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
  #21  
Old December 20th 03, 02:10 AM
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Airplane Scientists

"Jon Berndt" wrote:
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.


Jon; We saw the same effect when Gary Hudson got the ATV flying. All
too many were willing to credit him as if he's got the C9 *itself*
flying.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

  #22  
Old December 20th 03, 02:12 AM
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Airplane Scientists

Louis Scheffer wrote:
This is one of Rutan's skills that NASA most needs - the ability to get
potential funders excited to the point that they open their checkbooks.
For private donors, anyway, this requires a clear vision of what is to be
accomplished, solid leadership, and a sense of getting good value for the
money. NASA is providing none of these things and Rutan provides all three.


I hate to break it to you, but NASA is a goverment organization, and
prohibited from soliciting private donors.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

  #23  
Old December 20th 03, 02:21 AM
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Airplane Scientists

h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:06:28 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
(Derek Lyons) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

(Rand Simberg) wrote:

I was tempted to say that, too, but I decided uncharacteristically to
give the question more respect than it deserved.


You decided *characteristically* to stick with the unsupported
delusion that the X-Prize has anything to do with space access.


I've supported it many times. I'm sorry you have trouble
comprehending it.


No, you haven't really supported it. You've spread the unfounded
assumption that space development should be like aviation development
was. (Except aviation development really wasn't.)

You've spread the notion that the little guy will succeed where the
big guy can't. (Demonstrably true in some things, demonstrably false
in others, undemonstrated in space access.)

You've rested your case on the unfounded assumption that a suborbital
thrill ride will somehow induce capital to the much more demanding
arena of orbital flight. (Never mind that no other form of transport
has ever attempted such a leap.)

In short, you have not once supported any of three major legs on which
the X-Prize is supposed to lead to space access. You've spent your
time clicking your heels together and wishing, while hoping no one
points out the man behind the curtain.

And when someone does point him out, you airily handwave and point
them towards your existing circular arguments. If you can't make your
case to me (educated and enthusiastic if cynical and skeptical), then
you've already lost your bid for John Q. Public.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

  #24  
Old December 20th 03, 02:22 AM
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Airplane Scientists

Earl Colby Pottinger wrote:

(Derek Lyons) :

I guess the RC car I bought today as a Christmas gift for a friends
son is an increment on his way to be being a NASCAR driver then.


And I lay odds that you can't find a present day NASCAR driver who did not
have racing car models when he was a kid.


Given the vast dispersion of racing car models, and the tiny
population of professional race car drivers, I'd say there is no clear
way to conclude cause-and-effect.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

  #26  
Old December 20th 03, 03:30 AM
Kevin Willoughby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Airplane Scientists

In article , -pc-
dot.org says...
"Kevin Willoughby" wrote in message

In article ,
says...
How many billion later the X33 isn't complete and isn't fit to decorate
anything except and now less than a year since he introduced the plane

to
the world Rutan is already putting it through its paces.


To be fair to NASA: Rutan has the luxury of not rolling out SS1 until
its design was complete and assembly was nearly complete. NASA has to
make its designs public from the first viewgraphs.


As well, it is one thing to go mach 1 or 2, aiming at 60,000 feet, and quite
another to go single stage to orbit at 17,500 mph. The energy required to
go to orbit scales with the square of the velocity per pound. Rutan would
need over 500 times the energy to get to orbit.


The goal of SS1 was never to archive orbit. SS1 is the first attempt to
do a manned suborbital flight since the 1960s. Doing this on a small
budget would be a significant achievement.

As for cheap orbit, I *hope* there is a SpaceShipTwo...


NASA needs to hire Rutan just for one afternoon, listen to him, write

down
everything he has to say AND THEN DO IT!


"then do it". hmmm.... why do you assume NASA is capable of working the
same way as a very small, tightly focused team who are willing to take
nontrivial risks (note the landing gear problem in yesterday's flight).


Different goals, different funding sources, different rules of operation,
etc.


Perhaps the biggest difference: Rutan can pick his goals, but many of
NASA goals are imposed from without, e.g., the requirement that the
space station be an international project.


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.


Understood. Agreed, to some extent. To some of us, he is the only person
who seems to have a chance of developing cheap access to space, so we
have tied our hopes to his effort. (Lord knows I'll never earn a ride in
the Shuttle.)

Still, cheap and supersonic is a significant achievement, worthy of at
least some praise.
--
Kevin Willoughby
lid

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

  #27  
Old December 20th 03, 03:34 AM
Rand Simberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Airplane Scientists

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 18:30:48 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Kevin Willoughby made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

The goal of SS1 was never to archive orbit. SS1 is the first attempt to
do a manned suborbital flight since the 1960s. Doing this on a small
budget would be a significant achievement.

As for cheap orbit, I *hope* there is a SpaceShipTwo...


I do as well, but I doubt if it will go to orbit. As I've said
repeatedly, it has to be an incremental approach.

Understood. Agreed, to some extent. To some of us, he is the only person
who seems to have a chance of developing cheap access to space, so we
have tied our hopes to his effort.


Not to me. I believe that there are many people who can do so, and
we're starting to see them appear. The key point is a diversity of
approaches, something that we haven't seen since NASA was granted a
monopoly with billions of taxpayer dollars decades ago.

 




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 01:55 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.