<i>> Because spacecraft are very fragile</i><br /><br />That might be an argument for more robust craft, except for your very salient observation below. Spacecraft that were less capable in some way but significantly tougher might be more suited to exploration tasks. Vehicles like the proposed lunar lander, Soyuz-to-the-Moon or Bigelow Nautilus/Sundancer are all going to need a certain level of ruggedness on the surface. Is this a different ruggedness to MaxQ? Sure, but can parts (like third stages, LAS and aeroshells) be used to enable/enhance Mars-bound craft?<br /><br /><i>> It also complicates the design of the launch vehicle and the integration. Another organization is now responsible for the aeroloads.</i><br /><br />Interesting explanation, thanks. That would be a deal-breaker from an engineering standpoint. <br /><br />On the flip side, what about using a payload fairing for Mars aerobrake? It's already a huge piece of material - just cover it in tiles. The only problem would seem to be that the fairing is usually attached to a third stage so it has to be a single package through TMI.<br /><br />I think the Bigelow modules are the "real deal" on self-deploying stations. No, they don't have spin-G (yet), but they are becoming the go-to guys for this sort of inflatable craft. Inflation isn't a big deal, the L'Garde inflatables usually expand in seconds to minutes, as does Bigelow gear. The real issue is always going to be the systems inside. What we need to enable some of the "space cadet" things is purchasable modules, and they look to be delivering. If there is a demand for a BFR and Spin station, they'll eventually have that, too. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>