SpaceShipOne/Discovery Channel porn

G.R. Patterson III wrote:


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.

NASA didn't kill that dream. What killed it was that no one came up
with a way for those potential entrepreneurs to make any money in
space. The Heinlein/Asimov/etc. scenarios have the hidden premise
that the energy required for space travel is incredibly cheap and
therefore it's cost effective to mine asteroids, build micro-g
manufacturing facilities, establish lunar and planetary bases and
so on.

Corky Scott wrote in message . ..

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.

Alan Sheppard might want to argue that point if he were still
around. Even NASA had to start with a short, sub-orbital flight.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

Peter wrote:

NASA didn't kill that dream.

Yes, they did. The U.S. government effectively blocked all attempts by private
U.S. companies to enter the market of launching payloads into space and put
political pressure on foreign companies (such as Messerschmitt) who also
attempted to do so. This was covered fairly effectively by interested parties in
the press during the 70s.

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

G.R. Patterson III wrote:
Peter wrote:

NASA didn't kill that dream.

Yes, they did. The U.S. government effectively blocked all attempts by private
U.S. companies to enter the market of launching payloads into space and put
political pressure on foreign companies (such as Messerschmitt) who also
attempted to do so.

The only reason it was effective was that no one had a clear way of
making a profitable business in space. If there had been fortunes
to be made then political pressure would not have succeeded.

"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.


What I mean is that =only= when something is cheap enough does it get
into the mainstream and become beneficial. Without cheap chips, there
would still be a GPS and the airlines would have it. But we would
not. Since chips are cheap, GPS became cheap (FSVO "cheap") and now
we all get to benefit from the technology.

Without cheap (GPS) =we= wouldn't be flying with GPS.
Without =cheap= (airplanes) we wouldn't be flying at all.

I agree the sentence needed another look to extract that from it.

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

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

Already, there are plans in the works by Rutan and others for an orbital
system based on this same technology (or lack thereof).

Don't think that's possible Jeff. Sub orbital lobs are one thing,
re-entry from orbiting earth is a different kind of animal altogether.
MUCH more complicated and dangerous. Besides, Spaceship One was
designed for one thing and one thing only, winning the X prize.

Spaceship One could be built from carbon fiber and epoxy because it
does not have to re-enter the atmosphere. In order to get out of the
atmosphere and into orbit, the vehical, any vehical, would need to
achieve over 25,000 miles per hour to escape earth's gravity.
Spaceship one only needed a fraction of that speed in order to sling
into near space. At it's epogy, Spaceship One had slowed to mere
hundreds of miles per hour, whereupon it changed it's configuration to
the "shuttlecock" mode and drifed it's draggy way lower. You can't
re-enter the atmosphere at 25,000 miles per hour that way. The laws
of physics apply even to Burt Rutan.

So no, Rutan would not could not use the same Spaceship One technology
for orbital re-entry. I don't doubt he'll come up with something new
and probably radically different to solve the re-entry problem, if he
attempts orbital flight, but it IS a huge problem.

Longer reverse burn and then entry at a lower speed? Perhaps, but
that means you have to bring the fuel to achieve that burn with you.
This is no easy solve. New configuration, new material new engine
technology? Who knows.

Corky Scott

Corky Scott writes:

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.

In the 1920's, airplanes also were little more than carnival rides
with spectacular views. If aviation development had stopped then,
that's all it'd have ever been but of course aircraft development did
not stop (I'm tempted to add, at least for another three decades).
Development of space vehicles won't stop either. Air travel was not
practical in the 1920's; space travel is not practical today. This
will change only in very small steps and only if someone is willing to
take those first, seemingly useless steps.

-Dave

Corky Scott wrote:

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

Already, there are plans in the works by Rutan and others for an orbital
system based on this same technology (or lack thereof).

Don't think that's possible Jeff. Sub orbital lobs are one thing,
re-entry from orbiting earth is a different kind of animal altogether.
MUCH more complicated and dangerous. Besides, Spaceship One was
designed for one thing and one thing only, winning the X prize.

Spaceship One could be built from carbon fiber and epoxy because it
does not have to re-enter the atmosphere. In order to get out of the
atmosphere and into orbit, the vehical, any vehical, would need to
achieve over 25,000 miles per hour to escape earth's gravity.

Agreed that a radically different approach than that used by
Spaceship One would be required. But the speed needed to achieve
earth orbit is "only" 17000 mph. 25000 mph is what's needed to
escape earth's gravity for such trips as going to the moon or
planets.

"Peter" wrote in message news:uuudnXPEHracWi3cRVn-

The only reason it was effective was that no one had a clear way of
making a profitable business in space. If there had been fortunes
to be made then political pressure would not have succeeded.

There are fortunes to be made in things like hemp, medical marijuana,
biodiesel, euthanasia drugs (I'm an Oregonian. Can ya tell?), but these have
been stymied by political pressure.

On 03 Dec 2004 16:00:15 -0500, David Bridgham
wrote:

Air travel was not
practical in the 1920's; space travel is not practical today. This
will change only in very small steps and only if someone is willing to
take those first, seemingly useless steps.

The point is that Rutan's Spaceship One venture is not a step. It's a
repeat of something that has already been done. In addition, the
technology used for suborbital space lobs does not translate into
information helpful to advance travel in space.

Corky Scott