SS1 flight set for June 21

"Christopher M. Jones" writes:
There are some real gems in there though, if you've got the time to
look for them. Browse at +2 (or +5). It's kind of like netnews
except that (1) the typical cliques that usually dominate newsgroup
discussion don't seem to exist (this is sometimes good and sometimes
bad, but it does mix things up a bit), and (2) the moderation gives
you a chance of cutting through the bull****. Kinda.

I am well acquainted with slashdot, thank you very much, and with
their moderation system.

Yeah, it's clear you're familiar with it; I was posting mainly so that
others might know what to try to get the best out of the experience, and
to make it clear that not everybody hates slashdot.

-Miles
--
Come now, if we were really planning to harm you, would we be waiting here,
beside the path, in the very darkest part of the forest?

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
Dale wrote:

(On a side note: I got to see a Trident underway Friday for the first
time in over a decade. I had forgotten just how beautiful they were
underway.)

I thought the entire point was to NOT see them underway. :-)


D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

In sci.space.policy Mary Shafer wrote:
On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 06:08:54 GMT, (Derek
Lyons) wrote:

One of the most thoughtful and reasonable posts yet. I may steal this
next time I take on those zealots at slashdot. (I really wish more
the clued in regulars here would join in there.. Stuffie has more
common sense and intelligence than they collectively do.)

What is slashdot? I've heard of it, but I have no idea what it is.

Think of a variant of usenet that was concentrated into one web site,
except that only selct few could introduce new topics and where only
people capable of demonstrating lots of juvenile humour would be
allowed to be moderators. Oh, and I almost forgot about astroturfing
being considered the norm.


Mary


--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 14:06:04 -0400, "Ami Silberman"
wrote:

Mercury Redstone started as a stopgap to test the Mercury spacecraft while
Atlas development caught up. I'm sure that NASA would have prefered,
originally, all things being equal, to fly only Mercury-Atlases for the
manned flights (even the sub-orbital ones), but the Atlas just wasn't
man-rated in time. (And certainly wasn't ready in time for the early tests.)

....In fact, there were some contingency plans to use Jupiter boosters
for shorter suborbital tests if necessary, but when it became apparent
that Redstones were going to suffice quite well, what was considered
Jupiter's "Last Gasp" was shelved, and the Jupiters were all retired
after the Cuban Missile Crisis.

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

In article , says...
The differences between the Mercury spacecraft used for the MR flights and
the MA flights are minimal, the primary is that the MA flights used an
ablative heatshield, and the MR flights (at least the first, can't remember
on the second) used the earlier, "heat-sink" style heat shield.

Both suborbitals used the heat sink. In fact, Curt Newport says that
part of the reason that Liberty Bell was recovered in such good shape
after years on the bottom of the ocean was that much of the electro-
galvanic (salt-water and dissimilar metal) corrosion focused on the
beryllium heat shield, destroying it while preserving the rest of the
space craft.
--
Kevin Willoughby lid

Imagine that, a FROG ON-OFF switch, hardly the work
for test pilots. -- Mike Collins

Pat Flannery wrote:

Derek Lyons wrote:

(On a side note: I got to see a Trident underway Friday for the first
time in over a decade. I had forgotten just how beautiful they were
underway.)


Assuming you mean the sub, and not the missile or airliner, I always
thought it looked like a torpedo with a sail (that's what they call
conning towers nowadays for you non-qual pukes...like me) on it.

Nope. Even a non-qual puke knows that a conning tower is still called
a conning tower, but since a sail doesn't have a conning tower, it's
called a sail. (If a sail did have a conning tower, it would be
called a fairwater.)

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message

(On a side note: I got to see a Trident underway Friday for the first
time in over a decade. I had forgotten just how beautiful they were
underway.)

I thought the entire point was to NOT see them underway. :-)

g True enough, but she'd just cleared the Hood Canal Bridge and was
not yet submerged. (They don't do that until they clear the Straits.)

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 06:24:46 GMT, (Derek
Lyons) wrote:

Nope. Even a non-qual puke knows that a conning tower is still called
a conning tower, but since a sail doesn't have a conning tower, it's
called a sail. (If a sail did have a conning tower, it would be
called a fairwater.)

....Unless it's a Tuesday, and you got a second jack.

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

In article ,
Kevin Willoughby writes:
In article , says...
In article ,
Joe Strout writes:
- first manned vehicle with a hybrid rocket motor
And what differences are there between the hybrid motor for SS1 and
other hybrids? None, that I've seen.

Sometimes good engineering is realizing that off-the-shelf components
are good enough.

Just so. But "off the shelf" by its very nature isn't advancing the
State of teh Art. That's not a bad thing - it's a recognition of all
that will be saved by not reinventing the wheel. It's also tends to
give better chances for a successful project.

in SS1's "shuttlecock" configuration for re-entry
but it's not applicable to anything but this particular point case,
where the vehicle is reentering at a low speed, and steep angle. It's
not going to work for the delicate balance of drag, heating and lift
that is a lifting reentry for an orbital vehicle.

On the other hand, by demonstrating that Burt's very good at finding
simple solutions to single-point problems, this gives better confidence
in his ability to find a simple solution to the single point problem of
reentry from orbit. I've certainly got more confidence in Rutan's
ability to deorbit a spacecraft than anyone else who's never done it!

A lifting orbital reentry isn's a single-point problem, though.
You've got aerodynamics that change drasticallty through the speed
range - (Mach 25 to 0, rahter than Mach 2 to 0), and the need to
control adn dissipate the heat generated. And a longer endurance
environmental system. teh differences are not trivial, and are orders
af magnitude more difficult. Could Burt Rutan develop such a system?
I don't doubt that he could, but it wouldn't be a small job that a
relatively small team like Scaled Composites could take on. It comes
down to a question of Burt's personality - would he be able, and
willing, to give up the role of Prophet (of Aviation) and become a
Manager and Organizer. Wernher von Braun was able to make that loap.
So were Kelly Johnson, and Ed Heinemann. But it's not easy - it's
like the difference between a Rock Star and a Symphony Conductor.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...
The Hurricane looks just fine, thank you


And the Hawker Hunter is a knockout.
Abso-bloody-lutely :- ) Always thought it looked like a "proper fighter".
Pilots seemed to love it too.Been a while since I last saw one at an
airshow. Ditto the English ELectric Lightning that was my other childhood
favourite.

SteveM