rebuttal to Jeffrey Bell on "StuntShipOne"

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
Accepting high flying
stunt aircraft as 'spacecraft' is a completely new thing. Until very
recently (I.E. since the unveiling of SS1), the term 'spacecraft' was
plainly and widely understood to mean an orbital craft. (The X-15 was
occasionally given the nod to be included by virtue of it's great
performance.)

Odd then that the X-15 be granted this status since it was clearly an
airplane built around a rocket engine, just as SpaceShip One. Furthermore,
the X-15 could fly high or fast, but not both. The flight profile of the
X-15 for the high altitude flights didn't demonstrate "high performance" any
more or less than SpaceShip One.

I hope you're not saying that the X-15 was granted spaceship status because
it could also fly fast, lower in the atmosphere. That would be absurd.

Only since the X-prize was fully funded and SS-1 unveiled has the
newspeak version that attempts to include high flying stunt aircraft
in the same category as Mercury, etc.. been pushed by people with a
political ideology to push. And they don't care about the facts, or
the potential usefulness of such a craft, only about dogma.

Actually I only care about the facts. SpaceShip one is the first and only
privately funded vehicle to exceed 100km in altitude. By the
internationally accepted definition of the boundary of space, it entered
space and then safely landed. If that's not a spaceship, I don't know what
is.

These same people are the first to cry havoc however when NASA or one
of the dinosaurs attempts to do the same thing.

I only cry havoc because of the exceedingly high price tag that NASA puts on
its space vehicles, including ones to fill simple roles like the CRV/CTV for
ISS (which got canned partly due to its high cost and limited utility).

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

Dave O'Neill wrote:

I predict that if and when Burt, or someone else, goes into orbit, they
will claim that it's not *really* space--"true" spaceflight requires the
ability to escape. After a private expedition to Mars, they'll cavil
that it didn't have the ability to do interstellar travel.


Now I think you're being silly.

Oh? We've already had someone in this newsgroup declaring that the
Shuttle doesn't go into space because it only goes to LEO.

"Joe Strout" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Dave O'Neill" dave @ NOSPAM atomicrazor . com wrote:

So Alan Shephard didn't go into space? He wasn't an astronaut?

Perhaps we need to agree some way of differentiating when people are
distinguishing, rightly, between vehicles capable of reaching orbit and
those that are not?

We already have such a way. "Spacecraft" is a vehicle capable of
reaching and operating in space. "Orbital craft" is a capable of
reaching and operating in orbit. Nothing tricky about that.

The only confusion is caused by the insistence Derek (and Jeffrey Bell)
on misusing "spacecraft" to mean "orbital craft," and then crying foul
when everyone else uses it correctly.

While I agree with the distinction, I don't think the definitions are
universally applied by either side properly.

I do know quite a lot of people who don't understand or see the distinction
and were surprised to find out that no, SS1 did not mean that there would be
orbital flights real soon now for the cost of flying across the Atlantic.

Now, I accept that people could say that these people were foolish, but
these are the people who are going to be rather angry when the limitations
of what has been done do finally sink in.

Dave

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
link.net...
Jim Davis wrote:

The point Derek is trying to make is that there is no necessary
connection between being in space and being in a spaceship. You can
drive your car over a cliff - you are in the air but that doesn't
mean you're flying or that your car is an aircraft. You can drive
your car off a pier - you are underwater but that doesn't mean that
your car is a submarine.

Totally inapplicable comparisons, since SpaceShipOne was designed to go
into space, not just an airplane that happened to get flung there.

More like an airplane that was designed to be "flung" there.

I personally have no problem with calling SS1 a "spaceship". What I
*do* have a problem with is the tendency for some to draw sweeping
apples to oranges comparisons between SS1 and Soyuz and Shuttle
because they're all "spaceships".

So? "Some" have all kinds of mistaken notions.

Yes they do, but they are all audience and, from an investor perspective,
managing expecations is just as important as meeting them. This is being
over sold in some quarters and that, in many respects, is far worse than
being undersold.

That's no reason to
denigrate or minimize the accomplishment. If that's the reason, it's an
overreaction.

It might be, but it should be being handled by the cheerleaders for the
industry or there's going to be a really nasty hangover later.

SpaceShipOne is appropriately named.

I agree.

Dave

Dave O'Neill wrote:

Totally inapplicable comparisons, since SpaceShipOne was designed to go
into space, not just an airplane that happened to get flung there.


More like an airplane that was designed to be "flung" there.

Which is not a bad way to design a spaceship.

I personally have no problem with calling SS1 a "spaceship". What I
*do* have a problem with is the tendency for some to draw sweeping
apples to oranges comparisons between SS1 and Soyuz and Shuttle
because they're all "spaceships".

So? "Some" have all kinds of mistaken notions.


Yes they do, but they are all audience and, from an investor perspective,
managing expecations is just as important as meeting them. This is being
over sold in some quarters and that, in many respects, is far worse than
being undersold.

Not by me.

Rand Simberg wrote in message link.net...

I predict that if and when Burt, or someone else, goes into orbit, they
will claim that it's not *really* space--"true" spaceflight requires the
ability to escape. After a private expedition to Mars, they'll cavil
that it didn't have the ability to do interstellar travel.

That's already happening, in other ways. For 20 years, we were told
that Shutle and ISS crews were exploring space. Now, we're told that
Dennis Tito and Mark Shuttleworth are not explorers but merely
"tourists" and that to be an explorer, you have to go to the Moon.

For another example, consider this article by Mark Whittington:

http://www.washingtondispatch.com/article_9578.shtml

Whittington says, "Anything that could be done by the private sector
would be done by the private sector, freeing NASA for cutting edge
research and exploration."

At one time, we were told that only government could do things in
space. Then we were told that the private sector could do unmanned
satellites, but only government could do human spaceflight. Now, we're
told that the private sector can do some things in human spaceflight,
but only government can do "exploration."

Whittington says, "The crew and many of the supplies for the [Moon]
voyage [will be] transported to [LEO] by private charter." Yet, flying
a lunar lander does not fall under the heading of things Whittington
thinks "could be done by the private sector." It must be flown by
"NASA pilot astronauts." Commercial pilots can fly charter flights to
orbit for NASA, but for some unknown reason, it's impossible for a
commercial pilot to fly a lunar lander.

When a commercial pilot does fly a lunar lander to the Moon, I'm sure
someone will say travelling to the Moon is not "exploration" but
"tourism" -- unlike going to Mars, which is true exploration and can
only be done by government. :-)

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
link.net...
Dave O'Neill wrote:

I predict that if and when Burt, or someone else, goes into orbit, they
will claim that it's not *really* space--"true" spaceflight requires the
ability to escape. After a private expedition to Mars, they'll cavil
that it didn't have the ability to do interstellar travel.


Now I think you're being silly.

Oh? We've already had someone in this newsgroup declaring that the
Shuttle doesn't go into space because it only goes to LEO.

Well that was rather silly too.

Dave

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
ink.net...
Dave O'Neill wrote:

Totally inapplicable comparisons, since SpaceShipOne was designed to go
into space, not just an airplane that happened to get flung there.


More like an airplane that was designed to be "flung" there.

Which is not a bad way to design a spaceship.

Potentially not. But it largely depends on what your spaceship is meant to
do.

For a sub-orbital craft I'd say its probably the best way. I'm certainly
not convinced by the rocket based entrants.

I personally have no problem with calling SS1 a "spaceship". What I
*do* have a problem with is the tendency for some to draw sweeping
apples to oranges comparisons between SS1 and Soyuz and Shuttle
because they're all "spaceships".

So? "Some" have all kinds of mistaken notions.


Yes they do, but they are all audience and, from an investor
perspective,
managing expecations is just as important as meeting them. This is
being
over sold in some quarters and that, in many respects, is far worse than
being undersold.

Not by me.

waggles hand You're coming over as much more bullish than you probably
mean to be.

Dave

Dave O'Neill wrote:

Oh? We've already had someone in this newsgroup declaring that the
Shuttle doesn't go into space because it only goes to LEO.


Well that was rather silly too.

Indeed, but it makes my point.

Dave O'Neill wrote:

managing expecations is just as important as meeting them. This is

being

over sold in some quarters and that, in many respects, is far worse than
being undersold.

Not by me.


waggles hand You're coming over as much more bullish than you probably

mean to be.

I'm being exactly as bullish about it as I mean to be, and that's quite
bullish, and it's not overselling. But I'm not claiming that it is an
orbital vehicle.