CEV PDQ

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2005 12:32:19 GMT, in a place far, far away, Reed
Snellenberger made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:


Rand Simberg wrote:

Last time I had a house built, I don't recall demanding that it be
delivered assembled on a giant truck.

So I'm guessing you didn't buy a modular home?


No, I didn't, and if I had, it would have been much smaller. Also,
I'm not aware that they come with furniture and appliances installed.

appliances, certainly -- and the lack of factory-installed furniture is
just a marketing decision, not a design requirement.

But it is true that a 5000 sq ft modular home will be delivered in
sections and assembled "on orbit"...

--
Reed Snellenberger
GPG KeyID: 5A978843
rsnellenberger-at-houston.rr.com

On Tue, 10 May 2005 05:22:29 GMT, h (Rand Simberg)
wrote:

On Tue, 10 May 2005 10:14:53 +0800, in a place far, far away, "Neil
Gerace" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
. ..

Which is one of the several reasons that STS (to the surprise of many)
is not "human rated."

Well, it happens to airliners too. An abort (all engines out, no control
surfaces responding) is often not survivable. But they are still allowed to
fly.

Because, unlike a vehicle that has to be essentially rebuilt each
time, and only flies a few times a year (if that), they are reliable.

What does rebuilding/not rebuilding have to do with a possible
designed-in vulnerability to catastrophic failure?

Dale

On Tue, 10 May 2005 21:03:07 +0800, "Neil Gerace"
wrote:

"Darren J Longhorn" wrote in message
.. .

Isn't that what happened to the Air France Concorde? Too fast and far
down the runway to abort, not enough power to successfully take off.

I think it did actually take off, but could not go around properly because
control was lost due to the fire.

That's what I meant by "successfully take off". They never gained
enough height to either go around or divert to another runway, which
is what IIRC the pilot tried to do.

Damon Hill wrote:

The Zarya 'super-Soyuz' would have been a great complement.
The FSU blew its budget on Buran instead.


Zarya's mass of landing rockets were supposed to have presented an
acoustical threat to it's crews hearing, so they probably would have had
to change the landing system some to get it to work; however it would
have got them to where they are with Kliper a decade or two earlier.

Pat

"Neil Gerace" wrote in
:

" wrote in
message ups.com...

the DIV has to fly an odd trajectory (due to structural
concerns) that means that there are points in the ascent when abort is
*not* survivable.

Is that bad? Seems to me that it happens to STS as well.

No. That's due to not being able to terminate the SRBs safely, not due to
trajectory as is the case with the D-IV.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

Henry Spencer wrote:


Exactly. LockMart wasn't going to use *any* of the existing hardware for
VentureStar, and they still concluded that it was cheaper to build new
launch facilities than to buy into maintaining the LC-39 standing army.


But the advantage is that with a Shuttle derived cargo carrier you can
orbit very large payloads in a single piece, as opposed to having to
build them from component parts in orbit. VentureStar had launch pad
simplicity, small infrastructure, manpower needs, and reusability on its
side, but it would have carried a far smaller payload than a SDCC per
launch- so that also has to be figured into both the economic aspect and
the mission capabilities that are desired if we really do intend to do a
manned Mars flight and build a Lunar base.

Pat

On Tue, 10 May 2005 08:15:48 -0500, Darren J Longhorn wrote
(in article ):

On Tue, 10 May 2005 21:03:07 +0800, "Neil Gerace"
wrote:

"Darren J Longhorn" wrote in message
...

Isn't that what happened to the Air France Concorde? Too fast and far
down the runway to abort, not enough power to successfully take off.

I think it did actually take off, but could not go around properly because
control was lost due to the fire.

That's what I meant by "successfully take off". They never gained
enough height to either go around or divert to another runway, which
is what IIRC the pilot tried to do.


It's been quite awhile since I've looked at the FARs, but it seems to
me that current aircraft are required to be able to either go around,
divert or abort the takeoff if they lose an engine at any time prior to
V2. On the other hand, the Concord incident resulted in a huge fire
and I would think probably fuel starvation to both engines on one side
due to the tremendous fuel leak.

--
Herb Schaltegger, GPG Key ID: BBF6FC1C
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, 1759
http://www.individual-i.com/

Henry Spencer wrote:


BAe's Multi-Role Capsule design, done in the mid-80s, with a capacity
of four people for normal flight and six in a lifeboat configuration,
almost entirely reusable (including propulsion), had an estimated launch
mass of 8t including escape tower.



As soon as you head toward an aerodynamic lifting body design over a
ballistic capsule, you put your weight way up versus your usable
payload capability. It really surprised me when LockMart chose a lifting
body design rather than a simple capsule, given the limited lift
capability that the prospective boosters for the CEV have.
It will be interesting to see which way Boeing goes with this.

Pat

wrote:

How about hanging 2 shuttle SRBs on each side of a Delta IV core?
Launch on the solids only a la Titan 4, airstart the CBC at altitude
(ok some nozzle work required there). Maybe add one of the new higher
powered upper stages when (if) they come on line. For cargo only
flights of course, this combo has gotta have a decent throw weight.



They've got designs going clean up to a cluster of seven Delta IV
booster stages as the first stage of a vehicle capable of putting 94
tons into LEO: http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/delde94t.htm

Pat

Neil Gerace wrote:



Whereas Saturn V carried all components up with it, ensuring that if one
component went tits up, all of the others would too - including the crew.


If the odds are even as regards the possibility of a individual vehicle
failure (say 90 percent reliability, which was probably what Saturn V
was good for), and you need all the parts for a successful mission, then
the fewer launches, the better.
We never had to find out if our escape systems worked, but the Soviets
had very good luck with theirs, including unmanned N-1 missions that
exploded.

Pat