|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"Heavy lift: examining the requirements"
Taylor Dinerman's article in "The Space Review" this morning raised some
questions for me. 1) It did not appear that the question of infrastructure support was addressed in the article - only the need for heavy lift. A shuttle derived heavy lift vehicle keeps getting mentioned, but the part that seems to be ignored is the cost of the supporting workforce, maintaining productions lines, etc. I haven't yet seen any plausible situation requiring an HLV to be launched at regular and frequent intervals that might justify the need for an HLV. Am I missing something? 2) The idea of using an SRB for a CEV launcher was gently dismissed in the article with the argument that the SRBs are inherently less safe than liquid boosters. Having fired successfully 225 out of 226 times, and with the single failure (SRB burnthrough) being an abortable failure in the CEV (possibly even an ATO?), I'd suggest that the SRB has earned some respect. Regardless, the heavy lift forms of the Delta and Atlas that were mentioned also use SRBs, no? Multiple ones? Now, which launcher might be more reliable? Jon |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers | Cris Fitch | Technology | 40 | March 24th 04 04:28 PM |
High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers | Cris Fitch | Policy | 82 | March 24th 04 04:28 PM |
Heavy Lift launcher is allready here | serge | Policy | 27 | February 13th 04 06:03 PM |
Twin ET-derived heavy lift vehicule? | Remy Villeneuve | Technology | 0 | January 10th 04 09:56 PM |
"Off the shelf" heavy lift??? | Phil Paisley | Technology | 3 | November 23rd 03 06:49 AM |