Spaceplane (more facts on fax)
Henry_Edw...@ub.cc.umich.edu
-
(Mark Robert Thorson) said, in passing reference to another
topic, namely:
-
Subject: Re: Spaceplane project
-
that he had run across some interesting information regarding
FAX:
-
"Here is quote from The Soviets Expected It by Anna Louise
Strong (1941):
-
'I stopped at the Moscow Central Telegraph and saw some twenty
people drawing up their "phototelegrams" to send to their
friends. This is something that Western Union does not yet offer
to ordinary Americans. Yet it occurs in a country which has
periodic shortages of clothing and shoes.'
-
Imagine that! From the description, it sounds like the Soviets
had national FAX service before WW2!"
-
I thought I might add the following sobering observations about
the history of fax at this same time in the U.S., as recounted by
Douglas Kellner in, "Network Television and Society," from the
"Mass Communication Review Yearbook," originally published in
"Theory and Society 10", Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co.,
1981, pp. 31-62, and encountered by me in the readings for
Communications 773 with Prof. Vincent Price at the University of
Michigan:
-
"With the invention of television, the struggle for hegemony in
the telecommunications industry reached a fever pitch in the
1930's. In their remarkable book, "Television, A Struggle for
Power, Frank Waldrop and Joseph Borkin recount how AT&T and RCA
battled for supremacy in the telecommunications industry.AT&T
wanted to use telephone lines to broadcast television into homes,
whereas RCA wanted to use wireless, over-the-air broadcasting so
as to maintain control of radio and to secure control of
television. During this period, RCA considered developing
facsimile electronic reproduction which would deliver newspaper
and other print material into the home, as well as two way
televisual phone communication via broadcast waves, which would
have given them almost total control of the communications
industry. In the 1930's and 1940's, these two giants compromised,
establishing the basis for the present system of American
television. AT&T retained control of telephone lines and RCA
dropped development of over the air two-way televisual
communication. The introduction of facsimile reproduction was
postponed and publishing interests retained control of print
material. For these concessions, RCA was allowed to remain
foremost in broadcasting. As a counter-tendency, however, to
increasing monopolization, of the American economy, there were
government efforts to regulate and in some cases break up
monopoly. Government uproar over monopoly of the broadcast
industry forced RCA to divest itself of one of its two networks
(which became ABC). In the heyday of radio in the 1940's, then,
the three networks were the oligopolistic kingpins of
broadcasting."
-
For further information one might look for the following:
"Television, A Struggle for Power," by Frank C. Waldrop and
Joseph Borkin (New York, 1938, reprint Arno Press, 1972) and
"Facsimile and its Future Uses," by John V. L. Hogan, in "The
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences,
January, 1941.
-
And now, a question of my own: what would it cost in current
dollars to build say, five Saturn V heavy launch vehicles as
opposed to building and maintaining the same launch capacity
through the shuttle program? I have heard that some of the dies
and plans for the Saturn series launch vehicles are no longer in
existence, and wonder if anyone can confirm or disconfirm this as
well.
-
'The power of radio can be compared only with the power of the
atomic bomb' -- "Mass Communication, Popular Taste, and Organized
Social Action" by Paul Lazarsfeld and Robert K. Merton, 1948 ;-)
-
* Henry Edward Hardy *
* Public Affairs Director, *
* Campus Broadcasting Network/WCBN-FM *
* University of Michigan *
* Ann Arbor *
Henry Spencer
>And now, a question of my own: what would it cost in current
>dollars to build say, five Saturn V heavy launch vehicles as
>opposed to building and maintaining the same launch capacity
>through the shuttle program? I have heard that some of the dies
>and plans for the Saturn series launch vehicles are no longer in
>existence, and wonder if anyone can confirm or disconfirm this as
>well.
*All* the tooling is gone, likewise most of the specialized skills and
training. Many of the subcontractors are gone. Some of the plans are
gone. The launch facilities are gone, converted to handle the shuttle.
(The idea of retaining Saturn compatibility was rejected as too costly.)
Wernher Von Braun is dead, and the lack of an equally competent leader
is not a small obstacle. The in-house engineering development capability
at Marshall, very important in the history of the Saturns, is totally
gone and it would all have to be contracted out.
It wouldn't be as hard as starting from scratch, but a lot of the work
would have to be done over. It would be considerably more expensive,
even in constant dollars, than it was in the 60s -- not all of the work
needs to be re-done, but on the other hand NASA is much less efficient
than it used to be.
The way to get cheap transportation into orbit is to forget doing it
through the government at all. Do it the way it was done for aeronautics:
offer a guaranteed market (not subsidies, but payment for results only --
the way it was done for aviation was lucrative contracts for carrying
air mail) and let private industry do it. There is no shortage of
companies that could make a bundle carrying cargo to orbit at a tenth of
the current price, if they knew for sure that the market would be waiting
for them once they finished hardware development. (The existing hardware
can't possibly do it at that price.)
--
Allegedly heard aboard Mir: "A | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
toast to comrade Van Allen!!" | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry he...@zoo.toronto.edu
Mike Van Pelt
>The way to get cheap transportation into orbit is to forget doing it
>through the government at all. Do it the way it was done for aeronautics:
>offer a guaranteed market (not subsidies, but payment for results only --
>the way it was done for aviation was lucrative contracts for carrying
>air mail) and let private industry do it.
I agree. In fact, the Citizens Advisory Council on National Space
Policy (Jerry Pournelle's group) has come up with a proposed bill
which is based on the Kelly bill which provided those air mail contracts.
The capsule summary is, the U.S. Government will guarantee a price of
$500/lb of payload placed in LEO for the first million pounds orbited
each year for the next 10 years. When someone has launch services to
offer, he puts it out to bid. The gov't would make up the difference
when the payload is placed in LEO if the maximum bid is less than
$500/lb.
Of course, nobody in Congress is doing diddly about this.
--
Mike Van Pelt "Nobody's life, liberty, or property
Video 7 are safe while Congress is in session."
...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp -- Will Rogers