Re: Space related PDF files from the Defense Technical Information Center

In article <1160223084.719988.227540@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Proponent <Proponent@xxxxxxx> wrote:
...[LFBBs] might reduce turn-around time to three weeks
and permit flight rates of *15* per year (I presume that's for the
whole fleet, not for individual vehicles).
I find this astounding. ... Is it plausible, either now or from a
late-90s perspective, that LFBBs could have had such an impact on
turn-around time? That such high flight rates were feasible?

There was nothing impossible about such flight rates, provided you made a
considerable up-front investment in beefing up support facilities and
staffs to handle the extra workload. And perhaps did a bit of work on the
hardware itself to eliminate big time sinks (e.g., nontoxic RCS/OMS
propellants and non-hydrazine APUs might not seem that important in
themselves, but they would greatly reduce the number of times when you
have to stop all other work and clear the building because somebody's got
to fiddle with plumbing that *just might* release Bad Stuff if he goofs
and breaks something).

I greatly doubt, though, that the SRBs were a big issue in holding down
the flight rate, especially since much of the work on them could be done
in parallel. I'd expect that the orbiter was the long pole in the tent.
You might see some indirect effects from reducing hazardous operations
(because the LFBBs wouldn't be fueled in the VAB), but I wouldn't expect
anything dramatic.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | henry@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
.