XPost: sci.space.history, uk.tech.rocketry   
   From: herbschaltegger@thethomasnonsenselawfirm.com.invalid.retro.com   
      
   Kevin Willoughby wrote:   
      
   > In article <401eb79e.3815714@supernews.seanet.com>, derekl1963   
   > @nospamyahoo.com says...   
   >> I always find it odd when people insist the ISS should already have   
   >> accomplised great things.   
   >   
   > ISS Expedition 1 was launched over three years ago. From first to last   
   > (manned) flights of Mercury was 2 years. Gemini: 2-1/2 years. Apollo:   
   > just over 4 years, with the first lunar landing less than a year after   
   > the first manned flight. So isn't is reasonable to expect *something*   
   > from ISS?   
      
   Depends on what you expect to accomplish.  If you want to demonstrate that   
   large, complicated systems and structures can be designed and built   
   piecemeal on the ground and successfully assembled on-orbit, then yeah,   
   that's "something" from ISS.  That and loads of useful experience in   
   operating increasingly complicated systems over extended times.   
      
   On the other hand, if you want reams (well, I guess the better term would be   
   terabytes these days) of useful, relevent scientific data, then no, it's   
   not reasonable to expect that yet.   
      
   Look at it like a car on a hill or a motorboat - if you use very little   
   throttle, you will eventually get where you're going, at the price of very   
   high fuel use and wear-and-tear on your powertrain from "lagging" the   
   engine.  It's not an efficient way to travel.   
      
   The Station has been "lagging" since the First Element Launch milestone due   
   to years of budget cuts, programmatic restructures and general delays.  If   
   six to eight flights per year were devoted to construction and assembly, as   
   was planned during SSF days, the entire station would have been built in   
   about 2 1/2 years from FEL to the PMC milestone (Permanently-Manned   
   Capabilitly).  Until that point, there would have been no crew aboard   
   except during assembly missions and even then it would be only to support   
   assembly.  After PMC, however, you would have had the capability and   
   expectation to sustain 4 full-time crewmembers, at least two of whom could   
   be expected to perform full-time research, with the crew size increasing to   
   8 (yes, 8) after another couple of years.  *Then* you could expect 5 or 6   
   full-time researchers, probably working in overlapping shifts either 18 or   
   24 hours per day on research.   
      
   Now, however, dragging out the assembly for so long, understaffing it at the   
   same time, all ISS *can* do is "lag" around in orbit, waiting to be   
   completed and staffed properly, and using up the on-orbit life expectancies   
   of major ORUs and components the whole while.   
      
   --   
   Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.   
   Reformed Aerospace Engineer   
   Remove invalid nonsense for email.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)