charliexmur...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Also ho says that ISS CRS (COTS II) isn't an HTV or ATV

The proposed RFP requires an american-made rocket.

But that could change. For example, Northrup-Grumman could manufacture and
resell Aeriane rockets the same way they're doing for Airbus.

charliexmur...@yahoo.com wrote:
You are making a big deal over the loss of a capability with marginal
"returns"

No, I am pointing out facts. Facts which many find inconvient as they
jar their carefully blinkered worldview.

Ah yes - and all that stuff is *so* easy, just hack together parts
picked up at your local Spacecraft Stuff 'R Us store.

charliexmur...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:8cbf42b2-3b29-4147-9cd2-f542500dfcae@34g2000hsz.googlegroups.com...

On Mar 10, 1:10 am, fairwa...@gmail.com (Derek Lyons) wrote:
charliexmur...@yahoo.com wrote:

Yes, because it works for all the automated probes and spacecraft. No
one has complained about never seeing the hardware before. Same goes
for MIR. Saylut, and Skylab

Right. No one wanted to see exactly why Galileo's antenna failed to deploy.

The Skylab solar wing deploy had absolutely no gotchas when they went to
deploy it.

charliexmur...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:78d04924-0cf9-4e64-8f0c-c384d0d180dc@60g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...> On Mar 10, 4:51 pm, fairwa...@gmail.com (Derek Lyons) wrote:
charliexmur...@yahoo.com wrote:
You are making a big deal over the loss of a capability with marginal
"returns"

No, I am pointing out facts. Facts which many find inconvient as they
jar their carefully blinkered worldview.

Facts that really don't matter to those in the business vs outside
observer.

They are only an inconvenience and not a show stopper

No one is claiming it's showstopper. What some of us are pointing out is
that the rules seem to have quietly changed and all many people are saying
"it's not a big deal". Obviously one can have a space station w/o
signification ground capacity, but one dos give up some abilities by doing
so. And ISS's design was predicated on having such capability. Will
removing it be a show-stopper, no. Will it require changes, certainly.

This is not a problem. COTS will use the CBM's to get rid of the
garbage

On Mar 10, 3:57 pm, John Doe <j...@doe.org> wrote:

Why are there so many people who think "COTS" can realistically build an
automated vehicle in a couple of years ?
Since NASA has no automated docking/berthing capabilities, some private
contractor has no template to use when building their own.

It is one thing to build a composite craft for a 3 minute joy ride to
mach 3 and free fall back down, it is quite different and far more
involved to build a craft capable of accelerating to mach 25, survive in
space for at least a few weeks, and have all the guidance, rocketry to
perform automated docking. (and probably needs radar or some other
measurement device.

Because it is just a spacecraft with a little extra avionics. Because
automated docking and berthing is not required. Therefore no template
required. Only automated rendezvous is needed. Which was
demonstrated by Orbital Express (it also did auto docking) Just have
get within a box. UHF ranging, Lasers and optical sensors are all
that is needed. The arm does the berthing.

You are making a big deal over the loss of a capability with marginal
"returns"

Also ho says that ISS CRS (COTS II) isn't an HTV or ATV

On Mar 10, 1:10 am, fairwa...@gmail.com (Derek Lyons) wrote:
charliexmur...@yahoo.com wrote:


Yes, because it works for all the automated probes and spacecraft. No
one has complained about never seeing the hardware before. Same goes
for MIR. Saylut, and Skylab

--

On Mar 10, 4:49 pm, fairwa...@gmail.com (Derek Lyons) wrote:

Ah yes - and all that stuff is *so* easy, just hack together parts
picked up at your local Spacecraft Stuff 'R Us store.


You got the gist of it.

XSS-10
Orbital Express
DART (software failure and not hardware)

The parts exist

The parts exist for a lot of things. That doesn't mean it's easy or

On Mar 10, 4:51 pm, fairwa...@gmail.com (Derek Lyons) wrote:
charliexmur...@yahoo.com wrote:
You are making a big deal over the loss of a capability with marginal
"returns"

No, I am pointing out facts. Facts which many find inconvient as they
jar their carefully blinkered worldview.


Facts that really don't matter to those in the business vs outside
observer.

They are only an inconvenience and not a show stopper


No one is claiming it's showstopper. What some of us are pointing out is

On Mar 10, 7:16 pm, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
mooregr_deletet...@greenms.com> wrote:
charliexmur...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:78d04924-0cf9-4e64-8f0c-c384d0d180dc@60g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...> On Mar 10, 4:51 pm, fairwa...@gmail.com (Derek Lyons) wrote:
charliexmur...@yahoo.com wrote:
You are making a big deal over the loss of a capability with marginal
"returns"
No, I am pointing out facts. Facts which many find inconvient as they
jar their carefully blinkered worldview.
Facts that really don't matter to those in the business vs outside
observer.
They are only an inconvenience and not a show stopper
No one is claiming it's showstopper. What some of us are pointing out is
that the rules seem to have quietly changed and all many people are saying
"it's not a big deal". Obviously one can have a space station w/o
signification ground capacity, but one dos give up some abilities by doing
so. And ISS's design was predicated on having such capability. Will
removing it be a show-stopper, no. Will it require changes, certainly.



Actually, all the rules changed. The ISS isn't going to be around as
long so the ORU replacements aren't as important

On Mar 10, 3:57 pm, John Doe <j...@doe.org> wrote:

Why are there so many people who think "COTS" can realistically build an
automated vehicle in a couple of years ?
Since NASA has no automated docking/berthing capabilities, some private
contractor has no template to use when building their own.

It is one thing to build a composite craft for a 3 minute joy ride to
mach 3 and free fall back down, it is quite different and far more
involved to build a craft capable of accelerating to mach 25, survive in
space for at least a few weeks, and have all the guidance, rocketry to
perform automated docking. (and probably needs radar or some other
measurement device.

Because it is just a spacecraft with a little extra avionics. Because
automated docking and berthing is not required. Therefore no template
required. Only automated rendezvous is needed.

Which was
demonstrated by Orbital Express (it also did auto docking) Just have
get within a box.

UHF ranging, Lasers and optical sensors are all
that is needed. The arm does the berthing.

On Mar 10, 4:49 pm, fairwa...@gmail.com (Derek Lyons) wrote:

Ah yes - and all that stuff is *so* easy, just hack together parts
picked up at your local Spacecraft Stuff 'R Us store.


You got the gist of it.

XSS-10
Orbital Express
DART (software failure and not hardware)

The parts exist