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 » Piloting
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
  #1  
Old May 15th 04, 01:55 AM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Pete" wrote in message
...

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote

"John T" wrote in message
ws.com...

What non-government entity has reached outer space (sub-orbital
or not)?


None, but that's irrelevant.


That *is* the relevant point.


No, that's not the relevant point, this is:


Sure, it's been done before.


It's been done before. It won't be a first.


  #2  
Old May 15th 04, 02:18 AM
Vaughn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Pete" wrote in message
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote
"John T" wrote in message
What non-government entity has reached outer space (sub-orbital
or not)?


This one: http://www.orbital.com/SpaceLaunch/ or did you mean manned?


None, but that's irrelevant.

That *is* the relevant point.

No, that's not the relevant point, this is:


Sorry, but I have to go with Pete here, the relevent point is that it is
being done by a small private corporation...and they are making it look easy!

Vaughn




  #3  
Old May 15th 04, 02:26 AM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Vaughn" wrote in message
news

Sorry, but I have to go with Pete here, the relevent point is that
it is being done by a small private corporation...and they are making
it look easy!


What is significant about a private corporation duplicating a feat that a
government agency accomplished decades earlier?


  #4  
Old May 15th 04, 03:10 AM
Chad Irby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article . net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

What is significant about a private corporation duplicating a feat
that a government agency accomplished decades earlier?


....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).

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.
  #5  
Old May 15th 04, 03:18 AM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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?


  #6  
Old May 15th 04, 05:30 AM
Chad Irby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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?

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.
  #7  
Old May 15th 04, 01:13 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Chad Irby" wrote in message
.com...

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?


Why are you dodging the question?


  #8  
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
  #9  
Old May 15th 04, 04:34 AM
Greg Copeland
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 15 May 2004 01:26:06 +0000, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:


"Vaughn" wrote in message
news

Sorry, but I have to go with Pete here, the relevent point is that
it is being done by a small private corporation...and they are making
it look easy!


What is significant about a private corporation duplicating a feat that a
government agency accomplished decades earlier?


Can't believe you guys are feeding this troll.

The answer is obvious and been stated many times already.

He's trolling. Period.


  #10  
Old May 15th 04, 04:43 AM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Greg Copeland" wrote in message
news

Can't believe you guys are feeding this troll.

The answer is obvious and been stated many times already.


Well, since nobody has provided an answer it's obviously far from obvious.


 




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
Rutan hits 200k feet! Almost there! Thomas J. Paladino Jr. Military Aviation 150 May 22nd 04 07:20 PM
Spaceship 1 hits 212,000 feet!!!!!! BlakeleyTB Home Built 10 May 20th 04 10:12 PM
Hiroshima/Nagasaki vs conventional B-17 bombing zxcv Military Aviation 55 April 4th 04 07:05 AM
Looking for Cessna Caravan pilots [email protected] Owning 9 April 1st 04 02:54 AM
Use of 150 octane fuel in the Merlin (Xylidine additive etc etc) Peter Stickney Military Aviation 45 February 11th 04 04:46 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:40 PM.


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