Commercial space station

>
> >>>>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.