🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <STEINLY.92Nov19135044@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:

>...but 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? 

That is largely what DC-X & Y are for. Things will change with an operational
system, but not that much. One goal is five flights without major maintenance.
That means all it needs for the second launch is to be re-fueled.

Most of the savings are because we are approaching the problem in a different
way. The old way costs did need to be high because designs where complex
and always pushed the technology. Keeping it simple (the first rule of good
engineering), using existing well tested technology, and not pushing
envelopes reduces costs.

>Hmm, didn't you just say that Congress should just fund the DC-X,Y?

A mis-statement on my part. I ment if Congress properly funds DC-Y. I
do expect that DC-1 would be built by the private sector.

     Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------155 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+