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 ; Sun, 31 Mar 91 01:50:36 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Sun, 31 Mar 91 01:50:30 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #331 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 331 Today's Topics: Re: Value per pound vs. cost per pound Commercial Space News (10 of 12) Re: NASA to feature Space Station Freedom at Paris Air Show (Forwarded) Re: Government vs. Commercial R&D Re: Shuttle Velocity Re: Japan Moon Probes article Re: I want to go to orbit... 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: 24 Mar 91 22:52:15 GMT From: swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123!Wales.Larrison@ucsd.edu (Wales Larrison) Subject: Re: Value per pound vs. cost per pound Glenn, you had asked: >What I'd really like to see discussed is Nick's contention that >launch costs for ELV's can't be reduced much below $5,000/lb >because of limitations intrinsinc (sp?) to Expendables (feel free >to correct me if that's not what you're saying, Nick :-). What do >people out there think the cost limiters are? It's certainly not >fuel. -- Probably the best recent data I've seen on the cost of ELVs for LEO transportation is from two sources: 1) the USAF/NASA Advanced Launch System (ALS) Phase 1 and Phase 2 contract studies, and 2) the current cost and design studies for the SSX, These sources, while not available in your local bookstore are available. The ALS studies, done by Martin Marietta, General Dynamics, Hughes, McDonnell Douglas, Rockwell and United Technologies Corp have been summarized and published as IAF and AIAA papers, as well as summary articles and descriptions published by NASA and the USAF. Since they were contracts, the contractual reports should be available through NTIS. The SSX cost and design studies are also available as IAF and AIAA papers, with the best cost data I've seen on the SSX published in the "Journal of Practical Applications of Space Technology" as "Cost Implications of True Spaceships". (I'd give you a better reference, but I loaned out that copy of the JPAST and haven't got it back yet.) These studies provide a good overall discussion of the costs of chemical rocket technology - both reusable and expendable. The SSX paper makes the case with 1990's technologies, a reusable chemically-powered rocket system could operate at less than $100/lb to LEO. I think this is approximately true, but my reservations on those results are tied to the rapid turnaround time, very high reliability, high number of flights, and low maintenance cycle per flight of the SSX. I would like to see a bit more directed design and technology studies on this - which the current SDIO studies of a Single Stage to Orbit (SSTO) system are providing. (See the last issue of Space News for an overview of the SSTO contracts). If you are looking for a lower risk, more near term solution, the ALS studies provide a good set of baselines. During the ALS studies, the starting design point was $300/lb into LEO with a payload of 150,000 lbs. Each contractor proposed, in my opinion, a feasible engineering solution - but said a couple of key points: you have got to take a close look at how you manufacture, assembly, plan, launch and operate your system in the light of reducing costs. Every contractor independently came up with the solution to build a new system from scratch rather than trying to kludge the $300/lb out of an existing system - and every contractor said to get the cost down, you have to have at least 500K -1,000K lbs of launch demand flying through the system to get payback. (As a disclaimer, I did work on one of the ALS contracts - but in my position I scrubbed the technical solutions and cost estimates very closely, and I really think the ALS could be put in place before the end of the decade for a reasonable ($4-5 billion) cost.) The limiting factor, from my viewpoint, is the hardware. Right now, space hardware (not launch vehicles) costs a minimum of $30,000 per lb. Some (Galileo, for example, or some military programs) go in the $100,000 to $150,000/lb range or higher. In a typical program, launch costs are only 20% or less of the overall life cycle costs, so reducing launch costs is very low on their priority. Until we can get the costs of space hardware down, the mass market which will drive costs of everything else down, will not occur. - Wales - -- Wales Larrison Internet: Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org Compuserve: >internet:Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 26 Mar 91 05:28:42 GMT From: sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123!Wales.Larrison@ucsd.edu (Wales Larrison) Subject: Commercial Space News (10 of 12) GET READY FOR THE WARC One of the primary drivers for the sat communications business is the availability of GEO locations and radio frequencies in which each satellite operates. As can be expected, the allocation of frequencies and GEO locations ("slots") is important to avoid interference with other satellites and to provide simple coverage of the targeted market area on the Earth below. These allocations are handled in the U.S. by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) which allocates slots and frequencies assigned to the U.S. by the international Telecommunications Union (ITU). Allocation of slots and frequencies are done every 5 years at the World Administration Radio Conference (WARC), which is planned to meet next year in Geneva. This next WARC is important as there are several changes in the market to be addressed and resolved before several planned communications ventures can become real - mobile communications, high-fidelity audio, high-definition TV, and TV broadcast. Chief concern is the allocation of additional radio spectrum for mobile communications services. Several firms have mobile communications services on the market (Inmarsat, for example), and other firms (like Motorola's "Iridium") have proposed competing mobile communications services. To accommodate expected growth in this area, frequencies currently allocated to users may have to be given to mobile communications users. This may force changes in the global allocation of GEO slots and frequencies, and may force some fixed services (telephone relay, video broadcast, etc), to move off satellites onto ground systems like microwave or fiber optics nets - which would seriously effect current commercial operators. The U.S. FCC has been able to accommodate WARC changes with minimal modifications to U.S. services, but this WARC may have a more substantial impact. It expected fixed satellite services will not change where alternatives, primarily fiber optics nets, are not available or feasible. This primarily effects telecommunications services outside industrialized North America, Japan, and Europe - but where satellite communications traffic and services are the heaviest, some services may have to move to fiber optics to make room for mobile communications services. Other concerns include making more frequency spectra available for proposed new services for satellite broadcast of high-fidelity ("CD quality") audio programs, for broadcast of high definition TV signals (now under test in Japan), and for direct broadcast of TV directly from satellite to homes, as well as the usual concerns about allocating frequencies for navigation services, and slot allocations to individual nations (Tonga, for example, has made 30 filing, requesting 13 slots). [Commentary: The importance of government and international regulating bodies is not well known or appreciated in the space enthusiast community, and this will hopefully expose some of the importance of these relatively unknown, but crucial, aspects of the space business. GEO over the Western Hemisphere is getting crowded, and the traditional huge allocation to the U.S. is under a lot of pressure from other countries wanting GEO slots for their own - Argentina, Mexico, Cuba, Brazil, Columbia, and a consortium of Central American nations have filed for new or additional slots. We must expand GEO services to higher frequencies (go ACTS, go!) or figure out how to more efficiently use the current frequencies and slots. If not addressed now, this could put the brakes on the U.S. communications satellite market, and seriously restrict the advent of new services. Fortunately, the FCC is really trying to do a good job, and they, the rest of the Department of Commerce, and the State Department are tooling up to hit the WARC fully prepared.] -- Wales Larrison Internet: Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org Compuserve: >internet:Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Mar 91 15:33:53 -0500 From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Re: NASA to feature Space Station Freedom at Paris Air Show (Forwarded) Newsgroups: sci.space Cc: Debra J. Rahn Headquarters, Washington, D.C. March 27, 1991 (Phone: 202/453-8455) RELEASE: 91-47 >NASA TO FEATURE SPACE STATION FREEDOM AT PARIS AIR SHOW The Space Station Freedom will highlight the NASA exhibit at the 39th Paris Air Show, Le Bourget, France, June 13-23. The centerpiece of the 7,000 sq. ft. exhibit will be a full scale mock-up of a Space Station Freedom module. When asked about the difficulty of transporting the full scale module, NASA Administrator Richard H. Truly replied: "No problem. I'll put it in the overhead bin or maybe under the seat in front of me". :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-) ------------------------------ Date: 26 Mar 91 15:51:10 GMT From: usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!nss!Paul.Blase@apple.com (Paul Blase) Subject: Re: Government vs. Commercial R&D to: Nick.Szabo@p0.f851.n102.z1.fidonet.org (Nick Szabo) NS> In article <244.27D76BAC@nss.FIDONET.ORG> NS> Paul.Blase@nss.FIDONET.ORG (Paul Blase) writes: >>Maybe it is more >>subtle than I thought. I was saying that for the most part, it is only >>the government that has the need and the money to fund the development >> ---- ----- >>of the first useful product from advanced research, especially if that >>product is the first of its kind. NS> If understand your point, it is that government money is NS> needed, not necessarily government lab work. More than just government money, rather a market for the first product from a technology. From experience, developing the first marketable product from a technology can cost as much or more than the laboratory research that developed the product in the first place. NS> The patent NS> statistics and analysis of major inventions show that industry NS> does indeed develop first products, sometimes with some NS> government money, sometimes not, but nearly always without NS> government intervention in the design process. First of all, a patent has nothing to do with whether or not a technology is actually on the market. There are lots of patents for things that never made it out of the lab. NS> More basic NS> scientific advances are usually the products of university and NS> commercial research labs, often with government funding but NS> again with little intervention in the technical specifications. I suggest that you go and look at the amount of research and development that takes place in and because of military and government laboratories. I spent some time in Dayton, Ohio working for the Avionics Laboratory, Wright Aeronautical Laboratories, Wright-Patterson AFB. There is an enourmous amount of research taking place there, and indeed at all of the other military laboratory bases. Some of this has to do with the direct development of weapons systems, much more has to do with the basic research necessary to develop technology that will be used. A great deal of this research is 'farmed out' to university research centers, such as the University of Dayton Research Institute. A fair amount also is subcontracted out to industrial firms. I should point out that much of this research is NOT classified; it can be and is used for commercial purposes also. As an example, I should like to use a project with which I am currently involved. It is an electro-optical system, meaning that it uses computers, lasers, optical stuff, and a fair amount of other state-of-the-art gadgetry. The chief researcher, an Air Force scientist, has spent the past 15 years developing the theory behind the system. I had the pleasure of working for him at Wright-Patterson. All well and good, the system has pretty well gotten through the research stage and there are three laboratory prototypes working at various facilities. Funding for this system has come from a variety of sources, including the Air Force and NASA. Now comes the hard part. For a variety of reasons, the funding for fundamental research comes from a different pot than does the funding for development of technology. The prototypes so far are fairly large piles of instrumentation and gadgetry, spread out over optical benches and lab tables. They are perfectly functional, but - whenever he gives a tour to the people that have the money, they say "Yuck, I don't want that pile of stuff in my manufacturing facility/laboratory/office." What want is a fully packaged, compact, rugged prototype that they can try out on site. Now the research to date on this system has probably cost on the order of $10 million. The company for which I work is helping him to develop the packaged prototype, and I estimate that development of a basic version (meaning that non-optimal materials, manual adjustments, and off-the-shelf parts wherever possible) will cost about another $.5 million. To develop a full prototype, that would meet all of the customer's real requirements, and which would involve the design and manufacturing of a fair amount of custom computer hardware and software, will cost around $5 million. There is nothing particularly hard about this work, the research has all been done - it is just a lot of engineering. The problem, which we are slowly solving, is that the funding will not pay for this , and the potential customers, who might pay for the of the system want to see the manufacturing prototype first - NOT the lab-bench setup. This problem exists throughout industry and government. It is fairly easy to get funding to do research - that is what the National Science Foundation and university research facilities are for. It is far more difficult to get the $ to turn your research into something that you can actually manufacture and sell. Especially (and this is my major thesis here) if your whatever is an entirely new technology, and not just an extrapolation of existing technology. --- via Silver Xpress V2.26 [NR] -- Paul Blase - via FidoNet node 1:129/104 UUCP: ...!pitt!nss!Paul.Blase INTERNET: Paul.Blase@nss.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ Date: 28 Mar 91 05:37:33 GMT From: uvaarpa!murdoch!astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU!gsh7w@mcnc.org (Greg Hennessy) Subject: Re: Shuttle Velocity Henry Spencer writes: #However, I suspect your #number is nevertheless wrong, because liftoff accelerations generally are #lower than that. I could be wrong; my references aren't handy. I don't have nearly the references that Henry does, but that sucker does MOVE during the launch. -- -Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia USPS Mail: Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA Internet: gsh7w@virginia.edu UUCP: ...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w ------------------------------ Date: 27 Mar 91 07:52:43 GMT From: littlei!intelhf!agora!trifid@uunet.uu.net (Roadster Racewerks) Subject: Re: Japan Moon Probes article I agree that US deficiencies can hardly be blamed on the Japanese. Small example from an entirely different frame of reference.... My boyfriend is a custom cabinet maker and furniture designer-builder. I went to the cabinet hardware dealer with him yesterday. There I saw a gold-plated, very top-of-the line bathtub spigot in the shape of a swan's neck. In this *supposedly* top quality $800 faucet, they could not be bothered to screw the decorative wings onto the neck straight! If our manufacturers cannot be bothered with quality control of a very minimal nature, in a non-technical application, in a *luxury* item, well I think that speaks volumes as to why Japan (or whoever) is beating us all over the economic map... And you can't blame it on outsiders. Suze Hammond trifid@agora.rain.com ------------------------------ Date: 27 Mar 91 22:34:23 GMT From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!dsinc!bagate!cbmvax!amix!vanth!jms@ucsd.edu (Jim Shaffer) Subject: Re: I want to go to orbit... In article <1991Mar25.174621.3905@cs.mcgill.ca> msdos@cs.mcgill.ca (Mark SOKOLOWSKI) writes: > > Hi, > > What are the steps in order to build a reliable space-shuttle like >spaceship in order to send myself to orbit for the summer holidays? Personally, I'd forget "shuttle-like." I'd forget chemical rockets too. There are several excellent public-domain text files explaining how to build your own flying saucer. Or you could simply look up Thomas Townsend Brown's patents. (There are also PD plans for a spacetime-warping coil, but it's dangerous -- if the power fails at high output, the backlash tends to violently disrupt any matter within the field. If you plan work along such lines, be sure to read Carl Meredith Allen's warnings in his correspondence with Dr. Morris K. Jessup.) -- * From the disk of: | jms@vanth.uucp | "You know I never knew Jim Shaffer, Jr. | amix.commodore.com!vanth!jms | that it could be so 37 Brook Street | uunet!cbmvax!amix!vanth!jms | strange..." Montgomery, PA 17752 | 72750.2335@compuserve.com | (R.E.M.) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #331 *******************