Spaceship One, going for two of two

On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 01:11:57 GMT, "G.R. Patterson III"
wrote:



John Harlow wrote:

So, what exactly does this event tell us about NASA?

That they quit doing this sort of thing about 45 years ago when the X-15 program shut
down.

They really never did do quite the same thing and it wasn't in this
fashion.

The only similarity was the attempt to put a man into space.

Like all government operations they take the brute force method which
is basically pilling on enough money to get the job done. In private
industry the idea is to do it as simply as possible. Any government
agency is going to be under much more scrutiny than a small private
group as it's tax payers money.
You also have the politicians making issues out of any issue even if
it's only been hinted. OTOH SpaceShipOne certainly was in the center
of the public's eye for a few days

I wonder how many dollars the space program had spent by the time they
did the first sub orbital shot?

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

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

Peter Duniho wrote:
Why would they? People do dangerous things all the time; usually, as long
as no innocent bystanders get hurt, no one really cares (except friends and
family, of course). I can't imagine this would be any different.

Since this is all conjecture, I guess it's a matter of opinion, but these
flights are fairly high profile in the press, and just like a shuttle
disaster, I suspect there would be a lot of press if (when) one of these
commercial guys dies.


A lot of NASA's manned space flight budget
goes into doing things as safely as possible, and they still have
occasional deadly accidents. In addition, the payload capability is like
night and day.
I assume the philosphy is that the design will "scale" easily. Whether this
is true or not remains to be seen, of course.

Agreed.


I think this effort is a great idea, and Rutan's "feather" design is
absolutely awesome and inovative, but they still have a long way to go
(despite what Richard Branson might think).
It is innovative and cool. But, as someone else pointed out, they didn't
actually enter orbit. It remains to be seen whether the current design
could be in any way suitable for reentry from orbit. The vehicle speed will
be much higher in that situation, and it's not clear to me that the
"feathers" will be sufficient for slowing the aircraft down, nor is it clear
to me that the vehicle has sufficient heat protection even if the feathers
could serve that purpose.

Agreed.

--- Jay


--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

Jay Honeck wrote:
I've always wondered why NASA abandoned this method of getting into space.
I've heard a couple of reasons:
1. X-15 technology was impractical to scale up for orbital flights. (This
seems strange, but I'm no rocket scientist!)

I'm not an expert in this area, but I believe it was a "horsepower
required" vs. "fuel efficiency" vs. "size of the gas tank" kind of trade
off. It was more efficent (in relative terms) to rocket out of earth's
gravity using disposable tanks. Of course, that was using 1960's
technology. That may not be the case, today.

--- Jay


--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
Uh, have you seen the media reporting on GA accidents?

Yes. Not once have I seen anyone say "Why didn't the government prevent
these
guys from doing this".

Did you have a point?

"Jay Masino" wrote in message
...
[...] I suspect there would be a lot of press if (when) one of these
commercial guys dies.

Of course there will be a lot of press. So? That's a lot different from
the claim that "the entire country is going to be whining like babies 'Why
didn't the government prevent these guys from doing this'".

Pete

On 4 Oct 2004 15:02:25 -0700, (James L. Freeman)
wrote:

Fox Headline News coverage said that one of the conditions for
claiming the $10-milllion prize is that the pilot must return in "good
health," which is defined as surving for 24 hours after the landing.

I remember reading a similar caveat when I read a book about the
Voyager round-the-world flight. Apparently a lot of the arguments
ended 'I'm going to kill him 25 hours after they land!

aw

I wonder how many dollars the space program had spent by the time they
did the first sub orbital shot?

I'll bet that NASA spends more maintaining the mothballed shuttle fleet than
Rutan spent on the entire Spaceship One effort.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

I'll bet that NASA spends more maintaining the mothballed shuttle
fleet than Rutan spent on the entire Spaceship One effort.

I went to the state fair last weekend (I share the planet with these
people???) and saw where a monster truck company converts their old monster
trucks into fair rides; for $5 a head they pile people into an old monster
truck and drive them around for about a minute.

I think NASA could adopt this highly profitable business practice. Put a
dozen people or so at a time in an old shuttle and get some guys to shake
the wings and make spaceship noises.

Jay Honeck wrote:
I wonder how many dollars the space program had spent by the time they
did the first sub orbital shot?


I'll bet that NASA spends more maintaining the mothballed shuttle fleet than
Rutan spent on the entire Spaceship One effort.

Almost certainly, but what's the point. The SS1 is a pretty purpose
built thing done almost 25 years after the Shuttle. Ain't got anywhere
near the payload or capability of the Shuttle as well.

Almost certainly, but what's the point. The SS1 is a pretty purpose
built thing done almost 25 years after the Shuttle. Ain't got anywhere
near the payload or capability of the Shuttle as well.

Quite true.

However, one works, and the other one doesn't.

Not because of anything mechanical, but because of the atmosphere (no pun
intended) that the shuttle must operate in.

And that's not going to change anytime soon, sadly.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"