CEV PDQ

On Sun, 15 May 2005 03:06:27 -0500, Derek Lyons wrote
(in article ):

Nobody has suggested, except in
your strawmen, that we stop, or slow down, or anything to current
plans - but rather that we look to future needs and goals rather than
being bogged down by what was impossible yesterday.

"Nobody" except everyone who replies to the topic and keeps trying to
make points (blunt little nubbins, actually, since they don't seem to
recognize "points" at all) about past contingency EVA (which isn't what
I've been discussing) or future hypothetical "not hard EVA"
capabilities as applied to present-day design efforts or
mission-oriented EVA for which there is no easy alternative (such as
designing to avoid it).

Furthermore, what was impossible yesterday remains impossible today and
tomorrow, until time, money and effort is expended in changing it.
None of that is happening now so discussing it in the context of CEV
architectures which ARE being defined now is silly, bordering on
stupid.

--
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/

Pat Flannery wrote:


Dave Michelson wrote:




- "Another indicator is that all of the environmental sample and gas
sample seals failed because of dust. By the time they reached earth the
samples were so contaminated as to be worthless."



This makes the Lunar dust sound not only highly abrasive, but almost
corrosive. There was the "gunpowder smell' when it was exposed to the
LM's atmosphere. Did NASA have any way to check if it was chemically
active enough to damage materials it came in contact with in its natural
vacuum state?

Pat

You get that gunpowder smell with any number of processes.

Particularly, particulate matter along the lines of what can
cause silicosis can have a chemical smell as it coats the
nasal passages.

I suspect that the exposure of particulate matter of the size
of lunar dust is going to be a significant problem and the
whole chemistry and how it effects people and equipment is
pretty much completely unknown.

Pat Flannery wrote in
:

Jorge R. Frank wrote:

Sorry you find it upsetting. Yes, I'm picking on Pat. So are Chuck and
Derek. We're picking on him because he's spouting conspiracist
nonsense.

BTW, A Google search showed that I'm not the only one who thought
there might be a DART/ASAT connection:
http://www.cissm.umd.edu/documents/A...y%20Operations.
pdf http://www.inesap.org/bulletin23/art03.htm
http://www.issi.org.pk/strategic_stu...article/5a.htm
http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/about...y_Workshop.pdf

Nice try, Pat. The first, second, and fourth links are by the same author,
Jeffrey Lewis, and are all practically the same article (pray tell, did you
*read* them?). He merely notes that DART has autonomous prox ops
capability, and nowhere in his articles does he attempt to connect DART
with an ASAT program. He certainly provides no evidence to support such a
link. The third link references (and quotes) the Jeffrey Lewis article.

--
JRF

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

rk wrote in
:

Jeff Findley wrote:


"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message
...
"Jeff Findley" wrote in
:

You do realize that the CEV program is using an iterative
(spirals) approach, not the traditional waterfall (parallel design
of *everything* needed) approach that Apollo used?

Well, maybe. Griffin's latest move seems to be toward eliminating
the spirals in order to get CEV flying by 2010.

Ack! I don't like the sound of that. :-(

personal opinion

I liked less the fact that it would take 4 years for the first
unmanned flight and then an additional 6 or so years to the first
manned flight.

I also did not like completing the space station and then having now
way to get up and down.

I also did not like having multiple years of no capability of manned
flight.

It's a tradeoff, as are all decisions. On the one hand, you have reduced
hiatus between the shuttle and CEV, uninterrupted access to ISS, and less
workforce disruption.

On the other hand, you have increased upfront costs for CEV, which Griffin
has acknowledged will result in more science/aeronautics programs being
cut/delayed. You also have a strong potential for design decisions being
locked in too early, which could lead to expensive rework if those
decisions turn out to be wrong.

The spirals approach was one of the few things I actually liked about
the CEV program. At each spiral, you get the chance to find and
actually correct deficiencies.

Other approaches, properly managed, do not prevent that. For
something like Apollo, they had Block I and II spacecraft. They had
Block I and II AGC's. They had significant modifications to the LM's
for the later missions.

Personally, I don't see a strong reason why acceleration of CEV LEO/ISS
capability necessarily means an end to the spiral approach. The 2010
delivery could simply become a different spiral.

--
JRF

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

On Sun, 15 May 2005 08:11:40 GMT, (Derek Lyons)
wrote:

Much has been written in these groups about the wear and tear, but if
we are going to use it as quantifiable measurment, then we need to
quantify it.

....And to quantify it, we need more tests. Which means *going* there.

Congrats, D - you just gave an inarguable justification for going back
to the Moon: we can't truly test equipment for the environment without
actually being *in* the actual environment.

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

Pat Flannery wrote in
:

Chuck Stewart wrote:

Well, your question is your problem

If you remove the "get into a stable orbit" part, which is irrelevant
to the mission profile, then your question becomes:

"would there really have been enough time to launch, release a
satellite and re-enter all in one orbit?"

And the answer is yes.

Was there any particular reason to do it this way, rather than just take
your time, get the satellite deployed, go around a few more times and
land back at Edward's?

If you take multiple orbits, you give the Soviets opportunity to track the
shuttle (and its payload) and determine its orbit.

With the single-orbit mission, you still can't hide the fact of the launch,
but you can deny the Soviets the ability to track the shuttle's trajectory.
Once the payload is deployed, it can use an upper stage to maneuver into a
different orbit altogether, making it very hard to identify and track.

This was thought to be a desirable capability since the US had (still has)
very few reconsats, whose orbits were all well known to the USSR. So if the
Soviets had any activities they wanted to hide, they could time such
operations to avoid the known flyover times of the US reconsats. Having a
"stealth" reconsat would provide better odds of catching them in the act.

Were they trying to maximize the payload they
could carry by going suborbital and letting the reconsat use a booster
to take it into its intended orbit?

As Chuck clarified later in the thread, the shuttle trajectory was low-
orbital, not suborbital. There was a direct-insertion OMS-2 burn and a
deorbit burn in this profile.
--
JRF

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

In sci.space.policy Herb Schaltegger wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2005 20:35:29 -0500, Sander Vesik wrote
(in article ):

And you are apparently as guilty as Rand of ignoring the point:
designing a spacecraft architecture which *requires* non-existent "not
hard" EVA hardware, techniques and procedures is absurd. That you
cannot see THAT makes further discussion vis a vis "not hard" EVA
assembly of a CEV architecture being designed NOW in the present day
pointless.


Whats the point of a non-LEO CEV without EVA?



For the last time, my initial comment and every comment since is
directed toward the drawbacks of designing for EVA *ASSEMBLY*! Why
first Rand, then David, then Alan and now you have missed this point,
when I've restated it in every single post I've made, speaks badly of
the reading comprehension of this regulars of this newsgroup!

Of course people will want to get out on the moon or Mars and plant the
stupid flags and set up modern day equivalents of ALSEP boxes . . .But
designing the vehicle at the outset to REQUIRE such hard work during
assembly is engineering hubris when it is entirely unnecessary.


Umm... no. See, the thing is that the whole point of going to
Moon with the CEV - or at the very least, the whole point as stated -
is to do extensive EVA, including construction. If you are going to
do 7-10 EVA-s per person anyways, where is the loss in doing one of
these in orbit?

At least until the mission hasn't been downgraded, EVA as part of
construction is IMHO a fair design choice.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

On Sun, 15 May 2005 13:42:47 -0500, Sander Vesik wrote
(in article ):

Umm... no. See, the thing is that the whole point of going to
Moon with the CEV - or at the very least, the whole point as stated -

No, it's not. Follow back up the thread and see my initial comment
which started this mess.

In Message-ID: ,
responding to Reed Snellenberger, I stated:

The assembly of the Mars ship wouldn't be all that different than the
ISS assembly process, when you think about it.

"Actually, you would hope very much that it would require less EVA
assembly and ideally none. The need for EVA on ISS is the result of a
number of design decisions that hopefully will not be repeated for an
interplanetary spacecraft as opposed to an LEO station."

Do please try to keep up.

is to do extensive EVA, including construction.

No, it's not. See above and please try to keep up with the actual
topic at hand.

If you are going to
do 7-10 EVA-s per person anyways, where is the loss in doing one of
these in orbit?

Because it's difficult, expensive in terms of crew training, time,
energy and ECLSS resources, and is almost certainly unnecessary if the
vehicle architecture is defined, specified and designed properly to
avoid it. Please try to keep up.

--
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/

"Michael P. Walsh" wrote in message
...
Are you the same Pat Flannery who posts nonsense and doggerel?

Nono- this is Pat Flannery. He pronounces his name "Pat Flannery". The Pat
Flannery that posts nonsense and doggerel pronounces his name "Pat
Flannery". Slight difference in pronounciation.

In sci.space.policy Herb Schaltegger wrote:

Okay, for last goddamned time: pay attention! Phase A type design work
for CEV is going on NOW. Phase B stuff will be going on by late summer
or early fall. This is not a "future project" we're talking about. At
least, *I'm* not talking about a future project, but rather a present
day project. Why does everyone have such a hard time grasping this
point?


The CEV being designed now need not have any lunar capabilities at all,
and most probably won't. That most probably includes no real provisions
for opertaing in a non-LEO environment, never mind going to Mars.

The reality is that there are three entirely different vehicles being
called CEV.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++