Re: Vision of the three Rs: Regular, Reliable and Reusable

On Mar 6, 11:50 pm, Joe Strout <j...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <1173215510.853853.310...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,

"Hyper" <hyperbor...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Heavy lift spares you a lot of headaches. If you think about it, a
higher price may be worth it if your station/vehicle is assembled in a
couple of flights instead of 20-30 (to say nothing about EVAs.

Why? What do you have against a large number of flights? Or EVAs for
that matter?

Nothing. I certainly hope there will be sustained space activity. In
such a case opertaing large boosters does not exclude other launchers
(approproate for other tasks than building an infrastructure).

Both launches and EVAs are expensive and dangerous in large part because
we do them so rarely. Anything that would get us doing them on a weekly
(or better still, daily) basis would almost certainly be a good thing,
as far as I can tell.

EVA are both exhausting and dangerous. Simply doing more, with current
equipment, invites accidents.

Plus, you can't fly large diameter components on existing launchers.

True, if you define "large" as "bigger than can fly on existing
launchers." But then, that will always be true.

I'm talking Skylab large.

.

Quantcast