Space Digest                Thu, 29 Jul 93       Volume 16 : Issue 940

Today's Topics:
                 A ride to Mir for only $12 million?
            DC-X Prophets and associated problems (3 msgs)
                     FTL communication? (2 msgs)
          Hubble solar arrays: how'd they foul up? (2 msgs)
          tests on July 27, 1993
                          FTL communication?
            Galileo's HGA, did it test even partly usable?
                 Good news on Delta Clipper confirmed
                 Iapetus - eclipse seen/EPHEMVGA bug!
 In article 876@access.digex.net, prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes:
          Low Tech Alternatives, Info Post it here! (3 msgs)
                       Making Orbit proceedings
                   Super Gun for Satellite Launch!

	Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
	"space@isu.isunet.edu", 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 space-REQUEST@isu.isunet.edu (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1993 21:46:54 CDT
From: U16072@uicvm.uic.edu
Subject: Cold Fusion and its possible uses (if it is proven to exist)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.space

In article <1993Jul28.123338.21058@bsu-ucs>, 01jlwile@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu says:
>
>True, traditional QM measurements do say just that, but, listening
>to Pons at his Indiana University talk shortly after his press
>sonference and also reading the Conressional Committee's report, all
>CF people aren;t claiming a fundamentally new process, they are
>mereyl saying that the chemical activity present in such a cell
>can be though of as pressure which pushes the two nuclei closer
>together than their normal equilibrium distances.  QM tells you
>that the fusion rate is dramatically dependent on distance, so
Not that dramtically. That is untill you reach the point where
the nucei overlap. Then the rate goes sky high. This is what happens
in muon catalysed fusion. But I seem to remember calculations that
in a D2O cell the distancews actually increase.
--------------------------------------------------
Thaddeus Olczyk, University of Illinois at Chicago

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

From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems
Newsgroups: sci.space

Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1993 22:51:56 GMT
Lines: 53
Sender: news@CRABAPPLE.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU
Source-Info:  Sender is really isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

In article <1993Jul28.172857.508@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <23623dINN8du@mojo.eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes:
>
>Now at the same time, a NASA study (The Economist, June, 26, 1993) states
>that NASA spends, on the average, six times what the private sector does
>for development projects. So assuming HST is a typical program then a
>commercially procured HST would cost less than $300M (using Wales's figures).
>With a quanity buy, HST's can be had for even less, but we'll use the
>$300M figure. BTW, another article (The Economist, July 17, 1993) mentiones
>a BMDO project which could make a similar telescope for $300M which tends
>to confirm my number.

The private sector doesn't buy unique one of a kind space telescopes,
they buy cookie cutter comsats from an established supplier. There's no 
reason to believe that a factor of 6 applies in this case. Granted buying 
several at a time *should* save money per each, but who's to say they 
wouldn't all have the same defects.

>So we take our $300M HST, and send it up on a Titan III (with a kick
>stage to boost to a higher orbit) or a Titan IV. Either vehicle can
>be had commercially for less than $200M.

What kind of track record does Titan IV offer? What are it's vibration
limits? Shock loads? How much redesign would be necessary to put a
Hubble replacement on a Titan IV? How many years? What cost?

>You might do well to look closer at the experience on DC. It went from
>being an unknown small effort to gaining wide acceptance in a very short
>time. In Congress, the House supports it and the Senate opposes it. The
>House has been briefed by insiders and activists (many of whom are on the
>net) and believes it to be a change from the buisness as usual you advocate.
>The Senate, on the other hand, hasn't been as extensively briefed and thinks
>SSRT is just another launcher project to fund the production of view
>graphs and opposes it for that reason.
>
>This shows that Congress will support a cost effective program but is
>loosing patience with the waste we have seen to date.

More likely it shows that House members have been reassured it won't
hurt their pork projects while the Senate hasn't yet been clued in
that it's not a threat. The House is willing to throw it a small bone
just to shut the activists up. Once all the risks are explained to
them, the Senators from Lockheed and Rockwell won't see it as a credible 
threat either. Just tell them about 200 flights a year. They'll laugh 
all the way to the conference committee.

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: Thu, 29 Jul 1993 00:32:13 GMT
From: Leigh Palmer <palmer@sfu.ca>
Subject: Did our CCD catch a high orbiting satellite or a near-Earth asteroid?
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

In article <CAw8I2.H6q@news.cis.umn.edu> Claia O Bryja-2,
bryj0001@student.tc.umn.edu writes:
>While observing (or, rather, trying to observe-- there were some clouds) with
>a 30-inch telescope and a CCD just east of Minneapolis/St. Paul, our camera
>snapped the motion trail of something interesting.  The exposure time was 15
>seconds, and the trail extended about 100 arcsec.  Going at that rate, if it
>were a satellite in a circular orbit, it would have a period of about 50 or
>60 hours.  This seems a bit long.  How many satellites orbit that far out?
>The direction of the streak was close to north-south, and we were pointing
>fairly close to zenith, so this satellite would have to be in a polar orbit
>also (our latitude is 45 N).  We were wondering to ourselves if it might be
>a near-Earth asteroid instead-- passing us beyond the Moon's distance.
>Can anyone comment on how likely this might be?  I would naively think that
>the north-south orientation would be unusual for an asteroid.  If anyone 
>happens to be interested in the details (time, position, magnitude, etc.), 
>please e-mail.

Once while observing at Kitt Peak on a long December night I caught a glimpse
of such an object visually in the finder. I wasted almost an hour and a half
on it thinking I had a near earth asteroid. It was a geosynchronous satellite,
and I suspect that's what your object is, too.

Leigh

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

Date: 29 Jul 1993 08:18:32 GMT
From: Diaspar Virtual Reality Network <diaspar@nic.cerf.net>
Subject: Driving Rover Vehicles from Home - tests on July 27, 1993
Newsgroups: sci.space

Driving Rover Vehicles from Home - Tests Conducted on July 27, 1993

Today marked an important milestone in the steady progress towards new ways
to operate vehicles remotely, a process called Tele-Operations. The first in
a series of upcoming tests was successfully performed.

McDonnell Douglas, NASA Ames Research Center, Comcast Corporation and the
Diaspar Virtual Reality Network conducted a series of tests which culminated
in the operation of the NASA Ames Rover vehicle remotely using a personal
computer.

During the tests, various communications linkups were implemented. The end
result was operation of the vehicle using a home personal computer while
observing the actual live television images transmitted from the vehicle as
if one were actually driving it.

The complete test configuration involved Tele-Operations software running
on a personal computer which was connected via modem to the Diaspar Virtual
Reality Network. Control information was then passed via modem link to a UNIX
platform (in this case a Silicon Graphics machine) that functioned as a
gateway to a local Ethernet that connected to the rover operating system.
Television cameras watching the vehicle, as well as television cameras
mounted on the vehicle, provided live video which was sent using the NASA
Select channel via satellite to Comcast Corporation. Comcast Corporation
received the video images and displayed them to users taking turns on a
personal computer, completing the loop. The net result was that users could
operate the rover vehicle while watching its activities via live video or
actually see a driver's point-of-view. The vehicle was also operated from
home to test the driver selection capability and experiment with vehicle
override procedures.

Further tests are planned including broadcast of the live images on unused
local cable channels - allowing for educational, home and commercial test
operation of the rover vehicle by anyone with a home computer involved with
the test. The tests performed today indicated this concept will work so sites
are being selected for the next series of tests. Anyone with access to NASA
Select video via satelite, a home personal computer and modem can be a pot-
entail user with this kind of system layout.

McDonnell Douglas Corporation has been investigating the potential of such
remote operations for a variety of possible robotic planetary exploration
missions. These include both lunar and martian rovers. MDC is working
closely with several Russian space organizations that are currently preparing
a "Marsokhod" rover for their upcoming Mars '96 project, as well as NASA Ames
and several other government labs.

NASA Ames Research Center provided both the prototype rover testbed, as well
as control software based on virtual reality concepts, a field in which Ames
has been a major pioneer. These same capabilities have been used to operate
the prototype Russian Marsokhod both at a testbed in Ames and also while the
rover was located in Moscow. A future application will involve a submersible
remotely operated vehicle that will explore the ocean beneath the Antarctica
ice shelf later this fall.

The expanding telecommunications field was represented by Comcast Corp., one
of the largest cable television system operators in the world. Comcast is
actively investigating new programming opportunities that will be created as
cable distribution grows to 500 or more interactive channels per system.
Besides providing access to the cable distribution, the company is also able
to supply insights on how to package and present the information generated by
the rover in a fashion that is best suited for a broad consumer audience.

The Diaspar Virtual Reality Network is conducting experiments aimed at low
cost home Tele-Operations for EduTainment purposes. Diaspar is sponsoring
the Lunar Tele-Operations Model 1 (LTM1) project which is building a mini-
ature lunar colony with Tele-Operated vehicles that can be operated by home
computers, including receiving slow scan video images directly on the user's
computer monitor screen. This educational project is open to individuals,
students and teachers worldwide.

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

Date: 29 Jul 1993 05:42:02 GMT
From: Josh Hopkins <jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu>
Subject: FTL communication?
Newsgroups: sci.space

WCHAYWARD@CHEMISTRY.watstar.uwaterloo.ca (Colby Hayward) writes:


>	What if you had an ideal rod (ie. massless, uncompressable, 
>unbendable) that was one lightyear long, suspended in space.  You have two 
>observers, one at each end (A and B).  So we have:

>	A ---------------------<one lightyear>------------------- B

>	So, what happens when the observer at A grabs the rod and pulls it 
>towards him/her?  Wouldn't the end at B move also?  At the same time?  
>If no, why not?

If you really do have a perfectly rigid rod, it will indeed transmit 
information at the speed of light.  Similarly, if you have a sample of an ideal
gas at absolute zero it will take up no space.  However, since both of these
materials and situations are totally impossible, the Universe doesn't bother
to have a consistant policy for them. 

-- 
Josh Hopkins                                          jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
     "Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results,
                 but that's not why we do it."
			-R. Feynman

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1993 04:44:47 GMT
From: Robert Casey <wa2ise@netcom.com>
Subject: Galileo's HGA, did it test even partly usable?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In various previous "Galileo updates", there was mention that JPL was doing
some tests on the jammed HGA.  To see if any signal would get through.
Was wondering if the tests are finished, and if it was found if the HGA
has any functionality now.  Even if you can only get the equivalent of
10bps, that's still 10 more than without.  Every little bit of bandwidth
helps (assuming it's not on the same "channel" as the LGA.)

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

Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1993 22:31:41 +1200 (NZST)
From: Bruce Hoult <Bruce@hoult.actrix.gen.nz>
Subject: Good news on Delta Clipper confirmed
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
> +----------------------90 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

I really really hope that's a glitch in your program...

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1993 05:26:01 GMT
From: apryan@vax1.tcd.ie
Subject: Iapetus - eclipse seen/EPHEMVGA bug!
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

The eclipse of Iapetus on July 20-21 has not been mentioned here to my
knowledge. Anyone know how it went?

In a related topic, I had been searching for a programme to predict the
locations of Saturn's moons and found EPHEMVGA did so. EPHEMVGA is a version
of Elwood Downey's (e_downey@hwking.cca.cr.rockwell.com) EPHEM modified by
Doug McDonald to include Saturn's moons).

EPHEM is a superb package overall. I especially like the ability to search
for the solution to functions fed to the program. However, I think I have
found a bug in the Saturns moons mods made by Doug McDonald.

I don't have VGA display but I have been looking at the table produced by
menu item "Saturn Aux". I noticed the position of Iapetus didn't seem to
match those given in the diagrams in the British Astronomical Association's
Handbook for 1993.

Even more graphically illustrating a bug is the diagram on page 72 of Sky &
Tel magazine for July 1993.

I enter U.T. 12h on 1993 July 21 when the S&T diagram shows Iapetus 1.5
Saturn radii from Saturn's centre yet ephemvga gives:
                                Saturn Radii
                    X (+E)         Y (+S)      Z (+towards)    Magnitude
        Iapetus      0.279        -11.014        -59.354           11.2
The Y value of -11.014 must be way out whether it refers to South on the
sky, South wrt Iapetus' orbital plane, or wrt to the planet's equator and
rings.

The orbits of Enceladus, Tethys, Dione and Rhea seem in excellent agreement
with the S&T diagram.

This *is* a bug isn't it?
Anyone else noticed it before?
Anyone know for sure if Doug McDonald (mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu) on
holiday?

-Tony Ryan, ASTRONOMY & SPACE magazine published by:
 Astronomy Ireland, P.O.Box 2888, Dublin 1, Ireland.
 (ONE OF WORLD'S LARGEST ASTRO. SOC. per capita - email re any larger! 0.039%)
Tel:   0 8 9 1 - 8 8 - 1 9 - 5 0     for U.K. Hotline (new message Mondays)
                                 (dial 1550-111-442 in Republic of Ireland)

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

Date: 29 Jul 93 02:32:47 GMT
From: Henry A Worth <haw30@ras.amdahl.com>
Subject: In article 876@access.digex.net, prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes:
Newsgroups: sci.space

> 
> Michael Jensen again shows his lack of Knowledge....
> 
> 
>   For what it's worth,  The DC-3  was very high Risk for it's
> time  and considered very experimental..
> 
> 	a 2 Engine Plane for Oceanic Flight??????
> 

The single-engine performance issue for the DC-3 and its predecessors was not trans-Oceanic, it was trans-Rockies. Demonstrating a crossing with a single-engine shut-down was an important milestone in getting CAA certification for mountain operations and the Airlines were reluctant to order until it had that certification
(if memory serves, the demo was Phoenix to Denver in a DC-2, and required a portion
of the climb to be made single-engine). Prior to the DC-2/3, trans-Rockies scheduled
passenger flights required tri-motors and were often substituted for by rail links. 
The DC-3 did not have the range for trans-Oceanic operations (island hopping doesn't count), that had to wait for the DC-6 (I think even the DC-4 required favorable
winds and payload for even the shortest non-stop trans-Alantic routes, and was used
on such routes primarily as a VIP and critical-freight hauler during WWII, and even 
then diversions to Greenland or Iceland were common, if not the norm).  

The DC-2 and DC-3 differ primarily in a larger cabin cross-section for the DC-3. 
They were similar enough that during WWII, DC-2's were often canabalized to repair DC-3's, and on at least one occasion a DC-2 wing was mated to a DC-3 resulting in
the rather well known DC-2 1/2 (there were slight differences in the wing).

---
Henry Worth
No, I don't speak for Amdahl... I'm not even sure I speak for myself.

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

Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1993 23:12:13 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Low Tech Alternatives, Info Post it here!
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1993Jul28.175458.9978@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>
>It should be clear that some optimum cost vs. performance point must
>exist for launch vehicle hardware.  What evidence is there that we are
>on the low-performance side of that point?  Analysts in the 60s
>concluded that, in fact, we were on the high side, and should make
>less sophisticated, less complex vehicles, whose poorer mass ratio was
>more than offset by much lower per pound construction cost.  We make
>cars out < $1/lb sheet steel, not $1,000/lb exotic composites.  It is
>not clear why rockets should be any different.

Autos are produced by the millions, rockets by the tens. Hand built
Ferraris use $1,000/lb exotic composites too. Even Peterbilt is going
to carbon fiber, fiberglass, and aluminum for over the road trucks. If 
GM can save $.01 a car, they make $5,000,000 additional profit per year.
But that doesn't apply in small production ru              Making Orbit proceedings
                       Retro Aerospace (3 msgs)
                Why I hate the space shuttle (3 msgs)

	Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
	"space@isu.isunet.edu", 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 space-REQUEST@isu.isunet.edu (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 Jul 93  12:01:49
From: David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org
Subject: A ride to Mir for only $12 million?
Newsgroups: sci.space

 Us> I was watching a television show on PBS dealing with the future of
 Us> man in space last night. At one point the figure of $12 million was
 Us> stated as the "commercial" cost the soviets were asking to put a man
 Us> into Mir. This cost seems very low. If try, I could imagine many
 Us> millionares might be willing to plunk down this money for the ride of a
 Us> lifetime! I have some questions, however:

 Us> 1) can this cost be correct?!?

 Yes. 

 Us> 2) if they WOULD fly to Mir commercially, would they take anyone
 Us> with the cash, or would they require fairly rigorous training in
 Us> case the paying passengers has to "back up" a cosmonaut who fell
 Us> ill, for example. 

 Yes. No.
         

 Us> 3) are any components of the Energia lifter  salvaged after launch? 

 In theory, the strap-ons can be salvaged now, and the entire vehicle
 may be salvageable in the future.

 Us> Sorry for the simple questions, but I am intrigued by the
 Us> possibilities and may buy a lottery ticket!   ;-)

 Sorry, a Mir lottery is illegal in the United States, punishable
 by a jail term.

... The National Space Society: Changing the future in our spare time
--- Blue Wave/Max v2.12 [NR]

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

Date: 28 Jul 1993 21:05:10 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu>
Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1993Jul28.172857.508@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

>>Hubble was designed to be repaired in orbit.  Now how much of those "repair" 
>>missions are regular maintenance?  Certainly gyro replacement is.  Some of 
>>the other instrument replacements is expected wear and tear. 
>
>well, I suppose almost all of them are for maintenance. But since each one
>costs more than building and launching a brand new HST, your statement is
>rather pointless. When a car costs more to repair than replace, we call the
>car 'totaled' and get rid of it and this is no different.

Nevermind.  You're playing monday morning quarterback to kick a system which
has already been deployed.

It's a cute mental exercise based upon a lot of "I'll take the best case I can
come up with and compare it to the ugliest numbers I can find."

>Now at the same time, a NASA study (The Economist, June, 26, 1993) states
>that NASA spends, on the average, six times what the private sector does
>for development projects. So assuming HST is a typical program then a
>commercially procured HST would cost less than $300M (using Wales's figures).

Nice of you to pick and choose out of what you like from Wales's numbers. 
Basically, his total analysis found that it was a wash between repair and
fix-its.

>This gives us a total cost for a replacement HST at less than $500M
>which is half to a third of what NASA will spend to repair the old HST.

For a lifetime of how long?  Hubble was designed for a lifetime of, oh what, 20
years?  It was designed to be repaired in space, and we also gain experience in
orbital repair.  Oh, sorry, forgot you don't have that side of the ledger
marked.

You assume that your new replacement will:

	A) Won't cost overrun
	B) Will get a new program funding start
	C) NASA & Congress will be happy scrapping working hardware
	   with understood characteristics.

>I know it seems magical and mystical to you Doug, but it's just simple
>arithmatic. You yourself could do it if you got yourself a calculator!

You emphasize the SIMPLE and tend to overlook the fine print.

>As to the value of the downtime, there would be no downtime and we would
>gain the advantage of having access to multiple telescopes over time.

No, you wouldn't. A platform would die and you'd have to send up a new one.
After all, you've bought them from the lowest bidder. 

Your other fallacy assumes that TDRS would support multiple scopes in orbit,
and infrastructure (staffing, computer time) would grow as well.  If you
play the cheap game, you are running one scope and one STSI... not building
new buildings to support dying hardware.

>There are no gurantees in life Doug. We

The royal we, no doubt.

> need to make a choice between a
>pork laden space program which doesn't work very well, costs too much, and
>hangs by a thread

"Hangs by a thread"? I didn't know NASA was being abolished.

>You might do well to look closer at the experience on DC. It went from
>being an unknown small effort to gaining wide acceptance in a very short
>time.

Really? So how many panic alerts have you had to keep it funded? I wouldn't
call that wide acceptance.  And the amount of money you are dealing with so far
hasn't gotten to be big.

>net) and believes it to be a change from the buisness as usual you advocate.

Your smear tactics re amusing, but untrue.  Business as usual is slowly 
changing, but change does not happen within any organization overnight.  NASA
is starting down the road, but crap like "enemies of space" does little
other than to make you sound like the Koresh of Advocacy.

>The Senate, on the other hand, hasn't been as extensively briefed and thinks
>SSRT is just another launcher project to fund the production of view
>graphs and opposes it for that reason.
>
>This shows that Congress will support a cost effective program but is
>loosing patience with the waste we have seen to date.

Losing. Loose implies loose screw. As in loose screws of your arguement.
Congress is a schezophrenic animal.  Sure they condemn "waste" but they
continue to pump money into mohair subsidies because it gets them re-elected.
Supplying money for DC has already resulted in the call for one program to be
defunded in favor of another.  

When big money is needed ($1-2 billion), someone is going to have to rob
Peter to pay for DC, and I'll guarantee you it won't be pretty... 

You'll impress me when you manage to rob Rockwell and Lockheed of Shuttle money
so you can fund DC, not before. 



     January 1993 - John Scully embraces Bill Clinton.
     July 1993    - Apple Computer lays off 2500 workers, posts $188 
		    million dollar loss. 

  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --

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

Date: 28 Jul 1993 21:54:40 GMT
From: "Michael C. Jensen" <mjensen@gem.valpo.edu>
Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems
Newsgroups: sci.space

Pat (prb@access.digex.net) wrote:
: Michael.

: 	Ask yourself a critical aristotelian question.

: 	DC-X is a good RESEARCH program.  Why isn't
: 	NASA chipping in money to support it?  and it's
: 	not because it's too much money.  it's total
: 	developement budget is 1/2 of 1%  of NASA's
: 	annual budget.  and if it's a joint SDIO
: 	funding  it would be even less.

	Hmm.. could it be because NASA's already got enough budget 
problems? NASA's being forced into canceling or cutting projects back
left and right.. even projects that are working (like probes we have
to stop listening to) or designs that are ready for production 
(aerobraking test vehicle and ASRM) are cut back past the point where
they can operate.. and people scream bloody murder that NASA's doesn't
keep doing all these projects, and you expect them to have money to shoot
off elsewhere? I have strong doubts that the costs would really be 0.5%, 
BUT.. if they were, personally I'd love to see us try and help fund it..
again, tell washington.. IF I could make changes myself I would.. I can't..
I just make suggestions and hope they get listened too.. but again the
system IS being reformed and probably will end up more effective and
efficient..

: Ask yourself why, so many missions for science have opted to
: go to ELV's rather then STS?

Many reasons.. first, they can't fly on STS IF they don't require it's
unique abilities.. secondly, it's faster to fly on expendables.. less
lead time and less requirements.. thirdly, it's generally cheeper.. 

Mike

--
Michael C. Jensen   Valparaiso University/Johnson Space Center
mjensen@gem.valpo.edu  "I bet the human brain is a kludge." -- Marvin Minsky
jensen@cisv.jsc.nasa.gov  *WindowsNT - From the people who brought you edlin* 
---Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are my own... ---

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

Date: 28 Jul 1993 22:01:58 GMT
From: "Michael C. Jensen" <mjensen@gem.valpo.edu>
Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems
Newsgroups: sci.space

: STS Missions.

: 	Cargo to earth.    RV's do this much cheaper.
	
Um, which systems are those? I still havn't seen many large volume or
payload return systems out there.. am I missing something?

: 	On orbit science missions (Untended)  GAS cans, SPAS, LDEF
: 	ELV's with RV's  do this much cheaper.

I find it enjoyable to see that all three of the specifically named
programs are shuttle payloads.. the first (GAS) which is a specific
project by NASA to bring space related research within the reach of
college students who otherwise would be denied such experiences..

: 	ON ORBIT Bio science experiments.  RVs  and MIR do this
: 	for far less.

I've heard a lot of conflicting opinion about this one.. in relations to 
MIR that is.. I still don't see any high quality RV's out there outside
shuttle.. 

: 	On ORbit system repair (satellitte rescue, etc)
: 	It is cheaper  or nearly so to AIP the system and launch replacements.
: 	HST cost 1.6 Billion in DDTE(according to wales.)  the HST
: 	repair mission is costing 800 Million.  It's a judgement
: 	call on what's cheaper.

You know.. it's entertaining to see the 5+5=39.6 logic sometimes shown
in these "accurate" cost compilations.. we really outta count the cost
of the development of aircraft, windtunnels, chemeical processing which
produces LOX etc in these costs sometime if we really wanna be accurate..

Mike
--
Michael C. Jensen   Valparaiso University/Johnson Space Center
mjensen@gem.valpo.edu  "I bet the human brain is a kludge." -- Marvin Minsky
jensen@cisv.jsc.nasa.gov  *WindowsNT - From the people who brought you edlin* 
---Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are my own... ---

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1993 00:48:17 GMT
From: Colby Hayward <WCHAYWARD@CHEMISTRY.watstar.uwaterloo.ca>
Subject: FTL communication?
Newsgroups: sci.space

	Here's a nutty little concept that was posted on a sci-fi newsgroup
(somewhere in the rec.arts.startrek region, I think).

	What if you had an ideal rod (ie. massless, uncompressable, 
unbendable) that was one lightyear long, suspended in space.  You have two 
observers, one at each end (A and B).  So we have:

	A ---------------------<one lightyear>------------------- B

	So, what happens when the observer at A grabs the rod and pulls it 
towards him/her?  Wouldn't the end at B move also?  At the same time?  
If no, why not?

	Its got me puzzled.

 ___________________________________________
 |                                         |  Ooo, look!  A blank spot!
 | Colby Hayward, aka the Colbyashi-maru   |________________________________
 | wchayward@chemistry.watstar.uwaterloo.ca|                               |
 |_________________________________________|   Aren't these little boxes   |
                                           |   Just the neatest thing?     |
      Ooo, look!  Another blank spot!      |_______________________________|

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1993 01:28:27 GMT
From: Mike Marolda <mmarolda@NeoSoft.com>
Subject: FTL communication?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <WCHAYWARD.52.743906897@CHEMISTRY.watstar.uwaterloo.ca> WCHAYWARD@CHEMISTRY.watstar.uwaterloo.ca (Colby Hayward) writes:
>	Here's a nutty little concept that was posted on a sci-fi newsgroup
>(somewhere in the rec.arts.startrek region, I think).
>
>	What if you had an ideal rod (ie. massless, uncompressable, 
>unbendable) that was one lightyear long, suspended in space.  You have two 
>observers, one at each end (A and B).  So we have:
>
>	A ---------------------<one lightyear>------------------- B
>
>	So, what happens when the observer at A grabs the rod and pulls it 
>towards him/her?  Wouldn't the end at B move also?  At the same time?  
>If no, why not?
>
>	Its got me puzzled.
>

I believe the fastest the "signal" would travel would be at the speed of sound 
for the material that rod is made of. 

Mike Marolda
mmarolda@sugar.neosoft.com


-- 

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

Date: 28 Jul 1993 17:56 EST
From: David Ward <abdkw@stdvax.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Hubble solar arrays: how'd they foul up?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <236hi0$2qr@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes...
> I would say the HST solar array problems  only point out that NASA
>and ESA need a solid Engineering test bed program.  
> 
>Once a year,   just boot some bird up with all the gear one is interested
>in using in future missions.  Put it into some screw ball high inclination
>highly elliptical orbit so it passes throught the ugliest
>radiation fields,  gets lots oflight night cycles,  and
>maybe even exposed to  outer atmosphere.  i
> 
>if the stuff stays healthy for 6 months,  one has much
>better faith in the articles.
> 
>pat
>-- 
> 
>God put me on this Earth to accomplish certain things.  Right now,
>I am so far behind, I will never die.


Although I'm not sure I agree with the original premise (HST's S/A
flexible mode problems could have been averted by launch of an
engineering test satellite), I heartily agree with the followup
(build more engineering test satellites).  One of the big reasons
(IMHO) that we (NASA) are so slow to developing new space technologies
is that projects don't like to use their missions as test beds.  The
"not on _my_ program" philosophy is understandable, given the goal of
_reliable_ access to space ("access" should be taken as all missions,
not just launch vehicles--i.e. HST is an "access" to space).  However,
given a goal of more efficient, more reliable access to space, we've
got to take some chances.  Other than occasional GAS cans or 
"piggy-back" experiments, space technology has few paths to the
elusive flight qualification that program managers seek.  For the cost
of an Explorer-class mission, we could launch a spacecraft whose mission
was to survive.

Comments, sci.spacers?

David W. @ GSFC

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

Date: 28 Jul 1993 19:28 CDT
From: wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov
Subject: Hubble solar arrays: how'd they foul up?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <236hi0$2qr@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes...
> I would say the HST solar array problems  only point out that NASA
>and ESA need a solid Engineering test bed program.  
> 
>Once a year,   just boot some bird up with all the gear one is interested
>in using in future missions.  Put it into some screw ball high inclination
>highly elliptical orbit so it passes throught the ugliest
>radiation fields,  gets lots oflight night cycles,  and
>maybe even exposed to  outer atmosphere.  i
> 
>if the stuff stays healthy for 6 months,  one has much
>better faith in the articles.
> 
>pat
>-- 
> 

This is done pat. The ACTS satellite flying on the shuttle next week is an
example of a completely new communications technology (Including componets,
operational methodologies, and a new bus) that will be tested along with
their ground based compliments. The STRV satellite being built by BMDO and
British Aerospace is a near copy of SEDSAT in both its mission to test
solar array technology and small satellite systems for this task.

Also, on many shuttle flights now we are flying new stuff that is being 
qualified, such as our MacIntosh SI Experiment controller. This obviously will
help to lower the costs of experiment hardware flown on the shuttle. 

One note is that private industry will not touch technology demonstration
missions or even introduction of marginal high tech on their satellites. You
can never get fired by arguing for saftey. This is one of the fallacies that
is inherent in the "let the commercial people" do everything. Fear of failure
in government usually only gets you re-assigned. Often in the commercial
world it means the loss of your job. It take government sponsored efforts
in many instances to get new projects and programs off the ground. DC would
be nowhere without it.  Many of the components of SEDSAT 1 are from 
military programs that either lost their flight or are giving these to us 
for the technology demonstration. Why? Because if we mess up it is not their
cookies in the fire.

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville

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

Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1993 23:06:42 GMT
From: Dave Michelson <davem@ee.ubc.ca>
Subject: Making Orbit proceedings
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <CAvy76.57A.1@cs.cmu.edu> JDAVIS@GAES.GRIFFIN.PEACHNET.EDU (Jerry Davis) writes:
>Hi all.  Has anyone received the proceedings from the Making Orbit
>Conference?  I didn't attend, but ordered them from someone on the net
>who offered to send extra copies for a nominal fee.  Alas, I haven't
>heard anything since.  I have lost the ordering information so can't
>contact them directly.  Anyone know what's up?

I haven't received mine either :-( 

--
Dave Michelson  --  davem@ee.ubc.ca  --  University of British Columbia

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

Date: 28 Jul 1993 22:05:29 GMT
From: George William Herbert <gwh@soda.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Retro Aerospace
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <CAw31s.B71.1@cs.cmu.edu> jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
>George William Herbert <gwh@soda.berkeley.edu> writes:
>>Space access has never been, ...
>part of our free enterprise system ...
>>and is not likely to soon be, as
>>cheap as computers ever have been expensive.  
> 
>Nor do I make that claim.  My claim is that market flexibility is far
>greater than the established experts like to claim it is.

Ok.

>>Damn right that
>>the market is flexible, but _how_ flexible, how quickly, 
> 
>Very and very.

*shrug*  I may be wrong.  I'd love to correspond with you on
why you think this, precisely; I was considering doing a PhD on
how flexible the market was in this sort of situation, a few
years ago, before I decided to stop prattling about it and see
for real ;-)

>Oh, you look at OSC as having credibility as well as ISU?  How soon
>can I short your company's stock?

Well, OSC turned a profit, which is just about a first among
Aerospace startups.  This has to count for something.

>Wait, first you say that space isn't inherently a small-business 
>environment, then you say your not having anywhere near 50 employees...
> 
>But then you even go on to say...
> 
>>My eventual plan is to form a number of related small companies
>>[...] 
>So who was it that said space is not inherently a small business
>environment?

Well, the holding company will be Fortune 500 if I'm lucky and 
they all work out...  I think we're arguing over semantics.
I classify a bunch of small skunk-works like organizations operating
under one owner management as one big business,
whereas you're saying it's a bunch of small ones.

>>if say 3 companies end up sharing the current world market
> 
>The big three economic model.  Your bureacratic tendencies are showing 
>again.  Why not just come out of the closet?

It could be three, two, one, twenty, who knows... but my market models
indicate that to sustain development and keep dropping prices, you want
to fly about 10 rockets a year per company.  Which, at the current commercial
launch rates of 30 payloads/yr is 3 companies.  Or 2 bigger companies.
Or, if the rate goes up much, could be as many as 10 or more companies...

As I said, I don't inherently mind having competition.  But you need
a certain volume to support ongoing development (of the next generation
of slightly cheaper vehicles, in my case).  If competition increases
enough that nobody's making that volume, prices will stagnate, which
is bad in the long term.  I'd much prefer a market that allows each
company involved to keep developing better ways to do things.
Having tiny companies doing 3-4 launches a year won't let that
happen.

Look at what's happening to personal computers right now as an
example... we've got a horde of cheap clone makers with no
engineering staffs driving the per-item costs off a cliff.
Great for the consumer today, but Apple (which was a leading technical
development innovator) is in serious trouble now, which is endangering
the next two or three generations of computers.  And it's not just
apple, everyone's being hit hard.

The company has to be big enough to support a 15-25 person engineering
staff, outside consulting, and development hardware costs and test
costs.  Which looks like $3-4 million a year to me, being a bit
conservative.  You might be able to do it on less.  Even $2m/yr
is a lot on two to four launches, though.  A 1-ton class vehicle
at two launches a year and about $2m per-flight cost will be
$4 to 5 m with development costs and company profit.  The same
development spread over 8 flights is low enough to keep the
per-flight total cost down around $3m, which is 25-40% lower...

>The actual situation will be a few big companies in countries like Japan
>enjoying the majority of the market with the minority of the profitability 
>using mature technologies for which they are paying royalties to people 
>like you, so you can develop your next regime of space access technology
>despite their desires that you would retire.  Of course, it would help
>a lot if our State Department started aggressively enforcing our 
>intellectual property rights rather than fighting for supposedly "job 
>protecting" protectionist policies that actually gut our economy.
 
Royalty arrangements like this are very difficult to make happen.
This may turn out to work, but I'm not optimistic.  If it does
work, I'll probably adopt that model... 

>Despite our differences, I wish you well.
> 
>May the best business win.

Definitely... if I turn out to be wrong,
then I'll change the way I do business.
Or move which part of business I'm in.

-george william herbert
Retro Aerospace

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

Date: 28 Jul 1993 22:19:10 GMT
From: Jon Leech <leech@cs.unc.edu>
Subject: Retro Aerospace
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <236t79$s2r@agate.berkeley.edu>, gwh@soda.berkeley.edu (George William Herbert) writes:
|> Look at what's happening to personal computers right now as an
|> example... we've got a horde of cheap clone makers with no
|> engineering staffs driving the per-item costs off a cliff.

    I wonder if this is a good analogy. It's held true for some time, but
design of Pentium PCs apparently is highly demanding compared to 386/486 era
machines, and may be beyond the capabilities of a lot of the sources of
cheap clones.
    Jon
    __@/

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

Date: 28 Jul 1993 23:25:20 GMT
From: George William Herbert <gwh@soda.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Retro Aerospace
Newsgroups: sci.space

[this is probably not appropriate for sci.space much anymore, but...]

leech@cs.unc.edu (Jon Leech) writes:
>gwh@soda.berkeley.edu (George William Herbert) writes:
>|> Look at what's happening to personal computers right now as an
>|> example... we've got a horde of cheap clone makers with no
>|> engineering staffs driving the per-item costs off a cliff.
>
>    I wonder if this is a good analogy. It's held true for some time, but
>design of Pentium PCs apparently is highly demanding compared to 386/486 era
>machines, and may be beyond the capabilities of a lot of the sources of
>cheap clones.

I've seen Pentium motherboards from the people who make most of the 
clone 486 motherboards, so it can't be that hard...

-george william herbert
Retro Aerospace

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

Date: 28 Jul 1993 21:46:34 GMT
From: "Michael C. Jensen" <mjensen@gem.valpo.edu>
Subject: Why I hate the space shuttle
Newsgroups: sci.space

Pat (prb@access.digex.net) wrote:
: Michael Jensen again shows his lack of Knowledge....
	And Pat again shows his lack of "wide angled" perspective..

:   For what it's worth,  The DC-3  was very high Risk for it's
: time  and considered very experimental..
so was the shuttle, so is DC, so what?

: 	What they did, was build the DC-1,  then the DC-2  to
: 	prove the flight concepts,  the reliability and
: 	basic markets,  before going to the DC-3

And did they stop flying the previous models before the new one
was built? NO.. they didn't.. there are limited cases where aircraft
or vehicles were flown limited times and then abandoned, but MOST were
used until a replacement ws available..  this perpetual belief that
shuttle costs 1billion + per flight is silly and quite wrong.. the costs
ARE alredy sunk.. you are not going to get them back.. the bill is
already paid.. each flight is a greater return on the initial investement
and shuttle is still the only manned operational system the US has available.
(and the claims we outta swap to Mir/Soyuz are a seperate argument - not  
grounds for proving or disproving the value and stability of our current
and future programs)

Again and again and again I ask why do we have to abandon shuttle before
a new system is availble to replace or supplement it? We won't save 
billions per flight by doing this? I've posted the actual figures from
the budget and including vehicle, "standing army" and facilitiy costs,
the shuttle STILL comes nowhere near $1 billion a flight.. more like
$500 million.. pretty close to Saturn.. now I'd have prefered we keep
Saturn and use shuttle only to get crews and special equipment up, but
that's not what we did.. why waste energy beating a dead horse? 
Shuttle is NOT the cause of 
	a. the loss of all "true" manned spaceflight progress

	b. us no being on the moon again or mars by now..

	c. low funding or slowed progress on DC/NASP

	d. NOT a job welfare program

	e. NOT the cause of <insert eco-system complaint here>

	f. NOT the cause of <insert whining my program got axed complain here>

AND 	g. the decline of America's prestige, supremacy, or ability in space.

Pat.. you obviously care about the issues.. and you seem to show a 
good ability to try and analyze things, but you are REALLY taking a
narrow and poorly supported viewpoint.. one which seems all to prominent
these days.. I still don't think YOU have a good grasp of the true
values or costs of the shuttle system, or NASA programs in general.. 
most people in industry will agree with this statement: 

	"there is a severe lack of scientific and technological
	understanding and competence in MOST of america's media
	and journalism circles"

Things you read in the trade journals (many of which I read too) HAVE to
be taken with a grain of salt. You have to look at who's writing
the article, what the scope of it's research or claims was, and how reliable
the journal itself has proven. Most of the so called "facts" are in fact
opinions.. the claims that DC will work ARE opinions, as are the claims
that it can't work.. there is little clear scientific knowledge on either
side of this issue.. and it is the same for ALL big science programs..

instead of relying on the old and tired "oh he doesn't know what he's
talking about and I do so there" comments, why not post quotes, figures,
facts, etc? That's generally what I try to do, and I'd like to think that
some people appreciate the additional input.. there's little value in
close mindedness and poor behaivor.. 

Mike "He shows his lack of Knowledge" (or does he?) Jensen
--
Michael C. Jensen   Valparaiso University/Johnson Space Center
mjensen@gem.valpo.edu  "I bet the human brain is a kludge." -- Marvin Minsky
jensen@cisv.jsc.nasa.gov  *WindowsNT - From the people who brought you edlin* 
---Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are my own... ---

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

Date: 28 Jul 1993 22:15:27 GMT
From: "Michael C. Jensen" <mjensen@gem.valpo.edu>
Subject: Why I hate the space shuttle
Newsgroups: sci.space

: Suppose you had a car which cost you $10 per mile to operate. It was so
: expensive, that all your available funds went into maintenance and you
: had little else for rent, food, and everything else. Would you make the
: 'mistake' of getting rid of this car and living without it until something
: else could be bought? Or would you get rid of the car and live with the
: discomfort while you get something else? I would choose the latter, how
: would you choose?

that's a good hypothetical situation. it's however somewhat inaccurate..
STS does NOT eat up all our available funds, it des NOt leave little
for rent, food, and other things.. and if the car was the only way I 
could go out and see "x" that I really wanted to see and explore, yep..
I'd be willing to do it.. now IF car design B came along and WORKED, 
and was cheaper and worked better, I'd switch of course.. but why
switch before it's availble..?

: Just because a vehicle exists doesn't mean it is a good idea to operate
: it. Suppose Shuttle consumed 100% of the NASA budget? Would you still
: say it should be flown until a replacement is available?

It doesn't.. and probably never will.. assuming it did, I'd expect to see
some impressive results or I'd be either saying NASA needs more funds, or 
they need to fix things.. but it doesn't eat up 100% of anything.. 

: >The point is the more the claims get inflated, the harder time DC will have
: >selling itself.. 

: Agreed. However, DC claims are not inflating if you listen to the people
: working the problem. The original claim was a vehicle which launches 20 to
: 24 thousand pounds to LEO, requires no more than 7 days for turnaround, has
: an operational cost of $5 to $10 million per launch and a total cost of
: roughly $5B to develop. That was the claim two years ago when it got 
: started and it is still the claim today.

In other words, the first five flights are going to cost me over $1 billion
each for less payload? (at least that's the cost figuring some would make..)
I still like DC.. and support it avidly.. my point STILL remains we shouldn't
give up something that works, and something that is NOT interfering with
DC's viabilty, and something that is still producing valuable results..

: >the DC-3 aircraft wasn't "pre-sold" as the end-all, be-all
: >of air transportation, 

: Ah, but it WAS pre-sold as having some pretty advanced capabilities. You
: might well have called those claims too optimistic at the time.

As did shuttle, as will DC.. 'course both these programs have been a little
oversold in some respects.. we have yet t see if DC does a better job of
living up to it's claims.. but again, all three either have, or may in 
the case of DC advance the state of technology and knowlege..

Mike

--
Michael C. Jensen   Valparaiso University/Johnson Space Center
mjensen@gem.valpo.edu  "I bet the human brain is a kludge." -- Marvin Minsky
jensen@cisv.jsc.nasa.gov  *WindowsNT - From the people who brought you edlin* 
---Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are my own... ---

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

Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1993 19:48:01 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Why I hate the space shuttle
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1993Jul28.131752.16901@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <233gjg$ktq@voyager.gem.valpo.edu> mjensen@gem.valpo.edu (Michael C. Jensen) writes:
>
>>Which is why I hope DC lives up to most of it's claims.. however, it would
>>be unwise to make the same mistake of apollo and take an operational system
>>offine BEFORE it's replacement is available.. 
>
>Suppose you had a car which cost you $10 per mile to operate. It was so
>expensive, that all your available funds went into maintenance and you
>had little else for rent, food, and everything else. Would you make the
>'mistake' of getting rid of this car and living without it until something
>else could be bought? Or would you get rid of the car and live with the
>discomfort while you get something else? I would choose the latter, how
>would you choose?

If the car is your only means of doing your job, and your uncle and
three cousins make their living doing maintenance on it, and your
three brothers make their living driving it, and your sister makes
her living working the radio, you scream to Uncle Sap for a subsidy
to keep you in business. Since the revenue you're generating goes
into the pockets of some of Uncle Sap's favorite constituents, he
complies, and your whole family keeps their jobs.

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     |                     | 

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 940
------------------------------
