🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan26.222349.29804@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes...
>In article <1993Jan26.101810.1@fnalf.fnal.gov> higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
> 
>>> Spacelab is an experiment carrier. It will tell us nothing about
>>> building large scale structures in space and cannot be considered a
>>> station precursor.
> 
>>So what?  You are wrong on this one, Allen. Fred is supposed to be
>>some kind of laboratory.  
> 
>It is to be a number of things. ONE of those things is a lab.
> 

Allan if you have looked at any of the information that has been put out
about SSF in the last decade you will see that the PRIMARY mission of
SSF is to be a laboratory in space. This applies to materials processing
as well as biological sciences.  The Astronauts will actually be in the
role of highly paid and trained experiment tenders and guinea pigs for 
research that will help us understand how human beings adapt to long term
weightlessness.


>>Therefore it's important to develop a
>>program of experiments and useful techniques, make mistakes, etc. Then
>>when experiments are flown aboard Fred, they won't be starting from
>>scratch and they will have a greater chance of success. 
> 
>I assert that if the station fails because Spacelab spent the $$ which
>should have gone to proper integration testing then they will have a
>lesser degree of success.
> 
Assert all you want but this is not the case. Spacelab began over ten 
years before Ronnie made his call for the Space Station. All scientists and
engineers agree that precursor testing is an absolute necessity in perfecting
the methodology and proper engineering for the experiments to enable them 
to be successful on station. I assert that this is what we in the computer 
world call subsystem testing. This subsystem testing enhances the reliablity
of the total system by allowing the testing of the individual components,
methodologies, and processes that will be used for Space Station Freedom or
any other manned orbiting outpost for that matter.



>Spacelab tells us something about one of the many uses a station may
>have but it doesn't tells us about building stations. It's like saying
>refrigerator research is an important precursor to house design because
>one of the things people do in houses is cook food. It's true that most
>people want refrigerators in their houses but houses can be built
>without them.
> 

Allen building SSF or any other large structure in space is a mere engineering
exercise that we learned long ago. There are no mysteries involved in the 
process. What the precursor missions of Spacelab, SpaceHab, COMET and CONSORT
get us is a REASON for building these large structures in space. Without a
reason for existence other than the mere effort of building the structure,
we get yet another Apollo, and yet another boondoggle that is useless in 
helping to advance the knowledge, understanding, and welfare of the citizens
of the United States and the world.


>I understand your point but I think you are bluring the distinction
>between an object and what it is used for.
> 
>  Allen
> 



I think you misunderstand the point Allen and the point of the original post,
which had to do with precursors to SSF. The point of the precursors as I have
and Bill has laid out is that without proper testing at an early stage of the
process, which we do have in the programs that I have mentioned, you have
a great mass of expensive metal in the sky that is simply useless for anyone
other than the mechanical engineers who design them. Your analogy of the 
house is an apt one. A house may keep you warm and dry, but if it is empty
or the television does not work and the bed is broken and the lights don't 
work you only have an empty shell which does nothing for the occupants or
the people in general.

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville