What is the Crew Exploration Vehicle supposed to be?

In article ,
Edward Wright wrote:
Going back to the Lockheed-Martin proposed VentureStar the
proposal of Lock-Mart was for a "man in the can" approach
and NASA, at the time, didn't like it.

They liked it enough to give Lockheed over a billion dollars, as I recall.

That was for a technology demonstrator intended to lead to an unmanned
cargo vehicle. There was never any decision on whether development
funding for the passenger capsule to go in its cargo bay would follow the
"passengers in a can" approach or would require vehicle changes to include
manual piloting capability.

I also note that if the CEV is a capsule on top of an expendable
launcher the crew would have little control during the boost phase,

Why do you note that?
Apollo had an option to fly the booster manually.

*Control* doesn't mean much unless it actually gives you choices. The
Apollo manual-control option was just a backup for the automated systems;
particularly during the early part of ascent, it didn't actually give the
crew any useful *options*.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

(Henry Spencer) wrote in message ...

The NASA human-rating requirements are a bit of a joke, since no vehicle
has ever met them and possibly none ever will. If they get in the way of
what NASA decides to do about CEV, they will simply be rewritten.

If memory serves, X-38 had no manual-piloting option.

Not on landing. There would have been options for manual docking and
undocking at ISS. This may have been a contributing factor to the
demise of X-38. The astronauts were reportedly very unhappy with it.

(Henry Spencer) wrote in message ...

*Control* doesn't mean much unless it actually gives you choices. The
Apollo manual-control option was just a backup for the automated systems;
particularly during the early part of ascent, it didn't actually give the
crew any useful *options*.

Well, it gave them the option of continuing to orbit rather than
ejecting, which is arguably useful. :-)

On Fri, 6 Aug 2004 10:49:21 -0400, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:

Unfortunately the terminology brings to mind "missile with a man on it".
We're stuck with that philosophy as long as we've got partially reusable
systems.

Considering that the "missile with a man in it" was an F-104
Starfighter, I'm not sure what this has to do with safety. Very few
people on the ground were killed by F-104s, if any at all, even when
the Zipper was flown by regular pilots, not just test pilots. And
NASA never killed anyone on the ground with its F-104s, even though we
flew them for decades. The F-104 was entirely reusable, as a rule,
too.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

(Edward Wright) wrote in message . com...
"Dave O'Neill" dave @ NOSPAM atomicrazor . com wrote in message ...

Dave, why is it every time someone asks you why you think something,
you never answer but simply repeat the fact that you think it?

I'm trying to get them to think about things. It is harder than it ought to
be.

Perhaps you might try communicating, instead of forcing people to read your mind?

Perhaps you should try reading what has been written rather than what
you wanted to read.

Is that the way you sell computers?

I don't sell computers.

I'm not surprised. :-)

Mobile telecommunications software is far more profitable and
interesting.

Although I am flying far too much at the moment, which isn't giving me
much free time. Although, I have found walking away from all this
rather relaxing.

Dave

(Edward Wright) wrote in message . com...
"Dave O'Neill" dave @ NOSPAM atomicrazor . com wrote in message ...

In other word, my point being, they have done ok as niches because they
could rely on a pre-existing infrastructure. Space Tourism has to
develop
that from scratch.

Why? Do you think airports, hotels, resorts, and other infrastructure
are going to disappear?

Which orbital ones are these?

None.

What makes you think suborbital rockets require orbital aiports,
hotels, resorts, and infrastructure???

It doesn't - but I thought we were talking about the whole field of
"space tourism" and not just a narrow part of it.

Of course, if you want to keep changing the subject Ed...

(Dave O'Neill) wrote in message om...

What makes you think suborbital rockets require orbital aiports,
hotels, resorts, and infrastructure???

It doesn't - but I thought we were talking about the whole field of
"space tourism" and not just a narrow part of it.

Suborbital flight is not a "narrow part" of space tourism at present.
Nor does it require the "preexisting infrastructure" that you think is
a prerequisite for space tourism.

The fact that we don't have starships doesn't mean we can't do
anything.

(Dave O'Neill) wrote in message . com...

Although I am flying far too much at the moment, which isn't giving me
much free time.

If that's true, it may explain why you're uninterested in spaceflight.

I've never heard a pilot complain about getting too much flight time before.