Xref: utzoo sci.space:26439 sci.space.shuttle:6885
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!usc!wuarchive!rex!ukma!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!eagle!news
From: lvron@saturn.lerc.nasa.gov (Ronald E. Graham)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: space news from Nov 19 AW&ST
Message-ID: <1990Dec14.130555.12464@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov>
Date: 14 Dec 90 13:05:55 GMT
References: <1990Dec13.062441.16545@zoo.toronto.edu>
Reply-To: lvron@saturn.lerc.nasa.gov
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Lines: 17
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4

In article <1990Dec13.062441.16545@zoo.toronto.edu>, 
     henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes...

>Space station designers trying to decide whether it is more important to
>get started on the latest redesign or finish the enormously complex series
>of preliminary design reviews on the last design.  NASA favors the latter,
>on the grounds that much of it will not need to be re-done.  [Wanna bet?]

A lot depends on how much of the PDR material covers components that would
remain themselves intact (although moved around all over the place) after 
a redesign.  Some components will remain more-or-less intact, such as the
photovoltaic arrays and the associated beta gimbals (unless something's 
happened in the project office I haven't heard about yet).  In those cases,
you probably would want to get the PDR review done.  But I'd take my time
and have one eye on redesign issues at the same time, just in case.

RG