SpaceShipOne/Discovery Channel porn

On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 08:44:28 -0800, "gatt"
wrote:

Stayed up late and watched all three hours of the SpaceShipOne documentary
on Discovery last night.

WOW!!! The imagery from within the craft during the flight knocked me
over, and Rutan and company reinspired me. I told my wife that aviation
produces heroes of the highest personal caliber and integrity, and we saw
some of them last night.

Tell me again what the point is in being lobbed into near space? Try
as I might, I just cannot figure out how it helps explore space, or
helps GA or mankind or anything. To me it just appears a technical
stunt, the aviation/space equivalent of Evel Knieval jumping a bunch
of cars on a motorcycle, only less dangerous.

Oh yes I forgot, they won a 10 million dollar prize after spending 25
million on the project. And now they're soliciting money from us
through EAA. Is that it? It's a money maker for Rutan?

Corky Scott

Ah, the enlightened speaks.

No, Copernicus, all discovery is found in steps. If the Wright brothers had
had your opinion, they would have stopped after Kitty Hawk it's way too
expensive to own an airplane if you have to land every 120 ft. Can you
imagine the FBO landing fees???

Already, there are plans in the works by Rutan and others for an orbital
system based on this same technology (or lack thereof). But, I'm sure,
your also asking "why go into space?". Well, "Why leave Spain Mr. Columbus?
There's room here for everyone!"

jf



"Corky Scott" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 08:44:28 -0800, "gatt"
wrote:

Stayed up late and watched all three hours of the SpaceShipOne documentary
on Discovery last night.

WOW!!! The imagery from within the craft during the flight knocked
me
over, and Rutan and company reinspired me. I told my wife that aviation
produces heroes of the highest personal caliber and integrity, and we saw
some of them last night.

Tell me again what the point is in being lobbed into near space? Try
as I might, I just cannot figure out how it helps explore space, or
helps GA or mankind or anything. To me it just appears a technical
stunt, the aviation/space equivalent of Evel Knieval jumping a bunch
of cars on a motorcycle, only less dangerous.

Oh yes I forgot, they won a 10 million dollar prize after spending 25
million on the project. And now they're soliciting money from us
through EAA. Is that it? It's a money maker for Rutan?

Corky Scott

Jeff,

Well, "Why leave Spain Mr. Columbus?
There's room here for everyone!"


Really, really strong economic interest in a shorter route to India was
the driving factor. And the "colonies" were duly exploited, including
their inhabitants. All in the name of Christianity, of course.

But I agree with your basic premise: discovery and the desire for
knowledge are good human traits. If only we'd go about it with more
respect for what we find...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Corky Scott" wrote in message

Tell me again what the point is in being lobbed into near space?

What was the point of flying a few yards at Kitty Hawk?

Seriously, I think the point was not that they were lobbed into near space,
but that it was done my private enterprise.
-c

On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 09:32:45 -0600, "Jeff Franks"
wrote:

Ah, the enlightened speaks.

No, Copernicus, all discovery is found in steps. If the Wright brothers had
had your opinion, they would have stopped after Kitty Hawk it's way too
expensive to own an airplane if you have to land every 120 ft. Can you
imagine the FBO landing fees???

Already, there are plans in the works by Rutan and others for an orbital
system based on this same technology (or lack thereof). But, I'm sure,
your also asking "why go into space?". Well, "Why leave Spain Mr. Columbus?
There's room here for everyone!"

jf

Oh I see, a man of wisdom and vision. So tell me, o' enlightened one,
of what future use to you see this type of "flight"?

You've attempted to be cute at my expense but shied away from naming
even one benefit, either current or future that might result from
these flights, which is what I was asking.

Columbus left Spain in search of a new, shorter route to the orient,
which would, had he actually been correct, have made a LOT of money
for Spain. He did not find that route of course, but Spain benefitted
mightily in future exploitation of the new found lands. He did not
look for new worlds on a whimsy. The exploitation came at the expense
of the peoples he found to be living there but what the hell, they had
not done a thing to utilise all those natural resources after
thousands of years so it was someone else's turn, right?

The Wright brothers finally found a way to fly, fullfilling a human
desire that dates back to early Grecian times, at least in recorded
history anyway, and the benefits were obvious to many right from the
start.

Spaceship One is doing something that has been done before by the the
Soviet and US space programs, albeit more efficiently. The technology
Rutan is using is not useful for actual space exploration because the
vehical cannot go into orbit or venture into space because it cannot
re-enter our atmosphere without burning to a crisp. You can't go from
point A to point B without sending the bizarre looking but functional
lift vehical after it, with a ground crew, so it's not useful for
traveling.

When we first began to orbit the earth, then went to the moon, that
was different, we were going places we had never gone before and
actually exploring space. The technology developed for those flights
lead to further development of space travel and ventures to the far
planets using unmanned vehicals. It's revealed fascinating
information about space and our distant beginnings.

Rutan's near space lob technology is aimed at none of these things.
It cannot explore space, cannot add to current knowledge other than
being a different method of reaching near space.

I'm interested in knowing what the point is, other than claiming the X
prize. Or is that all it is?

Can you, or anyone suggest any plausible future benefit other than
being a cheaper alternative to buying a ride on the Russian shuttle?

Corky Scott

Can you, or anyone suggest any plausible future benefit other than
being a cheaper alternative to buying a ride on the Russian shuttle?

That is sufficient. (well, the "cheaper" part anyway)

"Cheaper" makes all the difference in making technology available to
the masses. Absent "cheaper" we wouldn't be flying with GPS, in fact
we wouldn't be flying at all. Cars proliferated because Henry Ford
made them cheaper. The internet opened up because computers became
cheaper. When RFID tags are cheap enough, society will change
dramatically.

It's not always about doing new things. It's often about making
things that have been done, doable.

Jose
(r.a.student trimmed)
--
Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 08:38:35 -0800, "gatt"
wrote:

What was the point of flying a few yards at Kitty Hawk?

Seriously, I think the point was not that they were lobbed into near space,
but that it was done my private enterprise.

Gatt, I appreciate what the Wright bros. did but they were pioneers,
the first to achieve controlled flight. They did their research,
decided that in order to achieve viable flight the vehical needed to
be controllable and built a vehical that could do that, sort of.

What Burt Rutan did was prove that privately funded people can achieve
what has already been done with government funding. He did not
pioneer anything, he just came up with a different way to achieve
something that's already been done.

You will notice that none of the countries that have achieved space
flight bother to simply lob vehicals, whether manned or otherwise
(unless something goes wrong with the booster), into near space
anymore. That's because there's nothing to gain scientifically or
technologically from doing so. Vehicals that leave the atmosphere to
enter space and then return to earth must be built very differently
from those that merely graze space.

Corky Scott

On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 18:08:57 GMT, Jose
wrote:

That is sufficient. (well, the "cheaper" part anyway)

"Cheaper" makes all the difference in making technology available to
the masses. Absent "cheaper" we wouldn't be flying with GPS, in fact
we wouldn't be flying at all.

Could you explain this differently? The sentence, to me, reads that
without GPS we would not be flying at all. Wait, you mean to say that
without inexpensive airplanes we would not be flying at all? I agree.

Cars proliferated because Henry Ford
made them cheaper. The internet opened up because computers became
cheaper. When RFID tags are cheap enough, society will change
dramatically.

It's not always about doing new things. It's often about making
things that have been done, doable.

So the value of what Rutan has developed, and what others are
continuing to attempt is a cheap (well cheaper than NASA) near space
ride? Basically a carnival ride with a spectacular view?

Because that's all I'm coming up with too.

Corky Scott

Corky Scott wrote:

Tell me again what the point is in being lobbed into near space?

Well, I grew up reading Heinlein, Asimov, Blish, and the like. *We* were going
into space. Not some government clowns - *we* were going. Space stations would
be built by union tradespeople. Entrepreneurs would build shipping companies
that flew rockets.

Then NASA came along. During the 70s, they worked very hard at preventing any
private enterprise in space, and they very effectively killed that dream. For
thirty years. If someone needed a carpenter in space, NASA would hand a hammer
to one of their astronauts, but *we* weren't going anywhere.

It's too late for Rutan to make that dream live again for me, but he's made it
possible for my stepson. And my nephew.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

Corky Scott wrote:


What Burt Rutan did was prove that privately funded people can achieve
what has already been done with government funding. He did not
pioneer anything, he just came up with a different way to achieve
something that's already been done.

Which sort of makes him a "Henry Ford" rather than the "Wright Bros."