Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mordor.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!ut-sally!mordor!@S1-A.ARPA:host.MIT-MC.ARPA
From: @S1-A.ARPA:host.MIT-MC.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: space station funding/reply to Skran
Message-ID: <1741@mordor.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 10-May-85 12:21:58 EDT
Article-I.D.: mordor.1741
Posted: Fri May 10 12:21:58 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 12-May-85 02:28:13 EDT
Sender: daemon@mordor.UUCP
Lines: 21

From: jrv@Mitre-Bedford

>      We also have some learning to do before we put a space station up there.
> There are a lot of techniques and technologies involved that have not been
> shown to be workable as yet.  The shuttle has proven a good many things,
> including the fact that a pretty fair number of spacecraft systems have a
> tendency to breakdown under the load.  That won't do in a space station.
>                                                      /Bruce N. Wheelock/

Why not?  Breakdowns aren't that big a deal if there's someone there with
the knowledge and tools to fix them.  Life support systems have to work,
of course - but even there the backup systems only have to work long
enough to get the primary systems running again.

L-5 News had a thought-provoking article a while back on the premise that
we're overkilling the engineering of the space station because we're
designing it like an aerospace vehicle (which has to survive acceleration
loads, shocks, and vibrations, and which may fall out of the sky if
something goes wrong) instead of like a building (which can normally be
repaired if it breaks).
					   - Jim Van Zandt