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

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

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? And $94 million is not
the cost to build this craft, but the cost of an individual launch,
meaning it's in a similar cost range to many conventional rocket
platforms.

On Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:39:56 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? And $94 million is not
the cost to build this craft, but the cost of an individual launch,
meaning it's in a similar cost range to many conventional rocket
platforms.

You believe it if you want to, but no individual company has the ability to build such a craft without BILLIONS in subsidies from governments. I'll believe it more when they have at least one major component (like the engines) built and not as a crude rendering on computer screen.

On Tue, 6 Jan 2015 17:36:25 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

You believe it if you want to, but no individual company has the ability to build such a craft without BILLIONS in subsidies from governments. I'll believe it more when they have at least one major component (like the engines) built and not as a crude rendering on computer screen.

Who is to say that billions haven't been invested in this? Or will be?

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??

On Wednesday, January 7, 2015 1:10:35 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 6 Jan 2015 17:36:25 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

You believe it if you want to, but no individual company has the ability to build such a craft without BILLIONS in subsidies from governments. I'll believe it more when they have at least one major component (like the engines) built and not as a crude rendering on computer screen.

Who is to say that billions haven't been invested in this? Or will be?

Subsidies from a government are not the same thing as investments by investors.

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.

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.

On Thu, 8 Jan 2015 03:10:35 -0800 (PST), wrote:

Subsidies from a government are not the same thing as investments by investors.

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

On Thu, 8 Jan 2015 02:57:32 -0800 (PST), wrote:

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??

It was the non-sequitur of the comparison itself that I was really
getting at...