marsavian - 21/2/2008 1:54 AMLet's see, it's got 2 EELVs it barely uses, it's now building an unnecessary EELV clone in Ares I and it's got a cheaper private EELV clone in Falcon 9 coming online and is now adding another private one which doesn't promise cheaper cost upfront to the first one although granted their record is much better than anyone else on keeping to cost once given. Comment certainly is supported by current history.
yinzer - 20/2/2008 12:07 AM Also, isn't the diameter of the MPLM noticeably bigger at about 4.5m than the 3.9m diameter proposed for the Taurus II? Is there going to be a hammerhead fairing?
Good question. No, the PCM has a smaller external diameter than MPLM's 4.52 m, and fits within the 3.75 m or so internal dynamic envelope of the T II 3.9 m ("4 m") fairing. It is significantly smaller than the MPLM (from memory, the numbers are something like 17m3 vs. 75m3) but also considerably lighter (less than 1 mT vs. 4.5 mT), since it lacks a lot of the MLPM's "bells and whistles" and also is not reusable, so things such as MMOD shielding, etc. become easier and lighter (no need to cum up exposure). Also, structurally, the load paths are a bit simpler than MPLM's Shuttle-induced quasistatic loads...
It ends up a bit more "cramped" than an MPLM (140 Kg/m3 vs. 120 Kg/m3) but, like the famous/infamous "what do you really want to intact return from ISS if you really have to pay for it", when you go commercial, full cost accounting, etc. all of suddent you become a lot more "efficient"... :laugh:
On the COTS I ReAward Final Cut Poll thread, now closed, I promised to explain elements and rationale of our COTS proposal. If anybody is interested, I can deliver. Question: is this the appropriate thread? Moderators?
By the way, that was a very interesting and enjoyable thread. Thanks to all that participated!
Lampyridae - 21/2/2008 1:17 AM It sounds like you're saying you have something up your sleeve, but then you state you don't. I reckon some people are thinking you have a Capability D proposal.
For the record: we do NOT have a capability D proposal. We showed NASA what we would/could do if the business situaiton changed significantly. that work was based on our 2000-2004 STAS studies, and it shows a two-person capsule considerably more spacious than Geminy, but not any better than Apollo.
However, you can't do that with the Taurus II anyway unless you somehow split functionality a la Kliper / Parom.
I'm not sure what you mean by "split functionality". If you mean, not mix crew and cargo, Orbital has been repeating that mantra since 2000. Why, our COTS Visiting Vehicle (CVV) extends that paradigm to not mixing pressurizedm unpressurized and return cargo the the same flight!!!
antonioe - 21/2/2008 11:28 AMQuoteLampyridae - 21/2/2008 1:17 AM Quote However, you can't do that with the Taurus II anyway unless you somehow split functionality a la Kliper / Parom.I'm not sure what you mean by "split functionality". If you mean, not mix crew and cargo, Orbital has been repeating that mantra since 2000. Why, our COTS Visiting Vehicle (CVV) extends that paradigm to not mixing pressurizedm unpressurized and return cargo the the same flight!!!
Lampyridae - 21/2/2008 1:17 AM Quote However, you can't do that with the Taurus II anyway unless you somehow split functionality a la Kliper / Parom.I'm not sure what you mean by "split functionality". If you mean, not mix crew and cargo, Orbital has been repeating that mantra since 2000. Why, our COTS Visiting Vehicle (CVV) extends that paradigm to not mixing pressurizedm unpressurized and return cargo the the same flight!!!
antonioe - 21/2/2008 10:36 AMOn the COTS I ReAward Final Cut Poll thread, now closed, I promised to explain elements and rationale of our COTS proposal. If anybody is interested, I can deliver. Question: is this the appropriate thread? Moderators?By the way, that was a very interesting and enjoyable thread. Thanks to all that participated!
Bret - 21/2/2008 11:42 AM"The Cygnus spacecraft to be launched aboard the Taurus II rocket will be capable of delivering up to 2,300 kg of cargo to the ISS"How does this upmass compare to Progress, ATV, SpaceX, HTV? Anyone have a handy comparison chart?
antonioe - 21/2/2008 11:33 AMQuoteyinzer - 20/2/2008 12:07 AM Also, isn't the diameter of the MPLM noticeably bigger at about 4.5m than the 3.9m diameter proposed for the Taurus II? Is there going to be a hammerhead fairing?Good question. No, the PCM has a smaller external diameter than MPLM's 4.52 m, and fits within the 3.75 m or so internal dynamic envelope of the T II 3.9 m ("4 m") fairing. It is significantly smaller than the MPLM (from memory, the numbers are something like 17m3 vs. 75m3) but also considerably lighter (less than 1 mT vs. 4.5 mT), since it lacks a lot of the MLPM's "bells and whistles" and also is not reusable, so things such as MMOD shielding, etc. become easier and lighter (no need to cum up exposure). Also, structurally, the load paths are a bit simpler than MPLM's Shuttle-induced quasistatic loads...It ends up a bit more "cramped" than an MPLM (140 Kg/m3 vs. 120 Kg/m3) but, like the famous/infamous "what do you really want to intact return from ISS if you really have to pay for it", when you go commercial, full cost accounting, etc. all of suddent you become a lot more "efficient"... :laugh:
Jim - 21/2/2008 12:48 PMSo no ISPR's?
So no ISPR's?
We did not plan for an ISS rack hard-mounted on the side wall; however, the JSC folks looked at the PCM interior arrangement and think they can fit an ISRP "vertically" along the axis, with the launch loads going directly to the lower bulkhead. It would occupy the normal astronaut "working space", so it would have to be the last thing in and the first thing out.
Frankly, I don't understand that stuff too much myself.
antonioe - 21/2/2008 11:36 AMOn the COTS I ReAward Final Cut Poll thread, now closed, I promised to explain elements and rationale of our COTS proposal. If anybody is interested, I can deliver. Question: is this the appropriate thread? Moderators?By the way, that was a very interesting and enjoyable thread. Thanks to all that participated!
Bret - 21/2/2008 11:42 AM Anyone have a handy comparison chart?
This is the best I can come up with. I vouch for the Orbital numbers, the others are my best data and may be wrong:
Mass at
Max net cargo
Combined
Payload
Launch, Kg
press.
unpress.
fuel
Limit
Ratio
Comments
0.31
0.37
0.36
S/C has two sections:press reenters, unpress burns up
0.43
0.24
antonioe - 21/2/2008 2:21 PMQuoteBret - 21/2/2008 11:42 AM Anyone have a handy comparison chart?This is the best I can come up with. I vouch for the Orbital numbers, the others are my best data and may be wrong:
antonioe - 21/2/2008 11:21 AM This is the best I can come up with. I vouch for the Orbital numbers, the others are my best data and may be wrong: Mass atMax net cargoCombinedPayloadVehicleLaunch, Kgpress.unpress.fuelLimitRatioCommentsProgress M17,1501,80001,9502,2300.31Progress M7,2701,71808602,578 0.35
http://www.mcc.rsa.ru/progres_m63.htm
antonioe - 22/2/2008 2:28 AMFor the record: we do NOT have a capability D proposal. We showed NASA what we would/could do if the business situaiton changed significantly. that work was based on our 2000-2004 STAS studies, and it shows a two-person capsule considerably more spacious than Geminy, but not any better than Apollo.
In other words, taking the "mini" out of Gemini but still costing $200 million a pop. Maybe 3 people to 200km 28.5 deg with sardine can arrangement but not any more.
I was thinking along the lines of multiple launches a reentry vehicle with 3 or 4 astronauts and an OM / SM combination which stays in orbit and is reused like the Parom tug. But that's a ridiculous proposal, anyway. Far, far easier (and safer!) to develop a larger launcher. Then of course, you could persuade NASA to only recruit dwarfs for the ISS...
Lampyridae - 21/2/2008 6:18 PM Then of course, you could persuade NASA to only recruit dwarfs for the ISS...
Hey! I'm 5'6"!!! :angry:
antonioe - 21/2/2008 8:20 PMQuoteLampyridae - 21/2/2008 6:18 PM Then of course, you could persuade NASA to only recruit {mass efficient people :laugh: } for the ISS...Hey! I'm 5'6"!!! :angry:
Lampyridae - 21/2/2008 6:18 PM Then of course, you could persuade NASA to only recruit {mass efficient people :laugh: } for the ISS...
