Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

gaetanomarano · 2006-05-10 08:20:03

|||||||||||
That is only 2 CLV/CEV and 2 CaLV how can this lead to more failed moon missions...
|||||||||||

no matter if the moon missions will be 2 or 20 per year, if the 1.5 l.a. will be 65% reliable 1/3 of (2 or 20) missions will fail

|||||||||||
Maybe but Nasa could buy 10 times as many if we could make them at there costs...
|||||||||||

buy more Soyuz and Progress for ISS missions (instead of use a vehicle that costs 10-15 times) is absolutely the smartest choice (especially for NASA budget...)

|||||||||||
That would mean approcimately 4 days out plus 4 days back with no landing
|||||||||||

no, I don't refer to the entire travel, only to the moon exploration: ten days on the moon with three astronauts instead of one week with four (that menas... same moon exploration time but 25% less weight of CEV/SM/LSAM/EDS/SLV)

.

SpaceNut · 2006-05-10 08:36:14

That is only 2 CLV/CEV and 2 CaLV how can this lead to more failed moon missions...
no matter if the moon missions will be 2 or 20 per year, if the 1.5 l.a. will be 65% reliable 1/3 of (2 or 20) missions will fail

So where is the 65% failure rate coming from for the CaLV hardware since it will not have the stack that has lead to the 2 shuttle failures. Nor will it have engines from any EELV's that would cause such a high failure rate since these are being redesigned. Yes since they are new, who knows how these things will fail but with proper testing we will definitely have better than 65%.

I am curious about how Nasa will handle the issues of disaster to the LSAM or CEV if either can not get the crew home for some unknown reason. Nasa is always crying about safe haven when it comes to shuttles use. How will they respond when it takes so long to get there for a rescue since they will not have enough supplies to stay safe on the lunar sufface or orbiting the moon.

gaetanomarano · 2006-05-10 09:00:17

|||||||||||
So where is the 65% failure rate coming from for the CaLV hardware...
|||||||||||

no, I refer only to the risk of the 1.5 l.a.

the main risk of missions fail don't come from rockets' reliability but from a "sum of delays" in the CLV launch

with the 1.5 l.a. each moon mission will have a TRIPLE risk of failure:

1. failure of the CaLV, or...

2. failure of the CLV, or...

3. failure due to a "sum of delays" of the second launch

with the SLV the risk of mission failure come ONLY from the failure of the SLV

then, the risk of an SLV based mission is only 33% of the 1.5 l.a. (or, if you prefer, the risk of failure of the 1.5 l.a. is THREE TIMES than with SLV)

|||||||||||||
I am curious about how Nasa will handle the issues of disaster to the LSAM or CEV if either can not get the crew home...
|||||||||||||

true, the risk is too high with this apollo-like lunar mission architecture!

the apollo astronauts was VERY LUCKY but NASA can't send only "lucky" astronauts on the moon!

and... how NASA can "scientifically" determine which astronauts are "lucky"? (...maybe with a lottery? ... or with Las Vegas' Blackjack?)

I think that NASA must change the entire architecture to save the astronauts if something goes wrong!

.

John Creighton · 2006-05-10 12:29:23

gaetanomarano, if you want to quote text can you please use the Quote tag.

SpaceNut · 2006-05-10 17:23:26

Gaetanomarano What are you calling the 1.5 l.a. versus the CaLV which is what Nasa calls it?
Are you saying that it is a manned vehicle?

Does the lunar Lasm look like this?
s93_45589.s.jpg

gaetanomarano · 2006-05-10 17:43:43

Gaetanomarano What are you calling the 1.5 l.a. versus the CaLV which is what Nasa calls it?
Are you saying that it is a manned vehicle?
Does the lunar Lasm look like this?

no

the direct-lunar is known as unefficient and needs a bigger CaLV, not little

the upper part of the SLV must be like planned with some changes to increase the astronauts safety if someting goes wrong (like extra life support sent on the moon before the manned landings)

however some changes to the "traditional" apollo-like architecture can be made, but only if they increase the efficiency and safety, not if they increase the payload's weight

.

SpaceNut · 2006-05-10 21:33:46

Is this your plan To the moon and back plan or are there changes to this mission profile.

Article graphic is from NASA outlines plans for moon and Mars

gaetanomarano · 2006-05-11 02:42:15

Is this your plan To the moon and back plan or are there changes to this mission profile.
Article graphic is from NASA outlines plans for moon and Mars

my article about the SLV don't regards the lunar mission (that may be the same than planned) but only the launch of the lunar hardware and astronauts with a single launch vehicle to save time, costs and have zero risks of missions' fail due to a "sum of delays"

.

GCNRevenger · 2006-05-11 07:24:40

"Segmented solid rocket engines don't generally explode

but, when explode, they are too fast to save the crew

Segmented solid rocket engines really honestly do not explode! The fuel inside only burns well under high pressure, but if the booster leaks, the pressure drops and combustion falls off. Being that the booster is just a big metal tube, the only bad thing that could happen is if it leaked. Its so much safer then a liquid turbopump engine, with the super-cold turbine spinning at extremely high RPMs where the slightest fault will make them fly apart, or the high-temperature nozzle on the edge of melting. The CaLV will have six, double the SRBs, and have the Challenger booster-ignites-fuel problem. Speaking of Challenger, asside from the leak the SRBs were pretty well intact despite being bolted to a huge tank of liquid hydrogen that exploded.

"when (and if...) the CEV will fly with its solid rocket five times more russian and chinese capsules will still fly (reliably and successful) with their EELV-like liquid engines rockets"

You aren't making any sense. And the Russian R-7 rocket has engine-out capacity, while the big tripple-barrel Delta-IV doesn't. The Chinese rocket is a different story, since it burns hypergolics its a death trap.

"Gemini, Apollo and Soyuz astronauts have accomplished spacewalks without a giant capsule like the CEV"

Those old suits have long since been abandoned, and something as flimsy and poorly equipped as them would never be used again probably. Their mobility was awful, they only had tetherd life support, and poor penitration protection. Modern suits are more flexible, have both life support and emergency maneuvering thrusters, plus resist damage better. This comes at the price of being bulkier, but it is worth the price, we aren't going to go back to "smaller" suits any time soon. In fact, if we go with partial hard suits, they will be even bigger.

Also, in both Apollo and Gemini cases, the astronauts' space walk suit was the same as his flight suit, which is totally unacceptable today because the wearer absolutely has to have maximum atmospheric pressure mobility to get out of the capsule quickly in the event of a launch abort. This also means that the bulky space walk suit will need some place to be stored in the capsule too... say, how about in one of the two extra seats of the six-seat CEV?

"the 10 days exploration time of three astronauts equals 7 days with four"

If you think this, then you really are a fool. Having additional hands and mutual support increased what can be done geometricly and not linearly. Exploration beyond the immediate vicinity of the landing site should occur in pairs too, in case one astronaut needs help from the other. Four men enables two such expeditions to occur simultainiously.

"it's better but too risky, an human can't decide in milliseconds, then, the only safe way to save the crew is to use the LAS in all emergencies"

More ignorance, more mincing my words. Did I ever say that humans would have their finger on the escape system trigger? Nonsense, the CLV and its escape system will be totally automated up until parachute deployment of the capsule. The difference is the sensor readouts and computers that decide to trigger the escape system won't unless its nessesarry. If the engines shut down safely, and there is no wild attitude change or fuel fire, then using the escape system is totally unessesarry.

This is one big advantage the CLV has over the CaLV, that if there is a major explosion, no human or computer can trigger the escape system fast enough with reliability. Since the CLV only has one liquid engine and much less rocket fuel, then this risk is much lower then the CaLV with its "tripple threat." The astronauts will simply be safer on the CLV, and there is nothing that you can do to "fix" the CaLV's inherint safety flaws.

GCNRevenger · 2006-05-11 07:44:17

"no matter if the moon missions will be 2 or 20 per year, if the 1.5 l.a. will be 65% reliable 1/3 of (2 or 20) missions will fail"

This is a stupid scare number, you just came up with it off the top of your head! You can't possibly be that bad at understanding, so you just being dishonest and trying to lie to us.

The risk of a 1.5-style Lunar mission failure is small, not any of this "33% lie," because:

-Each rocket will have a reliability in excess of ~99%. This means that there is less then 1 in 100 chance of the rocket failing to launch its payload, probably close to 99.5%. Shuttle, if everything worked right, has a ~99.6% reliability, and both new rockets will be even better since they are less complex and CaLV has engine-out. This means that there is less then a 1-in-100 chance of mission failure due to launch vehicle failure. Thats under 1%.

-Delays in CaLV launch are not a problem at all, because the mission won't start until it flies.

-So, the only real point you have is that the CLV might not be launched on time to meet the EDS/LSAM before its fuel boils off. This means launch in 1-2mo, certainly no more then 3mo. The CLV can be stacked and ready to go on the pad within a few days of the CaLV launch, and easily fly within a week. And if the entire CLV booster had to be scrapped because of some flaw? Well, you've got enough time to prepare and fly not one, but two new rockets in the 1mo window. You'd have enough time for multiple attempts from scratch within a 2mo window.

And again, the CLV is going to be simpler. Its going to be simpler then the Saturn-V, simpler then the CaLV by multiples, simpler then the Saturn 1-B, its going to be simpler then any of the EELVs, its going to even be simpler then the Soyuz R-7. SIMPLE. There simply won't be anything to go wrong and cause delays.

"I think that NASA must change the entire architecture to save the astronauts if something goes wrong!"

And now you are simply being an idiot and pushing your own plan. It won't have any better emergency options after departure then the ESAS plan will!

gaetanomarano · 2006-05-11 09:16:02

about solid rocket... I've read that they can explode on a forum, but if they can't explode, this a point in favour of a manned SLV

about EELV-like liquid engines rockets... I suggest to don't build ANY orbital-CEV (then no need to build the CLV or man-rate an EELV) because only a few flight will be made to the ISS with a cost 10-15 times higher than Soyuz, etc. (I don't think that NASA can spend 10 times the money for the same "service"!)

about old suits... also if they don't become smaller, the spacesuits' weight is not a problem (especially with 3 astronauts missions)

about astronauts... the apollo missions sent only two astronauts each on the moon (and was 100% successful) but, with the (plenned) ESAS' cargo-LSAM, these numbers don't counts because, with months extra life support and tons of extra moon hardware, one astronaut will do the job of 20 apollo astronauts!

about escape system... I agree, the escape system will be 100% automatic, but, since a computer can't easily evaluate the risk, great part of times it will start the LAS; however, this is a too deep technical problem to discuss only with words without real hardware to test, I think that NASA is able to develop the best and safer procedure

.

gaetanomarano · 2006-05-11 09:43:30

about rocket will have a reliability... the main risk is not the reliability of the two rockets but the the sum of delays of the second launch

also, the 2nd stage CLV will have one J-2 derived engine (and only two in the CaLV 2nd stage) and in one of the 11 apollo missions (apollo13) the central J-2 of the 2nd stage failed, but the other 2nd stage engines of the SaturnV was sufficient for a good orbital insertion

unfortunately, the 2nd stage of the CLV will have only the "central" J-2x.............. (and the CaLV 2nd stage only two J-2x.... both indispensable!)

good luck CLV and CaLV! (and... good luck 12-only moon missions...!)

about It won't have any better emergency options after departure... I hope they will be right (for astronauts' life)

.

GCNRevenger · 2006-05-11 10:10:21

ATK, the people that actually build the thing, says that they cannot. Both times that the boosters have leaked, they have not exploded either. The new propellant loading being considerd should burn even slower and more benignly.

"bout old suits... also if they don't become smaller, the spacesuits' weight is not a problem"

But their volume WILL be. Their volume is very important, because you not only need room to put the things, you have to have enough room to put them on too. And you are out of your mind if you think NASA is going to spend money on any capsule that can't support a spacewalk. The CEV capsule will be America's only manned spacecraft for a long time, and it should be able to support a spacewalk if need be.

"about astronauts... the apollo missions sent only two astronauts each on the moon (and was 100% successful) but, with the (plenned) ESAS' cargo-LSAM, these numbers don't counts because, with months extra life support and tons of extra moon hardware, one astronaut will do the job of 20 apollo astronauts!"

More ignorance. Exploration Lunar missions will be limited to about two weeks tops, this is because they will have to be solar powerd, and thats as long as Lunar "day" lasts. Probably closer to ten days on the equator.

gaetanomarano · 2006-05-11 10:17:06

about spacewalk... Gemini/Apollo/Soyuz/Shenzhou was/are very little in volume, but all support spacewalks

about Lunar missions will be limited to about two weeks tops... I've not seen any solar panel in the LSAM drawings (however, our technology is able to recharge accumulators...)

.

gaetanomarano · 2006-05-11 11:30:30

.

the DOUBLE risk of fail due to TWICE rockets' launches per mission + the risk of moon missions' fail due to a "sum of delays" of the second launch are NOT the only bad aspects of the 1.5 launch architecture

it is also VERY EXPENSIVE and will need more time to see the first launch!

with the SLV architecture, NASA may save:

$5 billion of (planned) R&D costs for the CLV

$2 billion of (announced) extra R&D costs for the 5-segments SRB (I suggest to build a smaller SLV with 4-seg. SRBs)

$6+ billion for the CLV "hardware" of the first 20 moon missions

$15+ billion of standard NASA budget (because they save 3 to 5 years of time and work before the first moon mission: 2015 instead of 2020)

$5+ billion of extra costs for a big 4-astronauts-SLV (with 5-seg. SRB, more engines and 33% bigger LSAM, SM, EDS, tanks, etc.) in the first 20 moon missions

also... NASA may save the costs of two launch pads, two specialized assembly and launch teams, two manufacturing lines and buildings, twice air and surface transport of parts, two assembly costs, two launches earth support, two SRB after-launch recovery-teams (and costs), etc. etc. etc.

not only NASA can make the first moon missions sooner (3 to 5 years BEFORE planned!!!) but, with the same VSE funds, they can make from +50% to TWICE moon missions!!!!!

.

GCNRevenger · 2006-05-11 12:22:37

about spacewalk... Gemini/Apollo/Soyuz/Shenzhou was/are very little in volume, but all support spacewalks
about Lunar missions will be limited to about two weeks tops... I've not seen any solar panel in the LSAM drawings (however, our technology is able to recharge accumulators...)

As previously mentioned, neither the Gemini or Apollo spacewalks invovled real penitration-resistant/self-sufficent suits. These astronauts simply wore heavy-duty flight suits for their spacewalks. This is an unacceptable risk today and the old suits were not suitable for actually working in, so the CEV must be large enough to accomodate both the storage and doning/doffing of the suit, which requires more volume.

Soyuz and Shenzou spacewalks don't use the capsule at all, but rather the attached orbital module for airlock and suit handling. NASA could go this route and save a little mass, but that means reusing the OM is not possible, and it is not nessesarry since the CLV and the six-seat CEV is big enough already.

What else would the Lunar missions be powerd by? A nuclear reactor would weigh at minimum five or six tonnes, and an RTG system big enough would likewise be fairly heavy. Accumulators (batteries) or fuel cells wouldn't last very long except in the "idle" mode. Either option would also be quite expensive. NASA hasn't drawn any solar pannels in its glossy brochures yet because it wouldn't deploy them until landing most likly. Power would be provided until landing by using fuel cells that consume boiloff from the decent stage until boarding plus solar from the CEV enroute to the Moon.

gaetanomarano · 2006-05-11 12:41:00

about which requires more volume... if the 5mt. cone-shaped CEV volume is claimed as sufficient by NASA to have space for ALL (including spacesuits fos six!) a bell-shaped 4.5mt. CEV volume is sufficient for 3 astronauts, their suits etc.

A nuclear reactor... the LSAM don't seems to have any solar panel then it may use precharged batteries or fuel-cells

however, with one cargo-LSAM (sent before manned missions) will be possible to send a little solar energy central with rechargeable batteries

probably half-ton of the first cargo-LSAM payload will be sufficient to sent a permanent solar energy source usable for many years, also, when the battery cicle will ends can be simply sent on the moon a set of new batteries, not another central

.

GCNRevenger · 2006-05-11 12:43:01

"the DOUBLE risk of fail due to TWICE rockets' launches"

Oh no! An under 1% chance of failure versus under 0.5%, how awful! Please... this is not even the shadow of an argument.

"it is also VERY EXPENSIVE and will need more time to see the first launch!"

Six billion out of a three hundedred billion NASA will get from now til' 2025, NASA is doomed, whatever shal we do? Fool, think in the long term not the short term, NASA is only spending 2% of its total budget VSE-era on building the CLV, a paltry sum for giving us a safer means of reaching orbit, ISS access, and a reliable medium lifter for probes.

And hey, only $300M for each CLV? Thats about the same price as the inferior Delta-IV, so NASA even comes out ahead.

"$5+ billion of extra costs for a big 4-astronauts-SLV (with 5-seg. SRB, more engines and 33% bigger LSAM, SM, EDS, tanks, etc.) in the first 20 moon missions"

Your estimate, which you don't support

"NASA may save the costs of two launch pads, two specialized assembly and launch teams, two manufacturing lines and buildings, twice air and surface transport of parts, two assembly costs, two launches earth support, two SRB after-launch recovery-teams (and costs), etc. etc. etc."

Idiot. NASA only needs one launch pad to serve both the CaLV and the CLV, since they are of similar height. Both rockets can be assembled in the same place, the VAB, just like they have been since Apollo started. NASA already assembles the SRBs and such there, and there is room for up to four rockets simultainiously.

The SRBs will be the same five-segment model, since the guidence system and verneer engines will ride in the CLV's upper stage, the J-2X will be the identical engine, and you only need one SRB recovery crew because the launches will probably be a few days appart. It only takes 24hrs or so to roll a rocket to the launch pad like usual.

So the CaLV is launched, two days for the CLV to be put into position, two days for checkout and fueling, one day for crew loading and launch, one day for the CEV to match orbit with the EDS/LSAM, and one day for docking & checkout. One week isn't bad, and leaves you three weeks for delays in a one-month window. Seven for a two-month window.

GCNRevenger · 2006-05-11 12:53:25

about rocket will have a reliability... the main risk is not the reliability of the two rockets but the the sum of delays of the second launch
also, the 2nd stage CLV will have one J-2 derived engine (and only two in the CaLV 2nd stage) and in one of the 11 apollo missions (apollo13) the central J-2 of the 2nd stage failed, but the other 2nd stage engines of the SaturnV was sufficient for a good orbital insertion
unfortunately, the 2nd stage of the CLV will have only the "central" J-2x.............. (and the CaLV 2nd stage only two J-2x.... both indispensable!)
good luck CLV and CaLV! (and... good luck 12-only moon missions...!)
about It won't have any better emergency options after departure... I hope they will be right (for astronauts' life)

There won't be many delays, because the CLV is such a simple rocket. Even the regular Soyuz-FG is more complicated then the CLV will be. And if you are whining about reliability and one post, but say its not a big problem here, what are we supposed to think of you?

Yes, one old-style J-2 failed on Apollo-XIII, but how many more worked? Six per Saturn-V launch, and only one failed? Thats a 98.7% sucess rate. Adding in the dozen Saturn-IB launches each with a J-2, that comes close to 99%. Also, the J-2X will be an even better engine, with modern materials (saphire turbopump bearings, better nozzle materials, higher temperature alloys, etc). Plus, the J-2 is the only cryogenic engine ever to demonstrate emergency shut-down in actual use.

Oh, and the big CaLV will instead have only one J-2X, since it was chosen over the lower thrust J-2S model. You are behind the times.

Edit: Thirteen Saturn-V rockets and nine Saturn-IB rockets were built and flown for a total of 87 J-2 "original" engines with three emergency shutdowns means a reliability of 97%. And this was for the early model of the engine that continued to undergo extensive development, with 12 J-2S engines used for the X-33 project which also worked just fine. NASA should have no trouble squeezing another 2% of reliability out of the design, if they haven't already.

gaetanomarano · 2006-05-11 13:14:26

.

about An under 1% chance of failure... this is only your optimistic evaluation (as CLV-fan), there are rockets that, in real launches, are not so reliable... we will see in next year...

about Six billion out of a... the evaluation may change and may be more or less, but, build two rockets (or two cars or two computers or two buildings, etc.) clearly costs TWICE (that mean LOTS of BILLION$$$$$$$$$$$$)

about And hey, only $300M for each CLV... NASA evaluates at $800M/year only the costs of the CLV structure (employers, etc.), no matter if the CLV will fly 1 or 10 per year... each CLV launch will probably cost more than $300M... we will see when it will fly

about "Idiot"... for missions' success and astronauts' safety it's "idiot" to have only one launch pad, it's better to have a second l.p. (if a failed test or unmanned launch damages the first)

some assembly structure can be reused for different vehicles but this is only the last part of rocket assembly, the single parts need (many) single factories

only takes 24hrs or so to roll a rocket to the launch pad... after all problems are solved (like to-day's Shuttles after 114 launches, not 10...)

two days for the CLV to be put into position, two days for checkout and fueling... in your dreams...

your timing is so "real" that NASA have changed the planned orbital LSAM/EDS loither time from 30 to 95 days (probably they know something more than you about assembly, launch, delays, etc.)

.

gaetanomarano · 2006-05-11 13:34:34

.

about reliability... the main problem is that the 1.5 l.a. BORNS with the "sum-of-delays-failure-option" (and twice rockets per mission twice risk of rocktes' fail) BUILT-IN while the SLV borns WITHOUT these (bad!) "options"; if the CLV will have more delays than you hope, great part of missions will fail

about Thats a 97% sucess rate... true, but if only one or two J-2x will fails (you can agree that the 0.3% may happen like the 97%...) the entire CLV will fail (and also the entire multi-billions moon mission!) because the central CLV engine is also the ONLY engine, while, the SLV, with many engines, will be successful like the 4-only working engines of the apollo13 2nd stage

I think that successful missions need a good design that avoid all possible problems NOT your (useless) hyper-optimism, pink-eyed evaluations of risks & costs and ESAS' strong fanatic support!

.

SpaceNut · 2006-05-11 20:31:12

So back to the topic at hand of "Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?" well if this news release is of interest as the title goes it is all in the testing.

NASA Ames Tests Heat Shield Samples for Spaceship Capsule

Initial tests of materials that could be used in the heat shield for the new spaceship, the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), were recently completed at NASA Ames Research Center in California's Silicon Valley.
News media are invited to Ames' arc jet facility, Bldg. N234, on Thursday, May 18, from 10 a.m. - 2 p.m. PDT to see small heat shield samples that engineers tested in an apparatus that NASA engineers describe as a 'room-size blowtorch.'
The initial testing at Ames is part of the advanced development activity needed to create a heat shield for the CEV crew capsule. At 10:30 a.m. PDT, there also will be short presentation in the arc jet facility, where the tests were conducted.
NASA is working to create and test the 16.5-foot (5-meter) diameter, Frisbee-shaped heat shield that will be attached to the base of the cone-shaped CEV crew capsule. The shield must protect the capsule and its astronaut crew from the searing heat that develops during flight through the atmosphere when returning from either low-Earth orbit, or from the moon.

gaetanomarano · 2006-05-12 06:24:43

So back to the topic at hand of "Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?" well if this news release is of interest as the title goes it is all in the testing.
NASA Ames Tests Heat Shield Samples for Spaceship Capsule

the article is interesting but it is about the heat shield of the CEV

the info I search is about man-rate rockets/engines to know the possible times, costs and procedures to manrate the SLV that I suggest to use for moon missions

however, man-rate the SLV may costs more only in the CaLV-like version, with 5-seg.SRB and RS-68, while, the SLV-light, that I suggest to use, with to-day's SRB and SSME, don't need so much time and money, since, the SRB and SSME, already are man-rated and have made 100+ successful (manned!) flight with the Shuttles!

.

gaetanomarano · 2006-05-12 14:08:48

.

Build the SLV is faster and cheaper than build the CLV and the CaLV.

The way to save 3+ years is to build the SLV not with "shuttle-derived" technology but with the SAME (ready available) Shuttle's hardware!

Full story here: www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/005_SLVnow.html

.

SpaceNut · 2006-05-12 20:43:54

Sorry but the ET can not be used since it was not design to push verticle weight as it is. A new tank would need to be design to allow for the SSME to be mounted to the end.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2006-05-10 08:20:03

Re: Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

#52 2006-05-10 08:36:14

Re: Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

#53 2006-05-10 09:00:17

Re: Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

#54 2006-05-10 12:29:23

Re: Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

#55 2006-05-10 17:23:26

Re: Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

#56 2006-05-10 17:43:43

Re: Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

#57 2006-05-10 21:33:46

Re: Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

#58 2006-05-11 02:42:15

Re: Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

#59 2006-05-11 07:24:40

Re: Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

#60 2006-05-11 07:44:17

Re: Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

#61 2006-05-11 09:16:02

Re: Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

#62 2006-05-11 09:43:30

Re: Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

#63 2006-05-11 10:10:21

Re: Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

#64 2006-05-11 10:17:06

Re: Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

#65 2006-05-11 11:30:30

Re: Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

#66 2006-05-11 12:22:37

Re: Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

#67 2006-05-11 12:41:00

Re: Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

#68 2006-05-11 12:43:01

Re: Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

#69 2006-05-11 12:53:25

Re: Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

#70 2006-05-11 13:14:26

Re: Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

#71 2006-05-11 13:34:34

Re: Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

#72 2006-05-11 20:31:12

Re: Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

#73 2006-05-12 06:24:43

Re: Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

#74 2006-05-12 14:08:48

Re: Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

#75 2006-05-12 20:43:54

Re: Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?

Board footer