On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 04:53:51 +0000, Ian Woollard
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>The ghost of Max Hunter says you tested it too rigorously. :-)
>>>
>>>(Several Thors failed due to excessive static testing before launch, and
>>>the static tests never once caught anything important. Eventually they
>>>talked the USAF into eliminating the static tests.)
>>
>>You're kidding, right? Thor was an ELV. Armadillo's building an RLV.
>>
>Even RLVs wear out. Check out the Space Shuttle wiring issues.
We don't know if RLVs wear out, because no one is flying any yet. The
Space Shuttle is not an RLV. The Space Shuttle is a PRLV - a
Partially Refurbishable Launch Vehicle. The Orbiter is refurbished
after each flight, the SRBs are salvaged after each flight, and the ET
is expended at the beginning of each flight.
ERPS has a clear, simple definition of RLV: a transatmospheric
vehicle, all parts of which of are actively guided during all phases
of flight. By this definition, no one is flying RLVs yet. The
vehicles that come closest to this definition are XCOR's EZ-Rocket and
Armadillo's landers. They're test beds, and they're not
transatmospheric. (Yet, John says.) The Space Shuttle does not meet
this definition, because both the SRBs and the ET are simply
discarded, and are not guided in any way as they fall.
AST disagrees with us on this definition, calling a vehicle an RLV if
any part of it is reusable, and whether or not it leaves the
atmosphere. So they would license the Space Shuttle as an RLV if they
had jurisdiction, and they do license Orbital's L-1011 as an RLV. We
think Shuttle should be licensed as an ELV, and the L-1011 as an
airplane - which it is, when it's not carrying a Pegasus. Go figure.
-R
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"The only time an aircraft has too much fuel on board
is when it is on fire." -Sir Charles Kingsford Smith
_______________________________________________
ERPS-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
