Who will ride the Virgin SpaceShip?
Ken from Chicago
"SpaceShipTwo").
-- Ken from Chicago
P.S. Reportedly William Shatner has declined the maiden voyage.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-403931/Captain-Kirk-reveals-wont-boldly-space.html
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Not Tiger Woods..
Not Madonna..
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Mike Schilling
Bill Snyder
<mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Only one before it's not a virgin anymore.
Now, see, as our current spammer inexplicably forgot to remind us,
if it were an *Islamic* spaceship, the virginity could be
self-renewing. At least until they build more than 72 of them.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
Joseph Nebus
>That's what the "VSS" in "VSS Enterprise" (formerly Virgin Galactic's
>"SpaceShipTwo").
Obviously, it will be a nanite-created clone of Omero Catan.
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He'll be the first person cloned by nanites.
Mike Ash
t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) wrote:
> That is a subject line that just *begs* for a snide response!
>
> Not Tiger Woods..
> Not Madonna..
But the good news is, all the nerds who make up their target market will
be fine....
--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
David E. Powell
wrote:
> That's what the "VSS" in "VSS Enterprise" (formerly Virgin Galactic's
> "SpaceShipTwo").
>
>
> -- Ken from Chicago
>
> P.S. Reportedly William Shatner has declined the maiden voyage.
>
Hey I'd go!
Anim8rFSK
<6e222a94-066a-4925...@x16g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>,
"David E. Powell" <David_Po...@msn.com> wrote:
> On Dec 12, 6:58�pm, "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b nos...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
> > That's what the "VSS" in "VSS Enterprise" (formerly Virgin Galactic's
> > "SpaceShipTwo").
> >
> > http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/12/091208-virgin-galacti...
> >
> > -- Ken from Chicago
> >
> > P.S. Reportedly William Shatner has declined the maiden voyage.
> >
> > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-403931/Captain-Kirk-reve...
>
> Hey I'd go!
Would you PAY to go? I saw The Shat interviewed about this.
Them: How would you like to fly in our spaceship?
Shat: How much?
Them: $100,000
Shat: I might do it if you pay me that much.
Them: No, no, no; that's how much you pay US.
Shat: Why would I pay you to help advertise your product?
--
Happy 30th Anniversary
STAR TREK THE MOTION PICTURE
http://www.onedigitallife.com/images/star-trek-the-motion-picture.jpg
"The Human Adventure Is Just Beginning"
Kurt Busiek
> In article
> <6e222a94-066a-4925...@x16g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>,
> "David E. Powell" <David_Po...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 12, 6:58 pm, "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b nos...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>> That's what the "VSS" in "VSS Enterprise" (formerly Virgin Galactic's
>>> "SpaceShipTwo").
>>>
>>> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/12/091208-virgin-galacti...
>>>
>>> -- Ken from Chicago
>>>
>>> P.S. Reportedly William Shatner has declined the maiden voyage.
>>>
>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-403931/Captain-Kirk-reve...
>>
>> Hey I'd go!
>
> Would you PAY to go? I saw The Shat interviewed about this.
>
> Them: How would you like to fly in our spaceship?
> Shat: How much?
> Them: $100,000
> Shat: I might do it if you pay me that much.
> Them: No, no, no; that's how much you pay US.
> Shat: Why would I pay you to help advertise your product?
According to the article linked to, he was offered (and declined) a
free ticket.
Sigourney Weaver's going, though. Because Ripley would kick Captain
Kirk's ass.
kdb
--
Visit http://www.busiek.com -- for all your Busiek needs!
Mike Ash
Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote:
> In article
> <6e222a94-066a-4925...@x16g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>,
> "David E. Powell" <David_Po...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 12, 6:58�pm, "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b nos...@comcast.net>
> > wrote:
> > > That's what the "VSS" in "VSS Enterprise" (formerly Virgin Galactic's
> > > "SpaceShipTwo").
> > >
> > > http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/12/091208-virgin-galacti...
> > >
> > > -- Ken from Chicago
> > >
> > > P.S. Reportedly William Shatner has declined the maiden voyage.
> > >
> > > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-403931/Captain-Kirk-reve...
> >
> > Hey I'd go!
>
> Would you PAY to go? I saw The Shat interviewed about this.
>
> Them: How would you like to fly in our spaceship?
> Shat: How much?
> Them: $100,000
> Shat: I might do it if you pay me that much.
> Them: No, no, no; that's how much you pay US.
> Shat: Why would I pay you to help advertise your product?
I'd do it for free, but I'm not famous....
I might even pay, a bit. But nowhere near the $200,000 they're asking.
There are far more fun things I could do with that money, if I had it.
Ken from Chicago
"Kurt Busiek" <ku...@busiek.com> wrote in message
news:hg35tp$n1c$1...@solani.org...
WHICH Ripley?
I think ALIEN Ripley might be charmed by Kirk, while ALIENS Ripley might
seem him as a friend, ALIEN^3 and certainly ALIEN IV would kick Kirk's butt.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ryan McCoskrie
Kirk needs his ass kicked by a woman.
--
Quote of the login:
Who does not trust enough will not be trusted. -- Lao Tsu
Pete B
kwicker1...@comcast.net says...
> That's what the "VSS" in "VSS Enterprise" (formerly Virgin Galactic's
> "SpaceShipTwo").
>
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/12/091208-virgin-galactic-spaceship-enterprise-branson.html
>
Depends on how much they'll pay me.
Catherine Jefferson
If I had the money, I'd pay them. :-) I was in Mojave for all three
flights of SpaceShipOne, and wish I had been *in* SpaceShipOne, even the
first flight which went significantly off course and had some serious
technical issues.
Still, the best part of this whole thing isn't that Virgin Galactic is
taking tourists into space. The best part is that commercial/private
space access is actually coming into existence. *That* is what will get
the human race off of this planet eventually -- no government-sponsored
programs for basic research, demonstration, and (maybe) a few high value
military uses would ever have got the technology developed to a point
where space was affordable for anybody but the government. That's not
what governments do.
Now I'm waiting for SpaceX, XCor, and a few other serious contenders to
get their commercial spaceflight vehicles working and into production.
(I hope they invite the public for the flights too.)
--
Catherine Jefferson <ar...@devsite.org>
Personal Home Page * <http://www.devsite.org/>
The SpamBouncer * <http://www.spambouncer.org/>
Mike Ash
Catherine Jefferson <spam...@spambouncer.org> wrote:
> Pete B wrote:
> > In article <fvydnfqsLoXIs7nW...@giganews.com>,
> > kwicker1...@comcast.net says...
> >> That's what the "VSS" in "VSS Enterprise" (formerly Virgin Galactic's
> >> "SpaceShipTwo").
> >>
> >> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/12/091208-virgin-galactic-spac
> >> eship-enterprise-branson.html
> >>
> >
> > Depends on how much they'll pay me.
>
> If I had the money, I'd pay them. :-) I was in Mojave for all three
> flights of SpaceShipOne, and wish I had been *in* SpaceShipOne, even the
> first flight which went significantly off course and had some serious
> technical issues.
>
> Still, the best part of this whole thing isn't that Virgin Galactic is
> taking tourists into space. The best part is that commercial/private
> space access is actually coming into existence. *That* is what will get
> the human race off of this planet eventually -- no government-sponsored
> programs for basic research, demonstration, and (maybe) a few high value
> military uses would ever have got the technology developed to a point
> where space was affordable for anybody but the government. That's not
> what governments do.
I hate to be a downer, but Virgin Galactic doesn't really excite me.
Their little suborbital hops are radically different from actually
putting something into orbit (and getting it back down again!), and
suborbital isn't good for anything except extracting money from rich
people. When a company starts putting people into orbit commercially,
then I'll really take notice, but that's a couple of orders of magnitude
harder than what Virgin Galactic is doing.
> Now I'm waiting for SpaceX, XCor, and a few other serious contenders to
> get their commercial spaceflight vehicles working and into production.
> (I hope they invite the public for the flights too.)
SpaceX is the one that really grabs my attention. They've already put
stuff into orbit for hire, and are working on systems to carry people.
It's a much smaller leap from where SpaceX is now to having the capacity
for putting people in orbit commercially than it is for Virgin Galactic.
Catherine Jefferson
> I hate to be a downer, but Virgin Galactic doesn't really excite me.
> Their little suborbital hops are radically different from actually
> putting something into orbit (and getting it back down again!), and
> suborbital isn't good for anything except extracting money from rich
> people. When a company starts putting people into orbit commercially,
> then I'll really take notice, but that's a couple of orders of magnitude
> harder than what Virgin Galactic is doing.
No downer. You're right when it comes to the technology used by
SpaceShipOne/Virgin Galactic. But their efforts have increased the
profile of the whole spaceflight sector, and their success in making
money off of rich people going into space briefly is making investors
sit up and take notice of the whole sector. So don't underestimate what
they've done.
>> Now I'm waiting for SpaceX, XCor, and a few other serious contenders to
>> get their commercial spaceflight vehicles working and into production.
>> (I hope they invite the public for the flights too.)
>
> SpaceX is the one that really grabs my attention. They've already put
> stuff into orbit for hire, and are working on systems to carry people.
> It's a much smaller leap from where SpaceX is now to having the capacity
> for putting people in orbit commercially than it is for Virgin Galactic.
Agree 100%. SpaceX is actually the company with the most exciting
technology right now. I would not be surprised to see it providing the
replacement to the space shuttle, or to the space shuttle's replacement
:-), after a few years. With luck, that same technology will allow them
to carry commercial passenger traffic into space, perhaps at first to
one of the "space hotels" that Bigelow is designing and planning to
build. And then...? :-)
Joseph Nebus
>In article <j5OdnVqfOZxo9bvW...@supernews.com>,
> Catherine Jefferson <spam...@spambouncer.org> wrote:
>> Still, the best part of this whole thing isn't that Virgin Galactic is
>> taking tourists into space. The best part is that commercial/private
>> space access is actually coming into existence. *That* is what will get
>> the human race off of this planet eventually -- no government-sponsored
>> programs for basic research, demonstration, and (maybe) a few high value
>> military uses would ever have got the technology developed to a point
>> where space was affordable for anybody but the government. That's not
>> what governments do.
>I hate to be a downer, but Virgin Galactic doesn't really excite me.
>Their little suborbital hops are radically different from actually
>putting something into orbit (and getting it back down again!), and
>suborbital isn't good for anything except extracting money from rich
>people. When a company starts putting people into orbit commercially,
>then I'll really take notice, but that's a couple of orders of magnitude
>harder than what Virgin Galactic is doing.
On the other hand --- and assuming for the duration of this post
that Virgin Galactic is doing something which can actually succeed, which
I am willing to pretend at least for the duration of a Usenet post what
with it not being my money at stake --- just doing a regular, competent
job at suborbital hops would provide a steady income on which something
capable of doing orbital work could be built. And it would also build an
organization *able* to do reasonably routine orbital launches.
My understanding is part of the trouble with spaceflight is the
operational side of things: the Space Shuttle, particularly, is a mighty
tetchy vehicle, and that's after the work of enormous numbers of support
and checkout people from Saturns were automated into it. Vehicles that
require fewer humans doing less work between flights are needed, and
I doubt there's much way to learn how to build the impressive ones, the
ones capable of orbital flight, without experience on the less impressive
ones, which would be suborbital.
I'm not getting particularly thrilled about Virgin Galactic, but
I do think the project probably more useful than it appears.
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pete B
spam...@spambouncer.org says...
> Pete B wrote:
> > In article <fvydnfqsLoXIs7nW...@giganews.com>,
> > kwicker1...@comcast.net says...
> >> That's what the "VSS" in "VSS Enterprise" (formerly Virgin Galactic's
> >> "SpaceShipTwo").
> >>
> >> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/12/091208-virgin-galactic-spaceship-enterprise-branson.html
> >>
> >
> > Depends on how much they'll pay me.
>
> If I had the money, I'd pay them. :-) I was in Mojave for all three
> flights of SpaceShipOne, and wish I had been *in* SpaceShipOne, even the
> first flight which went significantly off course and had some serious
> technical issues.
It just doesn't feel like space travel to me - its just a boring loop
around the earth :)
The problem is of course with current technology we can't go anywhere
*interesting* - even if they build a restaurant on the moon I'm sure it
would have no atmosphere!
>
> Still, the best part of this whole thing isn't that Virgin Galactic is
> taking tourists into space. The best part is that commercial/private
> space access is actually coming into existence. *That* is what will get
> the human race off of this planet eventually -- no government-sponsored
> programs for basic research, demonstration, and (maybe) a few high value
> military uses would ever have got the technology developed to a point
> where space was affordable for anybody but the government. That's not
> what governments do.
As soon as they find another planet they can exploit they'll be off like
a shot :)
Anim8rFSK
wrote:
> On 2009-12-13 07:14:48 -0800, Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> said:
>
> > In article
> > <6e222a94-066a-4925...@x16g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>,
> > "David E. Powell" <David_Po...@msn.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Dec 12, 6:58 pm, "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b nos...@comcast.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>> That's what the "VSS" in "VSS Enterprise" (formerly Virgin Galactic's
> >>> "SpaceShipTwo").
> >>>
> >>> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/12/091208-virgin-galacti...
> >>>
> >>> -- Ken from Chicago
> >>>
> >>> P.S. Reportedly William Shatner has declined the maiden voyage.
> >>>
> >>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-403931/Captain-Kirk-reve...
> >>
> >> Hey I'd go!
> >
> > Would you PAY to go? I saw The Shat interviewed about this.
> >
> > Them: How would you like to fly in our spaceship?
> > Shat: How much?
> > Them: $100,000
> > Shat: I might do it if you pay me that much.
> > Them: No, no, no; that's how much you pay US.
> > Shat: Why would I pay you to help advertise your product?
>
> According to the article linked to, he was offered (and declined) a
> free ticket.
Yes. I heard his virgin, er, version, some time ago; both can be true
if they came up with a better offer later.
>
> Sigourney Weaver's going, though. Because Ripley would kick Captain
> Kirk's ass.
heh. How you doin' Kurt? Haven't heard from you in a while.
Ken from Chicago
"Anim8rFSK" <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ANIM8Rfsk-1303F...@news.dc1.easynews.com...
Kurt posts often in rec.arts.sf.written.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Mike Ash" <mi...@mikeash.com> wrote in message
news:mike-8829CC.1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Ah, but VG has the marketing muscle to bring the idea to light in the public
mind. The Amiga computer was the better home computer in the 1980s--but no
one knew about it because CBM botched the marketing of it.
>> Now I'm waiting for SpaceX, XCor, and a few other serious contenders to
>> get their commercial spaceflight vehicles working and into production.
>> (I hope they invite the public for the flights too.)
>
> SpaceX is the one that really grabs my attention. They've already put
> stuff into orbit for hire, and are working on systems to carry people.
> It's a much smaller leap from where SpaceX is now to having the capacity
> for putting people in orbit commercially than it is for Virgin Galactic.
SpaceX benefits from VG's marketing of the idea so when people try googling
commercial spaceflights, guess who's name will appear?
> --
> Mike Ash
> Radio Free Earth
> Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
-- Ken from Chicago
Jerry Brown
Wouldn't "Virgin SubOrbital" be a better name?
And perhaps "Spindrift" for the vehicle (it appears to have the same
number of passenger seats).
Jerry Brown
--
A cat may look at a king
(but probably won't bother)
trag
> And it would also build an
> organization *able* to do reasonably routine orbital launches.
>
> require fewer humans doing less work between flights are needed, and
> I doubt there's much way to learn how to build the impressive ones, the
> ones capable of orbital flight, without experience on the less impressive
> ones, which would be suborbital.
>
> I'm not getting particularly thrilled about Virgin Galactic, but
> I do think the project probably more useful than it appears.
I am not familiar with their vehicle, nor their maintenance model, but
could their operation lead to suborbital transport hops? I.e.,
they'll get you from NY to Tokyo in about 45 minutes? That would be
a fantastic commercial milestone.
Wayne Throop
: I am not familiar with their vehicle, nor their maintenance model, but
: could their operation lead to suborbital transport hops? I.e.,
: they'll get you from NY to Tokyo in about 45 minutes? That would be
: a fantastic commercial milestone.
Doing that in a single ballistic hop wouldn't be far from orbital,
would it? I'd think shorter suborbital hops might work sooner, though.
NYC to LA in what, ten-ish minutes? Maybe a bit more.
NYC to LA in ten minutes implies freefall.
NYC to Tokyo in ten minutes implies (iirc) about 10g.
Well... assuming staying above ground level the whole way.
And neglecting starting and stopping.
When I drive that slow, you know it's hard to steer.
And I can't get my car out of second gear.
What used to take two hours now takes all day.
It took me 16 hours to get to L.A.!
--- Sammy Hagar, "I can't drive 55"
My Maserati does one-eighty-five
I lost my license, now I don't drive
I have a limo, ride in the back
I lock the doors in case I'm attacked
--- Joe Walsh, "Life's Been Good"
(xref taxi vs owning car, safety of mass transit
subthread of the "starving people" megathread)
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
trag
> : trag <t...@io.com>
> : I am not familiar with their vehicle, nor their maintenance model, but
> : could their operation lead to suborbital transport hops? I.e.,
> : they'll get you from NY to Tokyo in about 45 minutes? That would be
> : a fantastic commercial milestone.
>
> Doing that in a single ballistic hop wouldn't be far from orbital,
> would it?
Despite getting an 'A' in Orbital Mechanics 26 years ago, I'm not that
clear on the difference between "orbital" and "suborbital". I would
think the latter would be any trajectory which re-intersects the
Earth. So a ballistic hop from surface location to surface location
would be sub-orbital. An orbital trajectory would require you to do
a burn at Apogee to boost your velocity up to something which will let
you slide around the Earth rather than falling into it--I think. :-)
That's what makes sub-orbital so much easier; you don't have to do
that second burn. But you are correct that NY to Tokyo involves a
much larger delta-V than NY to LA.
Ken from Chicago
"trag" <tr...@io.com> wrote in message
news:2a417c7d-5c8a-4dce...@m11g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 16, 1:32 pm, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
>> : trag <t...@io.com>
>> : I am not familiar with their vehicle, nor their maintenance model, but
>> : could their operation lead to suborbital transport hops? I.e.,
>> : they'll get you from NY to Tokyo in about 45 minutes? That would be
>> : a fantastic commercial milestone.
>>
>> Doing that in a single ballistic hop wouldn't be far from orbital,
>> would it?
>
> Despite getting an 'A' in Orbital Mechanics 26 years ago, I'm not that
Wait, so you're by training a literal rocket scientist?
> clear on the difference between "orbital" and "suborbital". I would
> think the latter would be any trajectory which re-intersects the
> Earth. So a ballistic hop from surface location to surface location
> would be sub-orbital. An orbital trajectory would require you to do
> a burn at Apogee to boost your velocity up to something which will let
> you slide around the Earth rather than falling into it--I think. :-)
That's my guess, the difference between having enough velocity to orbit if
you want and not having enough velocity to even have the choice.
> That's what makes sub-orbital so much easier; you don't have to do
> that second burn. But you are correct that NY to Tokyo involves a
> much larger delta-V than NY to LA.
-- Ken from Chicago (who only pretends to be a rocket scientist online)
David DeLaney
>> think the latter would be any trajectory which re-intersects the
>> Earth. So a ballistic hop from surface location to surface location
>> would be sub-orbital. An orbital trajectory would require you to do
>> a burn at Apogee to boost your velocity up to something which will let
>> you slide around the Earth rather than falling into it--I think. :-)
>
>That's my guess, the difference between having enough velocity to orbit if
>you want and not having enough velocity to even have the choice.
"the orbit runs into the surface of the Earth again" would have been my thought
as well. (Note that to get to an orbit that DOESN'T, you have to be making
adjustments at some point after you're off the ground anyway; you can't just
BOING into an all-off-the-ground orbit all at once.)
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Joseph Nebus
>Despite getting an 'A' in Orbital Mechanics 26 years ago, I'm not that
>clear on the difference between "orbital" and "suborbital". I would
>think the latter would be any trajectory which re-intersects the
>Earth. So a ballistic hop from surface location to surface location
>would be sub-orbital.
Well, you're in orbit if you've got enough speed to go around
the planet, at least as long as you aren't pointed too near the surface
of the planet. If you haven't got that speed, you're not in orbit.
Probably someone could make a pointless argument about whether something
that goes right up to escape velocity in one shot was ever in orbit, but
I think the tendency to not get back to the ground would override any
questions about whether you have to be going around the planet, though.
(The use of 'orbit' for the path a system traces out in phase space is
probably relevant here.)
> An orbital trajectory would require you to do
>a burn at Apogee to boost your velocity up to something which will let
>you slide around the Earth rather than falling into it--I think. :-)
Not actually required, if you steer your rocket correctly. As
an example, the Skylab workshop enjoyed this `direct orbital insertion',
where the first two stages of its (modified) Saturn V lifted it to the
desired orbit and there wasn't anything more needed. (Well, the three
visiting Apollos reboosted the station, but it was in orbit well before
they visited.)
For that matter, this direct insertion is an option for the
space shuttle, too. It's all speed.
>That's what makes sub-orbital so much easier; you don't have to do
>that second burn. But you are correct that NY to Tokyo involves a
>much larger delta-V than NY to LA.
Nah, the number of burns isn't all that important (other than
that you have to be able to restart an engine, or carry extra engines,
to do it). It's the speed --- and the braking --- required that's the
source of so many physics problems.
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
trag
wrote:
> "trag" <t...@io.com> wrote in message
>
> news:2a417c7d-5c8a-4dce...@m11g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Dec 16, 1:32 pm, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> >> : trag <t...@io.com>
> >> : I am not familiar with their vehicle, nor their maintenance model, but
> >> : could their operation lead to suborbital transport hops? I.e.,
> >> : they'll get you from NY to Tokyo in about 45 minutes? That would be
> >> : a fantastic commercial milestone.
>
> >> Doing that in a single ballistic hop wouldn't be far from orbital,
> >> would it?
>
> > Despite getting an 'A' in Orbital Mechanics 26 years ago, I'm not that
>
> Wait, so you're by training a literal rocket scientist?
Yes, I is an Aerospace Ingunear. Or was. Three years at Johnson
Space Center working on shuttle operation in 84 - 87.
trag
> For that matter, this direct insertion is an option for the
> space shuttle, too. It's all speed.
<nitpick> It's also direction. Together, speed and direction make
velocity, and if the direction of your speed isn't correct. it
doesn't matter what your speed is, you may still hit the ground. :-)</
nitpick>
Ken from Chicago
Dude, you should talk to Virgin Galactic or that space port in New Mex for
job. I'm sure they could use some rocket scientichians on staff.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
Agreed.
-- Ken from Chicago (who's not afraid of falling, it's the stopping that has
him scared witless)
Jesper Lauridsen
>
> "trag" <tr...@io.com> wrote in message
> news:2a417c7d-5c8a-4dce...@m11g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
>>
>
> Wait, so you're by training a literal rocket scientist?
Judy R. Johnson
--
====================================
NEW -- JRJ>Well, I'd be worried about id for military defense purposes.
Seems like that speed would far exceed reaction times possible, and
friends would be shot out of the sky more often than foes.
Entwife Judy
JRStern
>I am not familiar with their vehicle, nor their maintenance model, but
>could their operation lead to suborbital transport hops? I.e.,
>they'll get you from NY to Tokyo in about 45 minutes? That would be
>a fantastic commercial milestone.
Not even close. I did some back of the envelope calculations, and
these little vertical trips they're offering max out around 2,000mph,
which is something less than 2% of the energy it takes to go to orbit.
With an additional booster it might get you from NY to Tokyo in
"only", what, maybe seven hours, but who would pay $200,000 for the
honor? And I'm not sure the restroom facilities would be adequate.
J.
Jim Gysin
JRStern sent the following on 12/19/2009 6:38 PM:
If this sim is at all representative of predicted reality:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09C795Rn3zk&feature=player_embedded#
then it sure looks as if it would take no time at all for SpaceShipTwo
to get from one side of the globe to the other, given the altitude.
--
Jim Gysin
Waukesha, WI
JRStern
wrote:
>If this sim is at all representative of predicted reality:
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09C795Rn3zk&feature=player_embedded#
>
>then it sure looks as if it would take no time at all for SpaceShipTwo
>to get from one side of the globe to the other, given the altitude.
then it's not real, ... though I don't see anything about the video
that suggests anything of the kind.
run some numbers, friend, this isn't star trek, that's just a CGI and
it could show the thing going to warp 7 for all that it matters.
frankly I wouldn't ride the thing if they paid me the $200k. this
thing will necessarily be drastically undertested and I fully predict
a disaster within the first twenty flights.
J.
Wayne Throop
: frankly I wouldn't ride the thing if they paid me the $200k. this
: thing will necessarily be drastically undertested and I fully predict
: a disaster within the first twenty flights.
I probably would. Maybe even as little as 100k. But come to think...
I would want to wait until there were at least 20 flights without incident...
wait, is this pre-tax or post-tax dollars?
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> : JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid>
> : frankly I wouldn't ride the thing if they paid me the $200k. this
> : thing will necessarily be drastically undertested and I fully predict
> : a disaster within the first twenty flights.
>
> I probably would. Maybe even as little as 100k. But come to think...
> I would want to wait until there were at least 20 flights without incident...
>
> wait, is this pre-tax or post-tax dollars?
>
If it's pre-tax, I'll take that bet.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
JRStern
<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>Wayne Throop wrote:
>> : JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid>
>> : frankly I wouldn't ride the thing if they paid me the $200k. this
>> : thing will necessarily be drastically undertested and I fully predict
>> : a disaster within the first twenty flights.
>>
>> I probably would. Maybe even as little as 100k. But come to think...
>> I would want to wait until there were at least 20 flights without incident...
>>
>> wait, is this pre-tax or post-tax dollars?
>>
>
> If it's pre-tax, I'll take that bet.
And even better, you come back a virgin!
J.
John F. Eldredge
My understanding is that it will fly in a high, narrow arc, without being
able to achieve orbital velocity. So, flying all of the way to the far
side of the world is out, unless most of that distance is within the
atmosphere.
--
John F. Eldredge -- jo...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better
than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
JRStern
wrote:
>My understanding is that it will fly in a high, narrow arc, without being
>able to achieve orbital velocity. So, flying all of the way to the far
>side of the world is out, unless most of that distance is within the
>atmosphere.
You don't need orbital velocity to travel long distances, you can even
walk, it just takes a while.
J.
John F. Eldredge
However, the projected flight path for this spacecraft is an arc
considerably higher than it is wide, landing back where you started.
Mike Ash
JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid> wrote:
Why would it necessarily be drastically undertested? It sounds like it
should be pretty cheap to run, and I don't see why it couldn't undergo a
pretty reasonable testing program before carrying passengers. I'm not
saying that it *will*, as I have no idea what their test plan is or how
the FAA has decided to regulate this stuff, but I don't see why it
*couldn't*.
Mike Ash
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> Wayne Throop wrote:
> > : JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid>
> > : frankly I wouldn't ride the thing if they paid me the $200k. this
> > : thing will necessarily be drastically undertested and I fully predict
> > : a disaster within the first twenty flights.
> >
> > I probably would. Maybe even as little as 100k. But come to think...
> > I would want to wait until there were at least 20 flights without
> > incident...
> >
> > wait, is this pre-tax or post-tax dollars?
> >
>
> If it's pre-tax, I'll take that bet.
Are you offering to pay Wayne $100,000 pre-tax money to take this ride?
Can I do it instead of him?
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> In article <hgp2vd$grn$3...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> Wayne Throop wrote:
>>> : JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid>
>>> : frankly I wouldn't ride the thing if they paid me the $200k. this
>>> : thing will necessarily be drastically undertested and I fully predict
>>> : a disaster within the first twenty flights.
>>>
>>> I probably would. Maybe even as little as 100k. But come to think...
>>> I would want to wait until there were at least 20 flights without
>>> incident...
>>>
>>> wait, is this pre-tax or post-tax dollars?
>>>
>> If it's pre-tax, I'll take that bet.
>
> Are you offering to pay Wayne $100,000 pre-tax money to take this ride?
> Can I do it instead of him?
>
` No, I'm offering to take the prior poster's 200k, actually in UNtaxed
dollars, to be accurate.
Well, to be ACCURATE I'd fly in it for nothing. I love flying even in
simple commercial jet flights. In something that reaches 2,000mph and
touches the edge of space? Yeah, I'm there.
Mike Ash
I see. I was confused by your "If it's pre-tax", which implies that's
better than post-tax. Pre-tax is only better if you're paying, not if
you're receiving. I take it you just meant that to be the other way
around.
I'd fly it for nothing too. Getting paid would be a great bonus. I would
not, however, pay a substantial amount for it. I'm not sure how much,
but probably not more than a couple thousand dollars.
JRStern
>> frankly I wouldn't ride the thing if they paid me the $200k. this
>> thing will necessarily be drastically undertested and I fully predict
>> a disaster within the first twenty flights.
>
>Why would it necessarily be drastically undertested? It sounds like it
>should be pretty cheap to run, and I don't see why it couldn't undergo a
>pretty reasonable testing program before carrying passengers. I'm not
>saying that it *will*, as I have no idea what their test plan is or how
>the FAA has decided to regulate this stuff, but I don't see why it
>*couldn't*.
It is all new technology, it is all new operating environments, it is
very dangerous environments, a rational test plan for this stuff would
take a decade.
And even then it would not be fully tested. Much of the safety in
commercial aviation - or any technology - is developed over many years
and thousands and millions of operations and many iterations and many
little things going wrong and being fixed. That won't ever happen
here. It will always be operating in the "infant mortality" range, as
it's called, for an infant technology regime. And when something goes
wrong at 2,000mph in a plastic vehicle 50 miles above the breathable
air, good luck with that. Though one of the most dangerous moments
will probably be release from the mothercraft at modest speeds and
altitudes.
Geez, I'm scaring myself. Believe it or not, I don't have any
particular interest in this thing, I was just nattering off a reply up
early in the thread off the top of my head. The more I look at it,
... there is just a paucity of common sense around these days. Well,
things will go as they will, and it's a brave effort, and who knows,
things could go right, that Murphy guy was just a bum anyway.
J.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 11:41:37 +0800, Mike Ash <mi...@mikeash.com> wrote:
>
>>> frankly I wouldn't ride the thing if they paid me the $200k. this
>>> thing will necessarily be drastically undertested and I fully predict
>>> a disaster within the first twenty flights.
>> Why would it necessarily be drastically undertested? It sounds like it
>> should be pretty cheap to run, and I don't see why it couldn't undergo a
>> pretty reasonable testing program before carrying passengers. I'm not
>> saying that it *will*, as I have no idea what their test plan is or how
>> the FAA has decided to regulate this stuff, but I don't see why it
>> *couldn't*.
>
> It is all new technology, it is all new operating environments, it is
> very dangerous environments, a rational test plan for this stuff would
> take a decade.
>
> And even then it would not be fully tested. Much of the safety in
> commercial aviation - or any technology - is developed over many years
> and thousands and millions of operations and many iterations and many
> little things going wrong and being fixed.
Commercial aviation's safety is built on the early guys who just flew,
some of whom died. This is the risk of new technology, and test pilots
get paid the big bucks for that reason.
The first in any such venture are, in fact, test pilots. Second-wave,
but still test, and yes, it's a risk. Price you pay for the advance.
Richard D. Latham
Its certainly possible ... the disaster part.
But there's a long and distinguished list of aerospace engineers that
have opined that Burt's latest creation is bollocks. Even if there's
not (a disaster) , at least you'll be in good company. :-)
--
#include <disclaimer.std> /* I don't speak for IBM ... */
/* Heck, I don't even speak for myself */
/* Don't believe me ? Ask my wife :-) */
Richard D. Latham lat...@us.ibm.com or lat...@verizon.net
JRStern
Latham) wrote:
>Its certainly possible ... the disaster part.
>
>But there's a long and distinguished list of aerospace engineers that
>have opined that Burt's latest creation is bollocks. Even if there's
>not (a disaster) , at least you'll be in good company. :-)
I'm not familiar with this, in what way, and where, if you please?
I'd thought it seemed likely to mostly do what is promised, it's those
last couple of decimal places of reliability that really cost.
Thanks.
J.
Mike Ash
JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid> wrote:
> And when something goes
> wrong at 2,000mph in a plastic vehicle 50 miles above the breathable
> air, good luck with that.
I have no problem with most of what you said, but I want to address
this. "Plastic vehicle" used in this seemingly pejorative context annoys
me. Composites are awesome. I happen to own a "plastic aircraft" and
it's great stuff. Metal is what scares me. Composites are stronger,
lighter, and don't fatigue. It's the superior choice!
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> In article <p1q1j59dllef3sp5b...@4ax.com>,
> JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid> wrote:
>
>> And when something goes
>> wrong at 2,000mph in a plastic vehicle 50 miles above the breathable
>> air, good luck with that.
>
> I have no problem with most of what you said, but I want to address
> this. "Plastic vehicle" used in this seemingly pejorative context annoys
> me. Composites are awesome. I happen to own a "plastic aircraft" and
> it's great stuff. Metal is what scares me. Composites are stronger,
> lighter, and don't fatigue. It's the superior choice!
>
On the contrary, they do fatigue - or at least, take damage over time
in a manner that might as well be fatigue, so to speak. This is a
problem the company I work for had to do some work on.
Strobe
Maybe you should compare spaceflight to the pioneering days of railroads.
One of the very first trains ran over and killed a politician.
Boiler explosions, signalling failures, derailments, bridge collapses etc
did not stop passengers from paying to travel back then.
What's changed - is it the risk or is it us?
JRStern
wrote:
>Maybe you should compare spaceflight to the pioneering days of railroads.
>One of the very first trains ran over and killed a politician.
>Boiler explosions, signalling failures, derailments, bridge collapses etc
>did not stop passengers from paying to travel back then.
>
>What's changed - is it the risk or is it us?
trains didn't fail in a vacuum at 2000 mph.
J.
JRStern
>In article <p1q1j59dllef3sp5b...@4ax.com>,
> JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid> wrote:
>
>> And when something goes
>> wrong at 2,000mph in a plastic vehicle 50 miles above the breathable
>> air, good luck with that.
>
>I have no problem with most of what you said, but I want to address
>this. "Plastic vehicle" used in this seemingly pejorative context annoys
>me. Composites are awesome. I happen to own a "plastic aircraft" and
>it's great stuff. Metal is what scares me. Composites are stronger,
>lighter, and don't fatigue. It's the superior choice!
well, let me say this about that. mostly I was funnin with the
pejorative. for tennis rackets, the composites are amazing. I wish
the carmakers would use them a lot more.
BUT they don't, and you want to know why? My guess is because of
their failure *modes*. They seldom fail a little bit, they don't bend
or stretch, when they break, they splinter immediately and
irreparably. That's OK for zillionaire playtoy Ferraris and Lotuses,
but not so good for a workingman's car that insurance companies prefer
to repair rather than total. Though it's pretty much problematic
these days with unibody light-weight car bodies even made of metal.
Look at Boeing and their composite-rich Dreamliner, delayed a year or
more by unexpected problems with the composite joins to the body. Not
sure quite what lessons to draw, but surely not that these new
materials are already well understood and quick and easy to use. And
Boeing probably has 10,000% more engineering resources, including
experience, than Rutan and Virgin.
So, objectively, and the moreso because of my main point, lack of
thousands and millions of hours of life-cycle experience and repeated
model improvement iterations, the composite construction may still be
the best overal answer, but it does have its own share of problems.
The End.
J.
Ken from Chicago
"JRStern" <JRS...@foobar.invalid> wrote in message
news:dr00j5heklrmh106k...@4ax.com...
How does that compare to the Space Shuttle? or commercial airliners? or car
accidents?
-- Ken from Chicago
Mike Ash
"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "JRStern" <JRS...@foobar.invalid> wrote in message
> news:dr00j5heklrmh106k...@4ax.com...
> > On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 20:22:48 -0600, Jim Gysin <jimg...@geemail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>If this sim is at all representative of predicted reality:
> >>
> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09C795Rn3zk&feature=player_embedded#
> >>
> >>then it sure looks as if it would take no time at all for SpaceShipTwo
> >>to get from one side of the globe to the other, given the altitude.
> >
> > then it's not real, ... though I don't see anything about the video
> > that suggests anything of the kind.
> >
> > run some numbers, friend, this isn't star trek, that's just a CGI and
> > it could show the thing going to warp 7 for all that it matters.
> >
> > frankly I wouldn't ride the thing if they paid me the $200k. this
> > thing will necessarily be drastically undertested and I fully predict
> > a disaster within the first twenty flights.
>
> How does that compare to the Space Shuttle?
Comparable. Challenger's loss was flight 25. There have been 134 flight
so far, and two fatal accidents, putting it at 1/67 for now.
> or commercial airliners? or car accidents?
Nowhere near if you're talking about today's average. A commercial
airliner fatality is literally a one-in-a-million event. Cars are about
10x more dangerous, which is still extremely safe.
Mike Ash
JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 11:11:31 +0800, Mike Ash <mi...@mikeash.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <p1q1j59dllef3sp5b...@4ax.com>,
> > JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> And when something goes
> >> wrong at 2,000mph in a plastic vehicle 50 miles above the breathable
> >> air, good luck with that.
> >
> >I have no problem with most of what you said, but I want to address
> >this. "Plastic vehicle" used in this seemingly pejorative context annoys
> >me. Composites are awesome. I happen to own a "plastic aircraft" and
> >it's great stuff. Metal is what scares me. Composites are stronger,
> >lighter, and don't fatigue. It's the superior choice!
>
> well, let me say this about that. mostly I was funnin with the
> pejorative. for tennis rackets, the composites are amazing. I wish
> the carmakers would use them a lot more.
>
> BUT they don't, and you want to know why? My guess is because of
> their failure *modes*. They seldom fail a little bit, they don't bend
> or stretch, when they break, they splinter immediately and
> irreparably. That's OK for zillionaire playtoy Ferraris and Lotuses,
> but not so good for a workingman's car that insurance companies prefer
> to repair rather than total. Though it's pretty much problematic
> these days with unibody light-weight car bodies even made of metal.
I would have thought that the enormous expense of composites as compared
to metal would be enough to explain the differences. The advantages of
composites are high strength/weight ratio and the ability to create
really smooth surfaces with nearly arbitrary shapes. Cars don't care
about either of those to anywhere near the degree that airplanes do.
> Look at Boeing and their composite-rich Dreamliner, delayed a year or
> more by unexpected problems with the composite joins to the body. Not
> sure quite what lessons to draw, but surely not that these new
> materials are already well understood and quick and easy to use. And
> Boeing probably has 10,000% more engineering resources, including
> experience, than Rutan and Virgin.
>
> So, objectively, and the moreso because of my main point, lack of
> thousands and millions of hours of life-cycle experience and repeated
> model improvement iterations, the composite construction may still be
> the best overal answer, but it does have its own share of problems.
All-composite aircraft have been around for more than four decades. Just
how much experience do you need?
Granted that much (most?) of this experience is in gliders, but I'd
argue that SpaceShipTwo is closer to a glider than to a 787.
Mike Ash
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
Do tell! Is it stress-related and cycle-related like metal fatigue is?
What's a typical degradation timeline, if such a question even makes
sense?
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
No, but an old-fashioned train going off the rails at 60MPH is more
than enough to Ruin Your Day Forever.
Or a more modern train going off the rails; the ICE train crash, for
instance, at around 120mph.
Big things moving fast; they kill people.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> In article <hgs2l0$jbk$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> Mike Ash wrote:
>>> In article <p1q1j59dllef3sp5b...@4ax.com>,
>>> JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> And when something goes
>>>> wrong at 2,000mph in a plastic vehicle 50 miles above the breathable
>>>> air, good luck with that.
>>> I have no problem with most of what you said, but I want to address
>>> this. "Plastic vehicle" used in this seemingly pejorative context annoys
>>> me. Composites are awesome. I happen to own a "plastic aircraft" and
>>> it's great stuff. Metal is what scares me. Composites are stronger,
>>> lighter, and don't fatigue. It's the superior choice!
>> On the contrary, they do fatigue - or at least, take damage over time
>> in a manner that might as well be fatigue, so to speak. This is a
>> problem the company I work for had to do some work on.
>
> Do tell! Is it stress-related and cycle-related like metal fatigue is?
> What's a typical degradation timeline, if such a question even makes
> sense?
>
It is stress and cycle related, though from a different set of
mechanisms than metal fatigue (you have one set of stuff embedded in a
matrix of other stuff; the embedded stuff can work slightly free, the
matrix can develop small cracks, the strands of embedded stuff could
break a few at a time, etc.).
It's hard to detect,and time-cycle is dependent on the precise
component and its application usage. We were looking at torque and
strain on shafts for a military application. Additional concerns are
exposures to various chemicals and shifts in temperature, etc.
As someone else pointed out, they also have a very sudden failure mode
when they hit their ultimate stress limit. There's little graceful
degradation, or at least it's over a much more narrow range. Transient
forces have to be carefully watched.
This isn't to make it sound like composites are bad -- they're great
stuff in many ways. But they're bloody expensive, and they're still hard
to make exactly right... and "exactly" is much more fussy with
composites than with metals. One tiny flaw can turn into a propagating
crack INSIDE the component, and everything on the surface looks just fine.
Joseph Nebus
It is remarkable the change, particularly given the absence of
people suing railroads for boiler explosions, signalling failures,
derailments, bridge collapses, or for that matter cars being set on fire
when the stove used for a laughable simulation of heating tipped over and
roasted the passengers alive; not to mention the merry, devil-may-care,
it's-not-our-business attitude that British and American governments took
to the repeated catastrophes.
One might also ask whether there's a difference in the potential
reward between, say, being able to usefully trade between Chicago and
New York City, versus the vast commercial prospects of suborbital hops
for up to a dozen people at a time.
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JRStern
>I would have thought that the enormous expense of composites as compared
>to metal would be enough to explain the differences.
Composite tennis rackets are not enormously expensive.
And the weight *advantage* of composites is enormously helpful.
No, it's not cost anymore.
>The advantages of
>composites are high strength/weight ratio and the ability to create
>really smooth surfaces with nearly arbitrary shapes. Cars don't care
>about either of those to anywhere near the degree that airplanes do.
Smoothness isn't an issue, metal is smooth, though the composites can
more easily be built with fewer exposed fasteners, or something (I'm
always amazed to look out the window on airliners and see
screwheads!).
>> Look at Boeing and their composite-rich Dreamliner, delayed a year or
>> more by unexpected problems with the composite joins to the body. Not
>> sure quite what lessons to draw, but surely not that these new
>> materials are already well understood and quick and easy to use. And
>> Boeing probably has 10,000% more engineering resources, including
>> experience, than Rutan and Virgin.
>>
>> So, objectively, and the moreso because of my main point, lack of
>> thousands and millions of hours of life-cycle experience and repeated
>> model improvement iterations, the composite construction may still be
>> the best overal answer, but it does have its own share of problems.
>
>All-composite aircraft have been around for more than four decades. Just
>how much experience do you need?
I dunno, tell it to Boeing.
And Airbus has had issues with composite tails, I'm fuzzy on the
details.
>Granted that much (most?) of this experience is in gliders, but I'd
>argue that SpaceShipTwo is closer to a glider than to a 787.
My guess is that this is dead wrong, and SS2 will have much higher
streses than the 787, which has much higher stresses than the glider,
especially in buffeting and vibration, both more speed related than
anything else.
Are there any aerobatic small planes built all of composites, that
would be a much better example.
I'd have to go review to see how much composites were used for
structure, not just radar-absorbing skin, on stealth aircraft, but
those are probably the best examples.
J.
JRStern
Oh, I could argue it, but I think it's more dramatic to stand on my
last response. I've got nothing invested in this either way. For my
part, I hope it goes well and everyone has a good time.
J.
JRStern
>> > frankly I wouldn't ride the thing if they paid me the $200k. this
>> > thing will necessarily be drastically undertested and I fully predict
>> > a disaster within the first twenty flights.
>>
>> How does that compare to the Space Shuttle?
>
>Comparable. Challenger's loss was flight 25. There have been 134 flight
>so far, and two fatal accidents, putting it at 1/67 for now.
On the positive side, orbit is at least 50x more difficult mission.
On the negative side, the shuttle development program took billions of
dollars and many years to offset that risk.
On the positive side, SS2 is second or third generation, which
improves its odds.
On the negative side, it's sort of a hybrid of aerospace and space
technologies, that makes it a first-generation of its type.
But mostly on the negative side it's a very small-scale project
depending more on the magic of the Rutan name than on big
bureaucracies, and while nobody likes bureaucracies, they are pretty
well understood and predictable. The risk is higher with a smaller
enterprise, the unkunk is higher.
>> or commercial airliners? or car accidents?
>
>Nowhere near if you're talking about today's average. A commercial
>airliner fatality is literally a one-in-a-million event. Cars are about
>10x more dangerous, which is still extremely safe.
I was wondering what the stats are for, say, skydiving.
I will let y'all google it.
J.
Mike Ash
JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid> wrote:
> >> or commercial airliners? or car accidents?
> >
> >Nowhere near if you're talking about today's average. A commercial
> >airliner fatality is literally a one-in-a-million event. Cars are about
> >10x more dangerous, which is still extremely safe.
>
> I was wondering what the stats are for, say, skydiving.
>
> I will let y'all google it.
According to this site:
http://adventure.howstuffworks.com/skydiving8.htm
The fatality rate is about 1 in 100,000 jumps.
I bet the rate for the guys who had to jump out of balloons because
airplanes hadn't been invented yet was a bit higher though.
Mike Ash
JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 21:59:53 +0800, Mike Ash <mi...@mikeash.com> wrote:
>
> >I would have thought that the enormous expense of composites as compared
> >to metal would be enough to explain the differences.
>
> Composite tennis rackets are not enormously expensive.
>
> And the weight *advantage* of composites is enormously helpful.
>
> No, it's not cost anymore.
The amount of composites found in a tennis racket is pretty small
compared to the amount you'd find in a two-ton composite-built car. I
don't think the weight advantage would really be that large for cars.
There just isn't that much downward weight pressure in cars, definitely
not as compared to airplanes. How many dollars per pound removed is it
worth to a car maker? I'll bet that on "normal" cars it's less than the
cost of composites by a fair margin, although I'll freely admit to not
knowing the relevant figures.
> >The advantages of
> >composites are high strength/weight ratio and the ability to create
> >really smooth surfaces with nearly arbitrary shapes. Cars don't care
> >about either of those to anywhere near the degree that airplanes do.
>
> Smoothness isn't an issue, metal is smooth, though the composites can
> more easily be built with fewer exposed fasteners, or something (I'm
> always amazed to look out the window on airliners and see
> screwheads!).
Those exposed fasteners are a big part of it, as well as seams between
sections of metal sheeting. Smoothness is important for aircraft, and is
the #1 reason why nobody has even attempted to build a competitive metal
racing glider in almost four decades. It may not be as important for
airliners, but reducing drag is always helpful.
> >Granted that much (most?) of this experience is in gliders, but I'd
> >argue that SpaceShipTwo is closer to a glider than to a 787.
>
> My guess is that this is dead wrong, and SS2 will have much higher
> streses than the 787, which has much higher stresses than the glider,
> especially in buffeting and vibration, both more speed related than
> anything else.
>
> Are there any aerobatic small planes built all of composites, that
> would be a much better example.
Well, I know of three different types of all-composite aerobatic
gliders, and there are probably more.
Vibration is something they don't have to worry about much, though, this
is true.
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>Composite tennis rackets are not enormously expensive.
>
>And the weight *advantage* of composites is enormously helpful.
>
>No, it's not cost anymore.
True, except that it may have been a mistake for tennis - making
sports easier doesn't make them better.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Mike Ash
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> > Do tell! Is it stress-related and cycle-related like metal fatigue is?
> > What's a typical degradation timeline, if such a question even makes
> > sense?
>
> It is stress and cycle related, though from a different set of
> mechanisms than metal fatigue (you have one set of stuff embedded in a
> matrix of other stuff; the embedded stuff can work slightly free, the
> matrix can develop small cracks, the strands of embedded stuff could
> break a few at a time, etc.).
>
> It's hard to detect,and time-cycle is dependent on the precise
> component and its application usage. We were looking at torque and
> strain on shafts for a military application. Additional concerns are
> exposures to various chemicals and shifts in temperature, etc.
Makes sense, thanks.
> As someone else pointed out, they also have a very sudden failure mode
> when they hit their ultimate stress limit. There's little graceful
> degradation, or at least it's over a much more narrow range. Transient
> forces have to be carefully watched.
On the plus side, they can be built a lot stronger than the equivalent
metal structure and still be lighter. Better not to fail at all than to
bend... if you can arrange it that way. If you exceed even your
beefed-up structure, then you'll be in trouble.
> This isn't to make it sound like composites are bad -- they're great
> stuff in many ways. But they're bloody expensive, and they're still hard
> to make exactly right... and "exactly" is much more fussy with
> composites than with metals. One tiny flaw can turn into a propagating
> crack INSIDE the component, and everything on the surface looks just fine.
Lines up with what I've heard. A pain to create, but gives you wonderful
results in the end if you get it right.
JRStern
wrote:
>On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 08:35:02 -0800, JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>Composite tennis rackets are not enormously expensive.
>>
>>And the weight *advantage* of composites is enormously helpful.
>>
>>No, it's not cost anymore.
>
>
>True, except that it may have been a mistake for tennis - making
>sports easier doesn't make them better.
Quite agree, the game is not the same as back in the old
MacEnroe/Connors little wooden racket days.
OTOH, it's about time they went to aluminum bats in the baseball
majors, no matter what they have to do to the ball or field to
compensate.
J.
"Michal Dwuznik (Michał Dwużnik)"
>
> Or a more modern train going off the rails; the ICE train crash, for
> instance, at around 120mph.
>
> Big things moving fast; they kill people.
>
Michal
William December Starr
Strobe <Str...@nyc.Beep!Beep!.com> said:
> Maybe you should compare spaceflight to the pioneering days of
> railroads. One of the very first trains ran over and killed a
> politician.
And they had to throw him in front of it three times before they
got the timing right.
baDum-bum.
-- wds
Avoid normal situations.
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 11:41:37 +0800, Mike Ash <mi...@mikeash.com> wrote:
[..]
> The more I look at it,
> ... there is just a paucity of common sense around these days.
"These days"?
--
alt.flame Special Forces
"It is providential that the youth or man of inventive mind is not 'blessed'
with a million dollars. The mind is sharper and keener in seclusion and
uninterrupted solitude. Originality thrives in seclusion free of outside
influences beating upon us to cripple the creative mind. Be alone -- that is
the secret of invention: be alone, that is when ideas are born."
-- Nikolai Tesla
Jim Gysin
JRStern sent the following on 12/21/2009 5:28 PM:
> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 20:22:48 -0600, Jim Gysin <jimg...@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> If this sim is at all representative of predicted reality:
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09C795Rn3zk&feature=player_embedded#
>>
>> then it sure looks as if it would take no time at all for SpaceShipTwo
>> to get from one side of the globe to the other, given the altitude.
>
> then it's not real, ... though I don't see anything about the video
> that suggests anything of the kind.
Perhaps. Branson is a slick marketer, without a doubt. In fact, Virgin
to SpaceX is kinda like Apple to PC. (And now I'll run away from all of
the Mac heads here.)
> run some numbers, friend, this isn't star trek, that's just a CGI and
> it could show the thing going to warp 7 for all that it matters.
My point is that, at that altitude, it would take no time and very
little fuel to cover the distances that we've been discussing here.
> frankly I wouldn't ride the thing if they paid me the $200k. this
> thing will necessarily be drastically undertested and I fully predict
> a disaster within the first twenty flights.
Sometimes being an early adopter is financially expensive; at other
times, it has the potential to be physically expensive. :)
--
Jim Gysin
Waukesha, WI
Mike Ash
Jim Gysin <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
> > run some numbers, friend, this isn't star trek, that's just a CGI and
> > it could show the thing going to warp 7 for all that it matters.
>
> My point is that, at that altitude, it would take no time and very
> little fuel to cover the distances that we've been discussing here.
Altitude doesn't magically make things closer together, or go faster.
Let's say you wanted to get to the other side of the planet in 45
minutes. Ignoring the time to climb and descend, that's *orbital speed*.
SST does not and cannot achieve anything close to that. So we're talking
way more than 45 minutes to get to the other side of the world, *plus*
time required to take off, climb, descend, and land.
According to Wikipedia, SST will achieve 2,600MPH, which is only about
four times faster than an airliner. Thus, a long overseas trip which
takes 12 hours would "only" take 3.
This ignores the fact that SST has absolutely no way to stay airborne
for three hours, and thus cannot make the trip *at all*. But if it
could, it would take hours.
JRStern
>In article <hh6h0k$vjb$9...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Jim Gysin <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> > run some numbers, friend, this isn't star trek, that's just a CGI and
>> > it could show the thing going to warp 7 for all that it matters.
>>
>> My point is that, at that altitude, it would take no time and very
>> little fuel to cover the distances that we've been discussing here.
>
>Altitude doesn't magically make things closer together, or go faster.
thank you, I lacked the will to bother
J.
trag
<kwicker1b_nos...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "trag" <t...@io.com> wrote in message
> > On Dec 18, 4:42 am, "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nos...@comcast.net>
> > wrote:
> >> Wait, so you're by training a literal rocket scientist?
>
> > Yes, I is an Aerospace Ingunear. Or was. Three years at Johnson
> > Space Center working on shuttle operation in 84 - 87.
>
> Dude, you should talk to Virgin Galactic or that space port in New Mex for
> job. I'm sure they could use some rocket scientichians on staff.
I already have a wonderful job helping to build Skynet's CPU...
Scores of processors on silicon in a communications and memory
matrix. Conceptually, it looks just like the segment of CPU shown in
T2.
These days I is an Eclectrimal Ingunear.
trag
> Maybe you should compare spaceflight to the pioneering days of railroads.
> One of the very first trains ran over and killed a politician.
So those early tests were a resounding success.
Bill Snyder
But that potential obviously failed to prove out over the long
haul.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
Wayne Throop
::: railroads. One of the very first trains ran over and killed a
::: politician.
:: So those early tests were a resounding success.
: But that potential obviously failed to prove out over the long haul.
Oh I dunno. Trains are still used for long hauls. Of freight anyways.
And some specialized niche applications like moving coal from
mines to powerplants.
So what's missing isn't the long haul or other trains.
It's the Snidley Whiplash ropework that hasn't prospered.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Jim Gysin
Mike Ash sent the following on 12/26/2009 10:39 PM:
> In article <hh6h0k$vjb$9...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Jim Gysin <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>>> run some numbers, friend, this isn't star trek, that's just a CGI and
>>> it could show the thing going to warp 7 for all that it matters.
>> My point is that, at that altitude, it would take no time and very
>> little fuel to cover the distances that we've been discussing here.
>
> Altitude doesn't magically make things closer together, or go faster.
When did I say otherwise? But it *does* remove many of the constraints
facing a more conventional and lower-flying aircraft, allowing it to fly
much faster. Contrary to JRStern's math, a trip from New York to Tokyo
would take nowhere *near* seven hours, which was my only point in
entering the thread and coming to the defense of the design. My "no
time" may have been badly phrased, and was meant in relative terms to
the time it would take in a more conventional aircraft.
> Let's say you wanted to get to the other side of the planet in 45
> minutes.
Then you're gonna be disappointed at this stage in the game. :)
> Ignoring the time to climb and descend, that's *orbital speed*.
> SST does not and cannot achieve anything close to that. So we're talking
> way more than 45 minutes to get to the other side of the world, *plus*
> time required to take off, climb, descend, and land.
>
> According to Wikipedia, SST will achieve 2,600MPH, which is only about
> four times faster than an airliner. Thus, a long overseas trip which
> takes 12 hours would "only" take 3.
Hence my earlier "no time" line, and making a 13-hour traditional flight
from NY to Tokyo into a four-hour one, giving time for the bird to get
off the ground, separated and up to its cruising altitude.
> This ignores the fact that SST has absolutely no way to stay airborne
> for three hours, and thus cannot make the trip *at all*. But if it
> could, it would take hours.
Agreed. You created a 45-minute scenario above, but my only time claim
was that it would not take seven hours to make the trip, given its
capabilities. I didn't need the back of an envelope to know that
halving the flight time was doing an insult to this particular bird's
potential.
Jim Gysin
JRStern sent the following on 12/27/2009 4:06 PM:
But you *did* have time to post a drive-by snark. Well done! It's just
too bad that you couldn't also find time to acknowledge that your
back-of-the-envelope calculations were off by half.
Mike Ash
Jim Gysin <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
It wouldn't take seven hours to make the trip. It wouldn't take any time
to make the trip. It *can't* make the trip. At the speeds that SSTwo can
achieve, it needs to burn substantial fuel to stay airborne. It does not
carry substantial fuel. You said, quote, "it would take no time and very
little fuel to cover the distances that we've been discussing here."
"The distances that we've been discussing here" refers to "from one side
of the globe to the other". "It" refers to SpaceShipTwo. It cannot make
the trip, period, no way, no how, not even close, so your claims that it
would take four hours to do NYC-Tokyo are wrong.
JRStern
wrote:
>
Which is fine for back-of-the-envelope estimates.
Turns out the air miles are rather less than I thought, I googled up a
6740, and if SS2 gets up to 2600mph then given the fuel it would be as
you say, about half the seven hours, plus or minus acceleration,
deceleration, air traffic control, and whatnot.
So how much more fuel? Well, most of the current flight plan expends
the energy vertically, so as a rough estimate to get another 2,600 mph
horizontally (circumferentially) would about double the fuel, let's
assume you get most of the (aero)braking for free, and that at
altitude there is little enough friction that it's ballistic ... which
means you wouldn't even need the full double the fuel, difference
between vertical and ballistic has to be a lot less than that, so it's
probably closer to 1.5x the fuel, is that right? Seems too low, I
must be omitting something.
I leave you with Google Map's estimate of how to drive from New York
to Tokyo.
J.
Driving directions to Tokyo Metropolis, Japan
9,585 mi � about 36 days 4 hours
Suggested routes
New York, NY
1. Head southwest on Broadway toward Chambers St 85 ft
2. Take the 1st right onto Chambers St 0.4 mi
3. Turn right at New York 9A N/West St 0.6 mi
4. Turn right at Canal St 0.2 mi
5. Turn left at Holland Tunnel/I-78 W
Continue to follow I-78 W
Entering New Jersey 2.3 mi
6. Slight left at NJ-139 W 1.2 mi
7. Exit onto Newark Ave/NJ-7 E
Continue to follow NJ-7 E 1.8 mi
8. Continue onto Newark Turnpike 0.2 mi
9. Continue onto Dolores Dr 0.2 mi
10. Continue onto Newark Turnpike 0.9 mi
11. Take the ramp onto I-280 W 17.1 mi
12. Merge onto I-80 W
Partial toll road
Passing through Pennsylvania
Entering Ohio 374 mi
13. Take the exit onto I-80 W
Partial toll road
Entering Indiana 354 mi
14. Continue onto I-90 W
Partial toll road
Passing through Illinois
Entering Wisconsin 271 mi
15. Continue onto I-94 W
Entering Minnesota 163 mi
16. Slight right at US-10 W (signs for I-35E N/US-10 W) 0.6 mi
17. Merge onto I-35E N 4.9 mi
18. Slight left at US-10 W 0.5 mi
19. Merge onto I-694 W 18.0 mi
20. Continue onto I-94 W
Passing through North Dakota
Entering Montana 818 mi
21. Merge onto I-90 W
Passing through Idaho
Entering Washington 815 mi
22. Take exit 10 to merge onto I-405 N toward Bellevue 3.5 mi
23. Take exit 14 for State Route 520 E toward Redmond 0.2 mi
24. Keep left at the fork, follow signs for State Hwy 520 W/Seattle
and merge onto WA-520 W 5.8 mi
25. Take the Montlake Blvd exit 0.5 mi
26. Merge onto Montlake Blvd E 0.3 mi
27. Slight left at NE Pacific St 0.8 mi
28. Slight left at NE Northlake Way 0.1 mi
29. Slight left at 6th Ave NE 92 ft
30. Continue onto NE Northlake Way 1.0 mi
31. Kayak across the Pacific Ocean
Entering Hawaii 2,756 mi
32. Continue straight 0.1 mi
33. Turn left at Kuilima Dr 0.5 mi
34. Take the 3rd right onto HI-83 W/Kamehameha Hwy 12.4 mi
35. Continue onto HI-99 S 8.6 mi
36. Take the Interstate H2 S ramp to Honolulu 0.2 mi
37. Merge onto I-H-2 S 7.9 mi
38. Merge onto I-H-1 E 4.7 mi
39. Take exit 13B toward Halawa Hts. Stadium 0.3 mi
40. Merge onto I-H-201 E 4.1 mi
41. Merge onto I-H-1 E 4.1 mi
42. Take exit 23 for Punahou St toward Waikiki/Manoa 0.2 mi
43. Turn right at Punahou St 0.1 mi
44. Take the 1st right onto S Beretania St 0.1 mi
45. Take the 1st left onto
Continue to follow Unknown road 1.0 mi
46. Continue straight onto Kalakaua Ave 0.9 mi
47. Kayak across the Pacific Ocean
Entering Japan 3,879 mi
48. Turn right toward ??263?? 0.3 mi
49. Turn left toward ??263?? 0.2 mi
50. Turn right at ??263?? 0.3 mi
51. Slight left to stay on ??263?? 200 ft
52. Turn left to stay on ??263?? 0.3 mi
53. Turn right at ??125?? 0.4 mi
54. Turn left at ?????(???) onto ??354?? 0.4 mi
55. Slight left at ???(???) to stay on ??354?? 2.0 mi
56. Turn right at ?????(???) to stay on ??354?? 1.0 mi
57. Take the ramp to ??????
Toll road 0.3 mi
58. Keep left at the fork, follow signs for ?? and merge onto ??????
Toll road 23.8 mi
59. Take exit ??JCT toward ???�??�???
Toll road 0.7 mi
60. Merge onto ????6????
Toll road 5.7 mi
61. Take exit ??JCT toward ???�??
Toll road 0.4 mi
62. Merge onto ?????????
Toll road 0.4 mi
63. Take exit ??JCT on the right toward ??�??
Toll road 0.3 mi
64. Merge onto ????6????
Toll road 5.4 mi
65. Take exit ???JCT toward ??�???
Toll road 0.4 mi
66. Merge onto ?????????
Toll road 2.4 mi
67. Take exit ???JCT on the right toward ???�??
Toll road 0.4 mi
68. Merge onto ????4????
Toll road 3.0 mi
69. Take exit ????? on the right toward ????
Partial toll road 0.5 mi
70. Turn left at ???????(???) 266 ft
71. Turn left 0.1 mi
72. Turn left 0.1 mi
73. Turn left at ???(???) 0.2 mi
Tokyo Metropolis
David E. Powell
and keep some of the dreamers earth bound until the price drops.
The best deals on high performance flights were in Russia in the early
1990s, flying aerobatics in MiG-29s and zoom climbs in MiG-25s.
Mike Ash
JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid> wrote:
This isn't even vaguely close to being correct.
Your rough estimate seems to be correct as far as getting up to its max
altitude ,and with 2,600MPH horizontal speed. Then you make this giant
flying leap of illogic and assume that this is somehow enough to get it
halfway around the planet. Huh?!
Here's the thing you've overlooked: it doesn't stay at altitude by
magic. With the current design, it doesn't stay at altitude *at all*. It
falls back down, and the horizontal velocity you've added just makes it
come down a few hundred miles away, instead of back at Mojave.
In order to stay at altitude, there are two possibilities. The easy one
is to just burn the engine pointing down the whole way. This, of course,
uses a ridiculous amount of fuel.
The hard one is to have wings capable of generating lift equivalent to
the vehicle's weight at that speed and altitude. These wings will be
heavy, which means more fuel for the climb and acceleration. At
2,600MPH, they will produce a lot of drag, which means burning fuel
continuously all the way to your destination in order to maintain speed.
We're talking more like increasing the fuel load by a factor of 10-100,
AND adding a lot of wing to the thing. By the time you're done with the
modifications, you don't have SpaceShipTwo anymore, but rather a
completely different machine that is vastly larger and more expensive.
I'll say this as plainly as I can: in its current form SpaceShipTwo does
not have any significant achievable travel range. Its travel time to
Tokyo is infinity.
OM
>I'll say this as plainly as I can: in its current form SpaceShipTwo does
>not have any significant achievable travel range. Its travel time to
>Tokyo is infinity.
...Nor is the design intended for such a trip. Whoever's claiming
otherwise is just babbling. Or trolling, one.
OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[
JRStern
OK, that's right, I made the same mistake as Jim.
Even at 2600mph the craft is subject to most of 1G pull, as I started
out saying it takes 50x more energy to achieve orbit. So to make the
trip, as you say, means an energy expenditure of at least 1G for about
three hours. Now, I just saw a blurb on the tv news about SS2, said
the trip to orbit is about one hour - though it's not clear how much
of that is still with the mother ship. Say, half (probably a gross
underestimate). Then SS2 carries fuel for let's say 30 minutes of
let's say 1G acceleration. Call that X. So we need a second X to get
horizontal velocity, six more X's to maintain, that would be about 7X
total, plus a lot more manuvering fuel to land at a commercial airport
instead of on a desert strip, whatever, say they find some suitable
strip near enough to Tokyo. Anyway, that's my newer guestimate,
something in the range of about 7X. But wait - that extra fuel
weighs, too. Probably weighs about 7X as much! But maybe this is all
calculating the hard way. It's about 1/3 of an orbit, does that mean
it's about 1/3 of an orbital energy budget, which is about 1/9 the
impulse? Wish I remembered that high school physics. I should be
ashamed. OK, my new back of the envelope is now around 12x. That
does seem about right. We won't even bother on what it would cost the
mother ship to lift something 12x higher to launch position.
Thanks.
J.
ps - any high school student who can't work this problem (a lot better
than me) should not be able to pass the physics class. if they still
offer physics in high school.
pps - $200,000 * 12 = ticket to Tokyo.
ppps - and we haven't even calculated the extra bathroom facilities
now needed. or maybe we have, if we multiplied the entire vehicle
weight by 7x or 12x, rather than just the fuel.
Mike Ash
JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid> wrote:
30 minutes at 1G gives you about 40,000MPH.
Please apply some common sense to your results before you post. You've
ventured well into "not even wrong" territory.
The simple facts: SS2 isn't going anywhere, and isn't even a good base
to start from if you want to build something that goes somewhere. It's
good for quick suborbital hops, and that's it. Period.
JRStern
>30 minutes at 1G gives you about 40,000MPH.
30 minutes at 1g and I'm still standing under a tree.
J.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
But you've moved a long way in that time, it's just that the ship
you're on generates its own gravity!
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Richard R. Hershberger
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 10:26:30 -0700, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net>
> wrote:
>
> >wrote:
>
> >>Composite tennis rackets are not enormously expensive.
>
> >>And the weight *advantage* of composites is enormously helpful.
>
> >>No, it's not cost anymore.
>
> >True, except that it may have been a mistake for tennis - making
> >sports easier doesn't make them better.
>
> Quite agree, the game is not the same as back in the old
> MacEnroe/Connors little wooden racket days.
>
> OTOH, it's about time they went to aluminum bats in thebaseball
> majors, no matter what they have to do to the ball or field to
> compensate.
Could you expand on that bit about aluminum bats? What advantages
would they hold that would overcome the obvious problems they would
entail?
Richard R. Hershberger
David E. Powell
> In article <1bi4j5pt0b337si5vlv5hf5hgp0hab4...@4ax.com>,
>
> JRStern <JRSt...@foobar.invalid> wrote:
> > >> or commercial airliners? or car accidents?
>
> > >Nowhere near if you're talking about today's average. A commercial
> > >airliner fatality is literally a one-in-a-million event. Cars are about
> > >10x more dangerous, which is still extremely safe.
>
> > I was wondering what the stats are for, say, skydiving.
>
> > I will let y'all google it.
>
> According to this site:
>
> http://adventure.howstuffworks.com/skydiving8.htm
>
> The fatality rate is about 1 in 100,000 jumps.
>
> I bet the rate for the guys who had to jump out of balloons because
> airplanes hadn't been invented yet was a bit higher though.
Also, I wonder if that includes BASE jumpers?
Default User
It's already becoming a concern in college and other amateur leagues
that aluminum bats cause too many injuries. I would think that would be
even worse at the pro level. I think it's more likely that wooden bat
use will increase rather than diminish.
Brian
--
Day 344 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project
Lawrence Watt-Evans
wrote:
Yup. Except there's also the issue that of late they've been
stretching the wooden-bat technology to unsafe limits; narrow-shaft
bats made of maple are currently popular, but can break without
warning, sending big chunks of wood flying in various directions.
There have been injured fans and players as a result. There's
supposed to be a study of the problem in progress that may lead to new
rules about bat design.
Personally, I think they should outlaw maple and require bats be made
of ash or hickory, which are safer and more traditional. (And more
expensive, but I don't consider that a real issue.)
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
I'm selling my comic collection -- see http://www.watt-evans.com/comics.html
I'm serializing a novel at http://www.watt-evans.com/realmsoflight0.html
Mike Ash
<5a9d50d3-2b4c-4495...@z40g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
"David E. Powell" <David_Po...@msn.com> wrote:
> On Dec 23 2009, 12:20�pm, Mike Ash <m...@mikeash.com> wrote:
> > In article <1bi4j5pt0b337si5vlv5hf5hgp0hab4...@4ax.com>,
> >
> > �JRStern <JRSt...@foobar.invalid> wrote:
> > > >> or commercial airliners? or car accidents?
> >
> > > >Nowhere near if you're talking about today's average. A commercial
> > > >airliner fatality is literally a one-in-a-million event. Cars are about
> > > >10x more dangerous, which is still extremely safe.
> >
> > > I was wondering what the stats are for, say, skydiving.
> >
> > > I will let y'all google it.
> >
> > According to this site:
> >
> > http://adventure.howstuffworks.com/skydiving8.htm
> >
> > The fatality rate is about 1 in 100,000 jumps.
> >
> > I bet the rate for the guys who had to jump out of balloons because
> > airplanes hadn't been invented yet was a bit higher though.
>
> Also, I wonder if that includes BASE jumpers?
Base jumping is so rare compared to the regular sort of skydiving that
it probably doesn't matter, but that article says "die in parachuting
accidents", so presumably it includes all types of sport parachute
jumping.
--