From: wingo%cspara@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Precursors to SSF (was Re: Sabatier Reactors.)
Date: 27 Jan 1993 16:54 CST
Organization: University of Houston
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: judy.uh.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1993Jan27.165812.6931@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes...
>In article <1k6aj1INNgtf@mojo.eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes:
> 
>>[Dennis tries to convince Allen that building hardware and flying it on
>>Spacelab is a good thing]
> 
>No, Dennis it trying to convince me that space stations cannot be built
>without doing lots of Spacelab flights.
> 
>  Allen
> 

The wall analogy that was mentioned begins to fit better and better with 
Allan. What I simply said Allen is that in order to have an EFFECTIVE
Space Station, no matter who's does it, you must perfect the methodologies
processes and engineering expertise necessary to make the experiments that
will run on the station work and work well. We have made tremendous strides
in the last four years in our understanding of the true needs of the 
mocrgravity community for different experiment processes. It turns out that
the stringent requirments (10-7 g) is not necessary for 99% of all
microgee experiments. This enables the relaxation of a design constraint on
the station or it allows you to postion those experiments needing this level
of microgee at the appropriate postion within the lab module.

Also we have found over the last few years that the major contributor to the
"dirtyness" of the microgravity environment is not the astronauts. Remember 
That this argument was used by the opponents of manned space as a reason to
build free flyers rather than manned units. It turns out that the experimenters
own hardware was the major contributor in most cases to the quality of the
microgee environment. This has allowed the designers of these experiments to
modify their designs to correct this problem. Further, the reflight of these
precursors on the various platforms is allowing the test of these changes, that
in turn will result in futher improvments to the designs and or the 
experiment processes.

Precursor experiments also allow NASA to determine if process X or process y
is really going to work better in microgee. Some do and some don't. This 
allows NASA and any one else to spend their time in working on processes
that actually do benefit from microgravity.

So in conclusion Allen, I offer several concrete, documented, and repeatable
resaons that precursor missions are valid cost reducing activities, both
in direct dollars spent overall in the station era, and in intellectual
activity relating to the ability of the precursors to weed out the bad and
allow the focusing on the good. What do you offer?

On the cost front you know as well as I that it is the Congress that
has drivent the cost up while stringing out the process. Are you too far
gone in your visions that you fail to realize that the major cost are in
keeping the standing army together over this time period?

By the way major flight hardware IS under construction and one of the guys
who is machining the flight hardware for SEDSAT 1 will be machining the 
end connections of the modules at Boeing's shop at MSFC. We are getting there
we need only one more year of full funding and we WILL get our SSF on 
orbit!

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville