SpaceShipOne/Discovery Channel porn

"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

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

"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_s...veloperid=4415
____________________