From: Technotranscendence (neptune@mars.superlink.net)
Date: Wed Jun 23 1999 - 22:34:18 MDT
I really don't have a problem with this.
Sure, I'd like to see some exotic technology in action -- as probably most
of you on this list would. BUT if it was my money I'd probably not try to
reinvent the wheel. As far as space commercialization and privatization
(and eventual colonization) are concerned, I think what works works. We
should not wed ourselves, even if just emotionally, to any particular launch
technology.
Cheers!
Daniel Ust
On Wednesday, June 23, 1999 7:41 AM S.J. Van Sickle <sjvan@csd.uwm.edu>
wrote:
>News at Rotary Rocket:
>
>http://www.rotaryrocket.com/hot/hot.html
>
>Seems they are switching to conventional engines (derived from NASA's
>Fastrak) for at least the initial vehicles. My bet is that they are going
>to use the Fastracks turbine's, but their own thrust chambers (or
>something similar). But it seems to be making their potential investors
>and customers happy (lower perceived risk). They claim to have $900
>million dollars in orders over the next 10 years, so they may yet be able
>to dig up the money to build the bird.
>
>Too bad. It won't be quite the complete "screw you" to NASA and the
>conventional space industry it would have been with the rotary engine.
>But it will still be a damn site better than anything else out there, and
>Rotary is after all a business, not a political statement. That's NASA's
>job.
>
>steve
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:04:16 MST