SSTO Comments and some on gambling your way to space.

panamabob Wrote:
> So lets pursue what we DO have :-)

A very good idea.

Ian Wollard Wrote:
> Once the shuttle has left the ground it's in freefall apart from engines and
> aerodynamics. The doors don't fall open. The whole vehicle is falling at the

> same rate.

Yes, although if the craft still has it's wings attached then it would be
pushed up (I'd hope) so the doors could fall down.

Al Globus Wrote:
> I don't remember the exact figures, but I'm pretty sure the Soviet manned
> vehicles are roughly as safe (or unsafe) as the US shuttle.

Most likely.

Al Globus Wrote:
> The Challenger accident, of course, involved the solids and happened pretty
> quickly. They never had a chance.

Yes. Although one must remember that even that was survivable. Or at least it
would have been if a proper way to get out of the shuttle existed.

Al Globus Wrote:
> It won't. The space elevator is in tension, not compression. In tension
there
> are materials that, theoretically, should work. In compression, not even
> theoretical materials can do the job.

At the poles it could only be in compression as there is nothing to provide
tension.

panamabob Wrote:
> True fals or what ever, the space pen anecdote is popular because it kinda
> hits the concept on the head; ruskies used a low tech pencil, the NASA spent
> millions. Again, true falso whatever, what makes it funny is that
> somewhere in there is the essence.

You don't seem to get it.

The US used a low-tech pencil as well as the Russians. It doesn't hit the
concept on the head. Only thing to hit on the head is that NASA used a pencil
until a company found something better without NASA paying that company for R&D
or even asking them to develop the better product.

2nd point, and a bit of a yell since I'm getting rather annoyed by this space
pen crap. NASA DID NOT SPEND ANY MONEY DEVELOPING THE SPACE PEN. I would
suggest you stop saying that NASA spent millions when they didn't spend
anything except the very low cost to buy the pens (well worth it for the extra
safety).

Yes it's funny but that doesn't make it useful. If you want to use something
like that go find one that actually is true. If NASA is like you say it is
there should be heaps.

panamabob Wrote:
> Suddenly the joke of buying MIR became reality...and then the scofferes had
> their day again when MIR was de-orbited

Given the state of Mir at that time I think de-orbiting was the best thing to
do. Besides ISS is a much better place to stay.

panamabob Wrote:
> With some 500 members on this list (andsome similar networked groups) that
> could be donations of some $10 a head.

You're probably not even going to get 50 people from this group considering
that most people probably don't even read the messages. It's like that in
pretty much every other group to so you have to take into account the fact that
most people won't participate.

panamabob Wrote:
> I get slammed all the time with virtual casino spam... I havent looked into
> the casino's legitimacy, but obviously something is there
No matter what you should never ever even consider using spam. Doing it will
get your net connection cut off and a lot of people pissed off at you in a very
big way. You'd probably be lucky to even get 5 positive responses if you send
to a million. As for the casino it's probably non-legit because if it were
legit it could afford to use more effective advertising methods.

panamabob Wrote:
> I see people buying lots on the moonand planets as a novelty, so we offer the

> same...
I'll have a good laugh when they find out they haven't bought anything because
at the moment no one has the right to sell land on the moon.