Welcome to spacesettlers

...I would add the need for doing all the above in the form of ultra-light
components. .....

Since the basic structure will be the heaviest element in any space platform (apart from fuel, possibly), does it not make sense to protect any such real estate? Was it wise to allow the Russian Space Station to crash down to Earth? I think they asked for international help to keep it aloft. A single unit in Space is always a danger. Two Space Stations, the refurbished Russian one and the new American one would have been the way to go.

Selvaraj.

From: Lucio de Souza Coelho
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2004 12:20 AM
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: Welcome to spacesettlers

Em Sex 13 Fev 2004 05:04, victoriatangoman escreveu:
(...)
> Radiation hardened electronics. Vacuum rated equipment. Severe
> temperature swings. Extreme reliability because failure can kill the
> entire mission. Launch vibration. Low production runs. Extensive on-
> ground testing of components.
(...)

I would add the need for doing all the above in the form of ultra-light
components. (The ultra-light issue brings to my mind that I am currently
undergoing what could be called a "Orion Fever", but I will restrain myself
and babble about nuclear pulse propulsion in a better occasion. :-)

Now, talking about the ISS in particular, I suspect that part of the high cost
comes from the fact that the ISS was built by governments, which usually are
not-so-worried about cutting costs. Also, I think that Selvaraj's question
about the cost of tens of billions of the ISS includes the launch costs,
which are lousy since (most of) the components of the ISS were launched by
the Shuttle, the most expensive existing launch system, AFAIK.

By the way, welcome to Space Settlers, Selvaraj!

Lucio Coelho