CEV: Another point of wiew.

[carp]

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-apollo-2.doc

 

[spacefire]

carp, what is your motivation for flooding this BBS with links to documents and images?<br />Is it that hard to make ONE coherent thread stating your no doubt fascinating insights into space exploration? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[radarredux]

Well, I'm not going to read a random Word file pulled off the Internet, but it may be the same as this HTML page:<br /><br />Apollo 2 Will Take Real Money To Emulate The Original<br />http://www.spacedaily.com/news/lunar-05zzy.html<br /><br />I generally disagree with his position: "<i>Space vehicles need to be as light as possible. To achieve this goal, they need to be designed for specific functions. The CEV spacecraft developed in the ESAS study violates this basic principle ...</i>"<br /><br />I agree that the CEV is over designed for trips to ISS and even short trips to the Moon, and this will probably cause it to be much more expensive than an ISS-only vehicle.<br /><br />Griffin's position is that if you are going to support extended missions to the Moon (6 months) and eventually Mars, why build three spacecraft? While it may be more expensive in the short run, it will be less expensive in the long run.<br /><br />I personally prefer a plan that is designed for the long run.

 

[nacnud]

Well the standing army should be greatly reduced from its current numbers and Griffin has said that if a company can supply the ISS cheaper than NASA he will use them.

 

[carp]

carp, what is your motivation for flooding this BBS with links to documents and images? <br />"Is it that hard to make ONE coherent thread stating your no doubt fascinating insights into space exploration"? ------------------------<br />Well,im for CEV,and for ESAS vision,I do not agree with Mr Jeffrey Bell,and i think to be coherent in this. But i think that all opinions must be known.All,not only those that like we. The space exploration is too damned important for being a match between Capsules and Spaceplanes supporters.<br />

 

[drwayne]

The point is a valid one. <br /><br />You keep starting new threads with the same theme. Please stop doing that.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[dreada5]

To be honest, I was a little skeptical when I first starting reading the original spacedaily article. I thought Mr Bell was just going to be whining about VSE programme because they weren't doing it his way! But he raised some serious worthwhile concerns, whose realisation could have major impact on the success of VSE.<br /><br />One problem I had with what he said though, was at the end he said the best thing to do was to ramp down US participation in ISS and cut the shuttle program... just like that! And then that diverted money would give VSE a better chance. But how on earth can the US just cut ISS participation?!!! They <b>MUST</b> at least try and work towards meeting their obligations to the other member nations by launching all their bulky hardware. Otherwise not only will the first major international collaboration on space station be a loss, but so will all that possible support from private launchers and possibly any future international collaboration on a moonbase!<br /><br />The US space agency <b>HAS</b> to leave the ISS in a state that other nations and private space industry can pick up and run with.