Author Topic: COTS D Minus (Read 19026 times)

Blappy · « **Reply #40 on:** 09/19/2008 08:01 pm »

Quote from: Jim on 09/19/2008 07:07 pm

Quote from: Blappy on 09/19/2008 05:48 pm

Or just land it on a runway!

Not viable for an emergency spacecraft. It would limit deorbit opportunities

I will say that is wrong. The longer the downrange and the crossrange the MORE de-orbit opportunities you have to get back to the CONUS.

Jose · « **Reply #41 on:** 09/19/2008 08:42 pm »

This John Muratore? Looks like he's not at NASA at all anymore.

Jim · « **Reply #42 on:** 09/19/2008 10:09 pm »

Quote from: Blappy on 09/19/2008 08:01 pm

Quote from: Jim on 09/19/2008 07:07 pm
Quote from: Blappy on 09/19/2008 05:48 pm

Or just land it on a runway!

Not viable for an emergency spacecraft. It would limit deorbit opportunities

I will say that is wrong. The longer the downrange and the crossrange the MORE de-orbit opportunities you have to get back to the CONUS.

No, it doesn't help that much. The cross range for most CRV's isn't that high (less than the shuttle)

The ocean covers 70% of the surface of the earth. It is a much better target in an emergency.

antonioe · « **Reply #43 on:** 09/19/2008 11:06 pm »

Quote from: Jose on 09/19/2008 08:42 pm

This John Muratore? Looks like he's not at NASA at all anymore.

Yup. That's John. I know that at one point in time he had serious health problems. I'm glad to see he looks pretty healthy in that photo, obviously taken after his appointment to UT (the years show, just like for the rest of us...)

Blappy · « **Reply #44 on:** 09/20/2008 01:19 am »

Quote from: Jim on 09/19/2008 10:09 pm

Quote from: Blappy on 09/19/2008 08:01 pm
Quote from: Jim on 09/19/2008 07:07 pm
Quote from: Blappy on 09/19/2008 05:48 pm

Or just land it on a runway!

Not viable for an emergency spacecraft. It would limit deorbit opportunities

I will say that is wrong. The longer the downrange and the crossrange the MORE de-orbit opportunities you have to get back to the CONUS.

No, it doesn't help that much. The cross range for most CRV's isn't that high (less than the shuttle)

The ocean covers 70% of the surface of the earth. It is a much better target in an emergency.

I'm not talking about "most CRV's" though.

siatwork · « **Reply #45 on:** 09/20/2008 01:55 am »

I think the crossrange argument would be stronger if reentry vehicles with higher L/D, like winged, were not still gliding, but were powered (no chance for a long time). Unpowered descent with L/D much poorer than that of an average glider/aircraft still limits you to a single chance at approach on selected airstrips.

antonioe · « **Reply #46 on:** 09/21/2008 10:08 pm »

Quote from: Peter NASA on 09/19/2008 03:05 am

Sorry Dr, but you're wrong. I had a letter in front of me today with the wording COTS D- Capability. It is part of the assessment study for Shuttle requirements in an INKSA waiver denial situation, so that is what you mean, as it's not initiated yet. Saying it's "speculation" is a frabrication, please be very careful with your wording.

An official NASA letter on lifeboat ("D-minus") requirements - as opposed to "classical" COTS Capability D??? Wow, that is big news!!! Could you elaborate? Is it from the NAC?