This proves that freedom of speech is like a double-edged sword. In the right (or wrong, in this matter) hands, it's dangerous. Ho hum...
In my view, it is exactly this multiple-use design philosophy that make this program unworkable and unaffordable.
Dobbins - 1/12/2005 10:56 PM
publiusr - 2/12/2005 12:22 PMThere is sad news in the 2006 Farmer's Almanac. A Harris Interactive poll (page 154 of the Almanac) ranked many vocations according to their prestige power. Here are the percentages: Scientist........57 Fireman........55 Doctor..........52 Teacher........49 Nurse...........47 Military Officer...46 Police Officer....42 Priest/clergy...38 Member of Congress.....30 And Bringing up the rear Engineer....28
kraisee - 2/12/2005 1:32 AM...The CEV is going to be the smallest, lightest, least expensive and most efficient spacecraft NASA could have designed. And they'll only have to spend serious money designing one single craft, not twice as much building two different ones, because this design is versatile enough to fly either mission profile (and quite a few others) quite easily.It is the *perfect* tool for either job, and a brilliant choice because it will be able to do both.Ross.
lmike - 3/12/2005 6:34 PMQuotekraisee - 2/12/2005 1:32 AM...The CEV is going to be the smallest, lightest, least expensive and most efficient spacecraft NASA could have designed. And they'll only have to spend serious money designing one single craft, not twice as much building two different ones, because this design is versatile enough to fly either mission profile (and quite a few others) quite easily.It is the *perfect* tool for either job, and a brilliant choice because it will be able to do both.Ross.Well, not entirely. As a station's CRV for 6 people the CEV is a gross overkill at 9,062 kg of the return capsule. Requires none of the radiation protection, that a lunar spacecraft would need, redundancy, etc... And so it should be somewhat cheaper, and lighter. The old 'Big Gemini' ( http://www.astronautix.com/craft/bigemini.htm ) concept was to be capable of a 9 people crew and weighted 5,227 kg. The general philosophy is a valid point.
At what point the generality of a craft becomes a problem with requirements spinning out of control (witness the 'overspecified' and 'overdesigned' shuttle orbiter) At what point does mission specific become too specific? A good call to compare to the air force. A collection of the cheap ground-pounding A-10, the nimble F-16, the rugged naval F-18, and the supporting F-15, or just one superexpensive F-22+some cruise missiles? I have a feeling drawing the line here is more of an art than science.
Of course, I suspect, the ISS roles for *the* CEV are rather secondary, and it's being built more as a lunar vehicle. And that is the point, I think -- there is the primary role for *the* CEV that pulls the rest of the requirements in. We'll all be damned if all *the* CEV ends up doing is flying the ISS re-supply/taxi missions (I would hope it does none of it all, and we get some commercial 'small fry' to do it for NASA)