 | | Re: We're here to go
|
| (...) I posted that response over 8 hours ago, when there were no second-tier responses, but I didn't get around to authorizing it until just a little while ago (compare the date-time stamps if you don't believe me, which you probably won't). I (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: We're here to go
|
| (...) Um, no, you wouldn't. Not necessarily, anyway. (...) Again, no, it wouldn't. Not necessarily, anyway. Read the rest of the thread before you start in on responding to the first post in it, that's often a good approach in my view. Especially (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: We're here to go
|
| (...) Dollar cost of the total amount of fuel aside, it is more efficient. When you launch a rocket into space, it has to carry itself, its payload, its crew, and its fuel. Making a rocket that can manage that from an Earth-based launch site would (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Over 70 LEGO products copied
|
| (...) Well then, join the geek! (URL) I know, like the rest of us aren't) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: We're here to go
|
| (...) I'm not sure you need to develop a new launch vehicle per se, remember the assumption that the person heading this had just won the X prize.... but certainly some of the 12B cost figure is for launching things... Now the X prize vehicle (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
|
