dmc6960 - 17/3/2006 11:06 AMInteresting idea putting the spacecraft inside the launch vehicle fairing, but I see one major problem with that. How the heck would you get in it at the pad!?!? That concept would be just fine for delivery and return of cargo, but for humans the payload fairing would need be to be custom-redesigned from the launch vehicle provider to provide access to the CBM. Also, the SpaceRef article about SpaceX's Dragon capsule indicated the SM had escape motors on it. Thats just fine. However, if your inside a fairing, it dont matter if you have escape motors or not, it just isn't gonna work! This just sounds like a couple people trying to pitch an idea to get money, build the cheapest thing possible, and when it doesn't work just walk away with the rest of the money.
Martin FL - 17/3/2006 9:47 AMDoes the Falcon range have a crew escape/abort system? The images don't make this clear.
Jamie Young - 19/3/2006 3:42 PMQuoteMartin FL - 17/3/2006 9:47 AMDoes the Falcon range have a crew escape/abort system? The images don't make this clear.Doesn't look like it, or you'd see the tower coming out the top.
dmc6960 - 20/3/2006 9:10 AMHow does the reliability of a pusher rocket for escape compare to a tractor rocket? With the historicly and currently used escape towers, there seems to be a single solid motor with multiple angled nozzels pulling you up very strait and symmetical. With a pusher, all the designs I've seen involved several different motors placed on 2 or more sides of the vehicle. If one where to fail to light when the others did wouldn't there be a cartwheeling effect from asymmetrical thrust?Another curiosity, the RS-88 engine was designed to be an escape engine. Wouldn't the lag time for startup of a liquid engine be detrimental to emergency escape compared to an instantanious solid motor?
MSNBC article with a list of some of the competitors
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11927039/