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

Re: Re: The future...etc.

At 4:40 PM 5/15/96, Zenon Kulpa wrote:
>> From kgstar@most.fw.hac.com Wed May 15 16:18:57 1996
>> Did we ever discus this idea?  Any interest?
>> Kelly
>> >Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 17:47:57 -0500
>> >From: DotarSojat@aol.com
>> >
>> >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.
>> >
>My proposal to compile a "Design Space" survey,
>was directed roughly toward the same goal, esp. the point (1) above,
>in addition to provide a sort of summary of our
>previous discussions and achievements.
>After my first, very fragmentaric sketch,
>Kelly attempted to write an extended version
>which he posted on our list and put on his WWW pages.
>However, his version is more like his personal opinion
>on certain issues (some of them quite controversial
>among us here) rather than impartial summary
>of the discussions or awailable options.
>It (like my sketch) also does not cover the full "design space" anyway.
>Thus more work towards the Design Space idea
>would be necessary. If only I had more time :-(
>I would attempt to prepare my extended version of it,
>or at least comment extensively on Kelly's...

Yeah, I was expecting more reaction or counter inputs to my draft of the
Web page stuff.  I even brought up the idea of cross referncing to peoples
'minority opinion papers' on contraversial stuff.  I tried to be balenced,
but that doesn't help much if their are basic contradictions.

>As to the point (2) above, we also briefly started
>something along this line - remember short discussion
>originated by me on technological progress
>in propulsion, AI and nanotechnology necessary
>to make the starship idea workable?
>So, generally, I am FOR making the Dotar idea
>a central issue of our work here...
>-- Zenon



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