Re: starship-design: Re: X15 space plane

[KellySt@aol.com]

Yeah more scary, now a days we don't even have the nery to try to do what we 
once did.

:(

As to 747s.  They are not airtight, and are structurally completly wrong for 
reentry.  It would be like converting a sail boat to be a hydroplane racer.



In a message dated 9/18/03 4:51:28 PM, clmanges@yahoo.com writes:

>Thanks, Kelly, for a marvelous illustration of how far we haven't progressed
>from such promising beginnings. I see this kind of thing a lot; the other
>day I saw a Studebaker Avanti on the street, and I think those had some
>features that are still ahead of our time (though I can't recall what those
>were, sorry). Think about this, though -- 
> 
>a 747, (or any modern jet) rebuilt for the rigors of reentry. It's cabin
>is already capable of withstanding vacuum; we just need to reshape the
>wings and give it appropriate engines. I don't know if you could make it
>fly from ground to orbit, but with that kind of capacity, who cares? Stick
>some boosters on it and save the in-flight meal for after the movie. The
>thing I'm pointing up here is how much of the needed stuff we already have
>in everyday use.
> 
>what think ye?
> 
>keep looking up,
> 
>Curtis
>
>KellySt@aol.com wrote:
>
>OK, I'm losing it. I heard one to many folks involved with NASA new OSP
>
>(Orbital Space Plane - a program to build a winged manned upper stage craft
>to 
>taxi people to orbit -- effectively the space station) program, state 
>emphatically that it was impossible. One winner Prof from Florida stated
>that it would 
>take 15-20 years to develop the technology to build space planes. 
>
>Much of the statements are pretty blatantly misleading, other ridiculously
>
>uninformed.
>
>Just to calculate how BAD NASA is doing with its assumption that a winged
>space plane could not be developed, I decided to go back a half century
>and
>see what a X-15 could do. 
>
>http://www.astronautix.com/craft/x15a.htm