henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (07/22/88)
New DoC commercial-space assessment says DoD will need 119 shuttle- equivalent launches and 10 launches/year of smaller expendables between now and 2000. Commercial and foreign customers will want 15-25 big ones per year and 10 smaller per year. NASA will want 48-60 large expendables before 2000. Strong growth in Navsat services like Geostar is forecast. Satellite imaging may be $1G/yr by 1997, most of it in value-added image analysis. Moscow summit expected to lead to agreement to launch space science instruments on each other's missions. Reagan expected to avoid endorsing Gorbachev's joint-manned-Mars idea, since the US is still trying to figure out what its priorities are. Likely results of the instrument exchange are a NASA ozone mapper on a Meteor metsat in 1990, a Soviet radio-relay system on Mars Observer (relaying data from the Soviet Mars balloon mission in 1994), a US-Danish X-ray telescope on a Soviet satellite in the mid-1990s, and possibly more. DoD, as usual, is squawking about technology transfer. Reagan will propose that the two countries study cooperation in solar-system exploration. He will refrain from endorsing missions involving extensive hardware cooperation (e.g. Apollo-Soyuz), major manned projects, or specific unmanned Mars missions. [Has it occurred to any of the brain-damaged bozos who put together this wonderful list of non-promises that maybe the Soviets are tired of studying the notion endlessly and would like to *do* something?!?] The ozone mapper tentatively earmarked for the Meteor flight, a spare from Nimbus 7, has been quietly pulled out of storage and is now being overhauled to make it flight-ready. Soviets give ICAO technical details on their Glonass navsat system, offering it for international civil-aviation use. The Leeds University people who have been studying Glonass for several years say the data is accurate and comprehensive. NASA and DoC award General Dynamics a $200M contract to launch the next three US Clarke-orbit metsats, the first in 1990. This is the first actual final contract for commercial launch services from the US government. First Ariane 4 readied for launch. Ariane 4 is actually a family of launchers, sharing a stretched and beefed-up Ariane core and adding two or four strap-ons, those being small solids, big liquids, or two of each. The first launch will be the AR44LP variant, with two of each strap-on, to get the most mileage out of one test launch. Arianespace has made firm commitments to order 50 Ariane 4s, in hopes that volume production will cut costs and simplify management. Work begins on the ELA-3 launch complex at Kourou, for use with Ariane 5 in the mid-1990s. Included are an adjacent vertical test stand for the Ariane 5 SRBs, and a factory for solid-propellant manufacturing. House, Senate, White House quarrel over how to limit liability for commercial third-party launches. House and Senate bills are broadly similar, setting fixed limits on third-party damage and government property damage (with limits lowered if coverage to the limits is not available at reasonable cost), with the DoT assuming responsibility beyond the limits. By comparison, the Chinese and the Soviets assume all responsibility, while Arianespace requires $70M of third-party coverage and the French government covers the rest. The space-insurance business is in bad shape and agrees that limits are needed. USAF, NASA, and DoT do not like the idea; they think goverment indemnification is overly drastic and the $100M gov't-property limit is too low (USAF estimate is that a Titan failure could cause $300M damage). The Reagan alternative would cap liability instead of shifting it to the government. [Congress does not like the radical change to liability law that this implies.] The USAF also takes a dim view of the clause compensating commercial satellite customers bumped from the shuttle, saying that this is a "direct federal subsidy". [Now I've heard everything -- compensating the victims when you renege on your promises is a "subsidy"?!?] It's not yet clear whether Reagan dislikes the House/Senate bill enough to veto it; minor adjustments have already been made to try to keep him happy. USAF is seriously beefing up security for space-launch sites, in response to post-Challenger studies showing serious vulnerability to man-portable weapons before and just after launch. The USAF now deploys AC-130 gunships with specialized sensors to both Vandenberg and the Cape when launches are imminent, but AC-130s are in short supply and the increasing launch rates dictate dedicated aircraft. Each site could get at least three specially- equipped helicopters, probably similar to a recent demonstration model shown at Vandenberg by ERA Aviation (which does things like Alaska-pipeline inspection). The ERA demonstrator had an imaging infrared system, a low- light TV system, night-vision goggles for the crew, a full set of IFR [night/bad-weather] flight instruments, a loudspeaker system, and a high- power searchlight with a retractable infrared filter. -- Anyone who buys Wisconsin cheese is| Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology a traitor to mankind. --Pournelle |uunet!mnetor!utzoo! henry @zoo.toronto.edu
jnp@calmasd.GE.COM (John Pantone) (07/26/88)
Henry Spencer writes:
...much valuable info deleted...
Reagan will propose that the two countries study cooperation
in solar-system exploration. He will refrain from endorsing missions
involving extensive hardware cooperation (e.g. Apollo-Soyuz), major
manned projects, or specific unmanned Mars missions. [Has it occurred
to any of the brain-damaged bozos who put together this wonderful list
of non-promises that maybe the Soviets are tired of studying the notion
endlessly and would like to *do* something?!?]
Henry - I'm not really arguing about the "brain-damage" nor even the
"bozo" nor even the "non-promises". I am, however, not too thrilled
to see an editorial comment which seems to imply that just because the
Soviets may (or may not) be getting tired of our "studies" that we
should fall through our a__holes trying to please them, or get
something done to satisfy or placate them.
These are the same people that in the Sputnik era (not that long ago
to me, anyway) promised (not threatened, mind you, *promised*) to bury
us. A couple of "kind words" and a leader in decent tailoring (for a
change) hardly eradicates decades of threatening behavior. I
personally think that cooperation is far more desirable than continued
competition - but not without a great deal of deliberation - and due
consideration. If the Soviets have to stew in their juices a while -
so be it - tough luck. Gorbachev represents, PERHAPS, a new era -
we'll just have to wait and see.
--
These opinions are solely mine and in no way reflect those of my employer.
John M. Pantone @ GE/Calma R&D, 9805 Scranton Rd., San Diego, CA 92121
...{ucbvax|decvax}!sdcsvax!calmasd!jnp jnp@calmasd.GE.COM GEnie: J.PANTONEhenry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (07/29/88)
In article <2876@calmasd.GE.COM> jnp@calmasd.GE.COM (John Pantone) writes: >...I am, however, not too thrilled >to see an editorial comment which seems to imply that just because the >Soviets may (or may not) be getting tired of our "studies" that we >should fall through our a__holes trying to please them, or get >something done to satisfy or placate them. Not "just" because the Soviets are getting tired of it. Because everybody who wants to see action in space, including prospective international partners (not limited to the USSR), is getting sick of the US's inability to actually accomplish anything. The US space program currently specializes in studying missions rather than doing them. And when a possible partner actually proposes *doing* something, what answer do they get from the US government? "Great idea, let's study it for a few more years." Feh. -- MSDOS is not dead, it just | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology smells that way. | uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu