posted
Retro? For something to be "retro", doesn't there have to have been something else that looked like it before?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
No, the opposite in fact. It has to look like something that existed before - or be reminiscent, in terms of design features, of previous artefacts.
That said, I haven't actually seen a picture of this craft to tell if it deserves an adjective like "retro."
posted
No, actually, you didn't. You said "something else that looked like it before." That implies the entire design is reminiscent of a previous design, which it isn't, and isn't necessarily a definition of "retro" either."
posted
I can't say I was surprised when I heard Rutan was behind it. I was very disappointed, though, to find out his design isn't a single-stage vehicle. More piggyback on a jet crap. Boo!
posted
Lee: I said that there had to be something old that looked like the new thing. You're saying that the new thing has to look like something old. Those are the same. "Looking like" is commutative. If A looks like B, then B looks like A.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Like the Bell X-1. Only carbon-fiber composites. And with a gay paint-job. And a bunch of circular windows. And tiny reaction control thrusters. And a totally different wing and tail assembly. But, you know... other than that, just like the Bell X-1.
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
If (A looks like B) looks like C, then A looks like (B looks like C)? I don't think that works. It's transitive, though, if that helps.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged