#81
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
|
#83
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 10 May 2005 21:03:07 +0800, "Neil Gerace"
wrote: "Darren J Longhorn" wrote in message .. . Isn't that what happened to the Air France Concorde? Too fast and far down the runway to abort, not enough power to successfully take off. I think it did actually take off, but could not go around properly because control was lost due to the fire. That's what I meant by "successfully take off". They never gained enough height to either go around or divert to another runway, which is what IIRC the pilot tried to do. |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
Henry Spencer wrote: Exactly. LockMart wasn't going to use *any* of the existing hardware for VentureStar, and they still concluded that it was cheaper to build new launch facilities than to buy into maintaining the LC-39 standing army. But the advantage is that with a Shuttle derived cargo carrier you can orbit very large payloads in a single piece, as opposed to having to build them from component parts in orbit. VentureStar had launch pad simplicity, small infrastructure, manpower needs, and reusability on its side, but it would have carried a far smaller payload than a SDCC per launch- so that also has to be figured into both the economic aspect and the mission capabilities that are desired if we really do intend to do a manned Mars flight and build a Lunar base. Pat |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 10 May 2005 08:15:48 -0500, Darren J Longhorn wrote
(in article ): On Tue, 10 May 2005 21:03:07 +0800, "Neil Gerace" wrote: "Darren J Longhorn" wrote in message ... Isn't that what happened to the Air France Concorde? Too fast and far down the runway to abort, not enough power to successfully take off. I think it did actually take off, but could not go around properly because control was lost due to the fire. That's what I meant by "successfully take off". They never gained enough height to either go around or divert to another runway, which is what IIRC the pilot tried to do. It's been quite awhile since I've looked at the FARs, but it seems to me that current aircraft are required to be able to either go around, divert or abort the takeoff if they lose an engine at any time prior to V2. On the other hand, the Concord incident resulted in a huge fire and I would think probably fuel starvation to both engines on one side due to the tremendous fuel leak. -- 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/ |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Henry Spencer wrote: BAe's Multi-Role Capsule design, done in the mid-80s, with a capacity of four people for normal flight and six in a lifeboat configuration, almost entirely reusable (including propulsion), had an estimated launch mass of 8t including escape tower. As soon as you head toward an aerodynamic lifting body design over a ballistic capsule, you put your weight way up versus your usable payload capability. It really surprised me when LockMart chose a lifting body design rather than a simple capsule, given the limited lift capability that the prospective boosters for the CEV have. It will be interesting to see which way Boeing goes with this. Pat |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
Neil Gerace wrote: 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. If the odds are even as regards the possibility of a individual vehicle failure (say 90 percent reliability, which was probably what Saturn V was good for), and you need all the parts for a successful mission, then the fewer launches, the better. We never had to find out if our escape systems worked, but the Soviets had very good luck with theirs, including unmanned N-1 missions that exploded. Pat |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|