|
|
 | | Re: Some good news for a change, maybe?
|
| (...) I'm reading between the lines, but I think only a little: new design, high orbit Yes, but let's imagine that Rutan can do it for $60M. What did NASA spend? (Of course, they were pioneering the technology!) (...) What if it's double those times (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Some good news for a change, maybe?
|
| (...) You're entitled to your viewpoint, even if expressed not very politely, but I have a different view. As for your second para, do some research into how NASA, the FAA, and the OCST have held things back. It's not lack of desire or lack of (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Some good news for a change, maybe?
|
| (...) That's absolute nonsense. My impression or lack thereof has no direct impact on this venture, as I don't have the money to throw at it either as an investor or as a customer. I could be the most excited person in the world and it wouldn't (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Some good news for a change, maybe?
|
| (...) NASA was sorta forced into cheating on that one. The Russians got the jump on them, so they had to bypass the X-15 suborbital jet plane by outfitting nuclear missiles with crew modules instead of warheads. The ironic thing was that the X-15 (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Some good news for a change, maybe?
|
| (...) With a completely new design, or with a modified version of this one? At the very least he'd need to add manouvering thrusters to make reentry possible. (...) Ten years to achieve what, exactly? Low orbit? High orbit? Moon-landings? Privately (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
|
