Please save all your rhetoric and simply point me to the Constellation Program requirement for LON.
Quote from: MrTim on 06/28/2008 10:04 amthis is called "setting a precedent"BZZZZT! Wrong !!!!Which not applicable to the CEV and future missions. The CEV will be able to stay attached the ISS for 6 months. No need to scramble for an LON. LON is not applicable to lunar missions.
this is called "setting a precedent"
Since LON is off topic for the thread title and there has been more than 3 replies I have created a new topic in the General Discussions section called "Space Rescue Missions and Vehicles".http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13604.0
Quote from: Jim on 06/28/2008 01:34 pmQuote from: MrTim on 06/28/2008 10:04 amthis is called "setting a precedent"BZZZZT! Wrong !!!!Which not applicable to the CEV and future missions. The CEV will be able to stay attached the ISS for 6 months. No need to scramble for an LON. LON is not applicable to lunar missions. Sorry Jim, forgot you were here. Of course you are correct that Orion and Ares are perfect, there will never be a failure... and if there is, the vehicle will safely make it to ISS (but no rescue mission would even be mounted then because that would be a LON mission which you indicate would never be needed). I am also sure you are correct that if we launch an Ares I to LEO at the start of a lunar mission and there is some critical failure NASA will simply allow the crew to die rather than trying a rescue and you are probably correct that the public will not care. The LON requirement might not be written down in the formal program specs, but for those parts of a mission where it could save a crew, it is part of the basic requirements of the Cx program.... which has as its premise: Thou shalt not kill a crew Some things (like "remember to breathe several times per minute") do not need to be written down; reasonably smart persons are expected to figure them out.
NASA has proven your roll-the-dice-on-crew-survival model wrong already by planning a Skylab rescue mission and by planning STS rescue missions. They seem to appreciate more than you do that some things are simply unacceptable to the public who are after-all the ones providing the funding. Your love of disposable rockets seems to have morphed into an acceptance of disposable crews.
1. Sorry Jim, forgot you were here. Of course you are correct that Orion and Ares are perfect, 2, I am also sure you are correct that if we launch an Ares I to LEO at the start of a lunar mission and there is some critical failure NASA will simply allow the crew to die rather than trying a rescue 3. The LON requirement might not be written down in the formal program specs, but for those parts of a mission where it could save a crew, it is part of the basic requirements of the Cx program.... 4. NASA has proven your roll-the-dice-on-crew-survival model wrong already by planning a Skylab rescue mission and by planning STS rescue missions.
Either way the conclusion is inescapable: If we've really become that risk-averse, then the program has zero chance of survival in the long term and the United States does not deserve to have a space program. Period, full stop, end of story. In that case, we should cancel the whole farce now before we waste a lot of money on it, and let those who are willing to shoulder the risk reap the reward.
Thank you Jorge, I had wanted to say similar things but had been reticent in this very pro-human-spaceflight forum. Plus you said them much better than I would have.
Here is a quick render of the 5.5 seg Ares I.One the left is the current Ares I, on the right is the 5.5 monster
wow.. ok.. so what does this say.. its game over already?
Quote from: gladiator1332 on 07/05/2008 02:27 amHere is a quick render of the 5.5 seg Ares I.One the left is the current Ares I, on the right is the 5.5 monsterWhy is it a monster compared to 5 segments?
Quote from: manlymissileman on 06/24/2008 03:54 amIs Ares I meeting its targets? (safe, simple, soon) "Safe Simple Soon" is a slogan... not Ares I "targets".
Is Ares I meeting its targets? (safe, simple, soon)
Quote from: Avron on 06/28/2008 11:59 pmwow.. ok.. so what does this say.. its game over already?There was some game going on?
Quote from: gladiator1332 on 07/05/2008 02:27 amHere is a quick render of the 5.5 seg Ares I.One the left is the current Ares I, on the right is the 5.5 monsterNice work, thanks for posting.I think that it actually looks better than the 5 seg. version... "better proportioned."Speaking aesthetics... I don't really mind how Ares 1 looks (which is not to say I have no concerns about how it performs). I think Ares 1 has a very contemporary post-modernist / industrial appearance. Flashy "space age looks" are seriously out of style these days. All Ares 1 needs is some open lattice structure to complete the look.I'm going to get a lot of flak for that. Oh well.