lindsay@gandalf.cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay) (11/10/90)
In article <2688@polari.UUCP> crad@polari.UUCP (Charles Radley) writes: >It looks more like Freedom and LLNL could be COMPLIMENTARY, since >they appear to have different missions. The question is, which >mission(s) is/are the right ones. Speaking as a scientist, I think that we will get a lot more science if: - a station is actually lofted. Freedom is looking doomed. - continuous, permanent manned presence in space is THE PRIMARY goal. Congress can postpone the next wonder toy, but they can't call the crews home. Besides, what _I_ want researched, is how to live off- Earth. Now, there's a mission. >You get cheap empty shells, it costs plenty to fit them out with >state of the art scientific equipment. LLNL may be lighter and >cheaper than using metal modules a' la Freedom, but most of >Freedom's weight and cost is in the science and support equipment, >the module structure is small fraction of the total. I think you have just destroyed your argument that LLNL will wind up as expensive as Freedom. LLNL won't loft the science equipment. This is smart: the alternative is no space station, and then there _really_ won't be any science done. -- Don D.C.Lindsay
crad@polari.UUCP (Charles Radley) (11/11/90)
+I think you have just destroyed your argument that LLNL will wind +up as expensive as Freedom. LLNL won't loft the science equipment. +This is smart: the alternative is no space station, and then there +_really_ won't be any science done. - What is smart about not lanching any science equipment ? How can you get science out of a station with no equipment ?
lindsay@gandalf.cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay) (11/12/90)
In article <2699@polari.UUCP> crad@polari.UUCP (Charles Radley) writes: >+ LLNL won't loft the science equipment. >+This is smart: the alternative is no space station, and then there >+_really_ won't be any science done. > >What is smart about not lanching any science equipment ? >How can you get science out of a station with no equipment ? How can you get science out of a cancelled station, or one that reenters because the Shuttle fleet gets grounded again? 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?) - research human reaction to artificial gravity. (The human is the equipment. I don't know how many 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. BTW, we need a good colloquial name for the LLNL station. The Oscar (as in Oscar Meyer)? -- Don D.C.Lindsay
crad@polari.UUCP (Charles Radley) (11/12/90)
+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.