" wrote in
message oups.com...

Jeff Findley wrote:

Agreed. So, do you think that the startups could use the help of NASA
in
much the same way as the early aviation industry used the help of NACA?

Actually, no. The early aviators benefitting from NACA were gainign the
benefit of great improvements in engine and aerodynamic efficiency. But
rocket engiens are *already* effectively at the peak of their
efficiency. What's need now is not an improvement in performance -
which comes from giant research programs - but improvements in cost,
reliability and maintainability... which comes from *experience.*

Partly, but lower cost also comes when you design for lower cost up front.
NASA could do a lot towards researching lower cost engines.

It's not too early for NASA to get out of the launch vehicle
business.

When they can buy a flight that matches their needs (read: heavy
lifter
applicable for moon missions), I'll agree.

That's not a need, that's a desire.

No, it's a need. As in "mandated by Congress/President."

Really? I wasn't aware that the Congress/President specified that NASA
launch missions to the moon with as few launch vehicles as possible.

If you go back far enough, LOR wasn't the only option being
considered. It was seen as the fastest way to get to the moon, but EOR
might have been a more sustainable approach in the long term.

No good reason to assume that. EOR would have cost as much or more to
develop than LOR, and would have potentially cost more to operate.

Or EOR could have cost more time and money to develop, but less to operate
due to economies of scale.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.