Quote from: kevin-rf on 02/27/2009 01:21 pmQuote from: William Barton on 02/27/2009 12:23 pmOf course, you'll have to pick your crewmates from among your very best friends...Can I have a list of super models to chose from?Much too tall. As long as we're on Fantasy Island, I bet Tattoo can recommend some more compact models...
Quote from: William Barton on 02/27/2009 12:23 pmOf course, you'll have to pick your crewmates from among your very best friends...Can I have a list of super models to chose from?
Of course, you'll have to pick your crewmates from among your very best friends...
I look at that picture and have to ask myself.... why is the Dragon backwards?
Connecting to the bottom of the service module would require a very different sort of docking system.
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 02/28/2009 04:11 amConnecting to the bottom of the service module would require a very different sort of docking system.The basic requirement would seem to be putting a standard common berthing ring mechanism on the base of the trunk plus rendezvous sensors. Put another ring on top of the EDS and you're there. Oh... there would also have to be a fairing between the F9US and the Dragon to protect the rear docking ring from contact with the booster.
But... WHY? Why is it so important to travel to the moon facing forward???
Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 02/28/2009 02:14 pmQuote from: A_M_Swallow on 02/28/2009 04:11 amConnecting to the bottom of the service module would require a very different sort of docking system.The basic requirement would seem to be putting a standard common berthing ring mechanism on the base of the trunk plus rendezvous sensors. Put another ring on top of the EDS and you're there. Oh... there would also have to be a fairing between the F9US and the Dragon to protect the rear docking ring from contact with the booster.But... WHY? Why is it so important to travel to the moon facing forward???
Quote from: Swatch on 02/27/2009 11:01 pmI look at that picture and have to ask myself.... why is the Dragon backwards?I suspect the Dragon is backwards because the docking hatch is built into its roof. If the other module is providing the thrust then the Dragon ends up flying backwards. Connecting to the bottom of the service module would require a very different sort of docking system.
I suspect the Dragon is backwards because the docking hatch is built into its roof. If the other module is providing the thrust then the Dragon ends up flying backwards. Connecting to the bottom of the service module would require a very different sort of docking system.There is an existing rocket that connects to the bottom of the service module - the Upper Stage of the Falcon 9 (or Falcon 9 Heavy). If that can be refuelled simply do not separate the two machines.
I do not know the reason for this, but my layman's guess is that once it cools down all the way it feezes up.
Probably only two start charges
Not to second guess SpaceX, Assuming that is correct, why didn't they scar it for three. I think a bunch of people here can think of several profiles that will require three burns ( if you plan on getting the stage back ).
Quote from: Lars_J on 03/01/2009 12:35 amBut... WHY? Why is it so important to travel to the moon facing forward???Partially because vehicles are designed to take the stresses they are under in very specific manners. Launching it in that different a way would take requalification of even redesigning of the vehicle.Partially because negative G forces are very much more nasty that positive G forces. You would have to have the seating arraignments accept 2 different orientations (with 4 crew, it would be way harder to fit them in the other direction). More than anything else, a capsule is the KISS form of manned space transport. It's simple because it works, and it works because it is simple(relatively). The TPS system gives a tiny bit of protection to the capsule from an explosion of the 2st stage, the capsule doesn't need a fairing beyond the LAS, the LAS can attach to the capsule without interfering with the TPS system, the shape works well for the seating arrangement....It just works better the way EVERY capsule manned or unmanned has ever been launched, TPS down.
Quote from: William Barton on 02/27/2009 01:48 pmQuote from: kevin-rf on 02/27/2009 01:21 pmQuote from: William Barton on 02/27/2009 12:23 pmOf course, you'll have to pick your crewmates from among your very best friends...Can I have a list of super models to chose from?Much too tall. As long as we're on Fantasy Island, I bet Tattoo can recommend some more compact models...Naa they'll fit just fine I believe Dragon can accommodate crew members up to 6'4".It's the benchmark all crewed space vehicles are designed by today even Soyuz TMA can carry crew members from 4'11" to 6'3".Sure the vehicle is small but it's no Gemini or Soyuz.The real issue is can they pass the physical some of the more waifish ones like Kate Moss might not pass the 4g centrifuge test.Though if Kate Moss survives the test the good news is she won't eat very much but baggage she would probably want to bring would probably exceed the payload of an F9-H .
Isn't Orion going to be flying "bottoms up" for TLI and LOI? Also, wasn't Discoverer/Corona launched TPS up? And, of course, that was the plan for CXV (neither built, nor launched, so only a hypothetical).
I don't know how the Corona satellites were launched, but obviously they had no human occupants, and it's not impossible to launch in that configuration. It's just generally not the best. They might have had other reasons for it.FYI, the human body doesn't hold up particularly well to negative g's. They force blood to the head, and "redout" occurs at around 2-3 g's. A little bit higher can cause permanent vision damage, or even a fatal stroke.
Quote from: William Barton on 03/01/2009 09:10 pmIsn't Orion going to be flying "bottoms up" for TLI and LOI? Also, wasn't Discoverer/Corona launched TPS up? And, of course, that was the plan for CXV (neither built, nor launched, so only a hypothetical). TLI, LOI, and TEI will all be relatively low accelerations. Around 1/3 to 1/2 G if I remember right.I don't know how the Corona satellites were launched, but obviously they had no human occupants, and it's not impossible to launch in that configuration. It's just generally not the best. They might have had other reasons for it.FYI, the human body doesn't hold up particularly well to negative g's. They force blood to the head, and "redout" occurs at around 2-3 g's. A little bit higher can cause permanent vision damage, or even a fatal stroke.
Quote from: iamlucky13 on 03/02/2009 04:16 amI don't know how the Corona satellites were launched, but obviously they had no human occupants, and it's not impossible to launch in that configuration. It's just generally not the best. They might have had other reasons for it.FYI, the human body doesn't hold up particularly well to negative g's. They force blood to the head, and "redout" occurs at around 2-3 g's. A little bit higher can cause permanent vision damage, or even a fatal stroke.Other than T/Space was proposing using the corona shape (which I believe (someone like ed will correct me if wrong) has the most reentries of any shape). The solution they proposed was to have the couches pivot so you always had positive g's.( http://www.transformspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=projects.view&workid=CCD3097A-96B6-175C-97F15F270F2B83AA )
Quote from: kevin-rf on 03/02/2009 01:55 pmQuote from: iamlucky13 on 03/02/2009 04:16 amI don't know how the Corona satellites were launched, but obviously they had no human occupants, and it's not impossible to launch in that configuration. It's just generally not the best. They might have had other reasons for it.FYI, the human body doesn't hold up particularly well to negative g's. They force blood to the head, and "redout" occurs at around 2-3 g's. A little bit higher can cause permanent vision damage, or even a fatal stroke.Other than T/Space was proposing using the corona shape (which I believe (someone like ed will correct me if wrong) has the most reentries of any shape). The solution they proposed was to have the couches pivot so you always had positive g's.( http://www.transformspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=projects.view&workid=CCD3097A-96B6-175C-97F15F270F2B83AA )I liked the t\Space CXV very much, though I wasn't so sure about the pivoting "hammocks." I assumed the fast pivot was for abort situations, since once you're on orbit, it'd be easy enough to reorient conventional couches.