Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!magnesium.club.cc.cmu.edu!news.sei.cmu.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!destroyer!cs.ubc.ca!fs1.ee.ubc.ca!davem
From: davem@ee.ubc.ca (Dave Michelson)
Subject: Re: Space Station Redesign, JSC Alternative #4
Message-ID: <1993Apr27.092444.27199@ee.ubc.ca>
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
References: <1993Apr23.184732.1105@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> <23APR199317452695@tm0006.lerc.nasa.gov> <1ralibINNc0f@cbl.umd.edu>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1993 09:24:44 GMT
Lines: 36

In article <1ralibINNc0f@cbl.umd.edu> mike@starburst.umd.edu (Michael F. Santangelo) writes:
>dbm0000@tm0006.lerc.nasa.gov (David B. Mckissock) writes:
>
>...text of options "A" and "B" deleted...
>
>>Option C - Single Core Launch Station.
>>This is the JSC lead option. Basically, you take a 23 ft diameter
>>cylinder that's 92 ft long, slap 3 Space Shuttle Main Engines on
>>the backside, put a nose cone on the top, attached it to a 
>>regular shuttle external tank and a regular set of solid rocket
>>motors, and launch the can. Some key features are:
>>  - Complete end-to-end ground integration and checkout
>>  - 4 tangentially mounted fixed solar panels
>>  - body mounted radiators (which adds protection against
>>    micrometeroid & orbital debris)
>>  - 2 centerline docking ports (one on each end)
>>  - 7 berthing ports
>>  - a single pressurized volume, approximately 26,000 cubic feet
>>    (twice the volume of skylab).
>>  - 7 floors, center passageway between floors
>>  - 10 kW of housekeeping power
>
>Somehow I have a strange attraction for this idea (living in
>a modular home maybe has altered my mind).  The only thing
>that scares me is the part about simply strapping 3 SSME's and
>a nosecone on it and "just launching it."  I have this vision
>of something going terribly wrong with the launch resulting in the
>complete loss of the new modular space station (not just a peice of
>it as would be the case with staged in-orbit construction).

I certainly like this "Option C"...  It's much more like the original
Phase B studies from the early 1970's.  Good stuff!

--
Dave Michelson  --  davem@ee.ubc.ca  --  University of British Columbia

