$94M to build a space plane that exceeds the SR-71/X-15?? Swamplandfor sale!!!!

On Thu, 8 Jan 2015 09:34:54 -0800 (PST), wrote:

The government doesn't "invest" in anything.

Fortunately for society, your view on this matter isn't taken
seriously.

On Thu, 08 Jan 2015 17:44:54 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote this crap:

On Thu, 8 Jan 2015 09:34:54 -0800 (PST), wrote:

The government doesn't "invest" in anything.

Fortunately for society, your view on this matter isn't taken
seriously.


Yer both right.


Don't drink and drive. Unless you have a good cup holder.

On Friday, 9 January 2015 02:11:40 UTC+1, Lord Vath wrote:

Don't drink and drive. Unless you have a good cup holder.

You are not seeing the bigger picture.

Give a man a cup holder and he can drink for an hour.

Give a man two cup holders and he can keep policemen and nurses in work for a lifetime.

Keep death on the roads. It keeps real people in real jobs.

While others just shovel money down the pits.

On Thursday, January 8, 2015 at 6:40:49 PM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote:
wsnell01 wrote:
On Thursday, January 8, 2015 6:55:09 AM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote:
wsnell01 wrote:
On Tuesday, January 6, 2015 7:39:56 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 6 Jan 2015 15:53:18 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/08/tech/i...rticle_sidebar

In what way does it "exceed" the SR-71 or X-15?

The SR-71 and X-15 didn't reach orbit? Or carry a 16-ton payload??

And the X15 couldn't take off from a runway.

The bombers that carried them up could.

That pretty weak. I can't fly but I can if an aircraft carries me.
The horizontal take off is a selling point for this concept. The X-15
couldn't take off by itself.

Neither could the Space Shuttle, nor Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Pegasus, Vostok, Voskhod, Soyuz, Buran or Shenzhou. So what's your point????

A selling point for Skylon is an engine that can work as an air breather at launch and a rocket after it reaches velocity and altitude.

On Thursday, January 8, 2015 at 6:56:52 PM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
On Thursday, 8 January 2015 11:17:24 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jan 2015 08:10:23 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

Yes they are. It's just a different set of investors.

No, an -investor- chooses to risk his own money on a company or its projects in order to get a share of any profits or stock price increase.

It doesn't surprise me that you don't understand this concept.
Fortunately, your view doesn't have much influence on social policy.
Government investment in research and technology has driven more
advances in human understanding and generated more economic growth
than any other kind of investment. And will continue to do so.

B.S. Private investment eclipses ANY level of government investment. Unless
you think the government is involved in drug development, the development of
communications, etc.

peterson and his ilk prefer to think of government as just another "business," albeit one that can raise "capital" by force.

On Thursday, January 8, 2015 at 7:00:46 PM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
On Tuesday, 6 January 2015 18:53:20 UTC-5, RichA wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/08/tech/i...rticle_sidebar

The aircraft, according to one source, will cost over $12 BILLION to
develop. As of this year, the firm got $100M from the Brit government, about
1/120th of what they believe they need. Since the estimate of costs is 10
years old, add another $5-$8B on to the initial $12B estimage.
This aircraft is NEVER going to happen.

Let USA, Russia, ESA, Japan or China design/build the airframe.

On Thursday, January 8, 2015 at 7:01:47 PM UTC-5, OG wrote:
On 08/01/2015 23:56, RichA wrote:
On Thursday, 8 January 2015 11:17:24 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jan 2015 08:10:23 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

Yes they are. It's just a different set of investors.

No, an -investor- chooses to risk his own money on a company or its projects in order to get a share of any profits or stock price increase.

It doesn't surprise me that you don't understand this concept.
Fortunately, your view doesn't have much influence on social policy.
Government investment in research and technology has driven more
advances in human understanding and generated more economic growth
than any other kind of investment. And will continue to do so.

B.S. Private investment eclipses ANY level of government investment. Unless you think the government is involved in drug development, the development of communications, etc.


Of course it is - are you unaware of the government funding of
university research and defence 'development' contracts.
To a very large degree, private investment leeches off government funded
funamental research

The govt only has funds which it takes from the private sector.

On Thursday, January 8, 2015 at 7:44:54 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jan 2015 09:34:54 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

The government doesn't "invest" in anything.

Fortunately for society, your view on this matter isn't taken
seriously.

You will need to understand what "invest" actually means before being taken seriously by anyone, peterson.