(Len) wrote in message . com...
Hop David wrote in message ...
Mike Rhino wrote:
"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...

That's not the title of my latest Fox Column, but it should have been.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,111821,00.html


Consider also that our goal then was
not to open up space in any sustainable way,
but to simply beat the Russians to the moon.



Better space suits would be nice, but they have nothing to do with on orbit
assembly.

Assembling stuff in a vacuum is hard when you have cucumber fingers.


The key item required for assembly in space is frequent,
reliable, low-cost access. With frequent, reliable,
low-cost access, relying on hangars and assembly bays will
be more logical than not having them.

Sure but you have to assemble the hangars, etc. Also, not all work in
the vacuum of space will be in low Earth orbit or in convenient
facilities.

Telerobots will
do most of the routine, "outside" work.

Maybe but to be effective they'd have to be operated by someone on
site (light speed lag from Earth is troublesome) and if you're going
to have someone there anyway, it's cheaper to put a person in a suit
than build and maintain a robot.

Small, manned,
maneuverable, support vehicles may be an important adjunct.

Sounds like a rigid suit. Still need gloves/manipulators of some
sort.

Assembling an automobile requires only about 20 man-hours;
nearly all the work is done by robots. But a certain amount
of manned presence is critical.

Yep. So we need better gloves.

IMO, the size of what is assembled is restricted more by the
uncontrolled reentry hazard, than any other factor.

If that were true, ISS wouldn't be as big as it is, would it?
I think cost is the limiter.