Subj : NASA, shuttle, anyone? To : CHARLES ANGELICH From : WAYNE CHIRNSIDE Date : Wed Aug 17 2005 08:41 am -> ->> 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. I'll grant that but it did match and exceed the air forces Bell X-craft program in some respects. -> 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? I'll credit them with getting it up and back down in one peice twice as well. Recall the first launch had the ship rolling on ascent in such a way that would have destroyed the shuttle, it didn't phase SpaceShip One. -> 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). The shuttle was sold as a cheap manned flight to orbit reusable vehicle. The costs per flight were estimated at 1/10th of reality. -> 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. As long as there are people with more money than brains... --- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140) .