Re: XCOR engines
- From: gregg <saville@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 20:53:56 -0400
Rüdiger Klaehn wrote:
> gregg wrote:
>
> [snip]
>> I see no problem with lots of engine manufacturers at the "start". Yu can
>> get lots of good ideas that way. You'r emore apt to get good ideas form
>> many different manufacturers instead of just a very few.
>>
>> In time, market forces will weed out the list.
>>
> That is right. But I would prefer to see less half-baked engine
> development programs and more flying vehicles.
>
> I think there is much more room for innovation at the vehicle level
> than at the engine level. There are some decent engines available today
> (mostly russian ones though). But there are a lot of vehicle
> configurations that have never been tried yet that deserve a try.
Gotta have half-baked ideas in order to also have baked ones. No reason to
throttle creativity.
No reason you can't have both engine and vehicle innovation.
Gregg
Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments,
Restoration of my 1919 Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat, and
Steambending FAQ with photos:
http://home.comcast.net/~saville/index.html
.
- References:
- XCOR engines
- From: Pete Lynn
- Re: XCOR engines
- From: Rüdiger Klaehn
- Re: XCOR engines
- From: gregg
- Re: XCOR engines
- From: Rüdiger Klaehn
- XCOR engines
- Prev by Date: Re: Is Crew Launch Vehicle Too Big?
- Next by Date: Re: Space Access Update #112 9/19/05
- Previous by thread: Re: XCOR engines
- Next by thread: Re: XCOR engines
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|