Skip to comments.
Wisconsin may open private spaceport
UPI ^
| 10/21/05
Posted on 10/23/2005 12:31:33 PM PDT by KevinDavis
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-55 last
To: phantomworker; All
It's the perfect solution for to access the ISS. Don't you sort of think they are using such vehicles already? High Earth/Low space orbit?
41
posted on
10/23/2005 5:50:37 PM PDT
by
olde north church
($3.00 for one head of lettuce is a better bargain than $1000s for the body of one illegal alien.)
To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA
I can't believe that google has proof of the cheese on the moon. Incredible. No wonder the company is worth kazillion dollars.
42
posted on
10/23/2005 5:54:41 PM PDT
by
Porterville
(Pray for War- Spanish by birth, American by the Grace of God!!!)
To: olde north church; phantomworker
Do you give up a certain amount of control by launching from aircraft versus from the ground? I'm thinking of sideways air drag in particular. But then, I'm not an aeronautical engineer, so take all this for whatever it's worth.
43
posted on
10/23/2005 6:47:10 PM PDT
by
inquest
(FTAA delenda est)
To: inquest
I think it is the boost from the original rocket that propels it supersonic. Otherwise it would need too much fuel to accelerate it past mach 1.
44
posted on
10/23/2005 7:13:22 PM PDT
by
phantomworker
(Seize this very minute... Boldness has genius, power and magic in it... Begin it now!)
To: phantomworker
Oh, so it's a speed advantage rather than a height advantage. I was thinking in the wrong terms. So crossing the sound barrier takes up quite a bit of energy on its own?
45
posted on
10/23/2005 7:24:59 PM PDT
by
inquest
(FTAA delenda est)
To: inquest
Oh, so it's a speed advantage rather than a height advantage. I was thinking in the wrong terms. So crossing the sound barrier takes up quite a bit of energy on its own? Think of the acceleration needed to get a vehicle flying faster than the speed of sound! If it had to carry the necessary fuel as payload, it would be too heavy. There are also a lot of other variables in play as well.
46
posted on
10/23/2005 7:32:42 PM PDT
by
phantomworker
(Seize this very minute... Boldness has genius, power and magic in it... Begin it now!)
To: KevinDavis
The Bob Cook I once worked for was an aviation pioneer - he flew test flights alongside guys like Chuck Yeager. Wonder if it's the same guy....
47
posted on
10/23/2005 7:36:20 PM PDT
by
Kryptonite
(McCain, Graham, Warner, Snowe, Collins, DeWine, Chafee - put them in your sights)
To: Paleo Conservative
Makes perfect sense to me - with my knowledge being limited to having invested in XM Satellite Radio back when their Rock and Roll satellites were being launched near the equator.
48
posted on
10/23/2005 7:38:37 PM PDT
by
Kryptonite
(McCain, Graham, Warner, Snowe, Collins, DeWine, Chafee - put them in your sights)
To: phantomworker
If Mach 1 is just an arbitrary numerical speed value, then we're not talking about a huge amount of energy relative to the amount needed to go into space. The kinetic energy of an object moving at the speed of sound is roughly 55 megajoules per ton of the object's mass. The potential energy from being 100,000 meters above the surface (the "official" boundary of space) is 980 MJ/ton. And that's nothing compared to the difference in energy between the speed of sound and orbital speed, if the intent is for the craft to ring the earth.
Unless there are other factors I'm not considering (which is entirely possible), it just seems like quite an elaborate effort to save such a comparatively small amount of rocket fuel.
49
posted on
10/23/2005 7:58:24 PM PDT
by
inquest
(FTAA delenda est)
To: LouD
I'm a Fondy guy (MS Aeronautilce Engineering , Princeton), but I can commute.
I'll meet you at Seibken's in Elkhart Lake to hoist one,
To: inquest
If the next generation vehicles are reusable and will take off and land, how about Edwards AF base?
51
posted on
10/23/2005 8:09:22 PM PDT
by
bigsigh
To: LouD
I cannot believe this... :)
I grew up and sheboygan, and the only thing I think we were ever successful in launching was a couple of bottle rockets... :)
seriously... is this for real?
52
posted on
10/24/2005 2:09:30 AM PDT
by
Americanwolf
(I Served proudly.... how dare you tell me I have no convictions...)
To: bigsigh
Are you referring to the aerospace plane? I think we still have aways to go on that.
53
posted on
10/24/2005 9:17:35 AM PDT
by
inquest
(FTAA delenda est)
To: inquest
We will need a space port for reusable aircraft. I don't know when that will be, but I would think there's time and space available at Edwards. Plus I have land in California City. : )
54
posted on
10/24/2005 9:20:55 AM PDT
by
bigsigh
I've just joined a group called the *Sheboygan Space Society*, which is a chapter of the *National Space Society*. Their website is www.tcei.com/sss. They actively promote the use of space. While I live in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, I joined up just to have something different to do. If this comes about, it would be a huge tourist attraction, if nothing else. You can bet I'd make a visit or two to see some light rocketry, or a piggyback launch!
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-55 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