View Single Post
  #3  
Old July 28th 04, 03:46 PM
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Could this be a model for the United States?


"vthokie" wrote in message
om...
The United States is going to need a heavy lift launch vehicle if we
are going to undertake ambitious manned missions to the moon and
beyond.


What is the basis for this assertion? Why is heavy lift *necessary*? What
can't you do by launching smaller payloads and docking them together in LEO?

I have long believed, as many do, that we should commit to
developing a launch system that is fully reusable and will lower both
the cost and risk associated with spaceflight.


That was supposed to be the space shuttle. It's currently our reusable
heavy lift vehicle and it's expensive to operate (half a billion to a
billion dollars per flight). How will heavy lift vehicles be cheaper to
operate since they fly less often and have to spread their fixed costs over
fewer launches?

To me, putting an
Apollo-style capsule on top of a Delta IV or Atlas V doesn't seem like
much of a vision for the future.


Who gives a rats ass how we get to the moon and Mars, as long as we get
there?

I just came across this, and it is exactly the type of launch system I
would love to see the United States develop. What are your opinions
on the merits (and drawbacks) of such a design?

http://www.k26.com/buran/Info/Energi...k_booster.html


Drawbacks are its hideously expensive development costs and expensive
operating costs (this thing would be huge and would require a very huge
runway to land). Furthermore, it's operating mode is very similar to that
of the space shuttle. Because of this, what would lead you to believe that
it would be any cheaper to operate than the space shuttle?

Finally, Russia abandoned Energia and their space shuttle once. They won't
start working on this "Energia 2" for the same reasons that the originals
were abandoned.

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