 | | Re: NASA IS GOING BACK BABY
|
|
(...) Yep, but it came no where *near* orbital velocity - about a factor of 30 to low in energy. I agree, it's a nice mechanism to get away from the atmosphere problem, but so do balloons (for a far lower cost, actually). no offense to Space Ship (...) (18 years ago, 8-Feb-07, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: Rocket Sled Team
|
|
These rocket sleds are a fun little build, and what a team. Beyond that, I'd like to thank you for almost single-handedly replenishing the oxygen tanks of .space. That you have brought such humour, classic style and quality photography with you is a (...) (18 years ago, 8-Feb-07, to lugnet.space, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: NASA IS GOING BACK BABY
|
|
(...) When I made the suggestion I was picturing a really long version of the 6394 Metro Park & Service Tower "elevator" mechanism. I guess it would work better to use technic racks with a worm gear driven elevator. That could even be motorized. My (...) (18 years ago, 8-Feb-07, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: NASA IS GOING BACK BABY
|
|
(...) On the other hand "Space Ship One" already surpassed NASA in efficiency with the use of a "carrier plane" to get a much higher start. Building a plane specifically designed for high altitude super sonic launching of "rocket ships" is one easy (...) (18 years ago, 7-Feb-07, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: NASA IS GOING BACK BABY
|
|
(...) snipped (...) Indeed! New Mexico has approved land for Virgin Galatic to build the first international spaceport. Virgin Galatic is even taking applications for employees. (URL) Commercial enterprise will drive down costs and increase (...) (18 years ago, 7-Feb-07, to lugnet.space, FTX)
|
