Message-ID: <Yaa1dlK00VcJEDJU4u@andrew.cmu.edu>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Mon,  9 Jul 1990 01:47:30 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #33

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 12 : Issue 33

Today's Topics:
			   Re: Light-ships
		   Re: grim tidings for the future
		Image processing / pattern recognition
			  Re: Nasa's budget
			 Anti-Gravity Devices
			Long March performance
		   Re: grim tidings for the future
	       Re: NSS protests Chinese launch pricing
		     Re: Bush Approves Cape York

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: 9 Jul 90 04:41:36 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!usenet@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (USENET Maint Acct)
Subject: Re: Light-ships

Bruce Wilson asks why "...people keep proposing such silly...tripe year after
year?", in regards to a story he saw on CNN.
From: mvk@pawl.rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent)
Path: mvk

The answer is that we're still working on it.  The project CNN was probably
referring to is the Apollo Lightcraft.  A professor and several engineering
students here at RPI are working on the project, and hope to have a full-scale
test ready by 1995.  Last I heard, they were doing wind tunnel testing of a
scale model.

This isn't tripe.  They plan to have a prototype flying by the end of the
decade.  If my memory is correct, they are planning to do some testing at
White Sands in 1995 using some SDI lasers.  Details escape me at the moment --
I've been on co-op for over a year.  If there is any interest, I can find out
exactly where they are.  I might even join the team.  (half smiley)

I've talked to the professor about this.  This is a serious attempt with the
full backing of RPI.
                                                             Mike

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

Date: 9 Jul 90 02:54:32 GMT
From: groucho!steve@handies.ucar.edu  (Steve Emmerson)
Subject: Re: grim tidings for the future

In <`0Q$50_@rpi.edu> mvk@pawl.rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent) writes (regarding
NASA's seeming problems with large projects):

>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.

My own poorly-quantified belief is that NASA shouldn't attempt any
project larger than one billion dollars.  Some sort of threshold for
diminishing managerial returns seems to be crossed at that point.

If true, this bodes ill for EOS.  Several smaller platforms might have
been preferable.

Steve Emmerson        steve@unidata.ucar.edu        ...!ncar!unidata!steve

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

Date: 8 Jul 90 02:18:47 GMT
From: hpcc01!hpwrce!kingsley@hplabs.hpl.hp.com  (Kingsley Morse)
Subject: Image processing / pattern recognition

Hi,

     Have you heard of anyone processing satellite images with an 
algorithm that learns to classify features in the satellite images?
Furthermore, is the algorithm computationally efficient enough
to train itself on 'millions' of sample images? (The images may also 
have come from 'remote sensing'.)

     I've been told that such an algorithm exists, but not who, where or
when. If you've heard of a researcher, book or algorithm, please
let me know! Thanks.


                                            Kingsley

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

Date: 8 Jul 90 14:24:15 GMT
From: usc!samsung!umich!umeecs!itivax!vax3.iti.org!aws@ucsd.edu  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Nasa's budget

In article <900706.145119.EDT.JEFF@UTCVM> JEFF@UTCVM.BITNET (Jeffrey R Kell) writes:

>Are there any man-rated expendibles left (at least the manned configurations)?

The commercial Titan is close to man rated. If we man-rated the heavy lift
Titan, we would have a man-rated booster which lifts 2-2.5 times what the
Shuttle will lift AND will cost half as much per launch. The costs needed
to build the HLV Titan could be recovered by the savings of not flying the
Shuttle for 4 months.

There is in interesting quote in the LLNL response to the NASA assesment
of the Great Exploration (LLNL Doc. No. SS90-9) page 26:

   The documented design reliability of one of these two heavy-lift
   vehicles is twice that of the a posteriori reliability of the
   shuttle, as it the a posteriori reliability of its antecedent
   space-launch system; this calls into basic question the value-added
   by the "man-rating" process in the real world.

>For that matter, what will we do for a capsule?  Buy a Soyuz? (half :-) )

For starters why not? With the man-rated Titan HLV and a Soyuz we wouldn't
need the Shuttle anymore. In the first year we would save $1.5 billion of
which 00M would be used to pay for the TiTital modifications. It shouldn't
be to hard to use the extra billion to build a capsule (if we want) AND
build the LLNL space station. All this could be available three years after
the word go.

  Allen


|                          |      In War: Resolution                      |
| Allen W. Sherzer         |      In Defeat: Defiance                     |
|   aws@iti.org            |      In Victory: Magnanimity                 |
|                          |      In Peace: Good Will                     |

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

Date: 8 Jul 90 19:50:06 GMT
From: uoft02.utoledo.edu!cscon143@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
Subject: Anti-Gravity Devices


	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).

						-Erik

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

Date: 9 Jul 90 02:55:36 GMT
From: serre@boulder.colorado.edu  (SERRE GLENN)
Subject: Long March performance

Anyone out there know the stats for Long March (payload to LEO, GTO, GSO, etc.)?

Just curious.  

--Glenn Serre
serre@tramp.colorado.edu

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

Date: 9 Jul 90 02:40:08 GMT
From: crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen@uunet.uu.net  (Wm E. Davidsen Jr)
Subject: Re: grim tidings for the future

In article <1990Jul7.122315.1005@uoft02.utoledo.edu> fax0112@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:

| > COBE simply because it is giving us the answers we _expected_ to get.
| >                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| 
| Sorry that is quite the opposite of the truth.  So far COBE has
| not detected the anisotropy astrophysicists were expecting to see.

  I think he meant it was providing answers to the questions intended to
be addressed. That the answers are not as expected is an indication that
useful data is coming in. Now the theory can be modified to expect
what's actually happening (although people will probably try to explain
away the data, instead).
-- 
bill davidsen - davidsen@sixhub.uucp (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen)
    sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX
    moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc and 80386 mailing list
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me

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

Date: 6 Jul 90 04:22:37 GMT
From: usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!peregrine!ccicpg!conexch!ofa123!Wales.Larrison@ucsd.edu  (Wales Larrison)
Subject: Re: NSS protests Chinese launch pricing

Henry,  recently you replied to Craig E. Ward:
 
>A private provider who also provided primitive facilities for 
>hardware built in appliance factories with cheap labor probably 
>would come in cheaper than the Chinese government.  However, that is 
>not what the real private providers do.  There is every reason to 
>believe that the real costs to China are lower than Western 
>commercial costs.  If you claim otherwise, please provide --
>>NUMBERS<-- instead of just asserting that rotating a launch pad 
>with hand cranks can't possibly be cheaper than doing it with 
>computer-controlled machinery built by US aerospace contractors. 
>(This is not an imaginary example.) 
   ...(Deleted) ... 
 >Complaints about the pricing being too low always seem to be 
>implicitly based on the assumption that Chinese costs are similar to 
>those of the Western suppliers, which is clearly untrue, because 
>they provide poorer service in simpler ways with lower-cost labor. 
 
    Your argument for a lower cost basis for Chinese rockets has 
merit.  It caused me to dig into some of my files, and do some 
thinking about how well we can estimate the costs (Note: not 
"price") of a Chinese launch system.  I've tried to put some numbers 
on the cost difference.  The question is not if the Chinese have a 
lower cost launch system, but how much lower?  and from what? 
    Some time  ago, I looked at a lot of differential cost estimates 
for different launch systems.  Since the Chinese government doesn't 
release their cost basis for a Long March (the AIAA, among others, 
have asked for this...), we have to estimate the LM costs from some 
basis.  Probably the easiest way is to estimate what it would cost a 
non-government U.S. manufacturer, and then adjust the relative costs 
to match the the Chinese approach.  While their relative costs are 
different, the types of cost should be the same. 
   For a typical space launch vehicle, production costs can be 
broken into three primary categories: labor, material and 
subcontract, and computer services.  Specific labor categories are 
engineering, touch, indirect support, and direct support.  These 
labor categories were also applied to subcontract labor.  Within the 
material and subcontract category, fabrication material must also be 
supplied.  
  Touch labor is defined as "hands on" labor which contributes 
directly to the manufacture of vehicle hardware.  Engineering labor 
includes the functional disciplines (structures, stress analysis, 
electrical, thermal, etc.), systems analyses, configuration 
management, and engineering administration. 
  Direct manufacturing support contains quality assurance, 
specifically inspection and quality assurance support functions such 
as safety and reliability engineering, administration and control, 
and procurement/receiving quality control.  Direct support also 
includes tool maintenance, re-work labor, tooling control, 
industrial engineering, factory supervision and shop control, and 
production planning and scheduling.  
   Indirect support is defined as all of the program management and 
administrative support functions such as contracts, finance, 
accounting, planning, industrial relations and training, etc.  
   The percentages shown below are from an analysis done on typical 
U.S./European space launch vehicle costs, using industry-standard 
cost estimating models  (RCA PRICE, etc.). 
                                                (Cont)


--  
uucp:     Wales Larrison
Internet: Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org
BBS:      714 544-0934   2400/1200/300

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

Date: 8 Jul 90 23:14:42 GMT
From: munnari.oz.au!bruce!zik@uunet.uu.net  (Michael Saleeba)
Subject: Re: Bush Approves Cape York

In <1990Jul8.151834.24693@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:

>The new policy, thrashed out over the past several weeks by National
>Space Council, includes safeguards against "unfair competition"
>from the Soviet Union.

I think what they really mean here is just "competition" :->

BTW: Does anyone know why the Cape York site was chosen? I know that
environmental groups have been gearing up to get really upset about this
choice of site. After all, Cape York is a relatively unspoilt site. If 
there is going to be a lauch site in Oz, why not make it at the old Woomera
site, which has a number of advantages. For a start it is already established,
albeit rather abandoned at the moment. Secondly there is little chance of
environmental concern as it is in the middle of the desert and is pretty
messed-up already. And finally it has an extremely cool name; a woomera is
an Australian Aboriginal spear-thrower :-)


+-------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
|       Michael Saleeba         | "A zygote is a gamete's way of        |
|    zik@bruce.cs.monash.oz     |  producing more gametes. This may     |
|       -|-   Zik   -|-         |  be the purpose of the universe"      |
|                               |                     - Heinlein        |
+-------------------------------+---------------------------------------+

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

End of SPACE Digest V12 #33
*******************