Another way to CEV.

Use the existing NON man rated Delta! Yeah thats right, dont man rate
the delta.

Build the CEV robust enough to survive delta booster failures! at most
just look at delta upgrades that might kill a crew and do them. accept
the occasional launch and mission failure as part of life, since the
crew will survive. Note this also helps the inevitable man rated
failure. Even at 99.99 that .01 percent can kill. With this arrangement
its more likely the crew will survive, since their capsule was designed
to survive all sorts of booster failures!

This one move saves a ton on re engineering the delta for man rating,
while allowing the real money to go into the actual CEV capsule and
service module.Should shave years from devlopment too.

Bob Haller wrote:
Use the existing NON man rated Delta! Yeah thats right, dont man rate
the delta.

Build the CEV robust enough to survive delta booster failures! at most
just look at delta upgrades that might kill a crew and do them. accept
the occasional launch and mission failure as part of life, since the
crew will survive. Note this also helps the inevitable man rated
failure. Even at 99.99 that .01 percent can kill. With this arrangement
its more likely the crew will survive, since their capsule was designed
to survive all sorts of booster failures!

This one move saves a ton on re engineering the delta for man rating,
while allowing the real money to go into the actual CEV capsule and
service module.Should shave years from devlopment too.


I thought the whole idea with boosting the CEV with derived Shuttle
components was the fact that the Shuttle components are already man-rated?

And making the CEV or any vessel robust enough to withstand a booster
failure would also make it quite a bit heavier. Easier and safer to use
a Mercury or Apollo style escape tower at the top of the capsule--which
is exactly what the plan is for CEV.

I thought the whole idea with boosting the CEV with derived Shuttle
components was the fact that the Shuttle components are already
man-rated?
---------------------------------------------------------
Maybe its just me but I DONT like solids on a manned vehicle, because
they have no off switch....
==============================
And making the CEV or any vessel robust enough to withstand a booster
failure would also make it quite a bit heavier. Easier and safer to use

a Mercury or Apollo style escape tower at the top of the capsule--which

is exactly what the plan is for CEV.
------------------------------------------------------------

Certinally use a escape tower on the non man rated booster. then add
some additional robustness, so a delta failure couldnt kill the crew.

accept a occasional booster failure as a cost of doing business, with
the crew surviving the event.

cheaper to lose a occasional delta, than man rate every one. tons of
design changes, triple inspections on everything. besides failures will
occur anyway. cant achieve 100% of anything.

wonder what a capsule would need to better survive a booster
malfunction?

Bob Haller wrote:

Use the existing NON man rated Delta! Yeah thats right, dont man rate
the delta.

Would the Michoud facility employees be out of the job ? If so, NASA
and politicians would have to find some really good excuse to make the
economic situation of New Orleans worse.

A big part of NASA is pork and job creation. Short term political issues
unfortunatly often override long term logical decisions.

yeah lots of people would lose their jobs

Do you want long term pork?

Or should the space program REALLY DO SOMETHING?

I think the budget should grow, and turn all those displaced workers
into a dramatic robotic program, sending rovers and ong term orbiters
all over the slar system.

that would be a lot easier if the cost to orbit dropped a lot

"Bob Haller" wrote in message
ups.com...

I thought the whole idea with boosting the CEV with derived Shuttle
components was the fact that the Shuttle components are already
man-rated?
---------------------------------------------------------
Maybe its just me but I DON'T like solids on a manned vehicle, because
they have no off switch....

Like a "Roman candle" ? Makes the phrase "light this candle" ... very
realistic.

About 1500 AD, around the middle of the Ming Dynasty -- legend talks about a
Chinese stargazer named Wan Hu.
Wan dreamed of going "where no man had gone before" and set out to turn that
dream into space age reality. Picking up on China's recently developed
expertise in rocketry, he took up the task of building himself a space ship.
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/TECH/spa...0/china.wanhu/

==============================
And making the CEV or any vessel robust enough to withstand a booster
failure would also make it quite a bit heavier. Easier and safer to use
a Mercury or Apollo style escape tower at the top of the capsule --
which is exactly what the plan is for CEV.
------------------------------------------------------------
Certainly use a escape tower on the non man rated booster. then add
some additional robustness, so a delta failure couldn't kill the crew.
Accept a occasional booster failure as a cost of doing business, with
the crew surviving the event.

It is cheaper to lose a occasional Delta 4, than man rate every one, with
tons of
design changes, triple inspections on everything. besides failures will
occur anyway. cant achieve 100% of anything.

Wonder what a capsule would need to better survive a booster malfunction?


Russians have that data (and live crews) - thanks to Max Faget.

"gb" wrote:


"Bob Haller" wrote in message
oups.com...

I thought the whole idea with boosting the CEV with derived Shuttle
components was the fact that the Shuttle components are already
man-rated?
---------------------------------------------------------
Maybe its just me but I DON'T like solids on a manned vehicle, because
they have no off switch....

Bbo, when you grow up and actually learn something about solids,
you'll find that they do indeed have an off switch.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

"Bob Haller" wrote in message
oups.com...
yeah lots of people would lose their jobs

Do you want long term pork?

By it's very nature, government is long-term pork.

shouldnt it accomplish something too?

"Bob Haller" wrote in message
ups.com...
shouldnt it accomplish something too?

It does. It spends your tax money. Haven't you noticed?