SS1 propellant load

"MSu1049321" wrote in message
...
If you think that thing's gonna go for the prize *without* Rutan and his
financial backer on board...
You'd have to cage me to keep me off.

it will win the prize carrying three, I'll bet ya three quatloos....

I'll take that bet. Unless there's tasks requiring 2 or more crew, I'm sure
they'll fly it with a "dummy" payload.

Rutan is still treating this as a test program and you don't risk more souls
than necessary.

(Christopher M. Jones) wrote:
Good ol' oldthink. The 4004 wasn't even as powerful as
a PDP-8. Worthless little piece of crap "chip". Pffft,
who needs that junk.

Nope. An honest comparision of the two very different programs, one
an actual spacecraft meant to accomplish something, the other a faux
spacecraft meant as a stunt. That's not to say stunts are
automatically bad, they aren't because they can pave the way
(Lindbergh), but that confusing stunts and operations results in
confusion.

Anyway, you miss the point. Scaled is actually performing
a real, honest to goodness test regime on its spacecraft.
Something that has never really been done, on purpose,
before on a manned spacecraft. You'll notice how
different when they begin intentionally exploring the
envelope outside the nominal flight profile.

Of course you handwave away the reasons while the 'real' manned
spacecraft didn't do such such a test, but the 'faux' manned
spacecraft is doing such a test. You appear unwilling, or unable to
concieve of the difference between the two systems.

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

This may be Rutan's greatest project ever, damn skippy he's going to be one of
the passengers...

(Derek Lyons) wrote in message
...
(Christopher M. Jones) wrote:
Good ol' oldthink. The 4004 wasn't even as powerful as
a PDP-8. Worthless little piece of crap "chip". Pffft,
who needs that junk.

Nope. An honest comparision of the two very different programs, one
an actual spacecraft meant to accomplish something, the other a faux
spacecraft meant as a stunt. That's not to say stunts are
automatically bad, they aren't because they can pave the way
(Lindbergh), but that confusing stunts and operations results in
confusion.

Anyway, you miss the point. Scaled is actually performing
a real, honest to goodness test regime on its spacecraft.
Something that has never really been done, on purpose,
before on a manned spacecraft. You'll notice how
different when they begin intentionally exploring the
envelope outside the nominal flight profile.

Of course you handwave away the reasons while the 'real' manned
spacecraft didn't do such such a test, but the 'faux' manned
spacecraft is doing such a test. You appear unwilling, or unable to
concieve of the difference between the two systems.

Again and again you fail to struggle past your prejudices and see
the whole picture. You claim I'm handwaving when I'm merely terse.
Yet it is you who fails to recognize the fundamentally obvious fact
that SS1 is not in competition with orbital launchers and doesn't
have to be, and you try to handwave that absence of perceived
difference into some sort of absolute superiority of one versus the
other. Fine, at your request I will put away my terseness and be
verbose enough to leave not the slightest doubt as to my meanings.

First and foremost, as I mentioned above, SS1 is not an orbital
launch vehicle, is not intended to be such, and does not have to be
such. Implying that falling short of orbital rocketry makes SS1
somehow illegitimate or a failure is simply preposterous and
nonsensical. It makes about as much sense as saying that all
airplanes have to have the range of a 747, or that all cars have to
have the payload capability of a long haul 18-wheeler. SS1 and
orbital rockets are part of the same family of vehicles but they are
not designed to serve the same markets nor fill the same needs.
Indeed, SS1 is not designed to serve any markets, but more on that
in a moment. I'll come back to the Personal Computer history for a
moment because I think it holds many valuable lessons that bear
remembering. In that case, PCs came on the market and initially
faced a lot of resistance from mainframe manufacturers and
operators. The plain fact was that the early PCs simply were not in
the same league as the mainframes of their day, even the most
expensive PCs. There was no possibility for any sane person to
envision plugging a PC into the same role as a mainframe and having
the result fall in the realm of anything other than utter disaster.
But the PC was not a mainframe replacement, it was a different beast
entirely, with different uses and a different market. And when used
appropriately they complemented mainframes greatly and helped expand
the role of computing in the workplace and the home without
replacing mainframes. Even so, the PC had a development edge that
eventually allowed it to outpace the mainframe and largely supplant
it, but it was decades before the PC platform could stand toe to toe
with the mainframes. And even today there are still some niche uses
where mainframe style systems are still preferred. Although today's
mainframes are micro-processor based systems which owe as much of
their heritage to PCs as to the mainframes of old. And all of that
started with a crappy little "chip" that was so incredibly feeble it
hardly counted as a real computer at all at the time. The morale of
this story is that without proper perspective it's possible to miss
key developments and be left behind in the march of history.

Second, you raise questions about the nature of SS1 and its intended
purpose. The Scaled team has been enormously secretive about its
long term intentions and we know with certainty only that they
intend to try to win the X-Prize. But we can glean a little more of
their intentions using common sense. Perhaps it is only a stunt,
perhaps. But it's worthwhile, I think, to compare Scaled's
activities to other companies doing similar things and the intended
goals of those companies. X-COR, for example, has a very similar
spacecraft to SS1 planned, only they plan on developing commercial
uses of sub-orbital flight. Indeed, it's also worthwhile noting
that a vehicle not too dissimilar from SS1 would be suited to
generating revenue by selling sub-orbital trips to "space tourists".
A market that X-COR has already started exploring and has firm plans
to exploit in the near future. Given the direct applicability of
the SS1 technology to activities that have a strong potential for
revenue generation and profit, as well as the presence of a
prominent investor, Paul Allen, with a professed interest in
bringing commercial manned spaceflight to the public, the only
rational conclusion is that the Scaled team intends SS1 to be part
of a program which has as its goal a commercial, sub-orbital "space
tourism" venture.

Taking that assumption, the question then becomes how SS1 fits into
that. What is the purpose of building, flying, and testing SS1?
And is SS1 intended to be that vehicle which paying passengers will
be able to ride into space? The answer to the second question is
safely no, and that makes the first question seemingly moot. Why
test a vehicle you plan on abandoning? That, I believe, is one of
the central issues you are sticking on. The answer is
straightforward. The goal of operating the SS1 is not to directly
build a profitable spacecraft, nor, necessarily, to develop a
prototype for such. No, the goal is building the foundation which
will allow the Scaled team to go into the commercial manned
spaceflight business with confidence and experience. The goal is
building knowledge, experience, and confidence in manned rocketry
and manned spaceflight. Scaled needs to build up a team which has
demonstrated experience in manned rocket powered spaceflight, and
they need to build up confidence that they can do manned spaceflight
well. They need to do this not only so that they will have the
foundation necessary to build and operate a spacecraft that serves
the market's needs and that rests on sound principles and experience
but also to demonstrate to regulatory agencies, investors, potential
passengers, and the world that they belong in the business of manned
spaceflight. This is critically important because failing to obtain
the confidence of any of these parties would be disastrous for any
attempt to make a profit. And the best way to do all this is with
the simplest vehicle and simplest flight plans possible, not by
trying to fly a fully outfitted, passenger ready vehicle from day
one. Simplified designs make development, testing, refinement,
analysis (of failures and successes), and fixes very much more
straightforward. And the end product of a robust testing regime of
a simple design is a trustworthy basic framework that you can then
build up from with confidence.

It's worth pointing out that manned rocketry is over six decades
old. Yet despite that there have been very few manned rockets.
Even fewer manned rocket powered spacecraft. And manned rocketry
has remained an arcane, rare, and expensive practice. In fact, at
present, the only organizations operating manned spacecraft are the
national governments of three of the most powerful countries on
Earth. Who are also the only three organizations to achieve the
feat of manned spaceflight throughout the entire history of
humankind to date. To enter that realm as a small startup company,
and to try to make a profit out of it, is an incredibly bold and
risky venture. And to do so successfully will require the creation
of enormous amounts of confidence from all those folks I listed
above. They will have to show everyone that they belong in a realm
which is currently inhabited only by the governments of superpower
nations before they are truly taken seriously enough to even reach
the steps preliminary to turning a profit. That is no easy task.
And to do that will require starting simple and showing people that
you can do manned spaceflight, that you can do it routinely, that
you can do it well, and that you can do it safely. That is what SS1
is for.

SS1 is a technology demonstrator and pathfinder for sub-orbital
manned rocketry. It is designed to give the Scaled team everything
they need to be able to move to the next step and build and fly
passenger spacecraft (or cargo spacecraft for that matter). They
have already done much of the groundwork in that regard, by building
a workable, X-Prize capable manned rocket, by earning an FAA-AST
launch license, and by their progress through their test flight
program. I'll note that X-COR, even though they are not an X-Prize
entrant, has a remarkably similar roadmap. They have already built
up a decent foundation by building and operating a manned
rocketplane, and by earning an FAA-AST launch license. They too
plan on building a fairly simple rocket to prove their basic design
and do all those other things necessary for building a feasible
manned spaceflight business that I listed above. This is how
innovation and exploration works. You start by making initial steps
in the direction you wish to go. Then you expand your experience by
taking fairly small steps. Then you build upon that experience and
take the next step, etc. It does not make it any less valid because
the first steps were small or because the goal wasn't reached
immediately. Indeed, this is how everyone who succeeds manages to
do anything of import. It is, after all, how we got to the Moon.
Through Redstone, and Atlas, and Titan, and Saturn, and through
Mercury, and Gemini, and Apollo. Gemini never made it to the Moon
and Mercury was feeble in comparison to Gemini. But without both,
Apollo would not have been possible. It takes doing something to
learn how to do it, to learn how to do it right, and to learn how to
do it better. It took doing rendezvous and docking in Earth orbit
to build everything that was used in Apollo on going to the Moon and
getting back. It took doing EVAs with Gemini in Earth orbit to
learn the issues that needed to be addressed to enable successful
EVAs with Apollo, Skylab, the Shuttle, and ISS. SS1 is no more a
"faux" spacecraft than Mercury or Gemini were "faux" spacecraft.
The goal is different but the path is the same.

(Christopher M. Jones) wrote:
Again and again you fail to struggle past your prejudices and see
the whole picture. You claim I'm handwaving when I'm merely terse.

Ah, but somehow *your* prejudices are OK? I can see the whole
picture, and it results in me *not* confusing SS1 with an orbital
craft. Yet you persist in trumpeting how SS1 is somehow 'superior'
because it isn't.

If I have a prejudice, it's not to confuse two very different things
even though they are both labeled 'spacecraft'.

Yet it is you who fails to recognize the fundamentally obvious fact
that SS1 is not in competition with orbital launchers and doesn't
have to be,

Then why do you keep trumpeting how its superior to orbital launchers
because it's being incrementally tested, while they were not? Why do
you keep calling a spacecraft, yet react vehemently when it's compared
to existing spacecraft?

and you try to handwave that absence of perceived
difference into some sort of absolute superiority of one versus the
other.

Have you read my messages? I'm the one pointing out the differences,
while you are the one

Fine, at your request I will put away my terseness and be
verbose enough to leave not the slightest doubt as to my meanings.

snipped lengthy handwaving that has nothing to do whatsoever with
what I have written.

You need to either go back to the top of this subthread and re-read my
message, which said nothing about the superiority of one type over
another, but merely addressed why SS1 is being tested the way it is as
opposed to how the earlier capsules were tested and compared the
capability of the two types.

At any rate, your continued vehemence at a percieved 'slight' to SS1
tells me your responses are based on prejudices and dogma, not honest
analysis. (Unsurprising given the 'two legs bad, four legs good'
philosophy that dominates this group.) Further discourse only wastes
my time.

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

Henry Spencer wrote:
Mike Walsh wrote:
Don't they have to demonstrate the capability of carrying three people?

Yes, but they don't have to do it by actually carrying three people.

Isn't carrying three people signficantly harder than carrying the
weight of three people, since three people need more life support
than sacks of sand do?
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

In article ,
Keith F. Lynch wrote:
Don't they have to demonstrate the capability of carrying three people?
Yes, but they don't have to do it by actually carrying three people.

Isn't carrying three people signficantly harder than carrying the
weight of three people, since three people need more life support
than sacks of sand do?

For the short flight times involved, it isn't that big a deal. (For an
orbital craft, the difference would be quite significant.)
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

Christopher M. Jones wrote:

(...) I'll come back to the Personal Computer history for a
moment because I think it holds many valuable lessons that bear
remembering. In that case, PCs came on the market and initially
faced a lot of resistance from mainframe manufacturers and
operators. The plain fact was that the early PCs simply were not in
the same league as the mainframes of their day, even the most
expensive PCs. There was no possibility for any sane person to
envision plugging a PC into the same role as a mainframe and having
the result fall in the realm of anything other than utter disaster.
But the PC was not a mainframe replacement, it was a different beast
entirely, with different uses and a different market. And when used
appropriately they complemented mainframes greatly and helped expand
the role of computing in the workplace and the home without
replacing mainframes. Even so, the PC had a development edge that
eventually allowed it to outpace the mainframe and largely supplant
it, but it was decades before the PC platform could stand toe to toe
with the mainframes.

While I believe mass production and market pressures can make for more
reliable and less expensive access to space, comparing rockets to
computers is misleading.

At the time of the 4004 it was clear chips could become vastly smaller
and more powerful through incremental changes.

Incremental changes transforming SS1 descendants are harder because
linear increases in delta vee require exponential increases in fuel.

--
Hop David
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html

"Hop David" wrote in
message ...

While I believe mass production and market pressures can make
for more reliable and less expensive access to space, comparing
rockets to computers is misleading.

Given that the fundamental fuel cost of hydrocarbon/LOX need only be
$2-3 per kilogram of payload to LEO. And given conceivable launch
vehicle development and operation at aircraft like levels. I would not
be surprised if once the process began a "Moore's Law" equivalent did
not operate down to say $10/kg or even less.

Pete.

Pete Lynn wrote:
"Hop David" wrote in
message ...

While I believe mass production and market pressures can make
for more reliable and less expensive access to space, comparing
rockets to computers is misleading.


Given that the fundamental fuel cost of hydrocarbon/LOX need only be
$2-3 per kilogram of payload to LEO. And given conceivable launch
vehicle development and operation at aircraft like levels. I would not
be surprised if once the process began a "Moore's Law" equivalent did
not operate down to say $10/kg or even less.

Pete.



Miniaturization has enabled our present desktop computers to rival the
Kray studhoss computers of an earlier era.

But with larger fuel requirements you need larger fuel tanks and rocket
engines.

Perhaps advances made in mass produced small cars will make big trucks
less expensive but I don't anticipate buying Mac Trucks for Ford Escort
prices in the near future. Neither rockets nor automobiles can be made
more powerful by miniaturization in the same way Moore's Law gave us
more powerful computers.

--
Hop David
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html