Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from beak.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests) ID ; Mon, 9 Jul 1990 01:31:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Mon, 9 Jul 1990 01:31:08 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #32 SPACE Digest Volume 12 : Issue 32 Today's Topics: Re: Julian Date Re: grim tidings for the future Re: Anti-Gravity Devices Bush Approves Cape York Re: NSS protests Chinese launch pricing Re: NSS protests Chinese launch pricing Re: Anti-Gravity Devices Re: grim tidings for the future Re: grim tidings for the future Re: NSS protests Chinese launch pricing Re: grim tidings for the future Light-ships Administrivia: Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to space+@andrew.cmu.edu. Other mail, esp. [un]subscription notices, should be sent to space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu, or, if urgent, to tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 07 Jul 90 14:12:49 ADT From: LANG%UNB.CA@vma.cc.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Julian Date On Fri, 6 Jul 90 01:44:22 EDT kfl@quake.LCS.MIT.EDU (Keith F. Lynch) > Right. Julian date 2446605 was the 174th and 175th day of 1986 (June > 23 and 24). The number simply increases by one each day, at noon UT. > The evening of today, July 5th, day 186 of 1990, is 2448078. > > They've lopped off the leading two digits to save space, since '46605 > won't recur for over 270 years. Be careful! If precision is important to you these dates could be in Modified Julian Date (MJD). MJD = JD - 240 0000.5 Note that although JD advances by one at noon, MJD advances by one at midnight, as do the days of the month. MJD is widely used by the time keeping and geodesy communities. ================================================================================ Richard B. Langley BITnet: LANG@UNB.CA or SE@UNB.CA Geodetic Research Laboratory Phone: (506) 453-5142 Dept. of Surveying Engineering Telex: 014-46202 University of New Brunswick FAX: (506) 453-4943 Fredericton, N.B., Canada E3B 5A3 ================================================================================ ------------------------------ Date: 8 Jul 90 20:48:34 GMT From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!mvk@ucsd.edu (Michael V. Kent) Subject: Re: grim tidings for the future In response to Doug Mahoney: Yes, in the "Old Days" we made two or three of everything. This is because it usually took two or three attempts to get the probes working. The first attempts splashed in the ocean, blew up on the pad, or got lost in space. Now we can ALMOST ALWAYS get it right the first time. Yes, there are a few mistakes made. No, we may not get every bit of data we hoped for. But the scientific objectives are ALMOST ALWAYS met. Give Hubble some more time. No one was planning to do any real science before October anyway. This is checkout time -- you know -- time to find out what works properly and what does not. Even as Hubble now stands, scientists will have plenty of data to ooh and aah about. It should get even better in 1993. As for Hubble being the greatest astronomical event since Galileo, I guess we'll find that out in November. Mike ------------------------------ Date: 8 Jul 90 23:23:11 GMT From: munnari.oz.au!bruce!zik@uunet.uu.net (Michael Saleeba) Subject: Re: Anti-Gravity Devices In <1990Jul8.145006.1014@uoft02.utoledo.edu> cscon143@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes: > This may sound a little weird but I was wondering if anyone > has heard anything about anti-gravity devices. I heard that > the government has been working on them for years and I was > wondering if anyone can validate this. (this is a serious > request). There was recent interest in the Australian media when an ex-engineer from England claimed he had an antigravity device but that the scientists (the bad guys) were ignoring his glorious discovery. This was all written up in beautifully misleading style by various newspapers at the time, but interest seems to have falled off as the guy has refused to show his device to any scientists, claiming "industial espionage" as his reason. He has also failed to back up his claimed results with a demonstration. One of the physics professors here at Monash looked at what was visible of the device in a picture in one of the glossy magazines, and worked out that it was merely using the precession of a gyroscope to provide a short-lived upward force (as I remember). Don't ask me for any more details; that's all I remember. +-------------------------------+---------------------------------------+ | Michael Saleeba | "Stupidity cannot be cured with | | zik@bruce.cs.monash.oz | money, or through education, or by | | -|- Zik -|- | legislation. Stupidity is not a sin, | +-------------------------------+ the victim can't help being stupid. | | But stupidity is the only universal capital crime; the sentence is | | death, there is no appeal, and the execution is carried out | | automatically and without pity" - Heinlein | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 8 Jul 90 15:18:34 GMT From: usc!bbn.com!rochester!dietz@ucsd.edu (Paul Dietz) Subject: Bush Approves Cape York According to the NY Times, the Bush administration is going to ok the launching of US satellites on Russian Zenit boosters from the envisioned Cape York spaceport. The administration will soon grant a license to United Technologies to manage the spaceport. The new policy, thrashed out over the past several weeks by National Space Council, includes safeguards against "unfair competition" from the Soviet Union. Launch operations at Cape York could begin as early as 1995. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jul 90 16:09:13 GMT From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!peregrine!ccicpg!conexch!ofa123!David.Anderman@decwrl.dec.com (David Anderman) Subject: Re: NSS protests Chinese launch pricing 1) I don't believe that NSS is asking for an inquiry about Chinese launch prices; rather, they are complaining about low Chinese launch prices. 2) HR 2674 does not prevent the "US payload market" from access to the cheaper Chinese launcers; rather, it prohibits *Federal* satellites from launch on Chinese launchers, which by the way, is the case today for Federal government satellites, due to existing treaties... -- uucp: David Anderman Internet: David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org BBS: 714 544-0934 2400/1200/300 ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jul 90 04:27:59 GMT From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!peregrine!ccicpg!conexch!ofa123!Wales.Larrison@decwrl.dec.com (Wales Larrison) Subject: Re: NSS protests Chinese launch pricing (cont) From this type of analysis, we can conclude that the PRC is probably pricing below the production cost, and "dumping" their launch vehicles on the world market to earn hard currency. In the short term, satellite manufacturers will gain an advantage from lower launch costs (even though the demonstrated reliability of the Long March is only about 18 out of 20 sucesses). However, in the long term (5-10 years), such practices will drive out all other launch vehicles without government financial backing. By pricing the Long March substantially below their cost, they are directly attacking the establishment of a free market for space transportation and distorting the market to a level at which a "commercial" launch company cannot survive. Such companies as Arianespace, Commercial Delta, Commerical Titan, General Dynamics, and OSC cannot meet the depth of financial backing the PRC can provide, and cannot win a protracted battle for market share with the Long March. Without direct government financial support, these companies cannot compete with the PRC government. With government financial support, they can survive (by government-subsidized launches), but this will cost the government more, and by losing commercial payloads to a PRC-subsidized Long March, it will cost the U.S. government more to launch each government satellite on these vehicles due to loss of economies of scale. Plus, this is the exact opposite direction from which I would like to see the space industry go. If U.S. launch firms are forced out of the market by PRC- subsidized Long March prices (and the market isn't that big to comfortably support all the current players), is this good for commercial space? What happens in 5 years, when all the competing commercial companies have folded, and Long March is the only game left in down? Where is the competition to keep them honest? What is the difference between this and having imported steel sold at 2 cents a pound to gain market share and drive U.S. manufacturers out of business? Or having import cars dumped at $2000 each? Or computer chips? Or textiles? Or .... This falls directly under the provisions of the Trade Act, and Provision 301. In my opinion, the best political and economic course is to prevent the Chinese government from dumping Long March launch services on the world market. The PRC has signed a trade agreement promising to price their vehicles closer to their cost. They should be encouraged to live up to this agreement and enforcement imposed if necessary. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Wales Larrison Space Technology Investor -- uucp: Wales Larrison Internet: Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org BBS: 714 544-0934 2400/1200/300 ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jul 90 00:03:38 GMT From: shelby!med!hanauma!rick@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Richard Ottolini) Subject: Re: Anti-Gravity Devices In article <1990Jul8.145006.1014@uoft02.utoledo.edu> cscon143@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes: > > > This may sound a little weird but I was wondering if anyone > has heard anything about anti-gravity devices. I heard that > the government has been working on them for years and I was > wondering if anyone can validate this. (this is a serious > request). Scientists aren't sure what causes gravity. They've described quite accurately how bodies move in the presence of gravity. There is a wave theory of gravity, but neither the waves or gravitons have been observed yet. There are aircraft in the works that operate on non-conventional principles that are sometimes refered to "ant-gravity" :-) Most aircraft use lighter-than-air material or aerodynamic lift. Non-standard things such as hovercrafts and jetpacks appear in the press now and then. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jul 90 23:06:00 GMT From: ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!m.cs.uiuc.edu!carroll@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu Subject: Re: grim tidings for the future /* Written 8:29 pm Jul 4, 1990 by russ@m-net.ann-arbor.mi.us in m.cs.uiuc.edu:sci.space */ The list of HEAO, Viking, Voyager, etc. is a good one. It shows that NASA does science very well, when it is allowed to. The on-going contributions to the science of aeronautics (such as propfans, riblets, vortex generators) are extremely valuable as well. Where NASA fails is on the big projects. [ ... ] If we are going to get the best out of NASA, we should restrict it to doing what it does well: aeronautical and space science. [ ... ] /* End of text from m.cs.uiuc.edu:sci.space */ The NASA supporters, it seems to me, are providing additional evidence for this view. NASA's success's, some of which are amazing, are basically all _research successes. Not _development_ successes. The big development attempts (the Shuttle, the Space Station) have been (to be blunt) disasters. Let's get NASA out of the D, and back in the R. We'll all be better off then. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 8 Jul 1990 11:04:19 EDT From: KLUDGE@AGCB8.LARC.NASA.GOV Subject: Re: grim tidings for the future X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"space+@andrew.cmu.edu" I don't have the numbers on the amount of pure research being done by NASA versus the amount of engineering, but I do have a five-foot shelf of catalogues of abstracts of NASA technical papers on aviation alone (and I might point out that NASA does not manufacture aircraft). I don't see any rockets out the window, but I see lots of Cessna aircraft deliberately going into spins to test spin recovery methods, green LIDAR columns stretching up into the sky at night, high-altitude aircraft bringing back pollen samples, experimental head-up displays being tested, and a number of things which may be considered either pure science or development engineering. None of this stuff is going to be made commercially by NASA. And if NASA is so completely overfunded, then why are we still using *&$^%! Cyber machines in our flight simulators? --scott ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jul 90 04:24:00 GMT From: cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!peregrine!ccicpg!conexch!ofa123!Wales.Larrison@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Wales Larrison) Subject: Re: NSS protests Chinese launch pricing (Cont) Production Total 100% | |-------------------------------|-------------| Labor Mat'l &S/C Comp Serv 51% 34% 15% | | |--------|--------|------| |------------------| Engrng DirSprt Touch IndSprt S/C Labor Fab Mat'l 3% 11% 12% 25% 25% 9% | | |--------|--------|------| |-----|------| Engrng DirSprt Touch IndSprt QA Maint Sched 2% |5% 6% 12% 5% 3% 3% |-----|------| QA Maint Sched 2% 1% 2% Now, to get the difference between a U.S. and a Chinese launch vehicle, I took this cost breakdown, and estimated corrections to a Chinese launch vehicle for the PRC way of doing business, using a spreadsheet. For comparison, I assumed a $60 million Titan 3 launch vehicle, which is about equal in performance to a Long March. Correction % U.S. Factor Chinese Cost Cost Labor Eng 3.0% 1.800 0.5 0.900 DirSprt QA 5.0% 3.000 1.5 4.500 Maint 3.0% 1.800 1 1.800 Sched 3.0% 1.800 1 1.800 Touch 12.0% 7.200 0.1 0.720 IndSprt 25.0% 15.000 0.75 11.250 Mat'l S/CLab Eng 2.0% 1.200 0.5 0.600 DirSprt QA 2.0% 1.200 1.5 1.800 Maint 1.0% 0.600 1 0.600 Sched 2.0% 1.200 1 1.200 Touch 6.0% 3.600 0.1 0.360 IndSprt 12.0% 7.200 0.75 5.400 Fab Mat'l 9.0% 5.400 1.25 6.750 Comp Serv 15.0% 9.000 1.5 13.500 60.000 51.180 US Total PRC Total Please note, that for virtually every factor I gave the PRC a lower cost factor than the U.S. O.K., where did I get these correction factors? For Engineering, I assumed 50% cost - while PRC engineers cost only about 1/10 the U.S cost, they have less tools and are less productive. For example, the have virtually no PCs, little CAD systems, and less of a data base for "cookbook" engineering solutions to launch vehicles. I figured about 4x as many manhours, and rounded up to .5 to show the PRC space program has the "Cream" engineers (they get paid about 25% better than a normal government engineer). (cont) -- uucp: Wales Larrison Internet: Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org BBS: 714 544-0934 2400/1200/300 ------------------------------ Date: 8 Jul 90 20:56:22 GMT From: usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!mvk@ucsd.edu (Michael V. Kent) Subject: Re: grim tidings for the future Hmmm... Why do big projects have more problems than little projects. It must be because of NASA's incompetence, stupidity, mismanagement, etc. Or could it be because big projects are larger, more complicated, and have many more things which could go wrong and thus a much higher probability that something will go wrong? Doesn't that make sense? Naw. Mike ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 8 Jul 90 22:38 CDT From: Subject: Light-ships I saw this afternoon on CNN that somebody has proposed using high-powered lasers to propel ships (they said up to 5-man in size) into space. It seems that a properly constructed mirror arraingment could direct the enery of a ground-based laser pulse into an air-heating baffle, which would direct the heat-expanded air towards the rear. At high altitude an on-board hydrogen gas source would take the place of air. My question is, how many times has this been proposed before? And why do people keep proposing such silly "Popular Science" tripe year after year? And why did CNN use up a whole 7 minutes on it? What are some of the other ideas for unconventional ways to 'space-out'? Bruce Wilson, bew4568@venus.tamu.edu ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V12 #32 *******************