Message-ID: <kZrDHsG00VcJ45Ak4-@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 90 01:53:47 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V11 #55

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 11 : Issue 55

Today's Topics:
	     Re: ??? What is ' SPACE DIGEST V11 #18 ' ???
		       Re: Space Station Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15 Feb 90 20:06:54 GMT
From: van-bc!rsoft!mindlink!a752@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Bruce Dunn)
Subject: Re: ??? What is ' SPACE DIGEST V11 #18 ' ???

> rcstoc writes:
> Hi ,
> 
> I am just new in this news section and see all this talking
> about SPACE DIGEST V11#18.
> Can someone tell me what this is, i'm very curius about it
> Please send some explanation to me.
> 
> 
> thanks in advance
> 
> Oscar Craane
> rcstoc@eutws1.win.tue.nl
> University of Eindhoven
> Holland

     The same problem has bothered me for several months.  I E-mailed a couple
of people who told me that SPACE DIGEST was the INTERNET side of USENET.  This
leaves me nearly as confused.  Would the kind person who writes the "Answers to
Common Questions" article which appears at intervals in this group please add
this question to his/her list.  Please don't just say that SPACE DIGEST is an
INTERNET designation - we newcomers need to also find out what INTERNET is.
     Thanks, Bruce

------------------------------

Date: 17 Feb 90 06:24:53 GMT
From: agate!headcrash.Berkeley.EDU!gwh@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (George William Herbert)
Subject: Re: Space Station Costs

In article <3405@oolong.la.locus.com> todd@roulette.UUCP (Todd Johnson) writes:
>
>My problem with the idea is that it appears to be a very short-lived
>approach (not that that's necessarily bad but it certainly has to be
>factored in). The reason I say short-lived is because of the amount
>of small debris we have in orbit. I'm sure that LDEF will give us
>more data but I suspect that even a rigid structure in orbit for 
>long periods of time (say 5+ years) at that altitude is going to
>take a fair bit of debris damage (and remember that a paint speck
>on the order of 0.1mm made a 5 cm splatter of a Shuttle's windshield,
>costing us a new winshield). So what's going to happen to an inflatable
>structure with five years of accumulated space debris damage?

Probably nothing that wouldn't happen to a solid structure.  Shooting holes
in tin cans and in paper bags has the same effect:  Both station ideas will
quite likely need those convenient 'quick patch' kits that will be placed 
at strategic locations around the interior.  Putting a hole in flexible
stations is neither easier nor less repairable relative to aluminum skins.


>I'm also not wild about LLNL's credentials as a space research organization.
>I think that's pretty far out of their area of expertise. 

As opposed to NASA's qualifications in space station design?  We're going to
be spending about a half trillion dollars on untested technology and 
operations with the NASA plan.  I'd rather a quarter that amount on equally
untested but much easier to use technology.


*******************************************************************************
George William Herbert     JOAT For Hire: Anything, Anywhere: My Price
UCB Naval Architecture undergrad: Engineering with a Bouyant Attitude :-)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gwh@ocf.berkeley.edu      ||||||||||| "What do I have to do to convince you?"-Q 
gwh@soda.berkeley.edu     ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| "Die."-Worf
maniac@garnet.berkeley.edu||"Very good, Worf. Eaten any good books recently?"-Q

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V11 #55
*******************