Slide 43 of 99
Notes:
The American co-orbiting space platform was deleted in 1987 but the polar platform was retained. The European Space Agency was also going to to contribute a second polar platform plus a man-tended free flying platform (MTFF) in the same orbit as the main Space Station complex.
The 1987 baseline configuration. Scientists disliked its reduced capabilities, e.g. the number of attached payloads had been reduced to two from the “Dual Keel's” five berths. Other common criticisms involved the Station's increased cost and delayed schedule, and its impact/reliance on the Space Shuttle. Many scientists wanted a smaller Skylab-type single-module facility that could be launched earlier on a new heavy-lift rocket. Users also criticized NASA for not spending enough money on Space Station experiments.
Originally, Space Station “Freedom” would only have carried two 37.5KW solar arrays during Phase One. However, Congress quickly insisted on adding two more arrays to generate sufficient power for scientific users.
The Space Station program was plagued by conflicts during the entire 1984-87 definition phase. NASA and ESA were unable to reach agreement on Europe's role in the program. ESA refused to accept the congressional requirement that Europe be banned from using its Columbus module for materials research. The Europeans also regarded a 15% "you get what you pay for" operational return as insufficient and instead wanted a consensus-based partnership arrangement. In April 1997, the Department of Defense briefly demanded to have full access to the Station for military research, despite strong objections from NASA and the international partners. The lack of a unified federal policy on the project really began to make itself felt. Besides the expected furore from the international partners, the DoD position sparked a shouting match between Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger and powerful members of Congress that extended right up to the final Fiscal 1988 budget authorization in July 1987.
