Sid454 - 25/1/2008 9:30 PMBTW I would not have chosen LM as the prime contractor because they messed up the last big project the X33.
Sid454 - 25/1/2008 9:30 PMI say just design the capsule to be safe and roomy and then up rate the rocket to fit it vs all this dorking around.If the stick can't lift it then don't use the stick use something else you will get a safer spacecraft and it'll fly sooner..
Sid454 - 25/1/2008 9:30 PMI'd go with a hybrid because an SDV is very unlikely to explode on the pad but it is likely to develop trouble later in flight..
clongton - 26/1/2008 8:41 AMQuoteSid454 - 25/1/2008 9:30 PMBTW I would not have chosen LM as the prime contractor because they messed up the last big project the X33.The X-33 was not a total failure. There was a lot of really good things that worked really well from the progran, for example the aero-spike emgines. X-33's problem was that the composite LH2 tank in such a wierd shape was a "leap too far" for the composite state of the art. With more time spent pushing that envelope, the X-33 might have worked just fine. But - out of schedule, out of money, see ya later bye.See the thtead: X-33/VentureStar - What really happened
gladiator1332 - 1/2/2008 6:15 PMQuoteclongton - 26/1/2008 8:41 AMQuoteSid454 - 25/1/2008 9:30 PMBTW I would not have chosen LM as the prime contractor because they messed up the last big project the X33.The X-33 was not a total failure. There was a lot of really good things that worked really well from the progran, for example the aero-spike emgines. X-33's problem was that the composite LH2 tank in such a wierd shape was a "leap too far" for the composite state of the art. With more time spent pushing that envelope, the X-33 might have worked just fine. But - out of schedule, out of money, see ya later bye.See the thtead: X-33/VentureStar - What really happenedI have to agree...LM always seems to get the blame on here for the X-33 failure. It just had a major issue and the absolute wrong time. With more money and more time looking over the issue, they would have solved all of the problems.
gladiator1332 - 1/2/2008 5:15 PMI have to agree...LM always seems to get the blame on here for the X-33 failure. It just had a major issue and the absolute wrong time. With more money and more time looking over the issue, they would have solved all of the problems.
Jim - 3/2/2008 11:05 AMCOTS I can fail and it doesn't jeopardized anything.
Navidran - 6/2/2008 12:37 PMI have a suggestion for Dreamchaser. They should figure out how it can launch to orbit atop an Atlas 401. Also it should have a high degree of autonomy. Then it would be a clear favorite over the other possibilities for the recent Bigelow announcement.
Navidran - 6/2/2008 1:02 PMI have only seen Atlas 5 mentioned with the 431 or 432, not the 401. Or is the 401 a general term for all "400-class" vehicles?
clongton - 6/2/2008 1:08 PMThe 431 and 432 use non-man rated solids. That makes them non-starters for potential NASA use. .
Jim - 6/2/2008 2:05 PMQuoteclongton - 6/2/2008 1:08 PMThe 431 and 432 use non-man rated solids. That makes them non-starters for potential NASA use. .Not applicable for Dream Chaser
clongton - 6/2/2008 12:56 PMBut work is continuing behind the scene at both companies. I have reason to believe that you will likely see this pair fly. I have no dates.
vt_hokie - 6/2/2008 2:58 PMQuoteclongton - 6/2/2008 12:56 PMBut work is continuing behind the scene at both companies. I have reason to believe that you will likely see this pair fly. I have no dates.I'd love to see it, but where is the funding coming from?
Navidran - 6/2/2008 7:27 PMSo in your opinion who is the likely capsule provider on the 401 for Bigelow? My guess is Dragon.