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 ; Sat, 29 Jun 91 02:35:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4cP2cEe00WBwQ16E4k@andrew.cmu.edu> Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Sat, 29 Jun 91 02:34:57 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #740 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 740 Today's Topics: Re: Fred Vote Thursday Re: Freedom Cost Re: Excavating (minig) gold in the space by NASA. SPACE Digest V13 #625 Balloons Re; Government GEO Communications R&D (2 of 2) Re: Balloons Re: Fred's Operatic Death Re: Regular postings of Sky + Telescope 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: 12 Jun 91 10:30:16 GMT From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!ptimtc!nntp-server.caltech.edu!juliet.caltech.edu!carl@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Lydick, Carl) Subject: Re: Fred Vote Thursday In article <12031@hub.ucsb.edu>, 3001crad@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Charles Frank Radley) writes... >>>Maybe this near-death will scare the Freedom people into getting some >>>hardware built... OK, I'm about to play devil's advocate here (I'd personally like to see a space station built and manned in the near future). >The schedules we have been working to do not require delivery of >hardware until 1993. > We have been on schedule all along. Why do people >keep complaining the hardware has not been built, we have to design >it first.....and we have not even had a PDR yet. There are lots of ways to design and build just about anything. Some techniques tend to work better than others. The technique that I've found works best over a wide area of technology is what I like to call "design by successive approximations". First you come up with a fairly flexible architecture (i.e., if one component of the architecture turns out to be unrealizable, the architecture is flexible enough to allow you to redesign things without scrapping the entire architecture). They you make similar plans for each subsystem. Iterate until you've gotten to the level where you can start building hardware. If you've taken the attitude of keeping things flexible (opponents of this strategy will use the term "vague" here), this doesn't take nearly as long as coming up with an inflexible top-down design. At this point, you start building hardware. If you run into problems with a particular piece of hardware, escalate the problem to the next level, where you change the design to use some sort of hardware that CAN be produced. This technique requires a LOT of communication between those working on assorted subsystems. But it DOES take into account the fact that you don't know, when you start the project, how to build it. It DOES involve duplication of effort (but then again, how many different methods of building an A-bomb were simultaneously explored by the Manhattan District? If you don't know at the outset how to do something [i.e., you're not just making a copy of something off-the-shelf], duplication of effort can be a good thing). But it means that you find out about problems early in the project, when it's cheaper to fix them. Anyway, that's at least one argument as to why some people would like to see SOME hardware for Fred before it comes time to assemble all the pieces (which we'll invariably find don't fit together properly, given the current way of doing things). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carl J Lydick HEPnet/NSI: SOL1::CARL Internet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jun 91 21:51:13 GMT From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ub!galileo.cc.rochester.edu!rochester!yamauchi@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Brian Yamauchi) Subject: Re: Freedom Cost In article <314@hsvaic.boeing.com> eder@hsvaic.boeing.com (Dani Eder) writes: >The wide range of numbers quoted for the Space Station may all be >correct, because they refer to different costs. >Now for some examples: >Initial development cost quoted to Congress in 1984: $8 billion >Budgeted development cost in 1988, in 1984$: $10 billion >Budgeted development cost in 1988, in > then-year dollars (dollars spent > in future years adjusted for expected > inflation) $16.5 billion >Program Funding over life of program > (includes 30 years of operations) > Development $16.5B > Production 1-2B > Operations $50B > Total $68 billion >Life Cycle Cost > Program Funding $68B > Launch costs (160 shuttle launches > @ $340M each=$54.4B > NASA personnel costs @ 20% of above > = $25B > Total $147.4 billion Thanks for an informative post. A couple questions... >Operations Cost: Everything that happens after Development and >Production, i.e. launch, assembly in orbit, and use. Most of >the life cycle is incurred here. But if the the shuttle launches are a separate ($54.4B) item here, and so are personnel costs ($25B), what does the $50B under Operations Cost pay for? Does this figure include additional modules? (It seems that expanding the station would probably fall under either Development or Production.) Or do they just expect it to cost 1.25B/year for maintenance, supplies, and repairs? Where does the oft-quoted $30B figure come from? Is this development costs + shuttle launches for the initial configuration? Finally, does this mean that NASA is only 25% over their original proposed cost ($10B vs. $8B)? And was Congress aware in 1984 of the difference in expense between the proposed cost and the life-cycle cost? -- _______________________________________________________________________________ Brian Yamauchi University of Rochester yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu Department of Computer Science _______________________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jun 91 16:56:32 -0500 From: gabriel@diso.dgsca.unam.mx (Gabriel C. Lopez Walle) ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jun 91 22:35:59 GMT From: csusac!cindy!petunia!kestrel.edu!ttp@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (Tom Pressburger) Subject: Re: Excavating (minig) gold in the space by NASA. What's the density of these materials in sea water? I heard there were billions and billions of bucks in the riches of a cubic mile of ocean. -tom ------------------------------ ReSent-Message-ID: Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Jun 91 19:55:59 EDT Resent-From: Tom McWilliams <18084TM@msu.edu> Resent-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu Date: Sun, 9 Jun 91 02:06:28 EDT Reply-To: space+%ANDREW.CMU.EDU@msu.edu From: space-request+%ANDREW.CMU.EDU%CARNEGIE.BITNET@msu.edu Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #625 Comments: To: space+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU To: david polito <15432DJP@MSU.BITNET>, Tom McWilliams <18084TM@MSU.BITNET> Subject: Re: Infrastructure >I would simply like to point out to Nick that having a government >intervention that produces the same thing as the free market (but >faster) may not be entirely possible. What, No smiley? Can I suggest an _Unerstatement_Award_ for sci.space? Tom :-) Acknowledge-To: <18084TM@MSU> ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jun 91 07:03:48 GMT From: bonnie.concordia.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!bison!sys6626!inqmind!jesus@uunet.uu.net (Norman Paterson) Subject: Balloons Any of you with involvement with high altitude research ballons, I,d be indebted if you could tell me if you've had any experience working with a gas other than helium in such craft. Thank you, P.S. If you,ve got an address of any airship manufacturers handy don,t be shy to pass 'em over, thanks. Norman Paterson Wpg. MB CANADA ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jun 91 06:03:33 GMT From: iggy.GW.Vitalink.COM!widener!dsinc!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!nss!Wales.Larrison@lll-winken.llnl.gov (Wales Larrison) Subject: Re; Government GEO Communications R&D (2 of 2) During this period of time (1972-1985), your thesis seems to hold true in the U.S. Commercial firms in the U.S. launched several dozen comsats. However, their market position was rapidly being eroded by R&D funded by foreign governments. While some R&D was being spent by U.S. companies, the U.S. and INTELSAT market was fairly small, and the U.S. R&D effort was estimated to be only $10- 15 million annually in the early 1980's. In comparison, the European R&D investment in 1982 was estimated at over $55 million and Japan's at over $100 million. This situation was made worse since U.S. firms could not compete for most foreign national satellite communications systems in Europe and Asia since these systems were launched and operated by national PT&T (Postal, Telephone & Telegraph) services, which are a branch of the national government. Since the GATT (General Agreement on Trades and Tariffs) only covers government entities individual countries specify as being under its coverage, and virtually all countries place their PT&T under it, US firms were eliminated from the competitions as a matter of policy. As an example, Kopernikus 1 and 2 comsats were developed by the Deutsche Bundespost (W. Germany's PT&T) and specifically contracted to MBB in Germany. Similarly, the French Telecom I satellite was a directed development effort to the French aerospace industry under the direction of the DGT (Direction General des Telecommunications) - the French PT&T. Coupled with aggressive support by national governments to export these satellites to other countries (lots of subsidized prices, below-market credit rates, and offset agreements - including special packages for launch services), the U.S. export/import balance for telecommunications went from about +155 million in 1978 to -1705 million in 1985. This was primarily driven by a 10x increase in imports. U.S. firms could not compete for foreign sales, and fced competition in the U.S. subsidized by foreign governments. In particular, Japan ad France were singled out by the U.S. Trade Representative's office as practicing unfir trading practices and were challenged through the OECD. In recognition of this the U.S. Congress added funds to the NASA budget in 1985 to develop the Advanced Comunications Technology Satellite. As of 1990 (the last year I have data) about $400M rom NASA had been spent, with the prime contractor being GE, with participation byTRW, Comsat, Motorola, Hughes, and Electromagnetic Services. Another $100-120 millio is estimated as parallel investment by the commercial firms using their own R&D on hw to use the ACTS or otherwise closely related to the program. This will culminate i a proof of principle test satellite for the U.S. communications satellite industry. References on request - I'm short on time). Your statement about "in the early 60's, ... NASA was barred from participating in comsat development and operations" seem incorrect. I can find several useful, successful programs since this time. I apolgize for the length of this reply, but I felt supporting data was needed. I agree wit you that we want the government out of development of standard, operational space sytems. However, I think a case can be made for government funding for long-term, spculative research and development which in time scale or in financial scale is beyondthat of any firm, or to address requirements specific to governmental use. However, te government cannot develop this technology or system only for government use, andit MUST be turned wholly and completely over to private industry to further applicatins. The government should never be the operator of any system when a private firm ca do the job. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Wals Larrison Space Technology Investor --- Opus-CBCS 1.20.v * Origin: NSS BBS - Ad Astra! (412)366-5208 *HST* (1:129/104.0) -- Wales Larrison - via FidoNet node 1:129/104 UUCP: ...!pitt!nss!Wales.Larrison INTERNET: Wales.Larrison@nss.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jun 91 19:04:25 GMT From: pyramid!lstowell@hplabs.hpl.hp.com (Lon Stowell) Subject: Re: Balloons In article <213g43w164w@inqmind.bison.mb.ca> jesus@inqmind.bison.mb.ca (Norman Paterson) writes: >Any of you with involvement with high altitude research ballons, I,d be >indebted if you could tell me if you've had any experience working with a >gas other than helium in such craft. You CAN use hydrogen in most of these, but it is kinda flammable...... Can't tell your location from yr e-dress, but you may have access to military surplus....the army and af use sodium hydroxide/aluminum gas generators for making hydrogen at sufficient pressure to inflate most ballons. This is practically obsolete due to the dangers compared to helium which...although it has less lift, is considerably less dangerous. ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jun 91 18:40:15 GMT From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!emory!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Gary Coffman) Subject: Re: Fred's Operatic Death In article <1991Jun7.215211.22450@sequent.com> szabo@sequent.com writes: > >Meanwhile, Freddy Kreuger is back, and ready to start slashing away >at space science, NFS, development of commercial space projects like Wow, now Fred is after Network File Systems. :-) Gary ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jun 91 00:17:40 GMT From: comp.vuw.ac.nz!waikato.ac.nz!pjs1@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: Regular postings of Sky + Telescope In article , 18084TM@MSU.EDU (Tom McWilliams) writes: > Re: Sky and telescope postings > > This thought just occured to me. > > Would anybody be interested in regular factoids from Sky + Telescope > magazine, similar to what Henry does with AW&ST? > > BTW, does any one know the legal situation of such an idea? (assuming > anyone's interested, of course). > > Tom > Acknowledge-To: <18084TM@MSU> Yes Please. No idea on the legal aspects (too nice a guy to be a lawyer :-). Pete Smith Uni of Waikato (Y-cat-O) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #740 *******************