Date: Fri, 26 Feb 93 05:04:31 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #227 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Fri, 26 Feb 93 Volume 16 : Issue 227 Today's Topics: ALTERNATIVE Heavy Element Creation in Universe Biosphere help needed! Interested? Flight sim books Image Processing Leads Neil Armstrong Rocketeer Space Technology Investor/Commercial Space News #21 Turpedo Tube in Reverse Missle Launchers. UN Space Agency? Welcome to the Space Digest!! Please send your messages to "space@isu.isunet.edu", and (un)subscription requests of the form "Subscribe Space " to one of these addresses: listserv@uga (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle (THENET), or space-REQUEST@isu.isunet.edu (Internet). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 24 Feb 93 02:12:43 GMT From: no one of consequence Subject: ALTERNATIVE Heavy Element Creation in Universe Newsgroups: sci.space Just when you thought it was safe to take him out of your killfile... -- /----------------------------------------------------------------------\ |Patrick Chester wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu| |If the Earth is our Cradle, then why are we still here? | |Everything your side says is Truth. All else is Propaganda.... | |I only speak for myself. If I *did* speak for UT, would anyone listen?| \----------------------------------------------------------------------/ ------------------------------ Date: 23 Feb 93 23:34:32 GMT From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu Subject: Biosphere help needed! Interested? Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space,sci.astro Hello I have a friend who has an organization trying to design and build a Biosphere as a non-profit organization. If you would liek to help or have info on how a biosphere works and such.. please send email to me or to FSRRC@acad3.Alaska.edu == Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 20:42:09 GMT From: Lee Moore Subject: Flight sim books Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.dsp,comp.graphics,comp.lang.idl,comp.lang.idl-pvwave,sci.space,sci.image.processing,comp.soft-sys.matlab >> Can anyone point out some good (any) books on flight simulation? Try: Rolfe, J.M., and K.J. Staples, eds. "Flight Simulation", Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. ISBN 0-521-30649-3 . Lee Moore -- Webster Research Center, Xerox Corp. -- Voice: +1 (716) 422 2496 Arpa Internet: Moore.Wbst128@Xerox.Com ------------------------------ Date: 24 Feb 93 05:04:10 GMT From: Thanos Karras Subject: Image Processing Leads Newsgroups: sci.space I am looking for any leads in getting a job as an image processing engineer in a space relating project. I have four years experience in inventing, designing, and maintaining image processing algorithms. Some of the aspects of my work include segmentation, motion analysis, application of statistical and morphological operators, image enhancement, etc. Any leads would be truly appreciated. Please e-mail any responses at thanos@reef.cis.ufl.edu Thanks Thanos Karras. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1993 04:54:00 GMT From: apryan@vax1.tcd.ie Subject: Neil Armstrong Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro In article , turner@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (George Wm Turner) writes: > > > >> Does anyone know the current whereabouts of Neil Armstrong? >> What does he do these days? > > > last i heard he was an engineering professor at the > University of Cincinnati, Ohio. Ah, at last a reply! No one replied with the great man's whereabouts, can he have disappeared off the surface of the planet again? Please email any current status you have at all. I will explain reason in email. -Tony Ryan, "Astronomy & Space", new International magazine, available from: Astronomy International, P.O.Box 2888, Dublin 1, Ireland. 6 issues (one year sub.): UK 10.00 pounds, US$20.00 (surface, add US$8.00). ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1993 01:21:22 GMT From: Dave Rickel Subject: Rocketeer Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1029353.21435.2805@kcbbs.gen.nz>, Russell_Mcmahon@kcbbs.gen.nz (Russell Mcmahon) writes: |> H2O2 I believe with an Isp of around 100 (or less) and a flight time |> of around 20 seconds. Sutton says that the theoretical Isp of 90% H2O2 is 147 seconds. I don't know what the actual Isp of the Bell rocket pack was. david rickel drickel@sjc.mentorg.com ------------------------------ Date: 23 Feb 93 12:48:40 From: Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org Subject: Space Technology Investor/Commercial Space News #21 Newsgroups: sci.space This is number twenty-one in an irregular series on commercial space activities. The commentaries included are my thoughts on these developments. This column starts what will be a recurrent feature in tracking space-related investments through the establishment of three stock indexes covering space investments. The status of these indexes will be reported periodically in this column. CONTENTS: 1- ANNOUNCING THE SPACE TECHNOLOGY INDEXES 2- JOINT VENTURE TO PRODUCE SAT BROADCAST RECEIVERS IN CHINA 3- HUGHES LANDS CORE PROGRAMMING FOR DIRECTV BROADCAST SATS 4- RUSSIAN "TDRS" SYSTEM NOW IN COMMERCIAL USE FOR EAST-WEST COMM 5- AMROC SUCCESSFULLY TEST FIRES HYBRID ROCKET ENGINE 6- RUSSIANS CLAIM U.S. MISSILE CONTROLS STIFLE SPACE VENTURES 7- LOCKHEED AND KRUNICHEV FINALIZE DEAL 8- FOR SALE: ADVERTISEMENTS ON US LAUNCH VEHICLE FINAL NOTES ARTICLES -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1- ANNOUNCING THE SPACE TECHNOLOGY INDEXES [The following section is a commentary.] Over the past couple of years I've been tracking commercial space firms and identifying where and how individual investors could invest in space businesses. However, there is very little published data to indicate if space investments are good investments in comparison to other investments. To partially remedy this situation, this issue of Space Technology Investor/Commercial Space News marks the start of regular reporting on three stock indexes designed to track portfolios of common stock of firms involved in space related businesses. These stocks are all publicly traded and available to individuals. I should also point out that talking about space related stocks and investments is neither a solicitation to buy these stocks, nor advice to buy such stocks. It is only provided as information for interested parties. Before making any investment, research the investment and be aware of the risks associated with it. If you are interested in any of these stocks, call or write for their prospectus and their annual report and then read them closely, crank the financials, and look at the company and its market before investing your money. Be aware of the risks involved with any investment. Many of these stocks are volatile investments, and their prices (and the value of your investment) may fluctuate wildly. The three indexes shown are: The Space Technology Index -- Comprising a weighted portfolio of 48 common stocks which are significant players in the space market. Each stock price is weighted by the percentage of space revenues in the company compared to overall sales. This index is primarily comprised of stocks of US-based firms, but also includes stocks of European, Japanese, and Canadian firms. For non-US firms, the index is adjusted to be denominated in US $. The Commercial Space Technology Index -- Comprising a weighted portfolio of the same 47 common stocks, each weighted by the percentage of commercial space revenues compared to overall sales. This index is intended to separate out the effects of government space spending from purely commercial revenues. The Space Technology Pure Play Index -- Comprising a portfolio of 9 US common stocks which were judged to be "pure plays" for space activities, in that space activities were judged to be the predominate business activity of the firm. It should also be noted that within these stocks approximately 80% of the revenues are revenues from commercial space revenues. As a point of interest, a portfolio of 100 shares of each of these firm's stocks would cost $18,087.50 as of 30 Jan 1993 (not including broker's fees, taxes, or dividends). To help judge the progress of these portfolios, a comparison to the Standard & Poors 500 common stock index (the "S&P 500") will be also made. As other investment opportunities are identified, they will be added to the indexes. Firms currently included in the index were chosen to represent the full range of space activities, ranging from large NASA and DoD contractors to small equipment manufacturers, and to cover every aspect of the space program-- they include (among others) communications services, satellite manufacturers, Earth observation data providers, and launch services providers. The indices should track space business results fairly closely. There's about $50 B annual in space activities where individual investors might be able to participate -- the US, Europe, and Japan. The Space Technology Index tracks about 28% of that space activity directly, and tracks another 5-10% indirectly. This is a sufficiently large market fraction that there should be good correlation. In the commercial space market, the Commercial Space Technology Index directly tracks about 50% of the US commercial market activities directly, again indicating there should be good correlation. The decision to use revenues to track the space market rather than earnings is a conscious decision. Sales rather than earnings were chosen since many space firms are still in the process of building up their business base and plow a lot of their free cash flow back into the business as R&D or expansion. This would reduce their earnings, yielding a low index value while masking the health or growth of the industry. The indices track the market valuation of space sales, as represented by weighted stock price. Index results as of January (with a look back over 1992) shows the Space Technology Index did quite a bit better than the market as a whole. The Commercial Space Technology Index did somewhat better in 1992 than the overall space index, but is lagging somewhat in the first month of 1993. This may be an artifact of the valuation methodology, which may allow some "bleed through" of price runup in stocks with diverse revenues. Note the Space Technology Pure Play Index also did quite well, and tracks the other two indexes pretty closely. INDEX RESULTS FOR JANUARY Beginning Beginning 30 Jan 1992 1993 1993 ------- -------- -------- S&P 500 416 436 (+4.7%) 439 (+0.7%) Space Tech Index 267 304 (+13.6%) 348 (+14.7%) Comm'l Space Tech Index 167 194 (+16.3%) 210 (+7.0%) Space Tech Pure Plays 147 169 (+15.4%) 183 (+7.9%) 2- JOINT VENTURE TO PRODUCE SAT BROADCAST RECEIVERS IN CHINA A new joint venture is planning to produce receiving equipment for digital satellite broadcasting services in China. The joint venture group reportedly includes Toshiba and Mitsui Corp of Japan, General Instrument Corp. of the U.S., and Star TV and a sat TV station based in Hong Kong. The new venture is planned to be headquartered in Shenzhen, China and is reported to represent an investment of $100 M by the partners. [Commentary: Satellite receivers are becoming a big international business area. I note this specific event because it involves a rather diverse set of participants -- Japan, US, and East-Asian broadcasters. Production of products in China can be seen as move to use China's relatively low wage rate to try to gain a cost advantage, but it also has a significant strategic advantage of being within the largest potential market for sales of satellite receivers (estimated to be a potential market for up to 500 MILLION receivers of different types). China's State Statistical Bureau reportedly estimates about 11 million households in China are now receiving satellite TV of some kind. This is a good example of some of the market moves being made in the rapidly growing sector of East-Asian satellite communications. Besides market growth, it is also interesting to note some potential social changes here as well. From recent events, the previous barriers to the inflow of outside information to China are being "shattered" as satellite dishes are starting to appear in many Chinese households, capable of receiving foreign broadcasts. Under current laws passed by the Chinese Communist Party, it is illegal for Chinese citizens to watch foreign TV broadcasts, but enforcement of this ban is being given a very low priority by the government. Part of the lax enforcement may be economic -- the government owns one-third of AsiaSat, which leases transponders to Star TV through the China International Trust and Investment Corp. Similarly, the Chinese government is a primary owner of the APT Satellite Co. Ltd., also based in Hong Kong, which is planning two new satellites in 1994. Shutting out reception of these satellite broadcasts would affect the earnings or future earnings from by the Chinese government itself. There is an interesting dynamic here -- the self interest of the government to maintain its earnings from this business venture, versus control of the influx of outside information. By buying into the satellite broadcast ventures in this region, the government of China can maintain some measure of control of them, but it is also encouraging the development of an infrastructure that can also provide sources of independent outside sources. An interesting approach ... ] 3- HUGHES LANDS CORE PROGRAMMING FOR DIRECTV BROADCAST SATS Hughes Communications has announced it has signed Paramount Picture and the Disney Channel to provide programs for their DirecTV satellite broadcasting venture. The exact terms of the deal were not disclosed and Eddy Hartenstein, president of DirecTV, claimed negotiations for programming from two other Hollywood studios and with six other cable channels were underway. DirecTV is a $500 M direct-to-home broadcasting venture by Hughes. 2 Hughes HS-601 satellites are planned to provide signals to small 18-inch diameter satellite dish antennas, feeding a Hughes decoder box. Subscribers would pay $ 700 for the setup, and would receive monthly cable-type programming as well as $5 pay-for-view movies and special programming. Hughes believes the service will have 10 million U.S. subscribers by the year 2000 and will generate $1 billion in annual sales. Hughes plans to launch the first satellite this year and, by March 1994 to offer up to 60 movie channels, 30 sporting events and dozens of special-interest programs simultaneously. [Commentary: There are several Direct Broadcast Satellite TV (DBS-TV) ventures in the works for the US. DirecTV is the best developed venture and farthest along from the information I'm seeing. This article is of some importance as it directly addresses the achilles heel of DBS-TV ventures -- programming. While it is an interesting technical problem to design and build a good, cheap satellite receiving system (satellite and ground side), several previous ventures have floundered in that they haven't been able to provide programming that people want to watch. Up to now, Cable TV networks have been rather reluctant to provide programming to such competing services. However, two developments have made this much more likely. First, several cables systems have found that they have been able to make more money by producing and distributing programming than by operating cable systems (the "Discovery Channel" carried on may cable systems, for example, is owned by a consortium of cable systems). Furthermore, in last year's US Congress there was action to re-regulate cable systems, and to place caps on annual price increases to subscribers. This increased the attractiveness of new revenues from increased distribution of signals over a lowered expectation of increasing revenues by increasing prices to existing cable customers. Secondly, a law passed by Congress last year requires networks to make themselves available to emerging competitors, such as DBS-TV ventures. Again, this has encouraged networks and programming sources to move out in getting on board competing ventures, as laggards in a market expected to be fiercely competitive could find themselves having to battle entrenched competition for market share. I expect to see more deals being announced between DBS ventures and programming sources over the next year.] 4- RUSSIAN "TDRS" SYSTEM NOW IN COMMERCIAL USE FOR EAST-WEST COMM The Russian "Western Satellite Data Relay Network", which has a similar function to the US Tracking and Data Relay (TDRS) system is now in use for commercial telecommunications. Transworld Communications, Inc. of Washington DC has opened a service based through the WSDRN comsat at 16 Deg West, and now offers "network quality" full-motion video, audio, and data services to the Eastern US, Central and South America, Europe, Africa, and the Middle East. Primary hubs for the system are through existing international teleports in Washington DC and Moscow, Russia regions, with additional hubs added through 2-meter air- and ground-portable Ku- band stations as needed. This system has been tested through low- level operations between Moscow and the Washington International Teleport in Alexandria, Virginia since August. According to Transworld chairman Richard Millman, the US FCC has issued Transworld a Common Carrier license and a US Earth Station operating authority. [Commentary: Some issues ago in this column, I noted Columbia Communications was planning to use the US TDRS system to provide commercial services through unused TDRS capabilities. Here is a similar venture, based upon the Russian version of TDRS. There are some interesting associations with Transworld. Transworld is reportedly associated with the Russian entities `Mercury' and `Smolsat Association'. Mercury is linked to economic conversion of ex-military Russian space systems, while Smolsat is the commercial agent and overall project coordinator for similar ventures. (Smolsat also manages the commercial version of the Russian ex-military "Gonets" ("Messenger") store/ dump smallsat constellation). And it should be noted one of the three members of Smolsat, and one of the members of "Mercury" is NPO Applied Mechanics of Krasnoyarsk, Russia which manufactured several ex- Soviet military GEO communications systems, including the Gorizont, Express, Ekran, and Raduga series. If you add up the number of satellites in the constellations attributed to NPO Applied Mechanics, there's a pretty significant number there. The Transworld ventures indicate NPO Applied Mechanics is looking to get into the broadcasting and distribution side of the GEO communications business as well as producing satellites. When putting this article together, I ran a search through my database on Columbia Communications. As a comparison, Columbia Communications is marketing similar C-band services through unused transponders on 2 of NASA's TDRS satellites, 1 over each of the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. The Columbia Pacific TDRSS transponders can provide video, telephone and dataservices between the continental U.S. into the major market regions of East Asia north of Hong Kong, including Korea, Taiwan, Eastern China, and Japan. The Atlantic TDRSS used by Columbia allows communications from North America to all of Europe, including Eastern Europe, Scandinavia, and the Mediterranean east to Instanbul. Since opening their doors in 1991, Columbia has racked up an impressive set of market openings, and tied up TRW as a major tenant (TRW is using Columbia to enter the market for trans-Pacific communications, and is a major financial backer of Columbia. It should be noted that TRW built the TRDS satellites, and has filed to enter the commercial communications market both as a satellite manufacturer and as a service provider). Countries which have approved services from Columbia include the US, Belgium, the United Kingdom, Hong-Kong, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, Luxembourg, the Bahamas, France, Israel, Jamaica, Mexico, and Portugal. Part of their market success is they are virtually the only alternative to Intelsat and Inmarsat for international services, which they have been offering at about 20 % lower prices, plus providing higher user schedule flexibility for TV exchanges. This last factor has been important to their market acceptance as TV transmissions eat bandwidth yet are greatly desired by global news services. Existing capabilities (Intelsat) are very much focused on providing for long-term customers, and not "fast breaking" news-type stories, which needed bandwidth on a "need it now" basis. While any service provider would prefer to have their system filled with long-term steady clients, premium prices can be charged for on-demand high bandwidth services, and Columbia has been offering very attractive capabilities at discount prices. As global news and information services increase, systems like Columbia Communications may prove to have a very profitable market niche. And if Transworld can follow in a similar market model, focusing on the Russian/Eastern Europe to the US telecommunications market, they may also find themselves in a very attractive market niche as the economic ties between the two regions grow.] 5- AMROC SUCCESSFULLY TEST FIRES HYBRID ROCKET ENGINE American Rocket Company (AMROC) successfully fired a 220,000 lb thrust hybrid rocket engine on 22 Jan. The 15-second test at Edwards AFB in California was the first test firing of AMROC'S 250 klb class motor. AMROC claimed the engine performed within 5% of predicted thrust levels. In an announcement of the test, AMROC said "Today's test demonstrates hybrid propulsion at a scale which is competitive with the solid and liquid motors powering America's current launch vehicle fleet." AMROC's Development Motor No. 1 burned an inert synthetic rubber as fuel, with liquid oxygen as oxidizer and was cast at Vandenberg AFB, California. [Commentary: This test indicates that AMROC is still around and actively pursuing its hybrid motor product line. Hybrids are an interesting technology -- but AMROC still has not found a strategic partner to break into the commercial launch or supplier business. AMROC is still bidding to develop a small launch vehicle (the "Aquilia"), and has submitted bids in several small satellite launcher competitions, including for Iridium. And it appears they have also been looking at providing hybrid motors as strap-on boosters for other launch vehicles. This test was apparently supported by Martin Marietta Manned Space Systems, which sent representatives to witness it, possibly indicating an interest by Martin in using such strap-ons for their Titan program. (It was reported elsewhere in the press that a Titan II plus strap-ons was one of the options Martin was examining for the MLV-3 bid.) However, market prospects for AMROC have dimmed somewhat as NASA's MSFC is rumored to be discussing issuing demonstration contracts to other firms to develop hybrid rocket motor technologies. If true, this would remove much of AMROC's proprietary edge in the market, and erode their tenuous financial position. Concerns have been raised that MSFC should not be awarding the tax-payer's money to other firms to develop hybrid booster technology when AMROC has invested private investor's money as a commercial development, and is reportedly willing to share their data with the government for a price. Meanwhile, NASA is being directed by Administrator Goldin to include commercial and competitiveness decisions as part of the NASA technology planning process. (See STI/CSN No. 19) I haven't seen the details of the rumored MSFC hybrid technology program, such considerations should be included in review of this procurement from MSFC. ] 6- RUSSIANS CLAIM U.S. MISSILE CONTROLS STIFLE SPACE VENTURES Russian officials have charged the U.S. government of using the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) regulations to keep Russian products from the world market. A draft agreement on the MTCR was submitted by US negotiators during mid-January as part of on-going "rules of the road" negotiations between the US and Russian governments. Russian acceptance of the MTCR was rejected by the Russian government after discussions with the Russian parliament. From the Russian interpretation of the proposed MTCR agreement, it would have prohibited a number of valuable technology export deals (including space technology) to established customers in Brazil, China, Egypt, India, and other nations. Published reports on the Russian reaction to this agreement focus on the economic impacts of the MTCR, and claim it's imposition on Russian trade was to exclude Russian firms from export markets. "...The Americans, as experience shows, stubbornly defend their economic interests," complained Sergei Chuvakhin, a Russian Ministry of Foreign Economic Relations, reportedly involved in the closed door negotiations. About 2 weeks later, Russian President Boris Yeltsin on a state visit to New Delhi, pledged to honor a contract to sell cryogenic rocket engine technology to India. This contract has been the cause of much international attention since the US government imposed limited sanctions upon Glavkosmos in Russian and the Indian Space Research Organization, claiming the $200 M contract violated the MTCR. Russian diplomats said Yeltsin decided to go ahead with the deal after concluding that the Moscow-supplied cryogenic engines would be unsuitable for the ballistic missiles India was developing. [Commentary: The issue of international regulation and control of missile technology to limit the spread of ICBM technology has proved to be a sticky point for international space business. Technology suitable for use in space launchers looks very much like technology useful in ICBMs. And technology restrictions put in place to limit the spread of militarily-useful technology also can limit the sales of commercial space hardware. From some perspectives, this limitation is seen as being used as a barrier to lock new players out of the post-cold war commercial space business. For example at a recent Moscow news conference on plans for the Russian Space Agency, Yuri Koptev, head of the Agency, targeted the use of Russian launchers for commercial payloads as a key goal for the RSA. Identifying a market of about $ 1B over the next 4 years, he pointed out that four-fifths of commercial satellites were US-made and needed specific export licenses before they could be shipped to Russia for launch. Getting these licenses has been a real problem for commercial ventures using Russian launchers. New, even more restrictive MTCR regulations haven't made this situation any better. Under new rules adopted in early January, the scope of the MTCR was extended to cover technology for missiles capable of delivering biological and chemical weapons, as well as those specifically directed at delivering nuclear weapons. According to U.S. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher there will be "a strong presumption of denial on transfers of any missiles regardless of their payload or range which are judged to be intended to carry any weapon of mass destruction..." These new restrictions looking at the "intent" of potential uses, brings weapons not previous covered under the MTCR. Previously, the MTCR was only applied to weapons able to carry an 500 Kg payload over a range of 300 kilometers, but the new definition could cover items such as artillery shells-which can carry small nuclear, biological or chemical warheads-or even relatively large ship-to-ship or ship-to- surface missiles, which could be made to carry biological or chemical warheads. This may be the source of the Russian government rejection of the MCTR agreement, as it could significantly limit current military hardware exports. And it should be noted, the Russian approval of the Glavkosmos/ ISRO cryogenic engine technology transfer deal has to be seen in the light of other Russian/Indian negotiations. Another purpose of the Yeltsin visit to India was to seek to resolve a major difference between the two nations for debt repayment. India was the Soviet Union's largest export trade partner, and before the Soviet government disentegrated, it provided military and economic credit to India on very favorable terms -- reportedly at 3 percent annual interest rate with a 15-year repayment period. These ruble- denominated debts are now coming due, and India is proposing to repay them at the current ruble exchange rate, which is about 10X lower in comparative US $ than the previous booked amounts. Russia badly needs hard currency, and insists the value of the loans be calculated in dollars at the exchange rate prevailing at the time of purchase. There's about $10 B riding on the results of the loan value negotiation, and there is no political way the Russian government could reject the high-visibility rocket technology deal (worth only $200 M) without risking losing a lot more in the loan value negotiations. But all this has merely moved the situation forward without a concrete resolution. I predict MTCR issues with space trade deals will come back within the next year. Brazil and South Africa are still proceeding with national space launch systems, and other countries are in the market for space technology from the MTCR signatory countries of the U.S., Japan, France, Britain, Germany, Canada and Italy. And many countries have programs which fall under the new MTCR restrictions. Judging "intent" will be difficult and such findings can spark rancorous international trade actions. We'll hear more about MTCR and space technology trade restrictions over the next year. ] 7- LOCKHEED AND KRUNICHEV FINALIZE DEAL Lockheed Corporation and Krunichev Enterprise finalized their agreement to cooperate in marketing the Russian Proton launcher on 23 Jan. during a ceremony at Lockheed's Sunnyvale, California facility. Acting quickly after President Bush approved the partnership, the two companies signed an agreement establishing Lockheed-Krunichev International. Although financial terms were not disclosed, it was reported that Lockheed will make a "substantial long term investment" in the partnership. [Commentary: Well, I blew the projection in the last issue of STI/CSN. Much to my surprise, President Bush signed off an approval for this space venture (as well as several others) in what were the final few hours of his administration. There were several classified caveats attached to the approval dealing with fair pricing for Russian products on the open market, technology transfer provisions, and that the Missile Technology Control Regime restrictions be followed. As mentioned in a previous article in this column, following the MCTR has been rejected by the Russian government and Parliament. The approval that Krunichev requested from the Russian government included that LKI will comply with the MTCR, which should get them pretty much off the hook, at least for this phase of the venture. In the words of one Lockheed executive, "Krunichev only asked for approval by the Russian government for them to comply." There is still an unresolved trade sanction investigation on- going of Krunichev in the transfer of cryogenic engine technology to India, but the current administration approval will allow the venture to proceed until this investigation is completed. I'm also hearing unconfirmed reports that LKI has gotten a very positive reaction from the market to their announcements. The initial target for a commercial LKI Proton launch was set for late 1994, but apparently some firms desiring earlier commercial Proton launches have appeared, and an earlier commercial Proton launch by LKI may be announced, dependent upon the successful completion of negotiations. This venture looks like it is off to a good start.] 8- FOR SALE: ADVERTISEMENTS ON US LAUNCH VEHICLE The Conestoga launch vehicle planned to launch the Commercial Experiment Transporter (COMET) recoverable satellite payload this spring may also carry paid advertising to a new height. While advertisements have been flown as a trial program on Russian launch vehicles, and other launch vehicles have had the name of their manufacturer and satellite payload emblazoned on their sides, no US launcher has carried paid advertisements. The Georgia consulting firm, Space Marketing, has been hired to sell the advertisements on the 58-foot high Conestoga, and calms it has received over 60 inquiries from companies and advertising agencies. The reported price for the advertising would be $ 500,000 per ad. Any revenues would be split between the Space Industries, Inc., Westinghouse, and EER Systems Corp., the three partners building and launching the COMET spacecraft. [Commentary: An interesting advertising opportunity. However, this is being received with some skepticism within the business community. An advertiser buying ad space on the Conestoga would have to either use photos of their ad in another advertising campaign, or hope to get sufficient "free media" coverage from the launch coverage to make their advertisement pay off. If the advertiser was very intimately associated with the COMET or Conestoga, or had a very closely related product then the advertisement might make sense. But for an un-related advertiser $500,000 is a bit steep for a single-shot ad -- as a point of comparison, that's about 2/3 the price of an advertising "unit" for the superbowl. I haven't heard of any advertisers stepping forward, yet. So we'll just have to see what turns out on this.] FINAL NOTES - After a rather slow start to the year, things are really starting to accelerate in the commercial space world. I finally managed to get the stock indexes I've been working on into a usable format and written up to include in this column. Looking ahead, I've got several other articles in the works for the next issue of this column on new happening with Iridium, statistics on the overall US commercial space market, and a new US commercial remote sensing venture. But after feverishly reducing the size of the piles of data from last year, they're starting to grow again. I'm going to have to accelerate my processing of data to avoid a repetition of those inch-thick folders and megabytes of unread data. And as always, I hope you folks find this stuff useful and interesting -- Any and all comments are welcome. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Wales Larrison Space Technology Investor "Le bein de la fortune est un bien P.O. Box 2452 est un bien perissable: quand on Seal Beach, CA 90740-1452 batit sur elle, on batit sur le sable" ------------------------------ Date: 24 Feb 1993 02:48:17 GMT From: steve hix Subject: Turpedo Tube in Reverse Missle Launchers. Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Feb23.134855.1@acad3.alaska.edu> nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu writes: >Idea for a way to deploy a missle without having to have hard points or a >"bombbay".. > >Have a "bombbay" that opens to drop off the missle. Kind of like a torpedo >tube on a submarine in reverse. > >The missle would get its lock from the airplanes sensors.. > >Im not sure how to describe my idea.. So tell me what it sounds liek and Ill >say yes or no.. It's been done. In several different ways. 1. Tunnel between fuselage-mounted engines, expelling missile or bomb to rear, as in North American A-5 Vigilante. 2. Recessed into depression in fuselage (in various places on various aircraft). 3. In internally-mounted tray insided fuselage, tray being extended outside aircraft for firing, retracting back in after firing. One surface of tray = outside surface of aircraft. 4. Launched laterally to aircraft flight path from tube. This one has been used from 1930's (or earlier) for launching everything from signal flares, to sonobuoys (a la Lockheed P-3 Orion), to ordnance, to anti-IR-missile-flares or chaff dispensers. -- ------------------------------------------------------- | Some things are too important not to give away | | to everybody else and have none left for yourself. | |------------------------ Dieter the car salesman-----| ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1993 00:37:34 GMT From: "Carlos G. Niederstrasser" Subject: UN Space Agency? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Feb20.174127.1@acad3.alaska.edu> nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu writes: > Is there a UN Space Agency and if there is can someone post info here and > forward the info to me here: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu > They have the Committee for the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPOUS) Chair is a Mr. Jasentuliyana (Sp?) --- --------------------------------------------------------------------- | Carlos G. Niederstrasser | It is difficult to say what | | Princeton Planetary Society | is impossible; for the dream of | | | yesterday, is the hope of today | | | and the reality of tomorrow | | carlosn@phoenix.princeton.edu |---------------------------------| | space@phoenix.princeton.edu | Ad Astra per Ardua Nostra | --------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 227 ------------------------------