|
Quoted:
Quoted:
That little toy packs less than 1/10 of the energy needed to achieve orbit. I'm less than impressed, NASA did it in the 60s, better (with winged suborbital "spacecraft").
We are on the verge of the second golden age of spaceflight.
They're working towards a completely different goal. Nasa's first goal was to put a man in space as quickly as was safe, with an enormous budget. Burt Rutan's goal is to create a craft that puts several paying customers in to space efficiently. I agree, though, that orbit would require power and thermal protection not possible in a craft that looks anything like SS2. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Nice. Fuck NASA. That little toy packs less than 1/10 of the energy needed to achieve orbit. I'm less than impressed, NASA did it in the 60s, better (with winged suborbital "spacecraft"). For those who are dazzled by silly tourist models and Richard Branson's bluff and bluster I'm sure it's quite impressive. For those who understand the first thing about orbital science this achievement is one hell of a lot more spectacular for a feat from a private company: http://www.spacex.com/dragon.php I like scaled but SS1/SS2 are simply gimmicky. I'd gladly pay $10K or even $100K for a real honest to God orbital spaceflight, but you can keep the glorified roller coaster ride. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
That little toy packs less than 1/10 of the energy needed to achieve orbit. I'm less than impressed, NASA did it in the 60s, better (with winged suborbital "spacecraft").
We are on the verge of the second golden age of spaceflight.
They'll probably put more men in space than NASA will over the next 5 years. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
That little toy packs less than 1/10 of the energy needed to achieve orbit. I'm less than impressed, NASA did it in the 60s, better (with winged suborbital "spacecraft").
We are on the verge of the second golden age of spaceflight.
And they're likely doing it on less than 1/10th of NASA's janitorial budget. Wilbur and Orville would be proud |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: That little toy packs less than 1/10 of the energy needed to achieve orbit. I'm less than impressed, NASA did it in the 60s, better (with winged suborbital "spacecraft"). We are on the verge of the second golden age of spaceflight. They'll probably put more men in space than NASA will over the next 5 years. Flying a ballistic trajectory into the upper atmosphere is a far cry from "putting men in space". You want to see a "black sky"? Go here and do it: http://www.bestrussiantour.com/jet_flights/edge_space_mig31 |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That little toy packs less than 1/10 of the energy needed to achieve orbit. I'm less than impressed, NASA did it in the 60s, better (with winged suborbital "spacecraft").
We are on the verge of the second golden age of spaceflight.
They'll probably put more men in space than NASA will over the next 5 years. Flying a ballistic trajectory into the upper atmosphere is a far cry from "putting men in space". You want to see a "black sky"? Go here and do it: http://www.bestrussiantour.com/jet_flights/edge_space_mig31 Alan Sheperd's first flight was a pathetic ballistic trajectory too. I guess he really wasn't the first American in space, according to you. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: That little toy packs less than 1/10 of the energy needed to achieve orbit. I'm less than impressed, NASA did it in the 60s, better (with winged suborbital "spacecraft"). We are on the verge of the second golden age of spaceflight. They'll probably put more men in space than NASA will over the next 5 years. Flying a ballistic trajectory into the upper atmosphere is a far cry from "putting men in space". You want to see a "black sky"? Go here and do it: http://www.bestrussiantour.com/jet_flights/edge_space_mig31 Alan Sheperd's first flight was a pathetic ballistic trajectory too. I guess he really wasn't the first American in space, according to you. Compared to the orbital flight of the first man in space, yes it was pretty sad. I'd love to see Rutan's first design that can make a single orbit. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That little toy packs less than 1/10 of the energy needed to achieve orbit. I'm less than impressed, NASA did it in the 60s, better (with winged suborbital "spacecraft").
We are on the verge of the second golden age of spaceflight.
They'll probably put more men in space than NASA will over the next 5 years. Flying a ballistic trajectory into the upper atmosphere is a far cry from "putting men in space". You want to see a "black sky"? Go here and do it: http://www.bestrussiantour.com/jet_flights/edge_space_mig31 Alan Sheperd's first flight was a pathetic ballistic trajectory too. I guess he really wasn't the first American in space, according to you. Compared to the orbital flight of the first man in space, yes it was pretty sad. I'd love to see Rutan's first design that can make a single orbit. Crawl-walk-run. |
|
Quoted:
No door gunner. There will be soon - I have reservation number 249 for a flight as soon as they start commercial service. We have payed flight contracts for two seats with Virgin Galactic and six flights with XCOR Aerospace. I'll get multiple flights to space in the next couple years. You can too... |
| NASA is too busy sniffing for global warming to do anything creative in space travel. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Nice. Fuck NASA. That little toy packs less than 1/10 of the energy needed to achieve orbit. I'm less than impressed, NASA did it in the 60s, better (with winged suborbital "spacecraft"). For those who are dazzled by silly tourist models and Richard Branson's bluff and bluster I'm sure it's quite impressive. For those who understand the first thing about orbital science this achievement is one hell of a lot more spectacular for a feat from a private company: http://www.spacex.com/dragon.php I like scaled but SS1/SS2 are simply gimmicky. I'd gladly pay $10K or even $100K for a real honest to God orbital spaceflight, but you can keep the glorified roller coaster ride. Looks like SpaceX is just rehashing old NASA ideas. 
|
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: That little toy packs less than 1/10 of the energy needed to achieve orbit. I'm less than impressed, NASA did it in the 60s, better (with winged suborbital "spacecraft"). We are on the verge of the second golden age of spaceflight. They'll probably put more men in space than NASA will over the next 5 years. Flying a ballistic trajectory into the upper atmosphere is a far cry from "putting men in space". You want to see a "black sky"? Go here and do it: http://www.bestrussiantour.com/jet_flights/edge_space_mig31 Alan Sheperd's first flight was a pathetic ballistic trajectory too. I guess he really wasn't the first American in space, according to you. Compared to the orbital flight of the first man in space, yes it was pretty sad. I'd love to see Rutan's first design that can make a single orbit. Crawl-walk-run. Seems to me that this is the crawl stage, and space-x and others are in the walk stage. Just seems like they are 1 step behind everyone else, and taking a long time getting this operational. |
|
Quoted:
Seems to me that this is the crawl stage, and space-x and others are in the walk stage. Just seems like they are 1 step behind everyone else, and taking a long time getting this operational. Different missions, because its not an either/or thing. Personally, I think that Space X is a flash in the pan, and a marketing strategy by a big Obama donor to get fedbux into his wallet. I just don't think that SpaceX is giving us anything LockMart or USA isn't, if the playing field was level. |
|
Quoted:
Space should be available to all not just the governments. Why all the NASA hate? Just came back from Kennedy Space Center. We're going back to the moon and more with our next rocket. Where are we going to get the money to do that? Obama & Co. think that LaKeisha & her 7 illegitimate children's well-being are more important than advancing our scientific knowledge and understanding of the Universe... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Space should be available to all not just the governments. Why all the NASA hate? Just came back from Kennedy Space Center. We're going back to the moon and more with our next rocket. Where are we going to get the money to do that? Obama & Co. think that LaKeisha & her 7 illegitimate children's well-being are more important than advancing our scientific knowledge and understanding of the Universe... From the same place the money has always come from and most likely one of LaKeishas kids are going to be the pilot or commander. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Space should be available to all not just the governments. Why all the NASA hate? Just came back from Kennedy Space Center. We're going back to the moon and more with our next rocket. Where are we going to get the money to do that? Obama & Co. think that LaKeisha & her 7 illegitimate children's well-being are more important than advancing our scientific knowledge and understanding of the Universe... this. |
Andy Griffith did it in the 70s out of a pile of scrap. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvage_1 
|
|
Quoted: That was a T-E-R-R-I-B-L-E show.Andy Griffith did it in the 70s out of a pile of scrap. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvage_1 http://cdn1.iofferphoto.com/img/1137657600/_i/10228270/1.jpg I watched every episode! |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That little toy packs less than 1/10 of the energy needed to achieve orbit. I'm less than impressed, NASA did it in the 60s, better (with winged suborbital "spacecraft").
We are on the verge of the second golden age of spaceflight.
They'll probably put more men in space than NASA will over the next 5 years. Flying a ballistic trajectory into the upper atmosphere is a far cry from "putting men in space". You want to see a "black sky"? Go here and do it: http://www.bestrussiantour.com/jet_flights/edge_space_mig31 Alan Sheperd's first flight was a pathetic ballistic trajectory too. I guess he really wasn't the first American in space, according to you. Compared to the orbital flight of the first man in space, yes it was pretty sad. I'd love to see Rutan's first design that can make a single orbit. Crawl-walk-run. yup |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: That little toy packs less than 1/10 of the energy needed to achieve orbit. I'm less than impressed, NASA did it in the 60s, better (with winged suborbital "spacecraft"). We are on the verge of the second golden age of spaceflight. They'll probably put more men in space than NASA will over the next 5 years. Flying a ballistic trajectory into the upper atmosphere is a far cry from "putting men in space". You want to see a "black sky"? Go here and do it: http://www.bestrussiantour.com/jet_flights/edge_space_mig31 Alan Sheperd's first flight was a pathetic ballistic trajectory too. I guess he really wasn't the first American in space, according to you. Compared to the orbital flight of the first man in space, yes it was pretty sad. I'd love to see Rutan's first design that can make a single orbit. Crawl-walk-run. More like crawl-crawl-crawl. While Rutan has been pissing around with his toy for the last decade SpaceX has been building progressively larger launch vehicles and has actually sent a crew capsule equipped for seven passengers into space and returned it successfully. That is more like crawl-walk-run. Your presumption that SpaceX is a "flash in the pan" is absolutely laughable. They have damn near gotten to the $1K/lb to orbit goal, better than any other launch provider on earth. With or without NASA's help they would have a long list of customers lining up. Virgin Galactics silly "space tourism" shtick is sure to be short lived. Talk about a flash in the pan... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That little toy packs less than 1/10 of the energy needed to achieve orbit. I'm less than impressed, NASA did it in the 60s, better (with winged suborbital "spacecraft").
We are on the verge of the second golden age of spaceflight.
They'll probably put more men in space than NASA will over the next 5 years. Flying a ballistic trajectory into the upper atmosphere is a far cry from "putting men in space". You want to see a "black sky"? Go here and do it: http://www.bestrussiantour.com/jet_flights/edge_space_mig31 Alan Sheperd's first flight was a pathetic ballistic trajectory too. I guess he really wasn't the first American in space, according to you. Compared to the orbital flight of the first man in space, yes it was pretty sad. I'd love to see Rutan's first design that can make a single orbit. Crawl-walk-run. More like crawl-crawl-crawl. While Rutan has been pissing around with his toy for the last decade SpaceX has been building progressively larger launch vehicles and has actually sent a crew capsule equipped for seven passengers into space and returned it successfully. That is more like crawl-walk-run. Your presumption that SpaceX is a "flash in the pan" is absolutely laughable. They have damn near gotten to the $1K/lb to orbit goal, better than any other launch provider on earth. With or without NASA's help they would have a long list of customers lining up. Virgin Galactics silly "space tourism" shtick is sure to be short lived. Talk about a flash in the pan... This. SS2 is interesting, neat from an aerodynamics/structures perspective, but you can't build a private industry off of what he's doing. BTW, anyone notice the shimmy in the tail surfaces when they were at full extension? I get that it's lightweight and high-tech, but that much flexibility while in flight––and at the upper edge of the envelope, where pressures are less––indicate to me they're not necessarily going for the "space milk truck" concept here; they're building something to get headlines, not something to do real work in space. |
|
Quoted:
Can anyone explain to me what the hell I just watched? What is that thing doing? Give "Scaled Composites," "Space Ship 1," or "Space Ship 2" a google. Feathering the wings like that is how the ship slows itself and keeps a predictable orientation when re-entering the atmosphere. |
|
The descent mode for SS1 and SS2 involves a "flutter" configuration, in which the tail surfaces are hinged upward, and the main body falls in a generally ballistic manner. Think of it like a rock, with a small drogue parachute attached for stability. I think it's neat! |
|
Quoted:
The descent mode for SS1 and SS2 involves a "flutter" configuration, in which the tail surfaces are hinged upward, and the main body falls in a generally ballistic manner. Think of it like a rock, with a small drogue parachute attached for stability. I think it's neat! In an interview, I heard Rutan say he got the idea from a badminton shuttlecock.... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
That little toy packs less than 1/10 of the energy needed to achieve orbit. I'm less than impressed, NASA did it in the 60s, better (with winged suborbital "spacecraft").
We are on the verge of the second golden age of spaceflight.
Yup, it's a one trick pony and a technical dead end whose flight regime will never include orbital space. I salute Rutan on the design for what it is; but what it isn't, is a bona fide space craft. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
The descent mode for SS1 and SS2 involves a "flutter" configuration, in which the tail surfaces are hinged upward, and the main body falls in a generally ballistic manner. Think of it like a rock, with a small drogue parachute attached for stability. I think it's neat! In an interview, I heard Rutan say he got the idea from a badminton shuttlecock.... This is what I mean. Rutan is playing around with ways to get into space....trying to build a touring bike, not a Greyhound bus. Essentially, he's doing the space equivalent of seeing if things like this: 
will work. |