On 29 May 2003 15:51:54 -0700, David Masten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Rather than design a vehicle that crashes safely, why not design one >> that doesn't crash? > >I have never seen such a beast, and I suspect that it can not exist, in >fact, I'd give better odds for the existence of pink unicorns. >Considering how to keep passengers alive through a crash is a necessity. I was being somewhat facetious, but only somewhat. You want to consider the trades of where you put your time, energy, and expertise. Do you get more passenger survivability out of making the vehicle more reliable, or making it more crashworthy? Given the other benefits of making it more reliable - for one thing, you get to use it again, fairly important in an RLV - crashworthiness has to be a big win to get any extra wrench time. -R -- "We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true." -- Robert Wilensky, UC Berkeley _______________________________________________ ERPS-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
