A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Station
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old December 10th 04, 11:18 PM
Scott Hedrick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.


  #32  
Old December 10th 04, 11:20 PM
Scott Hedrick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.


  #33  
Old December 10th 04, 11:20 PM
Scott Hedrick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.


  #34  
Old December 11th 04, 07:36 AM
George William Herbert
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.


Well... that's one interpretation. The word is overloaded,
in this discussion.

I think we have all clearly established that:
1) The Apollo CSM stack needed a SM as well as a SM
2) Only one SM structural model was produced
3) Other SM structural and systems models were proposed but not built
4) The systems loadout on the SMs which were built did vary considerably

The implication of whether you chose to call the Apollo CSM
"Modular" or "Separatable" or whatever is up to you.
I think that we have gone beyond any useful discussion on
the specific question of what it, physically, was and did.


-george william herbert


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Space station future adrift (Soyuz purchase crisis) Michael Kent Policy 1 December 3rd 04 06:26 AM
The Apollo Hoax FAQ (is not spam) :-) Nathan Jones Misc 6 July 29th 04 06:14 AM
Apollo Buzz alDredge Astronomy Misc 5 July 28th 04 10:05 AM
The Apollo Hoax FAQ darla UK Astronomy 11 July 25th 04 02:57 PM
Space Station Agency Leaders Look To The Future Ron Baalke Space Shuttle 0 July 30th 03 05:51 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.