CEV PDQ

On Wed, 11 May 2005 19:49:34 -0500, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:



Rand Simberg wrote:

It also provides a lot of solutions to failure modes, and much more
flexibility.



That depends on how well the suit's joints are designed, and how high
the pressurization level is. ;-)

Yes, which is why better suit designs should be (and should have been
for many years) a much higher priority.

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
Yep. The problem is there's no money being allocated for improved EVA
capabilities right now

Not true. I think that one of the Millenium Challenge prizes is the
development of a vastly improved high-pressure glove.

That's nice, but that doesn't mean that money is being allocated *now*. What
are the names of the organizations currently expending funds to improve EVA
capabilities? How much? What specific projects?

In addition, what organizations have formally accepted the "improved
high-pressure glove" challenge? What history do those organizations have in
pressure suits and/or gloves? In short, how serious can they be taken?

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message
...
The fact that technology from a civilian program might be useful for
military purposes doesn't mean the program is tied to the military per se,
especially when the military already has its own program.

Pat's been reading too many of Stuffie's and Bbo Hallre's posts.

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 May 2005 22:03:34 +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
.. .

Because the USA government (any one, not just the current one) is not
necessarily more trustworthy than any other country's government.

Really? Not more than, say North Korea's?

Not necessarily, I said.

You also said "*any* other country's government." (Emphasis mine)

Which is different from *every* other country's.

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 May 2005 22:04:56 +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
.. .

Not true. I think that one of the Millenium Challenge prizes is the
development of a vastly improved high-pressure glove.

'After-the-event' funding is not of much value here and now, though.

Tell that to Burt Rutan.

Where did he get the money to make the attempt? Not from the prize.

On Mon, 16 May 2005 15:58:38 -0500, Rand Simberg wrote
(in article ):


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.

--
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 message , rk
writes
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/372/1

Why technology projects fail
by Eric R. Hedman
Monday, May 16, 2005

The recent failure, or partial failure, of the DART mission by NASA’s Marshall
Space Flight Center is just the latest example of a significant technology
project with a less-than-ideal outcome. In addition to DART, which was a
leftover of the Orbital Space Plane project, we can count the DC-X, the X-33,
the Orbital Space Plane itself, and the National Aerospace Plane (NASP) among
the higher profile projects that failed.

Did DC-X "fail" in any real sense? Or is it just my cynical view that
"failure" and "journalist" are synonyms?
--
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

On Mon, 16 May 2005 16:02:24 -0500, Rand Simberg wrote
(in article ):

That's certainly true, which is why we should be rectifying that
problem, rather than assuming a priori that this will always be the
case, as Herb seems to do.

"Should be" does not equal "are", something you fail to grasp in a
discussion of assembly techniques for spacecraft.

Besides which, you have yet to articulate any reason why a small team
of EVA workers could in any way be more efficient than a much larger,
much better equipped team of workers doing analogous tasks in a
clean-room environment prior to launch.

And more to the point, you have failed to articulate a single
rationale, based on any kind of engineering analysis whatsoever, that
EVA assembly of the spacecraft is the slightest bit desirable for the
type(s) of missions being discussed. E.g., what sort of design
features would require EVA assembly and why is it better to accept EVA
assembly than avoid it? Since you've had every opportunity to do so
and failed, it's clear you're just being contrary simply for the sake
of contrariness.

--
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/

On Mon, 16 May 2005 21:01:24 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

I have done so repeatedly.

....Snotty one-liners don't count, Rand.
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

On Mon, 16 May 2005 21:01:05 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

Again, I don't know, and don't care.

....Which sums up most of your arguements.

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