Community > Forum > The Spaceflight Cafe > Aircraft Carrier for sale

Aircraft Carrier for sale

Posted by: TJ - Sat Jun 12, 2004 6:24 pm
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.
 [ 34 posts ] 
Aircraft Carrier for sale 
Author Message
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2003 9:22 pm
Posts: 843
Location: New York, NY
Post    Posted on: Tue Jun 15, 2004 7:25 pm
well, if you use armadillo-type ships, you ought to be able to take off from a fairly small (helicopter sized) pad, then land on that same pad and repeat as needed.

_________________
Cornell 2010- Applied and Engineering Physics

Software Developer

Also, check out my fractals


Back to top
Profile
Space Walker
Space Walker
avatar
Joined: Tue May 18, 2004 4:25 pm
Posts: 122
Post    Posted on: Tue Jun 15, 2004 11:06 pm
now i realize why this forum is so small

goodbye and take care all, best of luck and enjoy 21th :D


p.s. i'll turn off e-mail notification on my way out, but if the moderators want to they are welcome to delete all my posts and my account here (it would best to delete both imo - deleting just the posts or just the account seems weird)


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Participant
Spaceflight Participant
avatar
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 3:38 pm
Posts: 90
Location: UK
Post    Posted on: Tue Jun 15, 2004 11:54 pm
it seems weird taking off my last post and not the other off topic one's, Sigurd. The last one was explaining what I said and now it's not there. You may as well take out all my off topic one's.

Edit: In fact, if people are allowed to make unfounded statements that insult people yet a counter arguement that does have a grounding isn't ok, you may as well take of all my previous posts on this forum! I simply wont express any opinion what so ever, that make everyone happy?

n54, being a bit hypocritical aren't we?


Last edited by Nova on Wed Jun 16, 2004 6:09 am, edited 3 times in total.



Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2004 8:21 pm
Posts: 297
Location: LI/NY - currently
Post    Posted on: Wed Jun 16, 2004 12:50 am
Nova wrote:
Perhaps it was a little harsh but that statement I quoted was just so arrogant, I had to say it because of of that.


Excuse me :?: seems like you did not understand what I was saying if you believe that to be an arrogant statement.


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Participant
Spaceflight Participant
avatar
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 3:38 pm
Posts: 90
Location: UK
Post    Posted on: Wed Jun 16, 2004 12:55 am
We've already left this issue, Sigurd deleted some posts on this topic so there's conversation thats been missed. Thats why I've asked Sigurd to delete the rest of my posts.


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2004 8:21 pm
Posts: 297
Location: LI/NY - currently
Post    Posted on: Wed Jun 16, 2004 1:07 am
My apologies then, it seemed you were refering to my statement about the insane military spendiing.


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Participant
Spaceflight Participant
avatar
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 3:38 pm
Posts: 90
Location: UK
Post    Posted on: Wed Jun 16, 2004 1:12 am
Well actually i did feel that that statement did SOUND quite arrogant and that was the statement I was talking about. The jist of it seemed to be implying that other countries should not bother trying to beef up their militaries compared to America's. please tell me that you meant ALL governments should reduce their weapons.

Ps: Sigurd, you still might as well delete my posts.


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2004 8:21 pm
Posts: 297
Location: LI/NY - currently
Post    Posted on: Wed Jun 16, 2004 1:48 am
Well to be honest I was thinking more along the lines of the hundreds of billions of dollars the US spends on it's military each year. I'm not sure if its 350 billion, 400 billion or 450 billion anymore but as much as I love stuff like the F-22 Raptor and things like the ABL it certainly seems more than a little excessive. After all unless those paranoid conspiracy nuts are right when they talk about how Russia is BS'ing about disarming the cold war is over and military spending should be scaled back a bit. The whole aircraft carrier bit is a perfect example. The US has something like 12 full size carriers (Although I think that two of them are undergoing overhauls right now). In comparison the only comparable ships floating out there owned by other countries are the one French carrier and the one Russian carrier. Both of which have roughly between 1/2 to 2/3 of the fighter craft onboard than the US carriers and about half or less the number of people. To top that off the US has a continous production line going for carriers, granted it only produces one every five years or so but it doesn't stop. Most of the other countries that have carriers are more in line with what the US considers amphibious assualt vessels. the UK and Italy are the leaders in that area with about a half dozen each, which is pretty much equal to the full dozen the US has running right now. As impressive as that is it's simply a bit over the top and in these days of unconvential threats and financial uncertainty seems to be down right foolhardy. If you want to perceive that original statement as being an arrogant criticism of other countries military spending I hope this clears it up a bit. Although anyone out there trying to compete with the US in this manner is just as foolish in my opinion. This is just another form of government waste that as much as I would love to see a few billion sliced off of the military budget and spent on space development as long as NASA is running that show I think it'd be just as much of a waste.


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Participant
Spaceflight Participant
avatar
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 3:38 pm
Posts: 90
Location: UK
Post    Posted on: Wed Jun 16, 2004 2:10 am
Thankyou for the clarification. If you meant that you could have said that the US should have learned from the soviet example and saved the confusion!

I personally believe that while obviously it would be nice for all governments to reduce their militaries I don't think they should while the US army keeps getting bigger. It's getting to be a joke, the smallest part of Americas armed forces, the marines, is larger than Britains entire military!! A US monoply, in fact any country having a monopoly on military power is very bad for this world.

Mmmm.....as you bring up NASA, I was wondering, why haven't they pursued off shore launches? (most) Launches benefit from equatorial launch positions which is why ESA loves Kourou so much. Would it not make sense for NASA to invest in an off shore launch platform as KSC and the other facilities aren't quite on the equator.


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2004 8:21 pm
Posts: 297
Location: LI/NY - currently
Post    Posted on: Wed Jun 16, 2004 2:44 am
Nova wrote:
Mmmm.....as you bring up NASA, I was wondering, why haven't they pursued off shore launches? (most) Launches benefit from equatorial launch positions which is why ESA loves Kourou so much. Would it not make sense for NASA to invest in an off shore launch platform as KSC and the other facilities aren't quite on the equator.


I would say from a cynical pessimistic anti-NASA mentality that it has a lot to do with the 'Not-Invented-Here' mentality that NASA seems to pull when something new comes up. That could also be a side effect of my distaste over how NASA handled the DC-X though (amoung other things).


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Participant
Spaceflight Participant
avatar
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 3:38 pm
Posts: 90
Location: UK
Post    Posted on: Wed Jun 16, 2004 2:52 am
I know how you feel!

It simply could be that they don't need to I suppose. NASA will always be funded by the US public and can just "put it on their expenses" (the money wasted on fuel that is).


Last edited by Nova on Wed Jun 16, 2004 2:53 am, edited 1 time in total.



Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2003 9:22 pm
Posts: 843
Location: New York, NY
Post    Posted on: Wed Jun 16, 2004 2:52 am
i'd tend to agree with TJ on that matter. while it seems like they're getting better in terms of private stuff, overall NASA is terrible about accepting other ideas it seems.

_________________
Cornell 2010- Applied and Engineering Physics

Software Developer

Also, check out my fractals


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Participant
Spaceflight Participant
avatar
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 3:38 pm
Posts: 90
Location: UK
Post    Posted on: Wed Jun 16, 2004 3:06 am
Sorry to put a dampner on that theory but I'm sure NASA didn't invent the rocket, and they seem to be using those!! :lol: j/K

Anyway, I know it's not going to be such a problem for sub-orbital flight but could the launch site positioning be crucial for space tourism companies in future orbital flight? Most of the teams proposed launch sites are not near the equator and to be honest it's good to be near your customers. I wonder if we will see a trend in companies using Sigurds cruise and launch idea in the future as the potential savings would be huge.


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2004 8:21 pm
Posts: 297
Location: LI/NY - currently
Post    Posted on: Wed Jun 16, 2004 12:23 pm
Cruise and launch sounds like an excellent idea to me. It does seem a bit strange to compare a trip to the peak of Mt. Everest to sub-orbital tourism if you compare the several minute flight to the several day ascent. Making the trip to the launch site part of the package could very well increase the odds of a successful sub orbital tourism venture. It'd also help all of the companies looking into water landings. All kidding aside a former oil platform or a new platform custom built for this is probably a better idea than a former aircraft carrier. Actually some sort of partnership between several companies in something like this may be a viable concept. Imagine paying for the cruise and then an additional 10K per flight once you get to the platform. Teams like Armadillo, Canadian Arrow, IL Aerospace and pablo de leon could easily work off of an offshore platform I'm sure and daVinci could probably be easily modified for a water landing.


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2003 8:46 pm
Posts: 1215
Location: Kapellen, Antwerp, Belgium, Europe, Planet Earth, the Milky Way Galaxy
Post    Posted on: Wed Jun 16, 2004 1:04 pm
Nova, sorry if with that deletion it may have sounded strange, I'm sure everyone knows now what you ment to say.
Currently I'm more concernd with an other problem & n54.

_________________
Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. - Lord Kelvin, 1892


Back to top
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 34 posts ] 
 

Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests


© 2014 The International Space Fellowship, developed by Gabitasoft Interactive. All Rights Reserved.  Privacy Policy | Terms of Use