🚀 go-pugleaf

-From: chrisb@seachg.uucp (Chris Blask)
-Subject: Re: Freedom's orbit
-Date: 25 Jan 93 19:10:22 GMT
-Organization: Sea Change Corporation, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada

-'scuse me if this has been covered, but Buzz Aldrin apparently has been
-advocating using the Energia boosters (larger and cheaper than enything we
-have, yes?) to boost US payloads, and possibly putting Freedom into Mir's
-orbit to take advantage of both Mir and the leftover Russian lifting
-capability (OMNI Jan '93).  

-I'm sure there are lots of great arguments why it isn't that simple, but
-still, if it comes to having or not having a platform (which is really
-where we are now) we need to have the damn thing.  Combining the two
-services seems like a brilliant idea to me, with the shuttle and our
-high-tech experience and know-how and the Russian workhorse lifters, Mir
-(for what it's worth) and their experience with 'just do it' engineering,
-we could be in business within my lifetime.  Current scheduling doesn't
-seem to have a chance in hell of actually _getting_ the thing up there any
-time soon.

I can't find the official numbers at the moment, but I believe assembly
in orbit is scheduled to start sometime around 1997 - I hope your lifespan
extends that long.

Mir would serve very nicely as a "construction shack" in the early stages
of SSF assembly, and the new station could then be maneuvered to a lower
inclination orbit using an ion engine if desired. Russia has a lot of
experience boosting payloads into orbit, but very little experience with
Energia (it's only flown twice). The main problem with choosing these options
at this point is that if they are to be used, the decision should have been
made several years ago. This close to scheduled launch of the first
components, the redesign required could very easily *increase* the time to
assembly, which was your principal objection to the status quo.

Cooperation between the US and Russian space programs is still a good idea.
Adapting Soyuz as an SSF emergency return vehicle (ACRV) appears to be the
most favored ACRV option at this point.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov