szabo@sequent.com (06/17/91)
In article <2980@ke4zv.UUCP> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes: >trying to kill NASA and US access to space. Astronaut access to space != US access to space. Your astronaut fetish is showing through. In fact we have a thriving communications industry which provides billions of people access to each other via space. We could also have a thriving space exploration and science program if the greedy astronaut programs were not soaking up the bulk of the funds. The Europeans have quite substantial access to space via Ariane and Giotto, et. al., with astronauts nowhere in sight. Also, I haven't heard of anybody trying to kill the Shuttle lately (except Allen Sherzer). -- Nick Szabo szabo@sequent.com Embrace Change... Keep the Values... Hold Dear the Laughter... These views are my own, and do not represent any organization.
aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) (06/17/91)
In article <1991Jun17.152849.11430@sequent.com> szabo@sequent.com writes: >We could also have a thriving space exploration >and science program if the greedy astronaut programs were not soaking >up the bulk of the funds. In the short run, yes. In the long run we are far better off building the infrastructure. Doing so wold reduce costs to LEO and permit a lot more to be done. Eventually we would get to the point where PhD students could send their own probes out. That will produce far more results in the long run than your short term approach. >The Europeans have quite substantial access to space via Ariane and Giotto, >et. al., with astronauts nowhere in sight. And yet they still feel the need to build Hermes so they can have a manned program. In fact, ALL the spacefaring nations either have or are building manned systems at great expense. Perhaps they know something? Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Allen W. Sherzer | DETROIT: Where the weak are killed and eaten. | | aws@iti.org | | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
szabo@sequent.com (06/18/91)
In article <1991Jun17.165036.6816@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: >In article <1991Jun17.152849.11430@sequent.com> szabo@sequent.com writes: > >>We could also have a thriving space exploration >>and science program if the greedy astronaut programs were not soaking >>up the bulk of the funds. > >In the short run, yes. In the long run we are far better off building the >infrastructure. We need self-sufficient infrastructure, which is what I have been advocating. You have been promoting 1960's tin cans, which have nothing to do with infrastructure or the economical habitation of space. Meanwhile, most of the technology and exploration needed to expand our self-sufficient infrastructure remains unfunded, due to the neglect of the NASA leadership and promoters of astronaut programs such as yourself, greedily soaking up the bulk of the funds for short-term, astronauts-now projects. >Doing so wold reduce costs to LEO and permit a lot more >to be done. Sorry, we have been following your strategy for 20 years and the cost to LEO for astronauts has _increased_, not decreased. Furthermore, over 90% of the self-sufficient industry is in GEO and SSO, not LEO. Putting $multi-billion centralized satellites in LEO is pork barrel, not infrastructure. >Eventually we would get to the point where PhD students could >send their own probes out. That will produce far more results in the long >run than your short term approach. Why do you think I am advocating the development of Iridium-type technology? We need to move towards the next generation of space technology, not backwards to the 1960's. As for the silly "long term vs. short term" rhetoric, decades-long projects that develop little new technology are far worse for the future than quick, short-range projects that advance the state of the art. Worse still are short-range programs to launch a tiny number of astronauts in tin cans by the next decade, instead of doing the hard work needed to develop self-sufficient industries that can be used to build economical habitats over the longer term. >>The Europeans have quite substantial access to space via Ariane and Giotto, >>et. al., with astronauts nowhere in sight. > >And yet they still feel the need to build Hermes so they can have a manned >program. Only as a sad mimicry of the U.S. Europe (largely France) also has its astronaut groupies. Most of the space scientists and commercial space people in Europe are opposed to Hermes, just as most of these people in the U.S. are opposed to Fred. Even as we speak, Ariane 5 is being redesigned from a large satellite carrier into an HLV whose only purpose in life will be to lift two astronauts into LEO. Every nation in Europe except France has been trying to stop this nonsense. Sadly, France has not learned from our mistakes (and their successes). Europe will probably lose its leadership in the commercial space launch field by the end of the decade, for the same reasons the U.S. lost that leadership to Europe in the 1980's. -- Nick Szabo szabo@sequent.com Embrace Change... Keep the Values... Hold Dear the Laughter... These views are my own, and do not represent any organization.
aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) (06/18/91)
In article <1991Jun17.220510.15128@sequent.com> szabo@sequent.com writes: >>In the short run, yes. In the long run we are far better off building the >>infrastructure. >We need self-sufficient infrastructure, which is what I have been >advocating. We have never had a self-sustaining infrastructure. Where it not for the cold war we would have no launchers today. If the government assumes the role it always had and makes the investment (which they have yet to do) then we will have the infrastructure we need. It would have been interesting to hear your agruements through history. You would have complained about the nasty 'central planners' who where subsidizing the trans-continental railroad. When the Kelly Act began using govenrment money to build airports and encouraging with subsidies large multi-engine aircraft no doubt you would have complained about those 'pilot groupies' diverting diverting needed funds away from baloon technology into their heavier-than-air 'tin cans'. >You have been promoting 1960's tin cans, which have >nothing to do with infrastructure or the economical habitation of space. I have posted a lot on what I would do. It has little to do with tin cans and everything to do with cheap access to space. The methods I advocated will reduce cost to orbit by a factor of three. You claim it will take 50 years to do (and under your ideas, it would) yet it can be done in three. What's wrong with 60's technology if it reduces costs? >>Doing so wold reduce costs to LEO and permit a lot more >>to be done. >Sorry, we have been following your strategy for 20 years and the cost >to LEO for astronauts has _increased_, not decreased. Do you actually think we have been following the approach I advocate for the last 20 years? I thought you understood it better. >Furthermore, over 90% of the self-sufficient industry is in GEO and SSO, >not LEO. Nick, we have no self-sufficient industry anywhere in space. Nothing ever launched in the commercial area has come close to paying the full cost of their launches. >>>The Europeans have quite substantial access to space via Ariane and Giotto, >>>et. al., with astronauts nowhere in sight. >>And yet they still feel the need to build Hermes so they can have a manned >>program. >Only as a sad mimicry of the U.S. I see. If you like it it is 'forward thinking efforts we would do well to emulate'. When you don't like it it is 'sad mimicry of the US'. You can't have it both ways, either they know what they are doing or they don't. >Even as we speak, Ariane 5 is being >redesigned from a large satellite carrier into an HLV whose only purpose >in life will be to lift two astronauts into LEO. Huh? Several problems here: 1. The main reason for Ariane 5 IS Hermes. Without Hermes there would be no need for Airane 5. 2. No design changes are being considered which will preclude using Ariane 5 for satellites. 3. Ariand 5 is NOT a HLV; it will lift about as much as a Titan IV. >Every nation in >Europe except France has been trying to stop this nonsense. Hermes is overrunning but I suspect is will survive the meeting in November. As to it being nonsense, they did decide to build it and they do think it is a good idea. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Allen W. Sherzer | DETROIT: Where the weak are killed and eaten. | | aws@iti.org | | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) (06/18/91)
In article <1991Jun17.220510.15128@sequent.com> szabo@sequent.com writes: [In reply to Allen Sherzer] >We need self-sufficient infrastructure, which is what I have been >advocating. You have been promoting 1960's tin cans, which have >nothing to do with infrastructure or the economical habitation of space. Well, let me think. Past technology is right out, (as it should be, IMHO) and current technology is out, so what does that leave for development of manned presence in space? We'll never get to space if we don't try to learn about it, and that's what we're doing right now. Each step in the manned space program (X-15/manned capsules/Shuttle/NASP) is or will be another step towards a viable manned presence, each of which built on the program before it. There will always be unmanned projects worthy of funding, but if we follow your logic then there will never be a manned one worthy of it. I much prefer the way we do things now. >Meanwhile, most of the technology and exploration needed to expand our >self-sufficient infrastructure remains unfunded, due to the neglect of the >NASA leadership and promoters of astronaut programs such as yourself, >greedily soaking up the bulk of the funds for short-term, astronauts-now >projects. Yeah, yeah, and if we did things your way, the technology and development needed to improve our manned capabilities in space would remain unfunded, due to the absorption of funds by greedy unmanned-science types. Where's the gain? Fund them *both*, as we are now. >Furthermore, over 90% of the self-sufficient industry is in GEO and SSO, >not LEO. Putting $multi-billion centralized satellites in LEO is >pork barrel, not infrastructure. Communications satellites are a pretty loose defintion of 'industry'; I am not terribly impressed by an example that uses passive objects in high orbit that do little more than bounce and amplify signals sent from the ground. GEO is easier to reach, safer for both manned and unmanned endeavours, and easier to get back from; I see nothing wrong with working in it. >>And yet they still feel the need to build Hermes so they can have a manned >>program. >Only as a sad mimicry of the U.S. Europe (largely France) also has And the Soviet Union. China and Japan are also working on manned space programs. Great Britain is considering launching manned vehicles from the back of a Soviet transport craft. But hey, they're all just copying the U.S., so we can dismiss their efforts as pork-barreling and groupiness, too. -- Matthew DeLuca Georgia Institute of Technology "I'd hire the Dorsai, if I knew their Office of Information Technology P.O. box." - Zebadiah Carter, Internet: ccoprmd@prism.gatech.edu _The Number of the Beast_
szabo@sequent.com (06/19/91)
In article <31516@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) writes: >Communications satellites are a pretty loose defintion of 'industry'; I >am not terribly impressed by an example that uses passive objects in high >orbit that do little more than bounce and amplify signals sent from the >ground. Interesting. This ("loosely" defined :-) self-sustaining industry is $6 billion per year. The proposed El Dorado platinum mining would be $3 billion per year. CNN, MTV, News Corp., TV network communications, direct broadcast TV and radio, Ted Turner, Rupert Murdoch, international telephone calls, data communications, wire services, the international legs of USENET, etc. Not terribly impressive. Now that's special. -- Nick Szabo szabo@sequent.com Embrace Change... Keep the Values... Hold Dear the Laughter... These views are my own, and do not represent any organization.
aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) (06/19/91)
In article <1991Jun18.172719.26033@sequent.com> szabo@sequent.com writes: >>Communications satellites are a pretty loose defintion of 'industry'... >Interesting. This ("loosely" defined :-) self-sustaining industry is $6 >billion per year. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ It is a big industry but it is by no means self-sustaining. Buyers of launch services only pay the incrimental cost of their launches. They use huge amounts of infrastructure provided by nasty central planners (some of it constructed to support evil manned space). This is true for every launch proveder in the world today. If we did it your way there wouldn't be any launchers at all. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Allen W. Sherzer | DETROIT: Where the weak are killed and eaten. | | aws@iti.org | | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) (06/19/91)
In article <1991Jun18.172719.26033@sequent.com> szabo@sequent.com writes: >In article <31516@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) writes: >>Communications satellites are a pretty loose defintion of 'industry'[...] >Interesting. This ("loosely" defined :-) self-sustaining industry is $6 >billion per year. The proposed El Dorado platinum mining would be $3 >billion per year. CNN, MTV, News Corp., TV network communications, direct >broadcast TV and radio, Ted Turner, Rupert Murdoch, international telephone >calls, data communications, wire services, the international legs of >USENET, etc. Not terribly impressive. Communications satellites are a service. The service sector of the economy does not create signifigant real wealth, so I don't consider it a very impressive industry. The only real industry involved is planted solidly on the ground, in building the rockets, satellites, and transmission and receiving stations. Granted, that is good; it is a net benefit to the national economy. But to call it a 'self-sustaining industry' is akin to your last abuse of the English language, calling a rockhunt in Antarctica a 'manned asteroid sample-return mission'. Subtle abuse of the language is rapidly placing your name alongside that of my two favorite sci.space demagogues, William Baxter and Jim Bowery. Entertainment value, nothing more. -- Matthew DeLuca Georgia Institute of Technology "I'd hire the Dorsai, if I knew their Office of Information Technology P.O. box." - Zebadiah Carter, Internet: ccoprmd@prism.gatech.edu _The Number of the Beast_
szabo@sequent.com (06/19/91)
In article <1991Jun18.182934.17996@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: >[Satellite communications] is a big industry but it is by no means >self-sustaining. Buyers of launch services only pay the incrimental cost >of their launches. They use huge amounts of infrastructure provided by >nasty central planners (some of it constructed to support evil manned >space). Oh boy, now we're down to "good vs. evil". So who is Darth Vader here? The TV networks and telephone companies using those evil robotic communications satellites? Or perhaps the people watching the TV or making the phone calls? May the Force be with you. :-) Seriously, my goal is and always has been to create an economical, self- sustaining manned infrastructure in space. I am afraid that the solution is a bit more subtle and long-term than launching tin cans into LEO that cost 2,000,000 times what it costs to build a house on Earth, without producing any significant revenues. That is not economical. That is not self-sustaining. It is not even close. The U.S. commercial launch vehicles use USAF launch pads developed for the DoD automated infrastructure (which is also, sadly, self-sustaining, insofar as there are still Saddam Husseins and Soviets with thousands of nuclear tipped ICBMs and other assorted hazards on our planet). The automated launchers were themselves developed from automated ICBMs (Thor, Atlas, Titan). For the European launch service, both the launch pad and the automated Ariane rocket were built from scratch to launch automated commercial payloads. The amount of Apollo and Shuttle infrastructure used by the satcom industry is practically nil, despite the $100's of billions NASA has spent on it. -- Nick Szabo szabo@sequent.com Embrace Change... Keep the Values... Hold Dear the Laughter... These views are my own, and do not represent any organization.
aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) (06/19/91)
In article <1991Jun18.195748.27968@sequent.com> szabo@sequent.com writes: >Oh boy, now we're down to "good vs. evil". I'm just using your own words Nick. If you don't like them then don't use them. As to the rest of it, I am just pointing out that if the standards you apply to projects you don't like where applied to projects you do like, then they wouldn't have them either. Communication satellites are NOT self sustaining because they only pay incrimental launch costs. This is true for both the US and all world providers. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Allen W. Sherzer | DETROIT: Where the weak are killed and eaten. | | aws@iti.org | | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) (06/19/91)
In article <1991Jun18.210350.28925@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: [In reply to Nick Szabo] >Communication satellites are NOT self sustaining because they only >pay incrimental launch costs. This is true for both the US and all >world providers. Well, depends on your point of view. From the perspective of the companies launching the satellites, the (IMHO the appropriate point of view) the satellites are indeed 'self-sustaining' (is this another term for profitable?) since they produce more revenue over their lifetimes than it costs them to build and launch. This is practically a tautology, since companies would not be in the comsat business were this not true. Now, if you take into account all the 'hidden' costs behind the launching of the satellite, are you saying that the comsats would no longer be worth launching? -- Matthew DeLuca Georgia Institute of Technology "I'd hire the Dorsai, if I knew their Office of Information Technology P.O. box." - Zebadiah Carter, Internet: ccoprmd@prism.gatech.edu _The Number of the Beast_
szabo@sequent.com (06/19/91)
In article <31548@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) writes: >Communications satellites are a service. The service sector of the >economy does not create signifigant real wealth, If the ability to communicate instantly across the planet does not constitute "wealth", what does? My particular business, Sequent, would lose over half of its revenues if we couldn't talk and send faxes to our European offices via satellite. Perhaps we could also say that steel mills and airplanes don't create real wealth, because that's merely manufacturing and transportation. Only farms that make food are real wealth. Ad absurdum. I find your arguments quite astounding. Perhaps what you are really trying to say is that, because the industry does not employ astronauts, you don't care about it? -- Nick Szabo szabo@sequent.com Embrace Change... Keep the Values... Hold Dear the Laughter... These views are my own, and do not represent any organization.
rwmurphr@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Robert W Murphree) (06/19/91)
aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: >In article <1991Jun17.152849.11430@sequent.com> szabo@sequent.com writes: >>We could also have a thriving space exploration >>and science program if the greedy astronaut programs were not soaking >>up the bulk of the funds. >In the short run, yes. In the long run we are far better off building the >infrastructure. Doing so wold reduce costs to LEO and permit a lot more >to be done. Eventually we would get to the point where PhD students could >send their own probes out. That will produce far more results in the long >run than your short term approach. >>The Europeans have quite substantial access to space via Ariane and Giotto, >>et. al., with astronauts nowhere in sight. >And yet they still feel the need to build Hermes so they can have a manned >program. In fact, ALL the spacefaring nations either have or are building >manned systems at great expense. Perhaps they know something? Actually, James Oberg once talked on macneil leher report about the soviet buran shuttle. He said that basically it was a make work project for the soviet space agencies involved. What other nations know is that basically there is great prestige to manned space and less for unmanned. But I don't think there is any real use for shuttles except to make nasa video clips.
ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) (06/19/91)
In article <1991Jun18.215511.29612@sequent.com> szabo@sequent.com writes: >In article <31548@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) writes: >>Communications satellites are a service. The service sector of the >>economy does not create signifigant real wealth, >If the ability to communicate instantly across the planet does not >constitute "wealth", what does? My particular business, Sequent, >would lose over half of its revenues if we couldn't talk and send >faxes to our European offices via satellite. If you couldn't talk to Europe instantaneously, would the demand for computers in Europe be less? No, there would just be two companies instead of one, or several companies. All advanced communications allows Sequent to do is expand the scope of its operations. It does not actually create wealth. (Considering our experiences with the Sequent I am on now, cutting your satellite links might be a good idea...but that's another article. :-) >Perhaps we could also say that steel mills and airplanes don't >create real wealth, because that's merely manufacturing and >transportation. Only farms that make food are real wealth. >Ad absurdum. Manufacturing indeed creates wealth, as it adds value to something. What does a comsat add value to? Airplanes don't create wealth, either, they just provide a service. >I find your arguments quite astounding. Perhaps what you are really >trying to say is that, because the industry does not employ astronauts, >you don't care about it? Perhaps you have a hole in your head, too. Where did I say I do not care about the communications satellites? I think they're a great idea. I am taking issue with your statement that comsats are a self-sustaining industry, because they're only industry in the loosest sense of the word. Asteroid mining (manned or unmanned) would create wealth. Space-based materials processing would create wealth. Solar power satellites would create wealth. Communications satellites don't create wealth. Do you see what I am getting at? You've gotten into a rut on your anti-astronaut crusade...it's starting to color your perceptions of other people's articles. -- Matthew DeLuca Georgia Institute of Technology "I'd hire the Dorsai, if I knew their Office of Information Technology P.O. box." - Zebadiah Carter, Internet: ccoprmd@prism.gatech.edu _The Number of the Beast_