XPost: sci.space.shuttle, sci.space.history, rec.aviation.military   
   From: keithnospam@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk   
      
   "tomcat"  wrote in message   
   news:1139620100.837895.302360@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...   
   >   
   > delt0r wrote:   
   >> Assuming that you are asking "why not the NASP".....   
   >>   
   >> What is about aircraft that fly in a atmosphere that make people that   
   >> they are anygood for a space craft?   
   >>   
   >> Wings are not a good thing when there is no air or your going kinda   
   >> fast, eps if your on a budget and don't need cross range.   
   >>   
   >> Non wing based SSTO or any other kind of xxTO  will be cheaper and   
   >> easier than a winged one.   
   >> We are not flying... we'er orbiting.   
   >>   
   >> All IMHO of course (or IMO if you prefer)   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   > Wings use air to gain an advantage on gravity.  Therefore, they can   
   > reach the airless void using less energy than a vertical tublular   
   > rocket.   
      
   By definition wings cannot reach 'the airless void as they need air   
   to function'   
      
      
      
   > The proof that wings gain an advantage is that a bomber can reach   
   > 20,000 feet and stay there for the hours it takes to reach target and   
   > return on 1/10th of the thrust to weight ratio that a vertical tubular   
   > rocket requires just to slowly leave the launch pad.   
   >   
      
   Of course an ICBM gets to its target in minutes rather than hours   
   which may be rather significant   
      
   > Air molecules are compressed by gravity and that compression gives lift   
   > with a properly designed airfoil.   
   >   
      
   Oh dear you dont understand aerodynamics do you ?   
      
   > In short, you have to get from here to orbit and the best method is a   
   > winged or waverider vehicle.   
      
   Wings dont work in vacuum remember ?   
      
      
      
   The airfoil vehicle, however, is more   
   > difficult to design than a vertical tubular rocket.  So, NASA opted for   
   > a vertical tubular replacement for the Shuttle which will require a   
   > Capsule Parachute landing.  Launching such a rocket in the year 2012   
   > may prove embarrassing.   
   >   
   > Today, however, a waverider design shouldn't be all that difficult with   
   > the knowledge and materials base that exists in 2006.   
      
   Says someone who clearly has no clue.   
      
   Keith   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)