revisionist history on display at Armadillo...
Tom Merkle
Armadillo's got a great 100th anniversery video that features Widget
in his previously unknown role as an associate of Orville and
Wilbur's. Funny stuff. Check it out.
http://media.armadilloaerospace.com/misc/100%20years%20of%20powered%20flight.mpg
Tom Merkle
Kaido Kert
"Tom Merkle" <merk...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:c1d524e3.03121...@posting.google.com...
Indeed. In other X-prize news, competition has heated up _very
significantly_.
http://www.hobbyspace.com/AAdmin/archive/RLV/2003/RLVNews2003-12.html#Dec.16.03
http://www.xprize.com/papers/XPupdate_1203.pdf
IMO its very very likely that the Prize will be claimed before the 2004 is
over
-kert
Tom Merkle
right now it looks like it could be claimed before January is up.
Tom Merkle
Rand Simberg
merk...@msn.com (Tom Merkle) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>> Indeed. In other X-prize news, competition has heated up _very
>> significantly_.
>> http://www.hobbyspace.com/AAdmin/archive/RLV/2003/RLVNews2003-12.html#Dec.16.03
>> http://www.xprize.com/papers/XPupdate_1203.pdf
>> IMO its very very likely that the Prize will be claimed before the 2004 is
>> over
>>
>> -kert
>
>right now it looks like it could be claimed before January is up.
I suspect that that depends right now, more than anything else, on the
FAA.
Tom Merkle
I wonder what the Vegas spread is at for Armadillo right now, (I guess
it would be time rather than points...but it's gotta be a long shot
from this point.) I'm suprised the first successful private effort to
break the sound barrier didn't make the news at all. Can't you email
somebody important at Fox, Rand?
Tom Merkle
Rand Simberg
>I wonder what the Vegas spread is at for Armadillo right now, (I guess
>it would be time rather than points...but it's gotta be a long shot
>from this point.)
I know there's a spread in Vegas for everything, but I'd be surprised
if there's one for this.
> I'm suprised the first successful private effort to
>break the sound barrier didn't make the news at all. Can't you email
>somebody important at Fox, Rand?
Well, Fox published my column in which I noted it, so they're at least
theoretically aware...
Andrew Gray
>
>> I'm suprised the first successful private effort to
>>break the sound barrier didn't make the news at all. Can't you email
>>somebody important at Fox, Rand?
>
> Well, Fox published my column in which I noted it, so they're at least
> theoretically aware...
FWIW, it made the BBC news front page, albeit with a somewhat clumsy
headline.
--
-Andrew Gray
shim...@bigfoot.com
Derek Lyons
> I'm suprised the first successful private effort to
>break the sound barrier didn't make the news at all.
Primarily, because it isn't really important. SS1 isn't a prototype
spaceship, nor is it a prototype commercial aircraft.
D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:
Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html
Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html
Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to o...@io.com, as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.
Michael Walsh
Rand Simberg wrote:
I doubt that they are quite ready to go for it yet.
Mike Walsh
Joe Strout
derekl19...@yahoo.com (Derek Lyons) wrote:
> merk...@msn.com (Tom Merkle) wrote:
> > I'm suprised the first successful private effort to
> >break the sound barrier didn't make the news at all.
>
> Primarily, because it isn't really important. SS1 isn't a prototype
> spaceship, nor is it a prototype commercial aircraft.
No, it's just a prototype privately-funded craft that will shortly be
going into space on a routine basis. The first such there has ever been
(all others have been funded by big government contracts). Also the
first supersonic aircraft funded in that way. Sure seems important to
me.
(It's also, incidentally, the first manned vehicle to be powered by a
hybrid rocket motor, which is important in a different way.)
,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| j...@strout.net http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'
John Carmack
The proclamations may have heated up, but I don't think the
competition has changed much.
I rate Starchaser a lot higher now than I did six months ago, because
they have changed their design to a single stage instead of their
previous two-stages-plus-strap-ons, which they certainly wouldn't have
been able to work out in the available time (let alone refly twice in
two weeks).
HARC is also a new legitimate contender.
John Carmack
www.armadilloaerospace.com
Rand Simberg
derekl19...@yahoo.com (Derek Lyons) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>merk...@msn.com (Tom Merkle) wrote:
>> I'm suprised the first successful private effort to
>>break the sound barrier didn't make the news at all.
>
>Primarily, because it isn't really important. SS1 isn't a prototype
>spaceship,
Of course it is.
Josh Gigantino
> merk...@msn.com (Tom Merkle) wrote:
> > I'm suprised the first successful private effort to
> >break the sound barrier didn't make the news at all.
>
> Primarily, because it isn't really important. SS1 isn't a prototype
> spaceship, nor is it a prototype commercial aircraft.
This makes absolutely no sense. What, please, is SpaceShipOne if not a
space ship? The vehicle that flew yesterday is not a test craft, it's
the real deal.
It is designed to fly to the lower edge of space. It has a sealed
cabin, room for people, a simple cold-gas RCS and a very cool hybrid
rocket engine. It's just about the coolest thing in the sky, and you
are the only person anywhere that would somehow deny it's a
"spaceahip".
Alternatively, what would you consider a spaceship?
josh
Derek Lyons
>In article <3fedf206...@supernews.seanet.com>,
> derekl19...@yahoo.com (Derek Lyons) wrote:
>
>> merk...@msn.com (Tom Merkle) wrote:
>> > I'm suprised the first successful private effort to
>> >break the sound barrier didn't make the news at all.
>>
>> Primarily, because it isn't really important. SS1 isn't a prototype
>> spaceship, nor is it a prototype commercial aircraft.
>
>No, it's just a prototype privately-funded craft that will shortly be
>going into space on a routine basis.
Um, no. It's a *suborbital* craft. Not a spaceship.
Derek Lyons
>derekl19...@yahoo.com (Derek Lyons) wrote in message news:<3fedf206...@supernews.seanet.com>...
>> merk...@msn.com (Tom Merkle) wrote:
>> > I'm suprised the first successful private effort to
>> >break the sound barrier didn't make the news at all.
>>
>> Primarily, because it isn't really important. SS1 isn't a prototype
>> spaceship, nor is it a prototype commercial aircraft.
>
>This makes absolutely no sense. What, please, is SpaceShipOne if not a
>space ship? The vehicle that flew yesterday is not a test craft, it's
>the real deal.
Nope. It's a sub orbital craft. If we were discussing ocean-going
ships, the SS1 would be positioned right among the bass boats sold at
Wal-Mart. Useful, popular even, but not a real ocean ship by any
stretch of imagination.
>It is designed to fly to the lower edge of space. It has a sealed
>cabin, room for people, a simple cold-gas RCS and a very cool hybrid
>rocket engine.
>
>Alternatively, what would you consider a spaceship?
You yourself pointed out the crucial difference. It does not fly into
space, it flies to the edges, *and doesn't even stay there*.
>It's just about the coolest thing in the sky, and you
>are the only person anywhere that would somehow deny it's a
>"spaceahip".
Because I don't let propaganda and enthusiasm override basic common
sense. I don't confuse the sizzle with the steak. Space fans are so
starved for good news, that they accept uncritically *anything* that
offers even the tiniest guttering beacon. Others won't contest the
canonization because to do so requires that they do something
unquestionable to their basic beliefs, examine critically and without
bias.
The same thing happened back when Gary Hudson got the ATV flying. If
you believed the posting on this group, he was the Savior, the Second
Coming was here, and we'd all celebrate next Christmas in orbit.
Rand Simberg
derekl19...@yahoo.com (Derek Lyons) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>>> Primarily, because it isn't really important. SS1 isn't a prototype
>>> spaceship, nor is it a prototype commercial aircraft.
>>
>>No, it's just a prototype privately-funded craft that will shortly be
>>going into space on a routine basis.
>
>Um, no. It's a *suborbital* craft. Not a spaceship.
Sorry, Derek, but no matter how much you want to redefine space,
suborbital vehicles that leave the atmosphere go there. You're
putting yourself out into loonyland on this one.
Joe Strout
derekl19...@yahoo.com (Derek Lyons) wrote:
> >> Primarily, because it isn't really important. SS1 isn't a prototype
> >> spaceship, nor is it a prototype commercial aircraft.
> >
> >No, it's just a prototype privately-funded craft that will shortly be
> >going into space on a routine basis.
>
> Um, no. It's a *suborbital* craft. Not a spaceship.
Well, I don't see how to hold a conversation with someone who redefines
perfectly clear terms to mean something else. A spaceship is a ship
that goes into space, as SS1 will be doing in a few months (could do
now, if they were in a hurry). If you're going to use it to mean
something else just to support some weird axe you feel a need to grind,
then trying to have a discussion with you is futile.
Derek Lyons
>In article <3fedaa48...@supernews.seanet.com>,
> derekl19...@yahoo.com (Derek Lyons) wrote:
>
>> >> Primarily, because it isn't really important. SS1 isn't a prototype
>> >> spaceship, nor is it a prototype commercial aircraft.
>> >
>> >No, it's just a prototype privately-funded craft that will shortly be
>> >going into space on a routine basis.
>>
>> Um, no. It's a *suborbital* craft. Not a spaceship.
>
>Well, I don't see how to hold a conversation with someone who redefines
>perfectly clear terms to mean something else.
I'm using the terms in a meaningful way rather than marketdroid or
fanboy speak.
>A spaceship is a ship that goes into space, as SS1 will be doing in a
>few months (could do now, if they were in a hurry).
So does a sounding rocket, is that too a spaceship?
>If you're going to use it to mean something else just to support some
>weird axe you feel a need to grind, then trying to have a discussion
>with you is futile.
I'm trying to have a meaningful conversation. If you feel thats
futile...
Rand Simberg
derekl19...@yahoo.com (Derek Lyons) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>I'm using the terms in a meaningful way rather than marketdroid or
>fanboy speak.
No, you're using the terms to denigrate the notion that there may be
an alternative pathway to affordable access to space, and in a way
that few other knowledgable people would recognize.
>>A spaceship is a ship that goes into space, as SS1 will be doing in a
>>few months (could do now, if they were in a hurry).
>
>So does a sounding rocket, is that too a spaceship?
It depends on the definition of spaceship. I believe that spaceships
are reusable, so if it's a reusable sounding rocket (e.g., TGV's
concept) then of course it is. But in either case, it certainly goes
into space. Your restriction of "space" to orbit is as absurd as the
other poster who said that the Shuttle didn't go into space.
Joann Evans
>
> merk...@msn.com (Tom Merkle) wrote:
> > I'm suprised the first successful private effort to
> >break the sound barrier didn't make the news at all.
>
> Primarily, because it isn't really important. SS1 isn't a prototype
> spaceship, nor is it a prototype commercial aircraft.
The first supersonic land vehicle didn't pretend to be anologous to
either, but got somewhat more attention.
Indeed, I've sometimes wished tha the same sort of talent that
pursued the Land Speed Record could've been turned 90 degrees...
--
You know what to remove, to reply....
Joann Evans
We know full well that SS1 is not an *orbital* vehicle, if that's
what you mean.
Similarly, DC-X was sometimes criticzed for being only 'single stage
to 30,000 feet,' when no one said it was anything other than a
demonstrator of launch, landing (like orbiter Enterprise) and ground
handling technologies that an orbital VTVL RLV could use. It was
nevertheless, good news, yes.
> The same thing happened back when Gary Hudson got the ATV flying. If
> you believed the posting on this group, he was the Savior, the Second
> Coming was here, and we'd all celebrate next Christmas in orbit.
>
> D.
On the other hand, your view would invalidate the suborbital
Mercury-Redstone flights, even though those were also intended to lead
to orbital vehicles, albeit by a much shorter development path.
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
"Derek Lyons" <derekl19...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3fede32d...@supernews.seanet.com...
>
> I'm using the terms in a meaningful way rather than marketdroid or
> fanboy speak.
>
So Derek, can you answer the question another poster posed:
Did the Mercury-Redstone flights go into space or not? If not who do you
consider the US's first astronaut?
.spade.
.spade.
"Andrew Gray" <andre...@dunelm.org.uk> wrote in message
news:slrnbu3f97.ql...@compsoc.dur.ac.uk...
Kaido Kert
It very much looks like ISS isnt space station either, because it
cannot stay on orbit indefinitely on its own. Same for STS.
Atmospheric drag will bring it down sooner or later, thus anything on
LEO cant be a spacecraft by Dereks definition, unless it has an
unlimited supply of propellant.
So, X-prize trajectory isnt a spacecraft, upgraded X-prize vehicle
that has double, triple delta-V of current crop isnt a spacecraft.
Upgraded X-Prize vehicle that can travel halfway around the world on
suborbital trajectory isnt a spacecraft. A craft that lacks 5% of
performance to reach equatorial low orbit isnt a spacecraft.
In fact craft travelling on _any_ trajectory but orbital isnt a
spacecraft.
Yea, nice definition. Lets just ignore actual official definitions for
the word "suborbital spacecraft" that FAA/AST has put in place.
The guy would have some merit, saying that X-Prize doenst have
immediate effect to access to ORBIT, not SPACE. But trying to redefine
the word space is just silly.
-kert
Derek Lyons
Frankly does it matter? History has spoken it's verdict, the same is
not true of the topic at hand.
Derek Lyons
>On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 00:04:50 GMT, in a place far, far away,
>derekl19...@yahoo.com (Derek Lyons) made the phosphor on my
>monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>
>>I'm using the terms in a meaningful way rather than marketdroid or
>>fanboy speak.
>
>No, you're using the terms to denigrate the notion that there may be
>an alternative pathway to affordable access to space,
ROTFLMAO. So it's acceptable to define what should be a useful term
into something broad enough that it lacks utility? If it's a
buzzword, let's be honest and say so. If 'access to space' has a
useful definition for other than record breaking, let's put it on the
table.
>and in a way that few other knowledgable people would recognize.
So far what I've seen of knowledgeable people reminds me of
schoolgirls at a Beatles concert.. "Paul looked at me! He looked at
me!".
>>>A spaceship is a ship that goes into space, as SS1 will be doing in a
>>>few months (could do now, if they were in a hurry).
>>
>>So does a sounding rocket, is that too a spaceship?
>
>It depends on the definition of spaceship. I believe that spaceships
>are reusable, so if it's a reusable sounding rocket (e.g., TGV's
>concept) then of course it is.
Ah. So you are free to discuss on what *you* believe, but you are
unwilling to extend me the same courtesy.
>But in either case, it certainly goes into space. Your restriction of
>"space" to orbit is as absurd as the other poster who said that the
>Shuttle didn't go into space.
So, in other words if we *never* go beyond the X-Prize you'll be happy
because we have affordable, albeit brief, 'acess to space'?
Derek Lyons
> We know full well that SS1 is not an *orbital* vehicle, if that's
>what you mean.
Certainly, I have never debated that. But to lump suborbital vehicles
into the same 'cheap access to space' category as an orbital vehicle
produces a category too broad (IMO) for useful discussion. No other
category of transport does so.
> On the other hand, your view would invalidate the suborbital
>Mercury-Redstone flights, even though those were also intended to lead
>to orbital vehicles, albeit by a much shorter development path.
Sadly, you compare apples to oranges. Mercury was an orbital craft
that was first tested suborbital. SS1 is an suborbital craft that
will firmly stay there.
Rand Simberg
derekl19...@yahoo.com (Derek Lyons) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>So, in other words if we *never* go beyond the X-Prize you'll be happy
>because we have affordable, albeit brief, 'acess to space'?
No, but I won't deny that we have cheaper access to space.
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
> "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" <moo...@greenms.com> wrote:
> >"Derek Lyons" <derekl19...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:3fede32d...@supernews.seanet.com...
> >>
> >> I'm using the terms in a meaningful way rather than marketdroid or
> >> fanboy speak.
> >
> >So Derek, can you answer the question another poster posed:
> >
> >Did the Mercury-Redstone flights go into space or not? If not who do you
> >consider the US's first astronaut?
>
> Frankly does it matter? History has spoken it's verdict, the same is
> not true of the topic at hand.
Hmm, only for you. Seems everyone else in this discussion seems to
understand the concept of precedent.
Perhaps you can try to explain why you don't think SS1 is a ship or that it
doesn't reach space? What part is invalid here?
Derek Lyons
>Perhaps you can try to explain why you don't think SS1 is a ship or that it
>doesn't reach space? What part is invalid here?
I've never debated that it reaches space. My contention is that it's
brief stay there does not constitute access in a useful form. (Modulo
being a manned sounding rocket.)
Chris Jones
> "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" <moo...@greenms.com> wrote:
>
>>Perhaps you can try to explain why you don't think SS1 is a ship or that it
>>doesn't reach space? What part is invalid here?
>
> I've never debated that it reaches space. My contention is that it's
> brief stay there does not constitute access in a useful form. (Modulo
> being a manned sounding rocket.)
I'm with Derek on this one (although I'm watching the X-Prize
competition with interest). The X-Prize goals, like the X-15, are to
space travel like wading in the ocean is to sea travel.
Joe Strout
wrote:
> > I've never debated that it reaches space. My contention is that it's
> > brief stay there does not constitute access in a useful form. (Modulo
> > being a manned sounding rocket.)
>
> I'm with Derek on this one (although I'm watching the X-Prize
> competition with interest). The X-Prize goals, like the X-15, are to
> space travel like wading in the ocean is to sea travel.
...which is to say, a necessary and useful first step?
MSu1049321
rocket program that superceded it?;-)
Chris Jones
> In article <86llox4...@panix.com>, Chris Jones <c...@panix.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I'm with Derek on this one (although I'm watching the X-Prize
>> competition with interest). The X-Prize goals, like the X-15, are to
>> space travel like wading in the ocean is to sea travel.
>
> ...which is to say, a necessary and useful first step?
I don't think it's necessary, but it still might be a good idea (note
might). The Space Review (http://www.thespacereview.com/) has a good
article on this titled "Suborbital spaceflight: a road to orbit or a
dead end?" which marshalls many of the arguments, and does a good job of
presenting the pro side.
msu10...@aol.com (MSu1049321) writes:
> Or a promising, incremental, program that was in advance of the ballistic
> rocket program that superceded it?;-)
You must mean the X-15, not the X-Prize. The X-15 was a great program,
but the plane isn't useful as a spaceship; it was a hypersonic research
vehicle. The kind of spaceships I'm most interested in are the ones
that can travel from one place to another in space, so atmospheric
flight is a small to non-existant part of the mission. Obviously we
need to get from the ground to space somehow, and cheaply if it's going
to be common. Probably that will be with cheaper rockets for the near
future, but there are other possibilities long term. All of what's
happening now is going to have to be dwarfed if we really get to be
spacefaring.
Andrew Gray
Until you build big ships and docks, wading in the ocean is a pretty
common first stage to sea travel :-)
--
-Andrew Gray
shim...@bigfoot.com
Josh Gigantino
> giga...@shore.net (Josh Gigantino) wrote:
> >This makes absolutely no sense. What, please, is SpaceShipOne if not a
> >space ship? The vehicle that flew yesterday is not a test craft, it's
> >the real deal.
>
> Nope. It's a sub orbital craft. If we were discussing ocean-going
> ships, the SS1 would be positioned right among the bass boats sold at
> Wal-Mart. Useful, popular even, but not a real ocean ship by any
> stretch of imagination.
In the oceanic analogy, I would place SS1 as a Roman galley or small
sailboat. Great journeys are possible with those craft, but they stay
close to shore. CATS can also mean cheap, suborbital passenger and
cargo flights, not just orbital. Being able to, say, travel from New
York to Tokyo on a $500 flight would change many endeavours.
> >It is designed to fly to the lower edge of space. It has a sealed
> >cabin, room for people, a simple cold-gas RCS and a very cool hybrid
> >rocket engine.
> >
> >Alternatively, what would you consider a spaceship?
>
> You yourself pointed out the crucial difference. It does not fly into
> space, it flies to the edges, *and doesn't even stay there*.
No one, least of all me, is denying that SS1 is only suborbital.
Suborbital ballistic flight to 100 km is still flying into space, even
if it is just the edge of space. It's an important first step. Like
someone else asks in the thread, do you deny that Alan Shepherd was
America's first astronaut? Also, Mr. Rutan has discussed using SS1 or
it's descendent to launch small satelites via an upper stage.
> >It's just about the coolest thing in the sky, and you
> >are the only person anywhere that would somehow deny it's a
> >"spaceahip".
>
> Because I don't let propaganda and enthusiasm override basic common
> sense. I don't confuse the sizzle with the steak. Space fans are so
> starved for good news, that they accept uncritically *anything* that
> offers even the tiniest guttering beacon. Others won't contest the
> canonization because to do so requires that they do something
> unquestionable to their basic beliefs, examine critically and without
> bias.
Starved for good news, yes. That doesn't mean that Mr. Rutan and the
SS1 are not the real deal. He has a very proven track record, and his
craft just became the first private craft to break the sound barrier.
The Scaled team is working towards a first flight in 2004, into space.
Maybe this is indeed some technical dead-end, but you didn't pay for
it, unless you use Microsoft products. 8)
You are denying that this spacecraft is a spacecraft, albeit limited,
and you rail against "canonization"? I'm not sure why you're so down
on SS1, would you explain your thoughts?
> The same thing happened back when Gary Hudson got the ATV flying. If
> you believed the posting on this group, he was the Savior, the Second
> Coming was here, and we'd all celebrate next Christmas in orbit.
Hope springs eternal among some people. Things seem a lot different
WRT Scaled/SS1 versus Rotary/Roton. There seems to be a whole string
of successes under Scaled's belt, and they apparently have all the
funding they need. Rotary worked on a shoe-string for most of it's
existence, from what I can tell. I think that part of the Roton
enthusiasm was because of the innovations that Rotary promised,
especially in engine and reentry systems.
-josh
Richard Schumacher
> >Perhaps you can try to explain why you don't think SS1 is a ship or that it
> >doesn't reach space? What part is invalid here?
>
> I've never debated that it reaches space. My contention is that it's
> brief stay there does not constitute access in a useful form. (Modulo
> being a manned sounding rocket.)
Thanks for sharing. You must also despise the Wright Flier, as its brief stays
in the air did not constitute "access in a useful form". Indeed, it was even
more useless than SS1 as the Wrights stood to win no large cash prize. Those
big dopes. If instead they'd earned respectable degrees somewhere and offered
their services to Langley they might have won lucrative R&D contracts for
decades...
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
> "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" <moo...@greenms.com> wrote:
>
> >Perhaps you can try to explain why you don't think SS1 is a ship or that
it
> >doesn't reach space? What part is invalid here?
>
> I've never debated that it reaches space. My contention is that it's
> brief stay there does not constitute access in a useful form. (Modulo
> being a manned sounding rocket.)
No, but you claimed it wasn't a spaceship. So I'm trying to determine which
part you think it fails, reaching space, or being a ship.
Jochem Huhmann
> No, but you claimed it wasn't a spaceship. So I'm trying to determine
> which part you think it fails, reaching space, or being a ship.
Well, it's more of a boat than a ship.
Jochem
--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take
away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Sander Vesik
> derekl19...@yahoo.com (Derek Lyons) wrote in message news:<3feeaa76...@supernews.seanet.com>...
>> giga...@shore.net (Josh Gigantino) wrote:
>
>> >This makes absolutely no sense. What, please, is SpaceShipOne if not a
>> >space ship? The vehicle that flew yesterday is not a test craft, it's
>> >the real deal.
>>
>> Nope. It's a sub orbital craft. If we were discussing ocean-going
>> ships, the SS1 would be positioned right among the bass boats sold at
>> Wal-Mart. Useful, popular even, but not a real ocean ship by any
>> stretch of imagination.
>
> In the oceanic analogy, I would place SS1 as a Roman galley or small
> sailboat. Great journeys are possible with those craft, but they stay
> close to shore. CATS can also mean cheap, suborbital passenger and
> cargo flights, not just orbital. Being able to, say, travel from New
> York to Tokyo on a $500 flight would change many endeavours.
>
Well, no. Count on how many cargo / passengers fitted on those. These were
quite serious ships.
The suborbitals are wooden dugouts, best suited for peaceful rivers.
But thats ok. Because anything humanity has so far built classifies as a
canoe.
> -josh
--
Sander
+++ Out of cheese error +++
Kaido Kert
"Sander Vesik" <san...@haldjas.folklore.ee> wrote in message
news:10726809...@haldjas.folklore.ee...
> Sander
I'd say anything that humanity has so far built classifies as dirigibles or
hot-air balloons in 1903. Magnificient to behold, true engineering marvels
of their time. Unfortunately expensive hobby of select few, impractical for
any large-scale application and doomed to irrelevancy in short while.
A bit harder to find a properly fitting analogy for seafaring vessels.
Rafts, perhaps, not canoes. Canoe has been a very practical and affordable
form of water transportation in many parts of the world for quite a long
time.
Raft doesnt fit the analogy with missile-derived ELVs because they are
actually practical in some cases, affordable and have found relatively
large-scale applications.
-kert
Sander Vesik
>
> I'd say anything that humanity has so far built classifies as dirigibles or
> hot-air balloons in 1903. Magnificient to behold, true engineering marvels
> of their time. Unfortunately expensive hobby of select few, impractical for
> any large-scale application and doomed to irrelevancy in short while.
> A bit harder to find a properly fitting analogy for seafaring vessels.
> Rafts, perhaps, not canoes. Canoe has been a very practical and affordable
> form of water transportation in many parts of the world for quite a long
> time.
See, there is a problem with scalability when it comes to canoes. Unless it
is furs you are transporting or similar, it is not really suitable for cargo,
and worse for passangers. The ones you can go to open sea with are related to
your ordinary canoe in the same way as a 8 stage monster rocket that has
multiple strap-on boosters for 3 stages relates to a usual ELV.
And you'll never make one to transport a ton of bricks in. There are inherent
limitations.
Both row and sailboats are much better for transporting people.
> Raft doesnt fit the analogy with missile-derived ELVs because they are
> actually practical in some cases, affordable and have found relatively
> large-scale applications.
yes, raft would be something like a solar sail. Seemingly very easy to make.
very hard in reality to make one that you can use commercialy.
>
> -kert
Kaido Kert
> Kaido Kert <kaido...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I'd say anything that humanity has so far built classifies as dirigibles
or
> > hot-air balloons in 1903. Magnificient to behold, true engineering
marvels
> > of their time. Unfortunately expensive hobby of select few, impractical
for
> > any large-scale application and doomed to irrelevancy in short while.
> > A bit harder to find a properly fitting analogy for seafaring vessels.
> > Rafts, perhaps, not canoes. Canoe has been a very practical and
affordable
> > form of water transportation in many parts of the world for quite a long
> > time.
>
> See, there is a problem with scalability when it comes to canoes. Unless
it
> is furs you are transporting or similar, it is not really suitable for
cargo,
> and worse for passangers. The ones you can go to open sea with are related
to
> your ordinary canoe in the same way as a 8 stage monster rocket that has
> multiple strap-on boosters for 3 stages relates to a usual ELV.
>
> And you'll never make one to transport a ton of bricks in. There are
inherent
> limitations.
distances quite economically with canoes.
One doesnt necessarily have to scale the vehicles to accomplish a task, one
scan scale operations.
But of course, if the economics of it make sense, build bigger vehicles.
-kert
Josh Gigantino
> Josh Gigantino <giga...@shore.net> wrote:
> > In the oceanic analogy, I would place SS1 as a Roman galley or small
> > sailboat. Great journeys are possible with those craft, but they stay
> > close to shore. CATS can also mean cheap, suborbital passenger and
> > cargo flights, not just orbital. Being able to, say, travel from New
> > York to Tokyo on a $500 flight would change many endeavours.
>
> Well, no. Count on how many cargo / passengers fitted on those. These were
> quite serious ships.
Hmmm. Following this, is the Shuttle an Egyptian Pharoah's royal
barge?
> The suborbitals are wooden dugouts, best suited for peaceful rivers.
>
> But thats ok. Because anything humanity has so far built classifies as a
> canoe.
I have to concede the oceanic analogy, dugout it is. Even if SS1 is a
log rolling down the river with a sputtering space cadet trying to
hold on, it's still a cool little spacecraft. I think that Derek is
playing semantics just to be negative.
Josh