Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    sci.space.policy    |    Discussions about space policy    |    106,651 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 105,411 of 106,651    |
|    Douglas Eagleson to Douglas Eagleson    |
|    Re: Starship for military transport on E    |
|    08 Jun 21 10:14:25    |
      From: eaglesondouglas@gmail.com              On Friday, June 4, 2021 at 3:48:55 PM UTC-4, Douglas Eagleson wrote:       > On Friday, June 4, 2021 at 3:06:56 PM UTC-4, JF Mezei wrote:       > > On 2021-06-04 14:58, Douglas Eagleson wrote:       > >       > > > Delivery of a few battlefield nukes, say 100tons can eliminate       > > > logistical delay. An evolving conflict can quickly occur any where       > > > on the earth.       > > Current starships may appear to be glorified grain silos built at low       > > cost in one aftermoon, but the finished product is likely going to be       > > fairly costly and more complex inside and not sure it would be afforable       > > as a disposable vehicle to launch a bomb and then targhet another site       > > to be a bomb.       > >       > > One possibility could be the military buying "almost expired" Starships       > > with one or two flights left in them to be used as disposable bomb       droppers.       > >       > > Remains to be seen how many times a starship would be re-usable. 10? 100?       > >       > > Would refurbishing one end up costlier than hjust building a new one?       > Starships are just ICBMs. Battle front theory includes the need for precision       > impact, but man placed nukes are another part of theory.       >       > I vote for a new dual use SST. The swing wing B-1 bomber allows       > slow speeds. I don't know if swing wing's are still in the works.       > The old F-104 had none, it has a wing area to weight ratio on the low end.       > I send a note to an open request for aircraft issues in general.       > I recommended the use of auto-extending wing leading edge stall       > slats on a revived F-104.       >       > These slats can maybe allow a non swing wing SST. I am not sure if the       > an auto-slat can be easily added to a variable angle leading edge. The       > slat could be termed a reduction in leading edge air separation.       i looked at the Boom sst ordered by united airlines. I could not see any       leading edge flaps> not sure of correct term.              Meaning leading edge stall slats would be most advantages. forward visibility       uses cameras on landing?              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca