X-Prize is currently live on Discovery Science Channel

On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 05:03:48 GMT, Shiver Me Timbers
wrote:

Now my curious question back... and perhaps Del could take a shot at
this considering where he lives and the fog and weather that he would
encounter in some of the coastal and inland regions.

How about a FLIR installed. Pointing forwards obviously.

Cost aside.... What sort of benefit could a pilot get from being able
to see what's ahead of them by having a FLIR display in the cockpit.

Don't know if you've been reading the trade magazines Shiver, but a
kind of forward looking viewing process has been developed with Alaska
as the testing area.

It's essentially a very expensive two part large screen GPS display.
It shows, in color, the terrain in a forward level 3D view as well as
a moving map display, also in color.

My understanding is that the terrain information is extremely
accurate, as it has to be, and the definition of the forward looking
display has to be seen to be believed. It appears you could literally
fly up a canyon in dense fog, or let down through a cloud canopy to a
landing strip surrounded by mountains with no danger, as you can see
via the screen as if it were a cloudless day.

The rub? It costs upwards to $80,000 per installation.

The neat thing about this kind of display is that it does not require
a radar or infra red scope to be installed out on the wing for it to
function. A GPS antenna, or several, is all that is needed. That,
panel space and lots of money that is. And also the guts to attempt
to fly in zero zero conditions and trust the screens.

See: http://www.cheltonflightsystems.com/features.htm

Corky Scott

In article , Roger Halstead says...

Although most would not consider a $20 million project grass roots it
was exactly that. Carbon fiber and resin lay-ups that were easily
fixable. Think what would have happened in NASA had they broken the
gear off.

First there would have to be a board of inquiry and meetings to discuss the gear
breaking .Then a survey would be done to get opinions of why it broke, next the
design teams would come up with a fix .Then Congress would investigate and try
to place blame on somebody. Next Rev Al would show up yelling that the program
is racist because the entire machine is white. Bids would be let out ,a
committee would study the bids,The fiscial division would let a contract and the
gear would be replaced. That is after OSHA ,EPA and the rest inspected the
landing site to check for danger to wildlife. Total time for the project 1 1/2
years. Rutan and crew one week .


The flight of SpaceShipOne is the opening of the door to space flight
for industry and the world in a way that could never be approached by
the governments of the world.

You got that right .When did Government ever do anything better then the private
sector? Perhaps with the exception of wars?


To me it now makes going to the other planets much more of a
possibility but how long before "Protect the Planets" groups emerge?

Don't worry they will if there are tree huggers it won't be long before the
first "planet huggers" show up :-)


I say it's a fantastic job well done!

So say us all!!

Chuck (former NASA geek) S

On 5 Oct 2004 05:21:06 -0700, ChuckSlusarczyk
wrote:

The flight of SpaceShipOne is the opening of the door to space flight
for industry and the world in a way that could never be approached by
the governments of the world.

You got that right .When did Government ever do anything better then the private
sector?

Any operation driven by the desire for knowledge, not profit. SS1 was
different; it was enabled by the personal fortune of Paul Allen, who tends
to spend it on stuff like professional ball teams and goofy-looking
museums.

Jay Leno had a good line about this, last night: "They just won the $10
million X-Prize, but the spacecraft cost them $25 million to build. Guess
there weren't any rocket scientists on that team...." :-)

If space development had depended on the whims of billionaires, space
flight would probably still be a dream. When a billionaire's personal will
is missing, the government is really the only alternative.

My guess is that no spacecraft showed a profit until communications
satellites could be deployed into geosynchronous orbit. And it took a lot
of government-funded development to enable that kind of operation.

The government *is* getting better. They're doing a lot of funding without
demanding the level of oversight they previously had. The Mars Rovers were
an example of this sort of approach.

I taped CNN's post-landing coverage and watched it last night. Dr.
Diamandis is arranging additional money to encourage the other X-prize
entrants to keep going. He says there's going to be a big Fly-Off in
Arizona in 2006; they're going to bring all the contestants together and
spend a week launching their vehicles. THAT'S going to be fun to watch.

Ron Wanttaja

On 5 Oct 2004 05:21:06 -0700, ChuckSlusarczyk
wrote:

I say it's a fantastic job well done!

So say us all!!

Chuck (former NASA geek) S

It was a great feat, done in typically inventive Rutan fashion. I'm
just having a hard time imagining how it could be of any possible use
to anyone besides Burt Rutan and Richard Branson. Is this to be the
near space equivalent of a carnival thrill ride, albeit a hideously
expensive and extremely dangerous one?

I really do see this as an impressive engineering demonstration, it
just seems so, I don't know, useless. It's like spending millions to
develop a car that can go 2,000 miles per hour. What do you do with
it? Where can you drive it?

Corky Scott

ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:

So if your going to criticize please get your facts correct before making
accusations. That's the same problem I have with zoom and jaun.

TO THE GROUP ------ Correct me if I am wrong.

According to the time stamps that I see on Chuck's postings in the
thread in question, his first posting was at 12.42 where he introduced
the Zoom and Juan factor into a thread congratulating Burt Rutan's
accomplishment, and Chuck's congratulatory post to Burt and the gang
did not take place until 2.02 Pm..... one hour and twenty minutes
later.

Chuck.... Those time stamps speak for themselves and I do believe I
have my facts correct.


Seems like you starting spitting first and as far as pointing out the
obvious.It would seem obvious that you have an agenda, I've "never"
seen you point out the obvious when the author was jaun or zoom but you sure
jumped out at me. Hmmmm

Since I have no axe to grind in the continuing saga of you, Zoom,
and Juan, you will never find me putting my two cents into those
discussions.

But Chuck the thread in question was not about you, Zoom, or Juan,
it was about Burt Rutan and his historical accomplishment that day,
and for whatever reason you just couldn't and wouldn't pass by the
opportunity to introduce the Zoom factor and blow your nose.

And my question to you is why did you feel it necessary to detract from
Burt's accomplishments just so you could advance your own personal
agenda....??????

It's not as if you couldn't have started up a new thread with a
different subject line, like you have done dozens of times in the past.

"Shiver Me Timbers" wrote ...
But Chuck the thread in question was not about you, Zoom, or Juan,
it was about Burt Rutan and his historical accomplishment that day,

"Historical" is probably a good discription. The technology used yesterday
was fifty years old. The only real question was why it took twenty five
million dollars of someone elses money to do it.

On top of that, the reentry system was just about as dorky as you can get.
Do you understand that if they go much higher that system won't work? Of
course, even the X15 couldn't go much higher than it went because of reentry
problems. Above 100 km its all free fall and that means higher reentry
speeds and that means a different reentry method.

Rich

From: Roger Halstead
Date: 10/4/2004 18:26 Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

On 4 Oct 2004 11:42:09 -0700, ChuckSlusarczyk
wrote:

In article et, Dave S
says...

CNN has it too.. and the word is 368K feet.. they made it.

I've been watching the live broadcast on Science channel and the room was
full
of reporters and photographers and no sign of zoom. I figured he'd be right
up
there with the rest of the cameras in the first row.

You mean that cute Reporter with the British accent wasn't him in
drag...er... disguise?

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


That was Ron, ain't he the cutest?

Getting even with Ron for puns worse than mine;

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Date: 10/5/2004 10:12 Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

On 5 Oct 2004 05:21:06 -0700, ChuckSlusarczyk
wrote:

I say it's a fantastic job well done!

So say us all!!

Chuck (former NASA geek) S

It was a great feat, done in typically inventive Rutan fashion. I'm
just having a hard time imagining how it could be of any possible use
to anyone besides Burt Rutan and Richard Branson. Is this to be the
near space equivalent of a carnival thrill ride, albeit a hideously
expensive and extremely dangerous one?

I really do see this as an impressive engineering demonstration, it
just seems so, I don't know, useless. It's like spending millions to
develop a car that can go 2,000 miles per hour. What do you do with
it? Where can you drive it?

Corky Scott

If the prices come down enough I could see this as an
inercontinental/transcontinental business jet application.

Dan, U.S Air Force, retired

On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 11:12:43 -0400, Corky Scott
wrote:

On 5 Oct 2004 05:21:06 -0700, ChuckSlusarczyk
wrote:

I say it's a fantastic job well done!

So say us all!!

Chuck (former NASA geek) S

It was a great feat, done in typically inventive Rutan fashion. I'm
just having a hard time imagining how it could be of any possible use
to anyone besides Burt Rutan and Richard Branson. Is this to be the
near space equivalent of a carnival thrill ride, albeit a hideously
expensive and extremely dangerous one?

I really do see this as an impressive engineering demonstration, it
just seems so, I don't know, useless. It's like spending millions to
develop a car that can go 2,000 miles per hour. What do you do with
it? Where can you drive it?


The media keep playing this up as opening the door for Tourists, but
it's really a "first step" toward a much less expensive way to get
into space commercially. Only the future knows how far this approach
will be capable of going.

They are only making it to sub orbit at present and to go much
farther, or higher, means a faster re-entry speed and a lot more heat.
The feathering technique is only going to work to a point so they are
eventually going to have to work on more advanced methods of heat
control on re-entry.

Different materials for the outside of the craft, different and
innovative ablative techniques may be just around the corner. Already
there is, or has been some work done on using liquid (water) instead
of the tile used by the shuttle. It's kind of a "weeping wing"
approach that might allow much less expensive materials to be used for
high speed re-entry from high altitude.

Safe space flight, be it NASA or commercial is probably a long way
off.

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

In article ,
Shiver Me Timbers wrote:

[[.. munch ..]]

Cost aside.... What sort of benefit could a pilot get from being able
to see what's ahead of them by having a FLIR display in the cockpit.

The more I watch these cop shows with the eye in the sky clearly
showing the bad guy, cars, streets, buildings, etc., the more I wonder
if and when something like that is going to be available in the cockpit
of both commercial and general aviation planes.

Del (or anyone) what if you had to fly between to large hills, down a
fiord, low in foggy weather with a radio tower nearby, blah blah blah.

Could a FLIR system show a radio tower with guy wires ahead of you on a
dark and foggy night, or in a snow storm or thunder storm.

*VERY* poorly, if at all.

You've either got to have a 'hot' source (relative to the background),
or you have to 'light' the scene with IR, to see things.

If you can't see the visible beacons on the tower, you're not likely to
be able to see it on IR, either. sufficient 'crud' in the way blocking
the visible light _will_ similarly interfere with the IR.

"broadband sensor" (IR/visible/UV) 'low light'/'night-vision' imaging
systems would have the best chance of seeing 'something' at a longer
distance.

Are these systems available, because I can see a day when they will be
available in cars. Imaging coming across a foggy patch of road and
flipping on the old FLIR system to see where the curve in the road is
or whether there's a bunch of cars piling up in front of you.

Without an illumination source, IR systems _don't_ work worth a d*mn for
seeing _passive_ things (e.g. the roadway) under many conditions,
unfortunately. The 'bunch of cars' has a better chance of being seen, since
they _are_ self-illuminating at IR, but the range improvement is -not-
terribly dramatic in heavy fog/snow situations,


If cost is _absolutely_ no object, there is also high-precision 'mapping'
radar. grin