|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
In article 1D7ud.470242$nl.150985@pd7tw3no,
Dave Michelson wrote: Also, you might consider leaving the lawyer routine to Herb. For one thing, he's better at it than you are. Ouch. Talk about being damned with faint praise (at least in this company . . . :-p) -- Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D. "Wow! This is like saying when engineers get involved, harmonic oscillations tear apart bridges." ~Hop David http://www.angryherb.net |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"Derek Lyons" wrote in message ... When you do, you note the modularity is defined as 'being able to leave bits not needed behind', something the Apollo spacecraft is decidedly not able to do. Whether it's the super-heavy J mission SM, or the ultra lightweight CRV SM, the CM is wedded always and forever to a SM. But the SM has different kit for each kind of mission. Some of it was taken on a mission (eg 17), and some not (e.g. 7, ASTP, Skylab 2). |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Dave Michelson wrote:
Derek Lyons wrote: sigh It's not like you Henry to not actually read and comprehend the initial post. Please just admit that you were wrong and be done with it. When I'm wrong, I generally do so. However disagreeing is not the same as being wrong. Also, you might consider leaving the lawyer routine to Herb. For one thing, he's better at it than you are. Frankly, bugger right off. At least I'm thinking and exploring the design path rather than lurking and whining and sniping. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott Hedrick" wrote:
"Derek Lyons" wrote in message ... When you do, you note the modularity is defined as 'being able to leave bits not needed behind', something the Apollo spacecraft is decidedly not able to do. Whether it's the super-heavy J mission SM, or the ultra lightweight CRV SM, the CM is wedded always and forever to a SM. Reentry. Is a very brief portion of the total mission, not the total mission. Without a SM, you'll never complete the mission and get to reenter. (Not unless your 'mission' is a sub-orbital, an odd mission for the CM, but possible if you really want to.) D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"Neil Gerace" wrote:
"Derek Lyons" wrote in message ... When you do, you note the modularity is defined as 'being able to leave bits not needed behind', something the Apollo spacecraft is decidedly not able to do. Whether it's the super-heavy J mission SM, or the ultra lightweight CRV SM, the CM is wedded always and forever to a SM. But the SM has different kit for each kind of mission. Some of it was taken on a mission (eg 17), and some not (e.g. 7, ASTP, Skylab 2). An interesting point. The original post implied (to me) that modularity was at a somewhat higher level than modifications. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Derek Lyons wrote:
Also, you might consider leaving the lawyer routine to Herb. For one thing, he's better at it than you are. At least I'm thinking and exploring the design path.... Not really. You wrote something without thinking it through, as everyone does from time to time, but decided to play word games when you were rightfully challenged. Had I compared you to the Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland ("When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone," it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."), you might have cause for complaint. By comparing you to Herb, I was actually comparing you to good company. It was hardly an insult, in any case. FWIW, wasn't there an FAQ entry somewhere that advised sci.space participants that if Henry disagrees with them there's a far better than average chance that he isn't the one who is wrong? That would certainly seem to be the case here. Next topic, please. -- Dave Michelson |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"Derek Lyons" wrote in message ... (Henry Spencer) wrote: And likewise, designing a modular system which ends up only existing in one version isn't the same as designing a non-modular system. sigh It's not like you Henry to not actually read and comprehend the initial post. When you do, you note the modularity is defined as 'being able to leave bits not needed behind', something the Apollo spacecraft is decidedly not able to do. Whether it's the super-heavy J mission SM, or the ultra lightweight CRV SM, the CM is wedded always and forever to a SM. You're missing the point. The interfaces between the CM and the SM were just that, interfaces. It would have been perfectly possible to substitute a different (smaller) SM for Skylab. It would just have to provide the same sort of services as the lunar CM (power, O2, water, propulsion, and etc). Just because there was essentially only one CM design (Block II CSM) and one SM design, does not negate the fact that the design is inheriently modular. When writing software, I always try to design modular interfaces, even if the current project only calls for one use of said interfaces. It sure makes implementing future projects easier. Note how the Russians have used Soyuz over the years. In addition to Progress (essentially a Soyuz with an unpressurized cargo area replacing the descent module), there have been numerous unmanned Soyuz derivatives. The delivery of Pirs to ISS was made by a Soyuz/Progress propulsion module. Hint: Lacking formal naming terminology, names mean little. Gemini also had 'modules', but wasn't modular either. Sure it was. Take a look at how Gemini would have been used on top of MOL. The modules behind the manned reentry module were much different than the original Gemini. These differences are very similar to those between a lunar SM and the proposed smaller SM for earth orbiting missions. Jeff -- Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Dave Michelson wrote:
Derek Lyons wrote: Is a very brief portion of the total mission, not the total mission. Without a SM, you'll never complete the mission and get to reenter. Modular implies simple, clean interfaces, not self sufficiency. Modular implies the ability to swap parts in and out at will. In this instance, the modularity (as defined in the original post) does not seem to match either this definition, or the spacecraft as designed. A clean interface is desireable, but not a requirement. A software analogy might be helpful here. No more helpful than a veterinary analogy, or a home economics analogy. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
It doesn't detract from the fact that the government had given NASA a single
mandate: Send a man to the moon and bring him back to earth alive. The engineers may have designed some flexibility in the Apollo system. However, had the engineers wanted a feature that was not ncessary for the moon shots and which would have slowed the development of Apollo, or weighten it down too much, that feature would have been refused. What was left in Apollo which gave it some flexibility for other missions happened to have been stuff needed for the moon shot. The fact is that NASA has spread its wings and now requires far more versatility in space than it did in the 1960s. It may be fart easier for NASA to ask for funding for a single vehicle capable of accomplishing all its missions. Question is whether NASA will be able to deliver such a vehicle before funding is cut because of cost overruns as the result of NASA wanting to build somethin that was more than it could handle. It would be far better for NASA, in my opinion, to sart small abd built a very simple escape pod that wouldn't cost much and woudln't take 10 years to build. Something they could be succesful at. Then they may be able to look at something bigger, and Congress would be more likely to approve it based on the fact that NASA was able to actually complet some project on time and on budget (more or less). Since the Shuttle, NASA has not been able to bring any manned projects to completion because each time, they tried to take on too big a task, had delays, mechanical setbacks and cost overruns which eventually cause Congress to can the project. If NASA wants CEV to be all things to all people, chances are that the project will fail just like all the shuttle replacement projects to date. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Space station future adrift (Soyuz purchase crisis) | Michael Kent | Policy | 1 | December 3rd 04 05:26 AM |
The Apollo Hoax FAQ (is not spam) :-) | Nathan Jones | Misc | 6 | July 29th 04 06:14 AM |
Apollo | Buzz alDredge | Astronomy Misc | 5 | July 28th 04 10:05 AM |
The Apollo Hoax FAQ | darla | UK Astronomy | 11 | July 25th 04 02:57 PM |
Space Station Agency Leaders Look To The Future | Ron Baalke | Space Shuttle | 0 | July 30th 03 05:51 PM |