🚀 go-pugleaf

I honestly can't believe I read Dr. Beter's (or whomever) entire post, but I
did... and I can hardly believe that I'm going to respond to the damned thing,
but here goes...

  I can only profess to be a fan of things aeronautical. I once wished to study
engineering, only to discover that I lack the ability to grasp higher math. 
Even so, I seem to have caught a few things that this 'doctor' has
overlooked...

   ...like the laws of physics...

  If there is anything to prove that this guy is an absolute fraud - not to
mention doomsayer - this is it:

>    The Enterprise is exactly like its sister ships in the crew
> compartment and cockpit.  What makes the Enterprise radically
> different is the cargo bay area.  The Enterprise cannot carry
> cargo because the bay area is taken up by rocket fuel tanks.  The
> tanks of the Enterprise can hold well over 100,000 pounds of
>                                            ^^^^^^^
> rocket fuel when fully loaded.  

  Hang on just a damn minute. Have you ever heard of a little inconvenience
which engineers call 'structural integrity'?  The Orbiter's *maxiumim*
payload weight is 65,000 pounds. Do you honestly believe that you can just
coax an airframe to carry 140% of its maximum?

  And while we're on this whole physics thing - liquid oxygen & hydrogen are
just a little lighter than say, lead. The Orbiter's payload bay is 15ft. by
15ft. by 60ft, or around 13,500 cubic feet. Hmmmm. 100,000 pounds of fuel into
13,500 cubic feet, minus waste space for the curvature of the tanks, cryogenic
cooling system (gotta keep the fuel cold while it's sitting on the back of that
747, which is trying desperately to climb to 40,000 feet with an overstuffed
Orbiter on its back), extra APU's and/or fuel cells to run the cooling
systems... wow, it's getting crowded in that payload bay. No, no, let me
guess... Geordi LaForge and Mr. Data came up with some nifty microminiature 
gadget to cram all that stuff into the available space.

>                          From the moment the engines shut off
> until the shuttle begins re-entering the atmosphere five or six
> minutes later, the astronauts inside are weightless.

  Have'nt you heard? NASA has used specially modified cargo aircraft for
short-duration weightlessness-simulation training for a great many years. It's 
much more cost effective than the $35 million-or-so-per-flight that this 
sub-orbital shuttle of yours would cost.

  I could go on for hours with this, but I don't see the point. It's like
beating a dying horse; it makes no sense, but I'm so mad, I just had to get my
shot in.  Even if it's a small one.

  If there's a war on, Doc, as you suggest, it's between people like you (who
did one too many hits of God-knows-what in college) and people like me, who get
really ticked off at the self-appointed prophets of our time.  

  You have the consolation of knowing that your theories can be shot down by a
kid with only a basic understanding of math and physics.

  In all fairness, you've got a reasonable degree of talent in writing, even if
it is fiction.  You also seem to have quite an imagination. May I respectfully 
suggest that you turn your abilites to writing romance novels?  At least you
could make some money, and have a believing audience...

  As for discovering the Truth, I'll get that at church, thanks.


Ty Willis  
Stephen F. Austin State University                
a_willisgt@ccsvax.sfasu.edu