Aucbvax.5247
fa.space
utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!space
Thu Nov 19 03:44:21 1981
SPACE Digest V2 #37
>From OTA@S1-A Thu Nov 19 03:33:41 1981
SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 37
Today's Topics:
where the discussion belongs
Private Enterprise (er.. I mean Columbia)
STS-2 landing maneuvers
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 18 Nov 1981 04:51:36-PST
From: decvax!pur-ee!davy at Berkeley
To: decvax!ucbvax!space@Berkeley
Subject: where the discussion belongs
Cc: decvax!pur-ee!davy@Berkeley, decvax!pur-ee!gugel@Berkeley
Well, here's my two cents worth:
I would have to disagree with Steve (smb), and say that this
discussion about the shuttle belongs HERE, not in POLI-SCI. While it
is true that this discussion pertains to free enterprise -vs- the gov-
ernment, I think there'smore to it than that: For example, how would
space travel, colonization, exploration, etc. be affected differently
if private enterprise were to take over (or compete against) the
govm'ts current (future) program?
I submit the following "suppose" about the future:
Let's assume that it's a few years from now, and there have
been some "colonies" set up in space. Just for fun, let's say there
are two on the moon, one on each side; and three space stations. The
space stations can be whatever you want, say big power-supply things,
food-supplies, etc.
We're going to need some method of getting from here to there:
if we work at a space station, we have to go from "home" to "work"; if
we have relatives, we have to get from one side of the moon to the
other, and every once in a while it might be nice to visit good old
Earth. As far as from one side of the moon to the other goes, I guess
we could set up "Amtrack II" (ugh), but that just won't work for getting
down here from up there. That leaves the shuttle as the only really
practical method (because it is re-usable, mostly) of transportation.
Now, who should supply this shuttle service? The government,
or private enterprise? Well, look at the benefits/drawbacks:
If the government runs the program, what do we get? Well,
service-men and government employess could probably get
reduced-fares, along with scientists having "easy" routes
to send their stuff into space. Also, the military has
easy access to it, thus enabling them to deploy their
MX missiles, etc. at will. As you may have noticed, I
haven't mentioned the every-day John Q. Public type of
traveller yet. Where does his "deal" come in? In my
opinion, it probably doesn't come in at all.
Now, if free-enterprise takes over (or at least jumps in),
then what do we get? Eventually, there will probably be
quite a bit of competition, with "no frills" flights (you
have to carry on your own space suit or something), reduced
rates, more departures, travel packages (see Disneycrater --
three days, two nights -- $600,000). John Q. Public would
be benefiting more from what his government "discovered" if
his government didn't run the program.
>From reading POLI-SCI (I don't usually), it doesn't seem to me that
this is the same sort of discussion, although perhaps there are
certain aspects of it that relate to POLI-SCI. Hopefully, we'll
keep the discussion here, as I think that it could become a very
interesting topic, once people start taking it a little further toward
what COULD happen, rather than what it looks like now.
--Dave Curry
(decvax!pur-ee!davy)
------------------------------
Date: 18 Nov 1981 0939-PST
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW SU-AI AT>
Subject: Private Enterprise (er.. I mean Columbia)
To: space at MIT-MC
a059 0445 18 Nov 81
PM-Shuttle Buy,480
Private Investors Trying To Buy Space Shuttle
PRINCETON, N.J. (AP) - A group of private investors has approached
the Reagan administration to propose buying a space shuttle in what
would mark the beginning of major private-sector involvement in the
nation's space program, one person involved in the venture says.
Officials at the Space Transportation Co. of Princeton, N.J., want
to buy a shuttle similar to the Columbia and rent it out to an
operator - either the National Aeronautics and Space Administration or
a private entity, the Dallas Morning News reported today.
''Essentially, there are a lot of people paying a lot of money for
satellites to do what a shuttle can do cheaper,'' said William H.
Sword Jr., who with his father is part of a Princeton investment firm
organizing the planned venture.
''We think private business will be able to handle all that future
business more efficiently than the government,'' the younger Sword
told The Associated Press in a telephone interview from his home in
Cranbury, N.J. today.
''Personally, I have for a long, long time felt that private
commitment of funds for space is the key to the success of the U.S.
space program,'' the Dallas newspaper quoted Dr. Klaus Heiss as
saying. He is guiding the company's effort to purchase a shuttle.
The firm recently presented its proposal to the administration's
science adviser, George Keyworth, who heads a federal study on
long-range space policy, the News said.
''We think now, particularly in the current budget environment, that
private financing is a key symbol, and in fact, more than a symbol,
of space policy in the 1980s,'' said Heiss, who directed economic
studies from 1969 to 1971 leading to 5he original shuttle program.
The shuttle purchase ''is feasible and we want to seriously, quietly
and diligently pursue whether ... the administration and the
aerospace community and the financial community can be persuaded that
indeed that is a viable option,'' he added.
Government officials would not comment on the proposal, other than
to say discussions did take place between the company and members of
the government's office of science and techonology policy.
''It is a somewhat revolutionary idea,'' Heiss said. ''There are
many skeptics within the government and the aerospace community.''
The Columbia, which completed a second mission Saturday, and four
other orbiters originally were planned by NASA. The Columbia is the
only finished orbiter, but NASA has contracts for three more, the last
scheduled for delivery in September 1984.
The Space Transportation Co. wants to buy the fifth shuttle, the
newspaper said.
A consultant with the Space Transportation Co. said the firm has a
minimum of $200 million in an escrow account, but Heiss would not
confirm or deny that. The Columbia cost more than $500 million.
''There's no doubt they can raise every nickel required,'' said
Gilbert Keyes, an official with Boeing Aerospace Co., who is familiar
with the firm's effort.
ap-ny-11-18 0746EST
***************
------------------------------
Date: 18 November, 1981 -- 1749 EST
From: Adam Buchsbaum <RESEARCH!SJB BERKELEY AT>
In-reply-to: Robert Elton Mass <REM MIT-MC AT>
Subject: STS-2 landing maneuvers
The Columbia did indeed undergo some maneuvers once in
the atmosphere. These included some turns and banks
and other maneuvers designed to test the handling of
the shuttle, hopefully to lead to a good landing routine
in bad weather. The cross wind landing was aborted because
the winds got to be too strong, and NASA had to settle
for another head wind landing. The computer handled most
of the maneuvers (if not all) until just before landing.
This was decided after the ship entered the atmosphere
and relayed to the astronauts through the statement, "You
are go for autoland."
------------------------------
End of SPACE Digest
*******************
-----------------------------------------------------------------
gopher://quux.org/ conversion by John Goerzen <
[email protected]>
of
http://communication.ucsd.edu/A-News/
This Usenet Oldnews Archive
article may be copied and distributed freely, provided:
1. There is no money collected for the text(s) of the articles.
2. The following notice remains appended to each copy:
The Usenet Oldnews Archive: Compilation Copyright (C) 1981, 1996
Bruce Jones, Henry Spencer, David Wiseman.
