![]() |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 09:00:45 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Jon S.
Berndt" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: "Derek Clarke" wrote in message While I agree in theory with the ideal of having completely reusable vehicles, sometimes you just have to accept that throwing bits away is the most economical course in practice. Maybe "reusable" is a word that leaves a bad aftertaste. I didn't mean "reusable" so much as I meant "a vehicle with a purpose to act as a lunar orbit/surface/orbit taxi continuously". "Operational". This thread was continued at sci.space.policy. John Schilling posted there on this topic and I think he makes some good arguments for a single CEV/LSAM vehicle. I think that "in-space refuelable" is a better descriptor of what is needed. Of course, that also implies an infrastructure of propellant depots and the means of keeping them topped off, at various locations throughout cis-lunar space. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
LSAM | Jon S. Berndt | Policy | 138 | April 30th 06 01:51 AM |
LSAM and an unmanned CEV in lunar orbit? | TVDad Jim | History | 33 | September 27th 05 01:30 AM |
lifting body / winged CEV | Steve | Space Shuttle | 7 | April 20th 05 09:35 AM |