Re: Man-Rating Atlas V
- From: "Jonathan Goff" <jongoff@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 2 Oct 2006 22:28:45 -0700
Will,
On the other hand, NASA was probably correct in believing that, all
other things being equal, the fewer launches the better.
But alas, all other things *aren't* equal. In fact they are unequal to
the
tune of $20B or more. That buys a lot of experience with on-orbit
assembly,
propellant transfer, and a boatload of commercial launches.
If you replace the stick with the simplest Atlas V, then a two-launch
mission becomes a three-launch mission. This mission should be compared
with other three-launch options, and so on.
Personally, I'm a fan of missions that involve dozens of launches. So
long
as it drives the cost per pound down, and doesn't require NASA to build
and operate it's own vehicles at great expense. I get the feeling that
this
design path that is supposedly the "quickest way to get back to the
moon"
will not only cost more, and deliver less than a more sensible, less
NASA-centric implementation of the Vision, but it will also take far
longer,
and in the end be less safe, and less dependable.
~Jon
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Man-Rating Atlas V
- From: Lee Valentine
- Re: Man-Rating Atlas V
- From: Will McLean
- Re: Man-Rating Atlas V
- From: Jeff Findley
- Re: Man-Rating Atlas V
- References:
- Re: Man-Rating Atlas V
- From: Will McLean
- Re: Man-Rating Atlas V
- From: lou
- Re: Man-Rating Atlas V
- From: Will McLean
- Re: Man-Rating Atlas V
- From: lou
- Re: Man-Rating Atlas V
- From: Will McLean
- Re: Man-Rating Atlas V
- From: Jonathan Goff
- Re: Man-Rating Atlas V
- From: Will McLean
- Re: Man-Rating Atlas V
- Prev by Date: Re: Space exploration for the rest of us
- Next by Date: Re: Man-Rating Atlas V
- Previous by thread: Re: Man-Rating Atlas V
- Next by thread: Re: Man-Rating Atlas V
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|