A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Rutan hits 200k feet! Almost there!



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #24  
Old May 16th 04, 03:43 AM
Peter Stickney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Chad Irby writes:
In article .net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...

...for a tiny fraction of the cost, and having the ability to
repeat the feat in less than two weeks (which the government
program didn't manage).


So what's significant about it?


If I have to explain to you the significance of the tech behind a
reusable spaceplane, then why have you even bothered posting to this
thread to begin with?


There ain't a whole lot of tech, there, Chad - Burt's taking a very
low-speed approach, (Rather Grand Fenwickian, in fact) with a low
thrust, long burning rocket motor, and a fairly lightweight, high drag
reentry vehicle. Peak speeds are around Mach 2 on ascent, and
somewhere around Mach 1.9 on the re-entry. There's nothing
particularly exotic about those speeds. Heating is low - around 100
Deg C, and an Aluminum or Composite airframe can deal with those
temperatures and dynamic pressures without a whole lot of trickery.

He's also designed a self-stabilizing shape, (In some ways not too
different from the behavior of a badminton birdie) that doesn't need
sophisticated systems, such as adaptive flight control systems or
reaction controls, to set and hold its attitude. While it's a good
design, it's not significant in advancing technology. It also can't
be expanded much beyond the X-Prize requirements. You aren't going to
see an orbital Spaceship !, or a Semi-Ballistic Spaceship 1 Hypersonic
Transport.

It's a very clever design very highly optimized to do only one thing -
meet teh X-Prize requirements.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Spaceship 1 hits 212,000 feet!!!!!! BlakeleyTB Home Built 10 May 20th 04 10:12 PM
AOPA Sells-Out California Pilots in Military Airspace Grab? Larry Dighera Instrument Flight Rules 12 April 26th 04 06:12 PM
Hiroshima/Nagasaki vs conventional B-17 bombing zxcv Military Aviation 55 April 4th 04 07:05 AM
Use of 150 octane fuel in the Merlin (Xylidine additive etc etc) Peter Stickney Military Aviation 45 February 11th 04 04:46 AM
Ta-152H at low altitudes N-6 Military Aviation 16 October 13th 03 03:52 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.