In article , says...
Speaking of dim past... Here's a gem from Paul D. reposting a passage
about Robert Truax from Ed Regis on Thor vs Agena.

Paul Dietz
2/17/94
Sea Dragon (was reviving saturn v)
In article (Doug Jones) writes:

snip

So if all this was true, if engineering, lab tests, documentation and
so forth didn't determine a launch vehicle's price tag, *what did*?
Essentially, three things: parts count, design margins, and
innovation. Other things being equal, the more parts a machine had,
the more it was going to cost. The more you wanted it to approach
perfection, the more expensive it would end up being. And finally,
the newer and more pioneering the design, the more you'd end up paying
for it.

"We came up with a set of ground rules for designing a launch
vehicle," Truax said. "Make it big, make it simple, make it reusable.
Don't push the state of the art, and don't make it any more reliable
that it has to be. And *never* mix people and cargo, because the
reliability requirements are worlds apart. For people you can have a
very small vehicle on which you lavish all your attention; everything
else is cargo, and for this all you need is a Big Dumb Booster."

--------------------

Paul F. Dietz


"If I'd been in my grave, I'd have rolled over."
R. Truax on the decision to build the Space Shuttle

I think we're seeing some of these rules being applied today by SpaceX
(simpler engines and reuse), but not to the extent that Big Dumb Booster
would have.

We'll see if much of this applies to BFR/BFS.

Jeff

--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.