 | | Re: We're here to go —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | (...) The above assumption is massively invalid, apparently. The velocity achieved by SpaceShipOne is way way too low to be stretchable to LEO by leaving a few passengers out. I hadn't done my homework when I posted this, and I'm perfectly fine with (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: We're here to go —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | (...) The prize does not pay for the cost of development. SS1 is not going to go into any kind of orbit. Both those are from a friend of mine who works on the project (I literally asked him those very questions a few weeks ago). -->Bruce<-- (20 years ago, 24-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: We're here to go —J. Spencer Rezkalla
|
| | | | (...) It's not just the challenge of the order of magnitude increase in velocity that's required, but significant issues in handling rentry and hypersonic flight in general. I don't believe SS1 has a thermal protection system that's anywhere close (...) (20 years ago, 24-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
