Re: Jim Oberg - Anti-Kook
From: Len Lekx (LFLekx_at_NOSPAM.rogers.com)
Date: 01/13/05
- Next message: Paul F. Dietz: "Re: What if we still had Saturn V"
- Previous message: Jorge R. Frank: "Re: What if we still had Saturn V"
- In reply to: Thomas Lee Elifritz: "Re: Jim Oberg - Anti-Kook"
- Next in thread: Neil Halelamien: "Re: Jim Oberg - Anti-Kook"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 20:29:09 -0500
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 00:25:48 GMT, Thomas Lee Elifritz
<crackpots@everywhere.net> wrote:
>> Generalities like that are untenable, and do little to
>They're comments, usenet comments if you haven't noticed.
That doesn't mean they can be unsupportable. On Usenet, like
anywhere else, you aren't able to say any old thing that pops into
your head, and expect to be believed. :-)
>"Who needs credibility here?" Remember that?
Actually, I don't. Maybe it's part of the thread that I missed.
>Look at this place, a long thread discussing a fantasy of resurrecting the
>Saturn V.
>Now that's kooky.
Well... some people seem to *like* those disintegrating
totem-poles. For heavy-lift capability, I'd prefer to see the Boeing
'Big Onion' concept resurrected... but that's just me. :-)
- Next message: Paul F. Dietz: "Re: What if we still had Saturn V"
- Previous message: Jorge R. Frank: "Re: What if we still had Saturn V"
- In reply to: Thomas Lee Elifritz: "Re: Jim Oberg - Anti-Kook"
- Next in thread: Neil Halelamien: "Re: Jim Oberg - Anti-Kook"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|