cb@MITRE-BEDFORD.ARPA (Christopher Byrnes) (02/18/86)
>Space station: If and when that $200/lb launcher gets going space >manufacturing is really going to start making sense. Should >construction of the space station be delayed until this cheap launcher >is available, or should the full station be built with the >shuttle? More likely (and sensible) is to build a small prototype >station with the shuttle to get our feet wet, then expand it when the >cheap launcher comes on line. I've gotten the impression (from AW&ST and other reports) that the first space station is intended to be a prototype of future space stations. Part of this is due to the realization that one space station cannot perform all the activities that various customers want to do in space. For example, some people want a station in near-equatorial orbit (easier to launch there, access to GEO) while others want a station in sun-synchronous (earth observation, Landsat repairs, etc.). Then you have the manned space station proponents (man is more flexible than any machine) versus the unmanned proponents (man is too expensive for automated factories, movement upsets the 0g, etc.). All have valid points. The design of the first space station is apparently an attempt to balance what can be funded today versus the largest number of potential customers which can be attracted to the current design (sounds familiar). Once the bugs have been worked out in the first station, later specialized stations might be built. If the Skylab and Saylet (sp.?) stations are any guide, there are going to be a lot of bugs to work out. I realize that NASA my be placing all its eggs in one basket again, but perhaps it's better to work on getting the first one right before we have various stations around Earth, the Moon, Mars, etc. Speaking of new transportation systems such as the "Orient Express," wouldn't it be better if the first test flight of this was aimed at a space station or shuttle (with a repair crew on board) instead of just out into space? I remember crossing my fingers when the first flight of Columbia showed missing tiles. The Air Force gets to test new planes at Edwards, where those huge runways can accomodate all kinds of errors or breakdowns. Since the "Orient Express" is bound to have teething problems, an in-orbit capability to repair the ship (or at least rescue the crew) would be nice. It would be one more "huge runway" to land on. I'm surprised the US and USSR don't have a treaty that would encourage an observation/rescue capability for the first few flights of new spacecraft. The Russians hope to try out their new shuttles by the end of the decade, and NASA hopes to get going on the "spaceplane" and its own space station. Add in the "Hermes" and things start to get crowded! While there are some security concerns since most of these spacecraft can carry military payloads, I think the risks of allowing people a close look (which is available anyway) offset the dangers to everybody's programs if more crews are lost. People seemed to have recovered from the quick death of the Challenger and its crew, I wonder how people, Congress and the media would react to a stranded crew (from any country) which slowly suffocated? (standard disclaimer) Christopher Byrnes cb@Mitre-Bedford.ARPA ...decvax!linus!bccvax!cb.UUCP
space@ucbvax.UUCP (02/21/86)
The manned space station will only be part of the activity. There are also plans to launch `free flyers' from the station into different orbits that can be retrieved later. This solves some of the problems with crystal growth (massive astronauts causing vibrations in the shuttle or station) and provides isolation for dangerous experiments. A totally separate manned station in another orbit may be unnecessary. Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn