This is better."NASA is prohibited from developing, manufacturing and operating any launch system
Heavy lift is pretty much required unless you want to design everything to a smaller launcher, potentially assemble it in LEO over multiple launches where anyone launch failure takes your mission out of the game (for at least a little while) before even leaving orbit.
Sure it can be done, but why make it harder and more complex than necessary?
"Write a blank cheque to the any and all commercial launch providers"
"NASA is prohibited from developing, manufacturing and operating any launch system
@ mmeijeriBingo? Well okay, but I also want a pony and a date with Jessica Alba.
Quote from: robertross on 01/12/2010 07:10 pm"Write a blank cheque to the any and all commercial launch providers"Where did that blank cheque come from? Done properly you'd have more accountability than with an in-house NASA effort. If anything the in-house option is more accurately described by "blank cheque". Look at the amount of money spent on Ares I (supposedly for the sake of crew transport) compared the money earmarked for CCDev.
Firm fixed price (+performance bond) would be a good idea. A blank cheque would be a bad idea, regardless of who gets it.Mrs Ross and Mrs White might not approve of you guys going on a date with Jessica Alba. I'm single.
Quote from: OV-106 on 01/12/2010 06:53 pmHeavy lift is pretty much required unless you want to design everything to a smaller launcher, potentially assemble it in LEO over multiple launches where anyone launch failure takes your mission out of the game (for at least a little while) before even leaving orbit. You must know this is not true. Docking and propellant transfer are all that is needed.
You do realize that docking/propellant transfer *is* assembling in LEO over multiple launches, yes?