[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The hard part of SSTO is mass ratio, which is essentially a passive
> design feature for a true SSTO. The flight systems should be, and IMHO may
> need to be, less complicated than those of much human-rated stuff that is
> already operational.
I can't see THAT much demand for SSTO, but I sure can for SSSO -
Signle Stage Sub Orbital. Long haul cargo and passenger markets are
the big revenue source for early operations. It's not like we'll need
twice daily flights to ISS.
> Design for rapid turnaround may not be too exotic of a consideration.
> While politics makes it unlikely for DoD to fund the development of an SSTO,
> if someone else builds one, they will likely come shopping and be interested
> in rapid turnaround.
Yup. The military doesn't have to do this. But if the capability to
deploy a squad or a company anywhwere in the world in < 1 hour is
available you can bed the Boys In Blue will want some.
> And, yes, computerized preflight checks are essential for safety, and will
> likely have speed benefits as well.
Properly designed, there should be little maintenance per flight but
an onboard vehicle health monitor system will radio ahead if a part
starts acting up and a replacement should be at the gate when it gets
there. That flight may not be an "on-time" departure, but it shouldn't
be that late either. If it turns out to be a moderate replacement job,
a substitute vehicle is used and the "ill" one goes to the maintenance
hanger.
I'm not talking about anything radically different that what's done
with airliners now.
Michael
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Wallis KF6SPF (408) 396-9037 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
ERPS-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
