If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
"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 .. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Is this the end of Discovery Wings Channel ?? | LJ611 | Home Built | 16 | December 7th 04 04:26 AM |
Discovery Wings Channel ??? | Bush | Piloting | 7 | November 15th 04 04:07 PM |
Discovery Wings Channel ??? | Jerry J. Wass | Home Built | 3 | November 15th 04 03:31 PM |
Discovery Wings Channel ??? | Andy Asberry | Home Built | 0 | November 13th 04 05:11 AM |