> <i><font color="yellow">Starting with the legacy of the Apollo program -- building a new CEV using a similar system will give a contractor a *huge* leg up in the development cycle.</font>/i><br /><br />This was the first of several questions I had:<br /><ul type="square"><li><font color="yellow">What is the development cost and risks of a simple capsule versus a lifting body?</font> It seems that if you want to get back to space quickly and with a fair amount of certainty, going with the a well known design makes sense.<br /></li></ul><ul type="square"><li><font color="yellow">Are the companies expected to put up their own dollars to develop the craft?</font> I seem to recall the X-33 contract originally had LM spending a lot of their own money, but only in the later stages of the contract (e.g., after all the risks had been taken out). Ultimately the X-33 was canceled <i>before</i> LM needed to spend a lot of their money.<br /></li></ul><ul type="square"><li><font color="yellow">Is the LM design a "Venture Star Lite" without the troublesome Linear Areospike engine and composite fuel tank or a X-38 Next Generation?</font> In other words, is LM leveraging the X-33 and X-38 experience but leaving out the uncertainties of new technologies like the aerospike engine.<br /></li></ul><ul type="square"><li><font color="yellow">Would a non-symmetric shape of a lifting body affect the launch platforms (and launch platform availability)?</font> I have heard several times (and I believe Griffin's Planetary Society report mentioned it), that being able to use multiple boosters (e.g., an EELV, a Russian vehicle, and/or an Ariane) would be financially advantageous and reduce risk of long-term grounding.<br /></li></ul><ul type="square"><li><font color="yellow">Is NASA still going to select two or more vehicles and fund them to an initial fly-off?</font> It seems this would answer a number of questions. <br /></li></ul></i>