Re: VTVL?

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 15:25:33 GMT, in a place far, far away, Monte
Davis <monte.davis@xxxxxxxxxxx> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

simberg.interglobal@xxxxxxxxx (Rand Simberg) wrote:

If I had to bet I'd say that in attaining "commercial success," the
influence of flight rate and ground ops dwarfs that of all technology
and design choices put together.

Yes, within limits.

Yeah, should have qualified that with "all plausible near-term
technology and design choices" -- i.e. within the domain of
chemical-propelled rockets, and barring 5-10x breakthroughs in
workable materials' strength/weight or heat resistance, magic nanotech
that grows finished rockets from raw materials, etc.

Obviously technology and design choices interact with flight rate and
ground ops. But given a broad-brush choice between two general
directions:

"Let's find the silver-bullet optimum design, and an
operating/economic model will emerge to make the most of it"

vs.

"Let's find a sustained, reliable market for X tons per year to orbit,
and a good-enough design will emerge to serve it"

Hopefully, more than one.

I think the latter is more fruitful, if less fun for those who believe
deep down that space is all about cool hardware. I love the hardware,
and have for fifty years. But the point of the whole enterprise, as I
see it now, is to get *past* the gee-whiz, X-treme engineering stage
to a stage where we can think a lot more about *doing things* in space
and a lot less about the nuts and bolts of getting there.

Totally agreed.

By the way, you may be channeling my "Path Not Taken" essay, in which
I described the results of the STAS studies (now twenty years
ago...sigh...) as showing that vehicle design had a second-order
effect on costs, but that flight rate had a first-order effect.
.