Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from hogtown.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, 18 Feb 91 01:25:44 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Mon, 18 Feb 91 01:25:36 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #169 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 169 Today's Topics: re: request for documentation of space prog benefits Re: 30 foot telescopes Space Philosophy Re: SPS, Shuttle, Gaia Commercial Space news (3 of 5) Commercial Space news (5 of 5) Re: You can help clear cloud over MIR SWEERSTAKES. Administrivia: Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to space+@andrew.cmu.edu. Other mail, esp. [un]subscription requests, should be sent to space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu, or, if urgent, to tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 18 Feb 91 02:47:52 GMT From: taco!SEWARD%CCVAX1.NCSU.EDU@gatech.edu (Bill Seward) Subject: re: request for documentation of space prog benefits I started to send this direct to the original poster, but decided it might be of wider interest...) While it is not as recent as you ask for, Ben Bova's book _The High Road_ has exactly the sort of thing you are looking for. The book is a impassioned plea for 'further and faster' space exploration/exploitation written sometime in the 80s, as I remember. In it, he documents many figures for such things as ROI (Return On Investment) for items such as the Apollo program. Very good book. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Bill Seward -- Analyst, Programmer, System Manager, User Training, | | Operations and whatever else needs doing. | | Cutaneous Pharmacology & Toxicology Center, NC State University | | SEWARD@NCSUVAX.BITNET SEWARD@CCVAX1.CC.NCSU.EDU | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Bill Seward -- Analyst, Programmer, System Manager, User Training, | | Operations and whatever else needs doing. | | Cutaneous Pharmacology & Toxicology Center, NC State University | | SEWARD@NCSUVAX.BITNET SEWARD@CCVAX1.CC.NCSU.EDU | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: 18 Feb 91 00:39:42 GMT From: swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!news.cs.indiana.edu!ariel.unm.edu!hydra.unm.edu!carls@ucsd.edu (Bruce Carlson) Subject: Re: 30 foot telescopes Oops, 30 ft not 30 meters, sorry, but the other stuff is still correct. ------------------------------ Date: 17 Feb 91 16:38:43 GMT From: pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!uflorida!mailer.cc.fsu.edu!geomag!cain@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Joe Cain) Subject: Space Philosophy There was to be a conference at FSU this spring entitled "Space and Human Destiny" with humanities orientation. For political and economic reasons this did not get off the ground. I would like to pursue this for the future and would like input from anyone interested in contributing ideas. Some of the major thoughts I had are listed below. This is not the organizers list, though they did not have time to get much organized before it was dropped. One way they had of going about the organization was to ask the question as to why we should be putting human resources into space when there is so much needed on this planet. The list I would make out include: 1. Science: You don't know what you can use the information for until you get it. Only by space probes (sometimes including human accessories) can most of this information be obtained. Few new scientific discoveries are completely worthless (please don't start a thread following up this possibility!) and most are of high value. There is also a counter argument that if you don't learn much new maybe you can't do so much damage. I generally counter this with the point that engineering and technology are applications of science which require judgement; that science itself is only offering the options. 2. Species Security: There are likely future experiments or technological developments you might want to try say on the back side of the moon that could lead to catastrophies on Earth if something happened. One serious initial concern by those who were making the first atomic bomb test was whether there was the possibility that it would ignite other nuclear processes about which the fledgling science was unaware and consume this planet. Maybe there are, but so far we have not found them. There are probably biological experiments you would want to try only in pretty isolated circumstances as well. 3. Species survival: The self replicating biological units on this planet seem to be doing a good job of doing each other in this week. There is always a danger of the big one going up and total extinction. (No, I would not like to argue the details). I wonder what it would be worth to humanity to know that there were others independently living on some other planet which included their offspring. There must be some genetic instinct for species perpetuation. Along these lines I learned in talking to someone in Anthropology that homo sapiens has experienced only social evolution for the past 100,000 years or so. Perhaps it is time to consider genetic engineering to allow planetary habitation to be done more easily. Certainly there are serious problems not solved about the genetic damage from cosmic rays that human tissue would sustain from long exposure in an environment not as shielded by an atmosphere and magnetosphere as is ours. How do roaches turn out to be so resistant to radiation damage anyway? 4. Inspiration: Even us non-theists can use some of this. Focussing goals on "space" seems to have an international appeal. Under this heading I would also put the fallout theory that NASA has pushed so hard. That is, our society seems to get lazy in making technological breakthroughs unless there is some challenge. Better space than paranoia? Well, under "Security" above I should note that there are those who think that some day we actually will meet the little green men and we would be well advised to be as technologically as comptetent as possible in the event they decided this planet needed sanitizing for their own use. Well, this may not be the best start. What do you think important? Joseph Cain cain@geomag.gly.fsu.edu cain@fsu.bitnet scri::cain ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Feb 91 20:59:50 -0500 From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Re: SPS, Shuttle, Gaia Newsgroups: sci.space Cc: In article <`$-&54%@rpi.edu>: >>Vehicle Cost/flight Cost/pound payload >>Shuttle [1] $428M $8,570 >>(7 flights/year) >>Shuttle [2] $375M $7,500 >>(8 flights/year) >I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Allen, you're playing a >numbers game on us (perhaps unintentionally). To some extent this is true. When dealing with the dark world of government accounting with it's ignoring development costs, subsidies, and other juggeling it is very hard to establish actual cost. However, I stand by my numbers. I gave the Shuttle every break I could and used the most expensive price for the Titan I could find. >I think we're in the old flyaway cost vs. program cost debate here. You're >using flyaway cost for the expendables but program cost for the Shuttle. The 101ST Congress appropriated $4.2B for Shuttle Operations and Structural Spares. I allocated $1.2B to spares (although since that is 60% the cost of a new Shuttle that must be far too high) and $3B to operations. Divided by seven or eight flights we get the figures above. This therefore is a conservative estimate of what the Shuttle costs the taxpayers every year. Now I grant that I can only estimate Titan costs. However, unless we assume that Martin Marrietta is donating launch services then the figure must be at or above their costs. Indeed since Martin seeks to make a profit and the government doesn't that Titan's costs are lower than the estimate I gave. Especially when you realize that the number I gave is 'list price' and is therefore a maximum. >If I called NASA and asked them how much a Shuttle mission cost [1], I'd get a >number of about $193 million. ($193M / 52kip = $3700 / lb). I don't doubt that at all. However, the figure they charge doesn't include the subsidy the taxpayers would give you for the launch. Consider: for eight launches they (using your price figures) collect about $1.5B yet they spend over $3B for those same launches. If the Shuttle was a commercial venture, they would be loosing well over $1.5B per year. This money comes from the taxpayers and is holding other programs back. >As we're currently using the Shuttle, all flights require either a manned >presence or the unique capabilities of the Shuttle. Your argument assumes >that we could substitute an ELV for the Shuttle or vice versa. Well, in this case I am just pointing to costs. All I am saying here is that the Shuttle is by far the most expensive way to put a pound into space. However, since you brought it up, there are payloads going up which need the Shuttle. Even those payloads that do need the Shuttle would be better off waiting a few years, building a reasonable space station and flying them there. Allen -- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Allen Sherzer |A MESSAGE FROM THE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT TO THE PEOPLE OF KUWAIT: | |aws@iti.org | "If rape is inevitable, enjoy it!" | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 16 Feb 91 04:26:34 GMT From: pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!oliveb!felix!dhw68k!ofa123!Wales.Larrison@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Wales Larrison) Subject: Commercial Space news (3 of 5) COMET CONTRACTS SIGNED The negotiations with the contractors for the Commercial Experiment Transporter (COMET) have been completed, and the contracts were signed this week. The COMET team of Space Industries Inc, Space Services Inc, and Westinghouse has gotten formal authority to proceed. The team is now in final negotiations on the contract, to meet a NASA funding line of $10.5 M in FY 1991, $20 M in FY 1992, $24.6 M in FY 94 and $10 M in FY 95. This funding was negotiated to be sufficient to commercially design, develop, and launch a single COMET vehicle. Future launches are dependent upon future NASA or commercial funding becoming available - and it is not expected that NASA funding will increase over the $20 M/year level. SSI has proposed to launch the 1,800-pound COMET experiment carrier spacecraft into a 300 nautical mile, 40 deg orbit from either Wallops Island VA, or Cape Canaveral using its Connestoga solid-fuel booster. Recovery of the payload will be in the Southwestern U.S. probably at White Sands, although a private site in Texas is also being considered. SII is responsible for integrating the system payloads onto the carrier, planning and controlling the orbital operations, and providing the recovery capsule. Westinghouse is responsible for overall systems engineering and has subcontracted the construction of the service module to Fairchild Space Co. As systems integrator, Westinghouse will have representatives at each of the other primes facilities, and will manage overall configuration control. They will also take the lead in marketing COMET services internationally. While NASA is providing the basic initial funding for the first launch of this system through their Office of Commercial Programs down through their Centers for Commercial Development of Space (CCDSs - which will probably be the primary market for users), the operation of the system will be under a commercial license and regulations from the Department of Transportation. [Commentary: The COMET program is now firmly a "go". While FY 92 funding has not been approved yet by Congress, there is little doubt $20 M will be found for this program. This amount still requires SSI, SII and Westinghouse to do a lot of work for a little bit of money. Since this is a "firm price" commercial procurement, the firms are hoping to recover the costs of this work from future uses of this system. With several new competitors also entering the market (including a recently announced team of Battelle/E'Prime, Italy's Carina, and a possible new entry from CNES/ Aerospatiale/ Arianespace) this makes it a sporty proposition for the firms. It should also be noted that NASA/JSC is also developing a competitor to this program - called Lifesat. Lifesat is requesting $20 M in the FY 92 NASA budget - and from what I have seen of the specifications, they are very similar. Lifesat is targeted at supporting long-duration missions with life science experiments whereas COMET is focusing on more of the materials science research, but the payload sizing and orbital durations are roughly the same. This similarity, and that NASA is developing a competitor to a commercial venture should be addressed and resolved in the Congressional hearings on the NASA budget. My guess is that Lifesat will be merged with COMET.] -- Wales Larrison Internet: Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org Compuserve: >internet:Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 16 Feb 91 04:29:11 GMT From: olivea!oliveb!felix!dhw68k!ofa123!Wales.Larrison@decwrl.dec.com (Wales Larrison) Subject: Commercial Space news (5 of 5) 3 MORE COMMERCIAL LAUNCHES LICENSED The Department of Transportation, responsible for licensing commercial launches of spacecraft, has licensed three more commercial launches. These include the launch of Telstar 401 and 402 on General Dynamics Atlas launch vehicles in 1993 and 1994, and the suborbital launch of LEAP-4 (Lightweight Exoatmospheric Projectile) by Orbital Sciences Corp for the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization in April 1992. [Commentary: Nothing surprising about this. DOT is in charge of regulating the launch business, and this is their job. GD needs the business for their Atlas launch vehicle - they just took a $300 M writeoff in their latest financial statements to reflect a loss in developing the Atlas II family to upgrade their launch vehicle. But, this business has been booked as a "win" for them for some time, and shouldn't affect their outlook. The LEAP-4 is another of a continuing series of suborbital technology development/test flights by SDIO. Although not announced here, this sub-orbital launch is probably from White Sands, and will be done through the sounding rocket subsidiary of OSC, which is their primary revenue-producing business base.] GENERAL DYNAMICS POSTS $300 M LOSS FROM COMMERCIAL SPACE General Dynamics ended 1990 year at $577.9 M in losses, according to their year-end report. Last year they took writeoffs of $1.334 Billion before taxes ($881.1 M after taxes), or more than $20 per share. Most of the losses were due to their military aircraft business area which lost $639 M on $3.66B in sales - which includes writeoffs to cover their involvement in the A-12 program. (The program, jointly contracted between McDonnell Douglas and General Dynamics, to build a new Navy attack aircraft, was recently terminated by DoD Secretary Cheney after costs had grown dramatically. The losses are prudent financial accounting to carry these losses now, and not to wait until all the final negotiations and litigation about the contract termination are completed.) The GD Missiles, Space and Electronics systems area also had a substantial loss - losing $118.6 M on $2.15 B in sales. GD stated in their end of year report, that their space business had been substantially impacted by increasing competition from other international launch service companies. Because of this uncertainty in the market, GD has booked fewer launches in 1990 and 1991, and has seen an increased cost in their launch service operations. This was recognized as a loss booked as $300M in the last quarter of 1990 from their Atlas launch services program. [Commentary: GD has gambled big on the Atlas program. They have committed to building a sizable number of their vehicles (42?) without having customers lined up for them. This included a sunk investment of hundreds of millions of dollars, which from this financial report, they are not ever expecting to recover. McDonnell Douglas and Martin Marietta, the other two U.S. players in the commercial launch industry are also hurting. Meanwhile, Arianespace continues with full support of ESA and the French government, and the Chinese government's Long March vehicle is also being aggressively marketed.] -------------------------------------------------------------------- Wales Larrison Space Technology Investor "Great edifices can be built on foundations of financial speculation - but don't stand near them when the wind changes" -- Wales Larrison Internet: Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org Compuserve: >internet:Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 17 Feb 91 13:10:03 GMT From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!caen!sdd.hp.com!hp-col!hpldola!hp-lsd!oldcolo!burger@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Keith Hamburger) Subject: Re: You can help clear cloud over MIR SWEERSTAKES. It has been stated that this is not the way we do science in the USA... Well, I agree. It is obvious that science cannot support a space program on it's own. Business and marketing and sales are what is needed to support the type of space program most of us would like to see and these are the first people I have seen to try and accomplish something with a real possibility of success. Keith L. Hamburger Chairman, Colorado Libertarian Party VP, Pikes Peak L5 chapter of the national space society Secretary, Hummingbird Launch Systems ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #169 *******************