Re: Air Force Signs Off on SRB-CEV
- From: Brian Thorn <bthorn64@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 17:33:13 -0500
On 22 Aug 2005 12:59:29 -0700, "Ed Kyle" <edkyle99@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>In these cases, DoD created new launch vehicles to
>take the payloads off of shuttle.
You're treading on a very fine line there, Ed. Now you've added "and
transferred payloads from one to the other" which seems like you're
desperately trying to tweak your argument to make a point. My argument
is that the technical details are unimportant, Shuttle and Titan IV
were in the same class operational at the same time. So were Titan III
and Saturn IB.
Perhaps a better argument would be that "until EELV, the Air Force did
not have a master plan to have full redudancy among launch vehicles,
although it had rudimentary redundancy in the past."
>But until EELV,
>DoD had never maintained two parallel, equivalent
>launch systems and transferred payloads from one
>to the other when one launcher was grounded.
Titan IIIB and Atlas-Centaur in the '60s?
Delta and Atlas-E in the '70s?
Delta II and Titan II in the '90s?
Brian
.
- References:
- Re: Air Force Signs Off on SRB-CEV
- From: Brian Thorn
- Re: Air Force Signs Off on SRB-CEV
- From: Ed Kyle
- Re: Air Force Signs Off on SRB-CEV
- From: Jake McGuire
- Re: Air Force Signs Off on SRB-CEV
- From: Ed Kyle
- Re: Air Force Signs Off on SRB-CEV
- From: Jake McGuire
- Re: Air Force Signs Off on SRB-CEV
- From: Ed Kyle
- Re: Air Force Signs Off on SRB-CEV
- From: Jake McGuire
- Re: Air Force Signs Off on SRB-CEV
- From: Ed Kyle
- Re: Air Force Signs Off on SRB-CEV
- Prev by Date: Re: A lunar rover
- Next by Date: Re: Rover Rights
- Previous by thread: Re: Air Force Signs Off on SRB-CEV
- Next by thread: Re: Air Force Signs Off on SRB-CEV
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|