home bbs files messages ]

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