On Mon, 17 Feb 2003, Andrew Case wrote:
> > I think it is better to assume that the vehicle gets moved to the stand
> > from a separate landing pad.
>
> I can see the argument for this, but I can also see arguments for what
> is effectively a mobile stand.
The downside of the fixed stand is that you have to move the ship. That's
certainly a nuisance.
The downside of the mobile stand is that you have to move all the stand's
support facilities. That strikes me as a major headache for electrical
and fluid connections, and virtually impossible for some other things you
might want, like structural anchoring and non-trivial flame ducts beneath
the stand.
At least in the absence of much more detailed design, it looks to me like
the fixed stand is the overall winner for the fast-turnaround system. The
difference will not be so large for earlier systems, with less money to
spend on infrastructure and hence probably more use of mobile support
gear. (E.g., if the fluids come from trucks anyway, it doesn't matter so
much whether the hoses hook up to something fixed or mobile.)
Henry Spencer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
ERPS-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
