Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI
SpaceKB.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Space Forum / Space Flight / November 2003



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Av Leak  says SpaceShipOne has been modified to improve its stability

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Tony Rusi - 18 Nov 2003 23:51 GMT
Has anyone read this article?

In an exclusive story, Av Leak claims that Rutan has modified his
spacecraft to improve its stability.

Burt may still make Dec 17th 2003 truely historic with a first private
sub-orbital flight.

http://www.spacefuture.com/journal/journal.cgi?art=2003.09.11.spaceshipone_secon
d_flight


This article raised interesting questions. Why didn't Burt do a
spaceship like this 30 years ago? The only technology that wasn't
there for sure then was the mini-electronics for a super lightweight
guidance control and communication system.

Carbon-fiber snow skis were around in the mid seventies. I don't know
if nitrous oxide HTPB rocket motors were around back then. I don't
know of cruise missile jet engines were available back then.

Can anyone else list some technology or other barriers that made
private sub-orbital flight in the mid seventies impossible or highly
improbable?
MSu1049321 - 19 Nov 2003 00:31 GMT
Flammable ployester cabin carpeting and EMF interfereance fromt he 8-track
player?;-)
Andrew Case - 19 Nov 2003 18:13 GMT
>This article raised interesting questions. Why didn't Burt do a
>spaceship like this 30 years ago? The only technology that wasn't
>there for sure then was the mini-electronics for a super lightweight
>guidance control and communication system.

The problem is mindset and worldview. In the mid 1970s space was
considered a job for governments and megacorporations. People only started
taking the idea of small independent groups building manned spacecraft as
a serious possibility in the 1990s or thereabouts (though there were
people even in the 1970s who were thinking about this, and even trying to
build hardware, IIRC). Once a few people started doing the math and
talking it up a critical mass began to form, leading directly to Rutan's
current effort. The whole point of the X-Prize is not to get somebody to
do a one-off: it's to change thinking. It there had been an X-Prize in
1975 it probably would have been won by 1985, possibly by Rutan himself.

>Can anyone else list some technology or other barriers that made
>private sub-orbital flight in the mid seventies impossible or highly
>improbable?

Considering that by the mid seventies the basic technology for suborbital
flight was 30 years old, no. A V-2 knockoff was no more impossible then
than now, and fundraising might even have been slightly easier without the
additional 30 years of "space is hard" propaganda from NASA.

As always, IMO,
....Andrew
Signature

--
Andrew Case                |
acase@plasma.umd.edu            |

Greg - 19 Nov 2003 18:16 GMT
marsbeyond@yahoo.com (Tony Rusi) wrote in message
> Carbon-fiber snow skis were around in the mid seventies. I don't know
> if nitrous oxide HTPB rocket motors were around back then. I don't
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> private sub-orbital flight in the mid seventies impossible or highly
> improbable?

Well back then jet engines were heaver, composites were heaver and
still had matrix  and lamination issues(to an extent they still do).
Don't underestimate the difference electronics makes either, not just
on the flight vehicle but also for affordable CFD simulations and the
like. Radio communication links are orders of magnitude cheaper. There
is a *lot* more infrastructure that is cheaper, logistics etc is
cheaper. Everything is a lighter and needs less power.... I could go
on.

It should be noted that none of these changes have been revolutions,
but just incremental improvements over time. This is one of the
biggest criticisms of the rocket industry, there really hasn't been
much incremental improvements. We still use 1960 technologies really
(ie no altitude compensation nozzles).

But one thing is for sure. Commercial rocket/space craft stuff is only
getting easier and cheaper (that not the same as easy and cheap). It
will never be "car" cheap but I believe it will get "airline" cheap.

Greg
John Carmack - 19 Nov 2003 23:41 GMT
> Has anyone read this article?
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Burt may still make Dec 17th 2003 truely historic with a first private
> sub-orbital flight.

I wouldn't be surprised if he lights the rocket engine by then, but
flying to 100km in the next four weeks?  Not a chance.  Burt is taking
a sensible, incremental flight test plan, and there are still a lot of
questions to answer along the way.

John Carmack
Jan C. Vorbrüggen - 20 Nov 2003 09:18 GMT
> Can anyone else list some technology or other barriers that made
> private sub-orbital flight in the mid seventies impossible or highly
> improbable?

Compare price, size and weight of a 1975 inertial platform with today's
GPS receiver.

    Jan
Explorer8939 - 27 Nov 2003 01:38 GMT
Consider the number of practicing attorneys today, compared with the
1970's. Consider the mass of the Environmental Impact reports required
to fly on a suborbital mission today, compared with the 1970's.

> > Can anyone else list some technology or other barriers that made
> > private sub-orbital flight in the mid seventies impossible or highly
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>     Jan
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.