On Mon, 3 Feb 2003 00:30:05 -0500 (EST), Henry Spencer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Why should the big vehicle be significantly more complex, with lots more >failure modes, than the small one? It shouldn't. But it is. I'm comparing Shuttle vs. Soyuz, specifically. >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. In commercial service, it isn't. These guys are in government service. Different rules apply. You and I agree that they shouldn't *be* in government service, but that's a separate debate. >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. That's fair. >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. Apples and oranges. Weren't BOMARC and Atlas weapons, not intended for multiple use? Don't get me wrong. I want to do manned ships. But they're so much bigger and more expensive. -R _______________________________________________ ERPS-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
