🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <477@eplrx7.UUCP> lad@eplrx7.UUCP (Lawrence Dziegielewski) writes:
>In article <8583@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>> Quite true:  they have *no* launch systems that are grounded for 2+1/2
>> years after a single failure.  After the last Proton failure, the delay
>
>The shuttle was grounded for a good reason,  and when it flies again I'd
>send my own grandmother up on one,  with me sitting right next to her.

Sorry, there is no room for your grandmother or you.  There is no room
for new comercial satellites, not enough room to put up the space station,
no room for Galileo, no room for Mars Observer.  We've got only a few
shuttles and it takes a long time to get them ready.  I doubt that your
Grandmother could afford to go up on the shuttle, Proton is much cheaper.

>> on the Soviet program, there is an Energia with a shuttle on its back on
>> the pad at Baikonur as we speak.  (Doesn't mean a launch will happen soon,
>> 
>
>So?  When will it fly.  Others beleive the Russian Shuttle is a mockup,  a
>non-working hoax.  I think you're years away from a launch.  Years.

Why do you think that?  Are the Russians too primitive to create a zippy
machine?  Remember that shuttle technology is designed for high efficiency,
light weight, and high financial return to the main contractors.  When
you have a booster that can put up a hundred tonnes or so (I don't know
the exact number) and when the company financing the launch is the
same as the company building the machine (and has almost unlimited
free labor) these considerations fall by the wayside.

		David Palmer
		palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu
		...rutgers!cit-vax!tybalt.caltech.edu!palmer
	The opinions expressed are those of an 8000 year old Atlantuan
	priestess named Mrla, and not necessarily those of her channel.