From: g_d_pusch_remove_underscores@xnet.com   
      
   navigaiter2002@aol.comSpamsuX.retro.com (Allen Meece) writes:   
      
   > <<> risky. Seperate subsonically (with existing 'first stage' aircraft, if   
   > > possible) at the highest altitude practical, to minimize drag and engine   
   > > expansion issues for your orbiter.>>   
   > Yes, this is doubtlessly the best way to begin an air launch program.  It's   
   > cheaper and faster than developing a high performance PDE launcher aircraft   
   as   
   > well as a Dyna-Soar type of spacecraft.   
   >    And the moon ship must be lifting body, not a milk jug or the whole   
   project   
   > is a waste of money as far as developing CATS is concerned.   
      
   Your last statement is simply absurd. Moon ships need to be "aerodynamic"   
   like fish need bicycles. The vehicle required for cheap _ACCESS_ to space   
   need not and _should_ not be "one vehicle to meet all missions," and if one   
   attempts to do so, one will be left with a hopeless un-economic _KLUDGE_ ---   
   very much like the Space Scuttle.   
      
   One needs at a minimum _two_ vehicle designs: One optimized for Earth-to-LEO,   
   and one optimized as an orbit-to-orbit tug --- and even if you give said tug   
   "aerobraking capability," a lifting-body is NOT, repeat, =NOT= the optimum   
   design for said tug!   
      
      
   -- Gordon D. Pusch   
      
   perl -e '$_ = "gdpusch\@NO.xnet.SPAM.com\n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;'   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)