Hello Ben, I doubt you'd want to, or be able to, commit the real level of resources necessary for this. But that would only be one piece out of the many required to complete that puzzle. That's not the sole motivation there. I do not doubt that large aerospace lobbying has some influence on project funding, but the real reason their projects cost what they do is the fact that they are held to very high standards. People's lives and the taxpayers' money are at stake, accountability to the US government and the american taxpayers, etc. won't allow them to work like hobbyists or shadetree mechanics. I doubt that such a thing would ever really be "simple" I really hope that you were actually joking. This analysis of the requirements is very innocent in it's point of view. Much like a child's view of the world. And note that I'm not calling you childish, just that simplistic statement of the requirements for projects of this scope. This will happen someday soon though. Maybe another 30 to 50 years? Seeing the work Henk has done, I'm sure that he has invested a lot of time, and a fair amount of money, just in creating such a well done simulator project of that scope. Ian Ben Franchuk wrote: > > Larry Anderson wrote: > > > > Look for the book Star Ship Simulation by Roger Garrett - Dilithium > > press, it is a very well thought out full-fledged simulation idea (no > > real code, just a complete (I think) system structure for all the > > 'stations') Back then it would have been a monumental task to get all > > the computers and newtworking worked out but now it would be nearly a > > cake walk. > > > **** OFF TOPIC **** > > We have the computing power! NASA is busy building BIG projects > because the Aero-space companies make more money this way on R&D stuff > than building a simple-reusable space craft and putting ORDANARY > people in space! > > ********************* > -- > Ben Franchuk - Dawn * 12/24 bit cpu * > www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/index.html