I usually find your comments more relevant than the link, but in this case I should have responded to the full article rather than your comments. They claim a lower mission cost as well. If you buy all their claims this does look like a better plan. They counter my economy of scale guess for Ares V with applying the mass production arguement for Ares I across the whole line and adding a general commonality factor. sounds reasonable, and it would take someone more knowlegable than any one currently posting here like Gary Allen to sort out which is cheaper on a mission basis.
Looks like the key issue comes down to do you want as much lift capacity as possible particularly in light of mitigating impact threats. I still lean towards Ares V for that reason, but think we still will need something far beyond that to mitigate ELE type threats. The kind of stuff we'll have only when we are truly a spacefaring civilization such as fusion drives.
Regards,
Mark
Space/Science » in reply to The Mars requirement argument is silly.
Should Have Read It All Before Replying
The whole thread (30 posts)
- Griffen Answers Critics
- Earth scientist to replace Griffin ?