Subject:
|
Re: NASA IS GOING BACK BABY
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Tue, 6 Feb 2007 20:45:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5277 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.space, Brian Davis wrote:
> It's that it's not *cost effective* to do it.
I would add *yet* to that.
> > As tourism leads to better "rocket-ships"...
>
> Perswonally, I think we need to dump "rocket ships" altogether, and go for
> either fixed tethers (space elevators), hypersonic skyhooks, or the like. But
> no, those aren't very Classic space, and would be difficult MOC*.
Hmmm... I don't know a town layout on the floor with a "space elevator" to a
manufacturing platform way up on a shelf could make a really cool albeit parts
intensive MOC.
-Mike Petrucelli
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: NASA IS GOING BACK BABY
|
| (...) The problem is rockets use reaction mass, and need to carry it along, so the rocket equation enters into everything you do. And honestly a rocket is not a very good way to use the energy: you have to launch at high speed (rocket equation (...) (17 years ago, 6-Feb-07, to lugnet.space)
| | | Re: NASA IS GOING BACK BABY
|
| (...) I did some preliminary studies for building a space elevator. I think with some very significant selective compression of the diameter (and length) of the cable, the anchor station and the cable cars could be done. I was considering the LoM (...) (17 years ago, 7-Feb-07, to lugnet.space)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: NASA IS GOING BACK BABY
|
| [somewhere far away in the internet, a poor soul struggles valiently to stay on-topic... "it's not LEGO!!" he screams, but the siren song of inccorect physics draws him screaming back into the fray once more...] (...) I still have my doubts. It's (...) (17 years ago, 6-Feb-07, to lugnet.space)
|
22 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
