SpaceShipOne/Discovery Channel porn

[gatt]

Stayed up late and watched all three hours of the SpaceShipOne documentary
on Discovery last night.

WOW!!! The imagery from within the craft during the flight knocked me
over, and Rutan and company reinspired me. I told my wife that aviation
produces heroes of the highest personal caliber and integrity, and we saw
some of them last night.

If the show comes on again and you haven't seen it, tape it!

-c

[NW_PILOT]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> Stayed up late and watched all three hours of the SpaceShipOne documentary
> on Discovery last night.
>
> WOW!!! The imagery from within the craft during the flight knocked
me
> over, and Rutan and company reinspired me. I told my wife that aviation
> produces heroes of the highest personal caliber and integrity, and we saw
> some of them last night.
>
> If the show comes on again and you haven't seen it, tape it!
>
> -c
>
>

Gatt, this day and age we dont tape anything we PVR it! hehehehe

[gatt]

"NW_PILOT" > wrote in message

> Gatt, this day and age we dont tape anything we PVR it! hehehehe

Reminds me...getting the dish network installed today so I can give Comcast
the finger.

Hey...meant to ask you: On Monday I saw/heard a C-47 coming low over east
Portland from the Pearson/PDX area. (IFR day...at least we know she's
equipped.) Did you see it or happen to know if it was the Pearson bird,
or what?

Saw a Dakota coming out of Evergreen one time a couple years ago while I was
driving past during lunch. Damn near caused me to wreck my car. :>

-c

[Peter Duniho]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
> Reminds me...getting the dish network installed today so I can give
> Comcast
> the finger.

Good idea, but it's a flawed plan, since Comcast owns many of the "cable
programming" channels that also wind up on satellite.

[NW_PILOT]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "NW_PILOT" > wrote in message
>
> > Gatt, this day and age we dont tape anything we PVR it! hehehehe
>
> Reminds me...getting the dish network installed today so I can give
Comcast
> the finger.
>
> Hey...meant to ask you: On Monday I saw/heard a C-47 coming low over east
> Portland from the Pearson/PDX area. (IFR day...at least we know she's
> equipped.) Did you see it or happen to know if it was the Pearson bird,
> or what?
>
> Saw a Dakota coming out of Evergreen one time a couple years ago while I
was
> driving past during lunch. Damn near caused me to wreck my car. :>
>
> -c

I just moved home base from Evergreen to Pearson.

[gatt]

"NW_PILOT" > wrote in message news:MIqdnfatUPiL7zLcRVn-

> I just moved home base from Evergreen to Pearson.

Cool. Well, the C-47 I saw flying looked very similar in livery to the bird
outside of the Pearson Air Museum. There's another one out of Salem, but
it has newer engines and definately wasn't that one.

Had a good day there one time helping out when some CBI vets were standing
around under that plane swapping war stories.

-c

[lance smith]

"gatt" > wrote in message >...
> Stayed up late and watched all three hours of the SpaceShipOne documentary
> on Discovery last night.
>
> WOW!!! The imagery from within the craft during the flight knocked me
> over, and Rutan and company reinspired me. I told my wife that aviation
> produces heroes of the highest personal caliber and integrity, and we saw
> some of them last night.
>
> If the show comes on again and you haven't seen it, tape it!
>
> -c

if one were too lazy to research the next showing and also tivo/tape
it:

http://shopping.discovery.com/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10000&storeId=10000&langId=-1&productId=56717

$30 for 2 dvd from discovery. Great show.

-lance smith

[Blueskies]

You can buy the 2 DVD set from Discovery for ~$30

Indeed great stuff!

"gatt" > wrote in message ...
>
> Stayed up late and watched all three hours of the SpaceShipOne documentary
> on Discovery last night.
>
> WOW!!! The imagery from within the craft during the flight knocked me
> over, and Rutan and company reinspired me. I told my wife that aviation
> produces heroes of the highest personal caliber and integrity, and we saw
> some of them last night.
>
> If the show comes on again and you haven't seen it, tape it!
>
> -c
>
>

[Charlie]

"gatt" > wrote in
:

>
>
> If the show comes on again and you haven't seen it, tape it!
>
>TiVOs your friend...

[Jim Fisher]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "gatt" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Reminds me...getting the dish network installed today so I can give
>> Comcast
>> the finger.
>
> Good idea, but it's a flawed plan, since Comcast owns many of the "cable
> programming" channels that also wind up on satellite.

But I get to send them about $20.00 less per month. That's enough for me.

--
Jim Fisher

[Corky Scott]

On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 08:44:28 -0800, "gatt" >
wrote:

>Stayed up late and watched all three hours of the SpaceShipOne documentary
>on Discovery last night.
>
>WOW!!! The imagery from within the craft during the flight knocked me
>over, and Rutan and company reinspired me. I told my wife that aviation
>produces heroes of the highest personal caliber and integrity, and we saw
>some of them last night.

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

[Jeff Franks]

Ah, the enlightened speaks.

No, Copernicus, all discovery is found in steps. If the Wright brothers had
had your opinion, they would have stopped after Kitty Hawk it's way too
expensive to own an airplane if you have to land every 120 ft. Can you
imagine the FBO landing fees???

Already, there are plans in the works by Rutan and others for an orbital
system based on this same technology (or lack thereof). But, I'm sure,
your also asking "why go into space?". Well, "Why leave Spain Mr. Columbus?
There's room here for everyone!"

jf



"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 08:44:28 -0800, "gatt" >
> wrote:
>
>>Stayed up late and watched all three hours of the SpaceShipOne documentary
>>on Discovery last night.
>>
>>WOW!!! The imagery from within the craft during the flight knocked
>>me
>>over, and Rutan and company reinspired me. I told my wife that aviation
>>produces heroes of the highest personal caliber and integrity, and we saw
>>some of them last night.
>
> 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

[Thomas Borchert]

Jeff,

> Well, "Why leave Spain Mr. Columbus?
> There's room here for everyone!"
>

Really, really strong economic interest in a shorter route to India was
the driving factor. And the "colonies" were duly exploited, including
their inhabitants. All in the name of Christianity, of course.

But I agree with your basic premise: discovery and the desire for
knowledge are good human traits. If only we'd go about it with more
respect for what we find...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[gatt]

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message

> Tell me again what the point is in being lobbed into near space?

What was the point of flying a few yards at Kitty Hawk?

Seriously, I think the point was not that they were lobbed into near space,
but that it was done my private enterprise.
-c

[Corky Scott]

On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 09:32:45 -0600, "Jeff Franks"
> wrote:

>Ah, the enlightened speaks.
>
>No, Copernicus, all discovery is found in steps. If the Wright brothers had
>had your opinion, they would have stopped after Kitty Hawk it's way too
>expensive to own an airplane if you have to land every 120 ft. Can you
>imagine the FBO landing fees???
>
>Already, there are plans in the works by Rutan and others for an orbital
>system based on this same technology (or lack thereof). But, I'm sure,
>your also asking "why go into space?". Well, "Why leave Spain Mr. Columbus?
>There's room here for everyone!"
>
>jf

Oh I see, a man of wisdom and vision. So tell me, o' enlightened one,
of what future use to you see this type of "flight"?

You've attempted to be cute at my expense but shied away from naming
even one benefit, either current or future that might result from
these flights, which is what I was asking.

Columbus left Spain in search of a new, shorter route to the orient,
which would, had he actually been correct, have made a LOT of money
for Spain. He did not find that route of course, but Spain benefitted
mightily in future exploitation of the new found lands. He did not
look for new worlds on a whimsy. The exploitation came at the expense
of the peoples he found to be living there but what the hell, they had
not done a thing to utilise all those natural resources after
thousands of years so it was someone else's turn, right?

The Wright brothers finally found a way to fly, fullfilling a human
desire that dates back to early Grecian times, at least in recorded
history anyway, and the benefits were obvious to many right from the
start.

Spaceship One is doing something that has been done before by the the
Soviet and US space programs, albeit more efficiently. The technology
Rutan is using is not useful for actual space exploration because the
vehical cannot go into orbit or venture into space because it cannot
re-enter our atmosphere without burning to a crisp. You can't go from
point A to point B without sending the bizarre looking but functional
lift vehical after it, with a ground crew, so it's not useful for
traveling.

When we first began to orbit the earth, then went to the moon, that
was different, we were going places we had never gone before and
actually exploring space. The technology developed for those flights
lead to further development of space travel and ventures to the far
planets using unmanned vehicals. It's revealed fascinating
information about space and our distant beginnings.

Rutan's near space lob technology is aimed at none of these things.
It cannot explore space, cannot add to current knowledge other than
being a different method of reaching near space.

I'm interested in knowing what the point is, other than claiming the X
prize. Or is that all it is?

Can you, or anyone suggest any plausible future benefit other than
being a cheaper alternative to buying a ride on the Russian shuttle?

Corky Scott

[Jose]

> Can you, or anyone suggest any plausible future benefit other than
> being a cheaper alternative to buying a ride on the Russian shuttle?

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. 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.

Jose
(r.a.student trimmed)
--
Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Corky Scott]

On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 08:38:35 -0800, "gatt" >
wrote:

>What was the point of flying a few yards at Kitty Hawk?
>
>Seriously, I think the point was not that they were lobbed into near space,
>but that it was done my private enterprise.

Gatt, I appreciate what the Wright bros. did but they were pioneers,
the first to achieve controlled flight. They did their research,
decided that in order to achieve viable flight the vehical needed to
be controllable and built a vehical that could do that, sort of.

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.

You will notice that none of the countries that have achieved space
flight bother to simply lob vehicals, whether manned or otherwise
(unless something goes wrong with the booster), into near space
anymore. That's because there's nothing to gain scientifically or
technologically from doing so. Vehicals that leave the atmosphere to
enter space and then return to earth must be built very differently
from those that merely graze space.

Corky Scott

[Corky Scott]

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?

Because that's all I'm coming up with too.

Corky Scott

[G.R. Patterson III]

Corky Scott wrote:
>
> Tell me again what the point is in being lobbed into near space?

Well, I grew up reading Heinlein, Asimov, Blish, and the like. *We* were going
into space. Not some government clowns - *we* were going. Space stations would
be built by union tradespeople. Entrepreneurs would build shipping companies
that flew rockets.

Then NASA came along. During the 70s, they worked very hard at preventing any
private enterprise in space, and they very effectively killed that dream. For
thirty years. If someone needed a carpenter in space, NASA would hand a hammer
to one of their astronauts, but *we* weren't going anywhere.

It's too late for Rutan to make that dream live again for me, but he's made it
possible for my stepson. And my nephew.

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

[Ron Natalie]

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."

[Peter]

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

>
> Corky Scott wrote:
>
>>Tell me again what the point is in being lobbed into near space?
>
>
> Well, I grew up reading Heinlein, Asimov, Blish, and the like. *We* were going
> into space. Not some government clowns - *we* were going. Space stations would
> be built by union tradespeople. Entrepreneurs would build shipping companies
> that flew rockets.
>
> Then NASA came along. During the 70s, they worked very hard at preventing any
> private enterprise in space, and they very effectively killed that dream.

NASA didn't kill that dream. What killed it was that no one came up
with a way for those potential entrepreneurs to make any money in
space. The Heinlein/Asimov/etc. scenarios have the hidden premise
that the energy required for space travel is incredibly cheap and
therefore it's cost effective to mine asteroids, build micro-g
manufacturing facilities, establish lunar and planetary bases and
so on.

[John Galban]

Corky Scott > wrote in message >...
>
> 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.

Alan Sheppard might want to argue that point if he were still
around. Even NASA had to start with a short, sub-orbital flight.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[G.R. Patterson III]

Peter wrote:
>
> NASA didn't kill that dream.

Yes, they did. The U.S. government effectively blocked all attempts by private
U.S. companies to enter the market of launching payloads into space and put
political pressure on foreign companies (such as Messerschmitt) who also
attempted to do so. This was covered fairly effectively by interested parties in
the press during the 70s.

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

[Peter]

G.R. Patterson III wrote:
> Peter wrote:
>
>>NASA didn't kill that dream.

> Yes, they did. The U.S. government effectively blocked all attempts by private
> U.S. companies to enter the market of launching payloads into space and put
> political pressure on foreign companies (such as Messerschmitt) who also
> attempted to do so.

The only reason it was effective was that no one had a clear way of
making a profitable business in space. If there had been fortunes
to be made then political pressure would not have succeeded.

[Jose]

>> "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.
>

What I mean is that =only= when something is cheap enough does it get
into the mainstream and become beneficial. Without cheap chips, there
would still be a GPS and the airlines would have it. But we would
not. Since chips are cheap, GPS became cheap (FSVO "cheap") and now
we all get to benefit from the technology.

Without cheap (GPS) =we= wouldn't be flying with GPS.
Without =cheap= (airplanes) we wouldn't be flying at all.

I agree the sentence needed another look to extract that from it.

Jose
--
Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Corky Scott]

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

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.

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.

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.

Corky Scott

[David Bridgham]

Corky Scott > writes:

> 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?
>
> Because that's all I'm coming up with too.

In the 1920's, airplanes also were little more than carnival rides
with spectacular views. If aviation development had stopped then,
that's all it'd have ever been but of course aircraft development did
not stop (I'm tempted to add, at least for another three decades).
Development of space vehicles won't stop either. Air travel was not
practical in the 1920's; space travel is not practical today. This
will change only in very small steps and only if someone is willing to
take those first, seemingly useless steps.

-Dave

[Peter]

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

Agreed that a radically different approach than that used by
Spaceship One would be required. But the speed needed to achieve
earth orbit is "only" 17000 mph. 25000 mph is what's needed to
escape earth's gravity for such trips as going to the moon or
planets.

[gatt]

"Peter" > wrote in message news:uuudnXPEHracWi3cRVn-

> The only reason it was effective was that no one had a clear way of
> making a profitable business in space. If there had been fortunes
> to be made then political pressure would not have succeeded.

There are fortunes to be made in things like hemp, medical marijuana,
biodiesel, euthanasia drugs (I'm an Oregonian. Can ya tell?), but these have
been stymied by political pressure.

[Corky Scott]

On 03 Dec 2004 16:00:15 -0500, David Bridgham
> wrote:

>Air travel was not
>practical in the 1920's; space travel is not practical today. This
>will change only in very small steps and only if someone is willing to
>take those first, seemingly useless steps.

The point is that Rutan's Spaceship One venture is not a step. It's a
repeat of something that has already been done. In addition, the
technology used for suborbital space lobs does not translate into
information helpful to advance travel in space.

Corky Scott

[Morgans]

"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).

But an orbital system CAN NOT be based on the same system, at least for
re-entry. Not unless you want your fiberglass well done.

I am halfway between you and Corky. Great for them, some things will be
learned, but aside for a way for the tourist to see the curve of the earth,
the blackness of space and a few seconds of weightlessness, I don't see much
benefit.

One thing is for sure. They will not get any of my money, and they need not
get any of yours, if you feel that way.
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.804 / Virus Database: 546 - Release Date: 11/30/2004

[Peter]

gatt wrote:

> "Peter" > wrote in message news:uuudnXPEHracWi3cRVn-
>
>
>>The only reason it was effective was that no one had a clear way of
>>making a profitable business in space. If there had been fortunes
>>to be made then political pressure would not have succeeded.
>
>
> There are fortunes to be made in things like hemp, medical marijuana,
> biodiesel, euthanasia drugs (I'm an Oregonian. Can ya tell?), but these have
> been stymied by political pressure.

Not very successfully. All of those are readily available to
anyone who is motivated to get them.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Corky Scott > posted:

> On 03 Dec 2004 16:00:15 -0500, David Bridgham
> > wrote:
>
>> Air travel was not
>> practical in the 1920's; space travel is not practical today. This
>> will change only in very small steps and only if someone is willing
>> to take those first, seemingly useless steps.
>
> The point is that Rutan's Spaceship One venture is not a step. It's a
> repeat of something that has already been done.
>
So, you see no merit in *how* something is done? As one of those who lived
through the X1 - X15 era, I see marked differences between what was done
then and Rutan's accomplishments. Not the least of those accomplishments
is that Spaceship One is pretty unique; it's the only composite material
aircraft to have accomplished such a flight, and one of the questions that
got answered by that is that it *can* be done; it's EFIS proved not only
that such an instrument is practical for such a flight, but that one can
survive a launch when it fails; unusual control surfaces were also tested,
and proved both that they worked and that they needed some modifications
before continuing.

> In addition, the
> technology used for suborbital space lobs does not translate into
> information helpful to advance travel in space.
>
Merely landing on the moon or building another space station has nothing
to offer in the way of information useful to space travel? I'm sorry, but
I don't see why the first steps into space for private industry must be a
manned Mars landing to be meaningful ... a logical extension of your
argument, as that is one of few "local" efforts that has yet to be done by
"someone else".

I, for one, see little similarity between how Spaceship One went
sub-orbital and X-15 flights. A lot was learned by Rutan's successes that
was not previously known about *how* to approach such a task. Knowledge
being cumulative and genralizable, I'm sure that there will be spin-off
benefits from these flights, just as there are for the space programs from
national entities. Even if we as casual observers lack the vision to
predict those benefits, we can trust that history will likely repeat
itself.

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Corky Scott > posted:

> 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.
[...]
>
> 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.
>
I believe that number is closer to 17,500 mph, but that's not the issue,
is it? Your presumption seems to be that re-entry must use the same
methods as are used now. But, is that necessary? No law says that you
*must* plunge into the atmosphere at near-escape velocity. It's "easy" to
do, and considered to be "fuel efficient", but, if you have enough fuel
left from launch to slow the re-entry vehicle to tolerable speeds, then it
re-entry stresses shouldn't be an insolvable problem.

[...]
> 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.
>
Perhaps he (or others) have an idea of how to retain the fuel necessary to
slow re-entry to viable speeds. Let's not forget that Rutan's alternative
concept of a fuel efficient aircraft allowed him to circumnavigate the
globe non-stop and without refuelling. And, I don't have any doubt that he
learned much in that project that fed into his knowledge base for
Spaceship One. I'd expect that to apply to Spaceship Two (or whatever) as
well.

Regards,

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Morgans > posted:

> "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).
>
> But an orbital system CAN NOT be based on the same system, at least
> for re-entry. Not unless you want your fiberglass well done.
>
This is only true if the intention is to attempt re-entry in the same way
that it has been done in the past (and present). That is not a
requirement. Keep in mind that re-entry stresses have as much to do with
AOA as they do with speed. There may be practical trade-offs that can keep
the stress manageable for the selected materials.

> I am halfway between you and Corky. Great for them, some things will
> be learned, but aside for a way for the tourist to see the curve of
> the earth, the blackness of space and a few seconds of
> weightlessness, I don't see much benefit.
>
I'm sure that early aviation had it's share of those who lacked vision as
well. Fortunately for us, the visionaries didn't let that stop them. ;-)

I think that when orbital space flight becomes practical and affordable,
the opportunities will become apparent.

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Recently, G.R. Patterson III > posted:

> Corky Scott wrote:
>>
>> Tell me again what the point is in being lobbed into near space?
>
> Well, I grew up reading Heinlein, Asimov, Blish, and the like. *We*
> were going into space. Not some government clowns - *we* were going.
> Space stations would be built by union tradespeople. Entrepreneurs
> would build shipping companies that flew rockets.
>
> Then NASA came along. During the 70s, they worked very hard at
> preventing any private enterprise in space, and they very effectively
> killed that dream. For thirty years. If someone needed a carpenter in
> space, NASA would hand a hammer to one of their astronauts, but *we*
> weren't going anywhere.
>
> It's too late for Rutan to make that dream live again for me, but
> he's made it possible for my stepson. And my nephew.
>
The dream presented by Heinlein et al was not acheivable by private
industry without creating all kinds of difficulties for the rest of the
planet. Just look at the topics that are foremost in the minds of the
world's citizenry today, and one can see that we just aren't ready to
undertake more activities that can have instant global consequences than
we do now. As I see it, we're marching along at about our best pace.

Neil

[G.R. Patterson III]

Peter wrote:
>
> The only reason it was effective was that no one had a clear way of
> making a profitable business in space. If there had been fortunes
> to be made then political pressure would not have succeeded.

No, there were (and are) fortunes to be made there. Just the launch of
communications satellites alone provided a lot of profit, and NASA wanted to be
the only player in that game.

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

[Peter]

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

>
> Peter wrote:
>
>>The only reason it was effective was that no one had a clear way of
>>making a profitable business in space. If there had been fortunes
>>to be made then political pressure would not have succeeded.
>
>
> No, there were (and are) fortunes to be made there.

Probably eventually. To date it's been much clearer
how fortunes can be lost there than how they can be made.

> Just the launch of
> communications satellites alone provided a lot of profit, and NASA wanted to be
> the only player in that game.

They've never been the only player in that game. And if the
economics had been more favorable it's highly likely that
there would have been some additional players from private
enterprise.

[mike regish]

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

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 09:32:45 -0600, "Jeff Franks"
> > wrote:
>
>
> 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. .
>
> Corky Scott
>

[John T]

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message

>
> Spaceship One is doing something that has been done before by the the
> Soviet and US space programs, albeit more efficiently.

....and without taxpayer funding.

> The technology
> Rutan is using is not useful for actual space exploration because the
> vehical cannot go into orbit or venture into space because it cannot
> re-enter our atmosphere without burning to a crisp.

Baby steps. NASA didn't start with orbital flights, either.

> You can't go from
> point A to point B without sending the bizarre looking but functional
> lift vehical after it, with a ground crew, so it's not useful for
> traveling.

Yet. Right now, if Virgin Galactic actually comes to market as planned, it
will be a very expensive joyride. Again, if they're not spending my money
to do it, more power to them. If I had that kind of money to throw away,
I'd be in line for the ride, myself.

> When we first began to orbit the earth, then went to the moon, that
> was different, we were going places we had never gone before and
> actually exploring space.

So, you'd rather abandon space research? Or leave it up to government
agencies? Or what? I'm not following your argument. You don't appear to
be arguing *for* anything, only *against* the idea of SpaceShipOne.

> The technology developed for those flights
> lead to further development of space travel and ventures to the far
> planets using unmanned vehicals. It's revealed fascinating
> information about space and our distant beginnings.

Quite correct. Now think of commercial ventures doing the exploration.
They'll have an interest in finding less expensive/more efficient materials
and technologies - and they're doing it half a century later than NASA.
Those technologies/materials will find their way to market.

> Rutan's near space lob technology is aimed at none of these things.
> It cannot explore space, cannot add to current knowledge other than
> being a different method of reaching near space.

....and serves as a harbinger of things to come. This isn't the end of the
story by any means.

> I'm interested in knowing what the point is, other than claiming the X
> prize. Or is that all it is?

The point is to spur commercial interest in space. That has happened and
will continue - at least I hope it does.

> Can you, or anyone suggest any plausible future benefit other than
> being a cheaper alternative to buying a ride on the Russian shuttle?

hehehe

This has been said about almost every new invention. The first cars. The
first airplanes. Hell, almost every consumer electronics device is purely
an attempt to add more inches to the waistlines of users, but how many of
said users would give them up?

Right now, it's a very expensive toy - much like most of our airplanes. But
this is the first step to commercial exploitation of space and that's where
I think the *real* advances in technology/knowledge will come from.

I also don't expect to live to see much of it.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[Jeff Franks]

"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

[Jeff Franks]

"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.

[Stealth Pilot]

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

[gregg]

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

[Stealth Pilot]

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

[Blueskies]

"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


..

[Corky Scott]

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

[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

[zatatime]

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