tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3673435362400368888.post5856222272707388381..comments2023-04-01T13:39:24.156-07:00Comments on RocketsAndSuch: Giving Up On SteroidsRocket Manhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05109496878476775729noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3673435362400368888.post-14476458326251516232008-02-17T16:57:00.000-08:002008-02-17T16:57:00.000-08:00Don't go looking too closely for logic in these de...Don't go looking too closely for logic in these decisions. Why would the government spend so many billions of dollars and only re-create the same capability as Apollo? That question would be asked resoundingly by Congress if 3 were the answer. Hence, 4.<BR/><BR/>The government doesn't want to attack the real problem, which is that it has the wrong architecture. <BR/><BR/>Discussing CEV involves many complicated issues. A lot of the design was mandated up front, instead of letting the mission requirements drive out the architecture and the allocations naturally. <BR/><BR/>So it's not just about making it smaller, diameter-wise. It's about taking out requirements which are adding multiplicative weight (more crew, more consumables, more structure to support the stuff all multiplies together). Examples of things that could help include limiting the size (height) of crew, eliminating galleys and toilets and private areas, etc. <BR/><BR/>CEV should have been sized to fit on EELV, so as to save the development cost of a new rocket and get moving faster with the rest of the architecture. But an Emperor living in the past and intent on building Cathedrals let his ego get in the way and missed his chance at establishing a sustainable legacy.Rocket Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05109496878476775729noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3673435362400368888.post-68755615060779790032008-02-17T05:18:00.000-08:002008-02-17T05:18:00.000-08:00Questions/comments from a non-engineer, non-NASA o...Questions/comments from a non-engineer, non-NASA observer:<BR/><BR/>Why go to 4 crew to ISS? It seems at my first naive glance that giving up on the steroids is a good idea, but that 3 would be a more sensible number, since 2 of those (or 1 with 1 Russian) add up to the full ISS crew size. Maybe going to 3 instead of 4 would allow some additional engineering trades that would improve safety, reduce development or operational cost, or reduce schedule.<BR/><BR/>Would the smaller CEV fit on an EELV or Falcon with NASA human-ratings requirements? If so, that would remove one of my objections to Ares 1/Orion. It would allow multiple launchers, commercial or NASA, for Orion, which would give fault tolerance to the architecture in case of trouble with 1 launcher. It would also allow some Orion launches to have commercial usefulness (help new commercial launchers or help spread EELV costs).<BR/><BR/>With the smaller CEV, what are the implications to the lunar mission crew size? Again, would existing or planned non-Ares launchers be able to fill that role, allowing Ares 1 to just be a backup for those systems and a development program for Ares V?<BR/><BR/>What are the down sides of having 2 escape systems attached to the ISS?Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13508338717987649684noreply@blogger.com