Date: Tue, 2 Mar 93 05:00:13 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #246 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Tue, 2 Mar 93 Volume 16 : Issue 246 Today's Topics: Aurora (rumors) (4 msgs) Cheap Mars Rocks (was Re: Moon Dust For Sale) Hopkins Leaks (was Re: Blimps) Human Distance Record:Apollo 13 Instead of Fred.. ETCo? Reliable Source says Freedom Dead, Freedom II to be developed Request for info about Ecuations and constants SOLAR gravity assist? Yup. Space Calendar - 02/27/93 Spy Sats SSF Resupply (Was Re: Nobody cares about Fred?) (2 msgs) SSTO Estimates (was Re: Refueling in orbit) 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: Sat, 27 Feb 93 10:39:09 GMT From: Dean Adams Subject: Aurora (rumors) Newsgroups: sci.space PHARABOD@FRCPN11.IN2P3.FR writes: >Suppose Aurora wants to spy on some installation deep inside a big >country. Suppose it flies over the border at 30,000 ft up. Well, you can stop supposing right there! That is not a credible suggestion. Early U-2 flights were done at 65,000 feet, and SR-71 missions were at around 85,000 feet. Aurora would very likely be flying at operational altitudes of over 100,000 feet. >Before it has penetrated 100 miles inside, the whole country may >be on alert. Then why suggest such a thing? >But maybe Aurora has been designed to spy on little countries like >Panama... No, the TR-1 could perform that mission quite effectively. >However, in that case, the noise would tell the inhabitants >they *have been* spied on. Not if they can't hear it. >but Aurora should keep rather far off the borders. That would depend on who's borders we are talking about, and if it was too far, then it would not be possible to collect the needed data. >Why is it extremely audible in the Los Angeles area? Because it is on a LANDING profile. It comes in off the Pacific, decelerating and reducing altitude for a landing in the Nevada desert. >Does it fly at rather low altitude? Certainly not anywhere near the recon target area. >If yes, can it only fly at hypersonic speed ? No... it has to take off and land you know. >(it should never land !) Huh? >Does Aurora hate Los Angeles ? Hopefully I can ask it sometime. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 01 Mar 93 17:03:39 MET From: PHARABOD@FRCPN11.IN2P3.FR Subject: Aurora (rumors) Dean Adams writes (26 Feb 93 04:42:33 GMT): >PHARABOD@FRCPN11.IN2P3.FR writes: >>The plane must have been flying at an altitude of at least 10 kilometres, >>because it was not picked up on radar. I myself did not say that, I was quoting "New Scientist". >Since when does radar stop at FL 300? ATC radar should cover that >territory quite well. True (from the little I know). > Also, Aurora could very likely incorporate >stealth characteristics. Maybe, but it seems difficult to make hypersonic planes really stealth. According to Kenneth W. Foulke in article CONTROLLING RADAR SIGNATURE (Aerospace America, August 1992): "... all-aspect low RCS is not very compatible with supersonic design. Trades must be made between shaping for radar signature and for aerodynamic purposes for optimum design to be achieved". > That is still no reason to go blaming >every strange "explosion" on Aurora. The Dutch scientists said it was an unknown supersonic plane. You say it was not Aurora. Maybe the Russians ? J. Pharabod ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 01 Mar 93 17:33:42 MET From: PHARABOD@FRCPN11.IN2P3.FR Subject: Aurora (rumors) >Sorry, folks but I'll have to throw some cold water on this one. The >origin of this report is a very brief article which appeared late last >summer in AvLeak (AW&ST, Aug. 24, p. 24). The report was by a UAL 747 >eastbound out of LAX which had a head-on encounter with something in the >vicinity of Edwards AFB. (Paul Keller, 26 Feb 1993 13:51:58 GMT) They wrote George, not Edwards. >Although I do not have that issue on my desk right now, the gist of that >report was that it appeared to be some sort of supersonic drone which >got away. I believe it was described as "F-16 sized, or smaller." "The several-second sighting gave the crew the impression that the other aircraft was a lifting-body configuration, and they described it as looking like the forward fuselage of a Lockheed SR-71 - without wings but with a tail of sorts. They estimated the size as similar to an F-16 (49.3-ft. length) and said it had a dark color with a shiny spot on top that may have just been sun glint. The closure rate was 2-3 times normal, and the crew assumed the other aircraft was supersonic". Yes, this does not look like the "classical" description of Aurora. Too small, in particular. This is one of the reasons why I find these August 24 AW&ST articles not very serious. J. Pharabod ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 01 Mar 93 18:14:42 MET From: PHARABOD@FRCPN11.IN2P3.FR Subject: Aurora (rumors) (Preliminary remark: I receive only the space digest, therefore I often get your mails a couple of days after they have been posted) >>Also, it has a strange habit of shouting "Hi folks, I'm coming to >>spy on you !". (J. Pharabod) >More on the order of "Bye, I have just left the neighborhood." >(By the time you hear the sound, the aircraft is gone.) >(Steve Hix, 25 Feb 93 23:41:56 GMT) Suppose Aurora wants to spy on some installation deep inside a big country. Suppose it flies over the border at 30,000 ft up. Before it has penetrated 100 miles inside, the whole country may be on alert. Radio waves, phone calls, e-mail go much faster than any kind of Aurora. But maybe Aurora has been designed to spy on little countries like Panama... However, in that case, the noise would tell the inhabitants they *have been* spied on. J. Pharabod P.S. Also, please consider the following posting from Peter Scott (24 Feb 1993 16:27:39 GMT): >I think I read once that the Soviet Union (when there was one) had >installed auditory sensors at key places along their borders to >listen for the sound of an otherwise stealthy plane entering their >country at low altitude. Can anyone confirm this one way or the other? ------------------------------ Date: 27 Feb 93 20:12:32 GMT From: Ron Baalke Subject: Cheap Mars Rocks (was Re: Moon Dust For Sale) Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary In article <93008.095402K3032E0@ALIJKU11.BITNET>, writes... >Why buy 1gramm moondust for about $4000.- (or 1 pound for $2'000'000) >when I bought 4g Mars rock for $350.- two years ago??? > The going rate for the Zagami meteorite is still about $100 per gram and that is the lowest of all the SNC meteorites. The Nahkla meteorite is going for something like $200 to $300 per gram. The price on the Chassigny is sky high because there are so few pieces that have left France. The two Chassigny pieces I've seen were only 8g and 13g, but were selling for $24,000 and $39,000, respectively. >Taking all the known SNC meteorites known, there are hardly more than 100pounds >of mars rock available. Thus, $100,000 for a two inch tape of moondust is quite >a high price|| I think I'll wait until a *large* lunar meteorite drops down >somwhere... The moon dust hasn't been sold yet, and I think it will go for well under the $100,000. ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |__ M/S 525-3684 Telos | Choose a job you love, and /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | you'll never have to work |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | a day in your life. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1993 16:55:54 GMT From: Frank Crary Subject: Hopkins Leaks (was Re: Blimps) Newsgroups: sci.space In article jechilde@unccsun.uncc.edu (John E Childers) writes: >Have you considered using a glider at Jupiter? With all that convection >soaring might be practical. The control system would be much more >complex than for a ballon but a glider would be realitively strong compaired >to a ballon... Gliders have been looked at, but they suffer from the Jovian gravity (~2.5g) much more than balloons. Unless you have a very good reason to travel rapidly, gliders aren't really worth it... Frank Crary CU Boulder ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1993 10:31:23 GMT From: David Woodsworth Subject: Human Distance Record:Apollo 13 Newsgroups: sci.space The 1990 Guinness Book of Records has this to say: Most isolated - The farthest any human has been removed from his nearest living fellow man is 3596.4 km (2233.2 miles) in the case of the Command Service Module pilot Alfred M. Worden on the US Apollo 15 lunar mission of 30 Jul - 1 Aug 1971. -- Why not go mad? david_woodsworth@mindlink.bc.ca ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1993 19:56:21 GMT From: "Phil G. Fraering" Subject: Instead of Fred.. ETCo? Newsgroups: sci.space WELLS writes: >This was studied in the '85 to '86 time frame. The concept was to strap >a large number of ET's together to make a platform for an SPS or Solar >Power Satellite. The ET's were to be taken to orbit while attached to >the orbiter, final kick to be accomplished using a small strap on >propulsion module on the aft end of the ET that burned its residual >prop. Problems with the approach were numerous and included quantity and >mixture ratio uncertainties of residual H2 and O2, dealing with >propellant pressure and phase uncertainties, how to tie in to the ET >both structural and fluid, control, and the "crumby" tank itself (the >tank insulation would crumble and spall off after a period on orbit). >...fun to dream, though. "We looked at in once for one application, deceided it wouldn't work, and don't have to look at anything like it for any application ever again." Lots of people have looked at many ways of implementing an ET space station, and they reach conclusions much better than described above. -- Phil Fraering |"...drag them, kicking and screaming, pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|into the Century of the Fruitbat." - Terry Pratchett, _Reaper Man_ ------------------------------ Date: 27 Feb 1993 10:29:45 -0500 From: Pat Subject: Reliable Source says Freedom Dead, Freedom II to be developed Newsgroups: sci.space There you go dennis, you hit on what I was thinking. STick a module onto the side hatch of an ET. SUre, the RMS or Candaarm, works like a devil to mount the ET to the truss, and sure you don't have a lot of meteor protection, but Cheap Low quality space I am sure will have lots of uses. Keep the Freedom style heavy modules for core elements, but make the scientists work in the "Ghetto" space. live in comfort, work in hell. sounds like my job:-) pat ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 08:20:39 CST From: a20461@itesocci.gdl.iteso.mx (Cruz Lugo Eric De La) Subject: Request for info about Ecuations and constants Saludos desde Guadalajara Jal., Mexico!!!! i need some information about ecuations, constants and planetary data im developing a solar sistem simulation in Pascal, and i need the info for calculate Planet's R.A. and Declination. Any help will be greatly apreciated, Tanks in advance... Eric De La cruz Lugo a20461@iteso <-----bitnet a20461@itesocci.gdl.iteso.mx <-----Internet This is a job for...nobody, look in the sky is, is...nothing SUPERMAN is DEAD. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1993 17:51:54 GMT From: Nick Haines Subject: SOLAR gravity assist? Yup. Newsgroups: sci.space In article , Bill Higgins posts an interesting article about getting a gravity-assist from the sun by skimming its surface, using the slingshot effect and the fact that the sun is (of course) in orbit around the system's centre of mass. Unfortunately the maximum possible delta-v one can get from such a manoever (calculated as change in velocity at infinity) is twice the sun's orbital v, or about 25 m/s. You're going to do _much_ better using the Oberth gravity-assist, doing a burn at perihelion. If you can skim the surface of the sun, your specific PE there is 2e11 J/kg. If you've fallen in parabolically (and any orbit you can get to out here in the real solar system is going to be close to parabolic when you get that close to the sun) then your KE is the same (i.e. you're moving at >630 km/sec -- whoooo). Add 4 km/s delta-v in a burn and when you get out to infinity (or near-enough, i.e. any planetary distance) you're doing a cool 71 km/s. Where do you want to go? Even if you don't get _that_ close to the sun this works really well. If your parabolic perihelion is at Mercury's orbit (5e10 m, for the sake of argument) then you're moving at 72 km/s, so a 4 km/s burn gets you 24 km/s out at infinity. Which is plenty for a not-particularly difficult engineering task (Mariner went that close to the sun without too much trouble). This adds another interesting question to Bill's list, which I'll tack onto the end of my set of answers: 1. [...], can you follow a solar slingshot with a Jovian slingshot and get even more energy? Can you somehow repeat this trick for endless energy pumping, or show that this is impossible? The velocity available from a solar slingshot is so tiny as to be not worth the bother. If you do an Oberth gravity assist then the delta-v you get is so large that you're not going to need a Jupiter assist. 2. How much help do you get when you throw in Saturn? Rs= 1.427E9 km, Ms= 5.688E26 kg, Msun=3498.5 Msaturn. See above; this is inconsequential. 3. [Library question:] What is the uncertainty in the solar radius? What is the density profile of the solar atmosphere? How did people measure these things? The `solar radius' usually quoted is that of the photosphere (i.e. the bit at about 5000K which emits the visible light of the sun). It's reasonably stable (I guess +/- 10000 km), not counting flares (which can rise several solar radii from the surface, but are sufficiently unusual as to be not terribly dangerous; we're only going to be that close to the sun for about an hour). How are they measured? From photographs. 4. How *do* you engineer a spacecraft to go arbitrarily close to the Sun? (Spare me Brin's "refrigerator laser," I already know about it and his ship uses magic technology for its other systems.) You get it damn cold when it's well away from the sun, you put carbon-carbon (or similar) materials all around it, and you zip in and out in hours. As soon as you're moving away from the sun you deploy big cooling sails. It's still very hard, and I would guess infeasible with present technology. A much less controllable method is to wrap it in about a km of ice; if you can control the ablation then this gives you your perihelion burn for free. If you can't control it then you get dumped into the sun. 5. [...] What is its optimal path if you take helioaerodynamics into account? Ask a grad student. Now my question: 6. If we _do_ skim the sun, at 600+ km/sec, how precisely do we need to control the timing and direction of our perihelion burn? Nick Haines nickh@cmu.edu ------------------------------ Date: 27 Feb 1993 18:49 UT From: Ron Baalke Subject: Space Calendar - 02/27/93 Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary Here's the latest Space Calendar. The Space Calendar is updated monthly and the latest copy is available at ames.arc.nasa.gov in the /pub/SPACE/FAQ directory as space.calendar. Please send any updates or corrections to Ron Baalke (baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov). Note that launch dates are subject to change. The following people made contributions to this month's calendar: o Jeff Bulf - Pioneer Venus Orbiter 15th Anniversary of launch (05/20/78) o Rich Kolker - Updated DC-X Test Flight Date (4/23/93) o Gero Rupprecht - Wilhelm Herschel's Birthday (Nov. 15, 1738) o Mike Hamilton - Updated SeaWIFS Launch Date (10/1/93) o Jeff Bloch - Updated ALEXIS Launch Date (4/12/93) ========================= SPACE CALENDAR February 27,1993 ========================= * indicates change from last month's calendar February 1993 Feb 01 - 35th Anniversary, Explorer 1 Launch (1st U.S. Satellite) Feb 08 - Mars Observer, 2nd Trajectory Correction Maneuver (TCM-2) * Feb 08 - SCD-1 Pegasus Launch (Brazil) Feb 18 - Jules Verne's 165th Birthday Feb 19 - Copernicus' 520th Birthday * Feb 19 - Consort 6 Starfire Launch * Feb 19 - Astro-D M3S-2 Launch (USA/Japan) March 1993 Mar ?? - DFH-3 Long March 2E Launch (China) Mar ?? - GPS/SEDS-1 Delta II Launch Mar 01 - Ulysses, 3rd Opposition * Mar 09 - Galileo, Trajectory Correction Maneuver #19 (TCM-19) Mar 11 - UHF-1 Atlas Launch * Mar 14 - STS-55, Columbia, Spacelab Germany (SL-D2) Mar 18 - Mars Observer, 3rd Trajectory Correction Maneuver (TCM-3) * Mar 21 - Gravity Wave experiment involving Galileo, Mars Obsever and Ulysses spacecraft begins * Mar 23 - Progress Launch (Soviet) Mar 31 - Commercial Experiment Trasporter (Comet) Conestoga Launch April 1993 * Apr ?? - Galaxy 4 Ariane Launch * Apr ?? - Hispasat 1B & Insat 2B Ariane Launch * Apr 01 - STS-56, Discovery, Atmospheric Lab for Applications and Science (ATLAS-2) Apr 06 - 20th Anniversary, Pioneer 11 Launch (Jupiter & Saturn Flyby Mission) * Apr 12 - ALEXIS Pegasus Launch Apr 19 - Venus/Moon Occultation, Visible from North America Apr 22 - Lyrid Meteor Shower (Maximum: 03:00 UT, Solar Longitude 32.1 degrees) * Apr 23 - First Test Flight of the DC-X (Unmanned) Apr 28 - STS-57, Endeavour, European Retrievable Carrier (EURECA-1R) May 1993 May ?? - Advanced Photovoltaic Electronics Experiment (APEX) Pegasus Launch May ?? - Radcal Scout Launch May ?? - Astra 1C Ariane Launch May ?? - GPS/PMQ Delta II Launch May 04 - Galileo Enters Asteroid Belt Again May 04 - Eta Aquarid Meteor Shower (Maximum: 21:00 UT, Solar Lon: 44.5 deg) * May 20 - 15th Anniversary, Pioneer Venus Orbiter Launch May 21 - Partial Solar Eclipse, Visible from North America & Northern Europe * May 25 - Magellan, Aerobraking Begins? June 1993 Jun ?? - Temisat Meteor 2 Launch Jun ?? - UHF-2 Atlas Launch Jun ?? - NOAA-I Atlas Launch Jun 04 - Lunar Eclipse, Visible from North America Jun 14 - Sakigake, 2nd Earth Flyby (Japan) Jun 22 - 15th Anniversary of Charon Discovery (Pluto's Moon) by Christy * Jun 30 - STS-51, Discovery, Advanced Communications Technology Satellite July 1993 Jul ?? - MSTI-II Scout Launch Jul 01 - Soyuz Launch (Soviet) Jul 08 - Soyuz Launch (Soviet) Jul 14 - Soyuz TM-16 Landing (Soviet) Jul 21 - Soyuz TM-17 Landing (Soviet) Jul 28 - S. Delta Aquarid Meteor Shower (Maximum: 19:00 UT, Solar Longitude 125.8 degrees) Jul 29 - NASA's 35th Birthday August 1993 Aug ?? - ETS-VI (Engineering Test Satellite) H2 Launch (Japan) Aug ?? - GEOS-J Launch Aug ?? - Landsat 6 Launch Aug ?? - ORBCOM FDM Pegasus Launch Aug 09 - Mars Observer, 4th Trajectory Correction Maneuver (TCM-4) Aug 12 - N. Delta Aquarids Meteor Shower (Maximum: 07:00 UT, Solar Longitude 139.7 degrees) Aug 12 - Perseid Meteor Shower (Maximum: 15:00 UT, Solar Longitude 140.1 degrees) Aug 24 - Mars Observer, Mars Orbit Insertion (MOI) Aug 25 - STS-58, Columbia, Spacelab Life Sciences (SLS-2) Aug 28 - Galileo, Asteroid Ida Flyby September 1993 Sep ?? - SPOT-3 Ariane Launch Sep ?? - Tubsat Launch Sep ?? - Seastar Pegasus Launch Sep ?? - EPOT-3/ASAP-4 Ariane Launch October 1993 Oct ?? - Intelsat 7 F1 Ariane Launch Oct ?? - SLV-1 Pegasus Launch Oct ?? - Telstar 4 Atlas Launch * Oct 01 - SeaWIFS Launch Oct 22 - Orionid Meteor Shower (Maximum: 00:00 UT, Solar Longitude 208.7 degrees) November 1993 Nov ?? - Solidaridad/MOP-3 Ariane Launch Nov 03 - 20th Anniversary, Mariner 10 Launch (Mercury & Venus Flyby Mission) Nov 03 - S. Taurid Meteor Shower Nov 04 - Galileo Exits Asteroid Belt Nov 06 - Mercury Transits Across the Sun, Visible from Asia, Australia, and the South Pacific Nov 10 - STS-60, Discovery, SPACEHAB-2 Nov 13 - Partial Solar Eclipse, Visible from Southern Hemisphere * Nov 15 - Wilhelm Herschel's 255th Birthday Nov 17 - Leonids Meteor Shower (Maximum: 13:00 UT, Solar Longitude 235.3 degrees) Nov 28-29 - Total Lunar Eclipse, Visible from North America & South America December 1993 * Dec ?? - Mars Observer, Mapping Begins Dec ?? - GOES-I Atlas Launch Dec ?? - NATO 4B Delta Launch Dec ?? - TOMS Pegasus Launch Dec ?? - DirectTv 1 & Thiacom 1 Ariane Launch Dec ?? - ISTP Wind Delta-2 Launch Dec ?? - STEP-2 Pegasus Launch Dec 01 - Mars Observer, Mapping Orbit Established Dec 02 - STS-61, Endeavour, Hubble Space Telescope Repair Dec 04 - SPEKTR-R Launch (Soviet) Dec 05 - 20 Anniversary, Pioneer 10 Launch (Jupiter Flyby Mission) Dec 08 - Mars Observer, Mars Equinox Dec 14 - Geminids Meteor Shower (Maximum: 00:00 UT, Solar Longitude 262.1 degrees) Dec 20 - Mars Observer, Solar Conjunction Dec 23 - Ursids Meteor Shower (Maximum: 01:00 UT, Solar Longitude 271.3 degrees) January 1994 Jan 02 - Mars Observer, End of Solar Conjunction Jan 24 - Clementine Titan IIG Launch (Lunar Orbiter, Asteroid Flyby Mission) February 1994 * Feb ?? - SFU Launch * Feb ?? - Muses-B Launch (Japan) * Feb ?? - GMS-5 Launch * Feb 05 - 20th Anniversary, Mariner 10 Venus Flyby * Feb 08 - STS-62, Columbia, U.S. Microgravity Payload (USMP-2) * Feb 15 - Galileo's 430th Birthday * Feb 21 - Clementine, Lunar Orbit Insertion * Feb 25 - 25th Anniversary, Mariner 6 Launch ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |__ M/S 525-3684 Telos | If you don't stand for /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | something, you'll fall |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | for anything. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 14:53:10 EET From: flb@flb.optiplan.fi (F.Baube x554) Subject: Spy Sats Dean Adams > The space based ELINT systems [..]can deploy LARGE antenna arrays > and ferret out all kinds of interesting signals... how large is LARGE ? -- * Fred Baube GU/MSFS * We live in only one small room of the * Optiplan O.Y. * enormous house of our consciousness * baube@optiplan.fi * -- William James * #include * nymphs vex, beg quick fjord waltz ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1993 14:51:26 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: SSF Resupply (Was Re: Nobody cares about Fred?) Newsgroups: sci.space In article steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes: > Now go out and buy a brick. Wrap it in paper and see if you can find > a company who will ship it to me for free. If they balk, explain to > them how they have deadhead space and so it doesn't matter. If you > manage to do this, I'll accept your arguement. >Well, Allen, I could ship you a brick FedEx (or USPO express) (COD of >course ;-) Then you would be violating the rules of the experiment. Dennis is asserting that we shouldn't worry about the excess weight since the marginal cost is almost nothing. As proof he cliams that shipping comanies work the same way. If this where true, then he would have no problem finding companies willing to ship a brick to me for free. >- you will be rather astonished to find that the charge for >shipping the brick will not be the cost of the truck+flight from here >to there, rather they'll charge a marginal cost No, they will charge much more than the marginal cost. The marginal cost is simply the cost of producing (or delivering) one more item. For our brick it would be the cost of the fuel needed to move the extra mass, the extra wear on the truck, and the time of the people who load and unload the brick. It doesn't include overhead costs, amortization of vehicles, profit, or anything else. Any company who only charges their customers the marginal cost will soon find itself out of buisness. Even standy fare on an airliner is more than marginal cost. > If we re-fueled automatically and left the thrusters in place we would > go from ~50 shuttle flights costing $25 billion and go to ~50 Delta > flights costing less than $2 billion. A savings of over $23 billion. >Allen, what is the development cost of learning how to do >automatic refuelling and over how many flights will you amortise it? I suppose we could buy it today from the Russians. But then Doug would get all pissed off and call me a commie again. So I called up a friend at one of the NASA centers for the commercialization of space (another place where NASA is doing a good job Dennis). He is the deputy program manager of an effort to build an automatic docking system foe satellite refueling. He put the cost well under $100M. > Do you propose flying fewer shuttle flights without the >resupply (in which case the marginal cost on the remaining flights >increase) or should NASA redirect those flights to another purpose? I propose the Shuttle fly whatever paying customers it can find. If if that means station logistics, fine. However, if cheaper ways can be found I as a taxpayer and somebody very interested in the development of space want to see them used. >Or should they simply fire 20,000 support staff - in which case what >is the cost of severance (including any welfare support to the >government)? Well, I think it would be a good idea to make space cheap. That way maybe those people can find productive work in a growing space economy rather than live off of government aerospace welfare. Would you have told Henry Ford to not build his car because of the thousands of buggy whip makers who would be out of a job? > You make good points, but your accounting methods are, shall >we say systematically skewed. They're not as good as they would be is somebody paid me to do them (my cost estimates for the projects I work on is pretty good). But I usually find that they're good enough since the savings is much larger than the likely error in my estimates. I could be off by a factor of five for refueling above, for example, and it would still be a good idea. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves | | aws@iti.org | nothing undone" | +----------------------108 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 27 Feb 1993 10:16:35 -0500 From: Pat Subject: SSF Resupply (Was Re: Nobody cares about Fred?) Newsgroups: sci.space In article steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes: |In article <1993Feb26.205533.6505@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: | |Well, Allen, I could ship you a brick FedEx (or USPO express) (COD of |course ;-) - you will be rather astonished to find that the charge for |shipping the brick will not be the cost of the truck+flight from here Allen was arguing that you can't get deadhead space free from anyone. True. Most drivers operate under the "Gas, Grass or Ass, No-one rides for free" policy. Steinn, to argue marginal cost is irrelevant to allens argument. Wingo was trying to claim that thrusters fly for free. Allen pointed out that was a crock. You then come up with some argument on the cost being the operating cost divided by payload. Sadly, that's allen's point, too. The cost of dragging thrusters to orbit does cost 10,000/pound under any rational accounting scheme. any claims to the contrary is a fiction. | | | Except that with automated refueling we can use $35 million Delta's | instead of half a billion $$ shuttle flights for refueling. | | If we re-fueled automatically and left the thrusters in place we would | go from ~50 shuttle flights costing $25 billion and go to ~50 Delta | flights costing less than $2 billion. A savings of over $23 billion. | |Allen, what is the development cost of learning how to do |automatic refuelling and over how many flights will you amortise it? I believe allen did those numbers. He proposed that at 8% rate of return and 4 Billion up front in engineering, you payback in 4 years. | Do you propose flying fewer shuttle flights without the |resupply (in which case the marginal cost on the remaining flights |increase) or should NASA redirect those flights to another purpose? |Or should they simply fire 20,000 support staff - in which case what |is the cost of severance (including any welfare support to the |government)? Neither of these questions are relevant to the Freedom PMO. THey are a problem for Johnson, kennedy and HQ. IT is the job of Reston to do the most with the least dollars. It's HQ's job to figure out how to rebalance missions. What if we signed a deal on 5 energiyas. suddenly 26 shuttle missions go by the way. Is that restons fault? of course not. The assumption is HQ will either direct new shuttle missions or reduce the program size. simple enough and nobody's problem but theirs. > > You make good points, but your accounting methods are, shall >we say systematically skewed. > Allen makes good points, and given i have a masters in Business and Public administration, I would say in keeping with accepted practice. Politically naive, oftentimes, but acceptable. I would challenge you steinn to find any textbook which dictates that allen is wrong. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1993 15:01:55 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: SSTO Estimates (was Re: Refueling in orbit) Newsgroups: sci.space In article steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes: > SSTO fans would do well to re-read the history of some >modern launchers, including the original Shuttle concept and how >it evolved. I have. I note with pleasure that SDIO seems to have as well and has learned from those mistakes. >Might make some a little less firm in their cost estimates You will note that my detailed cost estimates for SSTO which I posted a while back had costs about twice other estimates. But with an SSTO with its emphasis on rapid turnaround, the costs come down fast as the market grows. Now it may be that the turnaround goals can't be met yet. But SSTO is still a good idea because even if it fails it will tell us exactly what we need to do to make it work and will suggest solutions to those problems. >and a little less ready to cut other transport systems before the >SSTOs have demonstrated operational ability.. Nobody is talking about cutting all transport system, only those which aren't cost effective and can only survive via wasteful government subsidy. >in particular Allen >might be astonished to realise that some of his DC claims look >like they were cut out from a NASA report circa 1971-1974 providing >STS claims ;-) The problem with this arguement is it doesn't address just why Shuttle failed and what is different this time. This arguement amounts to a proof that space will never be cheap for no other reason than that the Shuttle failed. Without more analysis it's not a very good arguement. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves | | aws@iti.org | nothing undone" | +----------------------108 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 19:22:09 -0800 From: d7724502@dec2.ncku.edu.tw UNSUB SPACE ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 246 ------------------------------