Subject:
|
Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 4 Nov 1998 21:32:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
563 times
|
| |
|
|
Matthew Marshall writes:
> They did
> have it up for sale once and it is technically superior to our own shuttle.
I think that's because theirs was built after America's. US shuttle design was
firmed up using mid-70's technology, as well as some stuff left over from the
60's. I'm not saying theirs isn't good, but it takes quite a bit of cash to
finance start-up, and then still a healthy amount to keep the program going.
Though they might pick it up relatively cheaply, there aren't many countries
who could afford to operate a shuttle.
-Tom McD.
tfn, radiotitan@yahoo.com
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here?
|
| Actually thee design if I recall cost lest to run than our does. I'm willing to bet that china(scary thought) could do it, or Japan but I think that it was more of safety thing because they auctioned off around the time those capsules didn't slow (...) (26 years ago, 4-Nov-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Non-"Leading Brand"s here?
|
| It's uhh frozen, literally. They keep it in Siberia I think. Personally I think the Russian who decided that had a wee bit too much vodka(1). They did have it up for sale once and it is technically superior to our own shuttle. Jesse Long wrote in (...) (26 years ago, 2-Nov-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
37 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
|
|
|
|
