Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!wdl1.wdl.fac.com!wdl76!jwm
From: jwm@wdl76.wdl.fac.com (Jon W Meyer)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: LNLL Inflatable Stations
Message-ID: <1990Nov14.223219.17751@wdl1.wdl.fac.com>
Date: 14 Nov 90 22:32:19 GMT
References: <7154@hub.ucsb.edu> <9011122154.AA02573@iti.org> <2732@polari.UUCP>
Sender: root@wdl1.wdl.fac.com (SUPER USER)
Organization: LORAL Western Development Labs
Lines: 26
Nntp-Posting-Host: wdl76

crad@polari.UUCP (Charles Radley) writes:


>13140
>Article 13140 (72 more) in sci.space:
> 
>>Since LLNL is a large lightweight structure it will be subject to high drag, 
>>compared with, say Freedom.  This means more reboosting, more propellant  
>+Already included in their budgets. They will use (from memory) 3T a year
>+of fuel for this. An alternativ+e they are looking at is a 10KW ion engine
>+which will reduce fuel demand by ~80%.
>-
>The 3T/yr sounds comparable to Freedom, which is much heavier. Weight is a 
>precious commodity, and budgeting extra propellant to allow for 
>high drag is inefficient.  Better to reduce the drag.  

Just speculation, but although the lighter station is more susceptable to
drag, wouldn't the lighter weight also be a benefit?  What I'm talking
about is that it will take less fuel to accelerate a lighter station
X meters per second than it would to accelerate the heavier station by
the same amount.  Perhaps these effects could balance each other, leading
to comparable fuel budgets for the two stations?

Comments?

Jon