--- Ian Woollard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Adrian Tymes wrote: > > --- Ian Woollard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>The other option of launching 4x proportionately > >>reduces the life of the > >>vehicle. The vehicle cost is one of the biggest > >>costs of launch, > >>eclipsed only by R&D; and this scheme quadruples > it > >>per unit payload > >>(ok. rather less, as there are economies of > scale.) > > > > I fail to understand this piece. Launching 4x as > > often means you launch 4x as much payload per unit > > time, > > No, because a similar sized LAP can only carry 1/4 > the payload; so you > only launch as much payload per unit time.
Ah. The way you phrased it, you seemed to mean that one would launch the same vehicle 4x as often, and that itself would increase cost per payload. Though, as has been stated, the ability to launch quickly can itself be useful, and increase what people are willing to pay, far beyond any increased costs associated with it. (How much would those who want Hubble to stay up pay to put, say, 500 pounds of spam-in-a-can astronaut, space suit, and parts right next to Hubble, with the same weight - albeit exhanging working parts for broken ones - landing safely afterwards, within one week of detecting a malfunction in Hubble? Note: "those who want Hubble to stay up"; this is not the same as "all of NASA".) _______________________________________________ ERPS-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
