Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!ucbvax!space From: dietz@SLB-DOLL.CSNET (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: net.space Subject: Re: Space Station from Shuttle Tanks Message-ID: <8512011611.AA12940@s1-b.arpa> Date: Sun, 1-Dec-85 10:14:57 EST Article-I.D.: s1-b.8512011611.AA12940 Posted: Sun Dec 1 10:14:57 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 2-Dec-85 03:35:43 EST Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 27 Currently, the shuttle is maneuvered so the ET drops into the Indian Ocean (or the Pacific on some launch paths). As I understand it, detailed studies by NASA have shown that it's not simple to turn an external tank into a space station. A space station is just too complicated (with wiring, electronics, temperature control & ventilation, etc.) to make in orbit at this time (except by simple assembly of prefab modules). A near-term use of ET's is as reaction mass. The simplest way to do this, NASA has found, is to drop the ET on the end of a long tether below (or above) the shuttle, then release it. Unfortunately, any mass saving in OMS fuel is used up by the mass of the cable. This idea could be used, however, to boost a space station into higher orbits, since the cable could be left in orbit and used many times. ET's can't just be left in low orbit without processing, since they have a large cross section and experience considerable drag (as did Skylab). There are designs on the board for solar furnaces for melting ET's, turing each into a twelve foot solid aluminum sphere. If SDI ever comes to pass (which seems doubtful) a major problem will be shielding the electronics against cosmic rays and 14.7 MeV neutrons from thermonuclear weapons. The last are especially nasty; the only way to shield against them is by using lots of mass. Raw ET material would be good for this; one ET can be turned into a solid aluminum sphere twelve feet across.