Space Ship One first powered flight!

"Bob Fry" wrote in message
...
DO writes:

As Theodore Roosevelt correctly noted,

"It is not the critic who counts, nor the man who points out how the
strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done them
better.

Teddy was wrong, and so is DO. For instance, I am not a politician,
have never run for any elective office, but I (and millions of others)
correctly judged California's now former governor Grey Davis to be
incompetent and we got rid of him. Good call and job well done.

I would say that the jury is still very much out on that one! Perhaps
you should pick another example.

Getting back to Space Shop One, I think it was a stunning achievement
that did not get near the press it deserved. I still ponder why Burt seems
to be attacking this project the hard way, but you can't argue with success.

Vaughn

As an airplane it was OK. The problem was that it couldn't do it's mission
economically enough to be viable as a business, it's endurance was way too
short. It would have to orbit over a city for about 72 hours before the
business became practical. And then you get into problems with the crew. It
should have been a UAV.

Your statement is simply not correct. The aircraft had plenty of endurance. I
was involved in a competing program at the time and the ideal manned mission
was determined to be 10 hrs. Each mission would be overlapped 2 hrs. This
proved to be very, very profitable to the wireless operator. Far more
profitable than the common "tower terrestrial system". The program I was
involved in had the same problem that Rutan encountered with his client. And
that was the wireless relay equipment! Doing the relay is easier said than
done when handling thousands of transmission simultaneously while orbiting
about a single station. The complexity was immense. In reality, the Proteus
was tremendously capable of the task if the relay equipment was perfected.
Quite frankly, the telecommunication industry segment involved with airborne
wireless communication considered the Proteus the idea vehicle.

As for being a UAV, that concept was a total non-starter at the time.
Considering un-manned operations over populated areas was only a twinkle in the
eye. And why, there were absolutely no guidelines established by the FAA for
certification. Only today are they even considering it. But the whole idea is
still a long way down road. Besides, if you need an unmanned aircraft, take
the "guy" out of the cockpit of the Proteus and make it unmanned. The aircraft
as designed is well suited for the application. And don't think it wasn't a
consideration by Rutan's client, because it certainly was, but 10 yrs.
downline. Only then does the 72 hrs. mission make any sense.

Bottom line, Rutan was right on point with the Proteus, unfortunately the
telecommunication folks had a long way to go.

Vaughn wrote:

I think it was a stunning achievement

*** E * X * A * C * T * L * Y ***

wrote

You have no idea who I am.

Tell us!

You have no idea what I've done.

Dazzle us!

When was the last time a Rutan design was a huge success?

How about that little project called Voyager? You know, the one in the
Smithsonian?

By the way, what do you have in that building?

Until you back up your mouthings, you are yet but one more faceless,
nameless coward. Go ahead, dazzle us, then go choose another meaningless
name to post under if you must.

Until then, Blaa Blaa Blaa, is all I hear.

wrote



If you think every plane Burt designs is successful, I know about a bridge
for
sale you might want to consider.


I don't, but you seemed to be blowing your own horn a bit too loudly.
--
Jim in NC

In article , wrote:

"It is not the critic who counts, nor the man who points out how the
strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done them
better.

You have no idea what I've done.

Strictly speaking, we all have an idea who you are and what you've
done. You're an anonymous nobody, and you've posted some messages
to USENET. If you want us to have different ideas, you have to give
them to us. But, even then, people may doubt. After all, it's the internet,
where no one knows I'm a dog.

To address another point you made earlier (that I didn't quote),
what was wrong with the Starship? I thought that the folks that
had one really liked it. Obviously I've never had any direct experience....

Regards,

Mike Beede

Like this person that is hiding behind his computer, I too am jealous of Burt
Rutan. I wish I could have a tenth of the "failures" he has made. Oh to be so
unsuccessful
I bet ol' Burt is reading this newsgroup and is so envious that this nameless
person actually touched an Apollo capsule, the Enterprise and wow, an
X-15...and then to be able to make it sound like he should be taking the credit
for the success of these vehicles. Now since I've worked on a/c from J-3 to
F4, SR-71 to the F-22..I can take credit for these aircraft...hey, I've worked
on the shuttle engines...HEY, I AM successful too!!!! I am more successful
than Burt....of courseI am being sarcastic...I and the nameless idiot hiding
behind his computer could only wish to become a shadow of the success Burthas
experienced....otherwise he wouldn't be attempting to impress us....he wouldn't
have that "need" to hide his insecurities, etc

Cheers,

Ted

Many Rutan projects are proof of concept projects, as much as anything else.

It is possible for a concept to be proven as viable despite not meeting the
criteria that we normally associate with success. One thing that Rutan is
great at is going from concept to application quickly and economically.
Others following a more traditional path would have been bankrupt after the
first project.

"C.D.Damron" wrote in message
news:7hFEb.401493$Dw6.1249496@attbi_s02...
Many Rutan projects are proof of concept projects, as much as anything
else.

It is possible for a concept to be proven as viable despite not meeting
the
criteria that we normally associate with success. One thing that Rutan is
great at is going from concept to application quickly and economically.
Others following a more traditional path would have been bankrupt after
the
first project.

Thanks!!

I wish I could have said this myself C.D.

James Taylor
www.AICompany.com

"C.D.Damron" wrote:

One thing that Rutan is great at is going from concept to
application quickly and economically.

Excellent point. I'd love to see some off the stuff that
never made it off the drawing board.

Dave 'another kind of CD' Hyde