Comments on: Mars Society raises a stink about methane engine http://www.spacepolitics.com/2006/03/10/mars-society-raises-a-stink-about-methane-engine/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=mars-society-raises-a-stink-about-methane-engine Because sometimes the most important orbit is the Beltway... Wed, 17 Sep 2014 13:35:41 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.0.38 By: Donald F. Robertson http://www.spacepolitics.com/2006/03/10/mars-society-raises-a-stink-about-methane-engine/#comment-7302 Fri, 10 Mar 2006 18:36:47 +0000 http://www.districtofbaseball.com/spacepolitics/?p=881#comment-7302 I could live with that, if there were a clear path — e.g., the tankage envelope and stuff were all sized for methane.

— Donald

]]> By: mrearl http://www.spacepolitics.com/2006/03/10/mars-society-raises-a-stink-about-methane-engine/#comment-7301 Fri, 10 Mar 2006 18:29:52 +0000 http://www.districtofbaseball.com/spacepolitics/?p=881#comment-7301 While I would like to see the methane engine in the original design I also understand why it was eliminated. I think the term “technology trailblazer” is the key here. That usualy means cost and schedule over runs and it’s those reasons that the next generation of space vehicals get canceled.
I think the right path is to get the CEV completed than make upgrades like the methane engine in the block 2 and block 3 designs.

]]> By: Donald F. Robertson http://www.spacepolitics.com/2006/03/10/mars-society-raises-a-stink-about-methane-engine/#comment-7300 Fri, 10 Mar 2006 18:14:34 +0000 http://www.districtofbaseball.com/spacepolitics/?p=881#comment-7300 Good for them. I, too, was dismayed to see this disappear from the plan.

— Donald

]]>