Space - How do we get there from here?
Harold Hutchison
Okay, we've all been talking a bit about the President's space initiatives.
What choices would the folks here make?
Obligatory TC part: What space program would President Ryan have pushed
forward?
--
Strategypage.com Contributor
"There is no way I'm backing out; I'll find an angel here somehow."
Jennifer Love Hewitt, "Avenue of the Stars"
"The only person who can kill your dream is yourself."
Tom Clancy, Ft. Worth Star-Telegram, August 10, 2003
Scott Podsednik was robbed.
Loren Pechtel
wrote:
>Therefor, I feel that the primary goal in space should be to build the
>means of getting there.
Yup.
>To me, that means at least four new vehicle types;
>
>#1 A heavy-lift unmanned cargo vehicle (I think the Shuttle-C concept
>would be ideal)
>
>#2 A Manned launch vehicle with some cargo capacity.
>
>#3 a basically crew-only launch vehicle (very limited cargo capacity).
I don't really see the need for #2 unless you mean it for
bringing stuff back.
Also, I don't see your #4.
Fred J. McCall
:On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 19:58:04 -0700, Chris J...... <ch...@noadress.com>
I want to send people and their luggage up to a transfer station for
flight to somewhere else. Why require the launch of a heavy lifter
for that? I either have to waste a heavy lifter or wait until I have
a full one going to the same place.
How long do YOU typically want to wait for your luggage?
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Howard Berkowitz
fmc...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> I want to send people and their luggage up to a transfer station for
> flight to somewhere else. Why require the launch of a heavy lifter
> for that? I either have to waste a heavy lifter or wait until I have
> a full one going to the same place.
>
> How long do YOU typically want to wait for your luggage?
WANT, or what I live with -- almost 24 hours for my last from the ATL
connection to BWI. This is one of the reasons that I am very dubious
about the super-junbos: the ground facilities can't keep up with
present load.
Gml...@scvnet.com
"Chris J......" <ch...@noadress.com> wrote in message
news:tib6109v0umarg7hg...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 21:18:37 GMT, Harold Hutchison
> <hch...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Okay, we've all been talking a bit about the President's space
initiatives.
> >
> >What choices would the folks here make?
>
> it's worth, say, going to the moon or mars unless you build
> sustainable infrastructure to be able to keep doing it.
>
> Therefor, I feel that the primary goal in space should be to build the
> means of getting there.
>
>
> #1 A heavy-lift unmanned cargo vehicle (I think the Shuttle-C concept
> would be ideal)
>
> #2 A Manned launch vehicle with some cargo capacity.
>
> #3 a basically crew-only launch vehicle (very limited cargo capacity).
Arrgh... *denied*!
Where is #4? Continuing your progression to smaller and smaller vehicles,
#4 is probably Spaceman Spiff's 1-man flying saucer. I want one of those!
:)
George
cMAD
> On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 15:19:29 -0800, <Gml...@scvnet.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Chris J......" <ch...@noadress.com> wrote in message
> >news:tib6109v0umarg7hg...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 21:18:37 GMT, Harold Hutchison
> >> <hch...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Okay, we've all been talking a bit about the President's space
> >initiatives.
> >> >
> >> >What choices would the folks here make?
> >>
> >> Well, I'm more in favor of an infrastructural approach. I don't think
> >> it's worth, say, going to the moon or mars unless you build
> >> sustainable infrastructure to be able to keep doing it.
> >>
> >> Therefor, I feel that the primary goal in space should be to build the
> >> means of getting there.
> >>
> >> To me, that means at least four new vehicle types;
> >>
> >> #1 A heavy-lift unmanned cargo vehicle (I think the Shuttle-C concept
> >> would be ideal)
> >>
> >> #2 A Manned launch vehicle with some cargo capacity.
> >>
> >> #3 a basically crew-only launch vehicle (very limited cargo capacity).
> >
> >Arrgh... *denied*!
>
> I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean?
>
> >Where is #4? Continuing your progression to smaller and smaller vehicles,
> >#4 is probably Spaceman Spiff's 1-man flying saucer. I want one of those!
> >:)
>
> ARGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yes, I did say four, and then proceeded to list
> all three of them!
>
> I'm afraid I do not have another one to list, and must admit that
> advanced mathematics (such as three not being four) are perhaps beyond
> my meager abilities...
Then, shalt thou count to three. No more. No less. Three shalt be the number
thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt
thou not count, nor either count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to
three.
cMAD <- Five is right out.
Fred J. McCall
:I'm afraid I do not have another one to list, and must admit that
:advanced mathematics (such as three not being four) are perhaps beyond
:my meager abilities...
Well, that is ONE way to get SSTO to work.... :-)
David E. Powell
Unless NASA tries to go after that program legally/politically too....
Gml...@scvnet.com
> >news:tib6109v0umarg7hg...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 21:18:37 GMT, Harold Hutchison
> >> <hch...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Okay, we've all been talking a bit about the President's space
> >initiatives.
> >> >
> >> >What choices would the folks here make?
> >>
> >> Well, I'm more in favor of an infrastructural approach. I don't think
> >> it's worth, say, going to the moon or mars unless you build
> >> sustainable infrastructure to be able to keep doing it.
> >>
> >> Therefor, I feel that the primary goal in space should be to build the
> >> means of getting there.
> >>
> >> To me, that means at least four new vehicle types;
> >>
> >> #1 A heavy-lift unmanned cargo vehicle (I think the Shuttle-C concept
> >> would be ideal)
> >>
> >> #2 A Manned launch vehicle with some cargo capacity.
> >>
> >> #3 a basically crew-only launch vehicle (very limited cargo capacity).
> >
> >Arrgh... *denied*!
>
Sorry, I hang around teenagers too much.
It's a reference to the "Wayne's World" movies, where a heartfelt
exclamation of "*denied*!" meant that one had been brought nearly to
whatever expectation you have, but had that expectation pulled away from you
at the last minute..
Jason Atkinson
wrote:
>On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 20:47:35 -0800, <Gml...@scvnet.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Chris J......" <ch...@noadress.com> wrote in message
>
>>> >Arrgh... *denied*!
>>>
>>> I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean?
>>
>>Sorry, I hang around teenagers too much.
>>
>>It's a reference to the "Wayne's World" movies, where a heartfelt
>>exclamation of "*denied*!" meant that one had been brought nearly to
>>whatever expectation you have, but had that expectation pulled away from you
>>at the last minute..
>
>That's odd. I was in college when "Wayne's world" came out (I saw it,
>and hated it) but that was quite some time ago. I'd have expected that
>it would be "ancient history" among teens by now.
Some things, both movies and catch phrases, have a way of getting
passed down a long time after those who originally saw it in theaters
have grown up. For example, I'm one of the few people in my college
that has not seen Animal House.
--
"I never realized killing was so grounded in the liberal arts."
-Calvin, by Bill Watterson
Scott Millington
>that has not seen Animal House.
>
Scott "I'm a Zit" Millington