Re: modular aproach etc
- From: "Eric" <none@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 17:34:51 GMT
"Brian Gaff" <Briang1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:A_pTg.26971$r61.20271@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I have no real solid argument here, but am I the only one who thinks that
after all the years of flying a reusable winged vehicle, Nasa are throwing
away a whole lot of experience and knowledge by returning to this capsule
approach to re-entry?
Probably not.
I was hoping for Lockmart's CEV: a delta "winged" capsule that offers high
speed maneuverability during re-entry yet has the safety of a capsule.
In my mind's eye, I was picturing this vehicle being able to maneuver at
high speed during re-entry and then land gracefully under a ram-air canopy.
http://www1.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/X-38/Small/EC01-0339-146.jpg
What a beautiful sight that would have been. Use different colors though.
Red, white, and blue is too cliche'. I like flourescents (yellow, blue,
greens). Caution yellow looks really good against black end cells.
Modularity should've meant getting the Russians onboard as well. They are
wanting to build a next-generation spacecraft too. Build them with agreed
upon specifications, so modules could be used by one another. Hell, get the
ESA onboard too. Missions to the Moon and Mars could be international,
offsetting costs. The saved money is better spent on science probes...
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: modular aproach etc
- From: Jeff Findley
- Re: modular aproach etc
- From: Derek Lyons
- Re: modular aproach etc
- From: Brian Gaff
- Re: modular aproach etc
- References:
- modular aproach etc
- From: Brian Gaff
- modular aproach etc
- Prev by Date: Re: Waiting for controversy...?
- Next by Date: Re: Waiting for controversy...?
- Previous by thread: Re: modular aproach etc
- Next by thread: Re: modular aproach etc
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading