On Mon, 8 Oct 2001, Bruce Moomaw wrote:
> From: "David M Harland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > INDUSTRIAL SPACE FACILITY > > > > [snip] In reality, however, this revolutionary start-up deal > > had its origins in the Reagan administration's July 1984 call for > > commercialisation of space operations, and this was NASA's way of > > helping private ventures make commercial headway in their most > > crucial formative years. The fundamental problem that I have (from a business perspective) is that there is *no* market in space and a relatively small market for anything currently produced there. (As pointed out by others, the biotechnological applications for space based operations seem for the most part to be "contrived".) > > In April 1989, however, NASA effectively killed off the ISF > > when a specially commissioned panel advised against leasing the > > commercial free-flying module for microgravity work. It added a > > caveat that if the development of the station was signficantly > > delayed then it would be worth reconsidering the free-flyer as an > > interim vehicle. It would be useful to know *who* was on the panel and what the basis for their recomendations was. If Bruce wants to chase after NASA, the minutes of the meetings of such a panel would be something one would like to obtain under the FoI regulations. > Well, of course, the development of the Station WAS "significantly delayed" > (to put it mildly) and also multiplied several times in cost. Which NASA > knew it would in 1989. Given the ups and downs of the political approval process for the space station, how can one claim that NASA *knew* it would cost several times as much as proposed -- I'd hasten to remind one that not even NASA could have predicted the course that Russia has been through over the last decade. How much of the station cost increases has been due to that rather unpredictable detail? (!) Even if the station was planned as a shuttle user boondoggle, there would always have been people who could have shown that it could be done for less. Why hasn't there been any discussion/movement regarding the development of much greater launch capacity? If you go back and look at the early Saturn V plans or Russian plans, one can realize that there were plans of building even larger rockets than we once had. Its worth keeping in mind that the lift capacity of the Saturn V or the Energia were ~4-5x the lift capacity of the Shuttle. According to my notes -- the launch capacity of the Shuttle into NEO is ~25,000 kg, the Energia ~105,000 kg, the Saturn V ~118,000 kg. Robert == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
