Historically accurate of course - but not really applicable to SPARK. (And remember, Aggressor Aerospace has modeled both the Lambda-4S and Mu-4S-2, so I'm familiar with both vehicles).

The whole point of SPARK, or at least the facet of SPARK that got them USG funding, was "Operationally Responsive Space." Hard to be "operationally responsive" if the launch has to take place in Japan! ESPECIALLY Japan - where the fishing industry has the clout to shut down a space launch!

A simple SLV built around the GEM63 would be impressive. I think I read the GEM63 liftoff thrust is 371,500 lbs. If the internet can be trusted, GEM46 had an average thrust of ~160,000lbs and max thrust of 254,000lbs. But it would be a heavy bird, so new infrastructure would be a must. I say put it on a Transporter Erector Launcher. Space Force would fall all over themselves at that! So macho! So warfighter-y!

The old Scout fold-down horizontal assembly & support tower from SLC-5 at Vandenberg AFB was modified to serve as a rail-type launcher for SPARK (which is also called Super Strypi, LEONIDAS, etc.), although Gunter Krebs' SPARK page https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/...nge%20Facility). says that "The Super Strypi vehicle is launched from the rebuilt Kokole Point rail-launcher (LP-41) at Barking Sands, Kauai (Pacific Missile Range Facility)." With today's much smaller and lighter, yet more capable electronics (plus today's better wind vs. altitude monitoring), simpler rail-launched, (mostly--until the final stage or two) spin-stabilized SLVs could probably achieve orbit or escape trajectory injection accuracies as good as those of entirely-guided launch vehicles.

__________________
Black Shire--Draft horse in human form, model rocketeer, occasional mystic, and writer, see:
http://www.lulu.com/content/paperba...an-form/8075185
http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6122050
http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6126511
All of my book proceeds go to the Northcote Heavy Horse Centre www.northcotehorses.com.
NAR #54895 SR