LSAM

Brad Guth ) wrote:
: Brad, what is the sun's influence on LL-1? IOW, how much energy is it
: going to take to maintain staying at LL-1 due to solar gravitational
: influence over time? You speak about that point as having some great
: value. Perhaps, but at what cost? Sort of reminds me of owning lots of raw
: land only to be taxed to death because you own the land!
: Others will gladly inform you that I'm as right as they were. LL-1 is
: however as you'd say a wee bit interactive, however that's a good thing
: and it's certainly not the least bit insurmountable nor all that energy
: demanding once considering the near zero G factor plus tidal forces
: working on behalf of keeping that nullification zone and of whatever's
: within.

: Because LL-1 is by far the easiest and most payload tonnage efficient
: spot to resupply, therefore auxiliary reactive thrusting fuel as well
: as beer and pizza should never be in short supply.

: I suppose utilizing the LSE-CM/ISS in the process of extracting and of
: exporting of He3 away from the moon to Earth, at the tune of perhaps a
: trillion dollar value per year should ring even your naysay bell.

Where have the found helium on the moon? No atmosphere, remember?

: There's also tether dipole energy that should be in the realm of
: affording a few spare terawatts.

: If need be, I'll offer a list of folks before my time and even of a few
: since that essentially had this application nailed down in spite of all
: the rusemasters and naysayers like yourself.

I was excpeting you to give of list of folks after your time, because I'm
sure at the bottom of all this is your crystal ball.

And I'll stop naysaying when you can do more than put words together. You
know, some sort of model, even a computer model complete with science and
physics embedded therein.

: Of course, once tethered to the moon is when things get extremely
: interesting as the station-keeping platform or that of the CM/ISS is
: allowed to gain considerable mass and/or merely leverage itself
: slightly towards mother Earth, thus keeping as much or as little
: primary tether tension as you'd care to manage.

You have never, ever, shown how anything is gointo be physically tied to
the moon, go up into space to something else and stay anchored. I already
mentioned that nothing you have shown has the shear strength to allow for
such a things.

Virtually everything you postulate is like a warp drive engine complete
with lithium crystals, a la Star Trek. Cool stuff, but not "real". Not
until you can demostrate.

: Basically the LSE-CM/ISS and of such utilizing the LL-1 zone, whereas
: the yaysay's far out number the naysay's by more than 10:1. Therefore,
: I win, science wins, humanity wins, our environment certainly wins and
: you lose (big-time).

Where is it? Other than in some flap of your brain I mean. You really
ought to get a grip on what's real and what's imagined.

Eric

: -
: Brad Guth

tomcat wrote:

The Space
Shuttle is a beautifully designed waverider spaceplane.

How to make a superior 'defense' against the F-22 Raptor?
Trace a diagram of the plane onto fresh paper, enlarge it a
bit for bigger fuel tanks, shove a SSME (Space Shuttle Main
Engine) up it's tail. And, your improvised version will out
perform the F-22 two to one.

But I offer to build a SSTO waverider for 5 billions
dollars in 5 years if the money is paid Up Front. To be
honest I don't expect any takers, but I could do it.

sigh

There was once a time when we didn't get this kind of clueless
nonsense until school let out for the summer.

Jim Davis

Jim Davis wrote:
tomcat wrote:

The Space
Shuttle is a beautifully designed waverider spaceplane.

How to make a superior 'defense' against the F-22 Raptor?
Trace a diagram of the plane onto fresh paper, enlarge it a
bit for bigger fuel tanks, shove a SSME (Space Shuttle Main
Engine) up it's tail. And, your improvised version will out
perform the F-22 two to one.

But I offer to build a SSTO waverider for 5 billions
dollars in 5 years if the money is paid Up Front. To be
honest I don't expect any takers, but I could do it.

sigh

There was once a time when we didn't get this kind of clueless
nonsense until school let out for the summer.

Jim Davis




To you it may seem to be 'nonesense' because your training, background,
and experiences have lead you in a different direction than mine.

I am a former Navy Officer with jet fighter experience. I know what
thrust to weight means. I know what fighter planes can do. I know how
important speed is to destroy an enemy plane.

Sure, an F-22 on steroids may not go as far, but it will overtake and
kill anything slower. And, yes, I know that SSME will eat up it's fuel
in a couple of minutes. But a 2:1 thrust to weight rapidly becoming a
3:1, then a 4:1, will generate hypersonic speeds by the end of those
couple of minutes.

The F-22 on Steroids is probably one of the few ideas that could
possibly compete with that plane. Lockheed did a good job, a very good
job. In short, the only thing that could take out an F-22 is another
F-22, and the F-22 on Steroids (packing an SSME) will probably win it.



tomcat


tomcat

In article , Jon S. Berndt says...

In article .com, Jon
says...

John Schilling wrote:

So, do the detail work to make the capsule multifunctional, decide
whether
the high-deltaV propulsion module is integral or seperate, add external
tanks, and build one vehicle that gets the job done.

Yes, it means you have to do things like carry the weight of the heat
shield down to the lunar surface and back. That's not a huge deal, not
nearly so big a deal as designing an entire second spacecraft, unless
your margins are already stretched to the limit.

So, what happens if all we want to do is ISS taxi service? That's part
of what CEV is supposed to be. Or, how about taxi service to a Mars
Transfer Vehicle?

What about it? A CEV that can carry people to the Moon and back, can
certainly carry people to ISS and back. And again, mostly overlapping
functionality. You'll probably want enough flexibility in the interior
layout that you can remove some of the extended-mission gear in favor
of a couple extra passengers, but that's true of the CEV regardless of
how you handle the LSAM part.

You missed the point. I think it's pretty obvious that any CEV that also
serves as the LSAM is going to be heavier than the currently envisioned CEV.

Why? I mean, you may think it's "pretty obvious", but I've pretty
explicitly argued that the CEV/LSAM would *not* be substantially heavier
than the CEV alone, on account of almost all of the functionality being
overlapped.

I might be wrong, but I'd appreciate the courtesy of not being dismissed
as "pretty obviously" wrong. What, specifically, makes the CEV/LSAM
heavier than the CEV alone, how much heavier does it make it, and how
do you come by that number?


You're going to have to hoist all that extra weight just to go to ISS? I
don't think so.

Why not? You've got a launch vehicle. It can carry a CEV fitted out for
a lunar mission. The launch vehicle does *not* become one penny cheaper
if you use it to carry a stripped-down, lightweight, ISS-only CEV, so
why not just carry the full lunar-capable version?

You may be under the impression that the spaceflight industry operates under
a fixed, "extra weight = BAD!" mentality, but it isn't so. I do this for a
living. I deal in advanced propulsion systems that, among other things, can
reduce spacecraft mass. I talk to people who build and launch and pay for
real spaceships, and tell them that I can save them X kilograms of mass.
And most of the time, they just don't care. They *rightly* don't care,
because reducing mass doesn't gain them anything.


If reducing mass means you can do a launch vehicle stepdown, get away with
an Atlas 531 instead of a 551 for example, well, OK, they start to care.
Those two extra solids cost a few megabucks each, and each comes with a
fractional-percent chance of catastrophic failure. Small change overall,
but at least worth talking about.

That's not an issue with CEV. I'm of the opinion that a proper CEV can
fit on an Atlas 402, and there's no stepdown from that. NASA, is of the
opinion that a proper CEV, even in ISS-ferry mode, will be too big for a
Delta IV Heavy, so we need their Stick to launch it. And there's only
going to be the one Stick, and it is going to be sized for carrying the
CEV that goes to the Moon, and it's going to cost exactly as much when
it is used to carry a CEV that goes to ISS no matter how much lighter
that is.


What actually matters, to most people in the spacecraft business, is
mission capability. If you're going to convince them to invest real
money in developing something new, it has to be able to do something
*more*, than what came before. Not "be lighter", but "do more".

A CEV that can go to the Moon, land, and return, that's new mission
capability. That's worth investing in.

Unfortunately, NASA isn't "most people in the spacecraft business".
Right now, it's dinosaur central - the gathering point for all the
people who want to do exactly what they did forty-plus years ago,
only bigger. Whee.


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
* for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *


--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth

Eric Chomko,
Where have the found helium on the moon? No atmosphere, remember?
Good grief and let us put Jesus Christ back on a stick. What naysay
planet of such brown-nosed and incest cloned Bigots-R-Us are you from?

You have never, ever, shown how anything is gointo be physically tied to
the moon, go up into space to something else and stay anchored. I already
mentioned that nothing you have shown has the shear strength to allow for
such a things.
Once again, your being intellectually blind and otherwise such a
born-again pagan mainstream status quo sort of guy is what makes my
past several years of offerings (proof that it has been doable) just so
WMD stealth like. Too bad that yourself and of your naysay mindset
haven't the basic skills necessary to wipe your own butt, much less
have taken the LSE-CM/ISS to heart. In fact, if you were any more
naysay/negative, as such you'd become the next available black hole.

You're obviously another happy camper as being just another incest
cloned fool on the same old NASA/Apollo or bust hill, that's having to
continually exclude upon whatever's of evidence and/or of hard-science,
and of otherwise having to ignore the regular laws of physics that
rocks your pathetic boat, whereas instead you're having to accept the
mainstream status quo of their infomercial-science without a speck of
remorse for the past, present or future.

You and of your naysay paganism simply refuse to believe in or much
less share in anything that rocks your pathetic good ship LOLLIPOP.
Perhaps the only thing you're good for is starting up WW-III.

All I can say is, keep up the good brown-nosed work, as that's exactly
what Hitler and of his collaborating Jews needed in order to pull off
their fiasco. The same goes for your actions having supported our
perpetrated cold-war plus that of our pagan born-again resident LLPOF
warlord(GW Bush), whereas without such an audience of supportive pagan
minions as yourself we simply couldn't have caused so much collateral
damage and carnage of the innocent, nor having recently trashed mother
Earth in the process.

For a perfectly good example; if our NASA or even the USSR actually
had such nifty AI/robotic fly-by-rocket landers, such as those as you
claim we supposedly had for those Surveyor and even of the subsequent
USSR/Russian robotic missions, as of such capability starting off way
back in the good old mid 60's, whereas such we certainly would have
been utilizing those sorts of supposedly proven flying machines all
along.

With such a nifty fly-by-rocket lander that was supposedly so capably
AI/robotic and thus robo-pilot proficient of safely deploying the badly
needed tonnage to the surface of Mars, whereas this very same
technology would obviously have represented the capability of having
deployed tens of such tonnes per other essential deployments of the
much needed science and applied mission technologies (including if need
be a few of us humans) as safely deposited onto our extremely nearby
though physically dark (AKA nearly coal/carbon-soot like) and otherwise
reactive nasty moon.

Just for being such a good little brown-nosed minion of a sport that
you obviously are;
Because robotics don't amount to 1% the overall cost plus so many other
considerations of having to involve a human pilotted mission, and
obviously of such robotics as intended for our moon that don't even
have to be all that AI rated, because of their being so easily remote
operated from our terrestrial ground control that's within a mere 2.5
seconds of loop-reaction delay, and thereby offers a zero risk factor
to our frail DNA. So therefore, Eric Chomko, what do you suppose we're
still waiting for?

My LSE-CM/ISS has in fact been technically doable within existing
applied technology ever since the Apollo era. Only the most dumb and
dumber fools and intellectual bigots like yourself are of those unable
to see the light and of the absolutely tremendous positive
considerations. You only see and/or promote upon whatever's negative
and/or of what's supposedly insurmountable, yet you've provided no such
physics nor hard-science in order to back that up.

You have never, ever, shown how anything is gointo be physically tied to
the moon, go up into space to something else and stay anchored. I already
mentioned that nothing you have shown has the shear strength to allow for
such a things.
How exactly does one go about explaining and/or physically having to
show anything to such a born-again pagan of a blind fool, of such a
heathen that's so easily dumbfounded and that otherwise hasn't so much
as a clue of being snookered by folks that supposedly had all of "the
right stuff"?

As to the yaysay/naysay list that pertains to the LL-1 zone, and of the
LSE-CM/ISS;
Where is it? Other than in some flap of your brain I mean. You really
ought to get a grip on what's real and what's imagined.
For the past several years, I've already posted most of everything a
good hundred times over, although I'll obviously have to re-collect my
information and polish up my thoughts into the necessary LeapFrog
format, of providing such a side-by-side list, that'll only make your
type as being all the more pathetic.

You're so chuck full of your own incest crapolla and of all the
associated infomercial-science that you're even rejecting upon the
4.8+GPa worth of continuous basalt fiber (if need be in a tapered or
stepped format) that's as-is way more than sufficient for accommodating
the primary tether(s). Obviously in your case there's no amount of
applied physics or math that's going to be sufficient. Unlike the ESE
tether of such horrifically spendy and extremely complicated to utilize
CNT, The LSE tether of such common composite basalt fibers as easily
produced from local lunar basalt, as having no dimensional or other
shape limitations whatsoever, not to mention the 1/6th gravity at a
mere 1738 km to start off with is doable.
-
Brad Guth

Jon S. Berndt,
NASA to crash space probe into moon
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/0....ap/index.html
Since we still haven't managed to fly-by-rocket anything safely onto
the dark and nasty surface of our nearby moon, whereas our Apollo style
of mission impacting is about as good as it gets, and perhaps this
latest of our pathetic NASA efforts on behalf of their ongoing search
of locating salty ice water on the moon represents our one and only
wag-thy-dog option.

Obviously you folks don't wish to recall upon the LUNAR-A mission, and
of a couple of other more advanced scientific probe impactor
alternatives, that which have been on hold (AKA taboo) for more than a
decade.

It seems as though once we've perfected the AI/robotic fly-by-rocket
lander, as such all sorts of nifty science instruments plus physical
technology can get safely and cost effectively deployed.

QUESTION:
Where's our own 40+ years worth of R&D on those methods of supposedly
offering such deorbit and controlled down-range deployment that
obviously has to involve a soft landing, and without such otherwise
impacting and/or summarily sinking out of sight, as did each of the
Russian efforts?

For a perfectly good example; if our NASA or even the USSR actually
had such nifty AI/robotic fly-by-rocket landers, such as those as
you've probably thought we supposedly had for each of those Surveyor
and even of the subsequent USSR/Russian robotic missions, as of
supposedly having such nifty AI/robotic capability starting off way
back in the good old cold-war mid 60's when everything was so extra
massive and energy consuming, whereas such ever since we certainly
would have been utilizing those sorts of supposedly proven and thus
newer and improved flying machines all along.

With having such a nifty fly-by-rocket lander that's supposedly so
capably AI/robotic and thus robo-pilot proficient on behalf of safely
deploying the likes of badly needed payload tonnage to the surface of
Mars, whereas this very same technology would obviously have
represented the far greater payload capability of having deployed tens
of such payload tonnes per so many other essential deployments of much
needed science and applied physical mission technologies (including if
need be a few of us humans) as safely deposited upon our extremely
nearby though physically rather dark (AKA nearly coal/carbon-soot
like), and otherwise terribly reactive (TBI via hard-X-ray) nasty moon.

Just for being such a good little collective of brown-nosed minions
worth of sports that you folks obviously are; Because robotics don't
amount to 1% the overall cost plus so many other considerations of
having to involve a human pilotted mission, and obviously of such
robotics as intended for our moon that don't even have to be all that
AI rated, is because of their being so easily remote operated from our
terrestrial ground control that's within a mere 2.5 seconds of
reaction-loop delay, and thereby offers a zero risk factor to our frail
DNA.

So therefore, what exactly do you suppose we're still waiting around
for?
-
Brad Guth

Brad Guth ) wrote:
: Eric Chomko,
: Where have the found helium on the moon? No atmosphere, remember?

: Good grief and let us put Jesus Christ back on a stick. What naysay
: planet of such brown-nosed and incest cloned Bigots-R-Us are you from?

I asked a question. Please answer it. No need for swearing, even your
gosh-darn, tinker's damn, scotology...

You act as if anyone that questions your methods is so sort of demon. If
you REALLY had something then you'd actually welcome the feedback just so
you could shoot it down. Playing devil's advocate in science and
engineering is part of it. Am I supposed to merrily agree with every damn
thing you state?! Is that what you expect?

You make me wonder about your whole idiot-savant persona, as lacking a
second part...

: You have never, ever, shown how anything is gointo be physically tied to
: the moon, go up into space to something else and stay anchored. I already
: mentioned that nothing you have shown has the shear strength to allow for
: such a things.

: Once again, your being intellectually blind and otherwise such a
: born-again pagan mainstream status quo sort of guy is what makes my
: past several years of offerings (proof that it has been doable) just so
: WMD stealth like. Too bad that yourself and of your naysay mindset
: haven't the basic skills necessary to wipe your own butt, much less
: have taken the LSE-CM/ISS to heart. In fact, if you were any more
: naysay/negative, as such you'd become the next available black hole.

Insults, but no technology or physics for the technology.

: You're obviously another happy camper as being just another incest
: cloned fool on the same old NASA/Apollo or bust hill, that's having to
: continually exclude upon whatever's of evidence and/or of hard-science,
: and of otherwise having to ignore the regular laws of physics that
: rocks your pathetic boat, whereas instead you're having to accept the
: mainstream status quo of their infomercial-science without a speck of
: remorse for the past, present or future.

: You and of your naysay paganism simply refuse to believe in or much
: less share in anything that rocks your pathetic good ship LOLLIPOP.
: Perhaps the only thing you're good for is starting up WW-III.

Nope, your brand of ignorance is what starts wars.

: All I can say is, keep up the good brown-nosed work, as that's exactly
: what Hitler and of his collaborating Jews needed in order to pull off
: their fiasco. The same goes for your actions having supported our
: perpetrated cold-war plus that of our pagan born-again resident LLPOF
: warlord(GW Bush), whereas without such an audience of supportive pagan
: minions as yourself we simply couldn't have caused so much collateral
: damage and carnage of the innocent, nor having recently trashed mother
: Earth in the process.

When in doubt, Brad goes politically berserk....

: For a perfectly good example; if our NASA or even the USSR actually
: had such nifty AI/robotic fly-by-rocket landers, such as those as you
: claim we supposedly had for those Surveyor and even of the subsequent
: USSR/Russian robotic missions, as of such capability starting off way
: back in the good old mid 60's, whereas such we certainly would have
: been utilizing those sorts of supposedly proven flying machines all
: along.

: With such a nifty fly-by-rocket lander that was supposedly so capably
: AI/robotic and thus robo-pilot proficient of safely deploying the badly
: needed tonnage to the surface of Mars, whereas this very same
: technology would obviously have represented the capability of having
: deployed tens of such tonnes per other essential deployments of the
: much needed science and applied mission technologies (including if need
: be a few of us humans) as safely deposited onto our extremely nearby
: though physically dark (AKA nearly coal/carbon-soot like) and otherwise
: reactive nasty moon.

Can't seem to find sodium chloride in this section:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon#Composition

: Just for being such a good little brown-nosed minion of a sport that
: you obviously are;
: Because robotics don't amount to 1% the overall cost plus so many other
: considerations of having to involve a human pilotted mission, and
: obviously of such robotics as intended for our moon that don't even
: have to be all that AI rated, because of their being so easily remote
: operated from our terrestrial ground control that's within a mere 2.5
: seconds of loop-reaction delay, and thereby offers a zero risk factor
: to our frail DNA. So therefore, Eric Chomko, what do you suppose we're
: still waiting for?

No doubt funding.

: My LSE-CM/ISS has in fact been technically doable within existing
: applied technology ever since the Apollo era. Only the most dumb and
: dumber fools and intellectual bigots like yourself are of those unable
: to see the light and of the absolutely tremendous positive
: considerations. You only see and/or promote upon whatever's negative
: and/or of what's supposedly insurmountable, yet you've provided no such
: physics nor hard-science in order to back that up.

Just reading the page gives me a headache:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-cm-ccm-01.htm

: You have never, ever, shown how anything is gointo be physically tied to
: the moon, go up into space to something else and stay anchored. I already
: mentioned that nothing you have shown has the shear strength to allow for
: such a things.

: How exactly does one go about explaining and/or physically having to
: show anything to such a born-again pagan of a blind fool, of such a
: heathen that's so easily dumbfounded and that otherwise hasn't so much
: as a clue of being snookered by folks that supposedly had all of "the
: right stuff"?

: As to the yaysay/naysay list that pertains to the LL-1 zone, and of the
: LSE-CM/ISS;

I've read the page. You expect to drop a tether from a distance 58,000 km
from the moon to the moon and anchor it?

: Where is it? Other than in some flap of your brain I mean. You really
: ought to get a grip on what's real and what's imagined.

: For the past several years, I've already posted most of everything a
: good hundred times over, although I'll obviously have to re-collect my
: information and polish up my thoughts into the necessary LeapFrog
: format, of providing such a side-by-side list, that'll only make your
: type as being all the more pathetic.

Yes, clarity is your strong suit.

: You're so chuck full of your own incest crapolla and of all the
: associated infomercial-science that you're even rejecting upon the
: 4.8+GPa worth of continuous basalt fiber (if need be in a tapered or
: stepped format) that's as-is way more than sufficient for accommodating
: the primary tether(s). Obviously in your case there's no amount of
: applied physics or math that's going to be sufficient. Unlike the ESE
: tether of such horrifically spendy and extremely complicated to utilize
: CNT, The LSE tether of such common composite basalt fibers as easily
: produced from local lunar basalt, as having no dimensional or other
: shape limitations whatsoever, not to mention the 1/6th gravity at a
: mere 1738 km to start off with is doable.

1738 km? I thought you started from 58,000 km? Please explain what the
1738 km is vs. the 58,000 km, distance?

Eric

: -
: Brad Guth

tomcat wrote:

To you it may seem to be 'nonesense' because your training,
background, and experiences have lead you in a different
direction than mine.

Oh, yes. Yes, indeed. You have it precisely.

I am a former Navy Officer with jet fighter experience. I know
what thrust to weight means. I know what fighter planes can do.
I know how important speed is to destroy an enemy plane.

Riiiiiight.

You do realize, do you not, that rocket propelled fighters, became
extinct 50 years ago? And that the number of different designs that
entered service worldwide can be counted on the fingers of one
hand?

Sure, an F-22 on steroids may not go as far, but it will
overtake and kill anything slower. And, yes, I know that SSME
will eat up it's fuel in a couple of minutes. But a 2:1 thrust
to weight rapidly becoming a 3:1, then a 4:1, will generate
hypersonic speeds by the end of those couple of minutes.

Sure. I can see you've devoted a *lot* of thought to this whole
concept.

The F-22 on Steroids is probably one of the few ideas that could
possibly compete with that plane. Lockheed did a good job, a
very good job. In short, the only thing that could take out an
F-22 is another F-22, and the F-22 on Steroids (packing an SSME)
will probably win it.

Let me guess...in your next post you'll claim that Lockheed and
Boeing are cutting each other's throats trying to hire you.

Jim Davis

Jim Davis wrote:
tomcat wrote:

To you it may seem to be 'nonesense' because your training,
background, and experiences have lead you in a different
direction than mine.

Oh, yes. Yes, indeed. You have it precisely.

[ Yes, I am precise. ]

I am a former Navy Officer with jet fighter experience. I know
what thrust to weight means. I know what fighter planes can do.
I know how important speed is to destroy an enemy plane.

Riiiiiight.

[ You shouldn't have knocked this part because it is 'deadly' accurate.
]

You do realize, do you not, that rocket propelled fighters, became
extinct 50 years ago? And that the number of different designs that
entered service worldwide can be counted on the fingers of one
hand?

[ This is true but, sigh, they were beautiful things. ]


Sure, an F-22 on steroids may not go as far, but it will
overtake and kill anything slower. And, yes, I know that SSME
will eat up it's fuel in a couple of minutes. But a 2:1 thrust
to weight rapidly becoming a 3:1, then a 4:1, will generate
hypersonic speeds by the end of those couple of minutes.

Sure. I can see you've devoted a *lot* of thought to this whole
concept.

[ Aeronautical engineers spend a lot of time cutting the margin so thin
that sometimes it is less than nothing at all (catastrophic failure).
Get a good frame, put in good fuel tanks, and one heck of a powerful
engine and it will work everytime. -- Weakling engine, weakling plane.
]


The F-22 on Steroids is probably one of the few ideas that could
possibly compete with that plane. Lockheed did a good job, a
very good job. In short, the only thing that could take out an
F-22 is another F-22, and the F-22 on Steroids (packing an SSME)
will probably win it.

Let me guess...in your next post you'll claim that Lockheed and
Boeing are cutting each other's throats trying to hire you.

[ Nobody cares. I'd just as soon work for myself. ]


tomcat

"John Schilling" wrote

Why? I mean, you may think it's "pretty obvious", but I've pretty
explicitly argued that the CEV/LSAM would *not* be substantially heavier
than the CEV alone, on account of almost all of the functionality being
overlapped.

I might be wrong, but I'd appreciate the courtesy of not being dismissed
as "pretty obviously" wrong. What, specifically, makes the CEV/LSAM
heavier than the CEV alone, how much heavier does it make it, and how
do you come by that number?

I didn't mean to suggest that _you_ were pretty obviously wrong. What I
meant was (and I should have emphasized this in the text) that "*I* think
it's pretty obvious that any CEV that also serves as the LSAM is going to be
heavier than the currently envisioned CEV". It's my opinion - and I've been
wrong before (maybe more often than I am right). Let me think about this
some more...

Jon