Skip to comments.
Does the planet need this venture?
Nashua Telegraph ^
| 07/07/07
Posted on 07/07/2007 1:38:46 PM PDT by KevinDavis
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-38 last
To: kingu
Why doesn’t the author and all the others who are scared to death of the climate call Dr. Kervorkian? It would greatly lessen the stress on the planet.
21
posted on
07/07/2007 3:05:15 PM PDT
by
Moonman62
(The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
To: kinoxi
“I was wondering why NASA doesnt fund this...”
Funding to develop electromagnetic propulsion would be minimal. It is the stuff that powers the “saucers” affectionately referred to as UFO’s.
One of my friend’s engineers built a model “saucer” powered in this manner. He was flying it and it got away from him - crashed some miles away - created a bit of a stir.
To: GGpaX4DumpedTea
I was referring to the rifled method. Virtually identical to numerous trains now in existence just powered and aimed a different way.
23
posted on
07/07/2007 3:35:51 PM PDT
by
kinoxi
To: KevinDavis
These guys really are reaching, aren’t they? :p
To: kinoxi; KevinDavis
Is there some fundamental issue that makes it unworkable? Yes.
25
posted on
07/07/2007 4:34:59 PM PDT
by
Erasmus
(My simplifying explanation had the disconcerting side effect of making the subject incomprehensible.)
To: Erasmus
26
posted on
07/07/2007 4:55:19 PM PDT
by
kinoxi
To: kinoxi
First, let me ask this: Are you thinking of an electromagnetic catapult, or something more science-fictional?
27
posted on
07/07/2007 4:57:33 PM PDT
by
Erasmus
(My simplifying explanation had the disconcerting side effect of making the subject incomprehensible.)
To: Erasmus
A scaled up version of what is already in use. The maglev. What are you referring to?
28
posted on
07/07/2007 5:04:00 PM PDT
by
kinoxi
To: KevinDavis
I don’t understand why the author of this piece is upset. If wealthy people want to spend their own money to head out into sapce, why should anyone care?
29
posted on
07/07/2007 7:49:49 PM PDT
by
SuziQ
To: AdmSmith; Berosus; Convert from ECUSA; dervish; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Fred Nerks; KlueLass; ...
“fat cats”?
IOW, the article was written by an unreconstructed hippie loser. :’)
30
posted on
07/07/2007 9:07:13 PM PDT
by
SunkenCiv
(This tagline optimized for the Mosaic browser. Profile updated Friday, July 6, 2007.)
To: kinoxi
OK. I just wanted to make sure we were talking about a catapult: That is, a payload that doesn't have propulsion of its own (other than maneuvering rockets); it gets all of its kinetic energy from the catapult.
Now, to put something in orbit you have to get it going at around 17,000 MPH, and it has to have that speed at an altitude of at least 100 miles.
This means that you have to get something going way over 17 KMPH by the the end of your catapult.
But the top end of your catapult is still deep within our atmosphere. Even if it's at the top of Mt. Everest, it's still deep within our atmosphere.
Nobody knows how to get anything up to 20+ KMPH deep within our atmosphere and have it survive. It's going to be a meteorite in reverse.
And of course, you'll have to give it accelerations of hundreds of G's, which means it will have to be mighty damn structurally sturdy, and of course living cargos are right out.
If, instead of a catapult, you're talking about any kind of non-chemical-rocket propulsion that can lift tons or more within the atmosphere, then you're still, unfortunately, talking science fiction.
31
posted on
07/07/2007 11:40:26 PM PDT
by
Erasmus
(My simplifying explanation had the disconcerting side effect of making the subject incomprehensible.)
To: Erasmus
Difficulties are worked around. We are humans, we cant help it.
32
posted on
07/07/2007 11:47:21 PM PDT
by
kinoxi
To: SuziQ; All
The basic attitude of this article is if I can’t go into space no one else should....
33
posted on
07/08/2007 5:43:44 AM PDT
by
KevinDavis
(Mitt Romney 08)
To: kingu
Wahhh... Im not given this for free, so is it really something the planet needs? Were Al Gore going up, of course, nothing would be said. Think of the pounds hed have to shed though, to offset the carbon footprint of his launch. If they stuffed him into the rocket motor before they fired it, I feel certain that the Earth would enjoy a net benefit from the pollution.
34
posted on
07/08/2007 5:16:27 PM PDT
by
sig226
(Every time I hit spell check, the fishies got all messed up. 'Bye fishies . . .)
To: kinoxi
You mean Loftstrom’s Loop? As it appears on his webpage, the design still seems unworkable due to its size and complexity. Even if he did get the machine to work, the cost can’t possibly be worth it.
35
posted on
07/08/2007 5:48:15 PM PDT
by
sig226
(Every time I hit spell check, the fishies got all messed up. 'Bye fishies . . .)
To: KevinDavis; MacDorcha
Thanks for these articles, Kevin. Mac, pinging you to these ‘cuz I said I would.
36
posted on
07/09/2007 4:41:23 AM PDT
by
EarthBound
(Ex Deo,gratia. Ex astris,scientia (Duncan Hunter in 2008! http://www.gohunter08.com))
To: EarthBound
37
posted on
07/09/2007 12:26:18 PM PDT
by
MacDorcha
(<---NERD!)
To: cripplecreek
Gotta love the so called progressives who are all for anything that opposes actual progress. The only "progress" that interests a "progressive" is "progress" away from time-tested morality and any concept of accountability for choices.
38
posted on
07/09/2007 12:32:47 PM PDT
by
TChris
(The Republican Party is merely the Democrat Party's "away" jersey - Vox Day)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-38 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson