Space News
space history and artifacts articles

Messages
space history discussion forums

Sightings
worldwide astronaut appearances

Resources
selected space history documents

Websites
related space history websites


Thread Closed  Topic Closed
  collectSPACE: Messages
  Commercial Space - Military Space
  Space Operations Inc. Gemini-derived Eclipse (Page 1)

Post New Topic  
profile | register | preferences | faq | search


This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2 
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Space Operations Inc. Gemini-derived Eclipse
Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 27328
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 02-17-2011 03:56 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Space Operations, Inc. release
Space Operations, Inc. Announces First Orbital Manned Commercial Spacecraft Operational by 2012

"Eclipse" Spacecraft another milestone for America’s Rocket City

Space Operations, Inc. announced plans today to build a two-seat manned orbital spacecraft for commercial and government use. The company plans a test launch in early to mid-2012, with a regular flight schedule beginning in late 2012 or early 2013.

The Eclipse spacecraft will utilize the highly successful legacy Gemini technology that was developed by NASA to allow SOI to bring this product to market in a very short time frame.

"We will incorporate modern materials and the latest proven technologies into the design to improve performance. This design was flown successfully 13 times back in the sixties, 10 of those missions were manned," said James Hopkins, company CTO.

"The technology will allow for making land recoveries and quick refurbishment of the capsule for reuse in future missions," said Hopkins. In addition to the crew, the Eclipse will be able to carry up to 10,000 pounds of cargo into orbit. The company will utilize the services of other commercial rocket manufacturers to launch the spacecraft.

"America needs a manned space flight capability based here in the U.S. now, not in four or five years," said Craig Russell, company CEO. A former Air Force pilot and retired airline pilot, Russell has been developing the business model for five years. "We identified the prime contractor and sub-contractors to build the vehicle last year.

The company will use the spacecraft to service different sectors in the orbital space market including satellite servicing and repair, satellite deployment, space tourism, space station construction/re-supply, and space debris de-orbit.

There's no doubt that the space work force in the Huntsville region will be ready and able to meet the challenge of our schedule," said Russell. Local businessman and Huntsville native Chris Gattis was selected as president and will run the day-to-day operations of the company. "Mr. Gattis has a history of success in company operations and we are fortunate to have him on our management team," Russell said.

The company is seeking investors who are interested in commercial orbital space flight as well as individuals and businesses who will purchase seats on the first few flights. "The purpose of the first few missions will depend on who is first to put a deposit on the seats," said Gattis. "We are going to space in 2012, and we're looking for others to go with us."

About Space Operations, Inc.

Space Operations Inc. (SOI) is located in Madison, Alabama near NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center and the U.S. Space and Rocket Center.

SpaceAholic
Member

Posts: 3023
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 02-17-2011 04:15 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for SpaceAholic   Click Here to Email SpaceAholic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
A very aggressive schedule. There would be many long lead items - for example, assuming legacy OAMS/RCS propulsion is to be used, turning on Pratt & Whitney to restart the production of the SE-6 and SE-7 thrusters (that is unless Space Ops is going to petition for the assets in our collections).

bcrussell
Member

Posts: 69
From: Madison, AL. USA
Registered: Jan 2008

posted 03-07-2011 08:13 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for bcrussell   Click Here to Email bcrussell     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
All systems will be updated with the latest proven technology. For example, the avionics will include GPS.

SpaceAholic
Member

Posts: 3023
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 03-07-2011 08:18 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for SpaceAholic   Click Here to Email SpaceAholic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Can you give us a sense of what heritage technologies will be sustained in the updated spacecraft?

bcrussell
Member

Posts: 69
From: Madison, AL. USA
Registered: Jan 2008

posted 03-07-2011 09:58 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for bcrussell   Click Here to Email bcrussell     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The basic structure, re-entry module, retro module, and service module. We will also use the recovery system for ground landings.

kr4mula
Member

Posts: 599
From: Cinci, OH
Registered: Mar 2006

posted 03-08-2011 11:02 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for kr4mula   Click Here to Email kr4mula     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by bcrussell:
We will also use the recovery system for ground landings.

You don't mean the paraglider, do you? I don't believe the Gemini parachute system was qualified to make land landings, except in an emergency perhaps, and then they'd get quite a bump. Perhaps not the best for a standard mode. Will you be upgrading parachutes or providing some additional attenuation, perhaps?

Rocket Engineer
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 03-31-2011 04:28 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Rocket Engineer   Click Here to Email Rocket Engineer     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The Rogallo Wing Paraglider was flight qualified, but the US Navy forced NASA to change the design for a water landing. The only major problem with the wing was that the best material available at the time was Dacron fibers.

Today we have Spectra fibers and Kevlar that outperform Dacron by orders of magnitude. Our current plan is to revive the ground landing system for easier recovery and reusablity.

Rocket Engineer
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 03-31-2011 06:28 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Rocket Engineer   Click Here to Email Rocket Engineer     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Correction: The parasail system was flight qualified. The paraglider was flight tested, but had problems due to the materials problems previously referred to.

kr4mula
Member

Posts: 599
From: Cinci, OH
Registered: Mar 2006

posted 04-01-2011 09:56 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for kr4mula   Click Here to Email kr4mula     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I was actually making the point that the operational Gemini paraCHUTE system wasn't qualified for standard land landings and was wondering if you were planning on upgrading some verison of that, versus the paraglider/parasail.

Both the parasail and paraglider were extensively flight tested, but according to the NASA engineers I've interviewed (such as Rod Rose, John Kiker, and Kirby Hinson), neither was really a viable option for the Gemini program, at least within a reasonable timeframe. The parasail came closest. Various programs (like the parasev) demonstrated that both had potential, but the biggest obstacle that neither was able to overcome fully was in-flight deployment. Obviously things have come a long way since then. I would think your most recent database to look at for the parasail would be the experience with the now-defunct (unfortunately) X-38, which did use a parasail for land landings. Since that was in the last decade or so and done mostly in-house at JSC, I suspect some of those people are still around and have relevant information for you.

John Charles
Member

Posts: 316
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Registered: Jun 2004

posted 04-03-2011 08:28 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for John Charles     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I am no aerodynamicist, but have looked into the topic of para-something land-landings. There is not a lot of consistency in nomenclature, but it appears that: the Rogallo inflatable wing could be called a "paraglider"; the gliding parachute demonstrated with solid-fuel soft-landing rockets on the "El Kabong" Gemini boilerplate could be called a "parasail"; and the inflatable wing demonstrated for the X-38 could be called a "parafoil."

The Rogallo wing was eventually made to function successfully and repeatedly by North American Aviation using its own funds long after NASA gave up on it and opted for parachutes and water landings for Gemini. (I had never heard that the US Navy forced the decision; if true, they didn't have to force very hard -- the paraglider was way behind schedule.)

It appears that the Rogallo wing of 1965, if adopted, would have weighed more than the parachute, essentially displacing any payloads from Gemini for the convenience of landing on land.

John Charles
Member

Posts: 316
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Registered: Jun 2004

posted 04-03-2011 08:34 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for John Charles     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by SpaceAholic:
A very aggressive schedule.
I agree. Remember how the well-funded SpaceShip2 has been "three years from flight" since 2003? And suborbital flights are arguably only 2% as hard as orbital flights, at least in terms of kinetic-energy.

Best wishes for success to Eclipse!

bcrussell
Member

Posts: 69
From: Madison, AL. USA
Registered: Jan 2008

posted 04-04-2011 05:38 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for bcrussell   Click Here to Email bcrussell     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
We will begin construction as soon as funding permits. We estimate it will take 6 to 9 months to construct the first flight ready vehicle.

328KF
Member

Posts: 829
From:
Registered: Apr 2008

posted 04-04-2011 10:27 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for 328KF   Click Here to Email 328KF     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by John Charles:
I agree. Remember how the well-funded SpaceShip2 has been "three years from flight" since 2003? And suborbital flights are arguably only 2% as hard as orbital flights, at least in terms of kinetic-energy.
SS2 is a complete launch system with it's own propulsion and launch aircraft. Eclipse has stated that they will be purchasing the launch services of a commercial provider, which will have invested it's own capital and taken it's own risk in the development of their product. (Well, some of that investment is coming from the U.S. taxpayers, but that's a different discussion.)

The success of this venture is hinged solely on the success (both technical and financial) of the selected commercial launch service company.

So to some extent, Eclipse's challenge is not not quite as daunting as that of Virgin/ Scaled.

SpaceAholic
Member

Posts: 3023
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 04-05-2011 12:10 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for SpaceAholic   Click Here to Email SpaceAholic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
SS2 and its carrier aircraft where specifically developed as a complementary system; overcoming the integration challenges required to marry a man-rated complaint Eclipse with a different companies non-purpose built launch vehicle will be exceeded only by the the difficulties with building and operationally certifying the spacecraft itself.

Rocket Engineer
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 04-06-2011 03:55 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Rocket Engineer   Click Here to Email Rocket Engineer     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Building and certifying the Eclipse will be less difficult because the research and development has already been done by NASA in the 1960s. This spacecraft has a history of 13 successful flight operations, with 10 of those flights manned. This will be an engineering project, not research and development like a clean sheet approach.

SpaceAholic
Member

Posts: 3023
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 04-08-2011 07:25 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for SpaceAholic   Click Here to Email SpaceAholic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Might agree if you were actually building to the same design/specifications, and with the tooling, materials, launch system and human capitol (with their existing skillsets at the time of Project Gemini) and manufacturing capabilities.

However, while Eclipse may be similar geometrically to Gemini its essentially not the same spacecraft - based on your site and earlier posts to this thread, Space Ops has indicated it will be altering performance characteristics and shifting to more current technology (in some instances this is from the inherent benefit of doing so but also expect its by necessity since the industrial base required to replicate much of the original Gemini hardware could not be resurrected without incurring extraordinary cost).

garymilgrom
Member

Posts: 1571
From: Atlanta, GA, USA
Registered: Feb 2007

posted 04-08-2011 11:34 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for garymilgrom   Click Here to Email garymilgrom     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
If the goal of this business is to attract wealthy people for a ride into space I think this will not work. Remember Gemini was a very tight fit inside - it had 50% more volume than Mercury but it housed two people. I've read stories of how the astronauts needed to place one foot upon the other as there was not enough room in the footwell for both feet. That does not sound like the way to attract paying customers. If the goal is to launch scientists or astronauts to the ISS that is a different story and much more realistic.

space1
Member

Posts: 506
From: Danville, Ohio, USA
Registered: Dec 2002

posted 04-08-2011 11:55 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for space1   Click Here to Email space1     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I think you're exaggerating a bit. Yes, Gemini was a tight fit. And the tallest astronauts had trouble "fitting in." But the footwell obviously had room for both feet - each foot was resting in its own stirrup of the ejection seat, within the footwell. I think Stafford has mentioned how his boots had to overlap some while in the stirrups. But once they were on orbit they could raise their feet into the footwell. You might also feel confined if you wanted to fully stretch out. Stafford remarked during a book signing that he could not fully stretch out even with his feet in the upper part of the footwell. I think worst case is it would limit the duration of flights.

------------------
John Fongheiser
Historic Space Systems

garymilgrom
Member

Posts: 1571
From: Atlanta, GA, USA
Registered: Feb 2007

posted 04-08-2011 12:31 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for garymilgrom   Click Here to Email garymilgrom     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I defer to John's experience. Perhaps I am remembering a story about room inside after an EVA, when they had the umbilical and other things coiled up inside. Thanks for your correction John.

John Charles
Member

Posts: 316
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Registered: Jun 2004

posted 04-08-2011 10:02 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for John Charles     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by garymilgrom:
... If the goal is to launch scientists or astronauts to the ISS that is a different story and much more realistic.
Actually, that seems to be the less realistic option. Gemini had -- and, by similarity, Eclipse has -- no internal transfer capability. No space station has ever been re-staffed by EVA.

Rocket Engineer
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 04-15-2011 02:50 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Rocket Engineer   Click Here to Email Rocket Engineer     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by John Charles:
No space station has ever been re-staffed by EVA.
So just because something has not been done before, it can't be done now. Then why do space stations have airlocks? All that would be required is a grapple fitting near the airlock for a robot arm to grab and hold the spacecraft in place.

Take a look at the picture on the Services Page of the website. It shows an Eclipse with a robot arm and solar panels for an electric propulsion system for orbit transfer.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 27328
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 04-15-2011 03:56 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
So is the plan then for the Eclipse crew to be wearing Hamilton-Sundstrand provided EMU spacesuits? Because at current, the Quest airlock can only support the EMU.

Also, can Quest's hatch be opened from the outside?

Fra Mauro
Member

Posts: 1017
From: Maspeth, NY
Registered: Jul 2002

posted 04-16-2011 11:29 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Fra Mauro   Click Here to Email Fra Mauro     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
What launch vehicle would be used?

John Charles
Member

Posts: 316
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Registered: Jun 2004

posted 04-16-2011 10:59 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for John Charles     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Rocket Engineer:
So just because something has not been done before, it can't be done now. Then why do space stations have airlocks? All that would be required is a grapple fitting near the airlock for a robot arm to grab and hold the spacecraft in place...
Certainly possible, but not very convenient for routine restaffing and resupply operations. Space station crews move back and forth to their transport vehicles, something not easily done if each transit requires suit-up, prebreathe, depressurization, etc. Pressurized cargo transfer (limited as it would be on Eclipse) would also be inconvenient.

And Gemini EVA required depressurization of the crew compartment -- presumably Eclipse will, too. Will the hatches remain open and the cabin remain at vacuum when unoccupied? (How long would Eclipse remain on station?)

bcrussell
Member

Posts: 69
From: Madison, AL. USA
Registered: Jan 2008

posted 05-11-2011 04:30 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for bcrussell   Click Here to Email bcrussell     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Fra Mauro:
What launch vehicle would be used?
Our first choice for the launch vehicle is the Falcon 9:
  • man-rated
  • cost
  • engine out capability

cspg
Member

Posts: 4046
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006

posted 05-12-2011 01:07 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for cspg   Click Here to Email cspg     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Falcon 9 is "man-rated"?

When did that happen? Maybe it did happen but I don't recall reading anything about it...

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 27328
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 05-12-2011 04:33 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Falcon 9 was designed from the start to be man-rated and per SpaceX, currently meets "all of NASA's published human-rating requirements, apart from the escape systems."

SpaceX is developing its escape system, which is integrated into Dragon, not Falcon 9, under its CCDev2 contract with NASA.

music_space
Member

Posts: 1050
From: Canada
Registered: Jul 2001

posted 05-12-2011 06:32 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for music_space   Click Here to Email music_space     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
A tight fit, for sure.

If I had the resources, I'd book a flight for fourteen days with a well-chosen crewmate, just to break Gemini 7 "Cooped Up In Space" duration record. That'll tell you if you have the Right Stuff or not!!

The electric-propulsion grapple-arm configuration looks really cool, like a scorpion!

Rocket Engineer
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 05-12-2011 08:47 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Rocket Engineer   Click Here to Email Rocket Engineer     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by music_space:
The electric-propulsion grapple-arm configuration looks really cool, like a scorpion!
The picture illustrates a concept of what the spacecraft would look like using a Solar Powered ECR Plasma Rocket Engine to transfer from LEO to higher orbits such as MEO or GEO to do satellite servicing. The solar panels would be retracted and stowed before the arm would attach to the target satellite using conventional bipropellant rockets for the Rendezvous and Docking maneuvers.

Rocket Engineer
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 05-29-2011 07:42 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Rocket Engineer   Click Here to Email Rocket Engineer     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
So is the plan then for the Eclipse crew to be wearing Hamilton-Sundstrand provided EMU spacesuits? Because at current, the Quest airlock can only support the EMU.
We are not planning to us the inefficient and bulky Hamilton-Sundstrand EMU (man in a balloon) spacesuits. We are talking with another company with a newer technology spacesuit that has much higher performance at a far less price. Stay tuned for this information as it can become public knowledge.

Rocket Engineer
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 07-05-2011 08:31 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Rocket Engineer   Click Here to Email Rocket Engineer     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
So is the plan then for the Eclipse crew to be wearing Hamilton-Sundstrand provided EMU spacesuits? Because at current, the Quest airlock can only support the EMU.
The answer to this question is no. Hamilton-Sundstrand EMUs are not designed for comfort. We will be looking for a new design with comfort and versatility.

bcrussell
Member

Posts: 69
From: Madison, AL. USA
Registered: Jan 2008

posted 07-24-2011 04:18 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for bcrussell   Click Here to Email bcrussell     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The man-rated Atlas V would be able to launch the Eclipse.

Captain Apollo
Member

Posts: 169
From: UK
Registered: Jun 2004

posted 08-05-2011 11:55 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Captain Apollo   Click Here to Email Captain Apollo     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Well, good luck. But I expect to come back to this thread in two years and find it didn't happen.

bcrussell
Member

Posts: 69
From: Madison, AL. USA
Registered: Jan 2008

posted 10-22-2011 12:33 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for bcrussell   Click Here to Email bcrussell     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Craig Russell, CEO at Space Operations Inc., will speak at the US Space and Rocket Center Oct. 23, 2011. The talk will focus on the 2-seat Eclipse spacecraft.

Craig will be one of several speakers at this town hall meeting, that is sponsored by Huntsville Space Professionals.

bcrussell
Member

Posts: 69
From: Madison, AL. USA
Registered: Jan 2008

posted 01-09-2012 09:13 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for bcrussell   Click Here to Email bcrussell     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Recently, MSFC Director Robert Lightfoot, was briefed by members of SpaceOps management.

Capabilities of the Eclipse and current plans to begin construction were discussed in detail.

bcrussell
Member

Posts: 69
From: Madison, AL. USA
Registered: Jan 2008

posted 07-24-2012 09:59 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for bcrussell   Click Here to Email bcrussell     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
In my capacity as CEO of Space Operations, Inc., I went to SpaceX (July 23) and toured their facility. We also had a meeting and discussed a range of issues related to an Eclipse launch.

Prospero
Member

Posts: 90
From: Manchester, UK
Registered: Mar 2006

posted 07-27-2012 01:13 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Prospero     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I have to admit that I'm pretty skeptical about this, not so much from a technological/engineering point of view, I just don't see a significant market for a two-man orbital vehicle. But I could be wrong, so if you think you can make a go of it, good luck to you.

SkyMan1958
Member

Posts: 355
From: CA.
Registered: Jan 2011

posted 07-27-2012 05:20 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for SkyMan1958   Click Here to Email SkyMan1958     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
So much for a test launch in early to mid 2012. Now I will grant you that essentially all manned projects that I've heard of have had rather major slippage in launching, but to say in February 2011 that you'll have a test launch in early to mid 2012 is quite literally UNBELIEVABLE. I would think that an investor would run far away from a company that gives such pie in the sky estimates.

I wish them well, but realistic timetables give a much better impression. All the other commercial companies, some (in one format or another) with decades of experience in manned spaceflight, are talking about manned launches in ~ 2015.

Jay Chladek
Member

Posts: 2211
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007

posted 07-31-2012 08:18 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Jay Chladek   Click Here to Email Jay Chladek     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
There are so many red flags with what I have read in this thread to make me think that this will likely not fly at all (let alone manned). For starters, trying to remake a Gemini capsule with "new" technology doesn't mean the design is "proven" because then one will need to test and re-certify everything to make sure no problems crop up with the new integration. About the only data that would transfer would be wind tunnel data for launch and reentry (and there are still too many unknowns about the Regallo wing design to know if it would work). One key little difference that will likely crop up for certain involves the spacecraft's life support system. Gemini used a pure oxygen atmosphere. To reduce the fire danger, a two gas system will likely be needed. And if the internal cabin of the "Eclipse" is intended for sea level pressure two gas, the internal design will have to be heavily altered to handle the pressure and then the crew will have to pre-breathe before an EVA.

This idea of a new EVA suit that is "lighter and cheaper" also makes no sense. Sure, one could probably come up with something simpler than an EMU, but the EMU is optimized for work on EVAs. More than likely the only alternative available in a short time period would be something closer to the Dave Clark suits as used in shuttle and the Red Bull Stratos project, but extra thermal coverings would need to be added everywhere and that is going to increase the bulk (basically, reinventing the old G5C Gemini suits in the process).

Third, the notion that a spacecraft can be "built" in only about a year is totally absurd, especially given that most every spacecraft design to come along before has taken a minimum of five years to get from drawing board to hardware and the average build time for a production capsule after the design has been tested on the early flights tends to be about three years (it was true for Apollo, Gemini might have been a little quicker, but not by much).

One thing is also certain, even IF a new spacecraft got built in record fashion, none of the current boosters are man rated at this time and even if they were, CCAFS range safety is very anal when it comes to their testing and certification procedures for a new booster/spacecraft combination, be it unmanned or manned. And if the paperwork isn't filed in exactly the proper way to show that the required testing is done, the bird will NOT fly from a U.S. base.

There are A LOT of things that smell very fishy about this whole thing to me.

Jim Behling
Member

Posts: 537
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010

posted 07-31-2012 09:11 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Jim Behling   Click Here to Email Jim Behling     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Jay Chladek:
One thing is also certain, even IF a new spacecraft got built in record fashion, none of the current boosters are man rated at this time and even if they were...
There are no requirements for "manrating" boosters for commercial spacecraft. Manrating is only a NASA requirement.
quote:
CCAFS range safety is very anal when it comes to their testing and certification procedures for a new booster/spacecraft combination, be it unmanned or manned. And if the paperwork isn't filed in exactly the proper way to show that the required testing is done, the bird will NOT fly from a U.S. base.
Totally incorrect depiction of range safety. New spacecraft/launch vehicle combinations apply to almost every launch. Certifying new launch vehicles is where most of the work is done. New spacecraft is not a big deal. Happens for every NASA science spacecraft.


This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2 

All times are CT (US)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Open Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  
Hop to:

Contact Us | The Source for Space History & Artifacts

Copyright 1999-2012 collectSPACE.com All rights reserved.


Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47a





advertisement