Spaceship One - a partial sucess.

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 13:19:23 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Greg D.
Moore \(Strider\)" made the phosphor
on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Which raises a issue: should prototypes have been allowed to qualify for
the X Prize?

Of course. Or rather, why should it not?

And how would it be determined when a vehicle was no longer a
"prototype," and who would make that determination?

This is silly.

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 13:19:23 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Greg D.
: Moore \(Strider\)" made the phosphor
: on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: Which raises a issue: should prototypes have been allowed to qualify for
: the X Prize?
:
: Of course. Or rather, why should it not?

: And how would it be determined when a vehicle was no longer a
: "prototype," and who would make that determination?

: This is silly.

I have to agree (imagine that?!). How could the winner of the X-Prize NOT
be a prototype by definition?

Eric

"Jeff Findley" wrote:

Again, this makes no sense. These are X-vehicles! It's in the name of the
prize! X-vehicles are sometimes prototypes, but they are also sometimes
pure research vehicles (like the X-1, X-2, ... X-15, and etc.).

No. X-vehicles are always pure research aircraft. *Always*.

You confuse the X-*type* designator ( X-15) with the X-*mission*
prefix (XB-52). X-type aircraft are experimental and research
aircraft, X-mission aircraft are prototypes.

There's also the Y-mission prefix, which are service test and
evaluation aircraft. (Like the two JSF competitors, YF-22 and YF-23.)

See: http://www.designation-systems.net/u.../aircraft.html

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"Jeff Findley" wrote:

Again, this makes no sense. These are X-vehicles! It's in the name of
the
prize! X-vehicles are sometimes prototypes, but they are also sometimes
pure research vehicles (like the X-1, X-2, ... X-15, and etc.).

No. X-vehicles are always pure research aircraft. *Always*.

You confuse the X-*type* designator ( X-15) with the X-*mission*
prefix (XB-52). X-type aircraft are experimental and research
aircraft, X-mission aircraft are prototypes.

No, I don't think that's what's confusing me.

I think that NASA sometimes gets this confused. What about X-38? It was
more prototype than research. The research vehicles which preceeded the
mis-named X-38 prototype were all of the NASA lifting bodies flown in the
60's (the shuttle was based on this research as well).

There's also the Y-mission prefix, which are service test and
evaluation aircraft. (Like the two JSF competitors, YF-22 and YF-23.)

See: http://www.designation-systems.net/u.../aircraft.html

True, but that's the military. NASA is another story.

What about NASA's HL-10? It sure wasn't a laser equipped helicopter. :-)

I've no idea where they got that name.

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

(Derek Lyons) wrote in message ...

No. X-vehicles are always pure research aircraft. *Always*.

No, the FAA recognizes several classes of experimental aircraft. It
addition to R&D, there's exhibition, racing, crew training, market
survey, and homebuilts. The overwhelming majority of experimentals are
homebuilts.

You confuse the X-*type* designator ( X-15) with the X-*mission*
prefix (XB-52). X-type aircraft are experimental and research
aircraft, X-mission aircraft are prototypes.

You confuse the military with the totality of the universe.

See: http://www.designation-systems.net/u.../aircraft.html

Irrelevant to SpaceShip One.

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message ...

I think that NASA sometimes gets this confused. What about X-38? It was
more prototype than research. The research vehicles which preceeded the
mis-named X-38 prototype were all of the NASA lifting bodies flown in the
60's (the shuttle was based on this research as well).

DoD controls the designations, so they could turn down a request from
NASA, if they felt it was inappropriate. DoD does not seem to be
averse to giving prototypes x- designations, however. They've done it
for anything from the Lancer (a proposed F-104 derivative) to the JSF
prototypes.

There's also the Y-mission prefix, which are service test and
evaluation aircraft. (Like the two JSF competitors, YF-22 and
YF-23.)

See: http://www.designation-systems.net/u.../aircraft.html

True, but that's the military. NASA is another story.

And private vehicles, like SpaceShip One, are yet another story.

What about NASA's HL-10? It sure wasn't a laser equipped helicopter. :-)

I've no idea where they got that name.

"Horizontal landing," I believe. I can't remember where I heard that,
though, so it may not be correct.

h (Rand Simberg) wrote in message .. .

Which raises a issue: should prototypes have been allowed to
qualify for
the X Prize?

Of course. Or rather, why should it not?

And how would it be determined when a vehicle was no longer a
"prototype," and who would make that determination?

You could require the vehicle to have an FAA type certificate. That,
of course, would be an extraordinarily bad idea, but you could do it.

This is silly.

Especially since the purpose of the X-Prize was to encourage the
development of prototypes.

In article ,
h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 13:19:23 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Greg D.
Moore \(Strider\)" made the phosphor
on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Which raises a issue: should prototypes have been allowed to qualify for
the X Prize?

Of course. Or rather, why should it not?

And how would it be determined when a vehicle was no longer a
"prototype," and who would make that determination?

I'd have thought the answer to both your questions was obvious. Who
certifies that the aircraft now flying paying passengers through
American skies are legally qualified to do so?

If the FAA has rules which aircraft manuafacturers are obliged to abide
by before the airline companies who buy such planes can use them to
carry passengers (or for that matter cargo) then I would have thought it
not beyond the ingenuity of American law-makers to devise a similar body
and equivalent rules for would-be commercial spacecraft.

Without some such body, and such rules, anybody could go out and build a
rocket in their backyard shed; and then, once they think they've got one
knocked together sufficiently convincingly, hang out a shingle offering
joyrides to the unwary. :-)

Or are you perchance suggesting that all the aircraft currently flying
paying passengers through American skies are still prototypes?

--
Stephen Souter

http://www-personal.edfac.usyd.edu.au/staff/souters/

(Edward Wright) wrote:

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message ...

I think that NASA sometimes gets this confused. What about X-38? It was
more prototype than research. The research vehicles which preceeded the
mis-named X-38 prototype were all of the NASA lifting bodies flown in the
60's (the shuttle was based on this research as well).

DoD controls the designations, so they could turn down a request from
NASA, if they felt it was inappropriate.

Not really. NASA can call it's craft whatever the heck they feel
like, without asking the DoD's leave.

DoD does not seem to be averse to giving prototypes x- designations, however.
They've done it for anything from the Lancer (a proposed F-104 derivative) to the
JSF prototypes.

The Lancer never received a DoD designation, because the Lancer was
never purchased by the DoD. A variant of the Lancer was considered
for purchase as a test aircraft, and that variant received the
designation X-27.
(http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...craft/x-27.htm)

The JSF candidates received 'X' designations because they were (in
theory) technology demonstrators, not prototypes. (Had the system
been used consistently they should have been XF- rather than X-, but
the X alone has garnered a certain cachet in recent years.)

*Don't* confuse the 'X' mission prefix (XF-, XB-) with the 'X' type
designator. The two mean entirely different things, even if they
aren't always used consistently or properly.
See: http://www.designation-systems.net/u.../aircraft.html

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

(Edward Wright) wrote:

(Derek Lyons) wrote in message ...

No. X-vehicles are always pure research aircraft. *Always*.

No, the FAA recognizes several classes of experimental aircraft. It
addition to R&D, there's exhibition, racing, crew training, market
survey, and homebuilts. The overwhelming majority of experimentals are
homebuilts.

Were we talking about craft covered by the FAA, you'd have a point.

You confuse the X-*type* designator ( X-15) with the X-*mission*
prefix (XB-52). X-type aircraft are experimental and research
aircraft, X-mission aircraft are prototypes.

You confuse the military with the totality of the universe.

You confuse that the rest of the universe has any bearing on the topic
under discussion.

See: http://www.designation-systems.net/u.../aircraft.html

Irrelevant to SpaceShip One.

Were we talking about SpaceShip One, you'd have a point.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.