|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Ariane Economies of Scale
"Kim Keller" wrote in message . com...
"Hop David" wrote in message ... Is mating vehicles difficult? In the case of the shuttle, it is. Simply lifting the orbiter into position for mating takes around 8 hours. Hard-mate generally takes around 18-24 hours, if all goes well. The entire process of completing mechanical and electrical connections, plus checkout of the integrated stack takes about five days of round-the-clock effort (been there, done that). Interesting. Still the Shuttle takes about O(3 weeks) to recycle doesn't it? Matter of interest where do the other two weeks go? -Kim- |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Ariane Economies of Scale
Rand Simberg wrote: On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 00:32:06 GMT, in a place far, far away, Michael Walsh made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: The only virtue that a SSTO has over a TSTO (two stage to orbit) reusable vehicle is the reduction in cost by developing and using only one vehicle instead of two. There are also theoretical operational cost reductions by not having to mate the vehicles in turnaround, but at the current state of technology it's not clear that the loss of performance margin of a single stage doesn't wipe out this advantage. OK, but that is just a clarification of what I posted. Yes, because I (perhaps mistakenly) inferred that you were saying that the main problem was development. I didn't mean to imply that, but perhaps by putting development first made it more important than the operational costs of using two vehicles. In the long run, I would expect that the operational costs would be more important, especially since the development of the SSTO should have higher risk and probably a higher cost than the development of one stage of a two stage vehicle. It might even be higher than the cost of developing both stages. The payoff of the SSTO would be from expected lower operational costs. Mike Walsh |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Ariane Economies of Scale
"Ian Woollard" wrote in message om... Interesting. Still the Shuttle takes about O(3 weeks) to recycle doesn't it? I'm afraid I don't understand this statement. Could you clarify? -Kim- |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Ariane Economies of Scale
"Kim Keller" wrote in message . com...
"Ian Woollard" wrote in message om... Interesting. Still the Shuttle takes about O(3 weeks) to recycle doesn't it? I'm afraid I don't understand this statement. Could you clarify? I assume that he's using "Big O" notation for the difficulty of a task. It's a computer science term, and is generally used to determine which algorithm is better on abitrarily large data sets. It's not particularly useful for aerospace work since by definition it completely ignores non-recurring costs. I would assume he meant to say "roughly three weeks" -jake |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Ariane Economies of Scale
"Jake McGuire" wrote in message om... I assume that he's using "Big O" notation for the difficulty of a task. It's a computer science term, and is generally used to determine which algorithm is better on abitrarily large data sets. It's not particularly useful for aerospace work since by definition it completely ignores non-recurring costs. I would assume he meant to say "roughly three weeks" But I don't understand what effort he's referring to when he talks about three weeks to recycle the shuttle. Recycle it after what? I could probably give a semi-intelligent answer if he would elaborate. -Kim- |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Ariane Economies of Scale
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Ariane Economies of Scale
Ian Woollard wrote:
Not quite. By definition, SSTO has the same margin as a technologically equivalent two-stager. Not at all. For a given level of technology, the TSTO will have more generous margins. Paul |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Ariane Economies of Scale
On 14 Jul 2003 20:48:55 -0700, in a place far, far away,
(Ian Woollard) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: The payoff of the SSTO would be from expected lower operational costs. Yes, but because SSTO would have much less margin than a (technology-equivalent) two-stage, lower operational costs may end up being an illusion at current technology levels. Not quite. By definition, SSTO has the same margin as a technologically equivalent two-stager. ?? Not at all, if you really mean "technologically-equivalent." -- simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole) interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org "Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..." Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me. Here's my email address for autospammers: |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Ariane Economies of Scale
"Ian Woollard" wrote:
Not quite. By definition, SSTO has the same margin as a technologically equivalent two-stager. I like SSTOs but that's just nuts. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Ariane Economies of Scale
Ian Woollard wrote:
Not at all. For a given level of technology, the TSTO will have more generous margins. But increasing the margins is just using a lower level of technology. Wrong. Paul |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
how well would space ship one scale up? | bob haller | Space Shuttle | 10 | June 24th 04 07:29 PM |
Ariane 5/Smart-1 succesfully launched | Jonathan Archer | Space Station | 2 | September 28th 03 06:12 PM |
Ariane Failu Missing Screw | Derek Lyons | Space Science Misc | 1 | August 24th 03 06:25 AM |
Ariane Economies of Scale | Ian Woollard | Space Shuttle | 2 | July 21st 03 01:43 AM |
Ariane Economies of Scale | Ian Woollard | Technology | 2 | July 21st 03 01:43 AM |