CEV PDQ

Will you two just plonk each other and be done with it?


Why are you repeating what I just said? You're
pathological urge to argue is making you even less
coherent than usual.

Of course, that kind of answer is too
complicated for Rand's typically-terse responses.

Right back atcha.

If you made more sense, perhaps your terseness would
serve some purpose. Otherwise it's just more confusing.

On Tue, 17 May 2005 09:03:47 -0500, in a place far, far away, Herb
Schaltegger made the
phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

On Tue, 17 May 2005 11:30:19 -0500, Rand Simberg wrote
(in article ):

t might save you money in development since, as you've stated
yourself, vast amounts of manpower were invested in designing systems
to not require it.

And "vast amounts of manpower" are somehow NOT invested in EVA
planning, procedures, training, procedures and requirements creation,
plus the design effort to even allow for EVA in the first place?

It may be less vast. As I said, it's a trade.

rest of condescending Bravo Sierra snipped, as usual

On Tue, 17 May 2005 09:15:39 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Ami
Silberman" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

So we don't care if we lose a billion-dollar payload? Or the price of
relaunching?

This notion of reliability being of no relevance for unmanned systems
gets tiresome.


Not to the same degree... for a manned launch you want around 99+%
reliability if at all possible; for unmanned you can settle for 95%-97%
(like most operational expendable rockets have) and realize that the loss
of a couple in 100 launches will be more than offset by the money you
save in not having to design and build to quite the high standards
required to get to 99+%. It's where those last few percentage points start
coming into play that you run into lots of added dollars- and extra
equipment weight to overbuild things to make critical things redundant.
Which cuts into your payload weight, and therefore ups your launch price
per pound for large numbers of launches.

Pat

Also, for a manned launch, you want to make sure that loss of vehicle
doesn't result in loss of crew.

You mean like with airliners?

On Tue, 17 May 2005 12:31:57 -0500, Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote
(in article
):


Will you two just plonk each other and be done with it?


Why are you repeating what I just said? You're
pathological urge to argue is making you even less
coherent than usual.

Of course, that kind of answer is too
complicated for Rand's typically-terse responses.

Right back atcha.

If you made more sense, perhaps your terseness would
serve some purpose. Otherwise it's just more confusing.


I tried but the new newsreader's killfiles are wonky.

No one's making you follow along, dear.

--
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/

In sci.space.history Derek Lyons wrote:
meiza wrote:

The big vehicle crash was due to propellant
depletion because of warming up the engines before the flight
and not having a propellant gauge.

Are you referring to the August 2004? That crash was due to
continuing to operate the craft *despite failure indications during
warmup*.

Yes, the broken engine was what caused the problem of losing two
thirds of the propellant in the warmup sequence. They didn't
understand at the time it had used so much, but launched anyway.
They wouldn't have launched if they had had a propellant
gauge or if they had been more prudent. It would probably have
worked if it just had had enough fuel.

Here's a quote from the august 8 2004 update from
http://www.armadilloaerospace.com/n....ws?news_id=272
-
From analyzing the telemetry (integrating the chamber pressure
during the flight), it looks like it wasted two thirds of the
propellant on the warmup. If it had lifted off with a normal
warmup, it would have landed ok even with the rough throttling,
but we would have been in violation of the 15 second burn time
limit by the time it landed. There was twice as much propellant
loaded as this flight should have required, which I thought was
enough to cover any off-nominal conditions, but we obviously should
have scrubbed when the warmup didnt catch after the second or third
try. We are going to look into getting a continuous capacitive
level sensor next time so we can have a firm no-go line for liftoff.
-

After they crashed the next big vehicle (although it was tethered)
because of inconsistent and not-lasting engine characteristics
(you would have to change the hotpack between flights) again, they
abandoned coated catalysts and now develop lox-methanol engines.

--
-meiza

On Mon, 16 May 2005 23:01:56 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Scott
Hedrick" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Tell that to Burt Rutan.

Tell Burt to get back to us when he's designing an orbital-capable
spacecraft with planned vacuum/micro-g EVA assembly, which is the
topic
you keep evading, Mr. Strawman.

Actually, I'd be surprised if he isn't at least working on the former.
I know of some working on the latter.

Name them, and provide verifiable references.

Why?

To support your claims, of course.

What "claims"? How is "I wouldn't be surprised" a claim?

This from the guy who keeps telling *me* to take a class in logic.

That's right. I repeat the admonition.

On Mon, 16 May 2005 23:22:54 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Scott
Hedrick" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:


"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
.. .
And you think that I don't make a living communicating?

So *that's* why you're acting the way you do here- you're not getting paid.

Once again, that doesn't follow. You know, that pesky logic thing?

Perhaps you'd be better off if you spent more time making a living, then,
and less time posting.

I'm capable of doing both.

The group certainly would.

May be, but I wouldn't take your word for it.

On Tue, 17 May 2005 09:55:54 -0500, in a place far, far away, Herb
Schaltegger made the
phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

On Tue, 17 May 2005 12:39:27 -0500, Rand Simberg wrote
(in article ):

Also, for a manned launch, you want to make sure that loss of vehicle
doesn't result in loss of crew.

You mean like with airliners?

There are many hull loss aircraft accidents that don't result in loss
of crew (or passengers).

And there are many that don't, so obviously they don't "make sure"
that it doesn't happen..

Of course, that kind of answer is too
complicated for Rand's typically-terse responses.

Right back atcha.

On Mon, 16 May 2005 23:01:56 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Scott
Hedrick" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Tell that to Burt Rutan.

Tell Burt to get back to us when he's designing an orbital-capable
spacecraft with planned vacuum/micro-g EVA assembly, which is the
topic
you keep evading, Mr. Strawman.

Actually, I'd be surprised if he isn't at least working on the former.
I know of some working on the latter.

Name them, and provide verifiable references.

Why?

To support your claims, of course.

Oh, I just realized that you were perhaps referring to the second part
of the statement. I'll let him speak for himself, but I was under the
impression that George Herbert has an interest in that subject. I
can't mention others due to confidentiality, but George has discussed
this here in the past.

On Tue, 17 May 2005 10:42:23 -0500, in a place far, far away, Herb
Schaltegger made the
phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

On Tue, 17 May 2005 13:30:16 -0500, Rand Simberg wrote
(in article ):

There are many hull loss aircraft accidents that don't result in loss
of crew (or passengers).

And there are many that don't, so obviously they don't "make sure"
that it doesn't happen..

Why are you repeating what I just said?

Because I mistyped (I'm sure you never do that). I meant plenty that
do.