Re: MSNBC (Oberg) - Deadly space lessons go unheeded
From: Andrew Nowicki (andrew_at_nospam.com)
Date: 01/27/05
- Next message: Captain!: "Re: Space Policy Sucks, while there's Life on Venus"
- Previous message: George William Herbert: "Re: Hubble: Just Sell the Damend Thing"
- In reply to: George William Herbert: "Re: MSNBC (Oberg) - Deadly space lessons go unheeded"
- Next in thread: Kelly McDonald: "Re: MSNBC (Oberg) - Deadly space lessons go unheeded"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 00:03:33 +0100
Andrew Nowicki wrote:
> They are not suitable for launching payloads
> into orbit because they are not reusable.
George William Herbert wrote:
> They are not optimal for launching payloads
> into orbit because of their high cost.
> Cost and reliability are the only criteria
> that matter.
Can you imagine a reusable first stage?
Something like the space shuttle booster
except that it would burn liquid propellant.
No turbopump. Sturdy tanks. Regenerative
cooling. Parachutes and splashdown.
You can call it big dumb booster.
How much damage can it suffer during
reentry and splashdown? Can it be 100%
reusable? I mean as reusable as an
automobile, which, by the way, has more
moving parts.
- Next message: Captain!: "Re: Space Policy Sucks, while there's Life on Venus"
- Previous message: George William Herbert: "Re: Hubble: Just Sell the Damend Thing"
- In reply to: George William Herbert: "Re: MSNBC (Oberg) - Deadly space lessons go unheeded"
- Next in thread: Kelly McDonald: "Re: MSNBC (Oberg) - Deadly space lessons go unheeded"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
