New Mars Forums

Thank you for saying what i was trying to say before 

VTOLs, like mark said, are good for cargo, not people.  I think their usefulness in orbital travel will be somewhat diminished by a space elevator, but nevertheless, an elevator is 10-20 years off.

HTOL is viable now, but more difficult.  I think we should develop both types of SSTO, like mark was saying.  HTOL will only reach its full potential when they can fly without assistance...an NTR based SSTO could fit that bill.

You cant compare VTOLs to RLV's.  You can compare HTOLs to airplanes.

A spaceplane is a natural progression of the airplane.  Just because it isnt carrying people to the ISS or wherever, doesnt make it any less of a RLV.  What is an airplane but a sub-orbital RLV?

Like I said, for a number of reasons, I think HTOL would be better.  It might be more difficult in terms of engineering, but it would be more beneficial in the long run, imho.

I will concede that if we can develop VTOL SSTO's in the short term, they would help accelerate our space program and further SSTO development-but I think that HTOL is the better choice in the end.

i think the problem is the higher end ms members think that public advertising would corrupt their scientific intentions.  However, these scientific goals would be greatly furthered by money and interest brought by PR.

correct me if im wrong about ms, please 

it would be really easy to advertise...Science Magazine, Popular Science, Discover, New York Times, etc.  These are all popular media with a lot of readers, and a lot of potential.  TV adds that air during shows like Bill O'Reilly, while somewhat expensive, would be a huge boost.  It is important to aim for the peak times and pages in media, because they will return more for the money...a shorter advertising campaign, maybe a week, of commercials, and sustained magazine ads, can generate huge interest.

I remember now.  The income tax began in preparation for WW1.  The government needed money, and it was intended to be temporary.  It was, I believe, a 1% tax.

But the Constitution was not intended to be completely set in stone.  Certain parts are taboo, yes, and they should be fixed as soon as Bush leaves office, but other parts can be changed.  Amendments have been repealed by other amendments.

I saw an article in a magazine about the next genration RLV.  If the tanks could be designed so that they were part of the body, or on the wings, etc, so that you could land with them, it would be a big boost. 

i also saw one concept that used a delta IV as the body, but i dont like that as much...too big, too cumbersome.  i really believe we can make a spaceplane.  after all, look at the blackbird.  what was the ceiling of that plane?

yeah yeah, that was a typo. 

But you still havent addressed: we've made VTOL aircraft, so why arent they used?

The problem is our economy is now based largely on that income tax.  cutting that would destroy our government, and maybe our economy.

it would take 5 years to a decade to recover.  unless you have an economic plan?

I was talking about the average person.  And i wasnt saying that taste doesnt play a role, but youre going to tell me you drink alcohol for the taste?

If i wanted, i could drink as much as i want, i only drink when im at parties.  even then, im pretty well controlled.

did you know a kid can smoke a cigarette, but he cant buy one?  i find it rather ironic.  Smoking is disgusting, though.

When every respected scientist in the field says it doesnt work, i wouldnt trust bush or rumsfeld to decide that it does, so they can spend $200 billion in pork money, that would be better used in building something that will work.

1. A $1.2 trillion tax cut that did little for the economy, but a lot for votes and the pockets of the rich.

2. Perpetuating the war mentality by finding new targets.  Everyone knows the war increases a presidents ratings to the 80%-90% range, no matter how bad they are domestically.  Why didnt Bush take out bin Laden in tora bora when he had the chance?  Obviously it has nothing to do with comitting the money or manpower-$100 billion in iraq and many thousands of troops puts the lie to that.  Finish our real war first.

3. Stock dividend cuts.  Lining the pockets of the rich.

4. Having his brother "assist" him, to put it lightly, in the florida election.  Catherine Harris had a very large conflict of interest, not in the least indicated by her numerous days off given by Jeb during the Florida election.

5. Standing on the WTC site, promising funds to New York City, which our senators had to fight very hard to make sure that we would eventually get.  We still have only seen about $4 billion out of $20 billion, and even that amount had to be pried from the administrations hands.

6. Why was enron the only energy company at the government energy plan meetings?  And why are the meetings shrouded in secret?  If the public has the right to know anything, it's what goes on between the politicians and lobbyists.

I could really keep going, but I dont feel its necessary.

Wouldnt you?

A politically motivated pig is someone who does everything for his image.  this is not jesse jackson. 

but i dont see you calling bush a politically motivated pig, when everything he does is lighter on substance than it is on politics.