spaceship one

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) wrote in message . com...
(pacplyer) wrote

I forgot to mention that due to the wild S-turns the vehicle's apogee
topped out only 400 feet above 100KM! That was according to Edwards
preliminary telemetry. That's so close I wonder if the other
contenders for the X-prize will try to challenge the data?

I don't beleive this flight counts towards the X-prize. The two
X-Prize flights must both be made with either two passengers or the
equivalent weight on board. This was a test flight.

Rich

Yes, I believe you are correct Rich. Was listening to the 104.9 disk
jockey that was claiming this was the ten million dollar x-prize
attempt. But I believe you are correct on the plan. But if I was
Burt: I would have stuck in a couple of sand-filled mannequins and
claimed this was attempt #1 since it is so dangerous.

pac

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 01:03:41 GMT, Richard Lamb
wrote:

Hey Ron, help me out some more here on
rec.aviation.homebuilt.spacecraft.

For the reentry phase from orbit...
For the sake of argument (and ignoring the increased fuel required)
wouldn't slowing down too much before reentry be a problem?

Steeper path, higher G load, and even more reentry heat?

Like I said on an earlier post, I don't have much background on re-entry
physics. But I think it's possible to deorbit going slowly at a fairly
shallow angle...you just have to time the deorbit burn properly.

But one thing you can't do is "slow fly" a satellite. For any given speed,
for any given velocity vector, there is only one possible orbit. Sure, you
can probably increase your angle of attack and do a "skip", but that just
means that on the other side of the world, you're going to come down at a
much steeper angle. Kinda like bouncing a landing without the ability to
add a burst of power to catch the bounce.

Ron Wanttaja

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 02:47:11 +0100, anonymous coward
wrote:

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 01:03:19 +0000, Ron Wanttaja wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 15:47:49 +0100, anonymous coward
wrote:

The difference is Apollo 1 was flooded with pure O2 where jet fighters push O2
from a LOX converter to a face mask. Big difference.

Even then, Chuck Yeager get half his face burnt in a fire when he ejected,
IIRC.

You're right, but he didn't get burned because of his oxygen mask. He got
hit in the face by the still-glowing rocket motor that had powered the
ejection seat.

http://www.ejectionsite.com/f104seat.htm

has a paragraph about the accident. The motor started his suit burning,
but the oxygen made the fire burn much more fiercly.

That makes sense, since Yeager was wearing a full-pressure suit. Motor
melts through the visor, oxygen in the suit supports additional combustion.
Thanks for the correction.

Ron Wanttaja

I don't beleive this flight counts towards the X-prize. The two
X-Prize flights must both be made with either two passengers or the
equivalent weight on board. This was a test flight.

Rich

Was a test flight.

The X prize expires 1-1-05, they have to perform two flights within 14
days with three occupants prior to Jan 1 2005 to win it, and they have
to do it before their competition does it.

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.

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 20:54:18 -0700, "Rich S."
wrote:

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

An undesired by-product? :-)

You really hit the nail on the head, though, Rich. Low-cost, simple access
to space will happen if there's sufficient economic motive. Right now,
Rutan has the *only* profitmaking business plan that includes manned space
flight: Tourism. Sending humans into space otherwise has been a
money-losing proposition.

It reminds me of a '50s SF story...I think it was Heinlein's "The Man Who
Sold The Moon." The protagonist is obsessed with the drive to develop a
moon rocket. He oversells to investors like crazy, and just before the
rocket takes off, he hands the pilot a bag of diamonds. He tells the man
to show the diamonds when he returns, to spur a "gold rush" into space.

But when the pilot comes back...he hands the protagonist *three* bags of
diamonds....

Ron Wanttaja

"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

Ron Wanttaja wrote:

Another concept was the Dyna-Soar, basically a mini-shuttle from the
mid-60s. It was an Air Force project. Don't really have any information
on why it was canceled,

See opening sequence to any episode of The Six Million Dollar Man.

-- Charlie Springer