zinfab - 7/9/2006 8:43 PMWould LockMart lunar lander (SUV version 1) would fit in this approach? I really want that lander and this launch vehicle.
rsp1202 - 7/9/2006 6:42 PMRe: Phase 2. It's also risky to trust future viability of offshore supply lines. Producing RD-180's here in the States should be emphasized, unless RS-84 development is pushed.And Ross, I agree the CEV should control docking; using IFR and auto systems is mandatory, especially if the LSAM turns out to be one of the horizontal-design concepts rather than vertical as envisioned in ESAS.
rsp1202 - 8/9/2006 2:29 PMExcellent graphics increase the demand for more. How about putting the Lockheed lunar lander under the shroud.Poor Antonio, working under sweatshop conditions.
mong' - 9/9/2006 5:49 AMpractical, reduced complexity, heavy lifting, direct application for mars missions, a sound approach that would deserve to succeed
lmike - 9/9/2006 8:04 AMQuotemong' - 9/9/2006 5:49 AMpractical, reduced complexity, heavy lifting, direct application for mars missions, a sound approach that would deserve to succeedReduced complexity? No. You have to design the whole Mars bound spacecraft to fit into a launch. Heavy lifting? Nope. 500mt to LEO in one go would be heavy lift. This is not going to work for Mars. Therefore, it's not practical. (edit: better to admit the failure and re-calibrate the architecture)
lmike - 9/9/2006 8:43 AMLow granularity. Too few launches. Brittle (one launch fails the fleet is grounded forever) approach.