Re: Cost of slowing down?
- From: "tomcat" <jlavine@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 23 Oct 2005 14:38:22 -0700
The Shuttle is not a failure because it blew up a couple of times.
That was out of a large number of flights and who said rockets and
space travel were safe?
Traveling in a rocketship is dangerous, but it is the road to Outer
Space. The Shuttle has made a real step in the direction of our final
frontier.
Now it is time for a SSTP (Single Stage To the Planets). The
reliability of the SSME (Space Shuttle Main Engine) and the new 'slush'
LH2 tanks have made the SSTP a possible next step.
Scarce resources await us. He3 which does not exist on Earth exists in
large quantities on the Moon. It makes nuclear fusion a cinch. It has
been done already using small amounts of He3 from nuclear weapons
production.
Let's not remember the Shuttle for it's two explosions, but rather for
the tremendous technological advances of waverider hypersonic flight,
the SSME, and hefty cargo capacity into orbit.
It pioneered in hypersonic technology proving, not that it is
impossible, but that it is possible. It did -- all but one -- reentry
successfully.
Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
tomcat
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Cost of slowing down?
- From: Fred J . McCall
- Re: Cost of slowing down?
- References:
- Cost of slowing down?
- From: Brian Gaff
- Re: Cost of slowing down?
- From: Monte Davis
- Cost of slowing down?
- Prev by Date: Re: How Rockets Differ From Jets
- Next by Date: Re: How Rockets Differ From Jets
- Previous by thread: Re: Cost of slowing down?
- Next by thread: Re: Cost of slowing down?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading