SpaceShipOne/Discovery Channel porn

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

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

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)

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

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.

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

"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
____________________

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

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.

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