Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Well (Score 1) 594

That would all make sense if we didn't already know how to get into space.

I don't know if you've notice, but we do. We don't need to take baby steps to get there, we can already go. This isn't a scheme to figure out how to get into space, it's a thrill ride for rich people.

The people who are actually trying to get into space aren't doing anything like this. They are building things that actually go into space.

Comment Re: Well (Score 1) 594

More energy, yes. And more energy means more fuel. More fuel means more mass. More mass means even more energy. And so on. To scale up to the point where you can actually reach orbit will require a vastly different design, far bigger and heavier. And at that point, what you learned from the SpaceShipTwo no longer really applies much.

Comment Re: Well (Score 1) 594

Like the other guy says, reaching orbit is hard. We're not going to suddenly have a miraculous development that gives us super-powerful engines that makes it possible for something like the SpaceShipTwo to reach it. And if we did, anything the SpaceShipTwo had learned would pale into utter insignificance compared to the massive possibilities of that miracle engine.

Comment Re:Well (Score 1) 594

Since Lindbergh didn't use a jet your analogy makes no sense.

Not really. I'm saying we have rockets that can actually take us into space right now, and we've had them for a long time. The SpaceShipTwo is nowhere near in their league, and saying that we can learn something about going into space from the puny little ship that can't do it, rather than from the ones we've been sending up there for over half a century, is about as ludicrous as saying that we would learn something useful for commercial airliners by flying a propeller plane over the Atlantic.

Slashdot Top Deals

1 + 1 = 3, for large values of 1.

Working...