The VERY HUMILIATING close encounter that will NEVER happen:

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>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... <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />FYI, gaetanomarano, shuttle_guy has gotten closer to the Space Shuttle than most of us here can even dream of getting. He has <i>touched</i> the Orbiters. He works at Kennedy Space Center. So you'll have to excuse me if I trust his intimate knowledge of the Orbiter over your hunches. I do not intend any offense by this, but the simple fact is that he is much better qualified to know the reality of the situation. <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>

 

[jamie_young]

Your first image is not fair as the CEV is based on an older design that the Shuttle. Your second image was respectful. <br /><br />Why do some people have to disrespect the Shuttle just because they like the CEV? Why can't you like the CEV and respect the Shuttle?

 

[subzero788]

I don't understand you gaetanomarano, in one thread you complain that "the CEV is too large, like a limousine" and now you say its too small "like a toy" compared to the shuttle. The fact is the shuttle is unnecessarily large, so that even when it's not launching 21 tons of cargo it still has to carry its large cargo bay into orbit, while the CEV is more efficient, carrying only what it needs--but wait haven't i heard you say the CEV is too big and you would prefer a 4 man model?<br /><br />I'm getting so sick of these "CEV sucks" threads, just accept what the CEV is going to do, put man back on the moon (which I think nearly everybody here wants to see happen!).

 

[subzero788]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> Why do some people have to disrespect the Shuttle just because they like the CEV? Why can't you like the CEV and respect the Shuttle? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Don't get me wrong, I don't disrespect the shuttle it has acheived a hell of a lot in its time but its time is over. It is now old, unsafe, expensive and it doesn't get us anywhere beyond LEO. It's time for something new...

 

[mattblack]

I respect the Shuttle VERY much. It first flew when I was 15. I'm 40 now!! It's been in my life a very long time. However, after ISS, it's time for the old bird to go. <br /><br />And for me, the attached picture from May 1996 in an OPF (don't remember which one) is VERY special to me: The vehicle above me and my colleague is Columbia. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />I can only suggest you to search on internet a drawing with exact Shuttle dimensions.<br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />"...obsession..."<br /><br />no, only rationality<br /><br />in last 25 years ALL people was supporters of Shuttle (as a possible 100+ times reusable spaceplane) against little and unreusable toy-capsules<br /><br />I've NOT changed my (right) opinion about it, and I'm NOT "obsessed" (like many peoples ARE for "capsules"...)<br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />about dinosaurs...<br /><br />they was VERY STRONG but don't survived due to a stupid meteorite crashed on earth (another VSE plan???)<br /><br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />don't use the dead Columbia crew to support your capsule...<br /><br />remember that Shuttles NEVER "killed" its crews!<br /><br />Challenger (and its crew) was KILLED by an ***SRB*** defect!<br /><br />Columbia (and its crew) was KILLED by an External Tank ***FOAM*** defect!<br /><br />Shuttles are VERY SAFE AND RELIABLE for crews when they are NOT KILLED by EXTERNAL problems!<br />

 

[nacnud]

<font color="yellow">In [the] last 25 years all people was supporters of [the] Shuttle (as a possible 100+ times reusable spaceplane) against little and unreusable toy-capsule.<br /><br /><font color="white">ESA prefered the capsule option for CRV untill offered resurch data in exchange for parts in the X-38<br /><br />Russia continued to use Soyuz<br /><br />China developed SZ<br /><br />The STS was the US manned program, cutting the STS in favour of a capsule was seen as cutting the manned program. It was seen that to support the STS was to support the US manned program, not that the STS was the best possible vehicle just that is was the only one available.<br /><br />There were lots of other reasons for supporting the STS other that it being a space plane.</font></font>

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />thank you for grammar correction<br /><br />lots of other reasons for supporting the STS />>>>> right! I've described them many times<br /><br />about capsules...<br /><br />ESA, Russia and China MUST use little. old and ugly capsules because the ESA+Russia+China annual budget for space is LESS than $3 billion IN TOTAL... like THREE CEV/CLV launches!<br /><br />When ESA, Russia and (EXPECIALLY) China will have (or will decide to invest) a BIG budget (like the VSE plan) you will see many "objects" like this:<br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />I think it is a little speculation to use the dead Columbia's crew to support the new capsule business... (expecially if the original image I've used is NOT of Columbia, but, as I think, only of a little, plastic, scale-model of Shuttle...)<br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />shuttle_guy has gotten closer to the Space Shuttle than most of us here can even dream of getting />>>>><br /><br />I'm happy for shuttle_guy<br /><br />I've found Shuttle's drawings and dimensions on internet... but probably they are changed very much recently...<br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />"...in one thread you complain that "the CEV is too large, like a limousine" and now you say its too small "like a toy"..."<br /><br /><br />shuttles are big because they NEED to be big to launch 25 tons payload, 8 astronauts, robot-arm, airlock, etc... Shuttle is a space-truck then it MUST be heavy like a truck to do its work<br /><br />a new Shuttle my be twice the weight of a CEV but it have many advantages (first: 100+ times reusability) that capsules haven't<br /><br />CEV is too little (like a toy) if compared with a Shuttle-space-truck, but is TOO BIG "as capsule", so it will cost TWICE the price for 99% of its (few) future (real) missions that will need only 3/4 astronauts each (waiting for 2040's mars missions...)<br /><br />33% of CEV/SM space (and cost) will be UNUSED so it's only a DEAD-WEIGHT sent in space (and back to earth) without any good reason (but at a VERY HIGH price)<br /><br />I ACCEPT the fact that CEV will be built and Shuttle will be retired... I only give my opinion about this choice (like many peoples do in America and in the world about this and other arguments... can I do it?)<br /><br />

 

[drwayne]

"I've found Shuttle's drawings and dimensions on internet"<br /><br />You can find a lot of incorrect data on the internet. Even from official sources. So I would be a little more circumspect about taking an argumentative tone with someone who actually works on something based on data that you found on the internet.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />I agree about internet...<br /><br />but the (well known here) measure of INTERNAL cargo-bay is 4.6 meters... the figure I've posted (as EXTERNAL cargo-bay width) is 5.2 metres... the difference is ONLY of 0.6 metres for BOTH sides!!!<br /><br />do you not think that the cargo-bay doors and its internal structure may be (ONLY) 0.3 metres each? (ONE FOOT!)<br /><br />I think the "5.2 meters" figure is true... and is very close to the 5.5 meters CEV diameters... then, my picture is correct<br />

 

[nacnud]

S_G said above the cargo bay doors are only a few inches thick.

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />well... if "a few inches" mean "12 inches per side" I agree with shuttle_guy (and this implies that my figures and my image are correct)<br />

 

[carp]

Gaetano.you have an obsession,admit it.Shuttles NEVER "killed" its crews? Challenger (and its crew) was KILLED by an SRB defect? Columbia (and its crew) was KILLED by an External Tank FOAM defect? Ah,its ok.those crews <br />would be happy to know it.But, waits a moment...the SRB and the external tank make part of STS system..or not? Very pretty your Shenzou-shuttle.is based on AMERICAN design,no? im sure that USA astronauts will be happy to see an new ferry for LEO while they will go to the moon and beyond.

 

[CalliArcale]

Actually, I have to side with him there, although it would be more correct for him to say that the Orbiters never killed anyone; the phrase Space Shuttle technically refers to the entire system, although many people (myself included) have a tendency to use it to mean the Orbiter.<br /><br />It's true: defects in the Orbiter have never been fatal to date. However, defects in the ET and SRBs have led to deaths. It's sometimes been a close thing, though. <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>

 

[dobbins]

In both accidents the cause of death was blunt force trauma after the orbiter broke up due to aerodynamic stresses. The cause of the orbiter getting into an alignment where the aerodynamic stresses would break it apart differ, but the orbiter breakup remains a constant. Capsules are self correcting, they settle into one of their stable fall states instead of breaking up. Space planes do not. This is a design flaw that is common to all space planes including the orbiter.<br /><br />

 

[drwayne]

Interesting perspective. I wonder if there was an AOA constraint on the Apollo capsule, related to ascent mode failures.<br /><br />Wayne<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />true... SRB and ET are PART of a Shuttle... but (as I've explained in many posts) the Shuttle is NOT a TRUE (safe) spaceplane because (due to a bad design) at lift-off it's only a "rocket with wings" with all the risks of a rocket... like the CLV... that will have an SRB as its main (and only) engine... and its 2nd stage will be an SSME with a ET derived tank... and up to six astronauts on the top of both................. instead of use the most realiable part of the Shuttle "system" (the Orbiter), the new CLV rocket will just use the two parts that originate the two Shuttle's disasters... VERY GOOD!<br /><br />but it's also true that the Shuttle, by itself, is 100% SAFE, so, a new shuttle, with all the advantages of the old shuttle and without its problems, may be the most reliable vehicle possible!<br /><br />about Shenzhou image... I "build" my images with the base-images I found... their details are NOT the most important part of an image... please look at its MESSAGE<br /><br />ultimately, carp, I've no "obsessions" for nothing<br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />big flame from an SRB segment due to bad isolation and main tank explosion = aerodynamic stresses<br /><br />big piece of ET foam that destroy a wing and the Shuttle on reentry = aerodynamic stresses<br /><br />...but many talks here about my "imagination"...<br /> <br /><br />I hope that CLV will never have the same (SRB and ET derived...) "aerodynamic stresses"...<br /><br />

 

[mattblack]

>>ultimately, carp, I've no "obsessions" for nothing<<<br /><br />NOT TRUE!! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>