Multinational Common Capsule

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
optimum size and crew complement, and could elements of existing/
canceled programs such as Constellation, ATV, and HTV be re-used?

On Mar 18, 11:40�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.

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
� � � � � � � � � � � � � �-- Charles Pinckney

ONE or more countries should build the capsule and service module,
selling it at cost for all other partners.

and make it compatible with all available boosters.

: :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.

:
: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.

any country would be free to go it alone at any time. but there are
major advantages to multiple boosters for capsules.

so how many new booster models come out each year?

booster failure doesnt mean man in space is grounded.

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......

wrote:
If the canceled Orion program is replaced by a multinational common
capsule program

It won't.

Don't overlook the hassle of unit conversion. Orion is being built on
the English system, every other space power would be pushing a system
built on metric units.

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

Your straw whore. �YOU **** it.

:
o you REALLY want any country perodically grounded? due to booster
roblems?
:

Do you really want EVERY country grounded due to capsule problems? �

Actually, yeah, I think you do.

:
bviously you favor a bloated budget buster program thats not
:affordable.
:

Your straw whore. �YOU **** it.

:
:the alternative is no man in space
:

Then we don't need boosters, either.



yoo fred, when anyone gets really mad I know I made the point

all you care about is your piece of federal pork piggie project.

while you fail to realize the bigger picture

the combination of way too many pork piggies is bankrupting our nation:
(

Its not just nasa its all of the wasteful spending combined!

NASA had its chance to prevent this if they had choosen using existing
expendables.

But no they demanded their own dedicated launcher thats now crashed
and burned, ala challenger.

only this fireball isnt killing the challenger crew, its wiping out
nasas manned space program.

and your too $#%^ to consider another way a affordable
alternative.......

sop instead you will get zip and lose your job anyway.

have you noticed our country is bankrupt????

no but i've noticed you're a moron who doesn't know the meaning of
words like 'bankrupt'....


http://www.usdebtclock.org/

now fred what does this link tell you?

we as a nation are headed to bankruptcy.

if america has a real recovery inflation will skyrocket,

Personally I doubt we will have mucxh of a recovery at all, just a
long mailse, with the economy stimulated by big deficit spending.

fred I know this is complicated, its like a family unable to pay their
ongoiing bills contemplating buying a new larger home.

we had that it helped crash our economy