To: chimera
I suppose we could go to the Russians for a "boost".
Here is an article I found, which I dont agree with neccessarily, which says we DONT need a super heavy lift vehicle..The Myth of Heavy Lift.
11 posted on
12/06/2004 9:07:14 AM PST by
Paradox
(Occam was probably right.)
To: Paradox
An interesting alternate view. I know there are various sides to the issue. But this article seems to have as its central focus mainly bean-counting. Bucks, bucks, bucks. The danger is, you think small, you end up being small. A truly robust and active program will have a good mix of lifting capability. No question that it will cost, as most things that are worth doing will. But boxing ourselves into itty bitty launch vehicles puts a lot of things out of reach. I'm not sure at this point if that is the wisest course.
14 posted on
12/06/2004 9:16:40 AM PST by
chimera
To: Paradox
The problem with using existing EELVs, like Delta-IV, is that you still have to launch 150 mT to LEO for a manned lunar mission. That means about 10 Delta-IV heavys, just to get the stuff into space. Then you have to assemble your vehicle in orbit.
One thing that Station has taught us that while it's possible to do on-orbit assembly, it's not desirable. It increases risk and cost. It creates numerous problems of its own. The real lesson of ISS is to minimize on-orbit assembly. Developing a real Heavy Lift vehicle does just that.
16 posted on
12/06/2004 9:21:01 AM PST by
Cincinatus
(Omnia relinquit servare Republicam)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson