Re: Ares vs DIRECT

On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 15:27:29 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
behlingjo@xxxxxxxxx made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
as to indicate that:

Launch vehicles are not airliners because
1. LV are not as reliable

Irrelevant to the point.

2. LV don't have as many graceful "abort" options. Abort towers are
more like ejection seats

Again, irrelevant to the point.

3. airliners don't carry anything as large and hazardous as a fueled
spacecraft.

I wasn't referring to a "fueled spacecraft." We were referring to
"cargo" (e.g., logistics resupply for ISS).

4. There is nothing "routine" about an LV launch

Again, irrelevant to the point.

5. Margins in LV systems are less than airliner

Again, irrelevant to the point.


Throwing the BS card. You can't say my points are irrelevant and still
maintain the airliner analogy.

Of course I can, since none of your points are relevant to why the
analogy doesn't work.

Space launch is not routine and it is
relevant point.

No, it's not.

And again, cargo is NOT just ISS logistics in the rule "Don't mix crew
and cargo"

No one claimed it was. You have to work on the logic thing.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Ares vs DIRECT
    ... I wasn't referring to a "fueled spacecraft." ... "cargo". ... There is no cannister in the first place. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Ares vs DIRECT
    ... behlingjo@xxxxxxxxx made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way ... I have been referring to any type of payload ... Cargo is not just "logistics resupply for ISS". ...
    (sci.space.policy)
Loading