[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
starship-design: NASA Space arcitecture study
- To: email@example.com, Sdudley6@aol.com, MARK.A.JENSEN@cpmx.saic.com, DTaylor648@aol.com, JohnFrance@aol.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, DotarSojat@aol.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, RICKJ@btio.com, Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl
- Subject: starship-design: NASA Space arcitecture study
- From: KellySt@aol.com
- Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 18:57:59 EDT
- Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
- Sender: email@example.com
I assume you have the latest space access update (#84). They are pissed.
good ol boys in NASA ruling. But check out the NASA space arc study papers.
Most are old hat. Boeing suggests NASA keep shuttles going until at least
2020 (Boeing has all the ground support contracts). Kistler and orbital have
their bits. But space access's paper is cool.
I'm surprised NASA would even carry it on their site. It off handedly talks
about replacing all shuttle ops in under ten years with a system costing
1/10th as much as shuttle. It details their current stats and stuff. Why
they intend to use FAA flight certification standards for their craft,
especially its flight reliability standards, etc.
I'm not kidding I'm surprised NASA would even carry it on their site. I know
they will slander them any chance they get, but just giving them visibility
is a political risk to NASA. Maybe they are just to overconfident.