Links @ original editorial page.
1 posted on
02/01/2004 12:02:55 AM PST by
Destro
To: Destro
Why not use a Stargate instead?
2 posted on
02/01/2004 12:55:57 AM PST by
Young Rhino
(http://www.artofdivorce.com)
To: Destro
I always wondered how the "single-stage-to-orbit" space ship could work, and I am happy to learn that it was only through a "math error." ;-)
Time to dust off the Naval Research Laboratory's sea-launched semi-expendable multi-stage-to-orbit design that was developed in the early '90s. As I recall, the estimate was that those rockets could put ten pounds in orbit for the current cost of putting one pound.
To: Destro
We need to do things that are less exotic and more practical, like the Russians do.
4 posted on
02/01/2004 3:23:55 AM PST by
Lazamataz
To: Destro
The materials for SSTO are not there yet. These designs are not yet viable, particularly when unique components from subcontractors are sent off to the junkyard just before they're to be installed. And then can't be found at the junkyard when the "error" is discovered.
But then, the STS isn't viable, either, consuming as it does so much of NASA's budget. Since most STS missions are for the construction of the ISS (which consumes so much of NASA's budget), basically the ISS is eating up the space program, and accomplishes nothing.
6 posted on
02/01/2004 7:45:26 AM PST by
SunkenCiv
(3 solid rocket boosters from the STS are enough to send humans to the Moon ^ back -- without the STS)
To: KevinDavis
15 posted on
11/24/2004 7:19:04 PM PST by
SunkenCiv
("All I have seen teaches me trust the Creator for all I have not seen." -- Emerson)
To: Destro
Hello!!!
Can you tell me where's the X-33 Today? was it scrapped after its cancellation in March 2001 ? or is it standing in lockheed plant, almost finished?
thank you very much for your answer
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson