Originally Posted by blackshire

Marketing experience and analysis have shown that company names--as well as product names--*do* make a difference, which can be positive or negative. Also, history has shown--the events of 1986, in particular, provide a poignant example--that having multiple launch vehicles, especially for military spacecraft, is a good idea, despite the higher costs. As well:

Actually, he does know the costs of the AJ-27 and other current and historic engines, and he thought this launch vehicle concept should be examined by those in the USAF who make the analyses and the procurement decisions. (There is also no immutable reason why the AJ-27's production cost cannot be reduced [including by simplifying it and reducing its parts count], with today's new manufacturing technologies such as 3D printing, which is already being used to produce rocket engines.) That doesn't mean that the "Delta II-Lite" will be built, of course, but progress doesn't occur if new ideas are not considered. In this connection (examining new ideas, that is):

During the X-43 program I was the volunteer range historian for the Poker Flat Research Range (PFRR), and I contacted the NASA Dryden Flight Research Center--now re-named the Armstrong Flight Research Center--with a suggestion. The X-43 scramjet test vehicles had no recovery systems (mass, complexity, the available onboard volume, or budget limitations [or several or even all four of these factors] resulted in that), and I asked them if they would like to recover the vehicles, even in damaged condition, for physical post-flight examination; they said "Yes." I then suggested that flying the X-43 vehicles over PFRR (which is well-instrumented, both at the launch site and downrange) could facilitate recovery, by landing the vehicles on snow, tundra, or (during the warm months) shallow lakes downrange, and:

They were so interested in this possibility that the X-43 project managers came up here and met with the range personnel, including myself. This option was ultimately not proceeded with (the cost of re-locating here for the missions, since they'd already set up everything at the Pacific Missile Range for mission support, was the major factor). But this operation was not a waste, because they had never even *thought* of flying hypersonic test vehicles up here, an option which they would keep in mind for future programs, and they thanked me for making them aware of this possibility. At the time, follow-on X-43-type test vehicles were planned (these were subsequently cancelled), and Poker Flat was one of the ranges that would be considered for supporting their missions. Since NASA's funding and priorities wax, wane, wax again, and change over time, such hypersonic flight test programs may become "a hot item" again, and Poker Flat may support such missions in the future. In addition:

Recently I made a suggestion to the U.S. Geological Survey Astrogeology Science Center concerning their photo-mapping techniques related to spacecraft camera and instrument targeting for examining irregular bodies, such as asteroids and comets. They utilize rectangular "photo-boxes," with each face being a two-dimensional image of the body as seen from its "front," "rear," "top," "bottom," and "left side" and "right side," which they use to visualize its shape. I suggested--to someone there with whom I correspond--that they could use stereo-pair photographs for each face of the box, so that they could visualize the surface site targeting in 3D. He asked for my permission--which I gratefully gave--to pass my idea (with acknowledgement to me as the source of it) along to the relevant USGS imaging and mapping scientists because they had not thought of doing such a thing, even though most spacecraft missions take enough images from different angles to produce usable stereo-pair photographs. Now:

I did not recount these occurrences to brag, but simply to illustrate that new ideas should be put forward to be examined and considered by those who could benefit from them. Sometimes the ideas will be workable and beneficial, sometimes they will not; but *not* suggesting them at all will not lead to progress (which sometimes even occurs when it is discovered *why* an unworkable idea is unworkable).