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 ; Fri, 1 Mar 91 02:24:48 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Fri, 1 Mar 91 02:24:41 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #217 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 217 Today's Topics: Re: Space Profits Re: Space Profits NASA Prediction Bulletins ftp site ?? Re: Government vs. Commercial R&D Re: Whither Lunar Observer in FY92? Re: Whither Lunar Observer in FY92? chimps in space -- question Magellan Update - 02/28/91 Re: Space Profits 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: 28 Feb 91 06:08:20 GMT From: zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!sequent!crg5!szabo@uunet.uu.net (Nick Szabo) Subject: Re: Space Profits In article <1991Feb25.201401.6184@dbase.A-T.COM> michaelw@dbase.A-T.COM (Michael Wallis) writes: >The likely first lunar export will be oxygen, mined from the soil, and used to >fuel ships on the Earth-Luna run. It's cheaper to refine and ship it to Earth >than to haul it up the gravity well from the surface. Isn't this rather self-referential? Why are the ships going to Luna? >There's also He3, the "miricle" fusion fuel. If it can be proven useable, the >helium export will be a very valuable contract. There is an outside chance He-3 will become a necessary part of economical fusion. If so, it has the qualities required of a good frontier export: a large market back home and a high value/mass ratio. The closest source energy-wise is likely to be the surfaces of several near-earth asteroids. >The main thing, though, is that we won't know what's valuable until >we're there. If by "we" you mean our senses enhanced by technology, I agree: we won't find things until we explore in detail, all over the solar system, not just in Death Valley. The good news is that with latter 20th and early 21st century automation technology this is relatively inexpensive. >Columbus sold Isabella on his voyage because of spices. What he gave Spain was >CONSIDERABLY more valuable, and could not have been predicted in 1491. Interestingly, the first voyage of Columbus was not funded by Isabella. In fact it was financed like so: Santa Hermandad (Holy Brotherhood): 1,000,000 maravedis Columbus (via loan from a wealthy shipowner): 500,000 maravedis The Holy Brotherhood was one of the many large, wealthy Church organizations of the day which together owned a good chunk of the valuable land in Europe. Sort of a cross between Billy Graham and the oil companies (scary thought, huh? :-) The 1,500,000 maravedis paid rent for three caravels. Only after Columbus brought back gold and claimed he had discovered India did Queen Isabella finance a 17-caravel expedition. She pretty much lost her "jewels", too, while Da Gama raked in the bucks from the round-Africa spice trade. Gold and silver in large amounts did not start flowing from America for nearly 50 years. Reference is the _Encyclopedia Brittanica_ article on Columbus. If anybody knows how 1492 "maravedis" roughly translate into 1991 dollars in terms of GNP, gold, or whatever, I would be highly grateful. Remember the "intangible benefit" was unknown in Columbus' time: Colombus himself died thinking he had found another route to India. The financial investments were motivated primarily by the promise of financial rewards. -- Nick Szabo szabo@sequent.com "What are the _facts_, and to how many decimal places?" -- RAH ------------------------------ Date: 1 Mar 91 01:28:00 GMT From: hub.ucsb.edu!ucsbuxa!3001crad@ucsd.edu (Charles Frank Radley) Subject: Re: Space Profits The advantages of lunar oxygen (Lunox):- Delta-vee to LEO from Luna is much less than from Earth to LE O Hence getting LOX to LEO is cheaper if it originates from the Moon. LOX is a very valuable commodity to have in LEO because it can be used to boost satellites from LEO to high orbit, eg communications satellites. It can also be used to prevent spacecraft in LEO (eg Space Stations) from decaying. GEO comprises Oxidizer. Cheap Lunox would thus dramatically reduce the cost of launching spacecraft into GEO. This is my main criticism of LLNL. They propose to bring up their oxidizer from Earth, they have no plans to use Lunar Oxygen, which IMHO is the door to open the High Frontier. Lunox will make Mars missions much cheaper for example, and should be the TOP PRIORITY, even before Freedom Space Station on which my livelihood depends. ------------------------------ Date: 1 Mar 91 02:39:47 GMT From: hal!stevem@seismo.css.gov (Steve Masters) Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins ftp site ?? Can someone please send me (or post here) an ftp site for the NASA orbital prediction bulletins. I realize they are posted here periodically but I would also like to know an ftp site if I need a copy quickly. I tried "nachos.sseco.com" today via the Princeton FTP server but the site was unknown. I have retrieved the bulletins from this site in the past. Steve Masters stevem@hal.CSS.GOV ENSCO, Inc. Melbourne, FL 32940 (407) 254 4122 ------------------------------ Date: 28 Feb 91 21:12:40 GMT From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Government vs. Commercial R&D In article <21258@crg5.UUCP> szabo@crg5.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes: >AMROC's big mistake is not in their technology, but in their business >practices. With a strategic partner willing to help build a "rocket >clone" to launch existing satellites with the safer AMROC hybrid fuel, >they would stand a reasonable chance of success. I'd say they'd stand zero chance of success by that route. Why would anyone bother? The existing boosters are adequately cheap and adequately safe for launching existing satellites -- in the opinion of the customers -- and any new booster would have an uphill struggle with things like launch facilities. The only way Amroc, or any of the new companies for that matter, can possibly succeed is to pioneer new markets, not try to elbow their way into existing ones already crowded with much larger government- subsidized companies. >>... These technologies would progress further and faster if there >>was research done by people who weren't betting the farm on success. > >Here I disagree. We _do_ have hybrid fuels _and_ air-launched vehicles >that bring the entry level cost of space down by a factor of 4. We have >them today... Note that I said "further and faster". We've made some small progress on these things, progress which could easily have been made 20 years ago. Saying that "we have" these things is even a bit of an overstatement in most cases; the hybrid fuels will die if Amroc dies, and a serious cost reduction as a result of any of these innovations is unproven. >The reason we have them is precisely because of private >investors willing to bet big chunks of their farms... And how many such investors are there? Amroc almost went under in the wake of the stock-market slump, and Challenger almost killed OSC in pre-Pegasus days. Private investors, by and large, are not very happy about betting the farm on new technology. It's gone out of fashion. People are a lot happier about investing in commercialization of technologies that have been successfully demonstrated by someone who doesn't have to worry about next quarter's results. >People and organizations >working with other people's involuntarily proferred farms simply don't >have the same motivation to innovate in commercial or economically viable >ways... Ah, this explains why high-bypass turbofans, supercritical airfoils, winglets, riblets, etc. were all invented by the commercial aviation industry? (For the benefit of the spectators :-), NASA invented all of these and all have been or are being enthusiastically adopted by commercial aviation.) >For more advanced technologies (eg non-chemical-rockets, though even >here Rocket Research Company is at the forefront of electrical propulsion) >and basic science government has a large role in funding the exploration >of as many avenues as possible. As I've mentioned before, it is utterly incorrect to claim that chemical rockets are not advanced technology. >>There is nothing wrong with improving chemical rockets, and indeed it >>badly needs doing. > >Good, let it be done by privately funded industry that has the incentive to >do it right. But they *don't* have the incentive to do it right. The ones with money have incentive to do very small incremental improvements in performance and reliability; note the absence of the word "cost". The ones with the incentive to do something bold and innovative don't have the money. >The idea that per-pound launch costs can be _radically_ lowered by >chemical rockets is nonsense. Space settlement, and perhaps also >the large-scale industries leading up to it, require such a radical >lowering of launch costs -- by over a factor of 10. I'm really surprised to hear the Launcher Cartel Official Party Line from you of all people, Nick. This is exactly what the subsidy-bound big launch companies will tell you. The little companies, the ones you were praising a few lines earlier like Amroc and OSC, will tell you that chemical rockets can lower per-pound launch costs *at least* a factor of 10 and perhaps 100 or 1000... and could do it within a few years, given enough of a market to justify the investment. -- "But this *is* the simplified version | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology for the general public." -S. Harris | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 28 Feb 91 22:11:53 GMT From: zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!sequent!crg5!szabo@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Nick Szabo) Subject: Re: Whither Lunar Observer in FY92? In article <9102281514.AA10104@iti.org> aws@ITI.ORG ("Allen W. Sherzer") writes: >If LLNL gets the go ahead within the next two years they just might have >a base on the moon before Lunar Observer is even launched. And we'll all enjoy the nice exports of green cheese. :-) -- Nick Szabo szabo@sequent.com "What are the _facts_, and to how many decimal places?" -- RAH ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Feb 91 10:14:50 -0500 From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Re: Whither Lunar Observer in FY92? Newsgroups: sci.space Cc: In article <1991Feb27.215052.11633@zoo.toronto.edu> Henry writes: >>No, it's easy, you just collect it on a return trip from one of the >>regularly scheduled supply runs to the lunar base, right? >Assuming you've got a lunar base with regular supply runs. That definitely >isn't going to happen in time for Lunar Observer, since LO will be one of >the first parts of a renewed lunar-exploration program. If LLNL gets the go ahead within the next two years they just might have a base on the moon before Lunar Observer is even launched. 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: 26 Feb 91 22:02:59 GMT From: hsdndev!husc3.harvard.edu!husc4.harvard.edu!millgram@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Elijah Millgram) Subject: chimps in space -- question Can anyone tell me about instances of chimpanzees being sent into space (name and date of mission, purpose and results of mission, name of chimp, etc.)? And a subsidiary question: does anyone know of movies in which chimps are sent into space? Many thanks, Lije -- Elijah Millgram millgram@husc4.harvard.edu ------------------------------ Date: 1 Mar 91 01:07:20 GMT From: swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jpl-devvax!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov!baalke@ucsd.edu (Ron Baalke) Subject: Magellan Update - 02/28/91 MAGELLAN STATUS REPORT February 28, 1991 The Magellan spacecraft and its radar system are performing nominally. All STARCALS (star calibrations) and DESATS (desaturation of the reaction wheels) during the past 24 hours were successful. The command sequence presently executing includes the solar panel offpoint and 10 minute early turn from mapping in order to maintain spacecraft temperatures at acceptable levels. DMS-A (Data Management Subsystem) Test #3, the playback of tape recorded data patterns, started yesterday and will continue through orbit #1602 this evening. Spacecraft controllers are continuing to see the effects of solar occultation, as measured by the solar panel output and declining temperatures. A decision is expected tomorrow to resume the full 37.2 minute mapping passes as part of tomorrow's command sequence update. ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | Is it mind over matter, ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |___ M/S 301-355 | or matter over mind? /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | Never mind. |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | It doesn't matter. ------------------------------ Date: 28 Feb 91 22:37:57 GMT From: zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!sequent!crg5!szabo@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Nick Szabo) Subject: Re: Space Profits In article <9102281531.AA12732@iti.org> aws@ITI.ORG ("Allen W. Sherzer") writes: >[I write] >>Why are the ships going to Luna? > >They are going there to support the infrastructure on the moon. There are >other markets as well. Don't keep us all in the dark, let's hear them! > [more grossly uneconomical LOX scenarios conventially avoiding the mention > of numbers] >>we won't find things until we explore in detail, all over the solar >>system, not just in Death Valley. > >the preliminary survey is done. We have not look at _one_ asteroid close up. We have not sampled any comets or Galilean moons. Most of the surfaces in the solar system remain unmapped. The survey has barely started. >Robots are not good enough to do all that themselves. The typical Luddite point of view, the same one that keeps our Detroit factories inefficient while the Japanese fill theirs with robots. This isn't a matter of opinion, it is a matter of historical fact. Human-teleoperated probes are orders of magnitude better than any manned space missions: for example, Voyager has by rough estimate generated 10 times the references in the scientific literature for 1/50 the cost of Apollo: a factor of 500 more useful to our knowledge base per dollar. Another way to look at it: Voyager explored four planets and dozens of moons, while discovering over a dozen new moons. Apollo explored one old moon. I could go on and on; the capabilities and efficiencies of unmanned probes simply dwarf what can be done with the monstrous, budget-greedy manned proposals. >Exactly. No profit making enterprise would ever have funded the >colonization of the new world. This comment is beyond comprehension. Please, please, read your history before attempting to comment. Do any of these ring a bell? Oriental spices Inca gold Peru silver mines Tobacco/Jamestown Fur/Hudson's Bay Company Sutter's Mill The payoffs were often dramatic (for example the 400% gross margins on Da Gama's spice trade), with risk/payoff and time cost of money factored in, and all used properly scaled technology available at the time. -- Nick Szabo szabo@sequent.com "What are the _facts_, and to how many decimal places?" -- RAH ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #217 *******************