Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!haven!udel!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!gandalf.cs.cmu.edu!lindsay
From: lindsay@gandalf.cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Space Station mission
Message-ID: <11055@pt.cs.cmu.edu>
Date: 11 Nov 90 23:23:43 GMT
References: <2688@polari.UUCP> <11042@pt.cs.cmu.edu> <2699@polari.UUCP>
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 31

In article <2699@polari.UUCP> crad@polari.UUCP (Charles Radley) writes:

>+ LLNL won't loft the science equipment.
>+This is smart: the alternative is no space station, and then there
>+_really_ won't be any science done.
>
>What is smart about not lanching any science equipment ?
>How can you get science out of a station with no equipment ?

How can you get science out of a cancelled station, or one that
reenters because the Shuttle fleet gets grounded again? 

A minimal station can do the following:
- research whether the minimal station works!
	(This includes the proposed power supply, the meteor-
	bumper issue, the artificial gravity, the escape
	system, ...)
	(You're going to tell me Fred won't need any retrofits
	after first occupancy?)
- research human reaction to artificial gravity.
	(The human is the equipment. I don't know how many
	successful launches the configuration takes: 6? Against
	what, 26 for a minimal Fred?)
- provide a place to hang the equipment that is brought up later.
- provide a rallying point for funding battles, with each money
  increment making the station one notch less minimal.

BTW, we need a good colloquial name for the LLNL station. The 
Oscar (as in Oscar Meyer)?
-- 
Don		D.C.Lindsay