Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!umich!sharkey!cfctech!teemc!fmeed1!cage
From: cage@fmeed1.UUCP (Russ Cage)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: LLNL size and Fred micrograv environment (was LLNL astronaut delivery)
Summary: I think I catch Radley in a few errors.
Message-ID: <8700@fmeed1.UUCP>
Date: 9 Nov 90 22:17:28 GMT
References: <2669@polari.UUCP> <9011072124.AA13810@iti.org> <2688@polari.UUCP>
Reply-To: russ@m-net.ann-arbor.mi.us (Russ Cage)
Organization: Ford Motor Co., Electronics Div., Dearborn, MI
Lines: 61

In article <2688@polari.UUCP> crad@polari.UUCP (Charles Radley) writes:
>In <9011072124.AA13810@iti.org>, Allen Sherzer wrote:
>+Actually, it makes micorgravity better. By putting the microgravity 
>+facility in a crew-tended free flyer it won't be subjected to the 
>+vibration which Freedom will subject it to.
>-
>True, but it won't benefit from continuous manned presence to fix 
>problems.

Continuous manned presence *is* a problem for microgravity research.
So is a shifting CG, which moves the experiments into regions of
greater or lesser tidal force.

This is not a benefit, it is a liability.  Ask the micrograv
researchers.  A free-flyer can be tailored to the job, and
does not suffer from vibration or CG shifts on the station proper.

>           For a free-flyer to  fly "in-formation" with a nearby 
>manned base will require frequent disruptive thruster pulses, so it 
>is not totally quiet.  Otherwise it would have to rely on nodal 
>regression to rendezvous with a station, with weeks or months of no 
>human access.

On a free-flyer, thruster pulses can be scheduled to coincide with
dead time, furnace re-loads, and so forth.  It may mean a delay
between the time something breaks and the time it can be fixed,
but if something is broken you don't care about giving it a bit
of gee, there is no processing to be disturbed.  On a manned
platform, you are going to have vibration any time the crew is
moving around, which will be much of the time.  There is work
which cannot be done on a manned platform, and the Fred design
doesn't allow for it at all.
---------------------------------------------------------------
And now for the part I find confusing.  This posting brings an
apparent contradiction into sharp focus, because it holds both
parts of it in more detail than ever before in this discussion:

#1:
>What commercial needs ? It puzzles me why people such as yourself 
>prefer a small station to a big one.

Here you are apparently saying that the LLNL station would be
smaller than Fred, but then you say...

#2:
>+Two Titans gives you more interior room than Freedom.
>-
>Interior volume is not particularly exciting, except for recreation. 
>Maybe useful if we ever get a space tourism industry up and running. 
>Right now more interested in maximum science for minimum weight and  
>cost.

There you admit that LLNL would have more volume than Fred (and
thus more room for equipment).  Well, which is it?  Or were you
talking about Fred in #1, and not LLNL?  If so, I'm sure there
is an answer to your question.
-- 
Russ Cage	Ford Powertrain Engineering Development Department
Work:  itivax.iti.org!cfctech!fmeed1!cage   (CHATTY MAIL NOT ANSWERED HERE)
Home:  russ@m-net.ann-arbor.mi.us  (All non-business mail)
Member:  HASA, "S" division.