What? No post on the Orion test flight?

[Alexei.Polkhanov]

Recently I have been checking this website trying to find examples of GLONAS antennas. Look at this article - it is simply fascinating! http://www.spaceflight101.com/proton-m-block-dm-03-glonass-launch-2013.html.

"Taking a close look at the assembly log of the rocket, the commission discovered that the installation of the sensors was completed by a technician that was hired shortly beforehand. A supervising technician’s signature was also found in the log, however it is doubtful that an engineer familiar with the installation would not identify the error when performing a thorough visual inspection.

Experiments with actual Proton hardware have shown that it is possible to install the angular velocity sensors upside down. The commission found that it would take a considerable effort by the technician to install the sensors incorrectly. The units are symmetrical in shape, but they have arrows that are supposed to point to the top of the vehicle to prevent an incorrect installation. Additionally, there are pins & corresponding holes that are designed to guide the technician to a correct installation. When installing the DUS sensors upside down, these pins would be misaligned with the holes. Installing the sensors that way would require the technician to apply force and cause dents on the installation plate."

Imagine yourself as an engineer who designs systems knowing that people who will assemble them will be untrained, underpaid and will hammer things in by largest hammer they can find if it does not seem to fit for some reason.  And with all that it flies, almost all the time.  I am taking my hat off.

[tom66]

Well, that's a legal radiation limit. It just increases the chances of cell mutation which could cause cancer. It wouldn't cause radiation poisoning. With some acceptable risks, sending astronauts to Mars could be done.  I do have concerns about 6 months in a tin can - what if there IS a medical emergency? Will they have doctor(s) with them? Will they be able to abort and return?

[coppice]

Although the Delta IV has a good track record for reliability, the heavy version seems to have failed one time out of 6 launches.

like any other heavy lifter look at the russians - "medium sized" Soyuz - the most reliable rocket ever designed, but the heavy lifter Proton is a different story - that blows up "quite often" (proton is comparable to delta heavy in lifting capacity).

the only exception is the Saturn V - that one was very reliable, and who knows why the next designs were NOT based on the experience coming from the Saturn V design.

If you look at the early development of the F1 engine in the Saturn V it had a very shaky start. However, it had enough money poured in over a number of years, in a fairly consistent manner, to really get it polished before it ever flew. By that time it was one of the most solid designs ever produced. I think a lot of people have the idea that the Saturn started the day Kennedy said America should send men to the moon.

This is how good engineering works. Don't try expensive things, like launches, until you really have to. Do try extensive modest cost work on the ground under conditions where you can experiment a lot, and get a real understanding of the system's behaviour. Give people adequate time, and don't play games with their funding that inspire them to perform stunts.

[IO390]

Although the Delta IV has a good track record for reliability, the heavy version seems to have failed one time out of 6 launches.

like any other heavy lifter look at the russians - "medium sized" Soyuz - the most reliable rocket ever designed, but the heavy lifter Proton is a different story - that blows up "quite often" (proton is comparable to delta heavy in lifting capacity).

the only exception is the Saturn V - that one was very reliable, and who knows why the next designs were NOT based on the experience coming from the Saturn V design.

If you look at the early development of the F1 engine in the Saturn V it had a very shaky start. However, it had enough money poured in over a number of years, in a fairly consistent manner, to really get it polished before it ever flew. By that time it was one of the most solid designs ever produced. I think a lot of people have the idea that the Saturn started the day Kennedy said America should send men to the moon.

This is how good engineering works. Don't try expensive things, like launches, until you really have to. Do try extensive modest cost work on the ground under conditions where you can experiment a lot, and get a real understanding of the system's behaviour. Give people adequate time, and don't play games with their funding that inspire them to perform stunts.

It is quite incredible that they went from no knowledge of space travel, to landing on the moon in that short time. It's probably the only government contract completed ahead of schedule 

It seems only logical now to have a smaller lander module etc..., but originally there were plans to land the entire rocket on the moon.

[Alexei.Polkhanov]

I think I have read somewhere that every Apollo launch costed something like $47 to every citizen of US at that time.

[IO390]

I think I have read somewhere that every Apollo launch costed something like $47 to every citizen of US at that time.

This is a good article on the subject: http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1579/1

Given that there were about 200 million people living in the US in 1969, and the entire program (all figures in today's money) cost about 110 billion cost $550 per person over its 15 year lifespan. This averages at 91 dollars per person per lunar landing. Of course, this includes other missions (the missions with no landing - Apollo 7, 8, 9 & 10, if I remember correctly, and I guess 13 doesn't count) and the Apollo-Soyuz mission in 1975.

[dr.diesel]

I know many will disagree, but i'd gladly spend 10x that for more quality missions.

And don't ask me to define quality, LOL

[Alexei.Polkhanov]

I think it is not hard to define quality - I would like NASA, ESA and Roskosmos to fund missions that I want to do myself like put a robot(s) on Europe and Titan, Design better interplanetary drive systems so that trip to Mars takes 2 weeks not 8 months, launch next gen Hubble etc. And then I want them to scale down mostly-publicity projects like ISS. More hard since less BS!

[coppice]

I think it is not hard to define quality - I would like NASA, ESA and Roskosmos to fund missions that I want to do myself like put a robot(s) on Europe and Titan, Design better interplanetary drive systems so that trip to Mars takes 2 weeks not 8 months, launch next gen Hubble etc. And then I want them to scale down mostly-publicity projects like ISS. More hard since less BS!

I think its easy to define quality for unmanned missions. For manned ones people aren't all looking for the same thing, so it becomes very subjective.