posted 07-31-2012 07:23 PM               

For one thing, their pads would have to be modified to handle manned spacecraft checkout at the pad since it isn't just a satellite payload. Then you've got the potential financial and liability risks associated with such a partnership versus the potential for not much reward. Point being, I still don't see it happening.

posted 08-02-2012 06:50 PM               

I would just refer anyone to the Warbird scene for an example of how hard it is to fly legacy equipment in whole or partially. Think of the WWII resources that enabled one B-24 to roll off the line every hour, in comparison with getting just ONE B-24 in the air today. Maybe a better comparison is a Spitfire or Mustang as Mike Collins and others referred to Gemini as a hotrod.

Again, I have never heard of any of these airframes in original or updated state flying in a short period from project start. The two-thirds MK-26 Spitfire which was wholly new had to go through all the same tests as any new design. So a Gemini "shell" is surely all new?

posted 09-04-2012 04:28 AM               

By R&D, have you guys done any work on supply of raw materials? Can you get the alloys you need? Do you have the manufacturing capability to machine the required parts? Do you have skilled artisans and technicians to make the required assemblies? Do they have to learn to use materials they have never used before?

posted 09-04-2012 07:38 AM               

Look at Apollo. From the book "Doing the Impossible," George Mueller tells that the Saturn production line was shut down in 1967 (or '68 after a small budget extension), years before the first flight flew.

R&D plus construction costs are massive up front costs. They are not appropriated equally among all flights using similar technologies.

posted 09-04-2012 08:26 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by bcrussell:
if we use the F9, we all know that is $55M.

---

posted 09-04-2012 03:40 PM               

I previously said I hate to be negative but sorry guys this is not serious and won't happen. There seems to be no understanding of the industry or the realities of building any kind of spacecraft, left alone a 50 year old relic.

posted 09-10-2012 08:33 AM               

In the media section you say: The company plans a test launch on Febuary 20, 2012, with a regular flight schedule beginning in late 2012 or early 2013.

I would like to know how these plans are progressing. Thank you.

Also you now show a spacecraft with three equipment modules. Is this the definitive version?

posted 11-28-2012 02:22 PM               

Next, on your website you say your vehicle will be able to refuel satellites. I understand how important this is, but I don't know of any current satellite that was designed for on-orbit refueling. Aren't you talking about servicing the next generation of satellites - if they're built?

Finally is the resurrection of the Rogallo Wing landing concept. In the 60's with virtually unlimited funding the top engineers in this country could not get that to work. You are operating on a shoestring budget so I wonder who will engineer and test this solution that NASA found so elusive.