🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec27.202714.20889@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <1992Dec27.163935.20473@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>I wasn't aware that DC was planned to have a GEO capability, or a large
>>enough cargo bay to retrieve a major comsat.
>
>Why do you always limit your thinking so Gary? First of all, the DC-Y
>payload bay is almost the same size as Atlas. A production DC would have
>a payload bay of whatever size the market needs. Second of all, you aren't
>thinking of how lower costs will affect operations. Maybe a modified
>DC-1 is used as an OTV to get payloads where they are returned to LEO for
>repair (and not brought back to Earth). Maybe you use lower costs to fly
>redundant satellites, each less relaible. When one breaks, it uses a
>high efficiency electric engine to come back to LEO where it is repaired,
>refueled, and returned. Maybe we abandon comsats in GEO and place them in
>LEO. I can think of lots of alternatives.

I can too, but they all cost money and require developments beyond
a simple SSTO to LEO. Without costing them out, including them in
SSTO mission cost profiles against more conventional systems is bogus.
Without costing them out, there is no assurance at all that they will
lower systems costs. It's like saying that a Pinto is cheaper to develop,
buy, and operate than a unit train so we should deliver coal to power 
plants in the trunks of millions of Pintos.

Gary

-- 
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary      
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu