free tuition?  If so, you ought to
take some time and work on your BS.  It'll help in numerous ways.
Plus you can argue with the undergrads, when one of them advocates
20 KHz power :-)

>
>My SEDSAT 1 work is at this time funded 40% and as of next month be 100%. This
>is money that I personally go out and raise. The University takes no overhead
>from this money as their contribution to our project.  The standard university
>overhead on fully burdened efforts is 36.6%. This is marginally less than

36.6 percent is a little on the low side of a burden rate.  But not
out of the ball park.  most tend more towars 45 %.  Of course the
accounting paperwork is lousy.  I'd feel better if universities
just bid an overhead rate of N  and left it to ride at a fixed
percent.  the universities with lower burdens win against cheaper
institutes.

But taking no overhead as acontribution  is a little different from
contributing cash or personell hours to a program.  just an acctg quibble.


>the typical mark up of 40% in the commercial retail world. This margin is

Universities don't sell products.  Theoretically they aren't a
business.

>Mony is easy to make in this world and I have made it and spent it. There is
>more to this life than money and there is more to life than screaming at
>the top of one's computer lungs over sci.space.
>
What there is more to life to flaming?  What , tell me :-)

>
>This is why I started this thread about "plans and lack therof". This is
>what Von Braun, Tsivosky, Goddard, Ley and the rest had. They had a plan,
>they had a vision of what the future could be that was positive, technical
>but human. Space station is about humans in space. Very few people in this
>

Jules verne had a plan also.  DaVinci had a plan for almost
everything.   Sometimes plan arise because the technical basis
is there.  Even Newton said "If i have seen so far, it is because
I have stood on the shoulders of Giants".

>Take a look around, get off the terminal for a day or two and read the
>papers. What other endevaour in this world holds out for a postive
>future where individual freedom remains? Where you can do your best and
>make a large contribution?
>
Oh the cyber frontier looks pretty interesting.

>There are 100 billion stars in this galaxy. We are so arrogant to think that
>all of the answers are here on the earth. From the earliest days of mankind
>we have learned by looking upward not backward.
>
Any decent asian philosopher would argue you learn by looking
inward, not outward.

>This is why I post about a plan an a lack thereof. With one exception by
>a poster that is not a regular, all I have heard is the regurgitation of
>peoples pet plans with no consideration on how these plans fit in with the
>larger realm of mankind. Give Allen credit, at least his plan does add to
>what is a larger plan. Even Nicks plan has a place in the overall pie. BUT
>neither of you consider what you are doing leads to within the context
>of HOW this will benefit all mankind.
>
Well,  a bunch of my ideas on computer security may lead to better
systems and more reliable ATM transactions :-)

>Leaders of an earlier age did this. Edison wanted light to banish the night
>and free mankind from being a slave to the night. Tesla's dream was to
>power the machines that would free mankind from drugery and manual labor.

Gee, I thought these guys just wanted to impress girls.

>Mr. Boeing and Lindberg and all the avaition pioneers saw clearly how the
>aeroplane would revolutionize travel and trade for the world (and make a buck
>too!) Von Braun and the others of his ilk were the same. The central problem


Dennis,
    I dont think you know as much history as you may need.
You should read James Burks "Connections".  He traces how ideas move through
time to affect technical innovation and the problems that force the
movement of technology.

First of all, things can't be done until the technical base exists to
support it.  Aluminum was available in elizabethan times,  but the
costs of extraction made it more valuable then gold.  Now process
improvements, make it cheap enough for sandwich wrap.

Then  also Answers need to exist in the context of problems.  If we run out
of oil,  believe me,  there will be a big pressure to get more or
seek it in unusual places.   If we get into some sort of giant war,
and can use space as a battleground,  then lots of things will get
driven there.  Or if some sort of fashion craze drives Orbital
vacations,  then things will be changing.

The reason, I am so big on working on basic problems like Cheap launch
and rapid launch and Better EVA suits, is that those are stumbling blocks
to doing other things.  If things get cheap enough for basic scientists
to tag around,  then other discoveries will occur.

Darwin did his work, because he could hitch a ride on the Beagle.
Mendell did his work, because he could spend time  working on peas.
Right now astronauts don't have time to notice curious things,
because their time is valuable that they are very busy.

pat

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

Date: 20 Mar 93 17:40:31
From: Steinn Sigurdsson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Clueless Szaboisms (Was Re: plans, and absence thereof)
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <1ogbid$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:

   In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
   >In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:

   |>Second any contracts they get at UAH,  first come
   |>through a NASA center, with it's overhead 30%  according to allen,

   |The 'Center Wrap' isn't an overhead charge (I wouldn't mind if it was).
   |It is simply a chunk the center takes and uses to fund whatever the
   >center manager wants to fund. It doesn't go to overhead.

   What is the difference between taking 30% for overhead,  and
   taking 30% for the directors pet projects?

The former way requires you to spend 2/3 of the 30%
filling out forms demanded by accountants with MBAs
making sure you're spending the money "properly" ;-)

|  Steinn Sigurdsson    |I saw two shooting stars last night        |
|  Lick Observatory    |I wished on them but they were only satellites    |
| [e-mail] |Is it wrong to wish on space hardware?        |
| "standard disclaimer"    |I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983    |

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

Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1993 06:13:16 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Clueless Szaboisms (Was Re: plans, and absence thereof)
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <1ogbid$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:

>What is the difference between taking 30% for overhead,  and
>taking 30% for the directors pet projects?

Two things:

1. Overhead is still being charged over and above the wrap.
2. Overhaed is a reasonable expense (to a point).

   Allen



--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------87 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

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

Date: 20 Mar 93 16:13:20
From: Steinn Sigurdsson <[e-mail]>
Subject: SSTO: A Spaceship for the rest of us
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

   In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
   >   Second, and more serious, I quoted LOX at five **CENTS** a pound, not
   >   five dollars a pound.

   >Got a source for that number? You can't get drinking water for 5c/lb

   >in most places! ...

   The source is Max Hunter, who knows more than a little about launchers
   and launcher economics...

Paul Dietz already corrected me in private. Amazing economies of scale!
I really should know better by now...

;-)

|  Steinn Sigurdsson    |I saw two shooting stars last night        |
|  Lick Observatory    |I wished on them but they were only satellites    |
| [e-mail] |Is it wrong to wish on space hardware?        |
| "standard disclaimer"    |I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983    |

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

Date: 20 Mar 93 17:39:15
From: Steinn Sigurdsson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why use AC at 20kHz for SSF Power?
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

   In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
   >One of the most frequent complaints here against NASA is that
   >they don't consider new technologies that might lower costs
   >in the long run and don't experiment with different concepts.
   >Yet, when they do and it doesn't work out they are chastised...

   The flip side of this complaint is equally valid:  that NASA all too
   often insists on reinventing off-the-shelf equipment from scratch just
   for the sake of "new technology".  You need both airliners and X-planes,
   and you need to have a clear idea of the difference between them.  You
   don't commit X-planes to flying twice daily from New York to L.A., and
   you don't try major new experiments on your airliners (not unless it's
   something trivial like a new type of paint, which isn't going to affect
   the usability of the airliner if it doesn't work).

True, but if you're building an airplane for the first time it may
make sense to spend some effort to consider whether you really want
to use water cooled internal combustion engines or whether you should
try out something a little different...

   NASA does indeed need to consider new technologies and experiment with
   new ways of doing things... but *not* on spacecraft with major operational
   missions to fly!

Yeah, but the only funding they get is for flying spacecraft with
major operational missions... (actually, does SSF really have any
_major_ mission requirements beyond "find out how to build large
habitable structures in space"?) - after all, often the way of
trying out new ways _is_ by doing things...

   How many new, untried concepts would you accept in the construction of
   your house?

Well, if I were an institution chartered to discover new ways to
build houses, and occasionally given specifics (like build a really
tall house, or a low energy consumption house) then I'd be willing to try more than
if I were a local construction company.

|  Steinn Sigurdsson    |I saw two shooting stars last night        |
|  Lick Observatory    |I wished on them but they were only satellites    |
| [e-mail] |Is it wrong to wish on space hardware?        |
| "standard disclaimer"    |I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983    |

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 348
------------------------------