CEV PDQ

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...
It leads to a lot of assembly in orbit, more expense due to having to
design the vehicle in smaller pieces, and greater odds one component won't
make it to orbit, botching the whole assembly process- then there is the
turn-around time of the launchpad to consider.

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.

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...

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

If you wanted 10 houses a year built in an area where there are neither
roads nor building materials, a giant truck would look pretty attractive.

"Neil Gerace" wrote:

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...

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

If you wanted 10 houses a year built in an area where there are neither
roads nor building materials, a giant truck would look pretty attractive.

For it to be used only ten times a year would be a financial disaster.
Each house would end up with an unreasonably large extra cost in order to
pay for the truck. It's obviously more cost-effective to use standard
building techniques and existing smaller vehicles for such a task,
building standard roads for them, especially since the homeowners are
going to want roads anyway.

Get the house-building rate up another order of magnitude and maybe the
whole-house delivery truck starts to make sense, but you'd better have a
plan for recovering from a catastrophic "loss of truck" accident. Even at
the high building rate, a large fleet of small vehicles can be easier to
work with; replacing a single shipment of drywall or carpeting is a lot
simpler than building and delivering another whole house if there's a
problem.

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?

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

On 2005-05-10, Neil Gerace wrote:
"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.

The analogy isn't quite the same, though - this would be equivalent to
saying that there's a dead-zone during takeoff where you can't try to
do an emergency landing of the airliner, surely?

--
-Andrew Gray

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...

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.

They're sent around later on a Progress truck

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

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.