/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15509009
If those planes have anti-gravity drives, yeah. But we need rockets to deliver big payloads.

>>15509009
just make a reusable crew capsule. Way more economic

>>15509016
>he doesn't have an antigravity drive
LaughingNazis.jpg

>>15509009
No. Not enough thrust to make it to orbit with proper useful mass. And more complex landing and more complex engineering designs, etc.

>>15509009
Obviously they would be if we lived on the globohomo earth model. But since we don't and the earth is actually flat and stationary with a dome, they push these blatant phallic psyops like mock rockets.

>>15509374
Pls commit die.

>>15509009
We need to build the planes in orbit. Once we have the ability to easily launch material caches into orbit, we can start building in space.

>>15509009
>Are spaceplanes better for leaving the atmosphere
No.

They're better at reentering the atmosphere, not exiting it.

>>>/sci/sfg/

yes

Reminder that venturestar can and should be built with modern technology

>>15510187
>modern technology
>as in better than what we had in 1990
anon I...

>>15510202
How is it not, braindead retard

All you have to do is simulate crossing the atmosphere prior to taking off and have a ship keep this rhythm in continued flight. Tards

Bite my barkel

>>15509009
The earth is flat and stationary with a dome. They can never ever leave this enclosed plane alive so rockets crashed into the ocean it is.

>>15510545
Diversity

>>15510630
But what about the technology

>>15509300
>capsule

>>15509386
That would be better because we would not need to have as much bulk to lift off of earth