"Jeff Findley" wrote:

:
:"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
.. .
: Brian Thorn wrote:
:
: :On 23 Oct 2005 03:56:21 -0700, "Alex Terrell"
: :wrote:
: :
: :But how can you get a descent lunar lander, capable of landing ~10 tons
: :on the lunar surface, into the 5.2m dimater faring offered by SpaceX
: :(or Boeing, LM, or the Stick)?
: :
: :Can this be done without orbital assembley?
: :
: :Maybe, but the simplest solution would be to launch the lander without
: :any fuel tanks first, and then attach fuel tanks (launched seperately
: r uninstalled on the same launcher.) in orbit. That would take some
: :ISS-like assembly, though.
:
: And you're back to talking about assembly of pressure fittings in
: space. This is almost always a bad idea, particularly for relatively
: high pressure fittings like fuel feed lines.
:
: Space assembly is HARD, people. It's difficult and clumsy work.
:
:Why do the feed lines have to be high pressure?

How does the fuel get into the engine? Little tiny men with buckets?

:Why not have a single set
f high pressure tanks on the "core" of your stage, and attach lower
ressure fuel and oxidizer tanks to that? This means you'd have to do a
:series of burns to get where you're trying to go, but it might make the task
:easier by eliminating those high pressure connections.

Any task that reduces vehicle capability (as your suggestion above
does) no doubt makes things easier.

:The Russians have been transferring storable hypergolic fuel and oxidizer
:from Progress tankers to their stations (including ISS) for years. No EVA
r clumsy pressure fittings seem to be required for this to work.

Now you might want to look at the thrust developed and burn durations.
I don't see any of those vehicles going to the Moon, landing, and then
taking back off.

--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw