 | | 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 (...) (18 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 (18 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 (...) (18 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 (...) (18 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 (...) (18 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 (...) (18 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 (...) (18 years ago, 8-Feb-07, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | |
