Re: Cost of slowing down?
- From: "Mike Dennis" <mapson@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 23:44:01 GMT
"Katipo" <hamilton@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:6kY6f.2155$S24.150868@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Mike Dennis" <mapson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:9Dx6f.147345$lI5.110141@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> "Katipo" <hamilton@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:cze6f.1838$S24.129902@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> >
>>>> One nice simple spaceplane with good SSME engines and a large cargo
>>>> capacity is preferable to the above scenario, whether for sub-orbital
>>>> passenger flight or a SSTP trip to the Moon.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> tomcat
>>>>
>>>
>>> I agree but you might want to keep your head down. When I suggested
>>> essentially the same thing I got rubbished in here! :)
>>>
>>> Katipo
>>
>> Yeah, that happens when you can't back up your opinions with real
>> science/math/engineering...
>>
>> Welcome to the real world.
>>
> Hmmm well maybe I erred a little in relying too much on common sense...
I don't mean this as a personal slam, but common sense holds up to the laws
of physics and economics.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Cost of slowing down?
- From: tomcat
- Re: Cost of slowing down?
- References:
- Cost of slowing down?
- From: Brian Gaff
- Re: Cost of slowing down?
- From: tomcat
- Re: Cost of slowing down?
- From: Katipo
- Re: Cost of slowing down?
- From: Mike Dennis
- Re: Cost of slowing down?
- From: Katipo
- Cost of slowing down?
- Prev by Date: Re: CEV a Step Backwards
- Next by Date: Re: Cost of slowing down?
- Previous by thread: Re: Cost of slowing down?
- Next by thread: Re: Cost of slowing down?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
