"rschmitt23" wrote:
My big quibble with the Skylab microgravity research effort is the miniscule
amount of time that NASA devoted to materials science (only about 30
manhours out of 2,881 total manhours spent on scientific research by the
three crews). I think this was a gross misallocation of a scarce resource
(astronaut time for microgravity research). Far too much time was spent on
solar astronomy by the Skylab astronauts to the detrement of the materials
research.

It would be interesting to compare *planned* allocation versus the
*accomplished* allocation. Keep in mind that the major materials
science instrument (the Science Airlock, which doubled as a vaccum
chamber) was occupied by the interim sunshade, and was shaded by the
permantent shade.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.