No, the original poster's article clearly states that it was funding for subsonic and supersonic research that was mentioned in the Aerospace Daily article. NASP is hypersonic research.
I'll repeat his question - Does anybody know what Clinton intends to do with NASP funding?
Jeff Hagen
MEMS Dept.
Rice University
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 21:33:18 GMT
From: Frank Crary <fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
Subject: Reliable Source says Freedom Dead, Freedom II to be developed
Newsgroups: sci.space
In article <23FEB199310324877@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes:
>>My feeling was something with a truss, in a higher more inclined orbit.
>>then modify the ETs so they have hatches and "wet" structure.
>>Then just hang those onto the Truss, and bring equipment up in the shuttle
>>bay. this was an original SKYLAB concept.
>The problem with this design is that the problems with EVA and on orbit
>maintenance is magnifed tenfold. Not only do you have to do all of the
>EVA associated with the external structure, BUT you have to do EVA to
>install all of the internal equipment, life support..... AND then do
>all of your testing on orbit.
That doesn't have to be EVA work: There isn't any real difficulty in
adding a hatch and docking collar to the external tank, or putting
the life support and power systems in a pre-assembled module (i.e.
all the vital things except room to live and work.) The support
module could be tested on the ground, and docked on orbit to the
external tank. The tank could then be pressurized and all the work
you mention done without an EVA.
>...Then when things don't work which will happen
>you have to have all of these contingency missions just to correct all of
>the things you did not know about till you got there.
That is true of _any_ space station, Freedom included. In fact, this
supports the idea of a quick, cheap space station as a "learning
experience" to avoid future mistakes on an expensive, ambitious
station...
>With the recent (91) redesign of SSF most of these issues were resolved by
>changes such as the pallet change outs and all of the other EVA reduction
>ideas that now are a part of the design.
I don't think these reductions even come close to "resolving" the issue.
As I recall, planned maintaince EVAs will still require ~500 man-hours
per year (i.e. one two-man EVA every week.) That's on the edge of
possible, using the current space suits (per-breath required, high
maintaince and logistical requirments.) However, looking at the
Soviet experience, most maintaince EVAs are _not_ planned and expected.
Over two thirds of their maintaince/repair EVAs were to fix things
which (in theory and according to the on-paper designs) should never
have broken. If we _know_ about 500 man-hours of work required to
maintain Freedom, we should also expect at least an additional
500 man-hours of unexpected problems. That rate of EVAs is probably
not possible currently.
Frank Crary
CU Boulder
------------------------------
Date: 23 Feb 93 18:09:42 -0600
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov>
