#1
|
|||
|
|||
Soyuz for downmass
On Nov 10, 2:29*pm, Dr J R Stockton
wrote: The other need could have been satisfied by deciding, directly after Columbia's loss, to put a simplified Apollo-type capsule on one or more existing reliable Western launchers, as a short-term expedient for the ISS taxi job only. *Have two versions of the capsule; the second with all life support removed (including seats and heat-shield and launch escape) being a self-drive cargo ship like Progress. So what about Dragon? /dps |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Soyuz for downmass
In article bbda219e-d243-494c-9fb7-d41f78b1dd17
@o2g2000vbh.googlegroups.com, says... On Nov 10, 2:29*pm, Dr J R Stockton wrote: The other need could have been satisfied by deciding, directly after Columbia's loss, to put a simplified Apollo-type capsule on one or more existing reliable Western launchers, as a short-term expedient for the ISS taxi job only. *Have two versions of the capsule; the second with all life support removed (including seats and heat-shield and launch escape) being a self-drive cargo ship like Progress. So what about Dragon? Looks to be a good way to get significant downmass from ISS. http://www.spacex.com/dragon.php From above: 3,000 kg (6,614 lbs) payload down-mass That's huge compared to Soyuz downmass. The Russians are up to Soyuz TMA-M (replaced a lot of obsolete electronics with modern electronics resulting in power and mass savings), but I'm not sure what the exact downmass availability would be for this version, but from the picture below, it looks like most of the "boxes" replaced are not in the descent module, so this latest version likely can't carry much more downmass than previous versions. http://www.energia.ru/en/iss/soyuz-t...-tma-m_01.html Jeff -- 42 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Soyuz for downmass
In sci.space.station message bbda219e-d243-494c-9fb7-d41f78b1dd17@o2g20
00vbh.googlegroups.com, Mon, 15 Nov 2010 23:43:03, snidely posted: On Nov 10, 2:29*pm, Dr J R Stockton wrote: The other need could have been satisfied by deciding, directly after Columbia's loss, to put a simplified Apollo-type capsule on one or more existing reliable Western launchers, as a short-term expedient for the ISS taxi job only. *Have two versions of the capsule; the second with all life support removed (including seats and heat-shield and launch escape) being a self-drive cargo ship like Progress. So what about Dragon? Dragon is in the future. The paragraph quoted refers to the past. Mercury took about 3.5 years from project approval to manned orbit. With the knowledge gained from building Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, and parts of Shuttle, and with what had been learned about Soyuz, and from building unmanned vehicles it should have been possible to get something usable on a couple of years, by designing something simple and solid with plenty of mass margin. Dragon would then be its successor. -- (c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. Turnpike v6.05 MIME. Web http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQqish topics, acronyms and links; Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc. No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Soyuz for downmass
Na rijp beraad schreef Dr J R Stockton :
In sci.space.station message bbda219e-d243-494c-9fb7-d41f78b1dd17@o2g20 00vbh.googlegroups.com, Mon, 15 Nov 2010 23:43:03, snidely posted: On Nov 10, 2:29*pm, Dr J R Stockton wrote: The other need could have been satisfied by deciding, directly after Columbia's loss, to put a simplified Apollo-type capsule on one or more existing reliable Western launchers, as a short-term expedient for the ISS taxi job only. *Have two versions of the capsule; the second with all life support removed (including seats and heat-shield and launch escape) being a self-drive cargo ship like Progress. So what about Dragon? Dragon is in the future. The paragraph quoted refers to the past. Mercury took about 3.5 years from project approval to manned orbit. With the knowledge gained from building Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, and parts of Shuttle, and with what had been learned about Soyuz, and from building unmanned vehicles it should have been possible to get something usable on a couple of years, by designing something simple and solid with plenty of mass margin. Dragon would then be its successor. the difference with Mercury, Gemini, Apollo and Shuttle is the amount of funding. For Orion/Ares I, the designers investigated how the Apollo command- and service modules were mated (how all the connections were made). They had a look at a (then) flight ready Apollo C/SM on display. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Soyuz for downmass
On Nov 17, 1:22*pm, Dr J R Stockton
wrote: In sci.space.station message bbda219e-d243-494c-9fb7-d41f78b1dd17@o2g20 00vbh.googlegroups.com, Mon, 15 Nov 2010 23:43:03, snidely posted: On Nov 10, 2:29*pm, Dr J R Stockton wrote: The other need could have been satisfied by deciding, directly after Columbia's loss, to put a simplified Apollo-type capsule on one or more existing reliable Western launchers, as a short-term expedient for the ISS taxi job only. *Have two versions of the capsule; the second with all life support removed (including seats and heat-shield and launch escape) being a self-drive cargo ship like Progress. So what about Dragon? Dragon is in the future. The paragraph quoted refers to the past. *Mercury took about 3.5 years from project approval to manned orbit. *With the knowledge gained from building Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, and parts of Shuttle, and with what had been learned about Soyuz, and from building unmanned vehicles it should have been possible to get something usable on a couple of years, by designing something simple and solid with plenty of mass margin. Dragon would then be its successor. Well, we're about 3.5 years (or more) into the design of Dragon. And it may launch before the end of this calendar year. Which is a lot sooner than anything from NASA's shuttle-derived proposals will launch. NASA was thinking ACRV then OSP in 2002, before lurching in other directions. I'm not sure that they had any design teams to spare for capsule development at that time. /dps |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Soyuz for downmass
In sci.space.station message 454502aa-118f-4c4d-aec1-6a2186f318a1@f20g2
000yqi.googlegroups.com, Fri, 19 Nov 2010 19:08:12, snidely posted: On Nov 17, 1:22*pm, Dr J R Stockton wrote: In sci.space.station message bbda219e-d243-494c-9fb7-d41f78b1dd17@o2g20 00vbh.googlegroups.com, Mon, 15 Nov 2010 23:43:03, snidely posted: On Nov 10, 2:29*pm, Dr J R Stockton wrote: The other need could have been satisfied by deciding, directly after Columbia's loss, to put a simplified Apollo-type capsule on one or more existing reliable Western launchers, as a short-term expedient for the ISS taxi job only. *Have two versions of the capsule; the second with all life support removed (including seats and heat-shield and launch escape) being a self-drive cargo ship like Progress. So what about Dragon? Dragon is in the future. The paragraph quoted refers to the past. *Mercury took about 3.5 years from project approval to manned orbit. *With the knowledge gained from building Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, and parts of Shuttle, and with what had been learned about Soyuz, and from building unmanned vehicles it should have been possible to get something usable on a couple of years, by designing something simple and solid with plenty of mass margin. Dragon would then be its successor. Well, we're about 3.5 years (or more) into the design of Dragon. And it may launch before the end of this calendar year. Which is a lot sooner than anything from NASA's shuttle-derived proposals will launch. And from a smaller organisation lacking 50 years of corporate experience (which no doubt helped). NASA needs to concentrate on what it can currently produce quickly and reliably, rather than on taking Great Leaps Forward which might work in a decade. It needs, to get funding, to be doing things which promise visible results within the current Administration or before the next election. NASA was thinking ACRV then OSP in 2002, before lurching in other directions. I'm not sure that they had any design teams to spare for capsule development at that time. No doubt, in 2002. But the picture changed rather suddenly on 2003-02-01. -- (c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. Turnpike v6.05 MIME. Web http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQqish topics, acronyms and links; Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc. No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Soyuz for downmass
On Nov 21, 3:40*pm, Dr J R Stockton
wrote: In sci.space.station message 454502aa-118f-4c4d-aec1-6a2186f318a1@f20g2 000yqi.googlegroups.com, Fri, 19 Nov 2010 19:08:12, snidely posted: On Nov 17, 1:22*pm, Dr J R Stockton wrote: In sci.space.station message bbda219e-d243-494c-9fb7-d41f78b1dd17@o2g20 00vbh.googlegroups.com, Mon, 15 Nov 2010 23:43:03, snidely posted: On Nov 10, 2:29*pm, Dr J R Stockton wrote: The other need could have been satisfied by deciding, directly after Columbia's loss, to put a simplified Apollo-type capsule on one or more existing reliable Western launchers, as a short-term expedient for the ISS taxi job only. *Have two versions of the capsule; the second with all life support removed (including seats and heat-shield and launch escape) being a self-drive cargo ship like Progress. So what about Dragon? Dragon is in the future. The paragraph quoted refers to the past. *Mercury took about 3.5 years from project approval to manned orbit. *With the knowledge gained from building Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, and parts of Shuttle, and with what had been learned about Soyuz, and from building unmanned vehicles it should have been possible to get something usable on a couple of years, by designing something simple and solid with plenty of mass margin. Dragon would then be its successor. Well, we're about 3.5 years (or more) into the design of Dragon. *And it may launch before the end of this calendar year. *Which is a lot sooner than anything from NASA's shuttle-derived proposals will launch. And from a smaller organisation lacking 50 years of corporate experience (which no doubt helped). NASA needs to concentrate on what it can currently produce quickly and reliably, rather than on taking Great Leaps Forward which might work in a decade. *It needs, to get funding, to be doing things which promise visible results within the current Administration or before the next election. NASA was thinking ACRV then OSP in 2002, before lurching in other directions. *I'm not sure that they had any design teams to spare for capsule development at that time. No doubt, in 2002. *But the picture changed rather suddenly on 2003-02-01. And that's how CEV bubbled to the top, isn't it? /dps |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Expedition 15/Spaceflight Participant Farewell & Soyuz Hatch Closure / Soyuz Undocking from ISS | John[_1_] | Space Station | 0 | October 21st 07 10:02 AM |
Soyuz TMA-10 | Roland | Space Station | 0 | April 8th 07 07:58 PM |
Soyuz TMA-8 tle | Newfdog | Satellites | 3 | March 31st 06 07:21 PM |
US will NOT pay for Soyuz | Bob Haller | Space Shuttle | 13 | November 4th 05 09:59 AM |
US will NOT pay for Soyuz | John Doe | Space Station | 4 | October 17th 05 12:51 PM |