Spaceship One - a partial sucess.

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 15:33:57 GMT, (Derek Lyons)
wrote:

(George William Herbert) wrote:

Derek Lyons wrote:
First returns; the 100km mark was broken, ascent phase control
problems remain.

This time the control problems were at the end of the burn,
but it looked pretty exciting for a bit there...

20 odd rolls according to Miles O'Brien on CNN, somewhat more severe
than last time.

I hope there's a straightforwards answer so they can fly
the next flight on time.

Agreed.

D.

According to Spaceflightnow.com

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/ss1/status.html

"1620 GMT (12:20 p.m. EDT)

Mike Melvill just told reporters gathered at the runway that it was
pilot error that caused the unplanned roll during the rocket engine
firing of today's launch. He said SpaceShipOne performed properly and
he was never worried during the flight, knowing he could damp out the
roll motion. Once he knew the 62-mile target altitude would be
reached, he commanded the engine to shut down. The cutoff occurred 11
seconds early.

Rutan says the data will be examined closely, but at this point
officials expect to conduct the second X Prize launch attempt within
the next two weeks as required for the contest.

Melvill quipped that the craft just needs to be refueled and it'll be
ready to go."


- Rusty Barton

"Dave O'Neill" :

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On 8 Oct 2004 01:09:32 -0700, in a place far, far away,
(Dave O'Neill) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

Well, let's look at the "sample", me and her. I'd like to go -
currently I couldn't pay more than about $25,000 and stay married,
still I'm in my 30s - the average age for the Futron survey was 50s,
so I expect to be able to afford a Virgin trip at the price announced
in that time.

OTOH, according to Futron 50% (well 49% +/- 4.7% error) of the sample
stated they were not prepared to go _at any price point_, so that
looks like the O'Neill household is pretty representative of the
market as outlined by Futron.

Which is utterly irrelevant, because one cannot extrapolate the
behavior of millions from a single individual. You can continue to
flatter yourself as somehow being representative of the market but
that's statistically absurd, and if you based business decisions on
that, you'd be quickly out of business.

I'm claiming no such thing Rand, but please indulge your own fantasies.

snip silly stuff

Sorry, Dave but unless something important is missing from the above quotes
it is you with the fantasies. If your family matchs the 49% (+/- 4.7% error)
then you don't match the entire market, you match the 49% (+/- 4.7% error).
The other 51% (+/- 4.7% error) of the market want to go at some price point
and you thus in no way represent them at all.

I want to go, you thus can't represent me and my wants, thus when you make
the statement that you represent the market but I am part of that same market
and do not match you claims, you are the one who comes off as having an
inflated ego.

Earl Colby Pottinger


--
I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,
SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to
the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp

"Earl Colby Pottinger" wrote in message
...
"Dave O'Neill" :

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On 8 Oct 2004 01:09:32 -0700, in a place far, far away,
(Dave O'Neill) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

Well, let's look at the "sample", me and her. I'd like to go -
currently I couldn't pay more than about $25,000 and stay married,
still I'm in my 30s - the average age for the Futron survey was 50s,
so I expect to be able to afford a Virgin trip at the price announced
in that time.

OTOH, according to Futron 50% (well 49% +/- 4.7% error) of the sample
stated they were not prepared to go _at any price point_, so that
looks like the O'Neill household is pretty representative of the
market as outlined by Futron.

Which is utterly irrelevant, because one cannot extrapolate the
behavior of millions from a single individual. You can continue to
flatter yourself as somehow being representative of the market but
that's statistically absurd, and if you based business decisions on
that, you'd be quickly out of business.

I'm claiming no such thing Rand, but please indulge your own fantasies.

snip silly stuff

Sorry, Dave but unless something important is missing from the above
quotes
it is you with the fantasies. If your family matchs the 49% (+/- 4.7%
error)
then you don't match the entire market, you match the 49% (+/- 4.7%
error).

My wife matches that bit.

The other 51% (+/- 4.7% error) of the market want to go at some price
point
and you thus in no way represent them at all.

I match that bit.

I want to go, you thus can't represent me and my wants, thus when you make
the statement that you represent the market but I am part of that same
market
and do not match you claims, you are the one who comes off as having an
inflated ego.

?

"Dave O'Neill" :

"Earl Colby Pottinger" wrote in message
...
"Dave O'Neill" :

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On 8 Oct 2004 01:09:32 -0700, in a place far, far away,
(Dave O'Neill) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

Well, let's look at the "sample", me and her. I'd like to go -
currently I couldn't pay more than about $25,000 and stay married,
still I'm in my 30s - the average age for the Futron survey was 50s,
so I expect to be able to afford a Virgin trip at the price
announced
in that time.

OTOH, according to Futron 50% (well 49% +/- 4.7% error) of the
sample
stated they were not prepared to go _at any price point_, so that
looks like the O'Neill household is pretty representative of the
market as outlined by Futron.

Which is utterly irrelevant, because one cannot extrapolate the
behavior of millions from a single individual. You can continue to
flatter yourself as somehow being representative of the market but
that's statistically absurd, and if you based business decisions on
that, you'd be quickly out of business.

I'm claiming no such thing Rand, but please indulge your own fantasies.

snip silly stuff

Sorry, Dave but unless something important is missing from the above
quotes
it is you with the fantasies. If your family matchs the 49% (+/- 4.7%
error)
then you don't match the entire market, you match the 49% (+/- 4.7%
error).

My wife matches that bit.

The other 51% (+/- 4.7% error) of the market want to go at some price
point
and you thus in no way represent them at all.

I match that bit.

I want to go, you thus can't represent me and my wants, thus when you
make
the statement that you represent the market but I am part of that same
market
and do not match you claims, you are the one who comes off as having an
inflated ego.

?

Dave, cut it with the innocent act. For the last couple of days you have
been implying that because a large percentage of people don't want to go
orbital that there is no orbital market. And don't claim that you have not,
Ed has repeatly asked you why you think there is no market and not once did
you say there was one. To claim otherwise now is to be lying.

Earl Colby Pottinger

--
I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,
SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to
the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp

Earl Colby Pottinger wrote in message ...


and do not match you claims, you are the one who comes off as having an
inflated ego.

?

Dave, cut it with the innocent act. For the last couple of days you have
been implying that because a large percentage of people don't want to go
orbital that there is no orbital market.

No, I haven't.

And don't claim that you have not,
Ed has repeatly asked you why you think there is no market and not once did
you say there was one. To claim otherwise now is to be lying.

Then could you link to the comments I've made which make you believe
this is my position?

To say there is _no_ market would be stupid, I've never said there is
no market. If you'd like to find where I've said that I'll happily
and publically say I was wrong.

I have said quite a lot that I do not believe there is a "vast" market
(as Rand Simberg described it), nor do I necessarily believe there is
a "sufficient" market (as Rand Simberg also described it) to lead to
space development supporting several 1000 living and working in space
(as, again, Mr Simberg described it) - there might well be a niche
market for a hobby not unlike sky diving or scuba diving. [Something I
do recal saying to Ed before his argumentative and plain daft style
made me give up.]

The problem is do I believe that is enough to bootstrap (which is what
is really being talked about here) the development of space? Sorry,
no I don't. I'm not even sure that it will be large enough to make a
sensible return, let alone self finance the development of more
vehicles - at least not without constant and ever increasing
injections of capital.

I might well be completely and utterly wrong on every count, in this
subject I'd be delighted to be. However, the position I'm taking is
hardly all that controversial, at least outside sci.space.policy it
isn't.

But if you guys want to sit around here patting yourselves on the back
about how great and sucessful space tourism is, then I don't want to
get in your way.

Dave