🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <STEINLY.92Nov19135044@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>... the operation costs do seem quite optimistic, in
>particular I'd have thought the early years operation would be higher
>while ground support learned some maintenance procedures and
>operational experience was developed on what needs inspection and
>refurbishing between flights? I just don't see any way around that,
>are the DCs really that much simpler?

Wrong question.  There are two ways to go about this.  One is to assume
that between-flights turnaround will be very complex, but it will get
better if we look for ways to improve it.  The other is to assume that
it will be simple, although a few complications may be found.  Oddly
enough, only the second approach ever results in something simple and
cheap.  You can always come up with reasons why complexity is needed,
especially after you've already written the manuals and hired the staff.
Simple systems do not evolve from complex ones.

The right question is:  why should the DCs be much more complex than
high-performance aircraft?
-- 
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry