Re: Cost of slowing down?
- From: "Mike Dennis" <mapson@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 23:49:50 GMT
"George Evans" <georgee3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:BF8184A1.B8F%georgee3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> in article 42gnl11deqe6dclfdc4si0d0drrf0ludsq@xxxxxxx, Monte Davis at
> monte.davis@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 10/23/05 9:58 AM:
>
>> "Brian Gaff" <Briang1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> I was wondering why the CEV was a larger version of Apollo type re-entry
>>> techniques. I eventually realised that it is in fact lighter and
>>> cheaper on
>>> all sorts of fronts.
>>>
>>> To get a Shuttle style heat dissipation working for the higher speeds
>>> of
>>> coming in from the moon, would be not only more difficult, but heavier,
>>> cost
>>> more to launch in the first place because of that, and presumably more
>>> vulnerable, as it will be exposed throughout the flight.
>>
>> Careful -- that line of thought might lead you toward the conclusion that
>> the
>> Shuttle was a "failure" not because of this or that design choice, but
>> because
>> bringing a sizeable vehicle rather than a capsule back safely even from
>> LEO is
>> *hard* and *expensive* -- much more so than we thought in 1969-1972, or
>> than
>> most have been willing to admit ever since.
>
> The concept of a flying reentry is a good one IMHO. While studying
> Columbia's ill fated reentry I realized, from an aviation perspective, how
> smooth and low stress a shuttle reentry *normally* is. It seems to be much
> more comfortable than a capsule reentry.
>
> A scaled down version of the shuttle, say of the size and weight of a CEV,
> seems ideal and I wouldn't be surprised if that is where things end up.
>
> The shuttle has been very useful. In science and engineering, failures are
> as useful as successes.
>
We have a winner! Very well said!
The funny thing is, if the shuttle had never have been built, all of the
people bashing it here would be clamoring for it--promising the very same
things it never delivered! It's easy to be a contrarian.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Cost of slowing down?
- From: tomcat
- Re: Cost of slowing down?
- References:
- Cost of slowing down?
- From: Brian Gaff
- Re: Cost of slowing down?
- From: Monte Davis
- Re: Cost of slowing down?
- From: George Evans
- Cost of slowing down?
- Prev by Date: Re: Cost of slowing down?
- Next by Date: Re: CEV a Step Backwards
- Previous by thread: Re: Cost of slowing down?
- Next by thread: Re: Cost of slowing down?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|