[AR] Re: reusability and reliability (was Re: Re: Congratulations, Bill...)
- From: Ian Woollard <ian.woollard@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2013 15:32:23 +0100
On the contrary, it's not ludicrous at all, and the current Falcon/Dragon
launch system resembles it closely.
It's far cheaper than the Shuttle and, although it's much too early to know
for sure, and it depends on factors not directly related to the
architecture, it looks like it will, or at least can, be many times safer
as well.
On 1 October 2013 15:00, Henry Spencer <henry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Sep 2013, Rand Simberg wrote:
> > >> would have been launched for the same overall amount of money, and
> probably
> > >> nobody would have died at all.
> > > A curious assertion, since so far, expendable-launched capsules with
> > > escape systems have killed three crews, while the shuttle only killed
> > > two...
> >
> > Well, to be fair, you can't blame the Soyuz crew loss from capsule
> > depressurization on expendable launch vehicles.
>
> However, I *can* blame it on expendable hardware :-), since it was caused
> by pyro shock from jettisoning their orbital module!
>
> Agreed, though, that several of those accidents had nothing in particular
> to do with expendability, except insofar as it made proper testing and
> debugging difficult. I was addressing the ludicrous assertion that using
> capsules on expendables would probably have prevented loss of life.
>
> Henry Spencer
>
> henry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> (
> hspencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)
> (
> regexpguy@xxxxxxxxx)
>
>
>
--
-Ian Woollard
Other related posts:
