Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v16_0/v16no019.txt

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 33.1 KB

Date: Fri,  8 Jan 93 05:09:42
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #019
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Fri,  8 Jan 93       Volume 16 : Issue 019

Today's Topics:
                  *** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP *** (3 msgs)
                DC-1 and the $23M NASA Toilet (2 msgs)
                 Justification for the Space Program
                         killing the shuttle
                       Los Angeles space events
                            Marketing SSTO
                          Moon Dust For Sale
 Question:How Long Until Privately Funded Space Colonization (2 msgs)
                         Questions about SETI
                  RTG's on the Lunar Module (2 msgs)
  Shuttle a research tool (was: Re: Let's be more specific) (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: Thursday, 7 Jan 1993 12:03:40 PST
From: Jon J Thaler <[e-mail]>
Subject: *** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP ***
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Henry Spencer) says:

> Kilogram quantities of antimatter are quite adequate for early interstellar
> probes, given modest vehicles.  I don't have numbers for the antimatter-
> fuelled ramjet on hand, but it *has* been studied and it looks plausible.

A reality check:
This is about 13 orders of magnitude larger than the total number of
antiprotons ever created and stored (about 10**14)

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

Date: 7 Jan 93 23:09:42 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: *** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP ***
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> Jon J Thaler <[e-mail]> writes:
>> Kilogram quantities of antimatter are quite adequate for early interstellar
>> probes, given modest vehicles... it looks plausible.
>
>A reality check:
>This is about 13 orders of magnitude larger than the total number of
>antiprotons ever created and stored (about 10**14)

Reality check right back at you:  plot human antimatter production capacity
versus time.  Interesting graph, no?  Sure, it's limited right now... but
it's growing fast.

If we mounted a major effort, we could probably be test-firing antimatter
rocket engines within ten years.  There are *NO* fundamental barriers that
anyone has been able to find.  It's purely a matter of scaling up and
optimizing the hardware -- the existing accelerators are optimized for
production of Nobel prizes, not bulk antimatter -- and solving assorted
straightforward engineering problems of handling and storage.  The idea
has been investigated in depth; no show-stoppers have appeared.

A production setup the size of the Hanford works could make enough
antimatter to open up the solar system.  Interstellar propulsion is
harder.  Kilogram quantities are probably going to have to be made in
space, not so much for handling reasons (although those aren't trivial)
as because of the sheer amounts of *energy* needed.  It would be a huge
project, but there's no fundamental problem; we could start designing
hardware tomorrow if it were urgent enough.
--
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 17:33:56 -0800
From: [e-mail]
Subject: *** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP ***

Henry Spencer's ramscope talk sparked a question in my small mind.  How can
we talk about the performance of antimatter propulsion without knowing
the mass fuel ratio? How much hardware does it take to contain a "tank" of
antimatter (magnetic fields, etc.)?  Does anyone have the input required
for insertion into the rocket equation???

Also, I have seen a graph of anti-mmatter production in the world that
shows is rising on an exponential curve.  (antimater is produced by all
the big collider folks).  Now, suspending my engineering training and
thinking like a normal liberal economist, the exponential curve showed us
producing a kilogram of antimatter by the year 2050 or so.  That's not
to long from now....

How do they contain the antimatter before injection into the collider?  If
I remember correctly they have it going around in a racetrack in a holding
facility, no???

Grant Anderson
[e-mail]

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

Date: 7 Jan 93 22:49:08 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-1 and the $23M NASA Toilet
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:
>>Unnecessarily, if so, since the solutions developed for Skylab actually
>>worked pretty well.  (Notably, the Skylab toilet worked.)  For rather
>>longer than a week, too.
>
>Uhhh... why didn't NASA just reuse the Skylab toilet on Shuttle?

Good question.  I haven't seen a detailed explanation.

I think the excuse was that the Skylab toilet wasn't suited to use by
women, because it assumed anatomy that could urinate and defecate
separately.  This has always struck me as the sort of problem a good
engineer could solve easily in any of several ways.

>One gets the impression that the number of competent people
>at NASA fell below critical mass quite some time ago...

A better way to put it, I think, is that contractor profits and "new
technology" now get priority over building something that works.  It's
a fairly predictable result of no longer having a plan or a deadline.
--
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 7 Jan 1993 22:37:08 GMT
From: "Michael F. Santangelo" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-1 and the $23M NASA Toilet
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:

>>Uhhh... why didn't NASA just reuse the Skylab toilet on Shuttle?

>Probably because nobody wanted to go to Australia and pick up all the pieces.

>:-)

Oh, that was cruel. :-)

But, let me ask (since I don't know the specifics): how well did the
Skylab toilet work and what does the new $23M Shuttle toilet do that
the Skylab didn't do?

There is also a reference to the Gemini program in this thread, what did
they do?

Thanks.
--
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Michael F. Santangelo                 + Internet: [e-mail]      [work]
Computer & Network Systems Head       +           [e-mail] [home]
Univ MD: CEES / CBL (Solomons Island) + BITNET:   MIKE@UMUC  [fwd to mike@cbl]

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

From: Paul Dietz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Justification for the Space Program
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

Date: 7 Jan 93 20:51:56 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1993Jan7.205156.13655
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: usa, world
Organization: University of Rochester
Lines: 99
Sender: [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (James L. Felder) writes:

>O.K., I just started following this group today, and already I see one of
>my favorite topics up for vorciferous debate, so I'll just wade in here.  I
...
>Premise 1.  We live on a finite planet with finite resources.
>
>Premise 2.  Our technological society is highly dependent on resources that
>are being used up faster than they can be replaced.
>
>Premise 3.  Economists seem to insist that we must continue to grow to
>increase our standard of living, and the public and politicians seemed to
>have bought into this premise.  For proof one only has to look at the last
>election to see cries that we are "loosing the American Dream" because we
>are not better off than our parents held up as worthy compaign issues.  The
>strong implication is that an ever increasing, I would hazard
>materialistic, standard of living is something we must all strive for.
>
>Premise 4.  We will not stumble across some unlimited sources of energy
>(fusion) or materials (say a way to mine the earths core) here on earth.
>
>Conclusions.  Energy and materials will become increasingly hard to obtain,
>and that eventually the net energy and material production will decline
>below what is required to maintain some existing standard of living.Unless
>we find a way to circumvent the limited resources of our planet, we as a
>technologically advanced society will cease to exist.  People will continue
>to exist, but society will not be as we know it.  I do not know the time
>frame, nor care to hazard a guess, but the end seems to me to be
>unavoidable.



There are a number of problems with this argument...

  "We live on a planet with finite resources"

Finite does not mean limited.  First, the amount present may be so
large as to be effectively unlimited.  Fertile nuclear materials
(U-238 and Th-232) fall into this class.  Second, aside from
nuclear uses, elements are not consumed in use, they merely become
less concentrated.  The free energy required to extract materials
goes as the log of the dilution (higher in practice, but practice
changes).

  "Resources are being used up faster than they are being replaced"

That a resource is limited and not renewable matters only if its
is very hard to replace with some substitute.  Fossil fuels are
an example -- there is no reason why we should not be able
to survive indefinitely without them, if some other source of
energy is available.

  [paraphrased] "Growth is necessary to avoid social calamity"

Then we are in big trouble, since growth in resource use cannot
continue forever.  For example, if energy use grows 1%/year,
then in 10,000 years we are consuming the entire power output
of the observable universe.

In the short term, however, there is no reason why resource use
on earth cannot be increased.  There is no reason why we could
not supply several times the current population with several times
the current US per capita energy consumption indefinitely.

   "No inexhaustible energy source on earth"

At least two are already in the engineering stages (solar and fission
breeder).

"Too Expensive!" you may say.  Well, now, yes, but manufacturing
productivity increases about 3%/year.  It gets cheaper to make things.
Moreover, if we had to make a lot of solar collectors or nuclear
reactors, economies of scale would drive costs down still further.
And it's a lot easier to start down a learning curve when you can
build smallish things on the ground rather than enormous things in space.
Realize that the current world output of PV modules would take
more than a century to make enough to cover one 10 GW powersat.
Space colonization schemes are implicitly assuming big productivity
increases.

   "If we don't go now, resources will be too expensive"

This "window of opportunity" argument falls apart under close
examination.  Resource prices have typically fallen over time, even as
richer deposits have been exhausted.  Moreover, a space program uses
relatively little in the way of natural resources.  What it does use a
lot of is labor, talent and knowledge.

Look at the price of a shuttle orbiter.  It costs more than its own
weight in gold.  The cost of the elements and energy that do go into
its manufacture is a piddling small fraction of its total cost.  The
same is true of an airliner.  The raw aluminum in a 747, for example,
would cost perhaps a quarter of a million dollars.

Increased raw material prices would only make a space program *more*
feasible, by increasing the potential profit.

    Paul F. Dietz
    [e-mail]

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

Date: 7 Jan 93 22:54:02 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: killing the shuttle
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>>Unlike Allen, I am completely convinced that killing Shuttle now will
>>not cause any money to be reprogrammed to his pet schemes.
>
>So am I.  I am also completely convinced it would wipe out
>a major political base opposed to alternative launchers.

You don't get rid of civil servants and politically-powerful contractors
that easily.  If you wipe out the Imperial Deathstar, they'll only start
building another one.
--
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 06 Jan 93  19:49:56
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Los Angeles space events
Newsgroups: sci.space

         OASIS, a chapter of the National Space Society
                       Schedule of Events
                          Winter, 1993
                 Call 310/364-2290 for updates
-
January 9 (Saturday) 7pm: Reception for special guest: space
artist and raconteur Christopher Butler will present a review
of: "1992 - the Year in Space". Also invited: special mystery
guest. Location: 3136 E. Yorba Linda Blvd., #G14, Cedar Glen
Apts., Fullerton.
-
January 30 (Saturday) 7pm: "Galileo at Earth: Even Better the
Second Time Around", presented by Robert Gounley, Engineer,
Project Galileo. To be held at the Von Karmann Auditorium, Jet
Propulsion Laboratory, 4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena.
-
February 12-13: CalSEDS '93: The CSDC Annual Conference. To be
held at the Pasadena Hilton Hotel.
-
February 20 (Saturday) 7pm:  Chapter meeting with invited JPL
project engineer.  To be held at 293 E. Ohio Street, #1,
Pasadena.
-
March 13 (Saturday), 7pm: Chapter meeting. Special guest to be
announced. To be held at 3525 Sawtelle Blvd., #210, (Western)
Los Angeles.

--- Maximus 2.01wb

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

Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 21:07:53 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Marketing SSTO
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:

>Cleary, we do not want to do SSTO like we did STS.  I suggest
>SSTO strategy should be very different, almost the opposite
>of the strategy used for STS.  STS combined astronaut and
>satellite launching; there should be two very different SSTO
>vehicles for these very different markets.

Different vehicles, yes.  But different vehicles may mean
two versions of the same design, like the passenger and
cargo versions of the 747.

>Shuttle was designed and built by a commitee from NASA and the DoD
>for the vague, sweeping purpose of lowering launch costs;

No, it had a host of vague, sweeping purposes. :-) Lowering
launch costs was only one of them.  And, in the end, not
even the most important.


>SSTO should be designed not to lower launch costs for everybody, but
>to provide large service improvements to specific markets, for example
>reducing the cost and increasing the reliability of delivering
>satellites to orbit.

The problem is, we don't know what the markets are.  Rather, we
know what markets exist for payloads at $10,000 per pound, but
we don't know what the markets will be at $100 per pound.  If
you tie your design too closely to current satellites, you may
end up with a white elephant.  Better to design for a general
class of payloads.

>Shuttle was a single design centrally planned; SSTO should
>come in several competing varieties.

Agreed.  Although the first SSTO will be a single design,
by definition, if it's successor it will invite competition,
some of which may be better than the original.  Personally,
I think it unlikely (though not impossible) that Delta Clipper
will become the DC-3 of space.  More likely the Ford Trimotor.


>STS was an entire "system" that needed new launch pads

So were the first jetliners, which required every airport
in the US to be rebuilt.  (SSTO won't require anything on
that scale, however.)

>a satellite-launching SSTO should be designed around current
>comsat/upper stage pairs;

A risky strategy.  Not only are new markets likely to
develop when the costs drop, but old markets can evaporate
if current satellites/stages are changed or cancelled. A
better model is the military or civilian cargo plane.  It's
not designed to carry a certain type of truck (although a
need like that might determine its maximum payload).  It's
designed to carry any payload, generally, that meets certain
weight and volume limitations.  If a cargo requires special
accomodations -- such as refrigeration -- those are handled
by additional equipment, rather than the vehicle itself.


>Alas, currently the program is headed in direction of the
>swamp which bogged down the Shuttle, with strong lobbying
>for NASA to take over the project as a new Clinton start-up.

I haven't heard about this and hope it isn't true.

>This is great politically -- I came up with this idea well
>before the election, when it first looked like the Democrats
>had a fighting chance -- but it could be a disaster functionally,

If you substitute "would" for "could," you'd be right on.

>Astronauts either have better
>things to do, or nothing at all, in which case ferget 'em.

Even worse, if an astronaut gets killed, you have to shut
down everything for two years while you find Someone To
Blame.  Whatever you do, don't call the crewmembers astronauts!


>Which market should SSTO go for?  Clearly if there are several
>SSTOs for several different purposes, there is no one answer.
>So far, the replacement of STS has been a major goal.  However,
>the astronaut market has a serious drawback.

Not astronaut market, damn it, passenger.  Passenger.  If the
passengers happen to NASA employees, so what?  NASA employees
fly on business all the time.  That doesn't make them "aeronauts."

>For example, two competing astronaut SSTOs could provide commercial
>astronaut services to a wide variety of government space agencies,
>including many countries that currently have no access to spaceflight
>other than via government agencies of Russia or the U.S.

Why limit it to government space agencies?  If Hughes has
a satellite it wants to repair or salvage, who knows more
about the design, Hughes or NASA?  And if John Denver wants
to go into space, sell him a window ticket for a premium
and put the guy from NASA in the back. ;-)


>Given the vast market potential of large cost/lb. reductions,
>we should concentrate far more on making SSTO launch
>cost reduction a technical reality, and far less on add-ons
>such as satellite repair, astronaut capsules, etc.  The goal is to
>_reduce_ costs, not to drive up costs by adding on side paraphanalia.

If you're trying to convince a very skepical, conservative
investor, sure.  But realistically, if that's the only focus
of your business plan, you've missed the big picture, because
that's not the way markets work.  Airplanes made it possible
to build Las Vegas in the dessert.  You have to allow for
things like Las Vegas in space.  (Although it's a bad idea
for the airplane manufacturer to try to build its own Las
Vegas.  That was one of NASA's mistakes.)  And if you're
trying to build public support, you need to talk about flashy
things like Las Vegas, rather than mundane stuff like air mail.

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

Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 20:00:16 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Moon Dust For Sale
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bob Martino) writes:

>     A truly simple calculation.

>     (A)  Determine the mass of all moon rocks recovered.  (use a
>          REAL unit like kilograms, please)
>     (B)  Determine the total cost of the Apollo program.  (Probably
>          should include the cost of Gemini also)
>     (C)  Divide (A) into (B) to arrive at the figure.

>     Any questions?      :-)

Yes.  Proof the required assumption for the simple calculation given
above; i.e., that the sum total and purpose of the Apollo program was
ONLY to return those rocks, and that nothing else of value of any kind
was gained for the money.  ;-)

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

Date: 7 Jan 93 18:16:05 GMT
From: Willie Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Question:How Long Until Privately Funded Space Colonization
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <[e-mail]> tyersome@toxic (Randall Tyers) writes:
>In response to this question, a group called the Lunar Society appears
>to be interested funding space colonization.  I would like to know
>whether they are for real.  Does anyone know if this group is
>legitimate and whether they have any chance of reaching their stated
>goals?
>
>Text of a old message describing this group follows.
[...]

>
><[e-mail]> [e-mail]

Well, as a charter member of the Lunar Society, I can tell you it
doesn't exist.  I'm not out the $100 I sent in, as Jerry Pournelle
(and/or his minions) never cashed my check.  My wife _is_ out her
$100, as she had to send in a money order (we have no idea if that was
ever cashed).  Either way we never heard _anything_ from them in
response, other than a couple of "We haven't gotten fired up yet, but
we'll be getting to it RSN" type responses to Email queries.

The Lunar Society was a great idea, and a bunch of people were fired
up about it, but I've only heard vague references to it since I
dropped my BIX subscription.  Jerry (IMHO) went downhill rapidly in
that era, but I'm told he's on the wagon now, so it's marginally
possible the Lunar Society exists, is for real, and is nonprofit
501(c) or whatever.  If so I wish them all the luck in the world, but
we'll not have anything further to do with them.

On the plus side, the concept of the Lunar Society is what got me
interested in my Simulated Lunar Teleoperations projects, which is a
_whole_ lot of fun.  Their concepts of low cost (Jerry has bandied
about numbers like $800M (yes, that's an M) for a lunar colony),
off-the-shelf hardware, and a real break with the usual gold-plated,
triply redundant, no holds barred, "mass of the paperwork exceeds mass
of the vehicle" ways of doing space travel were at the very least,
refreshing.

Willie Smith
[e-mail]
My opinions only!!!
--
Willie Smith     [e-mail]     [e-mail]
"That's the wonderful thing about crayons, they can take
you to more places than a starship."  Guinan - STNG

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

Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 21:19:05 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Question:How Long Until Privately Funded Space Colonization
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

If people want to support hardware development for space colonies, they
can support the Space Studies Institute. They are a real organization
and fund real work. They even put out a regular newsletter.

I think they where kind of drifting in the past but the unfortunate
death of Gerald Oneil seems to have galvanized them. Donations can
be sent to:

  Space Studies Institute
  PO Box 82
  Princeton NJ 08540

For $25 per year you become an associate and get their newsletter. For
$100 you become a Senior Associate and get extra stuff. I am a Senior
Associate.

Other good organizations are the National Space Society and the
Space Frontiere Foundation.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------107 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 17:40:57 -0800
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Questions about SETI

In reponse to Tim Roberts...

This is no flame...Look up the "Drake Equation" in a reference book.  This
is a nifty little equation that calculates the number of civilizations we
may "hear" while looking for them.  One variable within the equation
is the amount of time a civilization is at or around our technology level
and therefore would be radiating messages (we sent one out into space in
the '70s(?) from Puerto Rico) in such a way that our technology would be
able to "hear" and perhaps comprehend.  The only catch is that any
variable in the equation that turns out to be zero makes for a pretty
futile search. :-)  Don't tell Congresspersons that!!!

Only partially related to you question is a quote from the "Calvin & Hobbes"
comic strip that has Calvin Saying, "Sometimes I think that the surest sign
that intelligent life exists in the universe is that none of it has tried to
contact us."  :-)

One final note:  You stated that LOTS of money was being spent on SETI.
Remember, this is space stuff, LOTS doesn't get combined with the word
money until you are above $100,000,000 per year  (a billion here, a
billion there and pretty soon your talking about real money...)  The SETI
numbers are $100,000,000 over the ten year life of the program.

[I KNOW I'm going to get flamed on that last paragraph....]

Grant Anderson
[e-mail]

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

Date: 7 Jan 93 20:52:50 GMT
From: Dave Michelson <[e-mail]>
Subject: RTG's on the Lunar Module
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dave Garnett) writes:
>Peering at a cut-away drawing of the Lunar Module the other day
>I noticed what appears to be a Radioisotope Thermal Generator
>mounted on the outside low down.
>
>Was this intended to power some experiment - I don't think
>that they generate very much power (order 80 watts ?)
>

Yes.  It powered the Apollo Lunar Surface Experiment Package (ALSEP).

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

Date: 7 Jan 93 22:56:11 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: RTG's on the Lunar Module
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dave Garnett) writes:
>What are the radiation hazards (to the crew) associated
>with such a thing, as I understand that they comprise an
>unshielded lump of plutonium ?

The radiation hazard from plutonium 238 is insignificant; it's pretty much
a pure alpha emitter, and human skin stops alpha particles completely.  (A
sheet of paper will do likewise.)  You don't want to eat the stuff, but so
long as it stays put, no sweat.
--
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 7 Jan 93 19:56:58 GMT
From: Francois Yergeau <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle a research tool (was: Re: Let's be more specific)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>Actually, it is not at all uncommon for airlines to lease planes complete
>with crews,

NASA could consider leasing shuttle services if a provider were
available;  but there's none, and with orbiters at $1.5 billion a pop,
plus gigadollar infrastructure, none is likely to appear out of thin
air.  With shuttle costs at their astronomical levels (even if reduced
30% by private industry's magic wand), NASA would likely be the major,
if not only, customer.  A would-be shuttle service provider would want
a multi-year commitment for a fairly large number of launches before
investing, which Congress will not make easy.  So the basic reality of
today is that either i) NASA flies the shuttles, or ii) they stay on
the ground.

>or to contract with specialists for support services like
>maintenance.

NASA does that too: spent SRBs are send back to Utah for refurbishing;
the orbiters are sent to Palmdale for their mid-life
maintenance/upgrade; and there's probably an impressive number of
Rockwell/Thiokol/you-name-it employees involved directly in shuttle
operations.  But NASA remains the maitre d'oeuvre, probably for the
reasons stated above.

--
Francois Yergeau ([e-mail]) |  De gustibus et coloribus
Centre d'Optique, Photonique et Laser    |  non disputandum
Departement de Physique                  |          -proverbe scolastique
Universite Laval, Ste-Foy, QC, Canada    |

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

Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 21:11:20 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle a research tool (was: Re: Let's be more specific)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Francois Yergeau) writes:

>NASA could consider leasing shuttle services if a provider were available;

Providers are available. NASA has turned them down.

>but there's none, and with orbiters at $1.5 billion a pop,
>plus gigadollar infrastructure,

1. Don't compare govenrment costs with private ones. The private ones
   will be far lower.
2. Getting money isn't a problem if the market is there.

>air.  With shuttle costs at their astronomical levels (even if reduced
>30% by private industry's magic wand), NASA would likely be the major,
>if not only, customer.

They sell the services to NASA. So what?

>A would-be shuttle service provider would want
>a multi-year commitment for a fairly large number of launches before
>investing,

Like what DoD did with Titan IV or NASA did to build Shuttle in the
first place. Not a problem, it happens all the time.

>today is that either i) NASA flies the shuttles, or ii) they stay on
>the ground.

Since NASA has explicitly refused to even think about proposals, this
statement cannot be considered accurate.

   Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------107 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: Thu, 07 Jan 93 20:35:33 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Who can launch antisats? (was Re: DoD launcher use)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doug Mohney) writes:
>
>>>Attacking a US carrier battle group is going to raise tensions
>>>a bit anyway, don't you think?
>
>>Use of one or more nuclear weapons is going to invite an escalation which the
>>attacking force will not wish to solicit, due to the stigma attached to them.
>
>Oh?  Suppose you see two headlines in the New York Times.
>
>One says, "6000 sailors perish in sinking of US carrier group."
>
>The other says, "Nuclear weapon used to disable unmanned satellite."
>
>Which would set your blood to boiling more?

"Well, if they're crazy enough to use them in orbit, when will the get around
to using them on us?"

You're being silly. If you're going to treat the nuke as "just another
weapon" you don't need the Clancyesque plot. Just nuke the friggin' carrier
and be done with it. It's only full-scale war, after all, right Ed?

>>It is likely we have a quick-launch replacement capability, either through
>>air breathing mysterious aircraft or (more likely) derivative ballistic
>>missile capability, on land and at sea.
>
>The US Navy considered coverting one Poseidon missile on each
>submarine to a satellite launcher, however this was never carried
>out.  (Unless it was done in secret.)  However, no US SLBM or ICBM
>has the payload capacity to replace a large communications or
>reconnaissance satelite.

Of course not, but attacking com-sats is a different problem than attacking a
low-orbit KH-11.

It is not for nothing DARPA has a love with microsats and ways to get them
quickly into orbit. And what DARPA is doing is in the sunshine.

>>Sure it didn't. However, the UN voted to remove Iraqi troops by the use of
>>force and thereby did so accordingly.
>
>No, the US voted to remove Iraqi troops and the United States did so
>accordingly.  (With help from some of our allies, yes, but no serious
>observer suggests that we would have failed without that help.)

Of course. So why did we get the UN to rubber stamp it first? C'mon Ed, stop
helping me out here. We really didn't NEED to get the UN's blessing, did we? So
why did George Bush spend all that time on the phone calling up his world
leader buddies soliciting support ?

>Besides, your claim was that "international public opinion" would
>*prevent* nations like Iraq from making hostile acts.

Prevent a degree of hostile acts. Why didn't the Iraqis use chemical weapons
against allied forces in Desert Storm?

                    I have talked to Ehud, and lived.
  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 019
------------------------------