Spaceship One, going for two of two

John Harlow wrote:

So, what exactly does this event tell us about NASA?

That they quit doing this sort of thing about 45 years ago when the X-15 program shut
down.

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

So, what exactly does this event tell us about NASA?

That they quit doing this sort of thing about 45 years ago when the X-15
program shut
down.

I've always wondered why NASA abandoned this method of getting into space.

I've heard a couple of reasons:

1. X-15 technology was impractical to scale up for orbital flights. (This
seems strange, but I'm no rocket scientist!)
2. Kennedy's announcement that we would go to the moon in less than ten
years meant that America needed heavy lift capability NOW, not later, and
that it was much easier and faster to simply scale up Von Braun's V2
technology.

I was at Edwards as a child, listening to the X-15's sonic booms from my
grandparent's home. I've always wondered why they didn't take the X-15
technology to the next step?

Maybe Rutan will, now that he's beaten the X-15's old altitude record...?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:
I've always wondered why NASA abandoned this method of getting into space.
I've heard a couple of reasons:
1. X-15 technology was impractical to scale up for orbital flights. (This
seems strange, but I'm no rocket scientist!)

I'm not an expert in this area, but I believe it was a "horsepower
required" vs. "fuel efficiency" vs. "size of the gas tank" kind of trade
off. It was more efficent (in relative terms) to rocket out of earth's
gravity using disposable tanks. Of course, that was using 1960's
technology. That may not be the case, today.

--- Jay


--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:p3x8d.191112$D%.115727@attbi_s51...

So, what exactly does this event tell us about NASA?


That they quit doing this sort of thing about 45 years ago when the X-15
program shut down.


I've always wondered why NASA abandoned this method of getting into space.


Probably because manned suborbital flight isn't particularly useful.



I've heard a couple of reasons:

1. X-15 technology was impractical to scale up for orbital flights. (This
seems strange, but I'm no rocket scientist!)
2. Kennedy's announcement that we would go to the moon in less than ten
years meant that America needed heavy lift capability NOW, not later, and
that it was much easier and faster to simply scale up Von Braun's V2
technology.

I was at Edwards as a child, listening to the X-15's sonic booms from my
grandparent's home. I've always wondered why they didn't take the X-15
technology to the next step?

Maybe Rutan will, now that he's beaten the X-15's old altitude record...?


Every Space Shuttle flight beat that record.

On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 01:11:57 GMT, "G.R. Patterson III"
wrote:



John Harlow wrote:

So, what exactly does this event tell us about NASA?

That they quit doing this sort of thing about 45 years ago when the X-15 program shut
down.

They really never did do quite the same thing and it wasn't in this
fashion.

The only similarity was the attempt to put a man into space.

Like all government operations they take the brute force method which
is basically pilling on enough money to get the job done. In private
industry the idea is to do it as simply as possible. Any government
agency is going to be under much more scrutiny than a small private
group as it's tax payers money.
You also have the politicians making issues out of any issue even if
it's only been hinted. OTOH SpaceShipOne certainly was in the center
of the public's eye for a few days

I wonder how many dollars the space program had spent by the time they
did the first sub orbital shot?

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

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

I wonder how many dollars the space program had spent by the time they
did the first sub orbital shot?

I'll bet that NASA spends more maintaining the mothballed shuttle fleet than
Rutan spent on the entire Spaceship One effort.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

I'll bet that NASA spends more maintaining the mothballed shuttle
fleet than Rutan spent on the entire Spaceship One effort.

I went to the state fair last weekend (I share the planet with these
people???) and saw where a monster truck company converts their old monster
trucks into fair rides; for $5 a head they pile people into an old monster
truck and drive them around for about a minute.

I think NASA could adopt this highly profitable business practice. Put a
dozen people or so at a time in an old shuttle and get some guys to shake
the wings and make spaceship noises.

Jay Honeck wrote:
I wonder how many dollars the space program had spent by the time they
did the first sub orbital shot?


I'll bet that NASA spends more maintaining the mothballed shuttle fleet than
Rutan spent on the entire Spaceship One effort.

Almost certainly, but what's the point. The SS1 is a pretty purpose
built thing done almost 25 years after the Shuttle. Ain't got anywhere
near the payload or capability of the Shuttle as well.