|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Could this be a model for the United States?
We could do it because it is hard. We don't need to wimp out of every hard
challange. "Rand Simberg" wrote in message ink.net... Rodney Kelp wrote: We can pour billions and billions of dollars for war. We put billions on cosmetics. Now billions on statins. Is there no change left for the space program? What does that have to do with your contention that it's easy to build a mile-high frame? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.732 / Virus Database: 486 - Release Date: 7/29/2004 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Could this be a model for the United States?
Rodney Kelp wrote:
We could do it because it is hard. We don't need to wimp out of every hard challange. There are many foolish things that we can do, if the only goal is to do something "hard." We could also attempt to dig a hole to the center of the earth. Why is our failure to do so "wimping out"? |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Could this be a model for the United States?
Alain Fournier wrote:
We could do it because it is hard. We don't need to wimp out of every hard challange. There are many foolish things that we can do, if the only goal is to do something "hard." We could also attempt to dig a hole to the center of the earth. Why is our failure to do so "wimping out"? Hey, don't stop at the center of earth. I want a short cut to get to Australia :-) Maybe the Aussies will meet us halfway. They're probably looking for something hard, too. I'd like to see Rodney call them wimps. Especially that crocodile guy. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Could this be a model for the United States?
Rand Simberg wrote: Rodney Kelp wrote: We could do it because it is hard. We don't need to wimp out of every hard challange. There are many foolish things that we can do, if the only goal is to do something "hard." We could also attempt to dig a hole to the center of the earth. Why is our failure to do so "wimping out"? Hey, don't stop at the center of earth. I want a short cut to get to Australia :-) Alain Fournier |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Could this be a model for the United States?
We are trying to get to space not go down a hole.
"Rand Simberg" wrote in message ink.net... Rodney Kelp wrote: We could do it because it is hard. We don't need to wimp out of every hard challange. There are many foolish things that we can do, if the only goal is to do something "hard." We could also attempt to dig a hole to the center of the earth. Why is our failure to do so "wimping out"? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.732 / Virus Database: 486 - Release Date: 7/29/2004 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Could this be a model for the United States?
Come to think of it, a hole all the way through the earth might be a good
way to space. Firing a rocket downward would get great acceleration. If you came out the other end at mach 30.. never mind, you'd probably burn up on the way up. "Rand Simberg" wrote in message ink.net... Rodney Kelp wrote: We could do it because it is hard. We don't need to wimp out of every hard challange. There are many foolish things that we can do, if the only goal is to do something "hard." We could also attempt to dig a hole to the center of the earth. Why is our failure to do so "wimping out"? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.732 / Virus Database: 486 - Release Date: 7/29/2004 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Could this be a model for the United States?
Rodney Kelp wrote:
We are trying to get to space not go down a hole. "Rand Simberg" wrote in message ink.net... Rodney Kelp wrote: We could do it because it is hard. We don't need to wimp out of every hard challange. Stop top posting. If the goal is to get to space, then sensible person would choose the easiest means of doing that, not the hardest. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Could this be a model for the United States?
Joann Evans wrote:
Come to think of it, a hole all the way through the earth might be a good way to space. Firing a rocket downward would get great acceleration. If you came out the other end at mach 30.. never mind, you'd probably burn up on the way up. Well, ignoring what Earht's internal heat would do, and pretending this tube is a vacuum, you'd still lose whatever you gained after you passed though the center. You're going 'uphill' after that. Earth's rotation complicates things even more, unless this path coencides with Earth's axis... Joanne, forget it. Rodney (if that's his real name) is clearly innocent of the laws of physics. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Could this be a model for the United States?
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
the Star Wars club is growing | jjustwwondering | Policy | 61 | July 30th 04 10:05 PM |
National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982) | Stuf4 | Space Shuttle | 150 | July 28th 04 07:30 AM |
National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982) | Stuf4 | Policy | 145 | July 28th 04 07:30 AM |
Moon key to space future? | James White | Policy | 90 | January 6th 04 05:29 PM |
Talk to Congress about Commercial Human Spaceflight | Edward Wright | Policy | 16 | October 14th 03 12:20 AM |