Terrell Miller wrote:
"Henry Spencer" wrote:
2000 launches in 10 years is 200/yr, which is only twice the rate that the
Soviets consistently sustained during their busiest launch years. And
much of that traffic was Semyorkas -- fairly complex rockets with a long
checkout/launch cycle. (You wouldn't think anyone would build an ICBM
with a countdown longer than the B-52 flight time from Maine to Plesetsk,
but that's exactly what they did...)

It's not merely remotely feasible, it's clearly and straightforwardly
feasible. Good design in the launcher and the ground-support facilities
will certainly help, but the only part that's *necessary* is ample money.

Henry, will you please take a moment and actually listen to your own
rhetoric?

You just said that a flight rate that has *never* been achieved *anywhere*,
under any political or economic system, and is in fact twice that of the
nearest analog, is "clearly and straightforwardly feasible".

There's *no way* you can make that assertion, amigo. None.

*Possible*, maybe, given all the handwaved requirements you spelled out.

But *clear*, *straightforward* and *feasible*?!?

Yes.

One: Is a rocket necessarily more complex or difficult to manufacture
than a jet airliner or bomber? No. What was Boeing's peak production
of aircraft post-war? I'm looking for some better statistics, but in
the 2003 year to date, arguably one of the worst years for air transport
purchases in a long time, it's 174 aircraft. 14,000 since 1954,
which works out to an annual average of around 280 aircraft.

Two: Is there anything about rocket operations which are inherently
difficult to launch at a rate of one per day, on the launch side?
No. The Russians' limitations on launch rates were due to their
vehicle assembly limits, not their pad facilities. And their rockets
were just sort of well designed for rapid launch from the pad.
Designs done with operability as the major goal from step one
would do much better. The Soyuz flight history, going from the
list in Iaskowitz 3rd edition (1979 onwards) includes quite a
few multiple launches in one day, many more launches with 2 or 3
flying one per day for that many days in a row.

And these are with conventional complicated rockets, albeit well
engineered robust models. BDBs could use 2 orders of magnitude
fewer parts; RLVs will eventually operate with aircraft-like
maintenance requirements.

No credible examination of the historical data and engineering
issues involved can avoid the conclusion that high flight rates
are supportable if there are sufficient payloads. Just looking
at the US experience, and failing to note the real lessons of
the Soviet program, are not credible examinations. What the
Soviets proved was that they could build the infrastructure
for a given flight rate, could expand that on demand, could
build as many rockets as they needed for demand up to about
100 flights a year, and keep their operational tempo and quality
going over the course of a year or longer flying several flights
a week on the average.

The additional infrastructure, rocket production and assembly
capabilities, and staff to support 200 versus 100 flights
per year would be merely incremental. And designing rockets
to be cheaper and easier to assemble and stack and launch
would make it even easier than that.


-george william herbert