At 01:46 PM 2/18/2003 -0500, Andrew Case wrote:
In the initial stages, while building up operational experience, it seems sensible to me to keep speeds low enough that a sudden stop imposes loads no larger than those encountered during launch (bearing in mind that the loads in question are side loads, not vertical loads, and they are concentrated in different places from the wind loads on launch). Maybe this can be done at speeds upwards of 10 mph.
Fair enough. I believe that an operational vehicle should be sturdy enough to take a certain amount of handling abuse without concern.
I think a first generation cheap reusable should shoot for a much more modest turnaround goal -- a few hundred man-hours per flight, including routine maintenance and inspection, but not major maintenance. Allowing for a longer turnaround will reduce the vehicle's overall complexity and reduce the number of tradeoffs that must be made.Yep. If you are under a thousand man-hours for turnaround you're still so far ahead of anything that's ever made orbit that BoLock will refuse to believe it until you've put them out of business :-)
Figure you are probably averaging around $40-$50/hr labor costs, including benefits and ancillary employment costs. That's $0k-$50k per flight -- not too shabby. That could easily support a per-flight cost of $500k, all up. That may sound like a lot of money, but even if your vehicle can only launch 1000kg, that's a cost of $500/kg, which is an order of magnitude of improvement over even Russian prices, and not to be sneezed at.
-p
Mars or Bust!
www.marssociety.com
_______________________________________________
ERPS-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
