Space Ship One first powered flight!

wrote:
In article , Ben Sego says...

wrote:
snip

3) It's archived. My posts aren't.

I think you meant to say:

"His post is archived. On my posts, I set the non-standard, but
frequently honored 'X-No-Archive' header to'Yes.' So, those archives
which choose to honor the header won't keep a copy of my message, at
least not for very long. Unless someone includes my message as
reference when they reply to it, in which case, my original message will
be archived as part of the reply, so that someone with at least a little
spin on the ball will be able to find my message despite my effort to
remain yet more anonymous. And of course, any of the archives which
ignore the non-standard header will maintain a copy of my message."

That's what you meant to say.


I'm sorry, I had thought all that was implicit in the " ) ".

Oh. I see. Sorry for all the bother, then.


Of course, you are
correct.


I further implied, in the first apostrophe, "You may note that the post which
you attribute to me, posted by "a ," has no 'X-No-Archive" header
included with it. It is for this reason that the post was archived by Google
Groups, and you were able to reference it by means of a link to their files.
While this is certainly not definitive proof that it was posted by someone other
than myself, it is a fact that should be considered in concert with the other
evidence presented here."

Well, it is probably clear to you that I deduced the actual technical
details of the situation. I sought only to clarify for you and other
readers. Still, I should not have presumed any lack of understanding of
the detailed situation on your part. For that inaccurate presumption
on _my_ part, I offer my apology.


Additionally, the period "." was meant to imply "You may also note the post by
the anonymous "DO" further down the thread, archived at
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:...uc%404ax.co m.
After excoriating me for my anonymity, he writes "You will not be even a
footnote in the history of Aviation and Aerospace."

My. I missed that subtlety of your expression. Now that you point it
out, may I add "Wow. My irony meter just exploded." If you take my
meaning.


This is oddly similar to the line that the anonymous pacplyer erroneously
attributes to me: "Bert is a giant in aviation and you are not even a footnote."
Is it possible that the anonymous DO is also the anonymous ? They
certainly seem to take the same view of Mr. Rutan, one far removed from my own.
Perhaps the anonymous pacplyer can investigate further, and inform us of his
findings.

I've missed much.


Mr. DO is incorrect in one thing at least. I have appeared in many footnotes in
aviation."

I _have_ seen attributions to "anonymous" in various of my history of
aviation and space exploration readings. Presumably, though, you mean
something else.


Thank you for your timely and insightful correction, Mr Sego - if that is your
real name.

Oh, only too happy to help. And the name is correct. My contact
information is available at more than one location on the web, so that
googling can be productive. Also, in a curious bit of deja vu, I posted
my name, address, and phone number to this newsgroup some years
back. It was in a discussion about anonymous posters, I think. A
curiosity only.

And just to be complete, while I have worked a bit in the aerospace
field, I doubt my name will make it into any of the footnotes. Not that
it should, mind you. Just clarifying.

B.S.

RobertR237 wrote:

In article , writes:



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




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





One could by your logic argue that the Wright Brothers were unsuccessful since
the Wright Flyer also crashed and was destroyed. It is not the success of the
individual aircraft that should be measured but what is learned in the process
and can be applied to further the advances in aviation. By that measure, the
Wright Brothers were very successful and by the same measure Burt Rutan is also
very successful.

well, by that.. they weren't successful in making money off of their
invention. they wasted alot of time suing over patent money.

wrote:

www.space.com is reporting that Spaceship one flew it's first rocket powered flight today.

68Kft and it broke the sound barrier.
Minor incident on landing the left side gear colapsed.
No injuries,minor damage.


Good luck to the pioneers of the next century!



anyone have a link to the spaceflight contest?

In article , Dilbert Firestorm
writes:


One could by your logic argue that the Wright Brothers were unsuccessful
since
the Wright Flyer also crashed and was destroyed. It is not the success of
the
individual aircraft that should be measured but what is learned in the
process
and can be applied to further the advances in aviation. By that measure,
the
Wright Brothers were very successful and by the same measure Burt Rutan is
also
very successful.

well, by that.. they weren't successful in making money off of their
invention. they wasted alot of time suing over patent money.



Is the only measure of success how much money is made off of the invention?


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

"RobertR237" wrote

Is the only measure of success how much money is made off of the
invention?


Bob Reed

Yep. Edison was a flop. TIC (tongue in cheek)
--
Jim in NC

"Dilbert Firestorm" wrote in
message ...
RobertR237 wrote:
snippage
One could by your logic argue that the Wright Brothers were unsuccessful
since
the Wright Flyer also crashed and was destroyed. It is not the success
of the
individual aircraft that should be measured but what is learned in the
process
and can be applied to further the advances in aviation. By that measure,
the
Wright Brothers were very successful and by the same measure Burt Rutan
is also
very successful.

well, by that.. they weren't successful in making money off of their
invention. they wasted alot of time suing over patent money.

That's not strictly true. The Wrights, (and the Wright company) did enforce
their patents, but Wilbur died in 1912, and Orville sold the patent and the
company in 1915. The "Patent wars" were ended by the patent pooling
agreement in 1917. The long-running patent suits were not brought by the
Wrights, but by the heirs of John J. Montgomery against the holders of the
Wright patents and the U.S. government. That was finally decided in favor
of the Wright patent holders in 1928.
This did have the effect of getting Orville to write down how they went
about their early experiments, and I can recommend "How We Invented the
Aeroplane" to anyone interested.

Orville made a _lot_ of money when he sold the company. It was a private
transaction, and no one knows for sure, but most estimates put it around two
million dollars -- an awful lot of money in 1915.

Tim Ward

Dilbert Firestorm wrote:
wrote:

www.space.com is reporting that Spaceship one flew it's first rocket
powered flight today.

68Kft and it broke the sound barrier.
Minor incident on landing the left side gear colapsed.
No injuries,minor damage.


Good luck to the pioneers of the next century!



anyone have a link to the spaceflight contest?


When in doubt, try the obvious. I typed:

www.xprize.com

and found something of interest.

www.xprize.org

also brings on a nearly identical page. Then I tried


www.xxxprize.com

This site, while providing some stiff competition to the others, seems
to be unrelated.

B.S.

Ben Sego wrote in message ...

wrote:
snip

I further implied, in the first apostrophe, "You may note that the post which
you attribute to me, posted by "a ," has no 'X-No-Archive" header
included with it. It is for this reason that the post was archived by Google
Groups, and you were able to reference it by means of a link to their files.
While this is certainly not definitive proof that it was posted by someone other
than myself, it is a fact that should be considered in concert with the other
evidence presented here."

Ben Sego said:
Well, it is probably clear to you that I deduced the actual technical
details of the situation. I sought only to clarify for you and other
readers. Still, I should not have presumed any lack of understanding of
the detailed situation on your part. For that inaccurate presumption
on _my_ part, I offer my apology. snip

Pacplyer realizes:
Well that's my fault then Ben, for misidentifying the two a@a's. It
is I who must apologize for mixing them up (have to speak to an "AA"
counselor about that ;-) There were just so many similarities... what
struck me as remarkable was the reversal in attitude toward Burt, and
the same "footnote in aviation" diatribe being used against the second
"a" that earlier he (the first a) attacked Veeduber with. Alas, it was
simpler in the days of Ben Franklin when he published his opinions as
an alias that was more easy to distinguish: Ms. Silence Dogood.

So , if you are a different "a" than a , I am sorry for
confusing you two... who both, passionately argued about the same
subject, emersed in the same dialog, and both claimed to know all
about Mr Burt Rutan! Might I make a suggestion to you? Is there any
chance you could pick a more imaginative alias? Like let's call you:
ie. Or how about:
id or mabey: h? See,
those email alias' I *can* remember and differentiate. And as a side
benefit you can get some of that hero-worship, fame and respect that
you seem to begrudge Mr. Rutan. ;-)

One more irony exists though, that I can't figure out: I cannot read
either of the "a"'s postings about half the time. But everybody else
seems to be able to. These two posters are the only ones I've had
trouble with. Another amazing coincidence? But I can sometimes read
the omitted "a" posting on another web-based newsreader. Ben, I'm all
ears as to why. There is no news server at Direcway my ISP. Could
that be why? Or is there a way to selectively exclude one user
address from seeing the rebuttal? This may not be rocket science for
you Ben, but I'm scratching my head here.

"a"#2 says: snip both ends
This is oddly similar to the line that the anonymous pacplyer erroneously
attributes to me: "Bert is a giant in aviation and you are not even a footnote."
Is it possible that the anonymous DO is also the anonymous ? They
certainly seem to take the same view of Mr. Rutan, one far removed from my own.
Perhaps the anonymous pacplyer can investigate further, and inform us of his
findings.


Sure, why not. My next lunar space-laser patent application isn't due
to be filed for another few sidereal hours.

pac "undercover rocket detective" plyer

(DJFawcett26) wrote in message ...
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.

What is ironic about your comments is that the Proteus has been an
active participant and testbed in NASA's ERAST UAV DSA flight
demonstrations. Fitted with special sensors and instrumentation, it
was flown from the ground (apparently by computer) during a number of
DSA flights (with a pilot on board).

You must understand that Burt's heart is in manned test flight. So,
I'm not so sure he is excited about the possibility of UAV's taking
the place of piloted aircraft.

-B