home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!news.aero.org!shag
- From: shag@aero.org (Robert M. Unverzagt)
- Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
- Subject: Re: mean failure time vs power-to-weight ratio (was: Re: Sig file)
- Date: 21 Dec 1992 17:45:28 GMT
- Organization: Organization? You must be kidding.
- Lines: 27
- Message-ID: <1h4vroINNeeb@news.aero.org>
- References: <1grnvaINN5i7@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> <1gtj8aINN1s5@news.aero.org> <pete.724946089@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: aerospace.aero.org
-
- In article <pete.724946089@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU> pete@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Peter Alexander Merel) writes:
- > shag@aero.org (Robert M. Unverzagt) writes:
- > >In article <1grnvaINN5i7@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> ST201026@brownvm.brown.edu (nathan marsh) writes:
- > >> In article <1gqv3tINN6so@news.aero.org>, shag@aero.org (Robert M. Unverzagt)
- > >> said:
- > >> >He plotted power-to-weight ratio vs. mean time to failure for
- > >> >all sorts of things -- alarm clocks, cars, gas turbines,
- > >> >Saturn V's, etc. on log-log paper. You guessed it -- it's a
- > >> >line.
- > >
- > >Right -- higher power-to-weight decreases mean time to failure. For
- > >a "typical" launch vehicle it was something like 4 hours between
- > >failures. You can't do too much about it for rockets -- decrease the
- > >power and you don't get enough "oomph" (note the technical jargon),
- > >increase the weight and you're in the same boat. Moral -- expect to
- > >lose a Space Shuttle now and then.
- >
- > Oh dear; does this mean that we should start to worry about the sun?
- >
- Good point -- what's the power-to-mass ratio of the sun, anyway?
-
-
- --
- Rob Unverzagt |
- shag@aerospace.aero.org | The will to a system is a lack of integrity.
- unverzagt@courier2.aero.org | - Friedrich Nietzsche
- 18348@rhodes.aero.org |
-