Article View: sci.space
Article #6652Re: SSTO vs 2 stage
From: Paul Dietz
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 01:51
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 01:51
19 lines
1214 bytes
1214 bytes
In article <ewright.725755862@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes: >>chemical rocket propulsion, for rather fundamental reasons. It is >>therefore not inconceivable that multistage launchers would be >>appropriate even though multistage aircraft are not. >I didn't ask if you could say "It is not inconceivable." I asked >if you could prove it. No, what you did was deride a careful and thoughtful analysis by Bruce Dunn by offering a strained analogy between aircraft and spacecraft. I merely pointed out your analogy was flawed. Since Bruce was the one who posted the quantitative argument, it seems to me that it is incumbent on *you* to offer concrete evidence why he is wrong. Paul
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1992Dec31.015157.14864@cs.rochester.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!rochester!dietzReferences:
<ewright.725734633@convex.convex.com> <1992Dec30.180058.28938@cs.rochester.edu> <ewright.725755862@convex.convex.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!rochester!dietz From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: SSTO vs 2 stage Message-ID: <1992Dec31.015157.14864@cs.rochester.edu> Date: 31 Dec 92 01:51:57 GMT References: <ewright.725734633@convex.convex.com> <1992Dec30.180058.28938@cs.rochester.edu> <ewright.725755862@convex.convex.com> Distribution: sci Organization: University of Rochester Lines: 19