Kayla - 7/8/2006 5:18 PM Most payloads don't. Most payloads don't even want to go to LEO. With the CLV, how would a com sat make it to GSO? How will a a Mars robotic mission accelerate to C3~20 km2/s2. How will an ISS module (no onboard propulsion) get to the ISS? And the next spy satelite? The CLV is not at all applicable to these missions. And to Earth escape or GSO the CLV's performance drops so severely that it can't even deliver its own upper stage, let alone a payload. This is one reason why the RLEP program is no longer seriously considering use of the CLV for lunar missions.
Jim - 7/8/2006 6:21 PMQuoteKayla - 7/8/2006 5:18 PM Most payloads don't. Most payloads don't even want to go to LEO. With the CLV, how would a com sat make it to GSO? How will a a Mars robotic mission accelerate to C3~20 km2/s2. How will an ISS module (no onboard propulsion) get to the ISS? And the next spy satelite? The CLV is not at all applicable to these missions. And to Earth escape or GSO the CLV's performance drops so severely that it can't even deliver its own upper stage, let alone a payload. This is one reason why the RLEP program is no longer seriously considering use of the CLV for lunar missions.The CLV is not allowed to be used for these missions.
zinfab - 7/8/2006 7:13 PMI think Jim was referring to satellites to GSO. The CLV has no plans to GSO.
Jim - 7/8/2006 4:44 PM Quotezinfab - 7/8/2006 7:13 PM I think Jim was referring to satellites to GSO. The CLV has no plans to GSO. CLV is only for crew launch, no other missions "allowed" per the agreement with the DOD and the Commercial Space Act.
zinfab - 7/8/2006 7:13 PM I think Jim was referring to satellites to GSO. The CLV has no plans to GSO.
Yea apparently, the meaning of the term CREW LAUNCH Vehicle escapes some of the folks here
punkboi - 7/8/2006 7:23 PMQuoteJim - 7/8/2006 4:44 PM Quotezinfab - 7/8/2006 7:13 PM I think Jim was referring to satellites to GSO. The CLV has no plans to GSO. CLV is only for crew launch, no other missions "allowed" per the agreement with the DOD and the Commercial Space Act.Yea apparently, the meaning of the term CREW LAUNCH Vehicle escapes some of the folks here
bad_astra - 8/8/2006 11:39 AMThank you Kayla. I can't put it that elogently. Sadly I think time is running out for NASA to adopt a change of course away from the Stuck.
Jim - 7/8/2006 10:49 AMQuoteedkyle99 - 7/8/2006 11:32 AMI look at this as a layman who is not particularly interested in who signed what contract. If an IUS fails during a Titan or a Shuttle mission, than the stink of failure is there regardless of who was at fault. - Ed KyleReliability numbers aren't for the layman but for the professional. It is representation like saying the IUS is part of the shuttle is the problem.
edkyle99 - 7/8/2006 11:32 AMI look at this as a layman who is not particularly interested in who signed what contract. If an IUS fails during a Titan or a Shuttle mission, than the stink of failure is there regardless of who was at fault. - Ed Kyle
edkyle99 - 9/8/2006 11:30 PMQuoteJim - 7/8/2006 10:49 AMQuoteedkyle99 - 7/8/2006 11:32 AMI look at this as a layman who is not particularly interested in who signed what contract. If an IUS fails during a Titan or a Shuttle mission, than the stink of failure is there regardless of who was at fault. - Ed KyleReliability numbers aren't for the layman but for the professional. It is representation like saying the IUS is part of the shuttle is the problem.But that, in my point of view, is correct. IUS *is* (or was) part of the shuttle problem. The very fact that shuttle required such a complex, failure-prone upper stage to deploy GTO, and other, satellites was a problem - an architecture problem. Same for Titan. Titan 4 with an IUS used six propulsion units. An EELV Heavy can do the same job with four.I think that professionals too often use compartmentalized failure results to fool themselves. Lockheed people can tell themselves that only two Titan IV core vehicles failed (5% of the 39 total), but the layman knows a more accuracte story about the total Titan IV system - that it failed to place more than 10% of its payloads into their proper orbits. - Ed Kyle