Atlas V to be man-rated

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"bob haller" wrote in message
news:99a5ec5c-fb94-4928-a129-

delta heavy should be man rated too

You couldn't get me in one of those
for all the vodka in Russia!

Why? What's wrong with Delta IV Heavy?


Three times risky equals unmanned~

You're not providing data to support your assertion. Touchy feeley
assertions aren't "rocket science".


But a manned Delta heavy is a contradiction in terms.
How 'heavy' can a few astronauts be?



Jeff
--
" Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry
Spencer 1/28/2011

In article ,
says...

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"bob haller" wrote in message
news:99a5ec5c-fb94-4928-a129-

delta heavy should be man rated too

You couldn't get me in one of those
for all the vodka in Russia!

Why? What's wrong with Delta IV Heavy?


Three times risky equals unmanned~

You're not providing data to support your assertion. Touchy feeley
assertions aren't "rocket science".


But a manned Delta heavy is a contradiction in terms.
How 'heavy' can a few astronauts be?

It's not the astronauts that are heavy, it's Orion (or whatever they're
calling it today) that's heavy. Not that I agree with how heavy they've
made it...

Jeff
--
" Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry
Spencer 1/28/2011

On Jul 21, 5:21*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...







"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
says...

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
says...

"bob haller" wrote in message
news:99a5ec5c-fb94-4928-a129-

delta heavy should be man rated too

You couldn't get me in one of those
for all the vodka in Russia!

Why? *What's wrong with Delta IV Heavy?

Three times risky equals unmanned~

You're not providing data to support your assertion. *Touchy feeley
assertions aren't "rocket science".

But a manned Delta heavy is a contradiction in terms.
How 'heavy' can a few astronauts be?

It's not the astronauts that are heavy, it's Orion (or whatever they're
calling it today) that's heavy. *Not that I agree with how heavy they've
made it...

It's big because it has to be. It has to support a crew of four for up
to three weeks, or more on it's own during deep space missions. If
you've ever been near the mock ups of the capsule, you'd really get an
idea of just how big it really is. The photos do not do it justice.
-Mike

In article 9df0335a-2fd9-4782-860f-
, says...

On Jul 21, 5:21*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:

It's not the astronauts that are heavy, it's Orion (or whatever they're
calling it today) that's heavy. *Not that I agree with how heavy they've
made it...

It's big because it has to be. It has to support a crew of four for up
to three weeks, or more on it's own during deep space missions. If
you've ever been near the mock ups of the capsule, you'd really get an
idea of just how big it really is. The photos do not do it justice.

I don't agree that the launch and entry vehicle needs to be this big.
It certainly doesn't need to be this big for an ISS type mission.
Missions calling for "long duration" ought to have a separate module for
living, experiments, life support, and etc.

Jeff
--
" Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry
Spencer 1/28/2011

On 7/22/2011 9:46 AM, Mike DiCenso wrote:

It's big because it has to be. It has to support a crew of four for up
to three weeks, or more on it's own during deep space missions. If
you've ever been near the mock ups of the capsule, you'd really get an
idea of just how big it really is. The photos do not do it justice.

It would have been a lot smaller and lighter for its internal volume if
they hadn't slavishly copied the Apollo CM shape with its giant
heatshield, but rather gone over to something shaped more like Dragon or
the Soyuz RV design.

Pat

On 7/22/2011 10:51 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
I don't agree that the launch and entry vehicle needs to be this big.
It certainly doesn't need to be this big for an ISS type mission.
Missions calling for "long duration" ought to have a separate module for
living, experiments, life support, and etc.

So we buy some Soyuz orbital modules, and then... :-D
Just how much better the Soyuz multi-module approach worked than the
Apollo CM when it came to weight versus internal volume is discussed
he http://www.friends-partners.org/part...tfam/soyuz.htm

"The end result of this design approach was remarkable. The Apollo
capsule designed by NASA had a mass of 5,000 kg and provided the crew
with six cubic meters of living space. A service module, providing
propulsion, electricity, radio, and other equipment would add at least
1,800 kg to this mass for the circumlunar mission. The Soyuz spacecraft
for the same mission provided the same crew with 9 cubic meters of
living space, an airlock, and the service module for the mass of the
Apollo capsule alone!"

Pat

Jeff Findley writes:

I don't agree that the launch and entry vehicle needs to be this big.
It certainly doesn't need to be this big for an ISS type mission.
Missions calling for "long duration" ought to have a separate module for
living, experiments, life support, and etc.

One could say it exactly repeats the mistakes made with the Shuttle...


Jochem

--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

On 7/23/2011 3:06 PM, Jochem Huhmann wrote:
Jeff writes:

I don't agree that the launch and entry vehicle needs to be this big.
It certainly doesn't need to be this big for an ISS type mission.
Missions calling for "long duration" ought to have a separate module for
living, experiments, life support, and etc.

One could say it exactly repeats the mistakes made with the Shuttle...

It's closer to Apollo, optimized in size for a four-person Moon mission
that is unfunded at the moment
How they ever intended it to get to Mars without being docked to a
really big cargo module full of supplies is beyond me.

Pat

On Jul 24, 2:21*am, Pat Flannery wrote:
On 7/23/2011 3:06 PM, Jochem Huhmann wrote:

Jeff *writes:

I don't agree that the launch and entry vehicle needs to be this big.
It certainly doesn't need to be this big for an ISS type mission.
Missions calling for "long duration" ought to have a separate module for
living, experiments, life support, and etc.

One could say it exactly repeats the mistakes made with the Shuttle...

It's closer to Apollo, optimized in size for a four-person Moon mission
that is unfunded at the moment
How they ever intended it to get to Mars without being docked to a
really big cargo module full of supplies is beyond me.

Pat

theres really no need and little money for heavy lifter, let alone
funding a long duration off world flight......

nasa and congress just want a big project, but sadly its destination
is no where.........

In article
tatelephone,
says...

On 7/22/2011 10:51 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
I don't agree that the launch and entry vehicle needs to be this big.
It certainly doesn't need to be this big for an ISS type mission.
Missions calling for "long duration" ought to have a separate module for
living, experiments, life support, and etc.

So we buy some Soyuz orbital modules, and then... :-D
Just how much better the Soyuz multi-module approach worked than the
Apollo CM when it came to weight versus internal volume is discussed
he http://www.friends-partners.org/part...tfam/soyuz.htm

"The end result of this design approach was remarkable. The Apollo
capsule designed by NASA had a mass of 5,000 kg and provided the crew
with six cubic meters of living space. A service module, providing
propulsion, electricity, radio, and other equipment would add at least
1,800 kg to this mass for the circumlunar mission. The Soyuz spacecraft
for the same mission provided the same crew with 9 cubic meters of
living space, an airlock, and the service module for the mass of the
Apollo capsule alone!"

Soyuz critics typically point to how "cramped" the descent module is on
a Soyuz. I don't find this criticism terribly damaging, considering how
little time the crew has to spend strapped into the couches. The rest
of the time, they've got the orbital module as living space.

I personally like SpaceX's approach taken with Dragon. It uses the more
efficient gumdrop shape but scales it up. This eliminates the separate
orbital module, simplifying the design. But the biggest advantage is
that Dragon can return far larger payloads than Soyuz.

Jeff
--
" Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry
Spencer 1/28/2011