The VERY HUMILIATING close encounter that will NEVER happen:

[gaetanomarano]

<br />no comment...<br />

 

[centsworth_II]

Yes, humiliating. It's not who you know but where you go. Or as the realtors say, "location, location, location."<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />we have figured the progress in space as a toys-to-spacecrafts evolution... not as a spacecraft-to-toy decline... <font color="yellow">no matter where the little "toy" will go...</font><br /><br /><br />P.S. - send a Shuttle in lunar orbit is very expensive... but not impossible... if we want to do it, of course... but... also in lunar orbit... the little capsule will appear only a "toy" near the Shuttle...<br /><br />why don't scrap all american aircraft's carriers and use its iron to build motorboatCEVs?<br />

 

[centsworth_II]

I won't ask you, because you're obviously biased. But to everyone else, which ride would you choose? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[skyone]

Gaeteranamo...<br />You tire everyone.<br />Can you predict what this thread will eventually look like? Do you know why you are able to do that? Honestly, would this discussion be ANY different than the dozens of threads you've hi-jacked? I have an idea. Since the contents of your tirades and one sided discussions must always be so narrow minded, uninclusive and stubborn, why don't you start a "dedicated gaetamarano" thread AND STAY THERE? What is the point with posting on other threads or hosting new ones when you arn't interested in assimiliating, reconciling, understanding, and even listening to what other people have to say? When you are bored, and lonely, you can post to yourself without bothering other people. Occasionally, a few of us might stop in and chat with you. Everybody wins.

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />SUV is elegant... but space-work NEED a space-truck!<br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />"image worth 1000 words"... I've decided to "visualize" in one image my opinions about Shuttle retirement and next 40+ years CEV-future...<br />

 

[najab]

><i>As for the Shuttle going to the moon... Not going to happen.</i><p>Psst....I think that was the point.</p>

 

[centsworth_II]

<font color="yellow">"SUV is elegant... but space-work NEED a space-truck!"</font><br /><br />Got it if I need it!<br /> <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />probably it will be the only way for lunar-CEV to carry a DECENT payload... instead of it "Minimal Cargo Capability" (NASA words...) ...a SO LITTLE figure (only a few rocks...) that (in CEV data) NASA is unable to indicate it in kg. or lbs.!<br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />I've used an image found on internet and its purpose is only to compare both vehicles... probably the original image was of a Shuttle landing<br />

 

[CalliArcale]

*shivers*<br /><br />There's a subtext to that picture which you probably did not intend, gaetanomarano. The Orbiter in your picture is clearly Columbia. <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /> You can tell by the large black triangles near where the leading edges of the wings meets the fuselage. Only Columbia had those; refined data following Columbia's first few flights revealed that it was not neccesary to put so much carbon-carbon on that area, so they didn't. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />probably you're right... but the original image was changed and retouched many times before I've found it on internet<br /><br />I've not searched the image of a "particular" Shuttle but only an image with the right orientation and background to "blend" it with the CEV image<br /><br />my intention (if you WANT to understand it...) was NOT to compare the unexisting CEV with the (now unexisting) Columbia... but only to compare the little-toy-CEV with the giant-Shuttle-space-truck (and I hope that we can discuss of it)<br /><br />

 

[CalliArcale]

Yeah, I understand the intent. And it is an interesting picture in that light; it might be even more fun to made 3D models of the two and make an even better picture. I assume you got them as close to scale as you could?<br /><br />It's just hard for me not to notice when it's Columbia in a picture. That's all. There was a TV ad not too long ago that spooked me too because they had unfortunately picked stock footage of Columbia. I guess it's like seeing a picture of New York with the World Trade Center prominently displayed. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[nacnud]

One point I'd like to make is that the CLV that Gaetano dislikes so much can actually orbit roughly the same payload as the STS. Admittedly the launch environment will be very different but it should be noted that for just launching satellites the CLV and STS are comparable.

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />after I've seen again the Shuttle base-image, I think it's too perfect... probably it's the image of a scale-model Shuttle<br /><br />about 3D... I've made the final image (with ready available pictures) in about 15-20 minutes... 3D software need very much time to have a better (but similar) image<br /><br />about CEV-Shuttle scale comparison... despite I've used ready available images and a 15 minutes work... the scale comparison is very close... in fact, the CEV 5.5 mt diameter will be near the Shuttle's mid fuselage width

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />absolutely not true... not if used as a Progress-like cargo<br /><br />the Shuttle has a NET 25 tons payload (28 tons nominal) while the 8 tons Progress has only 2.4 tons payload (and the max CEV cargo payload will be 6 tons for the unpressurized version)<br /><br />if you want to compare the CLV with Shuttle, you must add engine, fuel, hardware and navigation system to move its payload in the space like with Shuttle and Progress<br /> <br />about CLV use for satellites... there are not so much 25 tons satellites to launch... in fact, also half-CLV-payload rockets are used to launch two or more satellites a time... this is due to electronics progress that help to build more complex satellites with the same (or less) weight... of course, we can launch five satellites with one CLV... but this choice REDUCE the number of CLV for sat to only a few... and INCREASE very much the risk to lose a very high value (five satellites) if the launch will fail (that may happen many times since CLV is a completely new rocket)

 

[JonClarke]

They aren't to scale. The CEV is 5.5 m in diameter. Tthe shuttle fuselage is what, 4.6 m wide? So the CEV should be shown as significanty wider (by about 20%) than the shuttle, which it is not in this picture. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br /><br />despite I'm (probably) ALONE in the world to say this (and against "army of engineers") ...I think... NO... I'M SURE... that NASA (with CEV...), Russia (with Kliper...) and ESA (with NOTHING...) are ALL going to make some GIANT and VERY EXPENSIVE mistakes...<br /><br />but I insist to write and talk about these "new plans" because I think that "mistakes" are VERY SIMILAR to rocket launch... like rockets launches, also "mistakes" can be easily "aborted" at lift-off (if a sensor don't give its "ok") saving the rocket and its expensive payload instead of destroy them... so, I try to suggest NASA, Russia and ESA to "abort" their current plans and "draw" something better!<br /><br />

 

[micro10]

Yawn" Satellites don't need solar panels in space anymore for power, thing of the past..Get a life" get Hydro-magnetic energy"..( That was easy) Use the easy button!

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />no, you're both uncorrect JonClarke and shuttle_guy<br /><br />4.6 meters is the internal dimension of cargo-bay... the external mid fuselage width is 5.2 meters<br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />no, the mid fuselage falls vertically to wings, not like a pyramid, so, it's large like the cargo-bay doors... 5.2 meters<br /><br />the Shuttle-CEV scale is very close, but, also if I enlarge the CEV of another 20%, it will remain very little... like a toy...<br />

 

[carp]

Gaetano...Yours is an true obsession,no? http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/5419/138mi.jpg

 

[carp]

http://img386.imageshack.us/img386/340/130qg.jpg

 

[CalliArcale]

That last one is rather poetic. I like it. The CEV paying homage to Columbia. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>