Message-ID: <4ZU-cW600VcJAHk04F@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Sat,  9 Dec 89 01:45:54 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #329

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 10 : Issue 329

Today's Topics:
		       Re: Mars Mission Agenda
	       Payload Status for 12/08/89 (Forwarded)
			   Re: Mars rovers
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 8 Dec 89 17:35:27 GMT
From: attcan!utgpu!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Mars Mission Agenda

In article <829@v7fs1.UUCP> mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
>>... I offer prizes of $10 billion each
>>to the first five companies who can launch large amounts of payload into
>>orbit at $200/lb or less, and similar prizes to the first five companies
>>who can launch large amounts into orbit at $20/lb or less.
>
>This sounds a bit like Pournelle's proposal:  Provide a guaranteed
>market for delivery to LEO for the next ten years.  I think the figures
>he used were $200/lb for the first million pounds each year for the
>next ten years...

It was $500/lb, actually, and it wasn't just Pournelle proposing it.
(There were also, as one would expect, a few other constraints that
went along -- mostly reasonable ones.)

>The proposal was modeled on the Kelly Air-mail Act, and is the best
>idea I've seen yet on getting space transportation going.  Your prize
>is a good idea too, but I can imagine all kinds of underhanded fiscal
>legerdemain to make launch services look cheaper than they really are.
>Making it just a market removes the incentive to do that.

On the whole, I tend to agree:  the "space mail" approach is a better
scheme.  For one thing, it's a lot cheaper.  And as you point out, there
is less room for cheating and other complications.  It would make cheaper
launch technology a much less chancy investment, promoting new development
in a field that's been stalled badly for a couple of decades.

The prize approach would be the thing to do if you had lots of money to
spend and wanted results fast.  The "space mail" market guarantee just
makes better launch technology look like a sane investment; ten BILLION
dollars in a lump sum would make jaws drop and mouths water everywhere in
the investment community, resulting in frenzied activity on every possible
launch system.  I'd love to see that kind of gold rush, but then I'm kind
of impatient. :-)  The "space mail" idea probably has a better cost/benefit
ratio, even if it is less exciting and slower.
-- 
1233 EST, Dec 7, 1972:         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
last ship sails for the Moon.  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

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

Date: 9 Dec 89 06:16:42 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Payload Status for 12/08/89 (Forwarded)

Daily Status/KSC Payload Management and Operations 12-08-89
       
         
- STS-31R HST (at VPF) -
      
The GST-8 test continues with no problems reported.  All     
facility environmental readings remain nominal.  ECS support
and monitoring continues. 
        
- STS-32R SYNCOM (at Pad A) -
       
SYNCOM battery charging was performed yesterday and will continue
on a daily basis. 
       
- STS-35 ASTRO-1/BBXRT (at O&C) -
        
Powered up for the experiment IVT.  All activation was complete.  
EPD 13 verification was accomplished.  On the next sequence the  
experiment RAU 5 would not turn off.  RAU Z commands were 
verified good.  The problem has been isolated to the RAU 5.  
Freon loop flow is complete.  Spacelab experiment train interface
test continues today.
       
- STS-40 SLS-1 (at O&C) -
        
Rack structural mods continues on rack 11 and 12.  Gas component
test stand preps and validation continues.  Rack 8 panel removal     
is complete.  ECLS short stack mods have been completed.  Eddy
current checks were performed on racks 11 and 12.
       
- STS-42 IML (at O&C) -
      
No activity.

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

Date: 8 Dec 89 17:47:01 GMT
From: attcan!utgpu!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Mars rovers

In article <8912080234.AA12222@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov> roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) writes:
>... There is a very simple solution
>to the control problem: SLOW THE VEHICLE DOWN, to the point at which control
>by contemporary techniques is possible. Even a rover which moves only a
>fraction of a mile per day can cover a considerable distance over the
>course of a several-year mission. 

The problem, as I understand it, is that the rover people are not confident
that the thing will *last* several years, and the desired results/time ratio
looks difficult with a 30-minute round-trip lag.

Of course, part of the problem is that the rover people, like the manned-
mission people, have a one-shot mentality.  There will be *one* rover
mission, or at most two or three, so results must be maximized and risks
minimized because there is no tomorrow.  It's a one-shot no-followon mission,
not part of an organized long-term plan.  (If, for purposes of debate, we
make the silly :-) assumption that no manned mission is planned... then just
what *does* come after the first one or two rovers and sample returns?  The
"plans" I've seen all end there.)
-- 
1233 EST, Dec 7, 1972:         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
last ship sails for the Moon.  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

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

End of SPACE Digest V10 #329
*******************