A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Orbital Space Place project



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old July 30th 03, 06:07 PM
TKalbfus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Orbital Space Place project

Oh, great. Moving parts to fail. That's a good idea.

Mary


If the fins couldn't move, they couldn't steer.
  #22  
Old August 3rd 03, 11:16 PM
stephen voss
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Orbital Space Place project

Richard Schumacher wrote:

stephen voss wrote:


Anything that has to be delivered with a Delta IV or Atlas V is a
backwards step.


You mean like plastic disposable twin blade razors are a step back from
straight edge reusable razors like your grandfather used?



No. If one disposable razor fails, people do not die and hundred million
dollar cargoes are not lost.


With all due respect your argument is bullcrap.
I never said use disposable rockets for launching
humans into space and returning them home. In fact
I said the opposite which you left out of your post.

  #23  
Old August 3rd 03, 11:21 PM
stephen voss
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Orbital Space Place project

G EddieA95 wrote:
his whole reusable mantra is sentimentality not common sense.
If you can deliver missions using ultracheap and reliable disposable
rockets why do you even need reusable rockets?



Because they are not cheap in any sense. The Saturn V cost $180M a shot.
Space will *never* be a venue of human expansion as long as even a short
mission involves throwing away that much.


Saturn V is a bogus argument

1) Saturn V was never inteded to be cheap
2) Saturn V was not intended to launch unmanned missions. It was
intended to launch humans into space and bring them back to earth
(a point where I said reusable rockets had a purpose)
3) Saturn V was never meant to be a mass production vehicle.

However let me also point out, that the Russia Energiya rocket
could have put the ISS into orbit much cheaper than the shuttle.


The problem with most rockets used for satellites is that they
were built for government projects. They are not built by
companies intent on making money of the sale and launch of their
rockets directly to the private sector.


  #24  
Old August 4th 03, 03:19 PM
Alex Terrell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Orbital Space Place project

Cardman wrote in message . ..
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 13:54:05 +1000, Brett O'Callaghan
wrote:

Along with the inherent simplicity, it seems that a capsule approach
is something that could evolve over time as requirements change.


Making a large capsule to hold quite a few people I would find most
interesting, not that they are doing this of course.

Everyone outside of NASA seems to agree that a capsule is better than
a plane for OSP type requirements.

How scalable is a capsule. If the remit was a crew of 60 passengers,
would a capsule still be feasible?
  #25  
Old August 4th 03, 07:01 PM
George William Herbert
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Orbital Space Place project

Alex Terrell wrote:
How scalable is a capsule. If the remit was a crew of 60 passengers,
would a capsule still be feasible?


Yes and tending towards no.

Yes, you can scale a capsule shape up quite a bit.

However, there are diameter restrictions on off the shelf launch
vehicles which make a *huge* capsule hard. The largest off the
shelf fairings for the EELVs for example will be 5 meter. Using that
diameter as one limit to consider, it would be fairly hard to stack
60 people in even a Soyuz-shaped capsule. 30 people, maybe somewhat
more, but 60 would be very hard.

However, if you are allowed to hypothesize clearing launchers with
larger hammerheads (for those not familiar with the term, that is
when a payload or payload fairing is larger diameter than the rocket
body underneath it) such as say ... oh, 8 meters, then it gets to
be a lot easier. A 7 or 8 meter capsule would be able to hold 60
people without too much effort.



-george william herbert


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982) Stuf4 Space Shuttle 150 July 28th 04 07:30 AM
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 April 2nd 04 12:01 AM
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 February 2nd 04 04:33 AM
International Space Station Science - One of NASA's rising stars Jacques van Oene Space Station 0 December 27th 03 02:32 PM
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 September 12th 03 01:37 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.