Randall Clague wrote: > > 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.
The other factor is that we have an unusually high ratio of fabrication to design time/cost/etc... building a second unit is likely to be much more effort than the first one was to design, and almost as much as building the first one. (This is just the opposite of, say, software - where the major effort is in design, in figuring out how to do it, and replication of units is nearly free by comparison.) -dave w _______________________________________________ ERPS-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
