Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!mintaka!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!sumax!polari!crad From: crad@polari.UUCP (Charles Radley) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: Space Station mission Message-ID: <2718@polari.UUCP> Date: 12 Nov 90 14:36:03 GMT References: <11042@pt.cs.cmu.edu> <2699@polari.UUCP> <11055@pt.cs.cmu.edu> Organization: Seattle Online Public Unix (206) 328-4944 Lines: 39 +How can you get science out of a cancelled station, or one that +reenters because the Sh+uttle fleet gets grounded again? - Freedom can survive a couple of years when boosted into a higher orbit. How can you launch astronauts to LLNL when it has no viable manned ferry craft design ? ($ 200 M - hah !) +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?) - Freedom is modular and allows for replacement of modules either for repair or upgrade. Over a 30 year lifetime it is likely that upgrades will be advantageous. +- research human reaction to artificial gravity. + (The human is the equipment. I don't know how many - How will you monitor the human subject ? Without equipment about all you can do is psychological examinations. + 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. - I have no problem with that approach, provided everybody recognizes it for what it is. ie after 6 flights or whatever (assuming they can figure out a way of ferrying astronauts to the station) you end up with an empty shell. It will take another dozen flights and another infusion of tax dollars to convert it into a useful science station.