Re: [Utah-astronomy] NASA's plan to return to the moon
Kurt, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that. I've got very fond memories of the X-15 and think it was a hell of a vehicle. But I just don't think that it was anywhere close to a technology that could reach orbital or escape velocities. I love the idea of a true space plane, but I don't feel any kind of Manhattan-style project will get us there. There is so much to learn in all areas of technology and materials science. I think you build on what you have. One day you look around and find that all the pieces are nearly there. I just don't think we're at that point. -------------------
I was very disappointed to see NASA promoting this "back to past" repeat of the Apollo program as the CEV. It's old dead Apollo technology. What is needed is to knuckle down and complete the promise of the 60's X-plane program and finish a true single-stage-to-orbit space plane.
--- Michael Carnes <michaelcarnes@earthlink.net> wrote:
Kurt, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.
I agree with you that we are not getting our bang for the buck in terms of science projects on the ISS. That is in part why I posted the links to the ISS science fact sheets - so everyone can look for themselves. Patrick's post explains why.
I love the idea of a true space plane, but I don't feel any kind of Manhattan-style project will get us there.
That's what I like about the Soviet Kliper space "taxi." It's reusable, smaller, won't need 23,000 ceramic tiles, launches a crew of four to low oribt on top of a beefed up Soyuz booster, all existing technology. Separate the people from the cargo and get them to low orbit and back safely. - Canopus56(Kurt) __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
participants (2)
-
Canopus56 -
Michael Carnes