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, 1 Apr 91 01:50:01 -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, 1 Apr 91 01:49:56 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #338 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 338 Today's Topics: Re: Government vs. Commercial R&D Re: SPACE Digest V13 #326 ESA and CSA sign 5 new agreements Toward 2001 - 01 Apr 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: 29 Mar 91 21:04:41 GMT From: zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!sequent!crg5!szabo@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Nick Szabo) Subject: Re: Government vs. Commercial R&D In article <283.27F07816@nss.FIDONET.ORG> Paul.Blase@nss.FIDONET.ORG (Paul Blase) writes: > > 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. Hold on. If a market doesn't exist, why are you building the thing in the first place? A government is the poorest judge of markets I can think of, bar none. I can think of jillions of examples of this, but right off the bat there is one that hit close to home: upper stages. In the dozens government studies of nuclear, electric, and other advanced upper stages I have read, use for boosting satcoms to GEO is rarely, if ever, mentioned, even though this is by far the largest use of upper stages. Rather, the devices are to be built for specialized, speculative, one-time, far-future uses, such as Mars Missions. The government then typically proceeds to design the technology on a scale totally inappropriate for the real markets, proceeds to heavily procrastinate on getting their hands dirty with the technology (since it is "long term"), and as a result the thing never gets built. Meanwhile, Rocket Research Company and OSC, with no help from the government, have teamed up to finally bring electric technology to the market where it is needed most, satcom stationkeeping and upper stages. If government was knowledgable about markets they would realize that this is the direction to go, and help OSC/RRC in their efforts. A second close-to-home example is launch technology. Not coincidentally, OSC also initiated the Pegasus and Taurus projects, a reduction in the scale and entry-level cost of space launch by a factor of 5, projects which would not have been needed if the government had not wastefully mis-scaled the technology in the first place. Finally a tiny corner of government called DARPA said "oh, that's a great idea" and bought a few launches, but it was OSC that conceived of and designed the system. Other companies eyeing commercial business more than government contracts, such as Motorolla, AMROC, and E Prime, are also designing for this more economical scale. > 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. Do you seriously think government patents have more chance of getting on the market than private patents? If anything, the patent statistics greatly understate the efficiencies of private R&D. A review of the statistics: of U.S. patents granted in 1989, 79,088 (76%) were issued to corporations, 23,624 (23%) to private individuals, and 700 (1%) to governments. Some of the corporate and individual patents are aided directly or indirectly by government money, of course. But the bottom line is that direct DoD, NASA, DOE, etc. work accounts for only a very small fraction of our technological advances. [story about how government is involved in his R&D project] This is fine, but with all due respect you have not demonstrated that all this R&D effort is in any way productive, much less that it is _more_ productive than a privately directed effort. -- Nick Szabo szabo@sequent.com "If you want oil, drill lots of wells" -- J. Paul Getty The above opinions are my own and not related to those of any organization I may be affiliated with. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 30 Mar 91 16:44:38 EST From: Tommy Mac <18084TM@msu.edu> Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V13 #326 Re: Follies / Chemical Rockets It has asserted that: 1 Chemical rockets cost too much and must be replaced 2 Chemical reckets will get signifigantly cheaper 3 No they won't 4 Yes they will 5 Chemical rockets will only get a little cheaper 3 Chemical rockets would be useful, given a space mining system 4 Chemical rockets are the only thing available for LEO launches 5 Chemical rockets preclude man-in-the-street space travel If the goal is building a space-mining-infrastructure (a very GOOD goal, IMHO) then it should be obvious that SOME kind of rocket will be needed in large volume. At least for crew carrying, if nothing else. If our 'Launch Window' is as short as some think, we should get going as soon as we can, possibly sacrificing some cost savings for speed. i.e. we might go ahead, without making newer, better, faster, and better launch systems, and use the stupid rockets. If the resources in space are as rich as the optimists believe, than waiting five years for the system that saves $1e6/launch will COST us trillions, becuase the infrastructure eventually will show a profit of 1e12/year. Specualtory, but so is "with advances in technology, we can..." If we use the stupid rockets, and we need, say, 1000 launches/year at peak operating capacity, then the focus should not be on the rocket, but the factory that makes them. Henry Ford did essentially the same figuring (although he also kept an eye on the cars, too) and ended up not only making himself rich, but building millions of cars that any shmo like you and me could buy (and fix, back then). Reusability IS a sound concept, even if the shuttle became so complex that the difficulties out-costed the savings and launch volume advantages It seems that with signifigant speeding up of the rocket-builidng factory, and a little scaling down of the complexity (do we really need LH/LOX with all its associated costs?) we could make chemical rockets cheap enough to afford that cool Mining/Communications/Energy Production Infrastructure that we all want jobs in some day. If we can get the MCEPI off the ground (so-to-speak) does it really matter if we spent too much in the startup phase? Especially if it means doing it NOW, instead of waiting an indeterminate amount of time for R&D, retooling, testing, space-testing, and all the beaureaucraticness that ANY OTHER launch system would require? Besides, what else are we going to use? And if that MCEPI isn't the goal, what is? Tommy Mac Discliamer: If people can go on TV representing the 18084tm@msu "University Community" in favor of pot-legalization, Mich. St. U abortion and surrendering to the Iraqis, then I can write a stupid note in favor of "Space Imperialism." Acknowledge-To: <18084TM@MSU> ------------------------------ Date: 1 Apr 91 01:02:44 GMT From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!nss!freed@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bev Freed) Subject: ESA and CSA sign 5 new agreements European Space Agency 8-10 Rue Mario Nikis 75738 Paris Cedex 15 Telephone: (3314) 273 7155 Telex: ESA 202 746 FAX: (3314) 273-7560 FOR RELEASE: MARCH 21, 1991 #7 THE EUROPEAN SPACE AGENCY AND THE CANADIAN SPACE AGENCY SIGN FIVE NEW AGREEMENTS At the ESA Council meeting held at the Agency's headquarters in Paris on 20 and 21 March, 1991, the Director General of the European Space Agency, Mr. Jean-Marie Luton, and the Director General of the Canadian Space Agency, Dr. Larkin Kerwin, signed five agreements on Canada's participation in ESA programmes. HERMES Canada is taking part in the Hermes spaceplane development programme. EARTH OBSERVATION Canada is taking part in the development and exploitation phases of the ERS-2 programme, to provide a successor to the first European remote-sensing satellite. ERS-1 is going to be launched on 3 May 1991. Canada is already a participant in the ERS-1 programme. In 1997, ERS-2 will be replaced by the polar platform, which is one of the three elements of Columbia, the European contribution to the International Space Station. Canada is joining the first polar orbit Earth observation mission using the polar platform (POEM-1). TELECOMMUNICATIONS Canada will be taking part in phase 4 of the advanced systems and technology programme (ASTP-4). It is also going to be a participant in the data relay and technology mission programme (DRTM). It should be stressed that Canada is a long-standing contributor to ESA's telecommunications programme, having had, for instance, the third largest involvement in Olympus, the powerful communication satellite in June 1989. After the signing of the five agreements, Dr. Kerwin announced that Canada had adopted its national long-term space programme and voted the budgets to fund it. Canada's links with ESA go back to the mid-1970's, when it was granted "observer status". Since 1979 it has maintained still closer ties with ESA, under the terms of three successive cooperating agreements. The European Space Agency is also cooperating with Canada, alongside the United States and Japan, in the International Space Station project. With these new agreements, almost twenty years of close cooperation is going to be strengthened further. Canada and ESA's member states have many important interests in common, and the climate of confidence established between them augurs well for future successes. For further information, please contact: Beatrice Lacoste Heidi Graf ESA/Paris ESTEC Noordwijk (NL) Tel: (33.1) 42.73.71.55 Tel.: (331) 1719.8.3006 Ria Weiland Evelyn Leoffler-Stegen ESOC Darmstadt (FRG) ESRIN Frascati (I) TEL: (49) 6151.90.02.66 Tel.: (39 694.18.02.60 For further information contact the above address or ESA Washington Office L'Enfant Plaza, S.W., Suite 7800 Washington, D.C. 20024 Tel: (202) 488-4158 FAX: (202) 488-4930 --- Opus-CBCS 1.14 * Origin: NSS BBS - Ad Astra! (412)366-5208 *HST* (1:129/104.0) -- Bev Freed - via FidoNet node 1:129/104 UUCP: ...!pitt!nss!freed INTERNET: freed@nss.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ Date: 30 Mar 91 21:05:14 GMT From: mips!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!nss!freed@apple.com (Bev Freed) Subject: Toward 2001 - 01 Apr *********** TOWARD 2001 *********** Week of 1 April 1991 A Weekly Feature of SPACE CALENDAR + = Domestic (USA) Earth event * = Domestic (USA) space event o = International Earth event # = International space event -------------------------------------------------------------------- REPRINT INFORMATION This information is reproduced by permission of the Space Age Publishing Company. All rights reserved. Copyright April 1, 1991. Reproduction in any form without written permission violates federal statute with penalty of up to $50,000. SPACE CALENDAR is edited and published on the Big `Space' Island of Hawaii. ==================================================================== * * * * * * * o American - Soviet Space Trade Washington DC / Moscow USSR The possibility of an exchange whereby an American astronaut would spend up to six months aboard the Mir 1 space station and a Soviet cosmonaut would fly aboard the Space Shuttle appears to be growing. Industry watchers believe the deal will be cut at a superpower summit in May. * * * * * * * o Japan Moon Mission Tokyo, Japan Japan will become the third nation to land probes on the Moon following a decision by the Space Activities Commission to approve a US$100 million plan. The Lunar A satellite will deploy 3 probes to explore up to 3 m below the lunar surface for data explaining lunar quakes. * * * * * * * o Citizen Ambassador Program Washington DC / Beijing, China A delegation will tour space industry facilities in China from 22 June through 10 July 1991. China's aerospace societies will host the group during tours of Xichang Launch Facility and several other industry sites. * * * * * * * + Sofia Stratospheric Observatory Mountain View CA The National Research Council is backing a proposal to construct a $230 million flying observatory to study far-infrared astronomy. The joint effort between NASA and DARA, the German space agency, would replace the Kuiper observatory managed by NASA Ames Research Center. * * * * * * * + Swords Into Plowshares Challenge Washington DC The Pentagon is struggling to determine how, when, and if it should sell retired ballistic missile boosters to commercial launch providers. Space Applications International Corp recommended establishing a fair market value of around $1.2 million per stage. * * * * * * * + NASA Lewis Arcjet Thrusters Cleveland OH AT&T's Telstar-4 comsat will use technology developed by Lewis to save several hundred pounds in fuel. The company has not decided whether it will opt for a longer life for the satellite or a smaller launch vehicle. * * * * * * * o ESA / Romania Talks Paris, France Romania desires to work with ESA in the areas of space science, remote sensing, microgravity experimentation, and telecommunications. A delegation led by Prof Stefan Ispas of Bucharest Academy of Technology met with ESA reps on 13 March. * * * * * * * + Astronauts Memorial Foundation Kennedy Space Center FL Will dedicate the `Space Mirror' Astronauts Memorial on 9 May in ceremonies to be attended by NASA administrator Truly, state and federal dignitaries, former astronauts, and representatives from industry and education. * * * * * * * + EOSAT Lanham MD Beginning its 6th year in space, the satellite has exceeded its design life by 150 percent and has completed over 37,000 orbits. Landsat 6 is scheduled to be launched in 1992. * * * * * * * + Lunar Footnote (Statistic) 6,682 Days since Moon last visited by humans. * * * * * * * o International Space Year 1992 (Quote) The most important policy objective of the ISY . . . is to instill a new Space Age frame of reference in the thoughts and actions of governments and individuals." -- The late U S Senator Spark M Matsunaga, Hawaii -------------------------------------------------------------------- ABOUT SPACE CALENDAR Space Calendar provides a weekly preview of upcoming events in the space industry. It is published weekly by the SPACE AGE PUBLISHING COMPANY from offices in Kailua-Kona Hawaii. For a free sample of the printed publication, use the address, telephone, or fax numbers for the Hawaii office listed below. SPACE AGE PUBLISHING COMPANY also publishes SPACE FAX DAILY from its offices in Cupertino California. For information about SPACE FAX DAILY use the address, telephone, or fax numbers for the California office listed below. HAWAII OFFICE: 75-5751 Kuakini Highway, Suite 209, Kailua-Kona HI 96740; 808-326-2014, fax 808-326-1825. CALIFORNIA OFFICE: 20431 Steven Creek Blvd, Cupertino CA 95054; 408-996-9210, fax 408-996-2125. ==================================================================== --- Opus-CBCS 1.14 * Origin: NSS BBS - Ad Astra! (412)366-5208 *HST* (1:129/104.0) -- Bev Freed - via FidoNet node 1:129/104 UUCP: ...!pitt!nss!freed INTERNET: freed@nss.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #338 *******************