Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!know!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!udel!haven!mimsy!mojo!SYSMGR@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU
From: sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: You Can't Expect a Space Station to be Cheap
Message-ID: <0093F414.3AFABAA0@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU>
Date: 5 Nov 90 15:48:50 GMT
References: <0093F1AE.5AE929E0@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU> <9011021617.AA08225@iti.org> <0093F1DA.1F2A5920@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU> <1990Nov3.225832.20332@zoo.toronto.edu> <0093F2DB.F2D56F60@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU>,<29216@boulder.Colorado.EDU>
Sender: news@eng.umd.edu (The News System)
Reply-To: sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney)
Organization: The U. of MD, CP, CAD lab
Lines: 15

In article <29216@boulder.Colorado.EDU>, serre@boulder.Colorado.EDU (SERRE GLENN) writes:

>Actually, the question that bothers me most about both the NASA and the 
>LLNL station is "Why so big?"  Since we (the U.S.) seem to have little, if any,
>usable experience in launching, assembling, operating, and maintaining space
>stations, it seems to me that we would want to start small and build up 
>incrementally.  Like, first we launch a 86' x 16' 8" (this is the max. size of
>a Titan IV Payload fairing, by the way) lab, then stick another one on the 
>first, ...  Personally, I think we should can both the NASA and the LLNL 
>stations and start small. 

I think the latest mandated redesign by Congress emphasizes a smaller,
incremental approach; something like putting up the microgravity research block
up there first as a stand-alone design, and adding other modules as you go, as
well as making Fred less dependent on shuttle.