From: Henry Spencer <henry@zoo.toronto.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.space.tech
Subject: Re: Advantages of high-altitude launch (was: Re: Alternative means of 
	achieving orbit)
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 00:40:19 GMT

In article <4jroh0$9au@clark.net> prb@clark.net (Pat) writes:
>Sure,  but remember most tall buildings are economic disasters.  Engineering
>certainly allows a very tall building (Challenges aside),  but the structure
>needs to be viable economically.  the sears tower has been a financial
>disaster, i cna't imagine the canadian railway tower being much better.

Last I heard, the CN Tower is actually quite successful.  Do bear in mind
that it is *not* a building -- it has very little interior space.  It's
primarily a communications tower and a tourist attraction, and it does
very well at both.  The restaurant has been less successful, to judge by
the number of changes of name and style it has had, but that's a secondary
issue.

We're talking towers, not buildings, here.
-- 
Americans proved to be more bureaucratic           |       Henry Spencer
than I ever thought.  --Valery Ryumin, RKK Energia |   henry@zoo.toronto.edu