Comments on: Monocultures

By: Kelly Starks

Kelly Starks — Sat, 25 Jun 2005 16:13:00 +0000

> Also I am really speaking about
> thinking out to the future. If
> people are living on the Moon,
> you would probably need a few
> different kinds of transport.

Long term I agree. but given the primary factor in launch costs (in a
reasonably designed craft) is a high enough flight rate. If you only have a few hundred flights a year, its probably is cheaper to use one jack of all trade craft fleet, then have a fleet of several types of craft - none of which fly very often.

By: Jon Goff

Jon Goff — Wed, 22 Jun 2005 03:30:00 +0000

Dan,

Yeah, I’d be really amazed if cislunar space ends up being truly settled without at least a dozen different styles of vehicles being put into use. In the commercial air transport industry, even though there are only two remaining big players, you still have dozens of different airplane sorts. Not everyone needs a new 787 or A380. Some people are just happy with a 737, etc.

By: Dan Schrimpsher

Dan Schrimpsher — Wed, 22 Jun 2005 03:09:00 +0000

Yeah but the F-18 is a fighter jet. They don’t use it for cargo and transport.

Also I am really speaking about thinking out to the future. If people are living on the Moon, you would probably need a few different kinds of transport.

By: Kelly Starks

Kelly Starks — Mon, 20 Jun 2005 15:58:00 +0000

On a more serious point. One size fit all is the trend across all agencies. It’s why the Navys stocking air craft carriers with little more then variations of F-18s, etc. If you can’t get your job done without a fleet, you’re doomed since odds are at least one of the fleet of programs will get “trimmed” in some budget negotiation. “After all NASA only lost one of its new vehicle development programs – so don’t be greedy.” And realistically one jack of all trade ship development program doesn’t always cost as much as a fleet of specialists. So it’s not a bad way to go if you want to get something usable out of Washington. Hell Shuttle was the only survivor out of the Shuttle/station/deepspace-maned-craft post Apollo proposal.

By: Kelly Starks

Kelly Starks — Mon, 20 Jun 2005 15:43:00 +0000

You again miss the true key advantage of maga projects. If everyone is stuck in the same boat. No one can afford to vote against it without steping on some constituant. There is political power in ver consolidation.

By: Jon Goff

Jon Goff — Sat, 18 Jun 2005 17:27:00 +0000

Dan,

Yeah, there’s a real danger with a one-sized fits all vehicle. Of course, I think recently the Shuttle has been used as a bad example for taking this argument too far. Hmm….methinks me smells another blog post coming on…….

By: Norden

Norden — Sat, 18 Jun 2005 17:04:00 +0000

This is one way the cancellation of MOL and other military programs cost us.

By: Dan Schrimpsher

Dan Schrimpsher — Sat, 18 Jun 2005 11:43:00 +0000

Another problem with mono-solutions is there expense. Can you imagine the cost of a national car built by GM for the government? $150,000 easy.

Yet one more problem is the lack of focus. If you build one craft, it has to be everything to all people. As Socrates said, there are diversities of natures among us which are adapted to different occupations. So a number of specialized crafts would each be better at their job than one single type of ship was at anything.