A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

CEV Announcement



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old June 30th 05, 12:16 AM
Alex Terrell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

t/Space approach seems great - much better than current CEVs. However,
it appears that if both were to go ahead, the only advantage would be
the benefit of not man rating the CEVs.

There would be benefits if there was a low orbit space shed to be used
for mission assembley, but the thinking towards a HLV means that's not
needed. Perhaps for a Biglow hotel?

Ideally, ESA should buy the concept, but it's not invented in France.

Have you by any chance come across the vehicle performance and stage
mass figures? If this isdeveloped, it could be a compettive way of
launching small payloads to LEO.

  #42  
Old June 30th 05, 04:14 AM
Andrew Gray
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 2005-06-29, Alex Terrell wrote:

What *have* you been drinking? The Apollo CM/LM tunnel was about 75cm in
diameter, and was passable to a suited astronaut (as witness Dave Scott's
stand-up EVA in the LM docking hatch on Apollo 15).

Perhaps NASA now has a representative recruitment policy - Astronauts
need to reflect today's population, not the population of 35 years ago.
So supersize that airlock!


Heh. On a slightly more serious note, "95th percentile" gets kicked
around quite a bit here. Does anyone have numbers on what a 95th
percentile adult male is currently considered to be? The numbers I found
last time I looked seemed quite low (6'2"!), and on examination looked
like they dated back to the early sixties...

--
-Andrew Gray


  #43  
Old June 30th 05, 10:19 AM
Alex Terrell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

My Child's (UK) health record book levels off at 19 years with

99.6th: 196 cm
98th: 191 cm
91st: 186 cm
75th: 182 cm
50th: 177 cm
25th: 173 cm
9th: 168 cm
2nd: 164 cm

Our German health book only goes up to 5 years, but it appears that
German kids are slightly taller. I'd expect a higher deviation in the
US population due to a more diverse ethnic mix.

The Russians once made excellent, cheap tanks. One of their secrets was
to size them for something like the 5th or 10th percentile only.

  #44  
Old June 30th 05, 02:27 PM
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Alex Terrell wrote:

The Russians once made excellent, cheap tanks. One of their secrets was
to size them for something like the 5th or 10th percentile only.



The don't think the words "excellent" and "Russian" should never be used
together in regards to a tank. They made easily mass producable tanks
that didn't cost a fortune, had admirably low silhouettes and were
fairly serviceable; but even the vaunted T-34 had poor uncoated optics
on its sighting system, and a lot of later designs proved very
vulnerable in combat- as well as having problems like the T-62's
tendency to throw treads, and the T-72's autoloader's ability to remove
parts of the turret crew's bodies.
Of course they were better than a Sheridan, but hell, even a Sherman may
have been better than a Sheridan.
I still wish they had continued down this road of tank design:
http://milparade.udm.ru/25/100.htm
The extrapolation of that concept to the 1990's would have been
fascinating to behold.
Completely worthless from a military point of view, but fun to see in
May Day parades. :-)

Pat

  #45  
Old July 3rd 05, 03:35 AM
gb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Douglas Holmes" wrote in message
...
"Jim Kingdon" wrote in message
news
There's one expected this afternoon.


I assume this is the one:
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2005...ontractor.html

In a nutshell, they picked two contractors to compete for a
down-selection in 2006 (which is sooner than had been previously
planned). Moving up the down-selection has been widely reported for
some months now.

Is that what was expected or is there more?

The most interesting line for me was:

NASA's Vision for Space Exploration calls for the CEV to carry up to six
astronauts beyond low-Earth orbit soon after the Space Shuttle is retired
in 2010, and then on to the moon as early as 2015.

When did the CEV become a SIX man vehicle?


About the same time the Russian Kilper announced 2 pilots and 4 crew !
Last week the Europeans mentioend they may assist the Russians with the
design/build, etc.

gb


Helps explain the size increase from 20 to 30 tons.


Yes, in part - it does.

  #46  
Old July 3rd 05, 03:38 AM
gb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Tom Cuddihy" wrote in message
ups.com...
kert wrote:
So why exactly is launching six astronauts in one vehicle better than
launching three astronauts in two vehicles at the same time ? Since
when has putting all eggs in one basket, or launcher in this case,
become a wise practice ?

-kert


Congress has made it pretty clear during the past two shuttle
explosions that loss of astronaut life is NOT acceptable. If one of the
two four person launches failed, ALL missions would be on hold.

Just think about it. If you launch two three person crews to orbit,
where they have to transfer to a 6-person lunar CEV, you need to have
launched 3 vehicles to LEO just to get the crew in a CEV. IF each of
the four person CXVs is 15 tons, and the lunar CEV is still 30 tons,
you still have to launch 60 tons to LEO to get the passengers into a 30
ton CEV. If, on the other hand, you launch one 30 ton CEV, it can be
launched from earth with all the passegers on board. Doesn't that make
a lot more sense?

When I hear this line of reason ... I am quickly reminded that this is the
same line of reasoning in 1960s for the Saturn V usage for Apollo program's
lunar missions .. ... rather than multiple Saturn 1B launches ....

gb

  #47  
Old July 4th 05, 11:37 PM
Jon Leech
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Andrew Gray wrote:
Heh. On a slightly more serious note, "95th percentile" gets kicked
around quite a bit here. Does anyone have numbers on what a 95th
percentile adult male is currently considered to be? The numbers I found
last time I looked seemed quite low (6'2"!), and on examination looked
like they dated back to the early sixties...


Anecdotally - I'm 6'3" and spend a lot of time at social dances, where
everyone is standing up so it's easy to compare. When looking around a room
with several hundred couples on the floor, I typically see 1-2 people my
height or above. So 95th %ile sounds about right.

ISTR that the average height in the US has actually been decreasing a
bit recently, perhaps due to immigration and overall aging of the
population.

Jon
__@/

  #48  
Old July 5th 05, 04:50 AM
George William Herbert
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jon Leech wrote:
Andrew Gray wrote:
Heh. On a slightly more serious note, "95th percentile" gets kicked
around quite a bit here. Does anyone have numbers on what a 95th
percentile adult male is currently considered to be? The numbers I found
last time I looked seemed quite low (6'2"!), and on examination looked
like they dated back to the early sixties...


Anecdotally - I'm 6'3" and spend a lot of time at social dances, where
everyone is standing up so it's easy to compare. When looking around a room
with several hundred couples on the floor, I typically see 1-2 people my
height or above. So 95th %ile sounds about right.

ISTR that the average height in the US has actually been decreasing a
bit recently, perhaps due to immigration and overall aging of the
population.


US population charts:
http://www.halls.md/chart/men-height-w.htm (white men, over age range)
http://www.halls.md/chart/men-height-b.htm (black men, over age range)
http://www.halls.md/chart/men-height-h.htm (hispanic men, over age range)
http://www.halls.md/chart/men-height-o.htm (other men, over age range)

I don't personally care so much about 95th percentile;
every vehicle I design has to fit me, and I'm 6'4.5",
and probably should fit my brother, who's 6'5" and 300 lb
of muchly muscle.

And most of them have to fit my wife, who's 4'11".


-george william herbert


  #49  
Old July 5th 05, 05:15 AM
Jim Davis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

George William Herbert wrote:

every vehicle I design has to fit me, and I'm 6'4.5",


And most of them have to fit my wife, who's 4'11".


The two of you must make an impressive couple on the dance floor. :-)

Jim Davis

  #50  
Old July 5th 05, 07:07 PM
Jon Leech
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

George William Herbert wrote:
I don't personally care so much about 95th percentile;
every vehicle I design has to fit me, and I'm 6'4.5",
and probably should fit my brother, who's 6'5" and 300 lb
of muchly muscle.

And most of them have to fit my wife, who's 4'11".


Well, just stack your astronauts head to toe instead of
side-by-side, and you and your wife should do just fine :-)
Jon
__@/

 




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
Hubble Webcast Announcement Lucy Albert Amateur Astronomy 0 March 18th 05 07:44 PM
ANNOUNCEMENT: New Glass for optics CLT UK Astronomy 4 April 2nd 04 09:00 PM
NASA Announcement of Opportunity for the New Frontiers Program 2003and Missions of Opportunity Alex R. Blackwell Space Science Misc 0 October 10th 03 08:43 PM
NASA Announcement of Opportunity for the New Frontiers Program 2003and Missions of Opportunity Alex R. Blackwell Science 0 October 10th 03 07:42 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:13 PM.


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.