Florida Today article on Skylab B

Charles Buckley wrote:
And if you look over at the other post on here, you'll see all the
parts they did have fed over from Freedom.

I did, and it's a fraction of the station at best.

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.

Yes, *parts*. The expensive part comes when you go from *parts* to a
*system* to a *station*.

Software definition and initial design.

Most of which had to be re-done, along with *much* else in order to
integrate the International partners.

All those came over or gave a huge start on ISS.

Gave a huge start on starting ISS, but you are overlooking there is a
lot of work after starting.


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.

yawn All having nothing to do with either my original reply, or my
reply to your reply.

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.

Never mind that AAP was well along when Skylab was approved. Never
mind that Freedom had to be completely redesigned when the
international partners were added to make it ISS.

In other words, you are right, except for the massive parts where you
are wrong.


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?

Just about every way other than astronomy and possibly earth sciences.

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

Guess what the Skylab crews responsobility was? Running the station.

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.

On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Derek Lyons wrote:

Most of which had to be re-done, along with *much* else in order to
integrate the International partners.

Just a quick nit here, Derek; apparently you mean the station had to be
redone to accomadate the Russians. Remember that by 1993, the Europeans
(including Italy), and Japan were already long involved with the former
Freedom Space Station program. So, integrating them wasn't nearly the
challenge that integrating the Russians was since the other partners were
designing their hardware around the U.S. system requirements.
-Mike

Mike Dicenso wrote:
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Derek Lyons wrote:

Most of which had to be re-done, along with *much* else in order to
integrate the International partners.

Just a quick nit here, Derek; apparently you mean the station had to be
redone to accomadate the Russians. Remember that by 1993, the Europeans
(including Italy), and Japan were already long involved with the former
Freedom Space Station program. So, integrating them wasn't nearly the
challenge that integrating the Russians was since the other partners were
designing their hardware around the U.S. system requirements.

Your last sentence hits the nail on the head... The other partners
were *desiging around US system requirements*. The Russians however
did no such thing.

It's a very different matter to integrate systems designed to work
with yours than to integrate a system completely different.

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 in message ...
On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 14:39:37 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
(Greg Kuperberg) made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Now a lot of people are blaming Congress rather than NASA's management
for all of this. They say that it was just those spoilsport Congressmen
who didn't give NASA the money to launch or retool the second Skylab,
or even reboost the first one. But it was management, because Congress
was giving NASA a lot of money for other things.

Nonsense. You apparently have no idea how little discretion NASA has
in such matters. They can't just shift funds from one program to
another without Congressional authorization (and more importantly,
appropriation).

Well they got away with it on TransHab for a few years!

Derek Lyons wrote:
Charles Buckley wrote:

And if you look over at the other post on here, you'll see all the
parts they did have fed over from Freedom.


I did, and it's a fraction of the station at best.



Which would describe the one item you apply towards Skylab.
The outer shell is only an incremental cost.


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.


Yes, *parts*. The expensive part comes when you go from *parts* to a
*system* to a *station*.


OK. Let's go with systems then. Those did not change.


Software definition and initial design.


Most of which had to be re-done, along with *much* else in order to
integrate the International partners.


All those came over or gave a huge start on ISS.


Gave a huge start on starting ISS, but you are overlooking there is a
lot of work after starting.



And you are doing the same with SkyLab. You are only looking at
one side as if there is no other side. Both stations had a head
start. ISS had a 9 year head start.


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.


yawn All having nothing to do with either my original reply, or my
reply to your reply.

You original reply as in:
"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."

or

"Not even remotely reasonable."


If the first, it absolutely ignores any spawn of tech transfer
from Freedom. In fact, it completely negates any such transfer.
Your first response to me actually had negative semantic value.


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.


Never mind that AAP was well along when Skylab was approved. Never
mind that Freedom had to be completely redesigned when the
international partners were added to make it ISS.

In other words, you are right, except for the massive parts where you
are wrong.


And forgot that they HAD A LARGE AMOUNT OF THE WORK DONE ON ISS
THAT DID NOT NEED TO BE REDONE.

You simply seem to incapable of recognizing that the two systems
were leveraged off others. ISS is going to be far more expensive
than Skylab. Far more.

In other words... you want to apply a standard to Skylab
without applying the exact same standard to ISS.



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?


Just about every way other than astronomy and possibly earth sciences.


Only on deliverable science. Name something they have delivered.

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


Guess what the Skylab crews responsobility was? Running the station.


Which took about 50% of their daily load as opposed to 100%.

In article , says...
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!

That's not an argument!

)

--

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for | Doug Van Dorn
thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup |