Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!agate!ucbvax!ITI.ORG!aws
From: aws@ITI.ORG ("Allen W. Sherzer")
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: LLNL Astronaut Delivery
Message-ID: <9011072124.AA13810@iti.org>
Date: 7 Nov 90 21:24:54 GMT
References: <2669@polari.UUCP>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Lines: 59

In article <2669@polari.UUCP>:
>(with one exception, Payloads Systems Inc
>managed to slip through the net and flew an experiment on Mir.   The
>net has subsequently been tightened).

They didn't 'manage to slip through the net'. They followed the correct
procedures in an open and above board manner.

>And US companies and government agencies are not allowed to permit
>Soviet citizens to enter sites where aerospace work is being done.

Reports say that a Soviet Cosmonaut will fly on a Shuttle within
the next couple of years (a US Astronaut will also fly on Mir).

I wonder how we will get the Cosmonaut onto the shuttle without
allowing him onto a site 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.

The US company operating Cape Your will get extensive training
on Zenit. Your statement here is minsiformed.

>  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 !"

Again, you're not up on current events. First of all, the State
Department was an early and strong supporter of Cape York, it was
DoD and Commerce who opposed it.

Second of all, Cape York is a done deal. It will be designed and
operated by a US company.

It's not as hard as it looks.

>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.

You have yet to justify that number. Your last cost estimate for
Titan's was off by a factor of two.

>Artifical gravity is neither necessary, nor helpful, for an Earth orbit
>station, where crews are rotated every 90 days.

True enough. On the other hand, it would be nice if you want to keep
a crew up there for a year or so. Doing this would shave billions off
life cycle costs.

   Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Allen W. Sherzer| I had a guaranteed military sale with ED-209. Renovation |
|   aws@iti.org  | programs, spare parts for 25 years. Who cares if it      |
|                | works or not?  - Dick Jones, VP OCP Security Concepts    |