 | | Re: NASA IS GOING BACK BABY —Mike Petrucelli
|
| | | (...) Actually space manufacturing will likly be a big business sooner (as in the next few decades) than people might think. Due to the "instant" cooling space permits it is possible to make super strong alloys that are physically impossible to do (...) (17 years ago, 6-Feb-07, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: NASA IS GOING BACK BABY —Brian Davis
|
| | | | [somewhere far away in the internet, a poor soul struggles valiently to stay on-topic... "it's not LEGO!!" he screams, but the siren song of inccorect physics draws him screaming back into the fray once more...] (...) I still have my doubts. It's (...) (17 years ago, 6-Feb-07, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: NASA IS GOING BACK BABY —Mike Petrucelli
|
| | | | (...) I would add *yet* to that. (...) Hmmm... I don't know a town layout on the floor with a "space elevator" to a manufacturing platform way up on a shelf could make a really cool albeit parts intensive MOC. -Mike Petrucelli (17 years ago, 6-Feb-07, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: NASA IS GOING BACK BABY —Brian Davis
|
| | | | | (...) The problem is rockets use reaction mass, and need to carry it along, so the rocket equation enters into everything you do. And honestly a rocket is not a very good way to use the energy: you have to launch at high speed (rocket equation (...) (17 years ago, 6-Feb-07, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: NASA IS GOING BACK BABY —Mike Petrucelli
|
| | | | | | (...) 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 (...) (17 years ago, 7-Feb-07, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: NASA IS GOING BACK BABY —Brian Davis
|
| | | | | | (...) 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 (...) (17 years ago, 8-Feb-07, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: NASA IS GOING BACK BABY —Aaron M. Sneary
|
| | | | (...) I did some preliminary studies for building a space elevator. I think with some very significant selective compression of the diameter (and length) of the cable, the anchor station and the cable cars could be done. I was considering the LoM (...) (17 years ago, 7-Feb-07, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: NASA IS GOING BACK BABY —Mike Petrucelli
|
| | | | (...) 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 (...) (17 years ago, 8-Feb-07, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | |
