Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!sumax!polari!crad
From: crad@polari.UUCP (Charles Radley)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: LLNL Astronaut Delivery (was Re: You Can't Expect a Space Station)
Message-ID: <2669@polari.UUCP>
Date: 7 Nov 90 05:03:05 GMT
References: <2666@polari.UUCP> <9011061342.AA16405@iti.org>
Organization: Seattle Online Public Unix (206) 328-4944
Lines: 59


In article <2666@polari.UUCP>:
>Soyuz is not available, 
+Yes it is. I spoke with a vice president of Space Commerce Inc. recently.
+He told me that for $50M he +would deliver you a Soyuz. I'm sure you could
+also get a quanity discount.
-
That is not the problem.     US State Department technology
restrictions prohibit hi-tech co-operation with the Soviets.   US
aerospace companies and government agencies are not allowed to send
their employees to the USSR without an export license, which is
virtually impossible to get (with one exception, Payloads Systems Inc
managed to slip through the net and flew an experiment on Mir.   The
net has subsequently been tightened).
And US companies and government agencies are not allowed to permit
Soviet citizens to enter sites where aerospace work is being done.
  So you will get your Soyuz and maybe some manuals in Russian.
But nobody in the west will know how to launch or fly the thing, and
nobody from the USSR will be allowed to train the US personnel.
  If you don't believe me, ask the Australian Cape York Space Agency
what is giving them their biggest headache.....they want to get a US
company to operate Soviet Zenit launch vehicles, and the US State
Dept is saying - "forget it !"
-
 
>how can LLNL have it in their plan?
+They don't as far as I know. I am only demonstrating that it can be done.
-
So what DO they propose ?
 
+Also, for $2 to 3 billion (assuming your numbers are correct) you could
+build and launch ~5 Earth Stations. If the first one fails, the second
+one will. This second one will be built and launched for less than the cost
+of ONE shuttle flight.
-
I guess that is the cheapest approach, if you believe the costs.
But they will still need a $ 2 - 3 B crew shuttle and ACRV, it really
cannot be done for less, it needs to stand high G, re-entry, etc.
Non-trivial engineering issues.
 
>Remember you need long
>duration EVA, it may take a couple of weeks to get a failed LLNL
>fully deployed.
+Or it might not. Skylab didn't need two weeks.
-
They were lucky.   They did have two week capability if it had proven
necessary.
 
>  If we had access to Soyuz and Soviet technology, the cheapest
>approach would be to scrap LLNL and use Mir.
+Mir does not provide artificial gravity. It is also not clear that
+the Soviets would sell it (after all, it is starting to show a profit).
-
Now you are contradicting yourself.   You said congress wants a
microgravity facility and criticised NASA for "adding the kitchen
sink".   Then you advocate a LLNL where artifical gravity eliminates
all microgravity research capability........Artifical gravity is
neither necessary, nor helpful, for an Earth orbit station, where
crews are rotated every 90 days.