Michael Kent ) wrote:
: In sci.space.policy Eric Chomko wrote:

: Speaking of Spacelab, is it officially done now that Columbia
: blew up?

: Spacelab was done well before the Columbia disaster. The hardware on
: Columbia was SpaceHab (with an "h"), not SpaceLab.

Yes, yes I know. But Hab has been around for awhile and Lab longer but is
no more. What are the subtle distinctions between the two?

: I sure as heck hope that ISS can support what Spacelab once was
: on the shuttle. At least THAT would be progress, IMO.

: ISS is already quite a bit beyond SpaceLab (and Mir) in most measurable
: ways: orbital mass, internal volume, experiment rack space, electrical
: power, data throughput, upmass, and downmass*.

But are there ongoing expirements on ISS worthy of note?

: If all goes as planned, ISS will quadruple its electrical power by the
: end of next year and triple its rack space by the end of 2007. Also,
: the upmass will increase quite a bit when the ATV and HTV come online.
: And don't forget the JEF / robot arm combo and Centrifuge Accommodation
: Module will permit types of research just not possible on Spacelab or
: Mir, so it's not just in quantity that the ISS has the advantage but in
: quality as well.

Well good, one would expect that ISS would be able to replace things like
Spacelab.

: *Well, technically Spacelab beat ISS in downmass since it deorbited the
: whole lab at the end of the 14-day mission. I'm talking about the ability
: of the MPLM to carry up and down up to 20,000 lbs of experiment *samples*
: at a time while the experiment apparatus stays in orbit.

Yes, understood.

Eric

: Mike

: -----
: Michael Kent Apple II Forever!!
: St. Peters, MO
: