Article View: sci.space
Article #6870Re: DC vs. Shuttle capabilities
From: Allen W. Sherzer
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1993 15:13
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1993 15:13
25 lines
1497 bytes
1497 bytes
In article <C0B93G.Ksx.1@cs.cmu.edu> pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu ("Phil G. Fraering") writes:
\4. The servicing goals and rapid turnaround requirements of the vehicle
/are doable on paper, but have been held out as very risky by an
\independent study.
>An independent study which apparently had an axe to grind of its own,
>if you're talking about the TAC study.
If he is referring to the TAC assessment, there are even more problems.
TAC examined Max Hunters SSX design, not DC. Their main complaint about
turnaround was the active cooling being used in the Thermal Protection
System (TPS). They felt (with good reason) that the complex tubes and
pumps needed for this would make access difficult.
However, since DC doesn't use active cooling, most of the TAC complaints
regarding maintenance are moot.
Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves |
| aws@iti.org | nothing undone" |
+----------------------110 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1993Jan4.151313.15206@iti.org>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!hela.iti.org!awsReferences:
<C0B93G.Ksx.1@cs.cmu.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: sci.space Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!hela.iti.org!aws From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) Subject: Re: DC vs. Shuttle capabilities Message-ID: <1993Jan4.151313.15206@iti.org> Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow References: <C0B93G.Ksx.1@cs.cmu.edu> Distribution: sci Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 15:13:13 GMT Lines: 25