Replies

No I did not mean to say there was a Delta 6. Some of the USAF plans for future EELVs may in fact be more powerful that the 4s but that is still under wraps. There are also some new lifter engine designs going on that may change the game a little (redefine what "heavy" means) but that is further out in time.

For large cargo - especially cargo the has large fareable dimension requirements - they may take a shuttle/fuel tank approach but it will be a wingless mostly dumb module.

What they really need to do is establish space-based, in orbit fabrication if not outright manufacturing and construction, and open that infrastructure up to commercial sat vendors. We would see a whole new generation of architectures if the designs did not have to be lifted into orbit and they could be service from space. I think that they were mum about this for some political reasons as some of these new architectures do not rely on solar power (if you know what I mean.)

Me myself, favor the approach where they are going (I think that it is derived from USAF thinking.) Lots of mid-sized EELVs, keep it cheap and dependable and have lots of launches. Incremetally improve things.

I like what I see with emerging smaller firm solutions like the FALCON.

I think that Bush actually got it right but it is seems to be a hard sell because the solution has such a comprehensive and long term vision to it. I sure hope they can bring it off.

"No I did not mean to say there was a Delta 6."

I did not mean to imply that you did, and sorry in advance for any offense.

"We would see a whole new generation of architectures if the designs did not have to be lifted into orbit and they could be service from space. I think that they were mum about this for some political reasons as some of these new architectures do not rely on solar power"

Exactly. That's why the Apollo LEM looked the way it did - why streamline?

"(if you know what I mean.)"

Yes, I do. :-)

"I think that Bush actually got it right but it is seems to be a hard sell because the solution has such a comprehensive and long term vision to it. I sure hope they can bring it off."

And that comprehensive nature is what is throwing people like Zubrin. They don't understand that the CEV starts as a very simple "head unit", then proceeds to a set of specialized add ons for different missions. This achieves multi-mission scope for the CEV system without emulating the compromising approach of Shuttle. Also, it will have support modules that will be Mars-specific in nature.