[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] - [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

Re: was Arcjet, now solid boosters

Especially maintenance.  The airlines have long known that the per-unit
cost of jet engine maintenance is the same whether the engine is 20000,
50000, or 90000 pounds thrust.  Labor cost is the driving factor here,
not parts cost. This is the overriding reason why the Boeing 777 has
only two engines (or so a GE employee told me a few years ago).


Mahlon - K4OQ

Gunther Meisse wrote:
> Drw, Your concept is only correct if the plane can fly with just one engine.
> I think the end result of going across the ocean without ditching is much
> more statically supported with the four engines. What is not supported is
> MONEY. It is much cheaper to fly two engines then four. Fuel, maintance,
> weight etc.
> 73
> Gunther Meisse
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-AMSAT-BB@AMSAT.Org [mailto:owner-AMSAT-BB@AMSAT.Org]On
> Behalf Of Drew Glasbrenner
> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 10:10 PM
> To: amsat-bb
> Subject: [amsat-bb] was Arcjet, now solid boosters
> This is not my field of expertise, but here goes. Seems to me that multiple
> solid boosters is a BAD idea. What if one of a pair fires but not the other?
> Another tumbling satellite is what we will have. Also, assume the rate of
> catastrophic failure for similarly designed motors, large or small, is
> equitable. Several small motors will greatly increase the risk of a failure
> as opposed to one or two. I believe this is the logic behind the recent
> trend of newer intercontinental aircraft having two instead of four engines.
> This IS rocket science, and while it is fun to listen to some of the ideas,
> I'd rather trust the guys who do this for a living with my satellite money.
> Drw, KO4MA
Via the amsat-bb mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy of AMSAT-NA.
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe amsat-bb" to Majordomo@amsat.org