Re: Airborne lasers
From: Henry Spencer (henry_at_spsystems.net)
Date: 11/20/04
- Next message: Henry Spencer: "Re: Airborne lasers"
- Previous message: John Charles: "NASA astronauts at SpaceShip1 flights?"
- In reply to: Earl Colby Pottinger: "Re: Airborne lasers"
- Next in thread: Neil Gerace: "Re: Airborne lasers"
- Reply: Neil Gerace: "Re: Airborne lasers"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 01:37:47 GMT
In article <vZSdnS8Rn5ZC6APcRVn-rw@look.ca>,
Earl Colby Pottinger <earlcp@idirect.com> wrote:
>> In the long run, the expensive part is the wear and tear on the ABL
>> aircraft -- an extremely costly asset (far more expensive than the
>> escorts) with a limited working life.
>
>Why would the ABL plane suffer a lot of wear? Does it not run at best
>cruising speed most of the time?
Ditto 747s; they (almost invariably) spend much of their lives in
high-altitude cruise. Nevertheless, they do have finite working lives.
Even at cruising altitude, they do hit bumps, their structures do flex
back and forth, and every flex counts against fatigue life.
(Working life can be stretched somewhat, but only at considerable cost
and difficulty.)
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert | henry@spsystems.net
- Next message: Henry Spencer: "Re: Airborne lasers"
- Previous message: John Charles: "NASA astronauts at SpaceShip1 flights?"
- In reply to: Earl Colby Pottinger: "Re: Airborne lasers"
- Next in thread: Neil Gerace: "Re: Airborne lasers"
- Reply: Neil Gerace: "Re: Airborne lasers"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|