The Hubble Should SPLASH!

In article ,
(George William Herbert) writes:
Reference is escaping me (AvLeak? SpaceViews?), but recent reports
indicate that the NASA project inflator (early costs to final costs)
is about 1.45, about the same as major DOD programs in the US.

Somewhere in my files, I have a viewgraph made years ago by a "NASA
beancounterm" whose name I forget but who was in fact a very smart
guy. It shows the cost inflator of many missions as a function of
the fraction of the cost already spent. The upshot is that once 10%
(from memory) of the money is spent, costs can be estimated pretty
well, but before that there can be (and usually is) quite a bit of
escalation.

Unfortunately, there was one very large "outlier" on the plot, where
despite 10% of the money having been spent, there still turned out to
be very large cost escalation: HST.

Another viewgraph, possibly from the same source, showed that mission
cost (corrected for inflation) was proportional to the square root of
payload mass. Though incredibly simple-minded, mass alone turned out
to be a very good predictor, at least for the missions shown. (I
don't recall whether HST was on this second graph or not.)

It would be very interesting to put together updated versions of
these plots, if anyone has the data.

--
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
(Please email your reply if you want to be sure I see it; include a
valid Reply-To address to receive an acknowledgement. Commercial
email may be sent to your ISP.)

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 23:27:54 -0500, Tom McDonald
wrote:


It's great to live in a country where these Nazis are free to
write whatever they like in public. Without that, we might
forget that their patented brand of whining, lying and bluster
has the potential to destroy the liberty and toleration that
allows them this freedom.

God forbid that they should ever achieve reason.

Here is part of Hitler's speech at Rheinmetall-Borsig Works, Berlin,
on December 10, 1940:

"In this Anglo-French world there exists, as it were, democracy, which
means the rule of the people by the people. Now the people must
possess some means of giving expression to their thoughts or their
wishes. Examining this problem more closely, we see that the people
themselves have originally no convictions of their own. Their
convictions are formed, of course, just as everywhere else. The
decisive question is who enlightens the people, who educates them? In
those countries, it is actually capital that rules; that is, nothing
more than a clique of a few hundred men who possess untold wealth and,
as a consequence of the peculiar structure of their national life, are
more or less independent and free. They say: 'Here we have liberty.'
By this they mean, above all, an uncontrolled economy, and by an
uncontrolled economy, the freedom not only to acquire capital but to
make absolutely free use of it. That means freedom from national
control or control by the people both in the acquisition of capital
and in its employment. This is really what they mean when they speak
of liberty. These capitalists create their own press and then speak of
the 'freedom of the press.'
In reality, every one of the newspapers has a master, and in every
case this master is the capitalist, the owner. This master, not the
editor, is the one who directs the policy of the paper. If the editor
tries to write other than what suits the master, he is ousted the next
day. This press, which is the absolutely submissive and characterless
slave of the owners, molds public opinion. Public opinion thus
mobilized by them is, in its turn, split up into political parties.
The difference between these parties is as small as it formerly was in
Germany. You know them, of course - the old parties. They were always
one and the same. In Britain matters are usually so arranged that
families are divided up, one member being a conservative, another a
liberal, and a third belonging to the labor party. Actually, all three
sit together as members of the family, decide upon their common
attitude and determine it. A further point is that the 'elected
people' actually form a community which operates and controls all
these organizations. For this reason, the opposition in England is
really always the same, for on all essential matters in which the
opposition has to make itself felt, the parties are always in
agreement. They have one and the same conviction and through the
medium of the press mold public opinion along corresponding lines. One
might well believe that in these countries of liberty and riches, the
people must possess an unlimited degree of prosperity. But no! On the
contrary, it is precisely in these countries that the distress of the
masses is greater than anywhere else. Such is the case in 'rich
Britain.'
She controls sixteen million square miles. In India, for example, a
hundred million colonial workers with a wretched standard of living
must labor for her. One might think, perhaps, that at least in England
itself every person must have his share of these riches. By no means!
In that country class distinction is the crassest imaginable. There is
poverty - incredible poverty - on the one side, and equally incredible
wealth on the other. They have not solved a single problem. The
workmen of that country which possesses more than one-sixth of the
globe and of the world's natural resources dwell in misery, and the
masses of the people are poorly clad.. In a country which ought to
have more than enough bread and every sort of fruit, we find millions
of the lower classes who have not even enough to fill their stomachs,
and go about hungry. A nation which could provide work for the whole
world must acknowledge the fact that it cannot even abolish
unemployment at home. For decades this rich Britain has had two and a
half million unemployed; rich America, ten to thirteen millions, year
after year; France, six, seven, and eight hundred thousand. Well, my
fellow-countrymen - what then are we to say about ourselves?
It is self-evident that where this democracy rules, the people as such
are not taken into consideration at all. The only thing that matters
is the existence of a few hundred gigantic capitalists who own all the
factories and their stock and, through them, control the people. The
masses of the people do not interest them in the least. They are
interested in them just as were our bourgeois parties in former times
- only when elections are being held, when they need votes. Otherwise,
the life of the masses is a matter of complete indifference to them.
To this must be added the difference in education. Is it not ludicrous
to hear a member of the British Labor Party - who, of course, as a
member of the Opposition is officially paid by the government - say:
'When the war is over, we will do something in social respects'?
It is the members of Parliament who are the directors of the business
concerns - just as used to be the case with us. But we have abolished
all that. A member of the Reichstag cannot belong to a Board of
Directors, except as a purely honorary member. He is prohibited from
accepting any emolument, financial or otherwise. This is not the case
in other countries.
They reply: 'That is why our form of government is sacred to us.' I
can well believe it, for that form of government certainly pays very
well.. But whether it is sacred to the mass of the people as well is
another matter.
The people as a whole definitely suffer. I do not consider it possible
in the long run for one man to work and toil for a whole year in
return for ridiculous wages, while another jumps into an express train
once a year and pockets enormous sums. Such conditions are a disgrace.
On the other hand, we National Socialists equally oppose the theory
that all men are equals. Today, when a man of genius makes some
astounding invention and enormously benefits his country by his
brains, we pay him his due, for he has really accomplished something
and been of use to his country. However, we hope to make it impossible
for idle drones to inhabit this country.
I could continue to cite examples indefinitely. The fact remains that
two worlds are face to face with one another. Our opponents are quite
right when they say: 'Nothing can reconcile us to the National
Socialist world.' How could a narrow-minded capitalist ever agree to
my principles? It would be easier for the Devil to go to church and
cross himself with holy water than for these people to comprehend the
ideas which are accepted facts to us today. But we have solved our
problems.
To take another instance where we are condemned: They claim to be
fighting for the maintenance of the gold standard as the currency
basis. That I can well believe, for the gold is in their hands. We,
too, once had gold, but it was stolen and extorted from us. When I
came to power, it was not malice which made me abandon the gold
standard. Germany simply had no gold left. Consequently, quitting the
gold standard presented no difficulties, for it is always easy to part
with what one does not have. We had no gold. We had no foreign
exchange. They had all been stolen and extorted from us during the
previous fifteen years. But, my fellow countrymen, I did not regret
it, for we have constructed our economic system on a wholly different
basis. In our eyes, gold is not of value in itself. It is only an
agent by which nations can be suppressed and dominated.
When I took over the government, I had only one hope on which to
build, namely, the efficiency and ability of the German nation and the
German workingman; the intelligence of our inventors, engineers,
technicians, chemists, and so forth. I built on the strength which
animates our economic system. One simple question faced me: Are we to
perish because we have no gold; am I to believe in a phantom which
spells our destruction? I championed the opposite opinion: Even though
we have no gold, we have capacity for work.
The German capacity for work is our gold and our capital, and with
this gold I can compete successfully with any power in the world. We
want to live in houses which have to be built. Hence, the workers must
build them, and the raw materials required must be procured by work.
My whole economic system has been built up on the conception of work.
We have solved our problems while, amazingly enough, the capitalist
countries and their currencies have suffered bankruptcy.
Sterling can find no market today. Throw it at any one and he will
step aside to avoid being hit. But our Reichsmark, which is backed by
no gold, has remained stable. Why? It has no gold cover; it is backed
by you and by your work. You have helped me to keep the mark stable.
German currency, with no gold coverage, is worth more today than gold
itself. It signifies unceasing production. This we owe to the German
farmer, who has worked from daybreak till nightfall. This we owe to
the German worker, who has given us his whole strength. The whole
problem has been solved in one instant, as if by magic.
My dear friends, if I had stated publicly eight or nine years ago: 'In
seven or eight years the problem of how to provide work for the
unemployed will be solved, and the problem then will be where to find
workers,' I should have harmed my cause. Every one would have
declared: 'The man is mad. It is useless to talk to him, much less to
support him. Nobody should vote for him. He is a fantastic creature.'
Today, however, all this has come true. Today, the only question for
us is where to find workers. That, my fellow countrymen, is the
blessing which work brings.
Work alone can create new work; money cannot create work. Work alone
can create values, values with which to reward those who work. The
work of one man makes it possible for another to live and continue to
work. And when we have mobilized the working capacity of our people to
its utmost, each individual worker will receive more and more of the
world's goods.
We have incorporated seven million unemployed into our economic
system; we have transformed another six millions from part-time into
full-time workers; we are even working overtime. And all this is paid
for in cash in Reichsmarks which maintained their value in peacetime.
In wartime we had to ration its purchasing capacity, not in order to
devalue it, but simply to earmark a portion of our industry for war
production to guide us to victory in the struggle for the future of
Germany...
One thing is certain, my fellow-countrymen: All in all, we have today
a state with a different economic and political orientation from that
of the Western democracies.
Well, it must now be made possible for the British worker to travel.
It is remarkable that they should at last hit upon the idea that
traveling should be something not for millionaires alone, but for the
people too. In this country, the problem was solved some time ago. In
the other countries - as is shown by their whole economic structure -
the selfishness of a relatively small stratum rules under the mask of
democracy. This stratum is neither checked nor controlled by anyone.
It is therefore understandable if an Englishman says: 'We do not want
our world to be subject to any sort of collapse.' Quite so. The
English know full well that their Empire is not menaced by us. But
they say quite truthfully: 'If the ideas that are popular in Germany
are not completely eliminated, they might become popular among our own
people, and that is the danger. We do not want this.' It would do no
harm if they did become popular there, but these people are just as
narrow-minded as many once were in Germany. In this respect they
prefer to remain bound to their conservative methods. They do not wish
to depart from them, and do not conceal the fact.
They say, 'The German methods do not suit us at all.'
And what are these methods? You know, my comrades, that I have
destroyed nothing in Germany. I have always proceeded very carefully,
because I believe - as I have already said - that we cannot afford to
wreck anything. I am proud that the Revolution of 1933 was brought to
pass without breaking a single windowpane. Nevertheless, we have
wrought enormous changes.
I wish to put before you a few basic facts: The first is that in the
capitalistic democratic world the most important principle of economy
is that the people exist for trade and industry, and that these in
turn exist for capital. We have reversed this principle by making
capital exist for trade and industry, and trade and industry exist for
the people. In other words, the people come first. Everything else is
but a means to this end. When an economic system is not capable of
feeding and clothing a people, then it is bad, regardless of whether a
few hundred people say: 'As far as I am concerned it is good,
excellent; my dividends are splendid.'
However, the dividends do not interest me at all. Here we have drawn
the line. They may then retort: 'Well, look here, that is just what we
mean. You jeopardize liberty.'
Yes, certainly, we jeopardize the liberty to profiteer at the expense
of the community, and, if necessary, we even abolish it. British
capitalists, to mention only one instance, can pocket dividends of 76,
80, 95, 140, and even 160 per cent from their armament industry.
Naturally they say: 'If the German methods grow apace and should prove
victorious, this sort of thing will stop.'
They are perfectly right. I should never tolerate such a state of
affairs. In my eyes, a 6 per cent dividend is sufficient. Even from
this 6 per cent we deduct one-half and, as for the rest, we must have
definite proof that it is invested in the interest of the country as a
whole. In other words, no individual has the right to dispose
arbitrarily of money which ought to be invested for the good of the
country. If he disposes of it sensibly, well and good; if not, the
National Socialist state will intervene.
To take another instance, besides dividends there are the so-called
directors' fees. You probably have no idea how appallingly active a
board of directors is. Once a year its members have to make a journey.
They have to go to the station, get into a first-class compartment and
travel to some place or other. They arrive at an appointed office at
about 10 or 11 A.M. There they must listen to a report. When the
report has been read, they must listen to a few comments on it. They
may be kept in their seats until 1 P.M. or even 2. Shortly after 2
o'clock they rise from their chairs and set out on their homeward
journey, again, of course, traveling first class. It is hardly
surprising that they claim 3,000, 4,000, or even 5,000 as compensation
for this: Our directors formerly did the same - for what a lot of time
it costs them! Such effort had to be made worth while! Of course, we
have got rid of all this nonsense, which was merely veiled
profiteering and even bribery.
In Germany, the people, without any doubt, decide their existence.
They determine the principles of their government. In fact it has been
possible in this country to incorporate many of the broad masses into
the National Socialist party, that gigantic organization embracing
millions and having millions of officials drawn from the people
themselves. This principle is extended to the highest ranks.
For the first time in German history, we have a state which has
absolutely abolished all social prejudices in regard to political
appointments as well as in private life. I myself am the best proof of
this. Just imagine: I am not even a lawyer, and yet I am your Leader!
It is not only in ordinary life that we have succeeded in appointing
the best among the people for every position. We have
Reichsstatthalters who were formerly agricultural laborers or
locksmiths. Yes, we have even succeeded in breaking down prejudice in
a place where it was most deep-seated -in the fighting forces.
Thousands of officers are being promoted from the ranks today. We have
done away with prejudice. We have generals who were ordinary soldiers
and noncommissioned officers twenty-two and twenty-three years ago. In
this instance, too, we have overcome all social obstacles. Thus, we
are building up our life for the future.
As you know we have countless schools, national political educational
establishments, Adolf Hitler schools, and so on. To these schools we
send gifted children of the broad masses, children of working men,
farmers' sons whose parents could never have afforded a higher
education for their children. We take them in gradually. They are
educated here, sent to the Ordensburgen, to the Party, later to take
their place in the State where they will some day fill the highest
posts....
Opposed to this there stands a completely different world. In the
world the highest ideal is the struggle for wealth, for capital, for
family possessions, for personal egoism; everything else is merely a
means to such ends. Two worlds confront each other today. We know
perfectly well that if we are defeated in this war it would not only
be the end of our National Socialist work of reconstruction, but the
end of the German people as a whole. For without its powers of
coordination, the German people would starve. Today the masses
dependent on us number 120 or 130 millions, of which 85 millions alone
are our own people. We remain ever aware of this fact.
On the other hand, that other world says: 'If we lose, our world-wide
capitalistic system will collapse. For it is we who save hoarded gold.
It is lying in our cellars and will lose its value. If the idea that
work is the decisive factor spreads abroad, what will happen to us? We
shall have bought our gold in vain. Our whole claim to world dominion
can then no longer be maintained. The people will do away with their
dynasties of high finance. They will present their social claims, and
the whole world system will be overthrown.'
I can well understand that they decla 'Let us prevent this at all
costs; it must be prevented.' They can see exactly how our nation has
been reconstructed. You see it clearly. For instance, there we see a
state ruled by a numerically small upper class. They send their sons
to their own schools, to Eton. We have Adolf Hitler schools or
national political educational establishments. On the one hand, the
sons of plutocrats, financial magnates; on the other, the children of
the people. Etonians and Harrovians exclusively in leading positions
over there; in this country, men of the people in charge of the State.
These are the two worlds. I grant that one of the two must succumb.
Yes, one or the other. But if we were to succumb, the German people
would succumb with us. If the other were to succumb, I am convinced
that the nations will become free for the first time. We are not
fighting individual Englishmen or Frenchmen. We have nothing against
them. For years I proclaimed this as the aim of my foreign policy. We
demanded nothing of them, nothing at all. When they started the war
they could not say: 'We are doing so because the Germans asked this or
that of us.' They said, on the contrary: 'We are declaring war on you
because the German system of Government does not suit us; because we
fear it might spread to our own people.' For that reason they are
carrying on this war. They wanted to blast the German nation back to
the time of Versailles, to the indescribable misery of those days. But
they have made a great mistake.
If in this war everything points to the fact that gold is fighting
against work, capitalism against peoples, and reaction against the
progress of humanity, then work, the peoples, and progress will be
victorious. Even the support of the Jewish race will not avail the
others.
I have seen all this coming for years. What did I ask of the other
world? Nothing but the right for Germans to reunite and the
restoration of all that had been taken from them - nothing which would
have meant a loss to the other nations. How often have I stretched out
my hand to them? Ever since I came into power. I had not the slightest
wish to rearm.
For what do armaments mean? They absorb so much labor. It was I who
regarded work as being of decisive importance, who wished to employ
the working capacity of Germany for other plans. I think the news is
already out that, after all, I have some fairly important plans in my
mind, vast and splendid plans for my people. It is my ambition to make
the German people rich and to make the German homeland beautiful. I
want the standard of living of the individual raised. I want us to
have the most beautiful and the finest civilization. I should like the
theater - in fact, the whole of German civilization - to benefit all
the people and not to exist only for the upper ten thousand, as is the
case in England.
The plans which we had in mind were tremendous, and I needed workers
in order to realize them. Armament only deprives me of workers. I made
proposals to limit armaments. I was ridiculed. The only answer I
received was 'No.' I proposed the limitation of certain types of
armament. That was refused. I proposed that airplanes should be
altogether eliminated from warfare. That also was refused. I suggested
that bombers should be limited. That was refused. They said: 'That is
just how we wish to force our regime upon you.' ...

www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info http://www.RealNews247.com

On 11 Sep 2004 04:52:59 GMT, (George William
Herbert) wrote:

As a reasonably successful white male American, I would like to
appologize to the racial and religions minorities that "Topaz"
has slandered.


Who's to Blame for the Affirmative Action Fiasco?
By Hugh Murray

Searching for employment in the late 19th century, many Irish
immigrants in America encountered the sign, "NINA" (No Irish Need
Apply). Today, their descendants face much the same discrimination. Of
course, now, it is not limited to the Irish - for in America men are
routinely denied jobs, promotions, contracts and scholarships because
they are of Irish, Italian, English, German or general European
heritage. Worse, not only is this discrimination government sponsored,
it is performed in the name of "Equal Opportunity." How did this come
about? Why do the media prefer to ignore it? Who fostered this
discrimination against white men?

In high school a white boy may be denied entrance into special
programs because he is not a preferred minority; or, in some cases, he
may be denied because he is not a girl. There are scholarships
available, but many cannot be awarded to a white male (for example,
Bill Gates of Microsoft was recently lauded by the media for
establishing a billion-dollar scholarship program - one in which
recipients are restricted to blacks only.) When the teen applies to
university, the administration will admit "basically qualified"
minorities, but reject better-qualified whites. When applying for
jobs, the same discrimination occurs. If the teen finds employment,
special, on-the-job training for promotion may be denied him as it is
reserved for minorities, even if they are lesser qualified and have
been on the job a shorter period of time. Once hired, he may be
required to attend "diversity training" sessions, in which he is
supposed to confess his alleged guilt of racism and sexism.

How did this systematic discrimination arise?

What did it mean to forbid discrimination? From the early days of the
20th century through 1964, most liberals were clear as to what this
meant-show no bias against or preference for a person because of his
race, sex, religion etc. This was the dominant view. But in the debate
over the civil rights bill in 1964 some opponents declared that if
passed, it would lead to, among other things: racial quotas and racial
balance in the workplace, preferences for blacks over whites in
employment, promotion, bank loans etc.

But, in Congress, the debate went otherwise. No senator who favored
the civil rights bill spoke up for quotas, "positive integration,"
racial balance or preferences for minorities above whites. Quite the
contrary.

How then did a law which promised to end discrimination by outlawing
discrimination against any individual, a law that promised preferences
for no group, which agreed to retain testing to reject unqualified
applicants-how was this law subverted into its opposite? Here the role
of Alfred Blumrosen is crucial. Blumrosen was among the zealots
working for the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission who did not
want the agency to function as created.

Alfred Blumrosen was instrumental in this and other shifts. He was a
professor at Rutgers University who became the EEOC's liaison chief
for federal, state and local agencies, and he admitted that his
"creative" reading of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was "contrary to
the plain meaning." But why worry? By 1965 when the Bank of America
instituted quota hiring under a euphemism, "the standard refrain of
the EEO bureaucracies, [was that] affirmative action [AA] had nothing
to do with racial quotas. That was illegal." Unfortunately, that
deceptive refrain is still heard today.

The goal of Sonia Pressman, another ideologue in the EEOC, was "to
document large disparities in employment patterns, [so] that
discriminatory intent might legally be inferred." ...the EEOC sought
to impose quotas while not calling them such because quotas were
clearly illegal. The agency sought to break the law.

Blumrosen and Pressman pushed the EEOC to defy the Civil Rights Act of
1964 by imposing quotas, demanding racial balance in the workplace and
giving preferences to blacks over whites. Essential to the Blumrosen-
Pressman campaign was the collection of statistics to show "disparate
impact," how minorities were underutilized, employed in a smaller
proportion in various occupations to their numbers in the general
population.

Blumrosen was set upon "selectively enforcing" the civil rights act by
using disparate impact theory and proportional representation only
when it affected others. (More accurately, Blumrosen was "selectively
malenforcing" the civil rights law, imposing quotas for
underrepresented blacks, using quotas to curb whites; for women,
against men; but never for gentiles and against Jews.)

Of course, had the EEOC sought to restrict Jews as it has white men,
the storm of protest would have cast "disparate impact" theory into
the dustbin of history. Thus, the role of Blumrosen and his allies in
the media, academia etc., was to create a false target - the
"overrepresented," "privileged" and "oppressive" white male. According
to the EEOC, the statistics proved just that. However, the statistics
proved otherwise. The partial statistics used by Blumrosen were simply
the effort to deflect criticism to another group instead of the one
most overrepresented, privileged and oppressive - his own.

By not asking the religious question on the EEOC questionnaires, the
EEOC created a scapegoat of the white male. Once smeared as
"privileged" and "oppressive," the non-privileged, working-class and
poor whites began to pay the price for the "moral" system of
affirmative action by being legally discriminated against and denied
equal opportunity.

The proportional test, the liberals' test of all tests, when applied
to the religious clause of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, shows Jews to
be the most privileged and oppressive of people in America. The fav-
orite test of liberals reveals white men to be less privileged than
the Jews. Why does not The New York Times, the EEOC, NBC, CBS or ABC
report that statistic? The media remain silent on the issue of Jewish
privilege while simultaneously exposing every time white men are
somewhat overrepresented. Why the silence regarding Jews? A glance at
the ownership of the media just might have something to do with this
disparity in exposing "privilege." And if any individual in the media
dared to expose some Jewish privilege, there would be a thunderous
assault upon that individual's "bigotry." However, daily, reporters
write of white male privilege, but almost no one denounces this anti-
white bigotry.

Once smeared as privileged, the non-privileged middle-class, working-
class, and poor whites pay for the "moral" system of AA by being
legally discriminated against and denied equal opportunity. But then
the history of America since the 1960s is often the record of wealthy
liberals using the law to curb and oppress blue-collar whites, because
the blue-collar folk are deemed privileged, prejudiced and provincial.
Therefore, such blue-collar whites deserve to be passed over in
scholarships, jobs and promotions; the blue-collar crowd should be
shunted aside, and instead the "pets" of the elite should be elevated:
the children of illegal immigrants, of wealthy minorities and the
daughters of rich liberals. And this is done in the name of morality,
fairness, and justice.

In summary, the great hoax concocted by Blumrosen and his
collaborators in the media, academy, and government is "white male
privilege." Most white men are not privileged. Those who are, often
support AA because it is no loss to them - their children will not
require a scholarship, an entry-level job, a position as policeman or
fireman, or a promotion. It is the poor and middle-class whites who,
denied equal opportunity, must pay with thinning wallets and shrunken
dreams for the "morality of diversity" imposed by the wealthy, liberal
elite.

Even if every CEO in America were a white male, that would be no
reason to discriminate against a poor, white teenage boy seeking a
scholarship and give it to a lesser qualified girl or minority. "White
male privilege" is a social construct created by liberals. They have
used their power in government, media, and academia to deny equal
opportunity to white men, to undermine and stigmatize America's
working class, and to immobilize with guilt the white middle class.
America does not suffer from white male privilege and oppression; it
staggers beneath Jewish privilege and oppression.

Excerpted from article found at:
http://www.barnesreview.org/Nov__Dec...the_Affirma/wh
o_s_to_blame_for_the_affirma.html
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info http://www.RealNews247.com

"Steve Willner" wrote in message
...

Another viewgraph, possibly from the same source, showed that
mission cost (corrected for inflation) was proportional to the square
root of payload mass. Though incredibly simple-minded, mass
alone turned out to be a very good predictor, at least for the
missions shown. (I don't recall whether HST was on this second
graph or not.)


It would be interesting to superimpose this with flight rate, (sort of
inversely proportional to payload mass), verse cost. This might help
discern where the payload mass sweet spot was, though I fear this would
be somewhat bogus.

I expect the above data is based upon development programs where the
final design has leapt fully formed from the engineer's brow. This is a
development approach which is typically many, many times more expensive
than an incremental one, though inherent when you are only building one
unredesignable vehicle. For such an approach, development is
effectively a sunk cost independent of vehicle number.

During the development phase, this developmental advantage of high
flight rate can I suspect be an even more significant cost benefit than
the direct economic benefits of high flight rate. I am not sure how you
would factor this in to such a cost analysis.

Pete.

In article , Steve Willner
wrote:

Somewhere in my files, I have a viewgraph made years ago by a "NASA
beancounterm" whose name I forget but who was in fact a very smart
guy. It shows the cost inflator of many missions as a function of
the fraction of the cost already spent. The upshot is that once 10%
(from memory) of the money is spent, costs can be estimated pretty
well, but before that there can be (and usually is) quite a bit of
escalation.

Unfortunately, there was one very large "outlier" on the plot, where
despite 10% of the money having been spent, there still turned out to
be very large cost escalation: HST.

I take it that this was made before they knew how much the Space
Station was going to cost. (Or rather, before they had accurate
knowledge of how much the Space Station was going to cost.)

--
David M. Palmer (formerly @clark.net, @ematic.com)

In sci.space.policy David M. Palmer wrote:
In article , Steve Willner
wrote:

Somewhere in my files, I have a viewgraph made years ago by a "NASA
beancounterm" whose name I forget but who was in fact a very smart
guy. It shows the cost inflator of many missions as a function of
the fraction of the cost already spent. The upshot is that once 10%
(from memory) of the money is spent, costs can be estimated pretty
well, but before that there can be (and usually is) quite a bit of
escalation.

Unfortunately, there was one very large "outlier" on the plot, where
despite 10% of the money having been spent, there still turned out to
be very large cost escalation: HST.

I take it that this was made before they knew how much the Space
Station was going to cost. (Or rather, before they had accurate
knowledge of how much the Space Station was going to cost.)

The other thing that made HST an outlier, and continues to do so
among science missions, is how much of its cost was continuing
expenses associated with keeping engineering teams together well
aftrer launch to support servicing missions, new instruments, etc.
(Not to mention the science-analysis budget that keeps some of us
going, but that also exists for a fair fraction of other missions).
Any hint at this point whether that HST cost was capped at expenses
to launch or not? Actually, the delays to that point had already
produced their own overruns in number of people kept on the project
payroll while it sat in storage after Challenger. I visited the
HST control room at GSFC one night in about 1988, which the contract
specified was already to be staffed 24/7. Hard to find a more bored
looking group than controllers for a satellite 18 months from
launch on a Saturday night...

Bill Keel

Topaz wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 23:27:54 -0500, Tom McDonald
wrote:



It's great to live in a country where these Nazis are free to
write whatever they like in public. Without that, we might
forget that their patented brand of whining, lying and bluster
has the potential to destroy the liberty and toleration that
allows them this freedom.

God forbid that they should ever achieve reason.


Here is part of Hitler's speech at Rheinmetall-Borsig Works, Berlin,
on December 10, 1940:

snip whining, lying bluster

As I said, the more you post of your gods' and heroes' words,
the more you prove to the rest of us that freedom and democracy
are worth defending, with words if possible, but with blood if
you make it necessary.

--
Tom McDonald

In article ,
"Pete Lynn" writes:
It would be interesting to superimpose this with flight rate, (sort of
inversely proportional to payload mass), verse cost. This might help
discern where the payload mass sweet spot was, though I fear this would
be somewhat bogus.

Based on the graphs I saw, there was no "sweet spot" in payload mass.
All the missions plotted were science missions. I think one or two
may have been twin payloads, but if so, they didn't stand out as
being cheaper. Based on the "square root of mass" relation, you
would expect two identical payloads to cost 1.4 times as much as a
single one. That's probably not far off what experience has shown,
maybe a little low.

The above comment also answers David's question: ISS wasn't among the
missions shown. (And the graphs I saw were indeed prepared long
before its cost was known.)

To Bill: the costs plotted were launch+30 days, continuing operations
not included. The shuttle delay probably contributed something to
HST cost, but don't forget that the launch would have been delayed
for final testing even without the shuttle problems.

--
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
(Please email your reply if you want to be sure I see it; include a
valid Reply-To address to receive an acknowledgement. Commercial
email may be sent to your ISP.)