rebuttal to Jeffrey Bell on "StuntShipOne"

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
link.net...
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.

Well, yes it does. But it also detracts from what is a probably more
important point which is certain commentators, like the article cited
somewhere around here are making this sound like we're a short step away
from a private manned exploration of the solar system (at at least that's
how I read the author's subtext) - that's not the case.

You are rightfully more cautious.

As I posted elsewhere here, the genuine issues with moving from SS1 to SS-X
(a.n.other orbital vehicle) are pretty huge.

Dave

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
nk.net...
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.

I'm not sure you're the best person to make that evaluation.

That's not to actually criticise. Over selling is easy to do quite
un-intentionally.

But I'm not claiming that it is an
orbital vehicle.

You are not.

That is correct.

Dave

"Dave O'Neill" dave @ NOSPAM atomicrazor . com wrote in message
...
Well, yes it does. But it also detracts from what is a probably more
important point which is certain commentators, like the article cited
somewhere around here are making this sound like we're a short step away
from a private manned exploration of the solar system (at at least that's
how I read the author's subtext) - that's not the case.

It wouldn't be the first time that someone over estimated what we were going
to do in space over over the next X years. Look at any space textbook
written in the 60's or 70's. Early books written about the shuttle talk
about two week turn-arounds and huge space structures lofted in pieces in
the shuttle's payload bay.

You are rightfully more cautious.

As I posted elsewhere here, the genuine issues with moving from SS1 to
SS-X
(a.n.other orbital vehicle) are pretty huge.

The problems aren't insurmountable, with the appropriate level of funding.
SS1 demonstrates to potential investors that private industry does indeed
have "the right stuff", despite anything that NASA may say.

Furthermore, before an orbital SS-X, there will surely be several suborbital
iterations. If money can be made off of these, the ability to fund an
orbital SS-X will become increasingly likely.

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

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.

Hey, it's not even in the exosphere.

Paul

Jim Davis wrote in message .1.4...

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.)

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

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.

If you watch The Right Stuff, there's a scene where an astronaut
(Shephard, I think) pointedly tells a German engineer, "That, sir, is
a spacecraft. We do not call it a 'capsule.'"

The scene and dialog are fictionalized, but similar events did take
place -- and that was decades before the unveiling of SpaceShip One.

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".

If Burt Rutan intended to compare his vehicle to Soyuz and Shuttle,
then surely he would have called it "SpaceShip Three." If anything, he
is *contrasting* it to Soyuz and Shuttle.

"Dave O'Neill" dave @ NOSPAM atomicrazor . com wrote in message ...

That's not to actually criticise. Over selling is easy to do quite
un-intentionally.

And therefore, you automatic assume that what you hear must be
over-selling?

When Bill Gates said he wanted to put a computer on every desk, was
that over-selling?

Gates did not believe so, but he was, as you say, "not the best person
to make that evaluation." After all, to quote one computer industry
CEO, why would anyone want a computer on his desk?)

Rand Simberg wrote in message hlink.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.

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


Actually no..According to the FAI,

A vehicle capable of flight in space is a SPACECRAFT (Class K)
A craft capable of flight in space and of sustained and controlled flight in the
atmosphere is a AEROSPACECRAFT (Class P)

So its appropriate designation is AEROSPACECRAFTONE

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message .. .
"Dave O'Neill" dave @ NOSPAM atomicrazor . com wrote in message
...
Well, yes it does. But it also detracts from what is a probably more
important point which is certain commentators, like the article cited
somewhere around here are making this sound like we're a short step away
from a private manned exploration of the solar system (at at least that's
how I read the author's subtext) - that's not the case.

It wouldn't be the first time that someone over estimated what we were going
to do in space over over the next X years. Look at any space textbook
written in the 60's or 70's. Early books written about the shuttle talk
about two week turn-arounds and huge space structures lofted in pieces in
the shuttle's payload bay.

You are rightfully more cautious.

As I posted elsewhere here, the genuine issues with moving from SS1 to
SS-X
(a.n.other orbital vehicle) are pretty huge.

The problems aren't insurmountable,

Agreed.

with the appropriate level of funding.
SS1 demonstrates to potential investors that private industry does indeed
have "the right stuff", despite anything that NASA may say.

Unclear. I've not been involved in raising money in the aerospace
field, but I have been in IT before and after the dot bomb.
"Investors", meaning commercial institutional money rather than
personal, may not be as impressed with SS1 as the prevailing wisdom
suggests.


Furthermore, before an orbital SS-X, there will surely be several suborbital
iterations. If money can be made off of these, the ability to fund an
orbital SS-X will become increasingly likely.

That I do agree with, but I'm still not necessarily convinced that the
suborbital "spaceships" easily evolve into the orbital craft.

SS1 is a start, but I think it will be an awful lot harder from a
business and finance perspective than many in the space community are
expecting.

Dave

(Edward Wright) wrote in message . com...
"Dave O'Neill" dave @ NOSPAM atomicrazor . com wrote in message ...

That's not to actually criticise. Over selling is easy to do quite
un-intentionally.

And therefore, you automatic assume that what you hear must be
over-selling?

No. I base it on years of working as a sales man and account manager.


When Bill Gates said he wanted to put a computer on every desk, was
that over-selling?

No.

Overselling occurs when you make statements about the capabilities of
something you are selling which are in excess of the capabilities of
that system.

So, for example, an aircraft company executive could over sell a new
airliner by claiming it could travel twice as far as a rival, but
without mentioning that involved mid-air refueling or something like
that.

Bill Gates has been known to over sell the capabilities of Microsoft
software on many occasions.

Dave

(Dave O'Neill) wrote in message . com...

That's not to actually criticise. Over selling is easy to do
quite
un-intentionally.

And therefore, you automatically assume that what you hear must be
over-selling?

No. I base it on years of working as a sales man and account manager.

That's called an "argument by authority." The fact that you were a
salesman does not prove anyone is "overselling" SpaceShip One. It
merely proves that you were a salesman.

Overselling occurs when you make statements about the capabilities of
something you are selling which are in excess of the capabilities of
that system.

No such statements have been made about SpaceShip One.

So, for example, an aircraft company executive could over sell a new
airliner by claiming it could travel twice as far as a rival, but
without mentioning that involved mid-air refueling or something like
that.

So what? This fictional executive can claim that his airliner will
tap-dance, but that has nothing to do with your claim about SpaceShip
One.