On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 11:03:59 -0700 (PDT), Adrian Tymes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>ERPS doesn't presently have the financial resources >to do xSTO, for any value of x. It is not likely >to acquire such until it is ready to start working on >xSTO, since ERPS has nearer-term projects to do >first. Resolving this question now would require a >lot of speculation about data we don't have yet, but >which people have strong - and sometimes conflicting >- suspicions about. My point is not that ERPS doesn't have the financial resources to do SSTO now. That's obvious. My point is - and this is just my opinion, so don't shoot the messenger - that ERPS will never have the financial resources to do SSTO. It requires too much new development for an amateur organization to do successfully. What ERPS has proven is that it can take existing technology off the shelf, build a flight vehicle, and fly it several times. You don't get nosebleed high mass ratios that way, but you get to fly fairly consistently without breaking the bank. And this technique, carried to its limits, will support TSTO. It will not support SSTO, because with a required mass ratio of 20, you have no margin. IMHO, the objective is to get to orbit, get back, rinse, and repeat. How many stages you use to do it is secondary to getting it done. >Depends. If you think that, at the reduced >per-flight price an SSTO could let you offer, you >could get enough business to pay off the increased >development costs of SSTO, that's a business case for >not staging. Gack. If something costs so much that you cannot afford it, it doesn't matter how good a deal it is. Thinking a reduced per-flight cost (is it even obvious that the per-flight cost would be less? Not to me) would bring you enough more business to pay off the increased development cost is not enough; you must also convince the money people that what you think is true. And you must so convince them that they'll put their money where your mouth is. >A drone helicopter would make hazmat a lot easier to >deal with, although building one would defeat the >cost savings if you can't buy a RC model off the >shelf powerful enough to lift the rocket. Separation >could be handled with a simple claw grip, no? (Maybe >two or three, if you're worried about the rocket >wobbling about the grip.) Don't need a drone or R/C anything. As Bill suggests, drop it from the end of a cable, like Armadillo did. Sling loads offer carriage of the hazmat outside the manned vehicle; zero ground speed at takeoff; and zero airspeed at release. The latter could be varied at will. Flying POGO on a booster stage would duplicate the helo drop tests, while adding the stresses of rocket flight - a bit unfair to wake the vehicle up in the air, but a good tough test. -R -- Son: Dad, I have a question about women. Suppose I Dagwood: Apologize anyway. Son: Yeah, that's about what I figured Dagwood: It saves time _______________________________________________ ERPS-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
