SpaceShipOne/Discovery Channel porn

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

On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 01:06:30 GMT, "mike regish"
wrote:

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

I stand corrected on the difference between orbital speed as opposed
to escaping earth's gravity. I read the information too fast and
stopped when I got the first blurb.

As to the lack of shielding, Rutan got away with that because the
spaceship did not really re-enter the atmosphere because it did not go
fast enough to achieve orbit. Had it achieved orbital velocity, it
would have burned to a crisp re-entering, unless it somehow managed to
slow down to the kind of speed it managed during it's lob. Remember,
it went straight up then fuel exhaustion occured and it slowed
considerably by the time it nosed over. It was at this apogee, while
it was going it's slowest, that the shuttlecock feature was activated.

That's my point with this venture, it does not appear to have any
connection to space travel, it was a vehical designed to capture the X
prize, which did not require orbiting the earth. The criteria for the
X prize was that a vehical had to go into near space carrying a load
equivelent to another person or two besides the pilot. In my opinion
it's roughly analagous to crusing at 1,000 feet at 100 mph, versus
cruising at that same altitude at 1,000 mph. Both are attainable, but
the airplane that cruises at 1,000 mph, will be substantially
different from the one that can only go 100 mph. The technology that
allows the slow airplane to cruise at 100 does not help the engineers
to design the airplane that goes 1,000 mph at that altitude, or any
altitude. The only similarity is that they'd both likely have wings
and some sort of engine.

I actually feel that it was a neat technical feat/stunt. Folks here
keep saying that it will lead to future space travel. I'd like to
know how, exactly, since none of the technology would actually be
useful for space travel, as we currently know it. Certainly some
aspects of the vehicles construction might cross over to space flight,
making use of lightweight high strength composites. But beyond that
what?

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.

Hi Corky,

Very true. AND much more expensive. But "not possible"? it's entirely
possible as it's been done. The hard part is doing it much more cheaply,
reliably, frequently.

Besides, Spaceship One was
designed for one thing and one thing only, winning the X prize.

Also true. But what matters is what the X-Prize was designed for.

My understanding is that one of it's main functions is to promote a
"civilian" (i.e. non-NASA, non-government) space industry, tourist-in-space
and space access program.

The argument, for years, has been that there is a solid market out there
for space tourism. It's a high-end market to be sure, at least at the
start. And the people who believe in that market also believe - after
watching for decades - that NASA, Big Aero corporations and the government
cannot be relied upon to work towards the goal of cheaper and easier access
to space for anyone, let alone tourists.

So the X-Prize was created using the Orteig prize as a model. The hope was
to stimulate private organizations into action. Clearly they would have to
start with a small objective and work their way up, because there aren't
many private organizations with the necessary space expertise to start with
an orbital craft.

Note that several organizations competed for the prize but none of them are
the big Aerospace companies like Boeing or Lockheed. The believers in this
market think that these corporations are impediments to cheaper and more
wisespread access to space. Everything they do is larded with overhead
costs that small, lean organizations don't have to suffer. And the large
corp method of doing this is also sclerotic with certain exceptions such as
Skunk Works.

And, they argue, the structure of the market, that they believe exists,
supports the "baby step" path.

Some people can afford the $20 million price tag to ride along to ISS
(International Space Station). We've already seen that.

More people could afford an orbital ride.

Sub-Orbital rides would be far cheaper than orbital rides, so more people
can afford that.

Already you can buy a P-51 ride, a ride in a privately owned Vomit Comet,
and a Mig ride (if you are willing to travel to Russia). Or you used to be
able to buy a Mig ride - I haven't seen an ad for it in a while. And lots
more people can afford these rides.

You can buy AT-6 rides ballon rides and glider rides.

At the bottom of the flight "thrill ride" is the $49 Introductory flight
lesson.

So a sub-orbital hop is one niche in this continuum.

And a good place to start for opening up space travel for the masses and not
for a very few hundred highly trained specialists.

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.

You are correct in all of this (except that it's spelled "apogee" - sorry
for being so pedantic ;^) ) but, I think, the real point here is that
before guys like Rutan and other SMALL organizations build an orbital
vehicle, you have to allow them to work their way up. Gain knowledge, skill
and experience.

Suppose the X-Prize started out with orbital requirements...

they'd STILL be working on it. Furthermore you'd have to have a much larger
prize. And you'd have to get people willing to donate towards that prize.

A MUCH harder proposition.

Now make it a smaller, easier target and you can get donors for that sort of
prize much easier. Once that target was met, it's much easier to get donors
for the bigger prize.

Imagine if the Orteig prize was for the first non-stop flight around the
world. It wouldn't have been accomplished in 1927.

I realize it's not an exact analogy because people have already done the
orbital thing, and no one had flown from NY to Paris non-stop.


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.

May not even be Rutan that solves it.

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.

Heat shield technology is cheap and reliable. Most people in good health
can handle the G's you incur upon heat shield re-entry. I wouldn't be
surprised if that's the least problematical thing. The achievement of
25,000 mph at airline turnaround rates, safety, efficiency etc. That seems
to me to be the problem.

Gregg

"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

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

"Corky Scott" wrote in message

Tell me again what the point is in being lobbed into near space?

What was the point of flying a few yards at Kitty Hawk?

Seriously, I think the point was not that they were lobbed into near space,
but that it was done my private enterprise.
-c

On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 08:38:35 -0800, "gatt"
wrote:

What was the point of flying a few yards at Kitty Hawk?

Seriously, I think the point was not that they were lobbed into near space,
but that it was done my private enterprise.

Gatt, I appreciate what the Wright bros. did but they were pioneers,
the first to achieve controlled flight. They did their research,
decided that in order to achieve viable flight the vehical needed to
be controllable and built a vehical that could do that, sort of.

What Burt Rutan did was prove that privately funded people can achieve
what has already been done with government funding. He did not
pioneer anything, he just came up with a different way to achieve
something that's already been done.

You will notice that none of the countries that have achieved space
flight bother to simply lob vehicals, whether manned or otherwise
(unless something goes wrong with the booster), into near space
anymore. That's because there's nothing to gain scientifically or
technologically from doing so. Vehicals that leave the atmosphere to
enter space and then return to earth must be built very differently
from those that merely graze space.

Corky Scott

Corky Scott wrote:


What Burt Rutan did was prove that privately funded people can achieve
what has already been done with government funding. He did not
pioneer anything, he just came up with a different way to achieve
something that's already been done.

Which sort of makes him a "Henry Ford" rather than the "Wright Bros."

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
...
Corky Scott wrote:


What Burt Rutan did was prove that privately funded people can achieve
what has already been done with government funding. He did not
pioneer anything, he just came up with a different way to achieve
something that's already been done.

Which sort of makes him a "Henry Ford" rather than the "Wright Bros."

and technically, people had been thrown off of cliffs for centuries prior to
the Wright Bros. Orville and Wilbur just showed how to do it with style.

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.

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