Subj : NASA, shuttle, anyone?
To   : WAYNE CHIRNSIDE
From : CHARLES ANGELICH
Date : Tue Aug 16 2005 11:03 pm

123c71c73c9d
tech



Hello Wayne - 

->> I don't remember all the limitations of SpaceShipOne but it
->> is/was very much in the hobbyist category and not a
->> full-blown design that NASA could make use of right now. 

WC> Oh I'd expect huge changes but there certainly needs to be
WC> an infusion of novel ideas and a more simplified approach
WC> to orbit. 

SpaceShipOne focused all of it's synergy on achieving maximum
altitude and nothing more. I may be niave but just that one
goal seems rather easily attainable if you have the money/time? 

WC> The shuttle never lived up to what was sold to Congress. 

I only vaguely remember what was 'sold' at the inception of the
shuttle program but I seem to recall talk of huge payloads and
the ability to easily maintain/repair satellites in orbit. NOT
sending arbitrary human passengers (a high school teacher?) up
there to do a five minute experiment with some worms (the only
survivors of the failed re-entry). 

WC> ITMT a independent corporation inspired by Burt Ruttan's
WC> design and success is shooting for for profit private space
WC> flights around the moon by 2008 - 20010. Cost a mere 40
WC> million. 

I sense a bit of P.T.Barnum in those 'headlines' but even if it
is doable I would again point out the foolishness and
pointlessness of doing this. 

>
>        ,                          ,
>      o/      Charles.Angelich      \o       ,
>     <|                              |>  __o/
>     / >          USA, MI           < \   __\__
 

--- * ATP/16bit 2.31 * 
.... DOS the Ghost in the Machine! http://www.devedia.com/dosghost/
 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)

.