>>>Virtually all of the commercial space companies in existence today
could and would directly benefit from a commercial space station. The
same could be said of the space advocacy groups.>>>

Bob Zubrin had some interesting ideas about this in his book 'entering
space'. He suggested that a commercial work shop could be located close to the
international space station. The commercial contractors would repair the station
if it were damaged and perform orbital maintenance The contractors would
effectively be a space 911.

Zubrin identified some key points in reducing the cost of an Earth orbital
station. Other people, many of them on mailing lists that I have read, also
identified cost saving factors.

1) Launch the station in one piece and don't even consider using the space
shuttle. Do not attempt to assembly the station in orbit. This is a difficult,
expensive, dangerous procedure. The best approach is to assemble the station on
Earth, where quality control can be guaranteed and EVA is not needed. The
station could then be launched by a single heavy lift vehicle, as was the case
with Skylab.

2) Do the bulk of development and construction in Russia. The Russians have
excellent space engineers, with extensive experience in space station
construction. They also have access to the only heavy lift vehicle on the
planet.

3) Smaller individual jobs, can be contracted out to other engineering
companies, in other nations. For example, the solar panels for the station could
be constructed by Siemens or Shell. Draw expertise and services from the world
market, not just the US market. There are douzens of companies all over the
world, that would be willing to build solar panels for the station and they
don't have to be aerospace companies. The camera systems on pathfinder were
produced by Kodak, I believe. The camera was relatively cheap compared to Viking
and the pictures that they returned were superior to those returned by Viking.
We can set up a situation where competition drives prices down. Many companies
would enjoy the prestige of being associated with a space station.

Tony

Learn how to build a profitable business
on the internet.
http://www.sixfigureincome.com/?854665

1) Launch the station in one piece and don't even consider using the space
shuttle. Do not attempt to assembly the station in orbit. This is a difficult,
expensive, dangerous procedure. The best approach is to assemble the station on
Earth, where quality control can be guaranteed and EVA is not needed. The
station could then be launched by a single heavy lift vehicle, as was the case
with Skylab. He may very well be right, but I can't help butwonder if this isn't just more of his "everything's easier to do on a planet, and exceedingly difficult and expensive to do in space" bias. It happens to be a very self-serving bias for him to promote to others, because it encourages them to consider settlement of Mars, but to be dismissive of the orbital settlement concepts of O'Neill (which are the chief competition with his ideas). I think Alpha is so expensive not so much because it requiredon-orbit assembly as because of cost-plus contracts, and the scheduling difficulties brought on by putting a cash-strapped nation into the critical loop. On-orbit assembly is the only way we are ever going to get to orbiting structures larger than Skylab (which I would assume everyone on this list would be in favor of).

Regards,

Mike Combs

>>>>He may very well be right, but I can't help but wonder if this isn't just
more of his "everything's easier to do on a planet, and exceedingly
difficult and expensive to do in space" bias. It happens to be a very
self-serving bias for him to promote to others, because it encourages them
to consider settlement of Mars, but to be dismissive of the orbital
settlement concepts of O'Neill (which are the chief competition with his
ideas).

I think Alpha is so expensive not so much because it required on-orbit
assembly as because of cost-plus contracts, and the scheduling difficulties
brought on by putting a cash-strapped nation into the critical loop.

On-orbit assembly is the only way we are ever going to get to orbiting
structures larger than Skylab (which I would assume everyone on this list
would be in favour of).>>>>

The on-orbit assembly required several shuttle flights, costing $600million
dollars each, and it boasted zero quality control. Which would you rather rely
upon? half a dozen astronauts, seriously impeded by space suits and equipped
with a limited selection of tools and limited time?
Or, a spacious, relaxed workshop, equipped with every tool imaginable, and
hundreds of skilled engineers who can work on the station, carefully and
thoroughly, for months at a time, testing it and getting it just right.

I would rather bet my life on the second option.

The on-orbit assembly required several shuttle flights, costing $600million
dollars each, and it boasted zero quality control. Which would you rather rely
upon? half a dozen astronauts, seriously impeded by space suits and equipped
with a limited selection of tools and limited time?
Or, a spacious, relaxed workshop, equipped with every tool imaginable, and
hundreds of skilled engineers who can work on the station, carefully and
thoroughly, for months at a time, testing it and getting it just right.

I would rather bet my life on the second option. You're making tons of sense, of course. I'm just trying to raise a note of caution that the inarguable proposition that it's cheaper and easier to do most things here on the surface of the Earth than in orbit can sometimes be sloppily (and incorrectly in my opinion) extended to the proposition that it will be easier to do things on Mars or on the moon than in orbital space. Me,I'm pulling for a spacious, well-equipped, well-staffed workshop in HEO where technicians can work in their shirt-sleeves on large items in pressurized areas. If they have spin-gravity available, and radiation shielding, they can stay up for tours of duty of a year or more, enabling the kind of relaxed work environment you're advocating. That's the general dream of SSI. Of course we have to get to there from here, and I realize that's a very long road. A lot has to happen between now and then. Regarding ISS, I'd even count myself among those who are still upset that some of the earlier, more monolithic space station designs were passed over in favor of the more complex, piecemeal approach we're taking now.

Regards,

Mike Combs

>>>Me, I'm pulling for a spacious, well-equipped, well-staffed workshop in HEO
where technicians can work in their shirt-sleeves on large items in
pressurized areas. If they have spin-gravity available, and radiation
shielding, they can stay up for tours of duty of a year or more, enabling
the kind of relaxed work environment you're advocating. That's the general
dream of SSI.>>>

This would be a much better approach. The cost plus system, combined with
over-relliance on the shuttle, managed to push the price of the ISS through the
roof. I am surprised that the US government allowed NASA and its contractors to
get away with it. The US congress also repeatedly delayed the project by
ordering re-design after redesign. One has to wonder whether or not deliberate
political sabotage wasn't involved.

Tony

Learn how to build a profitable business
on the internet.
http://www.sixfigureincome.com/?854665

Rather than reiterate the fine ideas that have been presented so far,
I will merely add my favorite idea for getting a commercial space
station "off the ground" (literally and figuratively): launching large
module from Earth. This is based on the proposals for using the Space
Shuttle external tanks to build a space station. Rather than simply
using them for raw materials, you build them with everything (that
won't be harmed by cryogenic temperatures) already in place.

These could be put together in a roughly torroidal shape. To speed up
the process the modules could be added in diametrically opposed
pairs. Thus rotation can start right away, and the main EVA would be
binding the modules together. Also, for added safety in case of a
leak, the connections between the modules could be shut, perhaps
automatically.

++JohnWheeler

>
> >>>>He may very well be right, but I can't help but
> wonder if this isn't just
> more of his "everything's easier to do on a planet,
> and exceedingly
> difficult and expensive to do in space" bias. It
> happens to be a very
> self-serving bias for him to promote to others,
> because it encourages them
> to consider settlement of Mars, but to be dismissive
> of the orbital
> settlement concepts of O'Neill (which are the chief
> competition with his
> ideas).
>
> I think Alpha is so expensive not so much because it
> required on-orbit
> assembly as because of cost-plus contracts, and the
> scheduling difficulties
> brought on by putting a cash-strapped nation into
> the critical loop.
>
> On-orbit assembly is the only way we are ever going
> to get to orbiting
> structures larger than Skylab (which I would assume
> everyone on this list
> would be in favour of).>>>>
>
> The on-orbit assembly required several shuttle
> flights, costing $600million
> dollars each, and it boasted zero quality control.
> Which would you rather rely
> upon? half a dozen astronauts, seriously impeded by
> space suits and equipped
> with a limited selection of tools and limited time?
> Or, a spacious, relaxed workshop, equipped with
> every tool imaginable, and
> hundreds of skilled engineers who can work on the
> station, carefully and
> thoroughly, for months at a time, testing it and
> getting it just right.
>
> I would rather bet my life on the second option.
>

Of course, one can only assume (hope) that the
purpose of such a station would be to eventually (in
the short term, naturally) acheive a situation in
orbit that meets the qualifications listed above plus
near-by access to zero-g and any structure itself.