You are not logged in.
Oh how you babble and thrash... Soyuz storage life depends on the corrosive fuel in its service module (Dinitrogen Tetraoxide specifically), which will probably be the limiting factor for Orion too. This is just fine of course, since Orion will be used to reach any hypothetical government run space station for a very long time, and can be exchanged Soyuz style every 6mo. A switch to LOX/Methane, if all you want to do is deorbit, would last for years too in later versions of the vehicle. As far as Mars is concerned, all the capsule has to do is point its heat shield and deploy its parachutes, which it doesn't need a service module at all for.
For small space stations, regardless what they are used for, then the people that use them are without a doubt willing to subject themselves to greater risks. The risk that the travel vehicle will fail as the only escape vehicle, as with ISS when only Soyuz flew, is quite small because reentry is a relatively simple operation. Small crew + small risk = no problem. Small stations don't have the "but what if they can't reach it(!)" problem. Russians have done it for a long time with Mir and ISS, why is this a problem?
NASA set about developing the X-38 back when Shuttle was the one and only means of domestic manned spaceflight. Now that we have Orion, we don't need a separate escape vehicle. You are also spouting bald-faced lies about how it would cost $5Bn to develop, that number has no basis. The HL-20, which looks similar but is a far more complex vehicle might cost that much, but the basic X-38 would cost a fraction of that.
How many times does it take to get through your thick skull that MORV doesn't exist? Its aerodynamics and size are like Soyuz, but other then that it is an entirely different vehicle. Thus, its development will not be free, not "$0.00."
Your analogy between hotels and ships is irrelevant and simple minded, space vehicles and stations are not like these things. Hotels are on land so the analogy is totally pointless there, and with ships ignore the simple fact that space capsules must follow a different set of rules than life rafts.
Such space vehicles must be efficient, so that their cost does not bankrupt a hypothetical large venture they are used as escape vehicles for. Hence, they should not need to buy any more capsules than necessary, which dictates large vehicles able to hold many people. They must also be reliable, since space vehicles of any sort have so little margin for error; if a zero-acceptable-casualty goal is set, then a smaller number of big escape vehicles is safer than a large number of small ones.
In fact, a large number of small capsules increases the risk people will die. Sure you will have a better chance that some of the people will survive, but you condemn to death the ones who will lose the odds overall when the capsules fail after separation. Storing the capsule is pretty safe, reentry is the dangerous part.
If the crew has already transferred to MORV and separated, then if MORV fails then they are toast. So it would be safer to have a few bigger ones than smaller ones. Its simple high school statistics... which I will not suffer you to claim ignorance.
And Solar flares? Low Earth orbit, where such stations would be, are under the protection of Earth's magnetic fields you idiot. Satellites threatened by solar events are at 36,000km not 400km, far above the magnetic belts.
to-day's airlines' planes are much more like a MORV than a Shuttle or a Soyuz
No they aren't, thats stupid. You even said your capsule is like Soyuz earlier.
MORV uses a Soyuz capsule (since it's cheap, reliable and EXISTS now) but it is NOT a (very complex) Soyuz... it's a simple push-button rescue/reenry vehicle
Then it doesn't exist. Soyuz, due to its relatively primitive avionics, is not capable of such simple operation. You get to keep the aerodynamics, but thats about it. The work is not "half done."
A larger capsule with six seats? Hey, we will already have such a capsule with years of proven reliability, lots of fuel for anytime/anywhere return, and life support for weeks. Its a proven, reliable, in-production vehicle called Orion! The capsule itself will be built to last for years, as it will have to for Mars, and the service module will too if it burns LOX/Methane instead of hypergolics. Stick it on top of an Atlas-V or Falcon-IX unmanned if Ares-I is too expensive. You could probably even squeeze 8-10 people in it if you had to.
You also don't seem to know why SpaceX/T-Space picked the designs they did for their capsule: they based it on the old USAF CORONA unmanned reentry capsule, which is proven very reliable and more stable than any other non-missile reentry vehicle of any kind, ever.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Like button can go here
...Soyuz storage life depends on the corrosive fuel...
I suggest to use the Soyuz capsule ...the fuel may be different, for long term storage
...which it doesn't need a service module at all for...
both Soyuz and Orion capsules have no propellant inside for deorbit, so, they need a minimal SM
...small space stations...
small or big, the main spacecraft may not work, or be damaged... MORV is a (simple and cheap) "second chance" to save the astronauts/passengers lifes
...we don't need a separate escape vehicle...
like the Shuttles, Orion can't fly every day nor be ready top fly in minutes... emergencies happen TOO FAST to wait a Shuttle or an Orion
...MORV doesn't exist...
since it's simple and use a ready available capsule, MORV can be built in a few years
...not "$0.00"...
no, I don't refer to the MORV's development costs, but to the cost of my article about it...
...space vehicles and stations are not like these things...
they ARE like those things, only hundreds times more dangerous!
...so that their cost does not bankrupt a hypothetical large venture they are used as escape vehicles for...
my MORV may be very cheap and with many years of life, then, no risk of "bankrupt"
...then a smaller number of big escape vehicles is safer than a large number of small ones...
not true, if a small vehicle will fail only three astronauts may die, while, if a 6, 10 or more seats E.V. will fail, we will have MANY victims
however, both are good for rescue (then, we NEED them)
...then if MORV fails then they are toast. So it would be safer to have a few bigger ones than smaller ones...
MORVs must be (at least) as safe and reliable as Soyuz, of course ...then, no "space-toasts" ...also (as I've explained in my posts) the number of MORVs must be REDUNDANT and each MORV must have a large life support, so, if a MORV don't work, the three astronauts/tourists can (simply) use one of the spare/extra MORVs after an EVA or MORV-MORV docking for transfer (while, if a BIG vehicle doesn't work... where they go?)
...are under the protection...
LEO is not risky like the lunar surface, but I doubt that risk is so little
...said your capsule is like Soyuz earlier...
despite it's difficult for me (english is not my mother language and I do twice+ the work reading it) I read all your mega-posts/space-novels, while you don't read my full posts... I suggest to use the (cheap, reliable and ready available) Soyuz's CAPSULES and NOT to build a "resized" (but still complex) Soyuz
...we will already have such a capsule...
"will" and "already" are two words in contradiction... we "already" have... "nothing"
only with a Soyuz capsule we can build a MORV soon ...Orion will fly around 2015 and it can't wait in space for years but you must replace it every six months (at "n" hundreds million$$$ a shot!)
...with years of proven reliability...
good argument! ..."years of proven reliability" means... "MANY years of successfull flights" ...something Orion may show only after 2020... while the Soyuz capsules (and vehicles) ALREADY have "(40) years of proven reliability" ...thanks to 100+ REAL flights in space!
...Its a proven, reliable, in-production vehicle called Orion...
not "Its", but, "WILL BE" (around 2015) an "in-production" (and, maybe, "proven and reliable") vehicle called Orion...
...it will have to for Mars, and the service module will too if it burns LOX/Methane...
the "Mars hardware" will be available 30-40 years away from now... (too much to save the life of a 2016's space-tourist...)
...if Ares-I is too expensive...
the rocket is not a problem if the rescue-ship can stay (e.g.) five years in space... the problem is Orion that must be replaced every six months and need an expensive Ares-I to fly (the cheaper Delta and Atlas can't, while, the next Delta and Atlas, will be priced very close to Ares-I)
...don't seem to know why SpaceX/T-Space picked the designs they did for their capsule: they based it on the old USAF CORONA unmanned reentry capsule...
I know both project/company and I hope they will succeed ,,,unfortunately, both company need 8-10 years to launch a manned capsule
Corona is a good choice (as model) for its capsules, but it's ONLY a 700 kg. spysat's reentry-capsule... it's like want to design and build a full-scale passenger's Piper having (now) only a remote-controlled hobby-model... also... do you know if the (military) Corona (and its blueprints) has (already) been (or will be) declassified for commercial/scientific/civil research and use?
.
[url=http://www.gaetanomarano.it]gaetanomarano.it[/url]
[url=http://www.ghostnasa.com]ghostNASA.com[/url]
Offline
Like button can go here