🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <23.Jan.89.14:10:19.GMT.ZZASSGL@UK.AC.UMRCC.CMS> ZZASSGL@cms.umrcc.ac.uk ("Geoff. Lane. Tel UK-061 275 6051") writes:
>It pleases a middle-aged Brit's heart good to see so much interest in
>the Concorde as its one of the few projects that a British government did
>not chicken out of as the price exceeded hopelessly under-estimated
>development costs.  Despite the high price per aircraft the research
>work that had to be done was used elsewhere and probably would have had
>to be done in any case.
>
>Right - now some space - Both the American and British Governments have
>made some vague noises about very fast and very high altitude jet/rocket
>craft at various times.  It seems to me that such projects are the ONLY

Not quite. The British government made some very specific
noises about jet/rocket craft.

No immediate profits: no money.

The government representative at the ESA meeting at the end
of last year had much the same attitude. Heavy criticism for
ESA because the proposed plans do not mention how the
proposed activities can be made to return a profit.

The only reason Britain is puting money into the Columbus
module for the space station is because advisors have
decided that the remote observation data obtained from the
polar platforms can be made profitable.

And Hotol? Alan Bond, the designer, tried to put together a
rescue package from private investors, late last year after
the Government had dropped the project. The deal fell
through, Bond says, because Rolls Royce don't want the
engine developed, and wouldn't release their patents.

Alan Bond is back working for the UK Atomic Energy
Authority and says "My involvement with Hotol is finished;
there is nothing more I can do".

Rolls Royce meanwhile are to have talks with the people
developing the NASP for the US airforce and Navy to see if
there are any "areas of common interest".
	Bob.