Skip to comments.
Expectations ride on super-rocket
BBC ^
| 2/12/05
Posted on 02/12/2005 10:30:45 AM PST by LibWhacker
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-35 next last
To: LibWhacker
It's got a purty pink umbilical tower.
2
posted on
02/12/2005 10:33:02 AM PST
by
FReepaholic
(Proud FReeper since 1998. Proud monthly donor.)
To: LibWhacker
Meanwhile, the EU has yet to make a manned spacecraft, much less land a person on the moon.
3
posted on
02/12/2005 10:33:56 AM PST
by
Paul_Denton
(The UN is UN-American! Get the UN out of the US and US out of the UN!)
To: Paul_Denton
Yeah, but would *you* want to ride on a French-made rocket? Didn't think so.
4
posted on
02/12/2005 10:56:55 AM PST
by
Spktyr
(Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
To: Spktyr
Yeah, but would *you* want to ride on a French-made rocket? Didn't think so.I never said I was a fan of the european space program. Just pointing our how far they are behind us.
5
posted on
02/12/2005 11:09:23 AM PST
by
Paul_Denton
(The UN is UN-American! Get the UN out of the US and US out of the UN!)
To: LibWhacker; Tijeras_Slim; FireTrack; Pukin Dog; citabria; B Knotts; kilowhskey; cyphergirl; ...
Possible interest ping.
6
posted on
02/12/2005 11:11:26 AM PST
by
Pusterfuss
(You know, doing what is right is easy. The problem is knowing what is right. LBJ)
To: LibWhacker
7
posted on
02/12/2005 11:19:38 AM PST
by
printhead
To: LibWhacker
"However, the Boeing vehicle is not currently being offered to the commercial satellite sector and is being reserved for US military work."
13 tonnes of 4" resolution, synthetic aperture snooping.
Nothing beat US extra-terrestrial intel assets, and u need a powerful lift to get 'em up there.
8
posted on
02/12/2005 11:40:39 AM PST
by
Blueflag
(Res ipsa loquitor)
To: LibWhacker
To: Paul_Denton
We are decades behind because NASA built a political ship, the Shuttle, which was designed to be built in as many congressional districts as possible, and was overly complicated overbudget and unsafe.
The ESA has never focused on building a manned rocket, just good rockets.
Its good that someone is building a heavy lift rocket, just wish that the Energiya was still flying.
To: Central Scrutiniser
Server seems to be swamped. NASA TV doesn't have it, either, last time I checked . . . *sigh* . . .
To: LibWhacker
This caused the nozzle to deform...
"...heh-heh...heh-heh-heh...deformed...heh-heh...heh-heh-heh...nozzle...heh-heh...heh-heh-heh..."
To: Pusterfuss
13
posted on
02/12/2005 12:37:17 PM PST
by
Aeronaut
(You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky. -- Amelia Earhart)
To: LibWhacker
At lift-off, it is calculated that the 780-tonne ECA will be producing 13,000 kiloNewtons of thrustAnd it's powered by 1,100,000 of these:
14
posted on
02/12/2005 1:14:21 PM PST
by
jennyp
(WHAT I'M READING NOW: Professional NT Services by Miller)
To: LibWhacker
The 50m-high (160ft) vehicle exploded four minutes into its first mission in 2002, destroying a telecoms payload valued at 600 million euros (£410m). Dang! I hate when that happens. Of course we have experience a few of those ourselves.
15
posted on
02/12/2005 2:00:13 PM PST
by
Mind-numbed Robot
(Not all things that need to be done need to be done by the government.)
To: Central Scrutiniser
We are decades behind because NASA built a political ship, the Shuttle, which was designed to be built in as many congressional districts as possible, and was overly complicated overbudget and unsafe.In other words, a typical government project.
16
posted on
02/12/2005 2:02:15 PM PST
by
Mind-numbed Robot
(Not all things that need to be done need to be done by the government.)
To: printhead
"... 10 tons to geostationary orbit."
Bah.
The Saturn V would send 40 tons to the moon.
Too bad NASA destroyed all drawings and tooling for it when the Shuttle came along.
17
posted on
02/12/2005 4:13:38 PM PST
by
DuncanWaring
(...and Freedom tastes of Reality)
To: DuncanWaring
Too bad NASA destroyed all drawings and tooling for it when the Shuttle came along.Why did NASA destroy that? They should have preserved the plans.
18
posted on
02/12/2005 4:17:24 PM PST
by
Paul_Denton
(The UN is UN-American! Get the UN out of the US and US out of the UN!)
To: Paul_Denton
They wanted to guarantee there'd be no "giving up" on the Shuttle and going back to the Saturn V.
19
posted on
02/12/2005 4:28:52 PM PST
by
DuncanWaring
(...and Freedom tastes of Reality)
To: DuncanWaring
Too bad NASA destroyed all drawings and tooling for it when the Shuttle came along.Did the engineers there think they were still working on the Avro Arrow?
(Not to Americans- the Arrow, built in Toronto in the late 1950s, was the most advanced jet fighter of the time and its performance is still just barely matched by the newest fighters of today. When the project was cancelled the prototypes were dismantled and sold as scrap and all blueprints were destroyed.)
20
posted on
02/12/2005 5:44:25 PM PST
by
Squawk 8888
(End dependence on foreign oil- put a Slowpoke in your basement)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-35 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson