spaceship one

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 01:06:23 -0400, Matt Whiting
wrote:


No, I didn't miss it and I doubt the others did either. The comparison
was time delta of the first GOVERNMENT sponsored flight of a spacecraft
to the first private one. If the same timescale was applied to
conventional airplanes, you would be comparing the first GOVERNMENT
sponsored flight of a conventional airplane to the first private one.
Backing 40 years off of 1943 yields 1903, which is NOT when the first
GOVERNMENT sponsored airplane flew successfully, so the comparison is
completely invalid.

The purpose of the comparison was merely to illustrate the time spans
involved, not to try to contrast the difference between government vs.
private efforts. A less controversial comparison would have been along the
lines of "...it was as if no else other than the Wright brothers had been
technically capable of building an airplane until 1943."

Rutan's achievement is tremendous, but let's not forget, he's standing on
the shoulders of giants. SpaceShipOne's success is due to Rutan's
brilliant combining of today's cutting-edge technology. He probably has
more computing power on his desktop than NASA had in 1960. There wasn't
any wind-tunnel testing done on SpaceShipOne; it was all done on a
computer.

Yet, barely ten years ago, the first flight of an improved launch vehicle
failed because the aerodynamic models used weren't accurate enough. That
company trusted the computer model and didn't do any wind tunnel testing.
The launch vehicle and satellite end up in the drink. Oops.

Burt Rutan was fully aware of this instance...after all, his company built
part of that rocket's structure (which was in *no* way involved in the
failure). Yet, in ten short years, modeling capabilities have improved to
the point where he felt confident in risking a manned flight on
computational data only.

Rutan did one heck of a job, but some folks in this newsgroup have used it
as an excuse to sneer at the people who developed some of the technologies
that made it possible. If suborbital space flight was so doggone easy, the
first private space launch would have been four years after the X-15, not
forty.

Ron Wanttaja

Ron,

No one's sneering at brilliant aerospace Columbus types like you guys
Ron. But the era of expensive government-only exploration is over.
Burt Rutan is Mayflower. He's trying to get the rest of us slobs over
to the New World for a new life. What Burt *has* always sneered at is
the lack of follow through by the government so that all this
fantastic technology will trickle down to the common man. The common
man is what Burt has always been about. And this always seems to lead
to hard feelings by people who are entrenched in doing things the same
expensive government slow-turtle way all the time that invariable
always leads to the ignorant masses clamoring for cancellation of all
those expensive unnecessary space missions to places we have already
been.

Burt Rutan is, if you like, our de facto Robin Hood of Aviation and
now, Space. Most of us have dreamed all our lives of the emergence
of a "Dutch East India" type company that would greatly supplant the
government's stranglehold of the high seas (or rather in this case:
the high altitudes.) I just didn't think I would be lucky enough to
see it in my lifetime.

The famed Dutch East India Company didn't invent the lateen sail or
the sternpost rudder either, but their improvement of those basic
concepts lead to the greatest commercial conquest the world had ever
seen of the known globe. Burt does the same thing with publicly
available NASA data, e.g. winglet on the vari ezie, lifting body data
on Space Ship One.

Enjoyed your post very much Ron, glad to see you aren't using Acme's
disappearing/reappearing ink anymore, aye "Dr a.a.com."

pacplyer



Ron Wanttaja wrote in message . ..
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 01:06:23 -0400, Matt Whiting
wrote:


No, I didn't miss it and I doubt the others did either. The comparison
was time delta of the first GOVERNMENT sponsored flight of a spacecraft
to the first private one. If the same timescale was applied to
conventional airplanes, you would be comparing the first GOVERNMENT
sponsored flight of a conventional airplane to the first private one.
Backing 40 years off of 1943 yields 1903, which is NOT when the first
GOVERNMENT sponsored airplane flew successfully, so the comparison is
completely invalid.

The purpose of the comparison was merely to illustrate the time spans
involved, not to try to contrast the difference between government vs.
private efforts. A less controversial comparison would have been along the
lines of "...it was as if no else other than the Wright brothers had been
technically capable of building an airplane until 1943."

Rutan's achievement is tremendous, but let's not forget, he's standing on
the shoulders of giants. SpaceShipOne's success is due to Rutan's
brilliant combining of today's cutting-edge technology. He probably has
more computing power on his desktop than NASA had in 1960. There wasn't
any wind-tunnel testing done on SpaceShipOne; it was all done on a
computer.

Yet, barely ten years ago, the first flight of an improved launch vehicle
failed because the aerodynamic models used weren't accurate enough. That
company trusted the computer model and didn't do any wind tunnel testing.
The launch vehicle and satellite end up in the drink. Oops.

Burt Rutan was fully aware of this instance...after all, his company built
part of that rocket's structure (which was in *no* way involved in the
failure). Yet, in ten short years, modeling capabilities have improved to
the point where he felt confident in risking a manned flight on
computational data only.

Rutan did one heck of a job, but some folks in this newsgroup have used it
as an excuse to sneer at the people who developed some of the technologies
that made it possible. If suborbital space flight was so doggone easy, the
first private space launch would have been four years after the X-15, not
forty.

Ron Wanttaja

On 24 Jun 2004 10:11:45 -0700, (pacplyer) wrote:

Ron,

No one's sneering at brilliant aerospace Columbus types like you guys
Ron. But the era of expensive government-only exploration is over.
Burt Rutan is Mayflower. He's trying to get the rest of us slobs over
to the New World for a new life. What Burt *has* always sneered at is
the lack of follow through by the government so that all this
fantastic technology will trickle down to the common man. The common
man is what Burt has always been about.

Well, yabut, not everyone wants to go into space. Sure it's grand
what he's doing and he's being wonderfully unique about his approach,
but it's freakishly expensive to do and horrifyingly dangerous.

I wish he'd come back down to earth and help reduce the cost of
ordinary fixed wing flying, instead of spending millions on something
that incredibly few people will benefit from.

Corky Scott

wrote in message
...

Well, yabut, not everyone wants to go into space. Sure it's grand
what he's doing and he's being wonderfully unique about his approach,
but it's freakishly expensive to do and horrifyingly dangerous.

I wish he'd come back down to earth and help reduce the cost of
ordinary fixed wing flying, instead of spending millions on something
that incredibly few people will benefit from.

Corky............

Unless you can figger out some way to keep humans from breeding like
lemmings, the only other alternative for survival is more real estate.
"Incredibly few people"? This is the most important thing for the future of
us ALL.

Rich S.

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 14:24:23 -0700, Rich S. wrote:

wrote in message
...

Well, yabut, not everyone wants to go into space. Sure it's grand
what he's doing and he's being wonderfully unique about his approach,
but it's freakishly expensive to do and horrifyingly dangerous.

I wish he'd come back down to earth and help reduce the cost of
ordinary fixed wing flying, instead of spending millions on something
that incredibly few people will benefit from.

Corky............

Unless you can figger out some way to keep humans from breeding like
lemmings,

Rich people have fewer kids, in general. In Europe our population is
falling through the floor. France even pays people to have children, and I
think Italy does too.

the only other alternative for survival is more real estate.
"Incredibly few people"? This is the most important thing for the future of
us ALL.

I agree, but for slightly different reasons. Consider the amount of
resources it would take to move someone from earth to (say) Mars. It will
be a long time before we can do this using less resources than it would
take to let them and their progeny live out their lives on the Earth. I
don't see that it figures as a solution to overpopulation.

Whenever I turn on the TV I see stories about someone walking to the pole
alone; walking to the pole unsupported; walking to both poles; walking to
the poles backwards; mountain biking to the poles... We're running out of
original challenges; new places to explore - we need to go into space.

AC

"Rich S." wrote:

Unless you can figger out some way to keep humans from breeding like
lemmings, the only other alternative for survival is more real estate.
"Incredibly few people"? This is the most important thing for the future of
us ALL.

We already know the answer. People in prosperous countries don't even have
enough children to keep up with the natural death rate. When the world wide
standard of living is high enough, the population will start to decrease. Oops.
Better think wbout selling that real estate before the surplus hits.

The only thing that will lead to colonizing space (other than some unforseen
"When Worlds Collide" scenario) is productivity so high that groups of like
minded people can afford to do it on their own.

-- Charlie Springer

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 16:32:15 -0400,
wrote:

On 24 Jun 2004 10:11:45 -0700, (pacplyer) wrote:

Ron,

No one's sneering at brilliant aerospace Columbus types like you guys
Ron. But the era of expensive government-only exploration is over.
Burt Rutan is Mayflower. He's trying to get the rest of us slobs over
to the New World for a new life. What Burt *has* always sneered at is
the lack of follow through by the government so that all this
fantastic technology will trickle down to the common man. The common
man is what Burt has always been about.

Well, yabut, not everyone wants to go into space. Sure it's grand
what he's doing and he's being wonderfully unique about his approach,
but it's freakishly expensive to do and horrifyingly dangerous.

That's what people told my ancestors when they shipped out to
Jamestown.


I wish he'd come back down to earth and help reduce the cost of
ordinary fixed wing flying, instead of spending millions on something
that incredibly few people will benefit from.

And you don't think flying is some that "incredibly few people will
benefit from"? Better to demand that he spend the $20 M on cancer
research, if you want to get all puffed up. Me, I think he's barely
started. I'll never make it to space, but I hope my neice does.


Corky Scott

--
dillon

When I was a kid, I thought the angel's name was Hark
and the horse's name was Bob.

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 22:05:10 GMT, Dillon Pyron
wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 16:32:15 -0400,
wrote:

Well, yabut, not everyone wants to go into space. Sure it's grand
what he's doing and he's being wonderfully unique about his approach,
but it's freakishly expensive to do and horrifyingly dangerous.

That's what people told my ancestors when they shipped out to
Jamestown.

True, but when your ancestors arrived, they had atmosphere they could
breathe, water they could drink, wind that would power any ships they cared
to build from the wood that surrounded them, and fertile ground that would,
with luck, provide limited ready-to-eat food and allow them to grow the
foodstuffs they'd need to survive.

The solar system isn't suitable for colonization. Nowhere but on Earth can
humans survive without a HUGE infrastructure first being established. That
costs money; money not likely to be available without some sort of chance
of the investors receiving a return on the investment. Even if it's
government funded, most taxpayers will never benefit from it.

The keystone of that required infrastructure is reliable, low-cost,
*high-capacity* space transportation. Emphasis on 'high capacity.' I can
go out and buy a launch vehicle for $8 million, but all that gets me is
about 500 pounds into a 1000 mile circular orbit. Apollo made it to the
Moon, but with only enough infrastructure to support two humans for a few
days (plus a return trip, of course...not needed if the occupants are
colonists).

I'd be willing to bet that the rest of the infrastructure necessary to
support space colony life exists. We can probably develop movable
factories to manufacture air from lunar or martian soil, we can probably
come up with the hydroponic farms to grow food, and nuclear power can
provide the juice.

It's just the problem of *getting* it there. How much mass would have to
be soft-landed on the Moon to be able to send over a "colony kit," complete
with air-generators, power plants, water-distillers, air locks, structural
beams, and hydroponics farms sufficient to set up a vacuum-based colony
that'll support, say, 100 people. A half-ton per person, maybe?

Plus you have the assembly crew, who'll need air, power, water, and rations
until the colony is set up. Not to mention the lander itself, and the
mining equipment needed to dig up and process the hydrogen, oxygen, and
nitrogen-bearing ore that will have to be there to have any hope of the
colony being viable. We're probably talking a million pounds.

I agree with Rich that population is the world's biggest problem. But
terraforming the Sahara or the seabed is almost within the grasp of current
technology, while soft-landing a million pounds on the moon is not. The
Apollo LM weighed about 32,000 pounds and probably had about 25,000 pounds
of payload capacity (one-way trip). So you'd need ~40 Saturn Vs to set up
one 100-person colony.

To quote Larry Niven: "The entire universe is waiting for us to invent
anti-gravity." :-)

Ron Wanttaja

I agree with Rich that population is the world's biggest problem.

I disagree, because as long as we have energy, we can sustain high P on the
Earth, and benefit from the social diversity, cheap labor, and the profusion of
human minds. OTOH, if we run out of energy, life will be **** no matter how
low the P becomes (and it would fall like a rock in such a situation).

Ultimately, only the SPS will ensure sufficient energy for a modern society.
It is the only energy source without a Hubbert peak.

But even if P were the major problem in our world, space would not solve it.
It will *always* be easier to add people than to fly 'em to the moon.

But
terraforming the Sahara or the seabed is almost within the grasp of current
technology,

But in the Sahara, you have to live with some rather crappy national
governments (i.e. Qaddafi). And who would want to live in the cold, darkness,
overpressure and drowning hazard of the seabeds?

"Ron Wanttaja" wrote in message
...
It's just the problem of *getting* it there. How much mass would have to
be soft-landed on the Moon to be able to send over a "colony kit,"
complete
with air-generators, power plants, water-distillers, air locks, structural
beams, and hydroponics farms sufficient to set up a vacuum-based colony
that'll support, say, 100 people. A half-ton per person, maybe?

Last year I had the pleasure of riding in a steam train up and over the pass
from Skagway toward the Yukon. Alongside the tracks we could see the
footpath over which the Forty-Niners traveled. One requirement set down by
the Canadians for entry into their territory were that the would-be miners
must bring "A half-ton (of supplies) per person. . .". This meant many
laborious trips up and down the steep path, sometimes in weather conditions
that would kill most of us.

Yet, they prevailed. Why?

If there is gold in the stars, who knows what obstacles we will overcome?
Incidentally saving our species. )

Rich S.