On Sat, 1 Feb 2003, Randall Clague wrote:
> This brings back a thought I have frequently: we should separate the
> crew transport mission from the cargo transport mission. The crew
> shouldn't fly a huge complex vehicle with all its failure modes, and a
> trash hauler shouldn't have to be man rated.
Why should the big vehicle be significantly more complex, with lots more
failure modes, than the small one?
To be harsh and realistic, many cargos are worth more than a small crew.
In *commercial service*, why is lower reliability acceptable for a cargo
hauler? If you won't fly on it, I don't want my precious cargo on it.
A reusable launcher likely will be worth more than crew and cargo put
together. If it is reliable enough to earn back the mortgage, it is
reliable enough to carry a crew.
When we start building spaceships rather than "man-rating" artillery
rockets, it will be worth including a crew if there is any significant
chance that they can save vehicle and payload from problems that would
otherwise cause them to be lost. And there is. Nobody flies unmanned
cargo aircraft. Data analysis after the first phase of X-15 flights
indicated that an unmanned X-15 would have had a 30-40% loss rate, which
matched actual experience with BOMARC and Atlas A almost exactly.
Henry Spencer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
ERPS-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
