 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Shuttle / April 2008Crew Cabin Entry -- Shuttle vs CEV
In the CEV pad configuration illustrated here, how will the crew enter the crew module? http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/transition/home/index.html JTM >In the CEV pad configuration illustrated here, how will the crew enter >the crew module? > >http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/transition/home/index.html They won't - because that is an umanned test flight. Presumably a crewed version will use the launch tower shown in many images here: http://images.google.com/images?q=ares+I The page you link to shows the test configuration, not the final configuration. D.  SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL > "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com> wrote: > >In the CEV pad configuration illustrated here, how will the crew enter [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Presumably a crewed version will use the launch tower shown in many > images here:http://images.google.com/images?q=ares+I Thanks much, Derek. Will the unmanned test flight use a dummy crew module, or will they have a real crew module available by 2009? JTM JTM, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ares_I-X Everything above the fourth SRB segment will be mass simulators. The boilerplate 'Orion' on top will have have 'dummy' parachutes, which I take to mean mass simulations of the mortars and chutes. Jeffrey Cornish PS, everyone else, chill, okay? This is a perfectly reasonable question. The press releases that come immediately to hand to don't detail the second stage very much. On Apr 1, 11:50 pm, fairwa...@gmail.com (Derek Lyons) wrote: > "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com> wrote: > >In the CEV pad configuration illustrated here, how will the crew enter [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Presumably a crewed version will use the launch tower shown in many > images here:http://images.google.com/images?q=ares+I Thanks much, Derek. Will the unmanned test flight use a dummy crew module, or will they have a real crew module available by 2009? JTM Okay, Here's info on the upper stage: http://spaceflightsystems.grc.nasa.gov/LaunchSystems/Simulator/ Jeffrey On Apr 1, 11:50 pm, fairwa...@gmail.com (Derek Lyons) wrote: > "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com> wrote: > >In the CEV pad configuration illustrated here, how will the crew enter [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Presumably a crewed version will use the launch tower shown in many > images here:http://images.google.com/images?q=ares+I Thanks much, Derek. Will the unmanned test flight use a dummy crew module, or will they have a real crew module available by 2009? JTM >Okay, Here's info on the upper stage: > >http://spaceflightsystems.grc.nasa.gov/LaunchSystems/Simulator/ Lordy. If anything proves how bloated NASA has become - this is it. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL > In the CEV pad configuration illustrated here, how will the crew enter > the crew module? > > http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/transition/home/index.html > > JTM Tarzan style. On Apr 1, 2:39 pm, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com> wrote: > In the CEV pad configuration illustrated here, how will the crew enter > the crew module? > > http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/transition/home/index.html > > JTM Dork. Read the link. It is an unmanned test flight. It is a boilerplate upperstage and CEV On Apr 2, 10:41 am, charliexmur...@yahoo.com wrote: > On Apr 1, 2:39 pm, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Dork. "There you go again!" Feel better? > Read the link. Now that's just ridiculous. I suggest *you* read the page, and quote whatever you think I missed that answered my question. > It is an unmanned test flight. With an eight months slip, by my calculations. > It is a boilerplate upperstage and CEV So far as I know, it's no more than a paper tiger. From Wikipedia: "Boilerplate is any text that is or can be reused in new contexts or applications without being changed much from the original" "Boilerplate, a relatively thick sheet of high quality steel, suitable for building boilers" JTM >> It is an unmanned test flight. > > With an eight months slip, by my calculations. Is april 2009 still realistic for that test flight, or is this NASA web page dating from a few years ago when CEV was to be fully operational by 2010 ? >> It is a boilerplate upperstage and CEV The question is valid. The "unmanned" monicker does not answer whether there will be a CEV capsule with dummies in it, or wether there will be just a carboard outline of a capsule. If it is to be a carboard outline of a capsule, it would mean that any/all guidance would be elsewhere, and that there would need to be subsequent unmanned tests for when a capsule will be ready. I would assume they will want to test re-entry and parachute deployment as well as landing technology before putting humans in it. > I would assume they will want to test re-entry and parachute > deployment as well as landing technology before putting humans in it. Somewhere I read recently that we no longer have the capability to manufacture the materials needed for the heat shield. How does the current DIRECT plan compare in this regard? JTM On Apr 4, 8:15 am, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com> wrote: > > I would assume they will want to test re-entry and parachute > > deployment as well as landing technology before putting humans in it. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > JTM Direct is only the launch vehicle. It uses a "stock" Orion. Orion uses different heat shield than Apollo On Apr 4, 8:01 am, charliexmur...@yahoo.com wrote: > On Apr 4, 8:15 am, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Orion uses different heat shield than Apollo "Stock?" With no heat shield and no credible test plan? LOL I would expect DIRECT to come up with a Dirion. JTM On Apr 5, 7:25 pm, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com> wrote: > > Direct is only the launch vehicle. It uses a "stock" Orion. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > JTM Direct is only a replacement for Ares. They aren't looking at the spacecraft >> I would assume they will want to test re-entry and parachute >> deployment as well as landing technology before putting humans in it. > >Somewhere I read recently that we no longer have the capability to >manufacture the materials needed for the heat shield. A lack over emphasized by the GAO and easily remedied by building the facility required to manufacture the materials. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL >>> I would assume they will want to test re-entry and parachute >>> deployment as well as landing technology before putting humans in it. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > A lack over emphasized by the GAO and easily remedied by building the > facility required to manufacture the materials. And the facility needed to test the full size heat shield. But I do agree that the GAO went a bit nuts over this issue. I'd think a segmented ablative heat shield would be doable, considering that the test of the Gemini capsule with the hatch in the heat shield went well. That and the hatch in the Soviet TKS VA capsule's heat shield worked too. Jeff SignatureA clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein >But I do agree that the GAO went a bit nuts over this issue. I'd think a >segmented ablative heat shield would be doable, considering that the test of >the Gemini capsule with the hatch in the heat shield went well. That and >the hatch in the Soviet TKS VA capsule's heat shield worked too. I'd think a segmented shield is doable too, but it is a big jump from a shield with a hatch to a fully segmented shield. Quite a bit of R&D, probably too much for Orion as it is (at least theoretically) a low risk program. I don't really know how much you gain from a segmented shield though. NASA needs to put a hell of a lot less money into programs, and hell of a lot more into technology research. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL >>But I do agree that the GAO went a bit nuts over this issue. I'd think a >>segmented ablative heat shield would be doable, considering that the test [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > NASA needs to put a hell of a lot less money into programs, and hell > of a lot more into technology research. That would be nice, but the new lunar program will suck up a hell of a lot of money. I can envision Ares/Orion cost overruns being paid for by cutting technology research. NASA will do Ares/Orion without a lot of technology research. They'll try to stick with current tech. Jeff SignatureA clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.