Subject:
|
Re: Couldn't resist
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Mon, 25 Jun 2001 21:38:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
9136 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.space, Duane Hess writes:
> In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> <snip>
> > I appreciate the fact that you do agree with me but I must truthfully say
> > that I never considered the fact that friction does indeed keep together the
> > bolts on a space craft. Are there any other sceintific laws that either me
> > or Paul failed to consider in our thoughts about space craft, Duane? Thank
> > you for not seeing me as evil in the LEGO space bulletin board, Duane.
>
>
> I'm sure that there are TONS of other laws and theories that we aren't
> looking at when trying to design a "realistic" space craft. That's why I
> have my own Lego Universe - it allows me to be creative, but not have to
> think as much.
>
> > I must disagree, however, about the comment that I view space craft from a
> > realistic point of view, Duane. I do want to know how space craft would
> > really operate but I am not conscribing to the current designs of the Space
> > Shuttle of the typical designs of LEGO space craft. I believe that you
> > should add some support vehicles and a working airlock but that is simply
> > because there may exist hostile environments that the vehicle will travel
> > and these enviornments may not support oxygen or explorers so an airlock,
> > even in a space craft, is a good idea if you happen to travel to one of
> > those planets, Duane.
>
> My mistake then, I've mis-interpreted.
>
> >
> > I am not sure that the people who say that faster than light speeds are
> > impossible are correct because I thought I saw a story on Yahoo many months
> > earlier that said that scientists HAD, in fact, caused an object to travel
> > FASTER than light but I do not remember the context of the story or where on
> > Yahoo News I heard the story. I believe that we must first work on the
> > current technology so that we can actually develop beter technology so that
> > we can actually produce better space craft. The reason that my ideas will
> > not probably work is because almost all that the politicians and
> > "scientists" in our government want is more money to produce more projects
> > that are destined to fail and because the government will not privitize the
> > space program, we will still probably use the Space Shuttle when I am 75
> > years old! I believe, however, that your vehicle is a very nice vehicle so
> > can you please show me your vehicle, Duane? Thank you and I hoipe that this
> > letter is to your standards, Duane.
> > Jesse Long
>
> There is currently a design that is being developed to replace the Space
> Shuttle. I don't have specifics handy other than the NASA website, but
> believe me, it has to be better than what we are using now. The current
> shuttles seem to be held together with duct tape and bailing wire.
>
> >
> > P.S. I also have craft that travel at speeds of faster than light speeds
> > and I have watched Star Trek (though Voyager was somewhat disappointing)
> > ever since The Next Generation was on television in the first season.
>
> I believe that there was an article in Popular Science on this subject not
> that long ago. Unfortunately my copy is in my truck so I can't get too
> specific right now. Maybe after I actually read it. Does anyone else reading
> have information on the article?
>
> > I am
> > not sure what you mean by condescending but whatever that word means, I will
> > try not to become condescending to people. I also believe that adding some
> > living quarters would be considered a good idea because even large trucks,
> > the trucks that usually haul trailers, usually have a bed or two in the back
> > of their cabs and this is the reason why many of these vehicles are somewhat
> > large in structure, Duane. I am not saying that adding sleeping quarters is
> > a necessary idea, Duane, I am simply saying that maybe long missions require
> > some sleep.
>
> From Dictionary.com
>
> con·de·scend
> intr.v. con·de·scend·ed, con·de·scend·ing, con·de·scends
> To descend to the level of one considered inferior; lower oneself.
> To deal with people in a patronizingly superior manner.
>
> -Duane
By the way. Thanks for breaking out your paragraphs. It's much easier to read...
-Duane
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Couldn't resist
|
| In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes: <snip> (...) I'm sure that there are TONS of other laws and theories that we aren't looking at when trying to design a "realistic" space craft. That's why I have my own Lego Universe - it allows me to be (...) (25 years ago, 25-Jun-01, to lugnet.space)
|
195 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
