Felxibility of Apollo design (was Space station future adrift (Soyuz purchase crisis) )

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 07:43:03 GMT, (Derek Lyons)
wrote:

Frankly, bugger right off.

....No, no, no, D. That's "To be blunt, you can go **** yourself. After
that, you can go to Hell. Do not pass 'GO', do no collect $200.00!{

Please, try to be more accurate with your epithets...
OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

Derek Lyons wrote:

Also, you might consider leaving the lawyer routine to Herb. For
one thing, he's better at it than you are.

At least I'm thinking and exploring the design path....

Not really. You wrote something without thinking it through, as
everyone does from time to time, but decided to play word games when you
were rightfully challenged.

Had I compared you to the Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland ("When I
use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone," it means
just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."), you might
have cause for complaint. By comparing you to Herb, I was actually
comparing you to good company. It was hardly an insult, in any case.

FWIW, wasn't there an FAQ entry somewhere that advised sci.space
participants that if Henry disagrees with them there's a far better than
average chance that he isn't the one who is wrong? That would certainly
seem to be the case here.

Next topic, please.

--
Dave Michelson

Derek Lyons wrote:

Is a very brief portion of the total mission, not the total mission.
Without a SM, you'll never complete the mission and get to reenter.

Modular implies simple, clean interfaces, not self sufficiency.

A software analogy might be helpful here.

--
Dave Michelson

OM wrote:

...MPC's "Pilgrim-Observer" kit. Rather an interesting kit for its
time, and one that could easily be modified to be a bit more
plausible. Of course, it *did* have that staircase in Zero-G that made
a 'lot' of sense.



Never could understand that either. In fact, the whole central area
seemed too spacious, and designed to be stylish rather than functional.

Pat

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
(Henry Spencer) wrote:
And likewise, designing a modular system which ends up only existing in
one version isn't the same as designing a non-modular system.

sigh It's not like you Henry to not actually read and comprehend
the initial post.

When you do, you note the modularity is defined as 'being able to
leave bits not needed behind', something the Apollo spacecraft is
decidedly not able to do. Whether it's the super-heavy J mission SM,
or the ultra lightweight CRV SM, the CM is wedded always and forever
to a SM.

You're missing the point. The interfaces between the CM and the SM were
just that, interfaces. It would have been perfectly possible to substitute
a different (smaller) SM for Skylab. It would just have to provide the same
sort of services as the lunar CM (power, O2, water, propulsion, and etc).

Just because there was essentially only one CM design (Block II CSM) and one
SM design, does not negate the fact that the design is inheriently modular.

When writing software, I always try to design modular interfaces, even if
the current project only calls for one use of said interfaces. It sure
makes implementing future projects easier.


Note how the Russians have used Soyuz over the years. In addition to
Progress (essentially a Soyuz with an unpressurized cargo area replacing the
descent module), there have been numerous unmanned Soyuz derivatives. The
delivery of Pirs to ISS was made by a Soyuz/Progress propulsion module.

Hint: Lacking formal naming terminology, names mean little. Gemini
also had 'modules', but wasn't modular either.

Sure it was. Take a look at how Gemini would have been used on top of MOL.
The modules behind the manned reentry module were much different than the
original Gemini. These differences are very similar to those between a
lunar SM and the proposed smaller SM for earth orbiting missions.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

Dave Michelson wrote:

Derek Lyons wrote:

Is a very brief portion of the total mission, not the total mission.
Without a SM, you'll never complete the mission and get to reenter.

Modular implies simple, clean interfaces, not self sufficiency.

Modular implies the ability to swap parts in and out at will. In this
instance, the modularity (as defined in the original post) does not
seem to match either this definition, or the spacecraft as designed.

A clean interface is desireable, but not a requirement.

A software analogy might be helpful here.

No more helpful than a veterinary analogy, or a home economics
analogy.

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

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

It doesn't detract from the fact that the government had given NASA a single
mandate: Send a man to the moon and bring him back to earth alive.

The engineers may have designed some flexibility in the Apollo system.
However, had the engineers wanted a feature that was not ncessary for the moon
shots and which would have slowed the development of Apollo, or weighten it
down too much, that feature would have been refused.

What was left in Apollo which gave it some flexibility for other missions
happened to have been stuff needed for the moon shot.

The fact is that NASA has spread its wings and now requires far more
versatility in space than it did in the 1960s.

It may be fart easier for NASA to ask for funding for a single vehicle capable
of accomplishing all its missions. Question is whether NASA will be able to
deliver such a vehicle before funding is cut because of cost overruns as the
result of NASA wanting to build somethin that was more than it could handle.

It would be far better for NASA, in my opinion, to sart small abd built a very
simple escape pod that wouldn't cost much and woudln't take 10 years to build.
Something they could be succesful at. Then they may be able to look at
something bigger, and Congress would be more likely to approve it based on the
fact that NASA was able to actually complet some project on time and on budget
(more or less).

Since the Shuttle, NASA has not been able to bring any manned projects to
completion because each time, they tried to take on too big a task, had
delays, mechanical setbacks and cost overruns which eventually cause Congress
to can the project.

If NASA wants CEV to be all things to all people, chances are that the project
will fail just like all the shuttle replacement projects to date.

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...

Reentry.


Is a very brief portion of the total mission, not the total mission.
Without a SM, you'll never complete the mission and get to reenter.

I believe you said: "the CM is wedded always and forever to a SM."

Not only is this not true, but in fact there is a portion of *each and every
mission* in which, if it were true, it would lead to a loss of the vehicle
and crew.

"John Doe" wrote in message ...
It would be far better for NASA, in my opinion, to sart small abd built a
very
simple escape pod that wouldn't cost much and woudln't take 10 years to
build.

Write a check. And I'm not talking about taxes.

If you want it done, provide the money in a manner that does not allow
Congress to fiddle with it.

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
Please just admit that you were wrong and be done with it.

When I'm wrong, I generally do so.

However disagreeing is not the same as being wrong.

Lately, you've been wrong *and* disagreeable.