Florida Today article on Skylab B

Derek Lyons wrote:
Charles Buckley wrote:


Derek Lyons wrote:

"rschmitt23" wrote:


As we near the 20th anniversary of President Reagan's January 1984
initiation of the permanent space station program and reflect on our present
situation (shuttle grounded, ISS half-completed, $30B spent so far on ISS,
runout cost of ISS estimated at ~$100B, all in current dollars), it's
interesting to recall what one could do at one time 30 years ago with a
$10B budget, ~5 years of schedule and a different type of space station
paradigm.


That comparision is more than a bit misleading, as Skylab's '$10B'
budget was greatly eased by the amount of hardware retrieved from the
scrap heap and it's generally low goals.


Would a reasonable analogy be that ISS was salvaged from Freedom?
Just do a comparison from 1993..



Not even remotely reasonable.

D.


In what way? Are you claiming that ISS did not recycle a lot of
Freedom equipment, or are you saying that ISS includes Freedom
costs?

Just because you don't like the comparson, does not mean it
is invalid. ISS piggybacked off a lot of design/hardware from
Freedom and did not have to start from scratch.

Take your pick on how to draw the lines, but ISS is more
expensive either as a stand-alone or as a leveraged piece of
hardware - even allowing for inflation.

Charles Buckley wrote:
In what way? Are you claiming that ISS did not recycle a lot of
Freedom equipment, or are you saying that ISS includes Freedom
costs?

Both. Some equipment was close to being ready, but nothing like the
amount of major structure that the S-IVB contributed to Skylab. Nor
does the ISS use the same control room as the Shuttle, unlike Skylab,
which also incurs greater costs. Nor did Skylab require an expensive
midstream redesign to include changed political goals... The number
of difference mount, and the similarities shrink as you open your
mind.

Just because you don't like the comparson, does not mean it
is invalid. ISS piggybacked off a lot of design/hardware from
Freedom and did not have to start from scratch.

Nowhere did I say I did not like the comparison. Nor did I say ISS
started from scratch, so take your strawmen elsewhere.

Take your pick on how to draw the lines, but ISS is more
expensive either as a stand-alone or as a leveraged piece of
hardware - even allowing for inflation.

It's hardly suprising that a more capable station is more expensive,
even allowing for inflation.

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.

Derek Lyons wrote:
Charles Buckley wrote:

In what way? Are you claiming that ISS did not recycle a lot of
Freedom equipment, or are you saying that ISS includes Freedom
costs?


Both. Some equipment was close to being ready, but nothing like the
amount of major structure that the S-IVB contributed to Skylab. Nor
does the ISS use the same control room as the Shuttle, unlike Skylab,
which also incurs greater costs. Nor did Skylab require an expensive
midstream redesign to include changed political goals... The number
of difference mount, and the similarities shrink as you open your
mind.



And if you look over at the other post on here, you'll see all the
parts they did have fed over from Freedom. The structure is one of the
cheaper cost items. Most of the costs are in the design. Materials
selection. Standards definition. Parts selection. RFP for parts.
Software definition and initial design. All those came over or gave a
huge start on ISS.


Just because you don't like the comparson, does not mean it
is invalid. ISS piggybacked off a lot of design/hardware from
Freedom and did not have to start from scratch.


Nowhere did I say I did not like the comparison. Nor did I say ISS
started from scratch, so take your strawmen elsewhere.



And you take yours that way. Pointing out that one side used
leveraged hardware without drawing any comparison to the other
is more than a bit misleading. ISS had assembled management,
designs, hardware, and goal all prior to it's start. It was much
further along when it got the greenlight than Skylab in every
single aspect.


Take your pick on how to draw the lines, but ISS is more
expensive either as a stand-alone or as a leveraged piece of
hardware - even allowing for inflation.


It's hardly suprising that a more capable station is more expensive,
even allowing for inflation.


Umm. more capable in what way? Arguably, it is not going to
have nearly the manned capacity in terms of science as Skylab.
The crewed responsibility is running the station.

On or about Tue, 05 Aug 2003 05:01:55 GMT, Derek Lyons
made the sensational claim that:
so take your strawmen elsewhere.

I've noticed lately you and Rand seem to like to dismiss any points you
disagree with, with something along these lines. "Strawman", "intelectually
dishonest", etc. Just thought I'd mention it, since it seems like "shooting
the message" without a trial.
--
This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | This space is for rent
It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | Inquire within if you
No person, none, care | and it will reach me | Would like your ad here

On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 20:34:41 GMT, in a place far, far away, LooseChanj
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

On or about Tue, 05 Aug 2003 05:01:55 GMT, Derek Lyons
made the sensational claim that:
so take your strawmen elsewhere.

I've noticed lately you and Rand seem to like to dismiss any points you
disagree with, with something along these lines. "Strawman", "intelectually
dishonest", etc. Just thought I'd mention it, since it seems like "shooting
the message" without a trial.

I dismiss (and point out) strawmen because they're strawmen. Why
should I have to defend a statement or position that I didn't make, or
take?

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 21:32:20 GMT, in a place far, far away, LooseChanj
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

On or about Tue, 05 Aug 2003 21:14:58 GMT, Rand Simberg
made the sensational claim that:
I dismiss (and point out) strawmen because they're strawmen. Why
should I have to defend a statement or position that I didn't make, or
take?

Well, if all you do (and Paul Dietz is *the* master) is gainsay, is there
a point to posting?

Yes, to point out that a statement is incorrect, for those who are
interested.

"Uh, no" is not a response.

Well, actually it is, even if you'd prefer elaboration.

Anyway, that's a different issue than strawmen.

There's a difference between asking questions, which I usually take
pains to answer, and simply responding to authoritatively stated
nonsense. I don't want to spend much time with detailed responses to
the latter, because my experience is that it will only continue to
provoke an endless argument (one of the reasons, for example, that Mr.
Ordover is in my killfile). It may be educational for some, I
suppose, but I simply haven't the time to patiently correct in detail
everyone who wants to troll.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

On or about Tue, 05 Aug 2003 21:39:13 GMT, Rand Simberg
made the sensational claim that:
Anyway, that's a different issue than strawmen.

Irrelevant, that was just an example.

There's a difference between asking questions, which I usually take
pains to answer, and simply responding to authoritatively stated
nonsense. I don't want to spend much time with detailed responses to
the latter, because my experience is that it will only continue to
provoke an endless argument (one of the reasons, for example, that Mr.
Ordover is in my killfile). It may be educational for some, I
suppose, but I simply haven't the time to patiently correct in detail
everyone who wants to troll.

So don't respond at all. There's no law requiring you to. The world won't
suddenly stop. (Although according to Ron Balke's latest post about the
ISS, it *might* take a detour to the west every once in awhile.) I'm just
tryin' to make these groups a little easier to wade through. So, if you're
not going to debunk, just laugh and shake your head at the idiots. Please?
--
This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | This space is for rent
It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | Inquire within if you
No person, none, care | and it will reach me | Would like your ad here

LooseChanj wrote:

Well, if all you do (and Paul Dietz is *the* master) is gainsay, is there
a point to posting?

No I'm not!

Paul

LooseChanj wrote:

On or about Tue, 05 Aug 2003 05:01:55 GMT, Derek Lyons
made the sensational claim that:
so take your strawmen elsewhere.

I've noticed lately you and Rand seem to like to dismiss any points you
disagree with, with something along these lines.

It's quite common to dismiss points in a reply that have zip point to
do with the discussion. Try reading the context of the quote and a
little upthread.

"Strawman", "intelectually dishonest", etc. Just thought I'd mention it, since
it seems like "shooting the message" without a trial.

When one has posted a message, and someone posts a reply that either
a) repeats earlier arguements or b) ignores your replies, the message
bears little consideration or trial.

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.

h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 20:34:41 GMT, in a place far, far away, LooseChanj
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

On or about Tue, 05 Aug 2003 05:01:55 GMT, Derek Lyons
made the sensational claim that:
so take your strawmen elsewhere.

I've noticed lately you and Rand seem to like to dismiss any points you
disagree with, with something along these lines. "Strawman", "intelectually
dishonest", etc. Just thought I'd mention it, since it seems like "shooting
the message" without a trial.

I dismiss (and point out) strawmen because they're strawmen. Why
should I have to defend a statement or position that I didn't make, or
take?

What he said.

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.