In article ,
"Karl Hallowell" wrote:

On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 19:37:34 -0500, Herb Schaltegger wrote:

In article ,
"Christopher M. Jones" wrote:

Herb Schaltegger wrote:
Actually, no. They have to do it with triple the payload: three people,
not just one pilot. And they have to do it again within two weeks, not
a month or two (or three) between each flight.

Nope. They only have to demonstrate the payload and
volume, they need only one person to actually make the
flights. They can do a "how many people can fit in
the phonebooth" ground test and carry sand bags to 100 km.

An excellent example of form-over-substance in the mission requirements
if I've ever heard one. That gets a definite "Harrrrrrumph!" from me.
Has Scaled been ballasting their test flights so far? I haven't seen
anything too technical in their press releases.

You're being too harsh. Why should we risk three people on an experimental
vehicle when we can risk one and the ballast equivalent of the other two?
Sounds prudent to me and not just a matter of "form-over-substance".

First of all, "we" aren't risking anything. The financial risk (for
this team, anyway) is being borne by Paul Allen, the risk to reputation
and career is being borne by Burt Rutan (who's already soiled it
somewhat by publicly stating his beliefs that the Pyramids of Egypt are
somehow connected with extraterrestrials); the risks of bodily harm and
injury are borne predominantly by the volunteer flight crew.

Again, if the requirement is so lenient as to allow dead weight ballast
in place of actual human beings, what's the point of using ANYONE?
Pat's cute, personality-filled monkey(s) would fit the bill perfectly.

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
Columbia Loss FAQ:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html