Space Ship One first powered flight!

[[email protected]]

www.space.com is reporting that Spaceship one flew it's first rocket powered flight today.

68Kft and it broke the sound barrier.
Minor incident on landing the left side gear colapsed.
No injuries,minor damage.


Good luck to the pioneers of the next century!

[Chris Schmelzer]

In article >,
wrote:

> www.space.com is reporting that Spaceship one flew it's first rocket powered
> flight today.
>
> 68Kft and it broke the sound barrier.
> Minor incident on landing the left side gear colapsed.
> No injuries,minor damage.
>
>
> Good luck to the pioneers of the next century!
>

Very cool--68k feet on a 15 second burn!

Bet they will be doing their full suborbital flight within a couple of
months..

Can't see any other X-Prize team beating Rutan now

[James]

"Chris Schmelzer" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> wrote:
>
> > www.space.com is reporting that Spaceship one flew it's first rocket
powered
> > flight today.
> >
> > 68Kft and it broke the sound barrier.
> > Minor incident on landing the left side gear colapsed.
> > No injuries,minor damage.
> >
> >
> > Good luck to the pioneers of the next century!
> >
>
> Very cool--68k feet on a 15 second burn!
>
> Bet they will be doing their full suborbital flight within a couple of
> months..
>
> Can't see any other X-Prize team beating Rutan now

I would be very surprised if anyone beat Burt and his bunch to the punch.
When has he not hit a target he set out to?

James Taylor
www.AICompany.com

[Harry Burns]

The "Pond Racer" comes to mind... but my utmost respect to Burt. He truly is
one of the greats, and I dare say, the best that's currently working in the
industry.

[R. Hubbell]

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 19:25:10 -0500 Chris Schmelzer > wrote:

> In article >,
> wrote:
>
> > www.space.com is reporting that Spaceship one flew it's first rocket powered
> > flight today.
> >
> > 68Kft and it broke the sound barrier.
> > Minor incident on landing the left side gear colapsed.
> > No injuries,minor damage.
> >
> >
> > Good luck to the pioneers of the next century!
> >
>
> Very cool--68k feet on a 15 second burn!

Just to be correct (and not to rain on the achievement)
The SpaceshipOne separates from WK at ~50,000ft.

>
> Bet they will be doing their full suborbital flight within a couple of
> months..
>
> Can't see any other X-Prize team beating Rutan now

They certainly are contenders!

R. Hubbell

[Del Rawlins]

On 17 Dec 2003 01:10 PM, posted the following:
> www.space.com is reporting that Spaceship one flew it's first rocket
> powered flight today.
>
> 68Kft and it broke the sound barrier.
> Minor incident on landing the left side gear colapsed.
> No injuries,minor damage.
>
>
> Good luck to the pioneers of the next century!

All hail Burt. Way to steal the show on Wright Brothers day; moving
forward when everybody else's attention is focused on the past. I may
name a kid after him someday, just gotta convince the wife. 8^)

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 01:33:37 GMT, "James"
> wrote:

:
:"Chris Schmelzer" > wrote in message
...
:> In article >,
:> wrote:
:>
:> > www.space.com is reporting that Spaceship one flew it's first rocket
:powered
:> > flight today.
:> >
:> > 68Kft and it broke the sound barrier.
:> > Minor incident on landing the left side gear colapsed.
:> > No injuries,minor damage.
:> >
:> >
:> > Good luck to the pioneers of the next century!
:> >
:>
:> Very cool--68k feet on a 15 second burn!
:>
:> Bet they will be doing their full suborbital flight within a couple of
:> months..
:>
:> Can't see any other X-Prize team beating Rutan now
:
:I would be very surprised if anyone beat Burt and his bunch to the punch.
:When has he not hit a target he set out to?
:
Grizzley
Solitare
Visionair Vantage
V-jet
Proteus
Starship
Ares
Triumph jet
Pond Racer
NGT/T46
Lotus Microlight
CM-144
AD-1 skew wing

Other than those, he's done very well.

[B2431]

>From:
>
>:>
>:> Can't see any other X-Prize team beating Rutan now
>:
>:I would be very surprised if anyone beat Burt and his bunch to the punch.
>:When has he not hit a target he set out to?
>:
>Grizzley
>Solitare
>Visionair Vantage
>V-jet
>Proteus
>Starship
>Ares
>Triumph jet
>Pond Racer
>NGT/T46
>Lotus Microlight
>CM-144
>AD-1 skew wing
>
>Other than those, he's done very well.
>
If memory serves the X-prize involves flying 3 people into space and landing
safely then do it again within a week with the same vehicle.

Your examples don't do that.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[RR Urban]

>> Good luck to the pioneers of the next century!
>
>All hail Burt. Way to steal the show on Wright Brothers day; moving
>forward when everybody else's attention is focused on the past. I may
>name a kid after him someday, just gotta convince the wife. 8^)
>
>Del Rawlins-
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Convince the wife of what?

About the name.....
or about having a kid?

A baby girl named Burt?
Hmmmmm. <g>


Barnyard BOb --

[Nathan Young]

wrote in message >...
> www.space.com is reporting that Spaceship one flew it's first rocket powered flight today.
>
> 68Kft and it broke the sound barrier.
> Minor incident on landing the left side gear colapsed.
> No injuries,minor damage.

More details here:

http://www.scaled.com/news/news.htm

[Jake Brodsky]

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 07:46:47 GMT, wrote:

>On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 01:33:37 GMT, "James"
> wrote:
>
>:
>:I would be very surprised if anyone beat Burt and his bunch to the punch.
>:When has he not hit a target he set out to?
>:
>Grizzley
>Solitare
>Visionair Vantage
>V-jet
>Proteus
>Starship
>Ares
>Triumph jet
>Pond Racer
>NGT/T46
>Lotus Microlight
>CM-144
>AD-1 skew wing
>
>Other than those, he's done very well.

Rutan has done what most are afraid of: He's tried and failed. And
then he's picked up, tried again, and failed. IMHO, given that he
does succeed every now and then, he deserves my respect.

Moller, on the other hand...


Jake Brodsky

"Never mind the Turing Test, what about the Turing Graduates?"

[[email protected]]

On 18 Dec 2003 10:01:35 GMT, (B2431) wrote:

:>From:
:>
:>:>
:>:> Can't see any other X-Prize team beating Rutan now
:>:
:>:I would be very surprised if anyone beat Burt and his bunch to the punch.
:>:When has he not hit a target he set out to?
:>:
:>Grizzley
:>Solitare
:>Visionair Vantage
:>V-jet
:>Proteus
:>Starship
:>Ares
:>Triumph jet
:>Pond Racer
:>NGT/T46
:>Lotus Microlight
:>CM-144
:>AD-1 skew wing
:>
:>Other than those, he's done very well.
:>
:If memory serves the X-prize involves flying 3 people into space and landing
:safely then do it again within a week with the same vehicle.
:
:Your examples don't do that.

I was answering the question (included in the quoted section) "When
has he not hit a target he set out to?"

The planes I listed were some, but not all, of Rutan's failures, times
the he did not "hit a target."

For example, in the Solitare he set out to "hit a target" of a self
launched sailplane. It worked, in a way, but it was an awful
sailplane and only a couple were built. The Pond Racer was supposed
to compete with the unlimited racers at Reno. But it was never as
fast as the big iron, and it crashed, killing it's pilot. Again, it
didn't "hit a target."

I didn't think that any of them were attempts at the X prize.

[Corky Scott]

On 18 Dec 2003 03:44:19 GMT, (Harry Burns) wrote:

>The "Pond Racer" comes to mind... but my utmost respect to Burt. He truly is
>one of the greats, and I dare say, the best that's currently working in the
>industry.

My information on the Pond Racer is that the aerodynamic design was
fine, it was to cooling system for the engines that didn't work. I
also understand that Rutan did not have a hand in the cooling system.
I could be wrong but the guy I talked with said that the cooling
system was simply inadaquate for the power being produced.

Corky Scott

[James]

> wrote in message ...
> On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 01:33:37 GMT, "James"
> > wrote:
>
> :
> :"Chris Schmelzer" > wrote in message
> ...
> :> In article >,
> :> wrote:
> :>
> :> > www.space.com is reporting that Spaceship one flew it's first rocket
> :powered
> :> > flight today.
> :> >
> :> > 68Kft and it broke the sound barrier.
> :> > Minor incident on landing the left side gear colapsed.
> :> > No injuries,minor damage.
> :> >
> :> >
> :> > Good luck to the pioneers of the next century!
> :> >
> :>
> :> Very cool--68k feet on a 15 second burn!
> :>
> :> Bet they will be doing their full suborbital flight within a couple of
> :> months..
> :>
> :> Can't see any other X-Prize team beating Rutan now
> :
> :I would be very surprised if anyone beat Burt and his bunch to the punch.
> :When has he not hit a target he set out to?
> :
> Grizzley
> Solitare
> Visionair Vantage
> V-jet
> Proteus
> Starship
> Ares
> Triumph jet
> Pond Racer
> NGT/T46
> Lotus Microlight
> CM-144
> AD-1 skew wing
>
> Other than those, he's done very well.

HAHA, I guess I stand a bit corected...but having said that, what was wrong
with the Proteus? I think it hit the hit the target exactly and the Pond
Racer had a cooling system malfunction....

I guess if we are going ot be honest with ourselves, he has done more to
advance private aviation than any other single person in the past twenty
years...looking at the thing she has achieved.

Along with triumphs, there will be failures, but the tradgic are the ones
that are never brought to fruition by those who dream but never do.


James Taylor
www.AICompany.com

[Del Rawlins]

On 18 Dec 2003 03:14 AM, RR Urban posted the following:

> Convince the wife of what?
>
> About the name.....
> or about having a kid?
>
> A baby girl named Burt?
> Hmmmmm. <g>

I mentioned the name to her and was told in no uncertain terms to forget
it... As for the other, all of that convincing has been directed from
her, not to. Not that I am so opposed to the idea, I'm just not ready
to give up my selfishness yet. 8^)

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

[Del Rawlins]

>> :> Can't see any other X-Prize team beating Rutan now
>> :
>> :I would be very surprised if anyone beat Burt and his bunch to the
>> :punch. When has he not hit a target he set out to?
>> Grizzley
>> Solitare
>> Visionair Vantage
>> V-jet
>> Proteus
>> Starship
>> Ares
>> Triumph jet
>> Pond Racer
>> NGT/T46
>> Lotus Microlight
>> CM-144
>> AD-1 skew wing
>>
>> Other than those, he's done very well.
>
> HAHA, I guess I stand a bit corected...but having said that, what was
> wrong with the Proteus? I think it hit the hit the target exactly and
> the Pond Racer had a cooling system malfunction....
>
> I guess if we are going ot be honest with ourselves, he has done more
> to advance private aviation than any other single person in the past
> twenty years...looking at the thing she has achieved.
>
> Along with triumphs, there will be failures, but the tradgic are the
> ones that are never brought to fruition by those who dream but never
> do.

Besides which, the purpose of an experiment is to find out whether or
not something works. The fact that something didn't work as expected is
a disappointment but it doesn't mean that the experiment wasn't
successful. If you shoot for small targets at extremely long range, a
few misses are to be expected.

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

[B2431]

>From:
>Date: 12/18/2003 8:57 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On 18 Dec 2003 10:01:35 GMT, (B2431) wrote:
>
>:>From:
>:>
>:>:>
>:>:> Can't see any other X-Prize team beating Rutan now
>:>:
>:>:I would be very surprised if anyone beat Burt and his bunch to the punch.
>:>:When has he not hit a target he set out to?
>:>:
>:>Grizzley
>:>Solitare
>:>Visionair Vantage
>:>V-jet
>:>Proteus
>:>Starship
>:>Ares
>:>Triumph jet
>:>Pond Racer
>:>NGT/T46
>:>Lotus Microlight
>:>CM-144
>:>AD-1 skew wing
>:>
>:>Other than those, he's done very well.
>:>
>:If memory serves the X-prize involves flying 3 people into space and landing
>:safely then do it again within a week with the same vehicle.
>:
>:Your examples don't do that.
>
>I was answering the question (included in the quoted section) "When
>has he not hit a target he set out to?"
>

I stand corrected and apologize.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[DO]

wrote:

>:When has he not hit a target he set out to?

>:
>Grizzley
>Solitare
>Visionair Vantage
>V-jet
>Proteus
>Starship
>Ares
>Triumph jet
>Pond Racer
>NGT/T46
>Lotus Microlight
>CM-144
>AD-1 skew wing
>
>Other than those, he's done very well.

Silly, laughably silly. In point of fact, Burt did "very well" on
many of the projects you listed. Your suggestion that these projects
were failures is incorrect in several respects. Some of the listed
projects fully hit their mark. In that respect, your list is
erroneous. Of the listed projects that didn't fully hit their mark,
most were quite successful in many respects. Burt is a giant in
aviation. You are nothing. Don't pretend otherwise.

[DO]

wrote:

>The planes I listed were some, but not all, of Rutan's failures, times
>the he did not "hit a target."

How laughable. You are not qualified to characterize Burt Rutan's
projects as successes or failures. Burt does not consider most of the
projects on your silly "failure" list to be failures at all. Burt is
a giant in aviation. You are nothing. Don't pretend otherwise by
presuming to cast judgement on his accomplishments.

As Theodore Roosevelt correctly noted,

"It is not the critic who counts, nor the man who points out how the
strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done them
better.

The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face
is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs
and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the
great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause.

Who, at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement;
and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring
greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid
souls who know neither victory nor defeat."

[Bob Fry]

DO > writes:

> As Theodore Roosevelt correctly noted,
>
> "It is not the critic who counts, nor the man who points out how the
> strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done them
> better.

Teddy was wrong, and so is DO. For instance, I am not a politician,
have never run for any elective office, but I (and millions of others)
correctly judged California's now former governor Grey Davis to be
incompetent and we got rid of him. Good call and job well done. Many
other examples are available: the movie or art critic (do they have to
be active film makers or painters to judge?), the restaurant critic
(do they have to own and operate a restaraunt before passing judgement
on the service, ambience, and food?), etc.

The original poster correctly responded to the rhetorical question,
"when has Rutan failed?" But answering that question doesn't
necessarily imply disrespect. My guess is that Rutan, and probably
the original poster, would readily acknowledge that failure is a
necessary part of becoming great. This, DO does not seem to
understand; he confuses hero worship and perceived perfection with
greatness.

[Vaughn]

"Bob Fry" > wrote in message
...
> DO > writes:
>
> > As Theodore Roosevelt correctly noted,
> >
> > "It is not the critic who counts, nor the man who points out how the
> > strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done them
> > better.
>
> Teddy was wrong, and so is DO. For instance, I am not a politician,
> have never run for any elective office, but I (and millions of others)
> correctly judged California's now former governor Grey Davis to be
> incompetent and we got rid of him. Good call and job well done.

I would say that the jury is still very much out on that one! Perhaps
you should pick another example.

Getting back to Space Shop One, I think it was a stunning achievement
that did not get near the press it deserved. I still ponder why Burt seems
to be attacking this project the hard way, but you can't argue with success.

Vaughn

[DJFawcett26]

>As an airplane it was OK. The problem was that it couldn't do it's mission
>economically enough to be viable as a business, it's endurance was way too
>short. It would have to orbit over a city for about 72 hours before the
>business became practical. And then you get into problems with the crew. It
>should have been a UAV.>

Your statement is simply not correct. The aircraft had plenty of endurance. I
was involved in a competing program at the time and the ideal manned mission
was determined to be 10 hrs. Each mission would be overlapped 2 hrs. This
proved to be very, very profitable to the wireless operator. Far more
profitable than the common "tower terrestrial system". The program I was
involved in had the same problem that Rutan encountered with his client. And
that was the wireless relay equipment! Doing the relay is easier said than
done when handling thousands of transmission simultaneously while orbiting
about a single station. The complexity was immense. In reality, the Proteus
was tremendously capable of the task if the relay equipment was perfected.
Quite frankly, the telecommunication industry segment involved with airborne
wireless communication considered the Proteus the idea vehicle.

As for being a UAV, that concept was a total non-starter at the time.
Considering un-manned operations over populated areas was only a twinkle in the
eye. And why, there were absolutely no guidelines established by the FAA for
certification. Only today are they even considering it. But the whole idea is
still a long way down road. Besides, if you need an unmanned aircraft, take
the "guy" out of the cockpit of the Proteus and make it unmanned. The aircraft
as designed is well suited for the application. And don't think it wasn't a
consideration by Rutan's client, because it certainly was, but 10 yrs.
downline. Only then does the 72 hrs. mission make any sense.

Bottom line, Rutan was right on point with the Proteus, unfortunately the
telecommunication folks had a long way to go.

[Bada Bing]

> Vaughn > wrote:

> I think it was a stunning achievement

*** E * X * A * C * T * L * Y ***

[Morgans]

> wrote
>
> You have no idea who I am.

Tell us!

> You have no idea what I've done.

Dazzle us!

> When was the last time a Rutan design was a huge success?

How about that little project called Voyager? You know, the one in the
Smithsonian?

By the way, what do you have in that building?

Until you back up your mouthings, you are yet but one more faceless,
nameless coward. Go ahead, dazzle us, then go choose another meaningless
name to post under if you must.

Until then, Blaa Blaa Blaa, is all I hear.

[Morgans]

> wrote
> >
> >
>
> If you think every plane Burt designs is successful, I know about a bridge
for
> sale you might want to consider.
>

I don't, but you seemed to be blowing your own horn a bit too loudly.
--
Jim in NC

[Mike Beede]

In article >, > wrote:

> >"It is not the critic who counts, nor the man who points out how the
> >strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done them
> >better.
>
> You have no idea what I've done.

Strictly speaking, we all have an idea who you are and what you've
done. You're an anonymous nobody, and you've posted some messages
to USENET. If you want us to have different ideas, you have to give
them to us. But, even then, people may doubt. After all, it's the internet,
where no one knows I'm a dog.

To address another point you made earlier (that I didn't quote),
what was wrong with the Starship? I thought that the folks that
had one really liked it. Obviously I've never had any direct experience....

Regards,

Mike Beede

[BlakeleyTB]

Like this person that is hiding behind his computer, I too am jealous of Burt
Rutan. I wish I could have a tenth of the "failures" he has made. Oh to be so
unsuccessful
I bet ol' Burt is reading this newsgroup and is so envious that this nameless
person actually touched an Apollo capsule, the Enterprise and wow, an
X-15...and then to be able to make it sound like he should be taking the credit
for the success of these vehicles. Now since I've worked on a/c from J-3 to
F4, SR-71 to the F-22..I can take credit for these aircraft...hey, I've worked
on the shuttle engines...HEY, I AM successful too!!!! I am more successful
than Burt....of courseI am being sarcastic...I and the nameless idiot hiding
behind his computer could only wish to become a shadow of the success Burthas
experienced....otherwise he wouldn't be attempting to impress us....he wouldn't
have that "need" to hide his insecurities, etc

Cheers,

Ted

[C.D.Damron]

Many Rutan projects are proof of concept projects, as much as anything else.

It is possible for a concept to be proven as viable despite not meeting the
criteria that we normally associate with success. One thing that Rutan is
great at is going from concept to application quickly and economically.
Others following a more traditional path would have been bankrupt after the
first project.

[James]

"C.D.Damron" > wrote in message
news:7hFEb.401493$Dw6.1249496@attbi_s02...
> Many Rutan projects are proof of concept projects, as much as anything
else.
>
> It is possible for a concept to be proven as viable despite not meeting
the
> criteria that we normally associate with success. One thing that Rutan is
> great at is going from concept to application quickly and economically.
> Others following a more traditional path would have been bankrupt after
the
> first project.

Thanks!!

I wish I could have said this myself C.D.

James Taylor
www.AICompany.com

[Dave Hyde]

"C.D.Damron" wrote:

> One thing that Rutan is great at is going from concept to
> application quickly and economically.

Excellent point. I'd love to see some off the stuff that
never made it off the drawing board.

Dave 'another kind of CD' Hyde

[DO]

wrote:

>You have no idea who I am.

You are a nobody.

>You have no idea what I've done.

You will not be even a footnote in the history of Aviation and
Aerospace.

>You have no idea how Burt's customers feel about him.

Scaled Composites has had several repeat customers including DoD and
large aerospace companies. That speaks volumes.

>You have no idea how Burt's former partners or employees feel about him either.

Wrong. I was at Scaled last summer for Burt's birthday celebration.
I met and talked to several of his current and former employees.

>When was the last time a Rutan design was a huge success?

Just two days ago, silly. You are obviously confused. Scaled
Composites is not in the business of making huge commercial successes.
That is not their business model. They specialize in rapid
prototyping and they do it very well. Most of their projects are
successful. Nonetheless, even some of the projects that on the
surface seem utter failures are not in fact so. Take, for example,
the Solitaire. Some of what was learned in the fabrication of that
glider was incorporated into the overwhelmingly successful Voyager.
Your silly "failure" list remains a failure of common sense -- rooted,
I suspect, in jealousy.

[DO]

wrote:

>Until the previous message I've never talked about my past work, who I've worked
>with or what companies I've worked for. You asked what hardware I have in the
>Smithsonian. I answered. I've only rarely mentioned what I'm working on now.
>
>The hardware I worked on that ended up there is not the stuff that I'm most
>proud of.
>
>I knew Burt before he was a homebuilder. I've build 2 airplanes from his
>designs. I worked in the field for 36 years, I have a PhD and I was a visiting
>professor for 12 years. I have hardware on the moon and in orbit around Mars.
>I have patents that are still classified SCI even though they've run out.
>
>I'm qualified to point out that Emperor Burt is dressed for casual Friday.

You are an anonymous nobody who is qualified for nothing. You can
argue issues anonymously if you wish -- no problem there -- but claims
of past accomplishments remain nothing but BS until you publicly cough
up your real name. As you noted earlier,

>"I could tell you I have 30,000 hours and I've flown 1000 different kinds of airplanes,
>that wouldn't make it true - but more importantly, it wouldn't make it false."

Correct, it makes it nothing, just as your claims in this post are
nothing. I'll take the true accomplishments of a Burt Rutan "dressed
for casual Friday" over the unsubstantiated claims of a jealous anon
usenet poster any day of the week.

And yes, folks, Burt does occasionally read these newsgroups. Burt
does Google usenet searches looking for leaks about Scaled's X-Prize
efforts. I'm sure he will find this thread amusing.

[Larry Smith]

"DO" > wrote in message
...
>
> wrote:
>
> >You have no idea who I am.
>
> You are a nobody.
>
> >You have no idea what I've done.
>
> You will not be even a footnote in the history of Aviation and
> Aerospace.

I must cavil slightly with you here. He's a footnote in the history of RAH
as the windbag who claims to live in a ritzy Southern California suburb.
But when he applied for a second mortgage on his mobile home, Wingy turned
him down. hahahaha.

[Gag Me With A Spoon]

> Larry Smith > wrote:

> I must cavil slightly with you here. He's a footnote in the history of RAH
> as the windbag who claims to live in a ritzy Southern California suburb.
> But when he applied for a second mortgage on his mobile home, Wingy turned
> him down. hahahaha.

This from the mouth of Latchless Larry.... The man who can't even buy
a set of latches or a battery.

[Larry Smith]

"Gag Me With A Spoon" > wrote in message
...
> > Larry Smith > wrote:
>
> > I must cavil slightly with you here. He's a footnote in the history of
RAH
> > as the windbag who claims to live in a ritzy Southern California suburb.
> > But when he applied for a second mortgage on his mobile home, Wingy
turned
> > him down. hahahaha.
>
> This from the mouth of Latchless Larry.... The man who can't even buy
> a set of latches or a battery.

Got 'em both, anonymous scumbag, but you've gagged on something besides a
spoon.

[RobertR237]

In article >, writes:

>
>>Until then, Blaa Blaa Blaa, is all I hear.
>>
>>
>
>If you think every plane Burt designs is successful, I know about a bridge
>for
>sale you might want to consider.
>
>

One could by your logic argue that the Wright Brothers were unsuccessful since
the Wright Flyer also crashed and was destroyed. It is not the success of the
individual aircraft that should be measured but what is learned in the process
and can be applied to further the advances in aviation. By that measure, the
Wright Brothers were very successful and by the same measure Burt Rutan is also
very successful.

Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

[tongaloa]

DJFawcett26 wrote:
>>As an airplane it was OK. The problem was that it couldn't do it's mission
>>economically enough to be viable as a business, it's endurance was way too
>>short. It would have to orbit over a city for about 72 hours before the
>>business became practical. And then you get into problems with the crew. It
>>should have been a UAV.>
>
>
> Your statement is simply not correct. The aircraft had plenty of endurance. I
> was involved in a competing program at the time and the ideal manned mission
> was determined to be 10 hrs. Each mission would be overlapped 2 hrs. This
> proved to be very, very profitable to the wireless operator. Far more
> profitable than the common "tower terrestrial system". The program I was
> involved in had the same problem that Rutan encountered with his client. And
> that was the wireless relay equipment! Doing the relay is easier said than
> done when handling thousands of transmission simultaneously while orbiting
> about a single station. The complexity was immense. In reality, the Proteus
> was tremendously capable of the task if the relay equipment was perfected.
> Quite frankly, the telecommunication industry segment involved with airborne
> wireless communication considered the Proteus the idea vehicle.
>

What were the problems with the wireless?
I'm curious because of some background in that area and the wireless
potential suggested for the NASA solar powered AC.

-bob

[pacplyer]

*Hey DO, "a" seems of two minds about this.
A few months ago was attacking Veeduber:*

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=fqq1dv8a97i30agbp4fu9elk4ov31lb4hl%404 ax.com
Yes, Burt did learn from his mistakes and he learned quite quickly.
The 1976 VariEze design and plans were a great improvement over the
Quicky. At builders forums around the country, Burt listened and
patiently answered all questions. I know, I was there. The RAF monthly
newsletter kept builders informed of safety related issues. By 1980,
with the introduction of the Long-EZ, Burt had it nailed. Your
shoulder chip from your Quicky experience is obvious. Get over it.
Your mocking use of the words "great genius" is quite telling, not of
Burt but of you. Bert is a giant in aviation and you are not even a
footnote. As one who likes to present himself as the sage aviation
expert, perhaps _that_ is your biggest chip.

*So I responded back in May:*

Say "a",

Actually, if my memory serves, the Quickie came out in 1978. That is
the copywright on the quickie plans that I have. The Quickie was a
cute little single seat "x" wing with 18-22 hp Onan engine. So the
Vari-Eze design could not have been "a great improvement over the
Quicky" as you say, since it had not even been built yet.

Best Regards,

pacplyer

*Seems funny that "a", didn't know the VariEze design came before
Jewett's Quickie. Maybe he exagerates about knowing Bert (among other
things.) By the way, Bert was honored recently on a stage with Neil
Armstrong at the new Smithsonian museum as a "hero of aviation." It
was covered live on CSpan.
Congraduations Mr. Rutan, again.

pac*

[Ben Sego]

wrote:
<snip>

> 3) It's archived. My posts aren't.

I think you meant to say:

"His post is archived. On my posts, I set the non-standard, but
frequently honored 'X-No-Archive' header to'Yes.' So, those archives
which choose to honor the header won't keep a copy of my message, at
least not for very long. Unless someone includes my message as
reference when they reply to it, in which case, my original message will
be archived as part of the reply, so that someone with at least a little
spin on the ball will be able to find my message despite my effort to
remain yet more anonymous. And of course, any of the archives which
ignore the non-standard header will maintain a copy of my message."

That's what you meant to say.


Ben "spinning the ball quite, nicely, and thank you for asking" Sego

[Owe Rudbeck]

"RobertR237" > skrev i meddelandet
...
> One could by your logic argue that the Wright Brothers were unsuccessful
since
> the Wright Flyer also crashed and was destroyed. It is not the success of
the
> individual aircraft that should be measured but what is learned in the
process
> and can be applied to further the advances in aviation. By that measure,
the
> Wright Brothers were very successful and by the same measure Burt Rutan is
also
> very successful.

From the other side of the Atlantic: THANK YOU for some words of real
insight!

Owe the notorius topposter

[Ben Sego]

wrote:
> In article >, Ben Sego says...
>
wrote:
>><snip>
>>
>>>3) It's archived. My posts aren't.
>>
>>I think you meant to say:
>>
>>"His post is archived. On my posts, I set the non-standard, but
>>frequently honored 'X-No-Archive' header to'Yes.' So, those archives
>>which choose to honor the header won't keep a copy of my message, at
>>least not for very long. Unless someone includes my message as
>>reference when they reply to it, in which case, my original message will
>>be archived as part of the reply, so that someone with at least a little
>>spin on the ball will be able to find my message despite my effort to
>>remain yet more anonymous. And of course, any of the archives which
>>ignore the non-standard header will maintain a copy of my message."
>>
>>That's what you meant to say.
>
>
> I'm sorry, I had thought all that was implicit in the " ) ".

Oh. I see. Sorry for all the bother, then.


> Of course, you are
> correct.

>
> I further implied, in the first apostrophe, "You may note that the post which
> you attribute to me, posted by "a ," has no 'X-No-Archive" header
> included with it. It is for this reason that the post was archived by Google
> Groups, and you were able to reference it by means of a link to their files.
> While this is certainly not definitive proof that it was posted by someone other
> than myself, it is a fact that should be considered in concert with the other
> evidence presented here."

Well, it is probably clear to you that I deduced the actual technical
details of the situation. I sought only to clarify for you and other
readers. Still, I should not have presumed any lack of understanding of
the detailed situation on your part. For that inaccurate presumption
on _my_ part, I offer my apology.

>
> Additionally, the period "." was meant to imply "You may also note the post by
> the anonymous "DO" further down the thread, archived at
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3474187051d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=9jg6uvguldcsho58cgv38aemcm4649akuc%404ax.com.
> After excoriating me for my anonymity, he writes "You will not be even a
> footnote in the history of Aviation and Aerospace."

My. I missed that subtlety of your expression. Now that you point it
out, may I add "Wow. My irony meter just exploded." If you take my
meaning.

>
> This is oddly similar to the line that the anonymous pacplyer erroneously
> attributes to me: "Bert is a giant in aviation and you are not even a footnote."
> Is it possible that the anonymous DO is also the anonymous ? They
> certainly seem to take the same view of Mr. Rutan, one far removed from my own.
> Perhaps the anonymous pacplyer can investigate further, and inform us of his
> findings.

I've missed much.

>
> Mr. DO is incorrect in one thing at least. I have appeared in many footnotes in
> aviation."

I _have_ seen attributions to "anonymous" in various of my history of
aviation and space exploration readings. Presumably, though, you mean
something else.

>
> Thank you for your timely and insightful correction, Mr Sego - if that is your
> real name.

Oh, only too happy to help. And the name is correct. My contact
information is available at more than one location on the web, so that
googling can be productive. Also, in a curious bit of deja vu, I posted
my name, address, and phone number to this newsgroup some years
back. It was in a discussion about anonymous posters, I think. A
curiosity only.

And just to be complete, while I have worked a bit in the aerospace
field, I doubt my name will make it into any of the footnotes. Not that
it should, mind you. Just clarifying.

B.S.

[Dilbert Firestorm]

RobertR237 wrote:

>In article >, writes:
>
>
>
>>>Until then, Blaa Blaa Blaa, is all I hear.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>If you think every plane Burt designs is successful, I know about a bridge
>>for
>>sale you might want to consider.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>One could by your logic argue that the Wright Brothers were unsuccessful since
>the Wright Flyer also crashed and was destroyed. It is not the success of the
>individual aircraft that should be measured but what is learned in the process
>and can be applied to further the advances in aviation. By that measure, the
>Wright Brothers were very successful and by the same measure Burt Rutan is also
>very successful.
>
well, by that.. they weren't successful in making money off of their
invention. they wasted alot of time suing over patent money.

[Dilbert Firestorm]

wrote:

>www.space.com is reporting that Spaceship one flew it's first rocket powered flight today.
>
>68Kft and it broke the sound barrier.
>Minor incident on landing the left side gear colapsed.
>No injuries,minor damage.
>
>
>Good luck to the pioneers of the next century!
>
>
>
anyone have a link to the spaceflight contest?

[RobertR237]

In article >, Dilbert Firestorm
> writes:

>>
>>One could by your logic argue that the Wright Brothers were unsuccessful
>since
>>the Wright Flyer also crashed and was destroyed. It is not the success of
>the
>>individual aircraft that should be measured but what is learned in the
>process
>>and can be applied to further the advances in aviation. By that measure,
>the
>>Wright Brothers were very successful and by the same measure Burt Rutan is
>also
>>very successful.
>>
>well, by that.. they weren't successful in making money off of their
>invention. they wasted alot of time suing over patent money.
>
>

Is the only measure of success how much money is made off of the invention?


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

[Morgans]

"RobertR237" > wrote > >
>
> Is the only measure of success how much money is made off of the
invention?
>
>
> Bob Reed

Yep. Edison was a flop. TIC (tongue in cheek)
--
Jim in NC

[Tim Ward]

"Dilbert Firestorm" > wrote in
message ...
> RobertR237 wrote:
<snippage>
> >One could by your logic argue that the Wright Brothers were unsuccessful
since
> >the Wright Flyer also crashed and was destroyed. It is not the success
of the
> >individual aircraft that should be measured but what is learned in the
process
> >and can be applied to further the advances in aviation. By that measure,
the
> >Wright Brothers were very successful and by the same measure Burt Rutan
is also
> >very successful.
> >
> well, by that.. they weren't successful in making money off of their
> invention. they wasted alot of time suing over patent money.

That's not strictly true. The Wrights, (and the Wright company) did enforce
their patents, but Wilbur died in 1912, and Orville sold the patent and the
company in 1915. The "Patent wars" were ended by the patent pooling
agreement in 1917. The long-running patent suits were not brought by the
Wrights, but by the heirs of John J. Montgomery against the holders of the
Wright patents and the U.S. government. That was finally decided in favor
of the Wright patent holders in 1928.
This did have the effect of getting Orville to write down how they went
about their early experiments, and I can recommend "How We Invented the
Aeroplane" to anyone interested.

Orville made a _lot_ of money when he sold the company. It was a private
transaction, and no one knows for sure, but most estimates put it around two
million dollars -- an awful lot of money in 1915.

Tim Ward

[Ben Sego]

Dilbert Firestorm wrote:
> wrote:
>
>> www.space.com is reporting that Spaceship one flew it's first rocket
>> powered flight today.
>>
>> 68Kft and it broke the sound barrier.
>> Minor incident on landing the left side gear colapsed.
>> No injuries,minor damage.
>>
>>
>> Good luck to the pioneers of the next century!
>>
>>
>>
> anyone have a link to the spaceflight contest?
>

When in doubt, try the obvious. I typed:

www.xprize.com

and found something of interest.

www.xprize.org

also brings on a nearly identical page. Then I tried


www.xxxprize.com

This site, while providing some stiff competition to the others, seems
to be unrelated.

B.S.

[pacplyer]

Ben Sego > wrote in message >...

> wrote:
> >><snip>
> >>
> > I further implied, in the first apostrophe, "You may note that the post which
> > you attribute to me, posted by "a ," has no 'X-No-Archive" header
> > included with it. It is for this reason that the post was archived by Google
> > Groups, and you were able to reference it by means of a link to their files.
> > While this is certainly not definitive proof that it was posted by someone other
> > than myself, it is a fact that should be considered in concert with the other
> > evidence presented here."

Ben Sego said:
> Well, it is probably clear to you that I deduced the actual technical
> details of the situation. I sought only to clarify for you and other
> readers. Still, I should not have presumed any lack of understanding of
> the detailed situation on your part. For that inaccurate presumption
> on _my_ part, I offer my apology. <snip>

Pacplyer realizes:
Well that's my fault then Ben, for misidentifying the two a@a's. It
is I who must apologize for mixing them up (have to speak to an "AA"
counselor about that ;-) There were just so many similarities... what
struck me as remarkable was the reversal in attitude toward Burt, and
the same "footnote in aviation" diatribe being used against the second
"a" that earlier he (the first a) attacked Veeduber with. Alas, it was
simpler in the days of Ben Franklin when he published his opinions as
an alias that was more easy to distinguish: Ms. Silence Dogood.

So , if you are a different "a" than a , I am sorry for
confusing you two... who both, passionately argued about the same
subject, emersed in the same dialog, and both claimed to know all
about Mr Burt Rutan! Might I make a suggestion to you? Is there any
chance you could pick a more imaginative alias? Like let's call you:
. Or how about:
or mabey: ? See,
those email alias' I *can* remember and differentiate. And as a side
benefit you can get some of that hero-worship, fame and respect that
you seem to begrudge Mr. Rutan. ;-)

One more irony exists though, that I can't figure out: I cannot read
either of the "a"'s postings about half the time. But everybody else
seems to be able to. These two posters are the only ones I've had
trouble with. Another amazing coincidence? But I can sometimes read
the omitted "a" posting on another web-based newsreader. Ben, I'm all
ears as to why. There is no news server at Direcway my ISP. Could
that be why? Or is there a way to selectively exclude one user
address from seeing the rebuttal? This may not be rocket science for
you Ben, but I'm scratching my head here.

"a"#2 says: <snip both ends>
> > This is oddly similar to the line that the anonymous pacplyer erroneously
> > attributes to me: "Bert is a giant in aviation and you are not even a footnote."
> > Is it possible that the anonymous DO is also the anonymous ? They
> > certainly seem to take the same view of Mr. Rutan, one far removed from my own.
> > Perhaps the anonymous pacplyer can investigate further, and inform us of his
> > findings.
>

Sure, why not. My next lunar space-laser patent application isn't due
to be filed for another few sidereal hours.

pac "undercover rocket detective" plyer

[beauzo]

(DJFawcett26) wrote in message >...
> >As an airplane it was OK. The problem was that it couldn't do it's mission
> >economically enough to be viable as a business, it's endurance was way too
> >short. It would have to orbit over a city for about 72 hours before the
> >business became practical. And then you get into problems with the crew. It
> >should have been a UAV.>
>
> Your statement is simply not correct. The aircraft had plenty of endurance. I
> was involved in a competing program at the time and the ideal manned mission
> was determined to be 10 hrs. Each mission would be overlapped 2 hrs. This
> proved to be very, very profitable to the wireless operator. Far more
> profitable than the common "tower terrestrial system". The program I was
> involved in had the same problem that Rutan encountered with his client. And
> that was the wireless relay equipment! Doing the relay is easier said than
> done when handling thousands of transmission simultaneously while orbiting
> about a single station. The complexity was immense. In reality, the Proteus
> was tremendously capable of the task if the relay equipment was perfected.
> Quite frankly, the telecommunication industry segment involved with airborne
> wireless communication considered the Proteus the idea vehicle.
>
> As for being a UAV, that concept was a total non-starter at the time.
> Considering un-manned operations over populated areas was only a twinkle in the
> eye. And why, there were absolutely no guidelines established by the FAA for
> certification. Only today are they even considering it. But the whole idea is
> still a long way down road. Besides, if you need an unmanned aircraft, take
> the "guy" out of the cockpit of the Proteus and make it unmanned. The aircraft
> as designed is well suited for the application. And don't think it wasn't a
> consideration by Rutan's client, because it certainly was, but 10 yrs.
> downline. Only then does the 72 hrs. mission make any sense.
>
> Bottom line, Rutan was right on point with the Proteus, unfortunately the
> telecommunication folks had a long way to go.

What is ironic about your comments is that the Proteus has been an
active participant and testbed in NASA's ERAST UAV DSA flight
demonstrations. Fitted with special sensors and instrumentation, it
was flown from the ground (apparently by computer) during a number of
DSA flights (with a pilot on board).

You must understand that Burt's heart is in manned test flight. So,
I'm not so sure he is excited about the possibility of UAV's taking
the place of piloted aircraft.

-B