🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug5.181137.9250@sei.cmu.edu> firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes:

   In article <JMC.92Jul25123947@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:

   >The reason for the space station is only marginally science and
   >even more marginally prestige.  The space station is a start on
   >human expansion into the solar system.  That is what generates
   >the public support for it.  It may not be the best design, but
   >it's the only design we have

   But it's not the only design we have!  We still have all the designs
   for space exploration and colonisation the VfR produced in the 1930s.
   We have the von Braun satellite designs.  We have the 1956 designs
   for the manned mission to Mars proposed for the 1971 opposition.
   More recently, there is the 'Mars Direct' proposal in Analog that
   would keep a permanent human colony on the Red Planet for (hold on
   to your slide rules) less than the annual cost of Fred.  All of
   which designs are, in my opinion, better than the one you are
   supporting.

Ack. Having hashed this out with some people before,
let me atone for past sins and note the difference
between "design" on the order "let's make it a big
wheel at 330mi spinning at 1 rpm" and the "design"
that says "we need 1.5 miles of cabling, this gauge,
these lengths, and here are the cable ducts, with
these critical points, this level of redundancy and we
put access panels here, here and here, thes wires will
be blue, those red, and we keep spare cables in this box..."

Big difference, the second bit costs a lot more and is
harder and takes longer...

|  Steinn Sigurdsson	|I saw two shooting stars last night		|
|  Lick Observatory	|I wished on them but they were only satellites	|
|steinly@helios.ucsc.edu|Is it wrong to wish on space hardware?		|
| "standard disclaimer"	|I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983	|