home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky sci.space.shuttle:2797 sci.space:16143
- Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space
- Path: sparky!uunet!utcsri!utzoo!henry
- From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
- Subject: Re: Shuttle replacement
- Message-ID: <BxzsL6.8CA@zoo.toronto.edu>
- Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 02:07:51 GMT
- References: <1992Nov17.194901.16883@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> <1992Nov19.073340.27278@netcom.com> <1992Nov19.202302.5796@iti.org> <STEINLY.92Nov19135044@topaz.ucsc.edu> <BxzLMF.5J6@zoo.toronto.edu> <STEINLY.92Nov19174436@topaz.ucsc.edu>
- Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
- Lines: 18
-
- In article <STEINLY.92Nov19174436@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
- > The right question is: why should the DCs be much more complex than
- > high-performance aircraft?
- >
- >Intrinsically I see no reason why an orbital launcher should be
- >more complex than that - as a matter of practicality though there is the
- >fact that you have a lot of energy to be controlled in a very short
- >time...
-
- The engines are the one part of the DC birds that really do have to be
- built to much more severe specs than anything found in aircraft. But
- this is a solved problem. The RL10 (which DC-X will use) has already
- demonstrated a dozen (test-stand) firings in a row without maintenance.
- Most mature liquid-fuel rocket engines are really quite reliable and
- would not need a lot of maintenance. The SSME is not typical.
- --
- 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
-