[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Re: The future...etc.

At 5:47 PM 3/18/96, DotarSojat@aol.com wrote:
>Kelly and some unidentified person he quotes on 3/17/96 at
>11:02 am (I plan someday to be able to decipher your quotes)
>say that it is "frustrating being stuck in the 1990s while
>trying to design a ship whose technology is really at least
>100 years beyond our reach."
>What would you think about modifying the purpose of the Project
>slightly?  In a Reusable Launch Vehicle Study I ran 30 years
>ago (my, how time flies!), we had a purpose you might consider
>for this Project.  The purpose was (paraphrased, because the
>Report is in my office 26 miles away, and I don't plan on
>going in there in the near future) (1) to make an internally
>consistent comparison of the different options, with conceptual
>design only in enough detail to allow rating them regarding
>feasibility and cost, and (2) to determine the advancements in
>technology in relation to current levels required to make them
>achievable. ---

Thats a couple of twisted sentences.  Dave was interested in a space
development section to complement the starship design section.  Though
launchers near term seem to have settled on the SSTO as bets choice, a
comparison could be interesting.

Humm, but then that topic gets a lot of coverage already.

Oh, did I send you a copy of my fusion shuttle idea?  I suppose the old
Explorer page would covered it.

>--- While that study mainly considered options
>consistent with a decision to develop the Space Shuttle only
>five years hence (which we didn't know at that time), it spent
>a lot of time examining the competitive standing and techno-
>logical requirements for scramjets (aka "the Aerospaceplane"),
>which may still be decades in the future today.

Humm, I helped write a mission studies paper on NASP when I was at JSC.
Had a few contacxts in the McDonnel Douglas NASP program until it started
to fold up a few years back.

>Such a comparative study could be a guide to steer future
>efforts away from the losers, but mainly would provide the
>"mission push" to support advancement in the key technologies.
>P.S. To David: While the Interstellar Propulsion Society may
>provide a forum to publish sophisticated technical papers, I
>view the LIT/SSD as a forum to stimulate and shape the minds
>of the emerging generation, who will be around to accomplish
>the goals.  I would rather participate in stimulating enthus-
>iasm than in deferring to existing authority.  It's a lot
>more rewarding to figure how it should be done than to con-
>tribute to extending the status quo.  It's better to be part
>of an organization where what you say is more important than
>how you say it.  I could go on and on...                   -Rex

IPS does seem like a refernce forum of papers (to be added later) rather
than a discussion forum.  That was one big advantage LITs newsletters gave
it.  The ability to participate hands on without a couple PhDs.



Kelly Starks                       Internet: kgstar@most.fw.hac.com
Sr. Systems Engineer
Magnavox Electronic Systems Company
(Magnavox URL: http://www.fw.hac.com/external.html)