shuttle replacement

On 26/07/2010 4:38 AM, wrote:
On Jul 25, 2:36 pm, bob haller safety
wrote:
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1007/21boeing/

Supposed to be ready to fly by 2015, carried on altlas delta and
falcon. also reports atlas and delta are being man rated.

you know if they had begun this right after columbia we would be
flying by now.....


You've gone absolutely ****ing NUTS!

In article . com,
says...

On 26/07/2010 4:38 AM, wrote:
On Jul 25, 2:36 pm, bob haller safety
wrote:
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1007/21boeing/

Supposed to be ready to fly by 2015, carried on altlas delta and
falcon. also reports atlas and delta are being man rated.

you know if they had begun this right after columbia we would be
flying by now.....


You've gone absolutely ****ing NUTS!

You're just now realizing that Bob Haller is nuts? Seriously?

Jeff
--
The only decision you'll have to make is
Who goes in after the snake in the morning?

On 8/5/2010 6:49 AM, Alan Erskine wrote:


You've gone absolutely ****ing NUTS!

No, that sounds like a very doable schedule to me also.
As to why everyone is so married to the Apollo CM shape is beyond me; it
leads to a very heavy heatshield, and really isn't needed for Earth
orbit only missions. A Soyuz shaped CM would make a lot more sense from
a internal-volume-to-weight viewpoint.

Pat

On 7/08/2010 5:53 PM, Pat Flannery wrote:
On 8/5/2010 6:49 AM, Alan Erskine wrote:


You've gone absolutely ****ing NUTS!

No, that sounds like a very doable schedule to me also.
As to why everyone is so married to the Apollo CM shape is beyond me; it
leads to a very heavy heatshield, and really isn't needed for Earth
orbit only missions. A Soyuz shaped CM would make a lot more sense from
a internal-volume-to-weight viewpoint.

Pat


Big Gemini - half the weight per crewmember compared to the Apollo CM
and much more room as well.

From the article:
"The money that NASA has proposed being invested in commercial crew
allows us to close the business case," Krone said during a Monday
briefing at the Farnborough airshow in England. "Without that, we would
have a difficult time and it would be a difficult decision for us to
decide to proceed without that funding, primarily because it's an
indication that NASA is supportive of this kind of approach (and) would
purchase the services later."

That means, if NASA stops financial support for the privateers, Boeing
_might_ be able to get a spacecraft together in four years. So, with
all the financial and technical assets Boeing has available, why don't
they invest in their own idea?

Probably because they're so used to being bottle-fed by the government.

On 6/08/2010 4:03 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
In igpond.com,
says...

On 26/07/2010 4:38 AM, wrote:
On Jul 25, 2:36 pm, bob haller safety
wrote:
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1007/21boeing/

Supposed to be ready to fly by 2015, carried on altlas delta and
falcon. also reports atlas and delta are being man rated.

you know if they had begun this right after columbia we would be
flying by now.....


You've gone absolutely ****ing NUTS!

You're just now realizing that Bob Haller is nuts? Seriously?

Jeff

I had an inkling of it, but that confirmed it for me.

On 8/7/2010 7:39 AM, Alan Erskine wrote:

No, that sounds like a very doable schedule to me also.
As to why everyone is so married to the Apollo CM shape is beyond me; it
leads to a very heavy heatshield, and really isn't needed for Earth
orbit only missions. A Soyuz shaped CM would make a lot more sense from
a internal-volume-to-weight viewpoint.

Pat


Big Gemini - half the weight per crewmember compared to the Apollo CM
and much more room as well.

SpaceX's Dragon is a lot better shape than Apollo as well; what this all
shows is a real stagnation of imagination on the part of the aerospace
engineers. I note when they were working on the ISS lifting body
lifeboat, they went with an exact scale-up of the X-2A lifting body
design, even though the X-24B showed greatly improved cross range
capabilities over the "A" version, and would have made a far better
starting point.

Pat

In sci.space.policy Pat Flannery wrote:

SpaceX's Dragon is a lot better shape than Apollo as well; what this all
shows is a real stagnation of imagination on the part of the aerospace
engineers.

I have to wonder how much is to give warm fuzzy feelings to
congresscritters? One thing I learned as a new parent is that for
babies and small children, "What's familiar is what's preferred." I
suspect it applies to congresscritters as well.

rick jones
--
the road to hell is paved with business decisions...
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

On 8/9/2010 12:58 PM, Rick Jones wrote:

I have to wonder how much is to give warm fuzzy feelings to
congresscritters? One thing I learned as a new parent is that for
babies and small children, "What's familiar is what's preferred." I
suspect it applies to congresscritters as well.

My favorite use of old technology was the Gemini hatch in the Skylab
airlock: http://history.nasa.gov/EP-107/p75.htm
That was downright bizarre, given the odd shape that was required for
the mounting for it.

Pat

On 11/08/2010 11:24 AM, Pat Flannery wrote:
On 8/9/2010 12:58 PM, Rick Jones wrote:

I have to wonder how much is to give warm fuzzy feelings to
congresscritters? One thing I learned as a new parent is that for
babies and small children, "What's familiar is what's preferred." I
suspect it applies to congresscritters as well.

My favorite use of old technology was the Gemini hatch in the Skylab
airlock: http://history.nasa.gov/EP-107/p75.htm
That was downright bizarre, given the odd shape that was required for
the mounting for it.

Pat

Also, considering it was a tight squeeze for the Gemini suit, it must
have been even more difficult to enter/leave in an Apollo-era suit.