 | | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: NASA IS GOING BACK BABY
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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)
|
