|
|
 | | 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 (...) (21 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 (...) (21 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) (21 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 (...) (21 years ago, 22-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: We're here to go
|
| (...) I don't have any problem with pursuing that end of the discussion, but I wasn't trying to kick of a debate with my original question. If it winds up there, though, I say groovy! I enjoyed that previous debate re: cost-value of space (...) (21 years ago, 20-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
|
