On Sat, 21 Dec 2002 11:35:48 -0800, Aleta Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Not having enough money for more than one tail number isn't necessarily >a mistake, it just means you don't have anough money for more than one >tail number. XCOR has only enough money for one EZ-Rocket. DC-X was >singular, too. We all _know_ three tail numbers are ideal but when you >have just enough for one, you do the best you can with that one. I was just going to say that... We only had one flight article for KISS, and we _did_ crash it. So, we salvaged the engine, aft bulkhead, and fin can, rebuilt it, and flew again two months later. We made some minor changes for KISS II, and some major ones for KISS III, which we would have had to duplicate had we had more than one...I think, given our budget and schedule, one is the onliest number. That might well not be true if we were oriented commercially. Startup commercial orientation usually means time is scarcer then money, so you should build more than one. SoloTrek died because they ran out of time after they crashed. The two amateur groups I know, ERPS and Armadillo, both had a major crash this year, and we both just picked up the pieces, went back to shop, and kept working. We can afford this because we haven't any deadlines except those we impose upon ourselves. -R -- LSO to pilot after 6th bolter, "You have to land here, son. This is where the food is." _______________________________________________ ERPS-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
