"Since the January 14th announcement of what has since become known as the Vision for Space Exploration, one of the major debates about its implementation has focused on launch capability. While some have argued that the glut of launch vehicles on the market today, along with vehicles in the planning stages, is sufficient to handle the demands of the vision, others have concluded that a new, larger vehicle is required to loft heavy payloads to the Moon and beyond. (See “The myth of heavy lift”, The Space Review, May 17, 2026, and “The cost of medium lift”, The Space Review, June 1, 2026.) Furthermore, the latter camp continues to debate whether that vehicle should be derived from the shuttle, the Atlas 5 and/or Delta 4 EELVs, or instead be a clean-sheet design capable of placing as much as 100 tons into low Earth orbit (LEO)."
+ Read Article (The Space Review)
Posted by jburk at July 19, 2026 11:58 AM | TrackBackA draw back to nuclear material use for rocket s that could get us to mars alot quicker is in there use for terrorist activity.
U.N.: Uranium Mine Poses Security Threat
U.N.: Illicit Digging at Congo Uranium Mine Threatens to Put Nuclear Ore Into Terrorists' Hands
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20040720_2681.html
Posted by: Harold LaValley at July 21, 2026 11:51 AMLooking at the cost per ton break down on the launch vehicals I say the obvious choice is a shuttle derived heavy launcher for all heavy lunar mission and used one of the EELVs for LEO missions.
Ares with a payload of 121,200Kg and a cost as low as 284million prelaunch is not only the cheapest american launch solution it is the cheapest pre ton launch vehical ever put into service by a very large margin.I say use the return to the moon a reason to create such a launch vehical as it will find other uses such as launching space hotels ,space fgactories in which cystals could be grown and space tourisim vehicals.
So in short I say two vehicals will be needed LEO mission with the CEV what ever it might end up being will best be served with the delta IV and atlas 551 but stuff like the lunar injection stage and moonbase parts would by far be cheaper to launch with a shuttle derived vehical as these parts are large and heavy and if you can do them in as few launchs as possible thats money saved and a margin of safety gained.
Also if the CEv ends up weighing under 14tons a a booster derived from a shuttle SRB could be used to launch it on LEO missions.
Also the shuttle derived booster with it's sheer power to launch a full lunar stack would allow lunar mission to be done with out having to wait for a LEO tug to be built or having to keep the shuttle orbiter so you can put the parts together.
Yes the parts can be made to self assemble but this would drive the weight and costs up by a considerable amount as each part would have to have it's own reaction control system ,docking,radar and navigation equiptment.
Also for any mars mission we will need a heavy booster the bigger the better since it'll involve launching a reactor I sugest nuclear as it'll improve safety as less of the spacecraft's weight will be propellent and more can be crew living quaters and shielding plus the faster you get to mars the less your chances of getting caught in a solar storm are.