![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Oct 22, 3:10�am, Dale Carlson wrote:
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:43:34 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: the new manned launcher booster was unnecessary, and solids a very bad idea.. the new manned launcher should of gone on a existing expendable. Bob, I wish you'd take a remedial english class. "Should of"? That should be "should have". And I suppose the fine points like "on an existing..." rather than "on a existing..." are too much to ask. Not that any of this hasn't been pointed out 1000 times before ![]() That being said, 1-X is an impressive bit of trying to get something up before it gets axed. I'm almost rooting for them. Dale so your rooting for a obvious waste of money and time? how do you justify this? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Ares IV?! | Pat Flannery | History | 10 | July 26th 09 09:30 PM |
Instead of Ares V... | Alan Erskine[_2_] | Policy | 16 | March 3rd 08 12:24 PM |
I've added FOUR updates to my Ares-1 article with some NEW calculations that (clearly) show WHY the new Ares-1 can't fly | gaetanomarano | Policy | 0 | November 12th 07 10:21 AM |
NewSpace rockets __ EELVs __ Ares-I __ REVISED Orion/Ares-I __ FAST-SLV __ chances of success | gaetanomarano | Policy | 9 | June 16th 07 12:03 AM |
in my opinion (both) Ares-I and Ares-V could NEVER fly once! ...could NASA rockets win vs. privates on launch date and prices? | gaetanomarano | Policy | 0 | May 10th 07 11:11 PM |