$PACE CALLS YANKS, JAPANESE & D(M)EUTSCH 

If business on Planet Earth appears competitive, stick around. With American space shuttle policy currently concerned primarily with military operations, private companies in various countries are entering the race to operate "where no corporation has gone before." They intend to follow the new trade route to the stars: low-earth orbit, the moon, Mars and then .....

What's the advantage in having the private sector moving business to outer space? Less money to get there and stay and more concentration on creating wealth rather than spending it.

A new book "Space Enterprise -- Beyond NASA" by David P. Gump, space consultant and publisher of "Space Business News" says private enterprise can carry out the Space Station project for a fraction of the cost proposed by NASA. Thomas Rogers, former deputy-director of research and engineering at the Pentagon, says that "government projects will never lead to a space-faring civilization."

Gump points out that the U.S. Department of Commerce has located their underwater habitat "Aquarius" on the Caribbean seabed -- at a cost of $10 million dollars. Although it has the same volume as the proposed U.S. Space Station "Freedom" and it is in a strange environment, relative costs are spectacular. The Space Station, at the current estimate of $50 billion, is 5,000 times more expensive! The space station is more complex and farther away and should cost more, maybe a hundred times more, but 5,000 times as much? That makes crew time work out to around $17,000 per hour! Will the public or Congress continue to buy that or will the cost, which could easily double before completion, be too much of a burden to bear by a country bedeviled with problems of drugs, failing education, a rotting transportation infrastructure and a horrendous national debt? Some are already seeing a balky Congress asking "Do we really need all this?"

What is the alternative? The External Tanks Corporation (ETC) of Boulder, Colorado may have a better idea -- to recycle those huge external tanks (one is 96 feet long and more than 25 feet wide) you watch on TV being jettisoned from the Space Shuttle, only to be lost, damaged or destroyed as they plunge back to earth. ETC would have the Space Shuttle continue to carry them on their voyage to a low earth orbit (250 to 400 miles altitude) and then park them there. Studies apparently have shown that by retaining the tanks, the Space Shuttle itself can take a route to space (called "direct-injection trajectory") that is easier and more efficient than the shallow path usually flown. ETC would then retrieve and couple the tanks together to assemble their own space station. It would have the same volume capacity as the NASA Space Station for 1/166th of the NASA cost -$300 million tops, less than a cent for ETC versus a dollar by NASA.

What a great topic for a national referendum.

British Aerospace, the self-appointed flag carrier for an English "spaceplane," has been developing their concept for some time. Their problems have been more political and financial than technical. Trying to convince Europeans to join their consortium hasn't been easy. The British Government refused to back it. Controversial financier Alan Bond formed a consortium which promised to fund the $250 million development project called HOTOL (Horizontal Take Off and Landing), a single stage operation. It would take off from a standard airport runway and operate in the Mach 5 range (3,500 mph). They believe they can put payloads in low-earth orbit for $300 a pound compared to the $6,000 a pound cost by the U.S. Space Shuttle.

A German competitor MBB-Erno is supporting a two-stage development called Sanger, designed to fly at Mach 6. The first stage will follow Concord technology, while the second will follow Hermes, the new Ariane rocket concept. Last year the German government supported the Sanger with a $300 million development fund.

For five years I have been watching, both from here and in Japan, the energy and expertise the Japanese are devoting to space. Initially they used the Delta rocket made by McDonnell Douglas, followed by a more powerful unit made by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. Now McDonnell Douglas wants to put the Japanese rocket into their Delta to get more lift. The Japanese Space Activities Commission reportedly has recommended a $14 billion expenditure to get their spaceplane in orbit. A Japanese space station has also been supported with a suggested year 2000 operational date.

Look for your kids to be blowing $5,000 for low-orbit space flights by 2025. More information: "Space Enterprise -- Beyond NASA" by David P. Gump. Praeger Publishers, One Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10010.

* * *

< previous | chapter index | next >
back to Main Chapter Listing
back to Home Page