Re: Problems with Griffin's exploration architecture
- From: "Murray Anderson" <murraya@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 20:28:16 -0400
"Brian Thorn" <bthorn64@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:lqgsg1h9uvvcbjldu3cu8kepmgoespvgio@xxxxxxxxxx
> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 20:31:59 -0400, "Murray Anderson"
> <murraya@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >> > Well, given that the EELV option costs *more*
> >>
> >>
> >> And carries less payload, also.
> >>
> >> Pat
> >
> >And exists, too.
> >Maybe there's some relationship here.
>
> ET, SRB and SSME don't exist?
>
> On the contrary, I think the SDLV option would be available sooner
> than EELV-Megas would be, and much, much sooner if NASA chooses the
> side-mount SDLV.
>
> Brian
The five-segment SRB for the "stick" doesn't exist. Neither does the SSME
with air-start capability. Neither does the rest of the upper stage. Neither
does the control system.
It's true that this thread doesn't make clear whether we're talking about
the CEV launcher or the heavy lift, but I thought CEV was implied. The very
need for heavy lift is itself in question, unlike the need for a CEV
launcher.
Murray Anderson
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Problems with Griffin's exploration architecture
- From: Tom Cuddihy
- Re: Problems with Griffin's exploration architecture
- References:
- Problems with Griffin's exploration architecture
- From: Jeff Findley
- Re: Problems with Griffin's exploration architecture
- From: Scott Lowther
- Re: Problems with Griffin's exploration architecture
- From: Pat Flannery
- Re: Problems with Griffin's exploration architecture
- From: Murray Anderson
- Re: Problems with Griffin's exploration architecture
- From: Brian Thorn
- Problems with Griffin's exploration architecture
- Prev by Date: TDRSS ground stations, New Mexico
- Next by Date: Re: Problems with Griffin's exploration architecture
- Previous by thread: Re: Problems with Griffin's exploration architecture
- Next by thread: Re: Problems with Griffin's exploration architecture
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|