Spaceship One, going for two of two

[lance smith]

White Knight and Spaceship One just took off. Wish them luck! You can
watch it live at xprize.org.

p.s. N328KF is listed as a glider... no 'engine' : )

-lance smith

[gatt]

GOOOOOAAAAAAALLLL!!!!

Civilization has advanced. One more small step forward...

-c

"lance smith" > wrote in message
om...
> White Knight and Spaceship One just took off. Wish them luck! You can
> watch it live at xprize.org.
>
> p.s. N328KF is listed as a glider... no 'engine' : )
>
> -lance smith

[George]

(lance smith) wrote in message >...
> White Knight and Spaceship One just took off. Wish them luck! You can
> watch it live at xprize.org.
>
> p.s. N328KF is listed as a glider... no 'engine' : )
>
Watched it. Great stuff.
You -do- realise that he can claim a Diamond for height gained now :-)

[Jim Weir]

Nope, not unless the ENTIRE flight was made without using a motor, just the same
rules as a motorglider. Sorry, no diamond.

{;-)

Jim



(George)
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

(lance smith) wrote in message
>...
->> White Knight and Spaceship One just took off. Wish them luck! You can
->> watch it live at xprize.org.
->>
->> p.s. N328KF is listed as a glider... no 'engine' : )
->>
->Watched it. Great stuff.
->You -do- realise that he can claim a Diamond for height gained now :-)



Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[bryan chaisone]

They did it! Yah Hoo for America!

Bryan Chaisone

(lance smith) wrote in message >...
> White Knight and Spaceship One just took off. Wish them luck! You can
> watch it live at xprize.org.
>
> p.s. N328KF is listed as a glider... no 'engine' : )
>
> -lance smith

[James L. Freeman]

(lance smith) wrote in message >...
> White Knight and Spaceship One just took off. Wish them luck! You can
> watch it live at xprize.org.
>
> p.s. N328KF is listed as a glider... no 'engine' : )
>
> -lance smith

Fox Headline News coverage said that one of the conditions for
claiming the $10-milllion prize is that the pilot must return in "good
health," which is defined as surving for 24 hours after the landing.
What precaution is Rutan's organization taking to insure the pilot
doesn't slip on a banna peel or trip over his shoelaces during the
next 24 hours and cost them the prize? Do they lock him in a padded
cell?

[One's Too Many]

(lance smith) wrote in message >...
> White Knight and Spaceship One just took off. Wish them luck! You can
> watch it live at xprize.org.
>
> p.s. N328KF is listed as a glider... no 'engine' : )

Technically, I guess SS1 *is* a motorglider of sorts. Does that mean
that you need no medical cert to fly it?

[John Harlow]

So, what exactly does this event tell us about NASA?

[John Harlow]

bryan chaisone wrote:
> They did it! Yah Hoo for America!

What exactly does America have to do with these people's success?

[Kyle Boatright]

"John Harlow" > wrote in message
...
> bryan chaisone wrote:
>> They did it! Yah Hoo for America!
>
> What exactly does America have to do with these people's success?

Name somewhere else that you could get sufficient:

1) Talent
2) Funding
AND
3) Government permission.

KB

[Wizard of Draws]

On 10/4/04 7:21 PM, in article , "John
Harlow" > wrote:

> So, what exactly does this event tell us about NASA?
>
>

Apples and oranges at this point in time.

NASA put men and their machines in orbit, not just up and down. They put men
on another celestial body, and brought them home safely. NASA has flung
machines to the stars.

Not to diminish what Rutan et al, have done, but a comparison *might* be
valid when they put a man in orbit and land him safely.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino
Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

[G.R. Patterson III]

John Harlow wrote:
>
> So, what exactly does this event tell us about NASA?

That they quit doing this sort of thing about 45 years ago when the X-15 program shut
down.

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

[Jay Masino]

Wizard of Draws > wrote:
> Harlow" > wrote:
>> So, what exactly does this event tell us about NASA?
>>
> Apples and oranges at this point in time.
> NASA put men and their machines in orbit, not just up and down. They put men
> on another celestial body, and brought them home safely. NASA has flung
> machines to the stars.
> Not to diminish what Rutan et al, have done, but a comparison *might* be
> valid when they put a man in orbit and land him safely.

It's also easy to forget that what the X prize guys are doing is EXTREMELY
dangerous. The first time one of these guys dies, the entire country is
going to be whining like babies "Why didn't the government prevent these
guys from doing this?!?!". A lot of NASA's manned space flight budget
goes into doing things as safely as possible, and they still have
occasional deadly accidents. In addition, the payload capability is like
night and day.

I think this effort is a great idea, and Rutan's "feather" design is
absolutely awesome and inovative, but they still have a long way to go
(despite what Richard Branson might think).

--- Jay


--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

[Peter Duniho]

"Jay Masino" > wrote in message
...
> It's also easy to forget that what the X prize guys are doing is EXTREMELY
> dangerous. The first time one of these guys dies, the entire country is
> going to be whining like babies "Why didn't the government prevent these
> guys from doing this?!?!".

Why would they? People do dangerous things all the time; usually, as long
as no innocent bystanders get hurt, no one really cares (except friends and
family, of course). I can't imagine this would be any different.

> A lot of NASA's manned space flight budget
> goes into doing things as safely as possible, and they still have
> occasional deadly accidents. In addition, the payload capability is like
> night and day.

I assume the philosphy is that the design will "scale" easily. Whether this
is true or not remains to be seen, of course.

> I think this effort is a great idea, and Rutan's "feather" design is
> absolutely awesome and inovative, but they still have a long way to go
> (despite what Richard Branson might think).

It is innovative and cool. But, as someone else pointed out, they didn't
actually enter orbit. It remains to be seen whether the current design
could be in any way suitable for reentry from orbit. The vehicle speed will
be much higher in that situation, and it's not clear to me that the
"feathers" will be sufficient for slowing the aircraft down, nor is it clear
to me that the vehicle has sufficient heat protection even if the feathers
could serve that purpose.

Maybe that's what you mean by "still have a long way to go"?

Pete

[George]

Jim Weir > wrote in message >...
> Nope, not unless the ENTIRE flight was made without using a motor, just the same
> rules as a motorglider. Sorry, no diamond.
>

Nah. Its covered. just a new type of aerotow launch :-))

[Casey Wilson]

>The vehicle speed will
> be much higher in that situation, and it's not clear to me that the
> "feathers" will be sufficient for slowing the aircraft down, nor is it
clear
> to me that the vehicle has sufficient heat protection even if the feathers
> could serve that purpose.

Mr. Duniho is right on. SpaceShipOne is not designed with any heat
protection. It would not withstand the heat loads of reentry at orbital
velocity and it never will. That's another generation, maybe several
evolutions away. If you need analogies, think of SpaceShipOne as the Spirit
of St. Louis and the orbital craft as the Concord. It is a long way off.
When I interviewed Mike Melvill after his first ride into sub-orbital
space, he explained the feather scheme to me. Feathering the wings has no
direct affect on slowing the vehicle down other than to place the main body
in the attitude of maximum drag, i.e. maximum cross-section normal to the
velocity vector, and provide some limited control to rotate the main body
around the velocity vector.
According to Melvill, the reason the main body is so fat is to have a
very high drag cross-section. At some point of aerodynamic force and
velocity in the decelleration, the wings are moved from the feathered
position to the 'normal' position and roll, pitch and yaw come back into
operation.
The word feathers has been grossly misused by the ignorant media. But
what can you expect from my esteemed colleagues -- especially when one asks
Melvill if they plan to fly SpaceShipOne to the International Space Station.

[Thomas Borchert]

Peter,

> People do dangerous things all the time; usually, as long
> as no innocent bystanders get hurt, no one really cares (except friends and
> family, of course).
>

Uh, have you seen the media reporting on GA accidents?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[bryan chaisone]

Thank you Kyle...

Bryan

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message >...
> "John Harlow" > wrote in message
> ...
> > bryan chaisone wrote:
> >> They did it! Yah Hoo for America!
> >
> > What exactly does America have to do with these people's success?
>
> Name somewhere else that you could get sufficient:
>
> 1) Talent
> 2) Funding
> AND
> 3) Government permission.
>
> KB

[Jay Honeck]

> What precaution is Rutan's organization taking to insure the pilot
> doesn't slip on a banna peel or trip over his shoelaces during the
> next 24 hours and cost them the prize? Do they lock him in a padded
> cell?

Well, it appeared that they were trying to preserve him by pickling him in
champagne....

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

>> So, what exactly does this event tell us about NASA?
>
> That they quit doing this sort of thing about 45 years ago when the X-15
> program shut
> down.

I've always wondered why NASA abandoned this method of getting into space.

I've heard a couple of reasons:

1. X-15 technology was impractical to scale up for orbital flights. (This
seems strange, but I'm no rocket scientist!)
2. Kennedy's announcement that we would go to the moon in less than ten
years meant that America needed heavy lift capability NOW, not later, and
that it was much easier and faster to simply scale up Von Braun's V2
technology.

I was at Edwards as a child, listening to the X-15's sonic booms from my
grandparent's home. I've always wondered why they didn't take the X-15
technology to the next step?

Maybe Rutan will, now that he's beaten the X-15's old altitude record...?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Roger Halstead]

On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 01:11:57 GMT, "G.R. Patterson III"
> wrote:

>
>
>John Harlow wrote:
>>
>> So, what exactly does this event tell us about NASA?
>
>That they quit doing this sort of thing about 45 years ago when the X-15 program shut
>down.
>
They really never did do quite the same thing and it wasn't in this
fashion.

The only similarity was the attempt to put a man into space.

Like all government operations they take the brute force method which
is basically pilling on enough money to get the job done. In private
industry the idea is to do it as simply as possible. Any government
agency is going to be under much more scrutiny than a small private
group as it's tax payers money.
You also have the politicians making issues out of any issue even if
it's only been hinted. OTOH SpaceShipOne certainly was in the center
of the public's eye for a few days

I wonder how many dollars the space program had spent by the time they
did the first sub orbital shot?

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

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

[Jay Masino]

Peter Duniho > wrote:
> Why would they? People do dangerous things all the time; usually, as long
> as no innocent bystanders get hurt, no one really cares (except friends and
> family, of course). I can't imagine this would be any different.

Since this is all conjecture, I guess it's a matter of opinion, but these
flights are fairly high profile in the press, and just like a shuttle
disaster, I suspect there would be a lot of press if (when) one of these
commercial guys dies.


>> A lot of NASA's manned space flight budget
>> goes into doing things as safely as possible, and they still have
>> occasional deadly accidents. In addition, the payload capability is like
>> night and day.
> I assume the philosphy is that the design will "scale" easily. Whether this
> is true or not remains to be seen, of course.

Agreed.


>> I think this effort is a great idea, and Rutan's "feather" design is
>> absolutely awesome and inovative, but they still have a long way to go
>> (despite what Richard Branson might think).
> It is innovative and cool. But, as someone else pointed out, they didn't
> actually enter orbit. It remains to be seen whether the current design
> could be in any way suitable for reentry from orbit. The vehicle speed will
> be much higher in that situation, and it's not clear to me that the
> "feathers" will be sufficient for slowing the aircraft down, nor is it clear
> to me that the vehicle has sufficient heat protection even if the feathers
> could serve that purpose.

Agreed.

--- Jay


--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

[Jay Masino]

Jay Honeck > wrote:
> I've always wondered why NASA abandoned this method of getting into space.
> I've heard a couple of reasons:
> 1. X-15 technology was impractical to scale up for orbital flights. (This
> seems strange, but I'm no rocket scientist!)

I'm not an expert in this area, but I believe it was a "horsepower
required" vs. "fuel efficiency" vs. "size of the gas tank" kind of trade
off. It was more efficent (in relative terms) to rocket out of earth's
gravity using disposable tanks. Of course, that was using 1960's
technology. That may not be the case, today.

--- Jay


--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

[Peter Duniho]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Uh, have you seen the media reporting on GA accidents?

Yes. Not once have I seen anyone say "Why didn't the government prevent
these
guys from doing this".

Did you have a point?

[Peter Duniho]

"Jay Masino" > wrote in message
...
> [...] I suspect there would be a lot of press if (when) one of these
> commercial guys dies.

Of course there will be a lot of press. So? That's a lot different from
the claim that "the entire country is going to be whining like babies 'Why
didn't the government prevent these guys from doing this'".

Pete

[aaronw]

On 4 Oct 2004 15:02:25 -0700, (James L. Freeman)
wrote:

>Fox Headline News coverage said that one of the conditions for
>claiming the $10-milllion prize is that the pilot must return in "good
>health," which is defined as surving for 24 hours after the landing.

I remember reading a similar caveat when I read a book about the
Voyager round-the-world flight. Apparently a lot of the arguments
ended 'I'm going to kill him 25 hours after they land!

aw

[Jay Honeck]

> I wonder how many dollars the space program had spent by the time they
> did the first sub orbital shot?

I'll bet that NASA spends more maintaining the mothballed shuttle fleet than
Rutan spent on the entire Spaceship One effort.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[John Harlow]

> I'll bet that NASA spends more maintaining the mothballed shuttle
> fleet than Rutan spent on the entire Spaceship One effort.

I went to the state fair last weekend (I share the planet with these
people???) and saw where a monster truck company converts their old monster
trucks into fair rides; for $5 a head they pile people into an old monster
truck and drive them around for about a minute.

I think NASA could adopt this highly profitable business practice. Put a
dozen people or so at a time in an old shuttle and get some guys to shake
the wings and make spaceship noises.

[Ron Natalie]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>I wonder how many dollars the space program had spent by the time they
>>did the first sub orbital shot?
>
>
> I'll bet that NASA spends more maintaining the mothballed shuttle fleet than
> Rutan spent on the entire Spaceship One effort.

Almost certainly, but what's the point. The SS1 is a pretty purpose
built thing done almost 25 years after the Shuttle. Ain't got anywhere
near the payload or capability of the Shuttle as well.

[Jay Honeck]

> Almost certainly, but what's the point. The SS1 is a pretty purpose
> built thing done almost 25 years after the Shuttle. Ain't got anywhere
> near the payload or capability of the Shuttle as well.

Quite true.

However, one works, and the other one doesn't.

Not because of anything mechanical, but because of the atmosphere (no pun
intended) that the shuttle must operate in.

And that's not going to change anytime soon, sadly.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:<p3x8d.191112$D%.115727@attbi_s51>...
> >>
> >> So, what exactly does this event tell us about NASA?
> >>
> >
> > That they quit doing this sort of thing about 45 years ago when the X-15
> > program shut down.
> >
>
> I've always wondered why NASA abandoned this method of getting into space.
>

Probably because manned suborbital flight isn't particularly useful.


>
> I've heard a couple of reasons:
>
> 1. X-15 technology was impractical to scale up for orbital flights. (This
> seems strange, but I'm no rocket scientist!)
> 2. Kennedy's announcement that we would go to the moon in less than ten
> years meant that America needed heavy lift capability NOW, not later, and
> that it was much easier and faster to simply scale up Von Braun's V2
> technology.
>
> I was at Edwards as a child, listening to the X-15's sonic booms from my
> grandparent's home. I've always wondered why they didn't take the X-15
> technology to the next step?
>
> Maybe Rutan will, now that he's beaten the X-15's old altitude record...?
>

Every Space Shuttle flight beat that record.