VSS Enterprise completes first flight under its carrier aircraft

On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:21:09 -0400, Jeff Findley wrote:

"Marvin the Martian" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:28:31 -0800, Pat Flannery wrote:

virgin

Why does that crap fascinate so many people? It's a lousy sounding
rocket. It is orders of magnitude away from LEO.

I think people just don't understand. It plays on their ignorance.

It's not intended to be a sounding rocket, so yea, it would obviously
make a lousy sounding rocket, just like my Crown Victoria makes a lousy
pickup truck.

Again, a sounding rocket is one that simply goes up high in the
atmosphere and doesn't even get close to LEO.

That's this thing.

IT is a sounding rocket, "lousy" refers to sounding rockets in contrast
to rockets that can launch a payload to orbit.

The fascination is only for the idiots who don't know the difference.

"Marvin the Martian" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:21:09 -0400, Jeff Findley wrote:

"Marvin the Martian" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:28:31 -0800, Pat Flannery wrote:

virgin

Why does that crap fascinate so many people? It's a lousy sounding
rocket. It is orders of magnitude away from LEO.

I think people just don't understand. It plays on their ignorance.

It's not intended to be a sounding rocket, so yea, it would obviously
make a lousy sounding rocket, just like my Crown Victoria makes a lousy
pickup truck.

Again, a sounding rocket is one that simply goes up high in the
atmosphere and doesn't even get close to LEO.

So Mercury-Redstone was a "sounding rocket"? To paraphrase Al on Home
Improvement, "I don't think so Marvin!"

As far as I know, the commonly accepted definition of a sounding rocket is a
suborbital rocket which carries payloads for research. Wikipedia and all of
the online dictionaries I visited either say a "sounding rocket" is
unmanned, carries instruments, or is used for making meteorological
observations.

That's this thing.

IT is a sounding rocket, "lousy" refers to sounding rockets in contrast
to rockets that can launch a payload to orbit.

The fascination is only for the idiots who don't know the difference.

Your inappropriate usage of the term "sounding rocket" to describe a manned
suborbital spacecraft is obviously a derogatory usage and I believe I am
smart enough to notice that fact.

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon

On 3/31/2010 6:03 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:

Never underestimate the ability of people to incrementally talk
themselves into a really dumb idea over a period of years if it saves
them time and money.

...Something so damn obvious that I never bothered to coin it as an
OM's Law, and yet so many people fail to grasp the significance of
this.

It's so true, and I like Pat's wording. Maybe we should call this Pat
Flannery's Law?

I kind of liked that one myself to tell you the truth. ;-)

Pat

On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 15:05:21 -0400, Jeff Findley wrote:

"Marvin the Martian" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:21:09 -0400, Jeff Findley wrote:

"Marvin the Martian" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:28:31 -0800, Pat Flannery wrote:

virgin

Why does that crap fascinate so many people? It's a lousy sounding
rocket. It is orders of magnitude away from LEO.

I think people just don't understand. It plays on their ignorance.

It's not intended to be a sounding rocket, so yea, it would obviously
make a lousy sounding rocket, just like my Crown Victoria makes a
lousy pickup truck.

Again, a sounding rocket is one that simply goes up high in the
atmosphere and doesn't even get close to LEO.

So Mercury-Redstone was a "sounding rocket"? To paraphrase Al on Home
Improvement, "I don't think so Marvin!"

It fits the definition, yes.

As far as I know, the commonly accepted definition of a sounding rocket
is a suborbital rocket which carries payloads for research. Wikipedia
and all of the online dictionaries I visited either say a "sounding
rocket" is unmanned, carries instruments, or is used for making
meteorological observations.

That's this thing.

IT is a sounding rocket, "lousy" refers to sounding rockets in contrast
to rockets that can launch a payload to orbit.

The fascination is only for the idiots who don't know the difference.

Your inappropriate usage of the term "sounding rocket" to describe a
manned suborbital spacecraft is obviously a derogatory usage and I
believe I am smart enough to notice that fact.

Wrong again. You're not smart enough to notice the difference.

Jeff Findley wrote:
"OM" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 21:43:06 -0800, Pat Flannery
wrote:

Never underestimate the ability of people to incrementally talk
themselves into a really dumb idea over a period of years if it saves
them time and money.
...Something so damn obvious that I never bothered to coin it as an
OM's Law, and yet so many people fail to grasp the significance of
this.

It's so true, and I like Pat's wording. Maybe we should call this Pat
Flannery's Law? ;-)

Bah, Demotivators worded it even better.

http://despair.com/meetings.html

(This one hangs on the wall in the JSC MMT meeting room, BTW.)

"Marvin the Martian" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 15:05:21 -0400, Jeff Findley wrote:

"Marvin the Martian" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:21:09 -0400, Jeff Findley wrote:

"Marvin the Martian" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:28:31 -0800, Pat Flannery wrote:

virgin

Why does that crap fascinate so many people? It's a lousy sounding
rocket. It is orders of magnitude away from LEO.

I think people just don't understand. It plays on their ignorance.

It's not intended to be a sounding rocket, so yea, it would obviously
make a lousy sounding rocket, just like my Crown Victoria makes a
lousy pickup truck.

Again, a sounding rocket is one that simply goes up high in the
atmosphere and doesn't even get close to LEO.

So Mercury-Redstone was a "sounding rocket"? To paraphrase Al on Home
Improvement, "I don't think so Marvin!"

It fits the definition, yes.

Please show me where you're getting your definition of "sounding rocket".

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon

Marvin the Martian wrote:

Again, a sounding rocket is one that simply goes up high in the
atmosphere and doesn't even get close to LEO.

No, that's just what sounding rockets happen to do. It's not what they are. A sounding rocket is a rocket whose payload
takes soundings, i.e. measurements, of its environment. A sounding rocket could go way up to orbital altitudes, taking
measurements of the atmosphere when it gets there, and still be a sounding rocket.

On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 23:07:03 +0800, Neil Gerace wrote:

Marvin the Martian wrote:

Again, a sounding rocket is one that simply goes up high in the
atmosphere and doesn't even get close to LEO.

No, that's just what sounding rockets happen to do. It's not what they
are. A sounding rocket is a rocket whose payload takes soundings, i.e.
measurements, of its environment. A sounding rocket could go way up to
orbital altitudes, taking measurements of the atmosphere when it gets
there, and still be a sounding rocket.

You hew-mons are comparing a rocket that does about 800 miles/hour with a
low earth capable rocket which does something around 9 km/s and getting
all giggly and excited.

What's worse is the energy of the rocket goes as the square of the
velocity.

The "payload" is a bunch of easily amused and grossly over paid ape-folk
who want bragging rights about getting "astronauts wings" due to a really
bad definition of what constitutes an astronut. These ape-folk are as far
from being an astronaut as a kid playing with a cap gun is an explosives
expert.

Its funny and do carry on.

Pat Flannery wrote:

Even Concorde kept the max altitude just under the blood-boiling flight
level so that they didn't have to put full pressure suits on their
flight crew, which they thought might be a worry to the passengers
seeing them like that.

As *I* understand it, Concorde was designed to operate at or about
the Mach 2 "sweet spot" - the point at which it suddenly gets much
much more expensive to go faster, whereas getting from Mach 1.8 to
Mach 2 as a cruise speed just needs a small increment in expense.
And from there, AIUI, the speed pretty much dictates the altitude.

IIRC the aircraft would be in a steady climb once it got into
supercruise, as its fuel burnt off and it got lighter.

ICBW.

If anything goes wrong with Space Ship 2's wing position before or after
reentry, then it's all over for everyone on board.

You might say the same thing about a 737's rudder going hard left.

On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 08:41:16 -0400, David Spain
wrote:

I know that the cabins for both WK1 and SS1 were identical, it was a major
cost savings for Scaled to do it that way.

Assuming the same is true for WK2 and SS2, if they certify one there shouldn't
be any major reason not to be able to certify the other.

The cabins have very little to do with air or spaceworthiness. While
they might share a lot in common in their fuselages, but beyond that
they are totally different craft.

As you seemto be talking about certification for suborbital
spaceflight, why would you even want to certify WK2 for that,
since it's not capable of reaching the altitude anyway?

Dale

Gonna get my Morris Minor man-rated for spaceflight, just in case