Re: Fuuture of pads 39 A and 39B
From: Derek Lyons (fairwater_at_gmail.com)
Date: 09/14/04
- Next message: Herb Schaltegger: "Re: What was the biggest problem for each of the 2 destroyed US space shuttles?"
- Previous message: Damon Hill: "Re: Told yah! Told yah!"
- In reply to: Jeff Findley: "Re: Fuuture of pads 39 A and 39B"
- Next in thread: Jeff Findley: "Re: Fuuture of pads 39 A and 39B"
- Reply: Jeff Findley: "Re: Fuuture of pads 39 A and 39B"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 23:59:44 GMT
"Jeff Findley" <jeff.findley@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:
>Anything big enough to require the Saturn/Shuttle pads is surely too big to
>be economical. Too big a booster means a low flight rate. Low enough
>flight rate, and you're talking about costs on the order of Saturn/Shuttle,
>which are both too expensive to maintain.
Right. That's why we have huge cargo ships and huge cargo aircraft
sitting in harbors rusting and in the desert slowly oxidizing. That's
why locomotive builders and truck manufacturers abandonded their quest
for large capacity and horsepower...
Economics aren't tied to size, they are tied to flight rate and
demand. If there was sufficient demand for large boosters, they'd
have a high flight rate and a much lower cost.
D.
-- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
- Next message: Herb Schaltegger: "Re: What was the biggest problem for each of the 2 destroyed US space shuttles?"
- Previous message: Damon Hill: "Re: Told yah! Told yah!"
- In reply to: Jeff Findley: "Re: Fuuture of pads 39 A and 39B"
- Next in thread: Jeff Findley: "Re: Fuuture of pads 39 A and 39B"
- Reply: Jeff Findley: "Re: Fuuture of pads 39 A and 39B"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|