From: prb@access.digex.net (Pat)
Subject: Re: Report on redesign team
Organization: Express Access Online Communications USA
Lines: 52
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.net

In article <Cohen-270493073219@q5022531.mdc.com> Cohen@ssdgwy.mdc.com (Andy Cohen) writes:
>The following is what they feed to us..... most has been posted already,
>but there are a number of items not seen here yet.....
>
>
>The Design Teams then presented the three options under study:
>
>¥ Option A - Modular Buildup -- Pete Priest presented the A option. Priest
>

I don't think this will work.  Still the same in space
integration problems,  small modules, especially the Bus-1 modules.
the MOL would be bigger.   

Also,  budget problems  may end up stalling developemnt.  
A small undersized station wont have the science community support.

>¥ Option B - Freedom Derived -- Mike Griffin presented the status of Option
>

Program effeciencies may cut costs,  but the basic problems
with freedom remain.  in space integration,  too many flights
too build.  not enough science retrurn.  

>¥ Option C - Singe Launch Core Station -- Chet Vaughn presented Option C,
>the Single Launch Core Station concept.  A Shuttle external tank and solid
>

Essentialy  $5 billion to build MIR.

I think had NASA  locked onto this design, back in 1984,  with
scarring to support a TRUSS for real expandability,  we'd be looking
at a flying space station.

This looks the most realistic, to me,  IMHO,  but,  i dont know if
there is enough will power  to toss the CDR'd  existing hardware
and then  take a 1/3rd  power cut  and do it this way.

the core  launch station has a lot of positive ideas.  You could stick
in more hatches for  experimental  concept modules.  Like the ET
derived workshops.  Or inflatable modules.

pat
>(Oct. 31-cancellation .....just my opinion...AC)


Sad but true.

epitaph.  Killed by mis-management.

pat

