SpaceShipOne/Discovery Channel porn

"Corky Scott" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 18:08:57 GMT, Jose
wrote:

That is sufficient. (well, the "cheaper" part anyway)

"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.

Cars proliferated because Henry Ford
made them cheaper. The internet opened up because computers became
cheaper. When RFID tags are cheap enough, society will change
dramatically.

It's not always about doing new things. It's often about making
things that have been done, doable.

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?


Again, I go back to the Wright brothers. Had you been standing on the dune
with them and saw the first flight, I'm sure the concept of a 747 or an F-22
was nowhere NEAR the front of your mind. Hindsite is better than 20/20. We
can look back now and say "the moon shots brought us X,Y & Z". But during
the 1960's the entire program was in constant risk of being shutdown simply
because no one could say what they were getting out of it.

What does the Rutan flights do?

#1 - It proves that it doesn't take a country or it's Billion dollar budget
to fly into space.

#2 - It begins the process and opens the lines of communication for the next
step. Heck the FAA didn't even know how to classify SS1. They finally
settled on "glider". Now with legislation in works, more of this kind of
thing is going to happen and the hurdles of red tape won't have to be
cleared...again.

#3 - It proves that we can still dream big. Most people think of it as a
"simple suborbital flight". But it was MUCH more than that. Why do you
think that they were able to set an altitude record during the flight? If
it was easy, Bruce Bohannon would have already tried it in a rocket powered
RV

#4 - ??????????????? Who knows. 20 years from now there will be another
100 things that you can list as direct and indirect derivatives of this
program. For now, our sight isn't quite 20/200, much less 20/20. We'll
see.

jf

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
...
Corky Scott wrote:


What Burt Rutan did was prove that privately funded people can achieve
what has already been done with government funding. He did not
pioneer anything, he just came up with a different way to achieve
something that's already been done.

Which sort of makes him a "Henry Ford" rather than the "Wright Bros."

and technically, people had been thrown off of cliffs for centuries prior to
the Wright Bros. Orville and Wilbur just showed how to do it with style.

On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 09:41:20 -0500, Corky Scott
wrote:



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. To me it just appears a technical
stunt, the aviation/space equivalent of Evel Knieval jumping a bunch
of cars on a motorcycle, only less dangerous.

Oh yes I forgot, they won a 10 million dollar prize after spending 25
million on the project. And now they're soliciting money from us
through EAA. Is that it? It's a money maker for Rutan?

Corky Scott

Corky, like you I see it as a useless exercise. My first leg across
australia is 320 nautical miles, Rutan's flight was only 100 miles so
what is the big deal.

In many areas of the world you could not embark on such an activity
ever so on one count it is a celebration of the freedoms that we in
the western world take for granted in our daily lives.

Rutan proved nothing new but the activity was such a different thing
to go for that many around the world followed it with great interest.
It demonstrated that if you get off your arse and apply some
intelligence to what you aspire to and set about, then you *can*
achieve interesting things. If just 100 of the inspired observers set
off to pursue something themselves what wonderful improvements in the
world they might achieve.
We've just had a series shown on australian TV called "Inventions from
the shed" which tracked some truely useless inventions brewed up in
backyard workshops. I mean who would want a laser imaging,
computerised, automated oyster sorting machine, but a small group of
guys beavered away for a few years putting the technology together and
actually made it work and improved an oddball little industry in the
process. The contribution that people like Rutan and the oyster
sorters make is not so much in their direct efforts but in inspiring
the world that it is still an interesting place, there is still more
to be explored and understood. Some of those whacky offshoot ideas may
just be developed into technologies and approaches that do actually
matter, do actually improve life on earth.

who would have thought that the edge of the practical air was just 100
miles up? makes you want to take better care of it doesnt it.

Stealth ( do it again :-) ) Pilot

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.

Hi Corky,

Very true. AND much more expensive. But "not possible"? it's entirely
possible as it's been done. The hard part is doing it much more cheaply,
reliably, frequently.

Besides, Spaceship One was
designed for one thing and one thing only, winning the X prize.

Also true. But what matters is what the X-Prize was designed for.

My understanding is that one of it's main functions is to promote a
"civilian" (i.e. non-NASA, non-government) space industry, tourist-in-space
and space access program.

The argument, for years, has been that there is a solid market out there
for space tourism. It's a high-end market to be sure, at least at the
start. And the people who believe in that market also believe - after
watching for decades - that NASA, Big Aero corporations and the government
cannot be relied upon to work towards the goal of cheaper and easier access
to space for anyone, let alone tourists.

So the X-Prize was created using the Orteig prize as a model. The hope was
to stimulate private organizations into action. Clearly they would have to
start with a small objective and work their way up, because there aren't
many private organizations with the necessary space expertise to start with
an orbital craft.

Note that several organizations competed for the prize but none of them are
the big Aerospace companies like Boeing or Lockheed. The believers in this
market think that these corporations are impediments to cheaper and more
wisespread access to space. Everything they do is larded with overhead
costs that small, lean organizations don't have to suffer. And the large
corp method of doing this is also sclerotic with certain exceptions such as
Skunk Works.

And, they argue, the structure of the market, that they believe exists,
supports the "baby step" path.

Some people can afford the $20 million price tag to ride along to ISS
(International Space Station). We've already seen that.

More people could afford an orbital ride.

Sub-Orbital rides would be far cheaper than orbital rides, so more people
can afford that.

Already you can buy a P-51 ride, a ride in a privately owned Vomit Comet,
and a Mig ride (if you are willing to travel to Russia). Or you used to be
able to buy a Mig ride - I haven't seen an ad for it in a while. And lots
more people can afford these rides.

You can buy AT-6 rides ballon rides and glider rides.

At the bottom of the flight "thrill ride" is the $49 Introductory flight
lesson.

So a sub-orbital hop is one niche in this continuum.

And a good place to start for opening up space travel for the masses and not
for a very few hundred highly trained specialists.

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.

You are correct in all of this (except that it's spelled "apogee" - sorry
for being so pedantic ;^) ) but, I think, the real point here is that
before guys like Rutan and other SMALL organizations build an orbital
vehicle, you have to allow them to work their way up. Gain knowledge, skill
and experience.

Suppose the X-Prize started out with orbital requirements...

they'd STILL be working on it. Furthermore you'd have to have a much larger
prize. And you'd have to get people willing to donate towards that prize.

A MUCH harder proposition.

Now make it a smaller, easier target and you can get donors for that sort of
prize much easier. Once that target was met, it's much easier to get donors
for the bigger prize.

Imagine if the Orteig prize was for the first non-stop flight around the
world. It wouldn't have been accomplished in 1927.

I realize it's not an exact analogy because people have already done the
orbital thing, and no one had flown from NY to Paris non-stop.


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.

May not even be Rutan that solves it.

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.

Heat shield technology is cheap and reliable. Most people in good health
can handle the G's you incur upon heat shield re-entry. I wouldn't be
surprised if that's the least problematical thing. The achievement of
25,000 mph at airline turnaround rates, safety, efficiency etc. That seems
to me to be the problem.

Gregg

On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 18:20:31 +0800, Stealth Pilot
wrote:

On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 09:41:20 -0500, Corky Scott
wrote:



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. To me it just appears a technical
stunt, the aviation/space equivalent of Evel Knieval jumping a bunch
of cars on a motorcycle, only less dangerous.

Oh yes I forgot, they won a 10 million dollar prize after spending 25
million on the project. And now they're soliciting money from us
through EAA. Is that it? It's a money maker for Rutan?

Corky Scott

Corky, like you I see it as a useless exercise. My first leg across
australia is 320 nautical miles, Rutan's flight was only 100 miles so
what is the big deal.

In many areas of the world you could not embark on such an activity
ever so on one count it is a celebration of the freedoms that we in
the western world take for granted in our daily lives.

Rutan proved nothing new but the activity was such a different thing
to go for that many around the world followed it with great interest.
It demonstrated that if you get off your arse and apply some
intelligence to what you aspire to and set about, then you *can*
achieve interesting things. If just 100 of the inspired observers set
off to pursue something themselves what wonderful improvements in the
world they might achieve.
We've just had a series shown on australian TV called "Inventions from
the shed" which tracked some truely useless inventions brewed up in
backyard workshops. I mean who would want a laser imaging,
computerised, automated oyster sorting machine, but a small group of
guys beavered away for a few years putting the technology together and
actually made it work and improved an oddball little industry in the
process. The contribution that people like Rutan and the oyster
sorters make is not so much in their direct efforts but in inspiring
the world that it is still an interesting place, there is still more
to be explored and understood. Some of those whacky offshoot ideas may
just be developed into technologies and approaches that do actually
matter, do actually improve life on earth.

who would have thought that the edge of the practical air was just 100
miles up? makes you want to take better care of it doesnt it.

Stealth ( do it again :-) ) Pilot


Corky I just stumbled on a quote which had me thinking of you.

"Technology developed to deliver adhesive consistently and
economically to timber joints is finding applications far beyond its
original objective.
The in-line mixing and metering systems developed by WA Strouds in
conjunction with Forest Research are becoming familiar in many
remanufacturing plants.
However they are also finding applications in a number of diverse
manufacturing processes, ranging from boat building and medical
machinery to electronic components--even fish finders. "

sparks mate. we need more intellectual sparks.
Stealth Pilot

"Corky Scott" wrote in message ...
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 08:44:28 -0800, "gatt"
wrote:

snip

Oh yes I forgot, they won a 10 million dollar prize after spending 25
million on the project. And now they're soliciting money from us
through EAA. Is that it? It's a money maker for Rutan?

Corky Scott


Rutan is soliciting for the EAA, not himself. So it cost them 15 million of someone else's money to successfully light
off an oversized Estes rocket from a free fall. Sounds like a pretty cool ride to me! Wish I could have been there...

--
Dan D.
http://www.ameritech.net/users/ddevillers/start.html


..

On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 01:06:30 GMT, "mike regish"
wrote:

I thought orbital speed was 17,500 mph. And-at least one of the reasons
SpaceshipOne doesn't need all the heat shielding is because of it's low
weight.

mike regish

I stand corrected on the difference between orbital speed as opposed
to escaping earth's gravity. I read the information too fast and
stopped when I got the first blurb.

As to the lack of shielding, Rutan got away with that because the
spaceship did not really re-enter the atmosphere because it did not go
fast enough to achieve orbit. Had it achieved orbital velocity, it
would have burned to a crisp re-entering, unless it somehow managed to
slow down to the kind of speed it managed during it's lob. Remember,
it went straight up then fuel exhaustion occured and it slowed
considerably by the time it nosed over. It was at this apogee, while
it was going it's slowest, that the shuttlecock feature was activated.

That's my point with this venture, it does not appear to have any
connection to space travel, it was a vehical designed to capture the X
prize, which did not require orbiting the earth. The criteria for the
X prize was that a vehical had to go into near space carrying a load
equivelent to another person or two besides the pilot. In my opinion
it's roughly analagous to crusing at 1,000 feet at 100 mph, versus
cruising at that same altitude at 1,000 mph. Both are attainable, but
the airplane that cruises at 1,000 mph, will be substantially
different from the one that can only go 100 mph. The technology that
allows the slow airplane to cruise at 100 does not help the engineers
to design the airplane that goes 1,000 mph at that altitude, or any
altitude. The only similarity is that they'd both likely have wings
and some sort of engine.

I actually feel that it was a neat technical feat/stunt. Folks here
keep saying that it will lead to future space travel. I'd like to
know how, exactly, since none of the technology would actually be
useful for space travel, as we currently know it. Certainly some
aspects of the vehicles construction might cross over to space flight,
making use of lightweight high strength composites. But beyond that
what?

Corky Scott

On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 22:38:01 -0600, "Jeff Franks"
wrote:

Again, I go back to the Wright brothers.

Jeff, you keep bringing up the Wright brothers. Since Rutan and
Spaceship One did not pioneer the space lob [he just re-enacted it
without using government funding and in less technical fashion than
originally done by the US and The Soviet Union government space
programs, although in the event, NASA did do the tracking], I maintain
that you cannot compare Rutan's capturing the X prize to the Wright
brothers first flight.

The Wright brothers were not duplicating something that had been done
thirty five or so years prior with the technology for achieving it
widely known, only doing it cheaper. They concieved, tested and flew
the worlds first controllable airplane. It was one of the most
profound events to occur in the 20th century. People with vision
almost immediately saw future uses for the airplane. Rutan did not
do anything like that, he found a cheaper way to repeat what had
already been done. The absolute only thing that is possible with
Rutan's device is to refine it and give people with a LOT of
disposable income expensive thrill rides. That's all my limited brain
can imagine. Can you think of anything beyond that?

If lobbing vehicals into near space was such a technical triumph, why
do you suppose neither the US nor the Soviet Union ever did it again
once they had managed it the first time? Hint, it wasn't because it
was too expensive.

Corky Scott

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 08:49:26 -0500, Corky Scott
wrote:

Certainly some
aspects of the vehicles construction might cross over to space flight,
making use of lightweight high strength composites. But beyond that
what?

I don't remember the details but when watching a special, Burt went
through the rocket design. I think it's the first rocket to use
non-explosive propellant with a controllable ignition.

Other aficionados's I'm sure have more info, but I remember that this
would be a portable technology.

z