A change in thinking about ISS

The REALITY is that the darn thing is going up as is, as poorly
conceived as that might be. Rather than say what should have been done,
we all start talking about how to get the most out of what has been
done. We need to stop looking backward and lamenting that this or that
is wrong from our point of view. Start thinking about how to get the
most out of what IS.

If you don't like how the program is managed then start raising hell
with your congresspeople and the white house. Give them ideas on how to
make the program work based on what exists today. If they receive a
message that says trash the whole thing and start over, then they are
going to file your message in the trashcan. If you start demanding that
they maximise what money has been invested in ISS and include
suggestions on HOW, then you may get listened to.

>
> When it costs $140 million just to design and build the front door, you
> know they must be doing something wrong. There's just nothing in a
> spacecraft airlock that can justify that amount of money. $10 million would
> have been too much. $2 million is more like it.
>
> As for BDB's, it should be remembered that there are BDB's on the drawing
> board that could have been used to launch the ISS in one piece. There would
> have been no need for dozens of expensive shuttle flights or several,
> expensive, individually designed airlocks, individually designed modules
> with their own air recycling systems, etc. Something like a modern Sea
> Dragon could have fired the thing up there, in one shot. True, you would
> have to pay for the development of the Sea Dragon, but even in a worst case
> scenario, we are talking several billions, not sixty. The ISS could have
> been carefully assembled in a clean environment with excellent quality
> control. The Sea Dragons could be built by the dozen in regular shipyards.
> Each one would cost about the same amount as 1 shuttle launch, but would
> have a payload capacity 25 times as large.
>
> When all is said and done, there is nothing to justify the $60billion
> price tag of ISS. $10billion would be more realistic. It is nothing more
> than a NASA inspired trick, to prop up the space shuttle and US aerospace
> industries.

Robin Chew
proU.net, Inc. - http://www.proU.net
Lucidcafe Interactive Cafe - http://www.lucidcafe.com