Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V12_0/V12_032.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 19KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from beak.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/caa1OwS00VcJ8DF059>;
          Mon,  9 Jul 1990 01:31:41 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Mon,  9 Jul 1990 01:31:08 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #32

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 12 : Issue 32

Today's Topics:
               Re: Julian Date
           Re: grim tidings for the future
               Re: Anti-Gravity Devices
               Bush Approves Cape York
           Re: NSS protests Chinese launch pricing
           Re: NSS protests Chinese launch pricing
               Re: Anti-Gravity Devices
           Re: grim tidings for the future
           Re: grim tidings for the future
           Re: NSS protests Chinese launch pricing
           Re: grim tidings for the future
                 Light-ships

Administrivia:

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

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

Date:        Sat, 07 Jul 90 14:12:49 ADT
From: [e-mail]
Subject:     Re: Julian Date

On  Fri, 6 Jul 90 01:44:22 EDT  [e-mail] (Keith F. Lynch)

> Right.  Julian date 2446605 was the 174th and 175th day of 1986 (June
> 23 and 24).  The number simply increases by one each day, at noon UT.
> The evening of today, July 5th, day 186 of 1990, is 2448078.
>
> They've lopped off the leading two digits to save space, since '46605
> won't recur for over 270 years.

Be careful!  If precision is important to you these dates could be in
Modified Julian Date (MJD).

  MJD = JD - 240 0000.5

Note that although JD advances by one at noon, MJD advances by one at
midnight, as do the days of the month.  MJD is widely used by the
time keeping and geodesy communities.

================================================================================
 Richard B. Langley                            BITnet: [e-mail] or [e-mail]
 Geodetic Research Laboratory                  Phone:  [phone]
 Dept. of Surveying Engineering                Telex:  014-46202
 University of New Brunswick                   FAX:    [phone]
 Fredericton, N.B., Canada  E3B 5A3
================================================================================

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

Date: 8 Jul 90 20:48:34 GMT
From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi![e-mail]  (Michael V. Kent)
Subject: Re: grim tidings for the future

In response to Doug Mahoney:

Yes, in the "Old Days" we made two or three of everything.  This is because it
usually took two or three attempts to get the probes working.  The first
attempts splashed in the ocean, blew up on the pad, or got lost in space.
Now we can ALMOST ALWAYS get it right the first time.  Yes, there are a few
mistakes made. No, we may not get every bit of data we hoped for.  But the
scientific objectives are ALMOST ALWAYS met.

Give Hubble some more time.  No one was planning to do any real science before
October anyway.  This is checkout time -- you know -- time to find out what
works properly and what does not.  Even as Hubble now stands, scientists will
have plenty of data to ooh and aah about.  It should get even better in 1993.
As for Hubble being the greatest astronomical event since Galileo, I guess
we'll find that out in November.
                                                        Mike

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

Date: 8 Jul 90 23:23:11 GMT
From: munnari.oz.au!bruce![e-mail]  (Michael Saleeba)
Subject: Re: Anti-Gravity Devices

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:



>    This may sound a little weird but I was wondering if anyone
>    has heard anything about anti-gravity devices.  I heard that
>    the government has been working on them for years and I was
>    wondering if anyone can validate this.  (this is a serious
>    request).

There was recent interest in the Australian media when an ex-engineer from
England claimed he had an antigravity device but that the scientists (the
bad guys) were ignoring his glorious discovery. This was all written up in
beautifully misleading style by various newspapers at the time, but interest
seems to have falled off as the guy has refused to show his device to any
scientists, claiming "industial espionage" as his reason. He has also failed
to back up his claimed results with a demonstration.

One of the physics professors here at Monash looked at what was visible of the
device in a picture in one of the glossy magazines, and worked out that it was
merely using the precession of a gyroscope to provide a short-lived upward
force (as I remember). Don't ask me for any more details; that's all I
remember.


+-------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
|       Michael Saleeba         | "Stupidity cannot be cured with       |
|    [e-mail]     |  money, or through education, or by   |
|       -|-   Zik   -|-         |  legislation. Stupidity is not a sin, |
+-------------------------------+  the victim can't help being stupid.  |
| But stupidity is the only universal capital crime; the sentence is    |
| death, there is no appeal, and the execution is carried out           |
| automatically and without pity"                    - Heinlein         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: 8 Jul 90 15:18:34 GMT
From: usc!bbn.com!rochester![e-mail]  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Bush Approves Cape York

According to the NY Times, the Bush administration is going to ok
the launching of US satellites on Russian Zenit boosters from the
envisioned Cape York spaceport.  The administration will soon grant
a license to United Technologies to manage the spaceport.

The new policy, thrashed out over the past several weeks by National
Space Council, includes safeguards against "unfair competition"
from the Soviet Union.

Launch operations at Cape York could begin as early as 1995.

    Paul F. Dietz
    [e-mail]

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

Date: 6 Jul 90 16:09:13 GMT
From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!peregrine!ccicpg!conexch!ofa123![e-mail]  (David Anderman)
Subject: Re: NSS protests Chinese launch pricing

1) I don't believe that NSS is asking for an inquiry about Chinese
launch prices; rather, they are complaining about low Chinese launch
prices.
2) HR 2674 does not prevent the "US payload market" from access to the
cheaper Chinese launcers; rather, it prohibits *Federal* satellites from
launch on Chinese launchers, which by the way, is the case today for
Federal government satellites, due to existing treaties...


--
uucp:     David Anderman
Internet: [e-mail]
BBS:      714 544-0934   2400/1200/300

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

Date: 6 Jul 90 04:27:59 GMT
From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!peregrine!ccicpg!conexch!ofa123![e-mail]  (Wales Larrison)
Subject: Re: NSS protests Chinese launch pricing

(cont)
    From this type of analysis, we can conclude that the PRC is
probably pricing below the production cost, and "dumping" their
launch vehicles on the world market to earn hard currency.
  In the short term, satellite manufacturers will gain an advantage
from lower launch costs (even though the demonstrated reliability of
the Long March is only about 18 out of 20 sucesses).  However, in
the long term (5-10 years), such practices will drive out all other
launch vehicles without government financial backing.  By pricing
the Long March substantially below their cost, they are directly
attacking the establishment of a free market for space
transportation and distorting the market to a level at which a
"commercial" launch company cannot survive.  Such companies as
Arianespace, Commercial Delta, Commerical Titan, General Dynamics,
and OSC cannot meet the depth of financial backing the PRC can
provide, and cannot win a protracted battle for market share with
the Long March.  Without direct government financial support, these
companies cannot compete with the PRC government.  With government
financial support, they can survive (by government-subsidized
launches), but this will cost the government more, and by losing
commercial payloads to a PRC-subsidized Long March, it will cost the
U.S. government more to launch each government satellite on these
vehicles due to loss of economies of scale.  Plus, this is the exact
opposite direction from which I would like to see the space industry
go.
   If U.S. launch firms are forced out of the market by PRC-
subsidized Long March prices (and the market isn't that big to
comfortably support all the current players), is this good for
commercial space?  What happens in 5 years, when all the competing
commercial companies have folded, and Long March is the only game
left in down?  Where is the competition to keep them honest?

   What is the difference between this and having imported steel
sold at 2 cents a pound to gain market share and drive U.S.
manufacturers out of business?  Or having import cars dumped at
$2000 each?  Or computer chips?  Or textiles?  Or .... This falls
directly under the provisions of the Trade Act, and Provision 301.

   In my opinion, the best political and economic course is to
prevent the Chinese government from dumping Long March launch
services on the world market.  The PRC has signed a trade agreement
promising to price their vehicles closer to their cost.  They should
be encouraged to live up to this agreement and enforcement imposed
if necessary.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wales Larrison                          Space Technology Investor


--
uucp:     Wales Larrison
Internet: [e-mail]
BBS:      714 544-0934   2400/1200/300

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

Date: 9 Jul 90 00:03:38 GMT
From: shelby!med!hanauma![e-mail]  (Richard Ottolini)
Subject: Re: Anti-Gravity Devices

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>
>    This may sound a little weird but I was wondering if anyone
>    has heard anything about anti-gravity devices.  I heard that
>    the government has been working on them for years and I was
>    wondering if anyone can validate this.  (this is a serious
>    request).

Scientists aren't sure what causes gravity.
They've described quite accurately how bodies move in the presence of gravity.
There is a wave theory of gravity, but neither the waves or gravitons have
been observed yet.

There are aircraft in the works that operate on non-conventional principles
that are sometimes refered to "ant-gravity" :-)
Most aircraft use lighter-than-air material or aerodynamic lift.
Non-standard things such as hovercrafts and jetpacks appear in the press
now and then.

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

Date: 7 Jul 90 23:06:00 GMT
From: ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!m.cs.uiuc.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Re: grim tidings for the future


/* Written  8:29 pm  Jul  4, 1990 by [e-mail] in m.cs.uiuc.edu:sci.space */
The list of HEAO, Viking, Voyager, etc. is a good one.  It shows
that NASA does science very well, when it is allowed to.  The on-going
contributions to the science of aeronautics (such as propfans,
riblets, vortex generators) are extremely valuable as well.

Where NASA fails is on the big projects. [ ... ]
If we are going to get the best out of NASA, we should restrict it
to doing what it does well:  aeronautical and space science. [ ... ]
/* End of text from m.cs.uiuc.edu:sci.space */
The NASA supporters, it seems to me, are providing additional evidence for
this view. NASA's success's, some of which are amazing, are basically all
_research successes. Not _development_ successes. The big development attempts
(the Shuttle, the Space Station) have been (to be blunt) disasters. Let's
get NASA out of the D, and back in the R. We'll all be better off then.

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

Date:    Sun, 8 Jul 1990 11:04:19 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: grim tidings for the future
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"[e-mail]"

I don't have the numbers on the amount of pure research being done by NASA
versus the amount of engineering, but I do have a five-foot shelf of
catalogues of abstracts of NASA technical papers on aviation alone (and I
might point out that NASA does not manufacture aircraft).  I don't see any
rockets out the window, but I see lots of Cessna aircraft deliberately
going into spins to test spin recovery methods, green LIDAR columns
stretching up into the sky at night, high-altitude aircraft bringing back
pollen samples, experimental head-up displays being tested, and a number of
things which may be considered either pure science or development engineering.
None of this stuff is going to be made commercially by NASA.  And if NASA
is so completely overfunded, then why are we still using *&$^%! Cyber machines
in our flight simulators?
--scott

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

Date: 6 Jul 90 04:24:00 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!peregrine!ccicpg!conexch!ofa123![e-mail]  (Wales Larrison)
Subject: Re: NSS protests Chinese launch pricing

(Cont)
                           Production Total
                                 100%
                                  |
               |-------------------------------|-------------|
             Labor                         Mat'l &S/C     Comp Serv
              51%                             34%           15%
               |                               |
   |--------|--------|------|             |------------------|
 Engrng   DirSprt  Touch  IndSprt      S/C Labor         Fab Mat'l
   3%       11%     12%     25%          25%                 9%
                                          |
             |                       |--------|--------|------|
       |-----|------|              Engrng   DirSprt  Touch  IndSprt
      QA  Maint  Sched               2%       |5%      6%     12%
      5%    3%     3%                   |-----|------|
                                       QA   Maint  Sched
                                       2%    1%     2%

Now, to get the difference between a U.S. and a Chinese launch
vehicle, I took this cost breakdown, and estimated corrections to a
Chinese launch vehicle for the PRC way of doing business, using a
spreadsheet.  For comparison, I assumed a $60 million Titan 3 launch
vehicle, which is about equal in performance to a Long March.
                                                 Correction
                                   %     U.S.     Factor   Chinese
                                         Cost               Cost
Labor   Eng                       3.0%   1.800      0.5    0.900
        DirSprt  QA               5.0%   3.000      1.5    4.500
                 Maint            3.0%   1.800        1    1.800
                 Sched            3.0%   1.800        1    1.800
        Touch                    12.0%   7.200      0.1    0.720
        IndSprt                  25.0%  15.000     0.75   11.250
Mat'l   S/CLab   Eng              2.0%   1.200      0.5    0.600
                 DirSprt  QA      2.0%   1.200      1.5    1.800
                          Maint   1.0%   0.600        1    0.600
                          Sched   2.0%   1.200        1    1.200
                 Touch            6.0%   3.600      0.1    0.360
                 IndSprt         12.0%   7.200     0.75    5.400
        Fab Mat'l                 9.0%   5.400     1.25    6.750
Comp Serv                        15.0%   9.000      1.5   13.500

                                        60.000            51.180
                                        US Total          PRC Total

   Please note, that for virtually every factor I gave the PRC a
lower cost factor than the U.S.
   O.K., where did I get these correction factors?  For Engineering,
I assumed 50% cost - while PRC engineers cost only about 1/10 the
U.S cost, they have less tools and are less productive.  For
example, the have virtually no PCs, little CAD systems, and less of
a data base for "cookbook" engineering solutions to launch vehicles.
I figured about 4x as many manhours, and rounded up to .5 to show
the PRC space program has the "Cream" engineers (they get paid about
25% better than a normal government engineer).
                                        (cont)


--
uucp:     Wales Larrison
Internet: [e-mail]
BBS:      714 544-0934   2400/1200/300

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

Date: 8 Jul 90 20:56:22 GMT
From: usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi![e-mail]  (Michael V. Kent)
Subject: Re: grim tidings for the future

Hmmm...  Why do big projects have more problems than little projects.  It must
be because of NASA's incompetence, stupidity, mismanagement, etc.

Or could it be because big projects are larger, more complicated, and have
many more things which could go wrong and thus a much higher probability that
something will go wrong?  Doesn't that make sense?  Naw.

                                                Mike

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

Date:     Sun, 8 Jul 90 22:38 CDT
From: <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Light-ships

I saw this afternoon on CNN that somebody has proposed using high-powered
lasers to propel ships (they said up to 5-man in size) into space.  It seems
that a properly constructed mirror arraingment could direct the enery of
a ground-based laser pulse into an air-heating baffle, which would direct
the heat-expanded air towards the rear.  At high altitude an on-board
hydrogen gas source would take the place of air.

My question is, how many times has this been proposed before?  And why do
people keep proposing such silly "Popular Science" tripe year after year?
And why did CNN use up a whole 7 minutes on it?

What are some of the other ideas for unconventional ways to 'space-out'?

Bruce Wilson, [e-mail]

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

End of SPACE Digest V12 #32
*******************