Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 05:00:01 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #033 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Mon, 11 Jan 93 Volume 16 : Issue 033 Today's Topics: *** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP *** (3 msgs) Aluminum as Rocket Fuel? Commercializing the Shuttle future space travel killing the shuttle Let's be more specific (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguements) Privately Financed Space Colonies Re; Shuttle Toilet Should NASA operate shuttles (was Re: Shuttle a research tool) Supporting private space Who can launch antisats? (was Re: DoD launcher use) Welcome to the Space Digest!! Please send your messages to "space@isu.isunet.edu", and (un)subscription requests of the form "Subscribe Space " to one of these addresses: listserv@uga (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle (THENET), or space-REQUEST@isu.isunet.edu (Internet). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 9 Jan 93 22:12:58 GMT From: Jason Cooper Subject: *** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP *** Newsgroups: sci.space chris@chrism.demon.co.uk (Chris Marriott) writes: > In article <1993Jan7.124608.1@fnalo.fnal.gov> higgins@fnalo.fnal.gov writes: > > >In article , henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer > > >Does a Bussard ramjet work *at all* below seriously relativistic > >velocities? > > > >Seems to me below some large speed, which I recall as > >something much bigger than .5c, you don't gather enough interstellar > >hydrogen to keep things stoked. Admittedly I remember details rather > >fuzzily, and don't know how to apply them to the "ram-augmented > >interstellar rocket" Henry is talking about. > > > > I don't remember now *where* I read it, but I seem to recall that a > Bussard Ramjet starts working at speed around about 450km/sec. Although > this is an order of magnitude beyond the speeds of current space vehicles, > it's certainly not unreachable eg, with ion drives. > -- > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > | Chris Marriott | chris@chrism.demon.co.uk | > | Warrington, UK | BIX: cmarriott | > | (Still awaiting inspiration | CIX: cmarriott | > | for a witty .sig .... ) | CompuServe: 100113,1140 | > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Certainly not unreachable at all. I _believe_ that, working on pure kinetic energy, the speed a friend of mine figured out was .017c... Jason Cooper ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 09 Jan 93 14:17:47 PST From: Jason Cooper Subject: *** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP *** Newsgroups: sci.space rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel) writes: > Since fusing protons is so hard, why not use deuterons? > They fuse at a lower temperature, and the reaction only > requires regrouping the nucleons, rather than invoking the > weak force to transmute p->n. The Earth's d/p ratio is ~.0001. > Perhaps the ramscoop collector could selectively enrich d, > by selecting for atoms having a magnetic moment. > > Rich Schroeppel rcs@cs.arizona.edu > Actually, it's roughly 1:6500 (I _think_). The thing is that it doesn't provide much energy. Besides, the p-p fusion was only planned to be used at velocities at which the beta- decay would be common enough to actually be UTILIZED. What do you mean by enriched, and, if it's not too much of a stoop for you, could you explain "magnetic moment" to a Grade 11? Jason Cooper ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 09 Jan 93 14:20:35 PST From: Jason Cooper Subject: *** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP *** Newsgroups: sci.space dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: > In article rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel) > > > Since fusing protons is so hard, why not use deuterons? > > They fuse at a lower temperature, and the reaction only > > requires regrouping the nucleons, rather than invoking the > > weak force to transmute p->n. The Earth's d/p ratio is ~.0001. > > Perhaps the ramscoop collector could selectively enrich d, > > by selecting for atoms having a magnetic moment. > > > Or, better yet, why fuse anything at all? One can do the following: > decelerate the incoming material a bit producing some power. Now, > accelerate some on-board reaction mass using this power, so that the > two streams are now at the same speed. > > Done properly, the thrust from the second part exceeds the drag from > the first part. The decelerated interstellar material needn't even be > laterally compressed. > > This scheme seems counterintuitive, but it violates conservation of > neither energy nor momentum. The kinetic energy of the vehicle > does not increase with time, it only gets concentrated in less > and less mass. > > All these schemes suffer because the local ISM is so damned thin. The > solar system appears to lie inside a bubble of very thin, hot gas, > perhaps the result of some "recent" supernovae in our neighborhood. > > Paul F. Dietz > dietz@cs.rochester.edu But, again, that involves carrying on-board fuels, which is the _BIG_ advantage of the Bussard Ramscoop. Carrying antimatter for the purposes of accelerating to a point where you are independant of it is not too bad a price to pay for the eventual fuel-independant p-p fusion, and even carrying some deuterium if you have to is not too bad, as that too should eventually be outgrown. Carrying reaction mass with the intention of supplying it for the entire journey is hardly advantageous. Also, the Bussard Ramscoop would be lucky to accelerate to the point where ISM is really useful inside of the solar system, so I don't think we'll have a problem with that. It could take MONTHS to reach the velocities necessary for p-p fusion... Jason Cooper ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Jan 93 09:24:18 EST From: John Roberts Subject: Aluminum as Rocket Fuel? -From: Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow) -Subject: Re: Aluminum as Rocket Fuel? -Date: 2 Jan 93 20:35:31 GMT -Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada -0004244402@mcimail.com (Karl Dishaw) writes: -> How's liquid Al going to work in the combustion chamber? -> -> --forming fine droplets will require a new injector plate--how did that -> work for the Li-F rocket Bruce mentioned? What kind of surface tension -> does LAl have? How small would we have to get the droplets to be? -Depending on the reaction chamber and throat material and conditions, it -might be possible to use ultrasonics to break the aluminum into fine -droplets. -Hmmm, I vaguely that there are ways to make ultrasonic "whistles". I don't -know if this could be applied to the injection system, but if it could, it -would at least not require an electrical power source. It does sound complex -though; hopefully existing injection technology will produce droplets of -sufficiently small size. There's a diagram on the wall in the building where I work, depicting the formation of metallic powders. A narrow stream of liquid metal is injected into a chamber, along with several intersecting high-speed jets of inert gas. The physics of interacting jets causes turbulence which tears the stream of metal apart. First the liquid metal breaks up into streamers, several times as long as they are wide, then the streamers break up into individual droplets, which eventually solidify. The first part of this process could be used to form a fine mist of liquid aluminum, presumably using oxygen instead of inert gas. The metal and gas are introduced through different openings, which should help to prevent buildup of oxide on the injectors. If you want a more advanced reusable engine, you probably need to bring along a supply of inert gas to blow the molten aluminum out of the injectors as part of the shutdown process. John Roberts roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov ------------------------------ Date: 09 Jan 93 23:53:24 From: Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org Subject: Commercializing the Shuttle Newsgroups: sci.space To All: I've been reading some of the discussions about "commercializing" the shuttle. I've worked with some of the teams putting together the business plan on a couple of these attempts. Currently, there are rumors floating in the industry about high-level discussions going on about turning shuttle operations over to a commercial operator, with preliminary proposals floating around from two major companies. Prior to this pass at commercializing the shuttle, there have been (by my count) at least 4 very serious prior attempts and proposals. All of these have had real serious money backing them up, including one pass that had several billions of dollars in a letter of commitment from the folks who had financed the Alaska pipeline project, as well as the usual corporate financial sources. Prior attempts had fallen down from two basic sticking points -- which can be summarized as termination liability on government contracts and government indemnification from government damages to the system. Termination liability can be best illustrated as if the government decided "that's it -- we won't use the shuttle any more" after a commercial operator had booked government flights and bought the hardware and supplies (ETs, SRBs, etc) and prepared a vehicle to fly those flights. Under the "termination for convenience" clause in the current Federal Acquisition Regulations, the commercial firm would be stuck. Termination liability, in this case, is also linked to multi-year procurement which gets into the government annual funding process and the unwillingness of a current Congress to obligate a future Congress commit future money to current activities. The government indemnification is the government version of standard commercial language. Let us suppose a government astronaut/passenger operating a payload damaged an orbiter, or if a government employee accidentally damaged a vehicle in ground transport. Under current acquisition regulations, there is no easy way to get payment to a commercial firm, or even a finding of harm, to get recompense to the commercial operator. Fortunately, these issues have been thrashed out and repeatedly hammered at in some little-publicized campaigns by some pro- commercial space folks. There are now regulations on the books to allow NASA to get termination liability for commercial contracts (and back into a limited form of multi-year financing), and indemnification has been attacked through some of the new commercial space transportation regulations (not laws). The biggest stumbling block left is the NASA culture. NASA has embraced the shuttle as part of its core "identity". Moving the shuttle to a commercial operator will mean that folks will have to find new jobs within the agency, and would radically change how NASA operates and how NASA sees itself. This past year has seen some changes within the NASA culture -- not enough for them to relinquish Shuttle, but moving in the right direction. I feel somewhat hopeful that NASA will be able to relinquish their inappropriate operational role and get back to their R&D role. Now, let's talk economic viability of a "commercial shuttle". By comparison to other "commercial" ELVs, the development work for such systems was paid for by government moneys, and the results turned over to commercial operators. Examples: the Titan ICBM development program, and the upgrade to spacelauncher, and similarly for the Atlas ICBM development and upgrade. Once turned over to commercial operators, the commercial operator is responsible for any future upgrades (either funded internally, or in a competitive sense to provide new capabilities for customers, which may be the government). Examples of this would include the Delta II (expensed under the MLV USAF contract), and the Atlas II. According to Goldin (and supported by my analyses), rationalizing the current shuttle operations (about $3B/yr) could reduce current operations costs by at least 25 % (Goldin's number) to 50 % (my number). This would reduce shuttle launch costs from about $400 M/flt currently to $ 200-300 M/flt. On a $/lb to orbit, this is competitive with Ariane, Delta, Atlas, and other commercial market ELVs. To pay for replacement shuttles (wearout or failure), these can be covered by depreciation credits, or if we assume the current shuttle reliability of .98+ is accurate, by adding back in about $40-60 M per flight for replacement insurance, plus standard indemnification. Of course, while the shuttle offers some capabilities which cannot be matched by other systems and can be expected to capture a core business of Space Station Freedom logistics and satellite services (at least until competitors come along), real financial success of any commercial shuttle venture means that it will have to be able to compete with and win commercial business. Current government policies and regulations restrict government payloads from flying on the shuttle. IF the shuttle is being run commercially, then these restrictions should also be lifted. There has been a lot of discussion in this forum about shuttle costs and "the NASA way of doing things". I figure that if someone has the cojones to try to commercialize the shuttle, then we ought to allow them a level playing field to do so. It's a step in the right direction -- and should encourage further commercial developments of space transportation to compete with them. -------------------------------------------------------------- Wales Larrison Space Technology Investor --- Maximus 2.01wb ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Jan 93 09:09:42 EST From: John Roberts Subject: future space travel -From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) -Subject: Re: future space travel -Date: 10 Jan 93 02:32:25 GMT -In article rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (rabjab) writes: ->Seems like the future will see expanding development of robotic systems ->that will be used to explore every planet and moon, at a vastly ->reduced cost over sending humans. -It is yet to be established that this can be done effectively, except -perhaps on the Moon where speed-of-light lags are short. Just flying -around and taking pictures is the easy part. Interacting with a complex -planetary surface, without minute-by-minute human attention, is vastly -more problematic. None of the currently-proposed Mars robots, for -example, is going to have anywhere near the fossil-hunting efficiency -of even an amateur paleontologist. Unless robotics improves greatly, -in-depth investigation of planetary surfaces will still require humans. On a related note, the Discovery Channel recently replayed an episode of "Living Planet", which among other things featured the dry valleys of Antarctica. Conditions there are very reminiscent of Mars - bitter cold much of the time, bare rock, high winds, and dryer than the Sahara Desert. (There's even fairly intense UV, by Earth standards.) Yet life is there - algae living under rocks, sheltered from the most extreme cold, and getting light needed for photosynthesis from sunlight shining *through* the rocks. Other algae are found *inside* rocks, located between the component crystals of the rock. I agree that currently-envisioned probes would have difficulty finding life under those conditions. That's not to say that unmanned probes aren't extremely valuable (and useful as a precursor to manned exploration) in the near term. John Roberts roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 16:38:13 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: killing the shuttle Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Jan8.134734.15459@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: >In article henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > >>You don't get rid of civil servants and politically-powerful contractors >>that easily. If you wipe out the Imperial Deathstar, they'll only start >>building another one. > >Today that's true. However, if the conditions existed where a group was >powerful enough to end Shuttle then the situation would be so different >that it is impossible to say what would happen. The AARP may be that group. The headline in today's Atlanta Journal Constitution says that Clinton will recommend raising the retirement age and taxing medical benefits as ways of dealing with the deficit. Lot's of cranky old people, who all vote in *every* election, including me, are going to be demanding that the government cut spending in other areas rather than break the social contract that we've spent our lives paying into. "Throwing money away in space" is going to be a prime target. If the meataxe falls, Shuttle won't be the only space spectacular cut. Clinton's new Defense Secretary designate is already telling a cheering Congress that $60 billion will be *easy* to cut out of DoD's budget. And you can bet that district pork isn't high on that chopping block. SDI is likely a goner, and along with it any space programs it funds. DC better find a private sugardaddy in a hurry. May I suggest the Japanese or the Saudis? Gary -- Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary 534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | | emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jan 93 17:18:24 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: Let's be more specific (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguements) Newsgroups: sci.space In article ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes: >In <1993Jan7.072839.1460@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes: > >>Once we have Freedom in operation, even less need >>will be found for Shuttle, and it can be phased out. But there will still >>be missions where there's no viable substitute for heavy lift and only >>the Russians still have an operational very heavy lift vehicle. It may >>make sense just to contract with them, > >Why does this have to wait for Freedom? We could do that right now. >In fact, we'd save money launching Freedom on Energia instead of Shuttle. The *redesign* (yet again) of Freedom required for it to be launched by Energia would very likely cost more than any launch cost savings that might be achieved. Planning Freedom from the start for launch on a heavy lifter would have been the cheap way to go, but at the time of Freedom's initial design the Russians were the "Evil Empire" and we didn't have any heavy lift in the class of Energia operational. >>but I'd like to see the US >>develop a new generation VHLV designed from the ground up to achieve >>the lowest possible cost per pound. We've never tried to do that so >>we don't know how cheaply it can be done. > >A new gneration VHLV designed to achieve the lowest possible cost >per pound would be an SSTO, which you support as research vehicles >only. A SSTO *might* be a low cost launcher, or it might not, but a VHLV it is very likely *not* going to be. SSTO claims of low cost depend on reusability. The only reusable launcher we have experience with most definitely *isn't* cheap. That's one of the things *research* vehicles may tell us. That's why I support them. I'm not going to gamble taxpayer money on another operational system until it's costs are *proved* to be enough less than current vehicles to make it's deployment cost effective. Gary -- Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary 534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | | emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jan 93 04:56:00 GMT From: Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org Subject: Privately Financed Space Colonies Newsgroups: sci.space Randy Burns asks: >What are the current estimates of folks in this newsgroup of how >long it will be until the world starts to see privately funded >space colonization? I'll chime in with a variation on what other (such as Dani Eder) have suggested. Another way to look the problem is to look at such a program as a long-term investment program. Realistically, I don't think we will have the technology or capability for colonization for another 15-20 years. To me, that calls for starting now on some investment programs to build towards this future opportunity. Let's look at the case of a long-term investment program to "buy" colonization, using the same population, but investing over 20 years. 50,000 persons $1000 investment annually growth=8% yields $2.47B If we assume a 10:1 leverage potential (10% down...), that same 50,000 persons can invest $25 Billion - which is in the ballpark for a small permanent Lunar colony, assuming 2010 technology. If we assume they invest $2000 annually for 20 years, 50,000 persons $2000 investment annually growth=8% yields $4.94B which can be leveraged up to almost $50 B. Even better. This tells me the space enthusiast community can BUY the future they want - if they are willing to invest in it. Now 20 years may seem long to some people, but I've bought a house with a 30 year mortgage, and I've set up a college fund for my kid over a 18 year horizon, so I don't think a 20 year investment planning horizon is unreasonable to think about. Is 8% per year a reasonable return to expect for 20 years? I believe it is, since it is slightly lower than the historical 50- year return from stocks in general (based upon Ibbotsen's and Sincfeld's study of stock market returns from 1920-1990). An 8% return should be achievable with diversified mutual fund investing in the S&P 500 . Slightly higher yields should also be achievable but with a higher variability (risk). Is $1000-2000 per year per person beyond reason? This is a much more personal question, but I don't think so. That amount is only about $20-40 per week. Furthermore, the money is not necessarily dedicated to "space investments", nor is it out of reach for real financial emergencies. I'm putting substantially more than that away each year through a 401(k) program from my employer. On the _average_ $1000-2000 should be available for savings in general, and this is only a slightly differing form of savings. Is 50,000 contributors an unreasonable base? In my opinion 50 K people is not unreasonable - since this program is basically only a self-directed savings program, and not focused on any specific investment, but just on a reasonable savings effort. As a nation, the US needs to increase its savings rate. This is one way - with potential significant benefits in the future for the space community. If it can be shown that more focused space investments are good financial strategy, then 50,000 is probably on the low side, since anyone who is saving and investing might be interested. Are space investments a good idea? I don't know and I haven't seen any data to indicate a reasonably convincing conclusion either way - and I'm not advocating such as the sole type of investment. However, from readings in the financial literature, space investments should be a good investment based upon general industry and firm types, general financial statistics, and current financial theories - but I have seen no verifable data to prove this. I'm working on such a track record in my spare time. That's why I'm not advocating anything other than a general savings strategy into a reasonably low risk diversified investment program. From what data I have confidence in, commercial space industry revenues in the US have grown 20%+ annually over the past 5 years. Even if this growth rate slows down substantially, it would indicate investments in reasonable space activities should do at least as well as overall stock investments (assuming sufficient diversification). With luck, substantially better. From this I conclude there is quite a reasonable possibility that the space enthusiast community can BUY the future they want within about 20-25 years - if we save and invest towards it. (What happens with no individual savings and investments by the space enthusiast community is left to the reader....) The up-side opportunity is huge - and the down side seems pretty small (over 20 years, how bad can you get hurt by setting up an IRA and investing in a diversified stock market mutual fund?). I have in a low-key way, been encouraging this over the past several years -- It's part of the rationale for irregularly posting the "Commercial Space News" here, trying to provide information about the business side of space, and trying to provide data tracking developments in the commercial space industry, where I believe high returns are possible. Comments and further discussions on this topic are encouraged. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Wales Larrison Space Technology Investor "ex nihlo nihil fit" P.O. Box 2452 Seal Beach CA 90740-1452 --- Maximus 2.01wb ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jan 93 04:54:52 GMT From: Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org Subject: Re; Shuttle Toilet Newsgroups: sci.space Henry Spencer in response to a question from Richard A. Schumacher: >>Uhhh... why didn't NASA just reuse the Skylab toilet on Shuttle? >Good question. I haven't seen a detailed explanation. > I think the excuse was that the Skylab toilet wasn't suited to use >by women, because it assumed anatomy that could urinate and >defecate separately. This has always struck me as the sort of >problem a good engineer could solve easily in any of several ways. Actually, I think the primary reason was because the Skylab toilet used the old empty Saturn tank to dump the wastes into (like the Skylab trash disposal did). On shuttle, you couldn't dump the wastes overboard without the possibility of contaminating anything in the payload bay, and you didn't have the large empty tank to use. (The shuttle dumps waste water overboard, but is very careful about when and how it dumps the water from the holding tanks). Also, the Skylab toilet was rather large and heavy, and on shuttle they tried to reduce it down into a "closet" size. The male/female stuff was something that wasn't that hard to design for (which is obvious if you look at the design). According to some the ECLSS designers I talked with, the reason the baseline shuttle toilet wasn't suitable for EDO shuttle missions was 1) It couldn't hold enough 2) It didn't work well, anyway (had a tendency to backup into the atmosphere, and sounded like a jet turbine loaded with BB's while running). To get the longer duration, the best description I've heard is that the EDO toilet is a "compactor" which compresses the waste into "cans" which can be sealed and changed out, whereas the old shuttle toilet was a "flinger" which would rapidly fill up and couldn't be changed out. Edward V. Wright writes in response to Allen W. Sherzer: >>The GAO report concluded that the 'extended duration toilet' costs >>about ten times more than it needed to because of NASA procurement >>practices. > Not only did it cost ten times more than it needed to, it cost ten >times more than it was budgeted for. Seems the contractor kept >tacking on features, and no one at NASA thought to say, "no." This >despite the fact that NASA probably has more beancounters than a >Big Eight accounting firm. Actually, from my reading of the GAO report, it states the reason was that NASA kept making changes to the toilet design without ever pricing the impact those design changes were making. And from what I heard, everybody at NASA directed changes constantly. And then when the contractor presented the bill for those changes, it was substantially (!!) over budget. Again, talking with some ECLSS designers I know, they confirm this. For example, NASA tacked on the new NASA-STD-3000 "Man-machine interface" requirement on the EDO toilet (which was not imposed on the old one), which required the subcontractor to find a "5th percentile oriental female" and a "95th percentile caucasian male" and _verify_ the system worked with people of those sizes and plumbing. Another was the infamous "coffee can". It's a small receptacle (about the size and shape of a coffee can) attached to the toilet which uses the toilet vacuum system to capture small items and hold them. It was used on the old toilet to hold "wet wipes" and miscellaneous stuff. The EDO design didn't include it since it wasn't required, but the astronaut office insisted it be put back in (the rumor I heard was the astronauts had gotten used to using it to hold their toothbrushes) at about a $250 K design change. I really got my ear bent about these changes... Probably the most insightful thing I heard from one designer was: "Well, if we're modifying something like a hydrazine propulsion system, we typically don't get a lot of "help" from everybody at NASA, since they know they aren't an expert on hydrazine propulsion systems. But everyone's an expert on going to the bathroom and using the toilet....." ----------------------------------------------------------------- Wales Larrison Space Technology Investor --- Maximus 2.01wb ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 16:24:27 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: Should NASA operate shuttles (was Re: Shuttle a research tool) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Jan8.134508.15155@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: >In article <1993Jan7.220739.9367@cerberus.ulaval.ca> yergeau@phy.ulaval.ca (Francois Yergeau) writes: > >>>So what is so special about human space flight? > >>The market, for one thing. Spin off shuttle to the private sector, and >>you're likely to get at most one provider, and one buyer (NASA). > >Nonsense. Run KSC like an airport and Shuttle like an airliner. There is >no reason that several companies couldn't buy Shuttles and lease the >hanger facilities like any other airport. > >The market is small because NASA keeps it small. The market is small because there's little industrial demand outside of comsats for access to space. No product other than communications has shown itself economic in the face of the high up front costs of entry. Commercial launcher providers are cheaper than NASA, as you are fond of noting, and NASA has been restricted in competing for commercial launch business. So NASA isn't keeping the space market small. The lack of a way to turn a buck is keeping the market small. Gary -- Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary 534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | | emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jan 93 16:18:02 GMT From: David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org Subject: Supporting private space Newsgroups: sci.space DP>The federal government paid the early airlines to carry mail. In some DP>cases, these mail subsidies were the only thing that made DP>the airlines profitable. DP>So ... it seems reasonable to wonder if a similar program DP>could be done for the DP>private launcher market. What I'm proposing is that the DP>government agree to pay DP>$1000/lbs to deliver 1 million pounds to LEO each year from 1995 to 20 DP>$1 billion/year, this would be a fairly small program (by DP>government standards). This was run up the proverbial flagpole in the mid-1980's, and no one saluted. Congress was unwilling to pay real $ for this sort of thing back then, and less willing to do so now. However, a variant of this idea, the Launch Services Purchase Act was proposed, passed, and became law through the efforts of a small group of activists who are now working on follow-on legislation. Care to help? ___ WinQwk 2.0b#0 --- Maximus 2.01wb ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 17:03:29 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: Who can launch antisats? (was Re: DoD launcher use) Newsgroups: sci.space In article ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes: >In <1993Jan07.203533.10511@eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) writes: > >>It is not for nothing DARPA has a love with microsats and ways to get them >>quickly into orbit. And what DARPA is doing is in the sunshine. > >Microsats are incapable of replacing photorecon satellites. The >laws of physics prevent it. To get adequate resolution, you need >a large mirror (or large radar). Black programs use the same laws >of physics as everybody else. Yes they do, and synthetic aperture arrays at optical frequencies are discussed in the open literature. Electro-optics is one of the most sensitive technologies that the US government regulates. A technique has to be fairly old hat before researchers can talk about it openly. One way of generating a synthetic aperture is to rapidly move a single sensor. LEO satellites come ready made for this technique, and the computer power to put the image together is getting cheaper and cheaper. >>Prevent a degree of hostile acts. Why didn't the Iraqis use chemical weapons >>against allied forces in Desert Storm? > >Not because he was afraid someone would say something bad about >him at a UN cocktail party. > >Hint: the people who planned the initial airstrikes were not >complete idiots. In fact they were very good, but they still couldn't silence the SCUD launchers, and large stocks of chemical weapons were discovered and ordered destroyed by UN teams *after* the war. I think Saddam would have used gas if he thought he could get away with it. After all, he used it against the Kurds. I think he didn't use gas for the same reason no nation would voluntarily escalate to nuclear warfare against a nuclear armed foe. If he'd used gas on Israel, Israel would have used some of her atomic weapons on Iraq. Using gas on US troops would have been slightly less risky, since the US probably wouldn't have answered with gas or nukes, but the US had enough conventional firepower to level Iraq without resorting to those weapons, and could have done so if sufficiently provoked. Saddam was reduced to using the gas as a bluff that failed when it was called. Gary -- Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary 534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | | emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 033 ------------------------------