On Mar 19, 4:28�am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
" wrote:
:
: : :If the canceled Orion program is replaced by a multinational common
: : :capsule program that seeks to build a vehicle capable of being
: : :launched by Delta IV, Atlas V, Ariane, and H-IIB, what would be the
: : 
ptimum size and crew complement, and could elements of existing/
: : :canceled programs such as Constellation, ATV, and HTV be re-used?
: :
: : It doesn't matter what the optimum size, etc, would be. ?It would
: : never get built anyway. ?The entire budget would get consumed in
: : wrangling about who built what parts and how much profit each country
: : got out of it.
: :
: :
: :ONE or more countries ?should build the capsule and service module,
: :selling it at cost for all other partners.
: :
:
: Except nobody would agree to that.
:
:
:it makes no sense to run 5 seperate very low volume programs manned
:capsules, when just a couple can do the job. In the world economy
:fiancial efficency must be a priority.
:
There is no 'world economy' in the sense you're trying to use the
phrase.
::
: :and make it compatible with all available boosters.
: :
:
: So there will never be another booster? ?Or we'll limit all future
: boosters to reflect the current ones?
:
: Not very bright (again), Mr Haller.
:
:
:Any new booster could be designed to accept the common capsule bus.
:
So you impose the limitations of current boosters on future boosters.
:
:any country would be free to go it alone at any time. but there are
:major advantages to multiple boosters for capsules.
:
Just as there are advantages to multiple capsules per booster. �So
what?
:
:so how many new booster models come out each year?
:
How many fewer would come out in the situation you're describing?
:
:booster failure doesnt mean man in space is grounded.
:
It never has. �'Booster failure' has only ever meant one country was
grounded. �But capsule failure in your paradigm grounds everyone
rather than just one player. �You've just elected to design in a
single point of failure.
:
:your ideas would be fine if money were no object, but realistically
:money is of primary importance. sorry you are living in la la land,
:confined to a box which isnt your friend......
:
Poor Haller. �Still an ignorant ****wit after all these years...
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
�truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �-- Thomas Jefferson
Yeah and no doubt docking should be a seperate non compatible system
too.
You are just attempting to protect nasa jobs, without looking at
reality.
Do you REALLY want any country perodically grounded? due to booster
problems?
what the max need for manned capsule launches per year? 10? 20?
At higher flight rates economies of scale become real cost savers.
with 5 countries each flying perhaps 5 times a year no econonies of
scale will ever occur.
obviously you favor a bloated budget buster program thats not
affordable.
the alternative is no man in space