A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Science Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Airplane Scientists



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old December 21st 03, 11:54 PM
Heinrich Zinndorf-Linker (zili@home)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Airplane Scientists

Am Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:15:29 -0800 (PST) schrieb "Rand Simberg":

Different goals, different funding sources, different rules of operation,
etc. I'm not saying that Rutan doesn't have something to offer in the way
of an example. But I think NASA is getting an unfair treatment here and
Rutan is being "canonized" prematurely.


I've no interest in canonizing Burt. In many ways, particularly
regulatorily, he's a pain in the ass.


Maybe he is the PITA that NASA and other government [and/or govt.
'sponsored'] organizations urgently need? Maybe they SHOULD have a
look onto him and his methods - his success proves, they CAN'T be all
false. Maybe...

cu, ZiLi aka HKZL (Heinrich Zinndorf-Linker)
--
/"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign
\ /
http://zili.de X No HTML in
/ \ email & news

  #32  
Old December 22nd 03, 12:03 AM
Rand Simberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Airplane Scientists

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 14:54:04 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
"Heinrich Zinndorf-Linker (zili@home)" made the
phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

I've no interest in canonizing Burt. In many ways, particularly
regulatorily, he's a pain in the ass.


Maybe he is the PITA that NASA and other government [and/or govt.
'sponsored'] organizations urgently need?


NASA has nothing to do with launch regulation, which is the area in
which he's being a PITA.

Maybe they SHOULD have a
look onto him and his methods - his success proves, they CAN'T be all
false. Maybe...


If he succeeds in setting lousy regulatory precedents, his "success"
could make it much more difficult for others, and the industry in
general.

  #33  
Old December 23rd 03, 02:49 AM
Tony Rusi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Airplane Scientists

h (Rand Simberg) wrote in message . ..
In honor of the centennial, I have an essay about the brothers Wright
up at TechCentralStation:

http://www.techcentralstation.com/121703D.html

The Wright brothers did some other things as well. They studied
chinese propellor toys, birds, and warping cardboard boxes. They
studied the hang glider pilots before them, and found errors in their
beliefs. They also tested, employed and rejected many alternate means
of control, including weight shift. They did what it took to fly with
the technology that they had available. Italian scientists today think
that Da Vinci sketched a craft that could fly hundreds of years
earlier, but as far as I know Da Vinci didn't ever build it.

It is easy to sit behind a computer and punch keys or push a pencil.
It usually takes much more effort, and money, to actually build and
test something. The right mix of courage and safety considerations is
another important thing to balance. The Wright Bros. killed an army
man, lots of aviation pioneers were killed flying their craft. Lucky
Lindburgh was saved by a parachute four times.

Brian Binnie is the real hero of our time. And I bet one in a hundred
people off the street even know his name. I really can't believe that
the TV media out here in California didn't even cover this historic
event.

  #34  
Old December 23rd 03, 05:43 AM
Henry Spencer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Airplane Scientists

In article ,
Tony Rusi wrote:
...The right mix of courage and safety considerations is
another important thing to balance. The Wright Bros. killed an army
man, lots of aviation pioneers were killed flying their craft...


More significantly, the Wright Bros. killed Wilbur Wright in 1912.
Orville lived another 36 years but accomplished nothing further of
any real significance.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

  #36  
Old December 23rd 03, 07:15 AM
Henry Spencer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Airplane Scientists

In article ,
Rand Simberg wrote:
More significantly, the Wright Bros. killed Wilbur Wright in 1912.


What does that mean? In what way was Orville (and Wilbur) reponsible
for Wilbur getting typhoid fever?


Hmm, I'd thought that he'd been injured in a crash and that had at least
contributed, but a quick look doesn't find confirmation... May be bit rot
in the old memory.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.