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 02:17:23 -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 02:16:54 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #35 SPACE Digest Volume 12 : Issue 35 Today's Topics: ftp for stsorbit Re: NSS protests Chinese launch pricing MIR status question Re: grim tidings for the future Re: grim tidings for the future 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: 8 Jul 90 17:55:11 GMT From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!jetson.uh.edu!honp7@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu Subject: ftp for stsorbit Hi, For some reason, my copy of stsorbit.dat is now corrupted and I haven't been able to recover it. Could some kind soul either post/send me the ftp address for it or a copy of the .dat file ? I have to access to a uudecode and the arc and zip de/compressors. Thankx in advance, Eddie McCreary U. of Houston "The time has come to speak of many things..." honp7@jetson.uh.edu ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jul 90 04:25:19 GMT From: snorkelwacker!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) QA also got a 50% increase - their testing is not automated, and their general quality of production is less. It takes a lot more time, and a lot more cost to test quality in. Maintenance was the same as the U.S. - while I expect more maintenance, I expected it to be less expensive in labor cost. Scheduling was also the same - again I expect more difficult scheduling (no automated program management systems), but cheaper labor. Touch labor was 10% the U.S. cost. Indirect support costs were 75% as the U.S. Again, I assumed they were not any more efficient than the U.S. (heck, from what I've seen and read of PRC industry, they are a lot LESS efficient from their socialist management system), with less automated systems and lots more manhours, but cheaper labor. One key factor that I mentally included in this guestimate was that they probably have increased costs for training and subcontractor management (How do you threaten another government agency for non-performance on a government contract?). Fabrication material was assumed to be 25% more expensive than the U.S. For example, the costs of producing bulk alumimum are highly dependent upon the amount of aluminum produced per year and the cost of the energy that goes into refining the aluminum. The cost of energy in China is not lower than in the U.S. (fewer, older, and less efficient generating systems), and less alumimum is produced annually. High strength/weight grade alumimum needed for rocket stages (and we know this is used from the system performance numbers released) is somewhat more expensive - and since less is produced in China than the U.S., it should be more expensive. Computer services, including software, was estimated to be more expensive. Again, while programmers work cheaper, older and slower computers make each programmer less productive, dramatically increases software testing time, and increases the total cost. While my valuation for the correction factors is subjective, since I didn't do an exhaustive comparative cost factor analysis, I think these factors are about right. The launch rates for the Long March are less than that of the Titan, so they don't get any economies of scale. Doing some quick sensitivity calculations shows the primary advantage of the PRC in cheap labor is offset by other factors. Indirect support is the largest single factor, and I can't believe that the PRC with their non-automated, socialized decision making and production system is amazingly more efficient than a U.S. specialty manufacturing system (I've already made them 25% more cost-effective, overall). So what does this all mean? From this analysis, and from similar ones I've heard about, it looks like the Chinese are pricing their launch vehicle quite a bit below their launch costs. While these types of analyses are sure to have some error, I've seen such estimates calibrated by comparison to the Indian SLV, the Japanese N2 and H1 vehicles, and even to different U.S. launch vehicles (for which cost data is very available). In almost all cases, the costs come out within about 10-20% of the "real" costs. These numbers show the Chinese costs to be in the $40-$60 million dollar range, whereas they are selling the LM for $20-30 million. This indicates they are pricing to about 50% of their cost. When asked why they can produce and sell a system at such a low value, the PRC has provided no supporting information. In fact, they have stated that they are trying to earn hard currency more than make money on their launch. (cont) -- uucp: Wales Larrison Internet: Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org BBS: 714 544-0934 2400/1200/300 ------------------------------ Date: 8 Jul 90 18:38:30 GMT From: van-bc!ubc-cs!kiwi!dssmv2!fischer@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Roger Fischer) Subject: MIR status question I have lost track of the status of MIR. My questions are: 1. Was the newest expansion module moved to its final position? 2. Did they fix the loose thermal blanket on the Sojuz (sp?) capsule? Thanks for any response. Roger ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Roger W. Fischer fischer@mprgate.mpr.ca fischer@mprgate.UUCP ..seismo!ubc-cs!mprgate!fischer ...ihnp4!alberta!ubc-cs!mprgate!fischer ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jul 90 04:16:09 GMT From: unmvax!nmt.edu!nraoaoc@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Daniel Briggs) Subject: Re: grim tidings for the future > > [Various comments on whether COBE is or is not returning the data that we > "expected" to see.] > As I understand it, COBE was in a particularly favorable position for an experiment. No matter what the answer turned out to be, as long as it achieved the proper level of sensitivity it was *guaranteed* to shake up the cosmological community. If it *did* detect the anisotropy predicted by the theorists, we get to compare its results with the theory. The form of the anisotropy will be of great interest, to say nothing of its magnitude. On the other hand, if it achieved "only" an upper limit on the anisotropy equal to its design limits, then essentially all of the current theories of galaxy formation go out the window. Either way, it is interesting stuff! [BTW, no anisotropy yet. I believe that the last results that I saw were only based on a few weeks of data. We'll be in a much better position after the full two year integration.] -- This is a shared guest account, please send replies to dbriggs@nrao.edu (Internet) Dan Briggs / NRAO / P.O. Box O / Socorro, NM / 87801 (U.S. Snail) ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jul 90 05:15:28 GMT From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!mvk@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Michael V. Kent) Subject: Re: grim tidings for the future Steve Emmerson writes: "My own...belief is that NASA shouldn't attempt any project over one billion dollars." Why not? NASA seems to be doing alright by me. Apollo was over $1G, and I'd bet that Mercury and Gemini were too. All three programs had problems, as do the Space Shuttle, Freedom, and the Hubble Space Telescope. If they didn't, I'd be completely awed. These are big, complicated projects. They're attempting to do what has never been done before. To expect perfection is to equate NASA with God. NASA's promo's stated that Hubble was the most complex scientific instrument ever created. Maybe they exaggerated a little, but not by much. Complex projects have more problems -- it's the nature of the beast. As for EOS, maybe you're right, but the argument behind NASA's thinking is that breaking the project up into many smaller ones lowers the probability for complete success as well as for complete failure. It also drives up the cost because of redundancy. IMHO, we on the net (and the general public) tend to forget that spaceflight is a risky business, and we expect perfection. If you've forgotten how far we've come, go rent *The Right Stuff*. Pay close attention to all of the American rockest blowing up on the pad. Mike ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V12 #35 *******************