Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_1/V16NO183.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 32KB

Date: Mon, 15 Feb 93 05:08:20
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #183
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Mon, 15 Feb 93       Volume 16 : Issue 183

Today's Topics:
                     "Late 'L5' Society (3 msgs)
                       anonymous IS accountable
                  A response from Anonymous (2 msgs)
                        Clinton Email Address
               Earth: (Was "A response from Anonymous")
                          hilarious (2 msgs)
                          HST repair mission
                          ICE Ship (2 msgs)
                   leading-edge anonymity (2 msgs)
                  Old Tech, why do we need new tech?
                       Pictures of Mars wanted
                  SSTO - SDI Budgets (Was SSTO news)
                              SSTO news

    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, 14 Feb 1993 14:29:20 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: "Late 'L5' Society
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Gary
>Coffman) writes:
>> The late L5 Society killed this one. It was never ratified by the US.
>
>Sorry, Gary, but the L5 Society isn't "late," just renamed to The
>National Space Society when it combined with the former Space Studies
>Institute.  We're still kicking.

I thought "swallowed" was the operative word with respect to L5 and NSS.
At least the chapter structure still exists.

Gary

--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |

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

Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 18:37:01 GMT
From: Tom A Baker <[e-mail]>
Subject: "Late 'L5' Society
Newsgroups: sci.space

@lub001.lamar.edu writes:
>
>(Gary Coffman) writes:
>>
>> The late L5 Society killed this one. It was never ratified by the US.
>
>Sorry, Gary, but the L5 Society isn't "late," just renamed to The
>National Space Society when it combined with the former Space Studies
>Institute.  We're still kicking.

That turns out not to be the case...

NSS and L5 merged around 1985, and retained the NSS name.  It is a
collection of "chapters" around the country (at least one in Mexico)
that "promote the eventual establishment of a spacefaring civilation".
It tends to focus on educating the public.

Space Studies Institute is the late Gerard O'Neil's organization (may
his beloved soul rest in peace) out of Princeton University in New
Jersey.  It is an engineering concern that pushes for space
colonization, and does fantastic work in mass drivers and other
nuts-and-bolts designs we'll need up there.  Still very overwhelmingly
alive.

Both deserving your support!  (<- my opinion)

--------------------------------------.--------------------------------------
 Net - [e-mail]  __     | National Space Society is a nonprofit
uucp - uunet!world!tombaker   /  \  / | public organization dedicated to
 BIX - tombaker              /  O  /  | promoting the eventual establishment
 AOL - [e-mail]      /  \__/   | of a spacefaring civilization.
______________________________________|______________________________________

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

Date: 14 Feb 1993 18:38:47 GMT
From: Jon Leech <[e-mail]>
Subject: "Late 'L5' Society
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
|> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Gary
|> Coffman) writes:
|> > The late L5 Society killed this one. It was never ratified by the US.
|>
|> Sorry, Gary, but the L5 Society isn't "late," just renamed to The
|> National Space Society when it combined with the former Space Studies
|> Institute.  We're still kicking.

    Sorry, Dale, but the L-5 Society is as dead as a doornail - if you
consider the founding goals of the group important. Furthermore, L-5 merged
with Von Braun's National Space Institute, NOT the Space Studies Institute.
SSI continues doing privately funded research to support *real* space
colonization, rather than lobbying Washington to fund aerospace subsidy
projects like Fred.

    Jon
    __@/

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

Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 16:20:24 GMT
From: 8 February 1993 <[e-mail]>
Subject: anonymous IS accountable
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.privacy,news.admin.policy

[e-mail] (Dave Ratcliffe) claims
that anonymous postings are like CB
radio because of the unaccountability of
the users of the system.
This is FALSE because the server does in
fact keep record of the correspondence
between the real names and the anonymized
IDS.

The analogy would be more apt to say that
it is like caller ID where you capture the
phone number of the anonymous caller.

To summarize: anonymous postings ARE
accountable and, in my experience,
responsible.  That is, at least I will
respond to reasonable exchange of ideas.

The ones who fear accountable anonymity
are the net thugs who are used to
extortion and intimidation of sysadmins.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to [e-mail].
Due to the double-blind system, any replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to [e-mail].
*IMPORTANT server security update*, mail to [e-mail] for details.

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

Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 01:47:46 GMT
From: Robert Mah <[e-mail]>
Subject: A response from Anonymous
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,alt.privacy,comp.org.eff.talk,sci.space,sci.astro

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (8 February 1993) writes:

 > Why is this?  Certainly most readers are adult and are able to hit 'N'

Why is it that some people are afraid to take responsibility for what
they say?  As freedoms increase, so must the level of responsibility
taken on by those who use that freedom -- otherwise chaos reigns.

 > I think the fundamental issue here is control.

In my view, the fundamental issue is taking responsibility for your
own actions.  Personally, I think personal responsibility is a good
thing.

 > Anonymous postings prevent just this kind of intimidation.

While this is a valid point, I think it can be addressed by other means.

 > The settling of cyberspace will require new habits of thought from
 > the hierarchicalists: thoughts as expressed as postings are to be
 > judged by content and internal merit, if any, rather than on the
 > trappings of affiliations or other hoopla or fanfare.

Studies have shown (refer to "Connections" by Sproull and Kiesler) that
"cyberspace", in general, does just what you suggest.  We don't need
anonymous postings to get there.

 > The reader acknowledges the copyright of the original message remains with
 > an8785. Copyright (C) 1993 an8785.  All Rights Reserved.  Unauthorized

 [ lots of inane pseudo-legal babble deleted ]

 > case of prosecution or litigation for whatever reason. To unconditionally
 > agree to all the above conditions, press any key.

Saying something don't make it so.  While the laws governing copyright of
electronic messages have not stabilized yet, spouting off nonsense means
absolutely zilch.

Cheers,
Rob
--
[----------------------------------------------------------------------]
[ Robert S. Mah   | Voice: 212-947-6507   | "Every day an adventure,   ]
[ One Step Beyond | EMail: [e-mail] |  every moment a challenge" ]
[----------------------------------------------------------------------]

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

Date: 14 Feb 1993 16:21:33 +0100
From: Matthias Urlichs <[e-mail]>
Subject: A response from Anonymous
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,alt.privacy,comp.org.eff.talk,sci.space,sci.astro

In news.admin.policy, article <[e-mail]>,
  [e-mail] (Robert Mah) writes:
> In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (8 February 1993) writes:
>  [ intimidation et al. ]
>
> While this is a valid point, I think it can be addressed by other means.
>
Such as?

>  > The settling of cyberspace will require new habits of thought from
>  > the hierarchicalists: thoughts as expressed as postings are to be
>  > judged by content and internal merit, if any, rather than on the
>  > trappings of affiliations or other hoopla or fanfare.
>
> Studies have shown (refer to "Connections" by Sproull and Kiesler) that
> "cyberspace", in general, does just what you suggest.  We don't need
> anonymous postings to get there.
>
Yes we do. The problem is that this isn't cyberspace per se, this is
cyberspace embedded in a real world with real-world restrictions and,
let's face it, a lot of control freaks who want to impose their world
view on others and who, unfortunately, may be in control of your future.

If I have the choice to talk about my sexual preferences, drug
preferences, political world view, et al., either under a pseudonym
or not at all, what would you have me do? Tell my boss to please
stop firing any admitted homosexual employee he can find out about?
Read up on Colorado's Amendment 2 to find out why that isn't working right
now.

NB: Please take this discussion out of sci.space and sci.astro.

--
System restarting, wait...
--
Matthias Urlichs  --  [e-mail] -- [e-mail]   /(o\
Humboldtstrasse 7 -- 7500 Karlsruhe 1 -- Germany  --  [phone]     \o)/

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

Date: 14 Feb 1993 02:58:17 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Clinton Email Address
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

There is a longish memo out at work stating that Clinton's email address
is sort of bogus.  The compuserve address really is the personal email
address to one of his staff who has been assigned with setting up a way
to distribute official statements via email.

Aparrently something is in the works by which the public can email the
President, but it has not yet been set up, and if you mail this guy, you
are only making his life more miserable.  Besides, as it it his own
personal compuseve mailbox, he can't get more than 150 messages a day.

Just so you know.  If you are interested in the entire text of the memo
I will try to dig it up on the nets but I really don't want to type it
all in, it was several pages long.  The hapless aide's name is Jock Gill,
BTW.

--
If you blow fire against the wind, take care to not get the smoke in your eyes.
      Big & Growly Dragon-monster        |        [e-mail]
   --------> shari brooks <--------      |    [e-mail]
                      The above opinions are solely my own.

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

Date: Sun, 14 Feb 93 09:45:07 -0800
From: Bob Van Cleef <[e-mail]>
Subject: Earth: (Was "A response from Anonymous")
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,alt.privacy,comp.org.eff.talk,sci.space,sci.astro

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert Mah) writes:
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (8 February 1993) writes:

> > Why is this?  Certainly most readers are adult and are able to hit 'N'

>Why is it that some people are afraid to take responsibility for what
>they say?  As freedoms increase, so must the level of responsibility
>taken on by those who use that freedom -- otherwise chaos reigns.

To take a look at one perspective on "secrets vs privacy" check out
the novel "Earth" by David Brin. In it he postulates a world where
hiding information is not only socially unacceptable, it is illegal.

Definately a different perspective from what most people hold today,
but a possibly logical projection of the trends that we see on the net.

Bob VC

--
><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>     \|/     <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><
Bob Van Cleef              Peace -0- be      [e-mail]
The Land of Garg BBS        unto /|\ you           BBS [phone]
><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>      |      <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><

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

Date: Sat, 13 Feb 93 10:03:38 PST
From: Jason Cooper <[e-mail]>
Subject: hilarious
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.privacy

[e-mail] (david niebuhr) writes:

> Better yet, why not ignore anything from anon.penet.fi regardless of whose
> name is given.
>
> Dave

Oh, that's REALLY MATURE.  Remind you of the child that plugs his ears,
saying "I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!"?  In doing so, you are stopping yourself
from from hearing many OTHER, possibly important, things, at the same
time...

        `                                      Jason Cooper

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

Date: Sat, 13 Feb 93 15:21:53 PST
From: Michael Cooper <[e-mail]>
Subject: hilarious
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.privacy

[e-mail] (david niebuhr) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tesuji) write
> >X-Anon-To:sci.space,sci.astro,alt.privacy
> >
> >The response the Challenger transcript has gotten
> >has been hilarious.
> >
> >If you guys can't joke about bone cancer, childhood leukemia, and facing
> >certain horrifying death, then you guys don't have
> >the perspective to call yourself adults.
> >
> >Get a life.  Get *seven*.  Ha ha.
>
> I personally don't find anything funny in bone cancer, childhood
> leukemia or a horrifying death.  This person has a very sick mind
> and should be locked away until his/her mental processes are brought
> under control.
>
> Better yet, why not ignore anything from anon.penet.fi regardless of whose
> name is given.
>
> Dave
>
> --
> Dave Niebuhr      Internet: [e-mail] / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl
> Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973  (516)-282-3093

I don't see anything wrong with thinking lightly about depressing topics.
Certainly nothing meritting a closed-minded comment like saying that such
a person should be locked up until his or her mental processes are
brought under control.

Granted it was a bad thing to post, but I wouldn't say anyone should be
punnished for the posting of it.  If it offends you and you have not got
the common sense to stop reading it where it offends you, perhaps you
should have a psychiatric evaluation.

That is one of the wonderful things about the net.  If someone is telling
you something, it is difficult to stop listenning.  But if you are
reading something, it is quite a simple matter to stop reading that
something if you do not approve of it.

                                                        Michael Cooper

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

Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 14:27:49 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: HST repair mission
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:
[Re: Hubble Jr.]
>   The solar panels and gyros have already been redesigned, and will be
>   part of the repair, so I don't see how that would change things very
>   much for a HST Junior. Same with the software, to a lesser degree.
>   I haven't heard of problems with HST's avionics, but the SAA is always
>   going to be there, no matter what electronics are aboard.

I knew about the redesigned solar panels, but I thought they were just
going to change out the gyros, not put in a different design. As to the
SAA, I bet vacuum tubes wouldn't mind it. :-) (Actually that's only a
half smiley, look up GE's TIMs program.) As to software, I don't know
which instrument is responsible for fine pointing, but if it is one
that is left off of Jr, then some redesign is definitely required.

Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |

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

Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 12:40:35 GMT
From: Nick Szabo <[e-mail]>
Subject: ICE Ship
Newsgroups: sci.space

>In article <stephens.729190402@gdim>, [e-mail] (Dave Stephenson) writes:
>>
>> One day reinforced ice ships will cruise the depths of interplanetary
>> space.
>>
>> If on its maiden voyage from Mars to Saturn a mighty Pykrete liner of
>> space runs into a metallic asteroid the media headlines of the day will
>> broadcast the sad news that:
>>
>> THE ICE SHIP TITANIC HAS STRUCJK AN IRON BURG AND BEEN LOST!!

Heh! :-)

Great to see the ice rocket meme spreading.  I introduced the idea on
sci.space a couple of years ago, with some inspiration from Phil Fraering
who got me thinking about how the sun can naturally perturb the orbits of
comets by causing directed comet jets.  (Anything other references to
the idea, earlier or later, greatly appreciated).

The main benefits of using ice rockets are:

* Zero tankage factor.  Even if we use up 90% of the ice as
  propellant, the remaining 10% is usable payload, not tank.
  Thus, ice rockets can return massive quantities of ice,
  organics, etc. from known Jupiter-family comets to high
  Earth orbit, despite the high delta-v.
* Choice of solar or nuclear thermal power.  The deployable mirror
  for a solar thermal rocket would be similar to the reflector
  currently being tested by the Russians.
* Low thrust, so that payload/rocket mass ratio is very high (about
  five orders of magnitude greater than rocket landing or taking off
  from Moon, for example).  Because of this and the zero tankage
  factor, the mass of rocket that must be launched from Earth is
  extremely low; we might be able to use today's rockets at
  today's prices, though of course SSTO and an electric upper
  stage would be quite an improvement.

The main markets appear to be providing propellant, structural
materials and shielding for spacecraft in GEO orbits and above.
It would be especially beneficial for any astronaut missions beyond
LEO, and could cut the cost of Mars astronaut missions by 90%.
The strongest tether materials (Kevlar, graphite epoxy, etc.) can
be made from cometary volatile organics, with advanced processing
techniques (cf. my old post "Microchemical Reactors for Space
Development".)  In the meantime, biotech vats and simpler chemical
reactors can make a wide variety of products, including microgravity
mfg. exports to Earth.

The main engineering variable is the mass ratio of product:equipment
for the machine to convert cometary "frozen mud" to pure water
(or ammonia or methane) ice rocket.  To be economical, the equipment
needs a ratio of about 10,000:1/year, which is a little higher than an
oil well but much lower than a water well.  The main technological
constraint is the ability to automate the plant -- at current prices
astronauts are several orders of magnitude too expensive; a single
mission should cost between $1-$5 billion to make money, not the
$400+ billion for a NASA-style Mars mission.  (Astronaut travel
becomes much easier after the comet volatiles become available
for shielding, propellant, life support etc., but we have to do
the first mission without them!)

>And god help you if you lost control of the ICE SHIP, imagine if it entred the
>atmosphere, Hiroshima with out radiation..

Ice is quite a bit freindlier than rock or metal on the Earth's
environment.  Several independent calculations have confirmed that
the Tungaska object was rock, not ice; 100,000 tons of ice would have
exploded too high in the atmosphere for the shock wave to reach the
ground.  Ice rockets can be made small; with a sufficiently miniaturized
thermal rocket they can be mass produced the size of large pine
trunks, posing zero danger to Earth's environment during flyby or

capture into Earth orbit.  For more details on "environmental impact",
cf. my old post "The Safety of Earth Flybies with Large Objects".


--
Nick Szabo                     [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 15:29:11 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: ICE Ship
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:
>
>>In article <stephens.729190402@gdim>, [e-mail] (Dave Stephenson) writes:
>>>
>>> One day reinforced ice ships will cruise the depths of interplanetary
>>> space.
>>>
>>> If on its maiden voyage from Mars to Saturn a mighty Pykrete liner of
>>> space runs into a metallic asteroid the media headlines of the day will
>>> broadcast the sad news that:
>>>
>>> THE ICE SHIP TITANIC HAS STRUCJK AN IRON BURG AND BEEN LOST!!
>
>Heh! :-)
>
>Great to see the ice rocket meme spreading.  I introduced the idea on
>sci.space a couple of years ago, with some inspiration from Phil Fraering
>who got me thinking about how the sun can naturally perturb the orbits of
>comets by causing directed comet jets.  (Anything other references to
>the idea, earlier or later, greatly appreciated).
>
>The main benefits of using ice rockets are:
>
>* Zero tankage factor.  Even if we use up 90% of the ice as
>  propellant, the remaining 10% is usable payload, not tank.
>  Thus, ice rockets can return massive quantities of ice,
>  organics, etc. from known Jupiter-family comets to high
>  Earth orbit, despite the high delta-v.

I don't think this could be called an ice spaceship. That has conotations
of a vessel carrying a cargo, not of the vessel *being* the cargo. I
think this falls more under the heading of (minor) planetary engineering.
What you're doing is changing the orbit of an existing ice planetoid
using native reaction materials. If the materials are sufficiently pure,
it would be reasonable to use a steam rocket. If they aren't, a mass
driver would be better since it doesn't care *what* it throws away,
just how much it masses. You could then process only what was left that
was useful at the end of the journey. That would probably result in a
severalfold reduction in processing requirements.

If orbital transfer time is long, as would be expected in the general
case, you might be able to do processing in flight and wind up delivering
*only* processed material at destination. This would likely be the most
efficient case.

Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |

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

Date: 13 Feb 93 23:54:59 GMT
From: Dave Ratcliffe <frackit!dave>
Subject: leading-edge anonymity
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.privacy

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Steve Gardner) writes:
>     We know they died because of incompetence and political favor
>     currying at NASA.

Do we? Can you cite any reports or investigations that say exactly that?
Or is that your intuitive gut knowledge of "the facts"?

>    Some people speak in hushed tones about the space
>     program and of astronauts as if they were some sort of ubermensch
>     and more deserving of respect and awe than the rest of us.  Get a
>     life trekkies. Grow up and get off the space kick.  Its over.
>     The great manned space dream-adventure is over. You can wake up now
>     and find a new topic to    go ballistic over.

What a crock. You oughtta get down on your knees and thank whatever God
you believe in for the "space kick". It's responsible for more
technological advances than you can imagine. The chances are very good
that you never go through a day in your miserable existance without
using SOMETHING that results directly or indirectly from the space
program and all the research and developement programs it spawned.

BTW, here's a free clue.... people who believe in and support the space
program aren't necessarily "trekkies". But then you knew that, you were
just trying to be cute weren't you.

That's all. You may have a cookie now.



--
 vogon1!compnect!frackit![e-mail]            |  Dave Ratcliffe  |
 - or - ..uunet!wa3wbu!frackit!dave                      |  Sys. <*> Admin. |
                                                         | Harrisburg,  Pa. |

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

Date: Sat, 13 Feb 93 10:10:03 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: leading-edge anonymity
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.privacy

[e-mail] writes:

> Anonymous discussion of scientific issues leads to bad science.
>
>
> Aaron Christopher
> Ball State Univ.
>
>

That's certainly a matter of opinion.

                                                Jason Cooper

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

Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 15:01:09 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Old Tech, why do we need new tech?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>Doing repairs and such.. Why do we need a shuttle?
>
>Why not just send a newly made Apollo/Gemini/Mercury (nely made not a refurbish
>of an old one) on top of the right sized rocket and send it up to the
>sattelite to do the repairs..

Well OK, let's suppose we have a LEO satellite in need of repair, forget
GEO birds, costs too much to get manned vehicles there. Now if the satellite
component in need of replacement is small, and if the tools to do the job
are small, and if the work can be done with a free floating EVA, all big
ifs, then spam in a can would be cheaper than a Shuttle mission *solely*
dedicated to the satellite repair. But if the Shuttle is already in the
neighborhood doing something else, using Shuttle could be cheaper since
the incremental cost would be low. Shuttle usually is doing many things
on a given mission so it can spread it's costs around. Spam in can has
such limited room and payload that it's normally a one shot mission.

For cases where free floating repair is difficult or impossible, the
majority of cases so far, you need the ability to capture and anchor
the satellite so you can work on it without both of you spinning out
of control. This leaves spam in a can out of the picture for most
larger satellites like HST. For minisats and microsats, what payload on
board is so unique and so valuable that simply launching a replacement
satellite wouldn't be cheaper than mounting a spam in the can mission
to fix it? Launching a 100 kilo satellite is much cheaper than launching
at 10 ton manned capsule. Likely in most cases to be enough cheaper to
pay for the construction of the replacement satellite.

>Why not just use the tech we have for now, stuff that can do the job and nicely
>enough is old stuff (tech) and therefore cheaper, known, the infrastructure
>is there already. Why re-invent the wheel?

Because the very old tech is still too expensive, even when it's cheaper
than the merely old tech of Shuttle. For the kind of things you want to do,
you need systems as cheap to operate as Allen's optimistic figures for DC-1.
Today satellite repair only makes sense as an incidental part of a larger
mission, or for very special, very expensive satellites like HST. With
*really* cheap manned access to space, about two orders of magnitude
cheaper than old spam in a can, routine satellite retrievals or repairs
become more interesting.

Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |

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

Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 17:40:57 GMT
From: "Robert Chenina [Chemie]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pictures of Mars wanted
Newsgroups: sci.space

    Hello Earth!
    I'm looking for some pictures from the Viking mission. The pictures
    are details obout the region called _Cydonia Mensae_ (approx. 40.9N,
    9.45W) and referenced as:
         35A72, 70A13, 673B56, 753A33.

    Any help will be appreciated,
        Robert
 --
  ****************************************************************************
  * Robert Chenina, Dpt. of Physical Chemistry, University of Kaiserslautern *
  *          Erwin-Schroedinger-Str, D-6750 Kaiserslautern, Germany          *
  *             Phone: + 49 631 205 2534, Fax: + 49 631 205 3200             *
  *                       Email: [e-mail]                      *
  ****************************************************************************

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

Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 18:26:29 GMT
From: Tom A Baker <[e-mail]>
Subject: SSTO - SDI Budgets (Was SSTO news)
Newsgroups: sci.space

(Phil G. Fraering) writes:
>
>[e-mail] writes:
>>
>>Now I know that SDIO is the sponsor of DC-X.  Is that $3.5B a close
>>approximation of DC's budget?
>
>It's a close approximation of SDIO's entire budget. DC-X's budget was
>~70 million dollars (or is it 40 million?).

I wish.  It's whole TWO-year budget has been $60 million,
or $30 million per year.

If they go ahead with Phase Three's Orbital Prototype, THEN it could
cost $500 million a year, over four years.  (The *cheapest* shuttle
flight runs $500 million, and they go up to a full billion.)

tombaker
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              DC-X - The Rocket that thinks it's an Airliner!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 13 Feb 93 17:56:36
From: [e-mail]
Subject: SSTO news
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

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

   In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:

   |Isn't this back to front? After all MD could build their own
   |test stands!
   |Should we now count the entire construction and operation cost
   |of NASA static test stands against DC development, or just the
   |marginal cost? ;-)

   THat's silly.  only guys with a political agenda use marginal costing.
   for real analysis,  you want to add the depriciated basis cost for the

It's ok, it was a joke! See recent flamewars over whether shuttle
costs should be countes as marginal, depreciated less sunk costs or
total depreciated costs going back to Goddard!

   time period, plus the time rated unit operation cost, plus any variable
   operating cost.  Given that most of NASA's test stands are dated
   from apollo,  i don't think there is much of a depriciation, but
   let's say they run for two months of static testing,  one could bill
   2 months of costs for the center times the percentage size of the stand
   to teh center.  plus any cost of consumables.
   I'd assume NASA maintains the center for testing a number of rocket proto
   types.

Now, why should NASA just charge costs? Wouldn't a sensible
pricing scheme be to figure how much it would cost MD to build
a comparable facility and set the rate at just below that?
:-)

|  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 183
------------------------------