Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from beak.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests) ID ; Sat, 17 Feb 90 01:54:16 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: 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 *******************