Neat accomplishment, but the claims of NASA "shaking in their boots" are plain old hype and premature by decades. The technology and hardware for the private sector to do this has existed since WW2. This probably could have been done much more cheaply had Rutan purchased military surplus equipment, but I suppose there's no fun in that. And remember it took over $20 million to win $10 million. The trumpeting is due to this being a private sector accomplishment, purely and simply. No technological barriers have been broken, nothing new has happened. It will be decades, at least, before the private sector has any "heavy" lifting ability, all but the youngest among us will be long dead. And remember that they haven't even made orbit yet. This was one small step, (which some of us believe is already decades overdue), and really just a footnote, not the major milestone that the press is pushing. Let's not wave flags and get all weepy just because some of us love anything with a rocket motor, fins, and American flag on it. The world really isn't rose-colored. Your wet-blanket editorialist (realist). _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com
Anyone been near the Wolf Creek area recently? Is it snow free? We were thinking about heading up Friday night, since we can't go to The Wedge. Jo
Kim is thinking about going up to the Gravel Pit friday night...not sure about access to Wolf Creek. Had a road trip with my brother last Thursday doing the Mirror Lake highway scenic loop and had 2 inches of snow on the road at the summit. NWS forecast looks best for Friday night as Jim stated and specifically for the Hanna area : Today: Partly cloudy. Highs at 8000 feet in the lower 60s. Tonight: Mostly clear. Lows at 8000 feet around 30. Friday: Mostly sunny. Highs at 8000 feet in the upper 60s. Friday night: Partly cloudy. Lows at 8000 feet in the lower 30s. Saturday: Breezy. A 30 percent chance of showers and thunderstorms in the afternoon. Mostly cloudy. Highs at 8000 feet in the mid 60s. Southwest winds 15-25 mph. Saturday night: Cloudy with a chance of showers and thunderstorms. A chance of snow showers after midnight. Lows at 8000 feet in the lower 30s. Chance of precipitation 40 percent. *************** Be sure to let us know if you and Alan go to WC...cheers! On Thursday, October 7, 2004, at 01:02 PM, Josephine Grahn wrote:
Anyone been near the Wolf Creek area recently? Is it snow free? We were thinking about heading up Friday night, since we can't go to The Wedge.
Jo
_______________________________________________
Anyone going out tonight? If so, where? I'm hoping for one last hurrah at Wolf Creek myself. Dave On Thursday, October 7, 2004, at 02:20 PM, David L Bennett wrote:
Kim is thinking about going up to the Gravel Pit friday night...not sure about access to Wolf Creek. Had a road trip with my brother last Thursday doing the Mirror Lake highway scenic loop and had 2 inches of snow on the road at the summit. NWS forecast looks best for Friday night as Jim stated and specifically for the Hanna area :
Today: Partly cloudy. Highs at 8000 feet in the lower 60s.
Tonight: Mostly clear. Lows at 8000 feet around 30.
Friday: Mostly sunny. Highs at 8000 feet in the upper 60s.
Friday night: Partly cloudy. Lows at 8000 feet in the lower 30s.
Saturday: Breezy. A 30 percent chance of showers and thunderstorms in the afternoon. Mostly cloudy. Highs at 8000 feet in the mid 60s. Southwest winds 15-25 mph.
Saturday night: Cloudy with a chance of showers and thunderstorms. A chance of snow showers after midnight. Lows at 8000 feet in the lower 30s. Chance of precipitation 40 percent. *************** Be sure to let us know if you and Alan go to WC...cheers!
On Thursday, October 7, 2004, at 01:02 PM, Josephine Grahn wrote:
Anyone been near the Wolf Creek area recently? Is it snow free? We were thinking about heading up Friday night, since we can't go to The Wedge.
Jo
_____________
Dave, We are planning on heading up there fairly early, with the idea that, if the road is muddy or snowy, we will turn around and head to the gravel quarry. Jo At 11:46 AM 10/8/2004 -0600, you wrote:
Anyone going out tonight? If so, where? I'm hoping for one last hurrah at Wolf Creek myself. Dave
I'm holding out for next weekend; I want to stay up late and catch some early winter fare. Rich --- David L Bennett <dlbennett@mac.com> wrote:
Anyone going out tonight? If so, where? I'm hoping for one last hurrah at Wolf Creek myself. Dave
On Thursday, October 7, 2004, at 02:20 PM, David L Bennett wrote:
Kim is thinking about going up to the Gravel Pit friday night...not sure about access to Wolf Creek. Had a road trip with my brother last Thursday doing the Mirror Lake highway scenic loop and had 2 inches of snow on the road at the summit. NWS forecast looks best for Friday night as Jim stated and specifically for the Hanna area :
Today: Partly cloudy. Highs at 8000 feet in the lower 60s.
Tonight: Mostly clear. Lows at 8000 feet around
Friday: Mostly sunny. Highs at 8000 feet in the
upper 60s.
Friday night: Partly cloudy. Lows at 8000 feet in
the lower 30s.
Saturday: Breezy. A 30 percent chance of showers
and thunderstorms
in the afternoon. Mostly cloudy. Highs at 8000 feet in the mid 60s. Southwest winds 15-25 mph.
Saturday night: Cloudy with a chance of showers and thunderstorms. A chance of snow showers after midnight. Lows at 8000 feet in the lower 30s. Chance of precipitation 40 percent. *************** Be sure to let us know if you and Alan go to WC...cheers!
On Thursday, October 7, 2004, at 01:02 PM, Josephine Grahn wrote:
Anyone been near the Wolf Creek area recently? Is it snow free? We were thinking about heading up Friday night, since we can't go to The Wedge.
Jo
_____________
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com
Anyone besides me going to Bryce next weekend if the weather permits? Guy
Wolf Creek was gorgeous last night. The only drawback was that it was hunting opener, so there were a lot of campers, and probably 15 cars coming up the road between dark and 11:00 PM. No real problem, but we are spoiled :). Luckily, all but one of the hunters were considerate about lights, and by 11:00 PM, the traffic had pretty much stopped. There were two biggish puddles on the road up, but otherwise dry and clear. The temperature never dropped below 35, so it made for a very comfortable night. The seeing was great, no clouds other than a few thin ones far to the East. We had fun hunting down a few new "faint fuzzies", and revisiting a bunch of old friends. Jones 1 was looking particularly good, and Stephans Quintet was as clear as could be. We checked out the latest nova in NGC 6946, and were pleasantly surprised with the bonus of a very nice little galaxy with lots of "texture". Saturn and the Orion Nebula were just beginning to get high enough to be stable when the moon rose, and we decided to pack it in. Overall, a very nice night at the pass. Jo
I am agreed, so far as you go. But sometimes the most impenetrable barriers are barriers of the imagination. Consider why the laser was not invented until 1960 (though Einstein recognized the existence of stimulated emission in 1917). It was a tremendous breakthrough, but could have been done long before. It has had tremendous impact since. Jim ---- Jim Cobb james@cobb.name On Oct 7, 2004, at 11:27 AM, Chuck Hards wrote:
Neat accomplishment, but the claims of NASA "shaking in their boots" are plain old hype and premature by decades.
[...]
Your wet-blanket editorialist (realist).
That ties into the "great man" theory, according to my anthropologist friends. Paradigm shifts and all that. Just look at the Dobsonian telescope if you don't subscribe to the theory. Good point, Jim. --- Jim Cobb <james@cobb.name> wrote:
I am agreed, so far as you go. But sometimes the most impenetrable barriers are barriers of the imagination. Consider why the laser was not invented until 1960 (though Einstein recognized the existence of stimulated emission in 1917). It was a tremendous breakthrough, but could have been done long before. It has had tremendous impact since.
_______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com
I like to compare it to a phase transition. ---- Jim Cobb james@cobb.name On Oct 8, 2004, at 10:11 AM, Chuck Hards wrote:
That ties into the "great man" theory, according to my anthropologist friends. Paradigm shifts and all that. Just look at the Dobsonian telescope if you don't subscribe to the theory. Good point, Jim.
Dear fellow space nerds: Chuck Hards wrote:
Neat accomplishment...
Agreed.
but the claims of NASA "shaking in their boots" are plain old hype and premature by decades. True, but after watching all of the NASA-TV and Discovery Channel coverage and reading lots on the web I don't remember anyone from the X-Prize foundation or the Scaled Composites team making such claims. For that you need to listen to the media.
The technology and hardware for the private sector to do this has existed since WW2. Yep. No doubt if they'd been given the OK von Braun and Company would have done it before war's end (anyone remember Eugene Sanger back in the 20s?)
And remember it took over $20 million to win $10 million. $10 million is only the beginning. As y'all might have seen in this morning's News, I included an article showing how folks with big bucks are already lining up for flights. And Virgin Airlines has ordered several enlarged vehicles for paying passengers. I saw where Burt Rutan said they're going to donate StarShipOne to the Smithsonian, but first they want to make some money off it.
It will be decades, at least, before the private sector has any "heavy" lifting ability... As long as they can lift me, that's all the heavy lift I'm looking for for now.
...and really just a footnote, not the major milestone that the press is pushing. I've given this a lot of thought but keep coming back to comparing it to the first Wright flight which didn't actually do all that much in the way of performance but it did show what *could* be done and lit a fire under those who went on to do so much.
Go, Burt, go! Patrick p.s. If you have not seen it already the latest from Jib-Jab is at http://www.jibjab.com (the original is there too).
On Fri, 8 Oct 2004, Patrick Wiggins wrote:
Chuck Hards wrote:
but the claims of NASA "shaking in their boots" are plain old hype and premature by decades.
True, but after watching all of the NASA-TV and Discovery Channel coverage and reading lots on the web I don't remember anyone from the X-Prize foundation or the Scaled Composites team making such claims.
While I haven't heard anything specifically about boot-shaking, Burt is quoted saying something pretty close: ----- As usual, Rutan took the opportunity to make a dig at NASA, which he refers to as "that other space agency." "Quite frankly, I think the big guys, the Boeings, the Lockheeds, the nay-say people at Houston, they probably ... think we're a bunch of home builders who put a rocket in a Long Easy," he said, referring to one of his recreational aircraft designs. "But if they ... got a look at how this flight was run and how we developed the capabilities of this ship and showed its safety, I think they're looking at each other now and saying, 'We're screwed.'" ----- (snipped from http://spaceflightnow.com/ss1/041004x2launch.html ) While some may be put off by a little hubris, I think Burt's bragging rights are well deserved. :-)
Go, Burt, go!
Indeed! By the way, if anyone missed the program "Black Sky" on the Discovery channel earlier this week, it'll be well worth your time to watch the 2-hour rerun scheduled for Sunday at 5pm. The in-cockpit video footage is riveting, and if you don't already understand the genius of Mr. Rutan, "Black Sky" will remove all doubt. Chris
I caught this past weeks two hour special and there is no doubt of Rutans genius. 20 million spent on a craft like this is peanuts compared to how much they will make back in investors, advertising, and taking private citizens up. I see it as the first step in a quickly growing industry of public sector space flight and they will soon come out with something that can lift a payload. They could even launch small satellites from the belly of the ship in the near future eliminating the need to wait on NASA time schedules and politics. This could be a fairly well paid venture for them. Burt Rutan deserves kudos no matter what anyone says. He was the first to go out and get the investors, do the design, and get this thing done. And when you factor in he only had a 20 man crew, and a small building out in this little airport instead of billions of dollars, government backing, and facilities, it really is incredible. He had the guts, he deserves the glory! Lisa Zeigler By the way, if anyone missed the program "Black Sky" on the Discovery channel earlier this week, it'll be well worth your time to watch the 2-hour rerun scheduled for Sunday at 5pm. The in-cockpit video footage is riveting, and if you don't already understand the genius of Mr. Rutan, "Black Sky" will remove all doubt. Chris _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Quoting John and Lisa Zeigler <john@johnstelescopes.com>:
Burt Rutan deserves kudos no matter what anyone says. He was the first to go out and get the investors, do the design, and get this thing done. And when you factor in he only had a 20 man crew, and a small building out in this little airport instead of billions of dollars, government backing, and facilities, it really is incredible. He had the guts, he deserves the glory!
Lisa Zeigler
Private funding, no government involvement, or, interference??? Hmmm, there's an idea! ;)
Some of the folks I know in the "industry" (admittedly far fewer than Patrick) feel that the number of weatlthy tourists & enthusiasts paying "big bucks" will not last that long and dry up rather quickly, (especially after the first accident that kills someone, which WILL happen, unfortunately) so the tourism thing is definitely not an industry sustainer for long. A huge infrastructure will be needed, and tickets priced closer to commercial airline rates will be needed for that, and a more cost-effective alternative to chemical rockets will be needed for that. Distant-future scenario. For now Patrick will still have to sell his house for his ticket. The "shaking in their boots" quote was taken from a story on the AOL home page I subscribe to, and although I can't recall exactly, it was either Rutan himself or a member of his staff that said it, possibly one of the pilots. I did notice that Rutan said he needed to focus his "talents" in a certain direction...so apparently he agrees with our opinion of him. What a guy. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Hey Chuck (with others looking on), Chuck Hards wrote:
Some of the folks I know in the "industry" (admittedly far fewer than Patrick) feel that the number of weatlthy tourists & enthusiasts paying "big bucks" will not last that long and dry up rather quickly, (especially after the first accident that kills someone, which WILL happen, unfortunately) so the tourism thing is definitely not an industry sustainer for long.
I really don't see it that way. I mean look at all the people who have died in connection with space flight (most recently a few dozen in Brazil when a launch vehicle exploded). Despite this NASA is still having to reject far more astronaut applicants than they accept. Space flight is hazardous but ask most anyone who is involved in potentially hazardous hobbies like flying, black power cannons, skydiving, race car driving (to name a few) and chances are you'll hear that the danger is part of the attraction. Yes, people are going to continue to die in pursuit of the dream but people have always died in pursuit of their dreams. But if the dream is meaningful and universal (as I think space flight is) it will be attained despite the costs.
A huge infrastructure will be needed... Eventually, yes, just as with the railroad, motor car and airplane. It's part of the dream.
tickets priced closer to commercial airline rates will be needed for that... Agreed. And that's the sort of thing the X-Prize and its ilk are inspiring.
, and a more cost-effective
alternative to chemical rockets will be needed for that. Distant-future scenario. I really don't think it's that far off (unless by Distant-future you mean 10 or 20 years). Right up until the Wrights actually pulled it off there were those who said heavier than air flight was a long ways off. and I've always liked that piece in the NY Times in 1939 saying that flights to the Moon were impossible and would never happen.
We humans are pretty stupid in some ways but there are always those that overcome and inspire and _DO_.
The "shaking in their boots" quote was taken from a story on the AOL home page I subscribe to... Actually it would not surprise me if Rutan said it. I've never met the man but I can't help but believe the persona one sees in the media is not the whole person.
Ok, enough of this. I'm headed for the airport in pursuit of the part of the dream that I can accomplish today. Patrick
Hi Patrick: I can tell you believe in the "dream", and accept the risks involved as do astronaut & pilot candidates. Heck, you are our rocket ship poster boy. But the general public generally do not, and they are the ones who have to pay, not get paid, to do it. How many will back down when faced with signing a waiver of right to sue in case of accident? When insurance policies catch up to this new "tourist" activity? When a cabin full of tourists burns-up over Texas? And again, that aside, there just arent' enough of 'em, by a long shot, to pay the bills any time soon. I'd love to see the commercial spaceport and orbital Hilton in my lifetime, but I must temper my desire with experience. 2001 was almost 4 years ago and I still don't see PanAm service to orbit, and that after waiting 35 years. This stuff takes forever. Im still waiting for electricity for pennies a year, and my flying car...;) I belive it was Huxley who wrote about something called "Centrifugal Bumble-Puppy". The idea was to give the masses something to expend their energy on, divert their attention from, matters the government would rather the citizenry not address. I'm not suggesting any kind of conspiracy here, but the whole event certainly fulfills the requirements. The fact that we all have a certain predisposed weakness for this kind of thing makes keeping it in perspective even more important. LOL...My friend just told me that I've just beaten Peter Pan to death! How am I ever going to live THAT down?;) C. --- Patrick Wiggins <paw@trilobyte.net> wrote:
Hey Chuck (with others looking on),
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Oh, I don't know. People by the thousands sign liability releases daily which plainly state: "WITH RISK OF SERIOUS INJURY OR DEATH, EVEN IF IT'S OUR FAULT", for a chance to see what it's like under water. The insurance companies have been covering this once thought of "Dangerous activity" for years and still the premiums remain low. FWIW, my two kids just reelisted in the U.S. Army and volunteered to GO BACK to Iraq. They aren't alone. Not everyone runs from a challenge or fears a liability release. Thank God for that. I couldn't imagine where we would be if it weren't for those who have stepped up to and accepted a challenge in the past... My only regrets is that I am not old enough to be able to participate myself yet... ;) Quoting Chuck Hards <chuckhards@yahoo.com>:
I can tell you believe in the "dream", and accept the risks involved as do astronaut & pilot candidates. Heck, you are our rocket ship poster boy. But the general public generally do not, and they are the ones who have to pay, not get paid, to do it. How many will back down when faced with signing a waiver of right to sue in case of accident? When insurance policies catch up to this new "tourist" activity? When a cabin full of tourists burns-up over Texas?
Hi Guy, I don't doubt what altruistic actions people are capable of, I just doubt that there are enough waiver-signers to sustain a tourist-based commercial "space ride" industry with current hardware and ticket prices being discussed. An afternoon of scuba is a bargain (and much, much safer when there is sometimes actually a chance at resussitation, right?) when compared to a ride in a Rutan Special. I guess it's up to folks like you and Patrick to queue-up and keep it going for now. I'll wait until they take frequent flyer miles and serve cocktails... ;) You know, we're not on opposite sides of this question, I just think what we all envision and desire is decades down the road, at least, rather than a few years. --- diveboss@xmission.com wrote:
Oh, I don't know. People by the thousands sign liability releases daily
_______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com
Chuck, I understand what you are saying and agree that their time line might be a bit out of whack. I was merely using the diving industry and the "risks" people are willing to take in order to participate as an example. My thoughts were more along the lines of the early pioneers of the sport, where people were dying or becoming seriously injured due to the unknown problems associated with breathing compressed gases under water. Today, because of the way the private sector and dive certification agencies have come together to set their own regulations regarding training and research, and because of the way they systematically police themselves, recreational diving has evolved into a sport with about as much risk of injury as bowling, and is free of any government regulation. The only aspect of the sport where the government is remotely involved is the DOT regulations regarding the inspection and transportation of compressed air cylinders. There is not even a government restriction on which breathing gases we can use. Knock on wood! Of course I teach wreck diving, where the risk of death surpasses the risk of injury and probably approaches those associated with space tourism, yet there are still lines of people signing up for the chance at exploring deep wrecks, where if you cut a hose, lose the line, kick up silt or run out of air, you are toast. Yet even with diving in the overhead environment, the actual death rate is remarkeably low because of careful preparation, redundancy of gear and training. Again, self policing. So I'm thinking, that if the private sector can approach this "space tourist" adventure in a similar fashion, then whenever it does develope, I don't see why it can't develope into something similar without heavy government restrictions. The fact is people are still going to die, but I think that for every one who dies, there will always be someone in line willing to step up and take their place. It's human nature. That's all I was saying... Now as for cocktails, set 'em up... ;) Quoting Chuck Hards <chuckhards@yahoo.com>:
Hi Guy, I don't doubt what altruistic actions people are capable of, I just doubt that there are enough waiver-signers to sustain a tourist-based commercial "space ride" industry with current hardware and ticket prices being discussed. An afternoon of scuba is a bargain (and much, much safer when there is sometimes actually a chance at resussitation, right?) when compared to a ride in a Rutan Special. I guess it's up to folks like you and Patrick to queue-up and keep it going for now. I'll wait until they take frequent flyer miles and serve cocktails... ;)
You know, we're not on opposite sides of this question, I just think what we all envision and desire is decades down the road, at least, rather than a few years.
--- diveboss@xmission.com wrote:
Oh, I don't know. People by the thousands sign liability releases daily
_______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Hey Guy, 'Scuse my ignorance, but I didn't know there was much in the way of wreck diving around here. There was plenty of it back in New England, between harbors and places like Lake Champlain. Were any of the larger bodies of water around here ever used for commerce? What's down there? Michael
Of course I teach wreck diving, where the risk of death surpasses the risk of injury and probably approaches those associated with space tourism, yet
We do most of our wreck diving off the left coast... Lake Tahoe was once used for commerce at the turn of the century and there are scattered wrecks around the southern part of the lake, but they are moslty barges or in water to deep to access. There is an old steam powered paddle wheel in about 300 - 400 feet of water I would like to see sometime if I could find a serious group willing to do it. Lake Tahoe at it's deepest is 1600 feet deep. And speaking of cocktails, Lake Tahoe is gin clear at times... ;) Quoting Michael Carnes <moogiebird@earthlink.net>:
Hey Guy, 'Scuse my ignorance, but I didn't know there was much in the way of wreck diving around here. There was plenty of it back in New England, between harbors and places like Lake Champlain. Were any of the larger bodies of water around here ever used for commerce? What's down there?
Michael
Of course I teach wreck diving, where the risk of death surpasses the risk of injury and probably approaches those associated with space tourism, yet
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Hi Michael and Guy, Chuck here: What I am about to relate is the honest truth: Way back when I was in high school I had a friend who was fascinated with 2 things: Submarines and pliesiosaurs (sp?). Anyway, he somehow got his hands on a surplus marker bouy, about four or five feet in diameter, and used it as the core of a home-made sub. He filled the bottom with concrete until he had an approximate neutral bouyancy, then built a superstructure resembling his favorite aquatic dinosaur. My friend (Vincent) was physically small in stature so fit in the "cabin" just fine. The sub was launched in a nearby reservoir and the details of that first voyage are lost to the mists of time, I do remember our ersatz Nemo cruising triumphantly, however the deep dark "sea" eventually claimed the plucky submersible. Something about a hatch not sealing properly, IIRC. To this day, the wreck remains in that same body of water, and is sometimes seen during times of low water. Vincent survived the scuttling, though we eventually lost touch. He could be anywhere now, from commmanding a nuclear sub for the US Navy, to working on a Europa ocean probe for NASA, to pearl diving off the coast of Japan. Really, I didn't make this up!
Quoting Michael Carnes <moogiebird@earthlink.net>:
Hey Guy, 'Scuse my ignorance, but I didn't know there was much in the way of wreck diving around here. There was plenty of it back in New England, between harbors and places like Lake Champlain. Were any of the larger bodies of water around here ever used for commerce? What's down there?
Michael
_______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now. http://messenger.yahoo.com
Or, he could be on America's funniest home videos... That leaky hatch probably saved his life. Where is this thing now? I'll go retrieve it for you. Wouldn't he just crap to wake up one morning and find it sitting on his front lawn. ;) Quoting Chuck Hards <chuckhards@yahoo.com>:
He could be anywhere now, from commmanding a nuclear sub for the US Navy, to working on a Europa ocean probe for NASA, to pearl diving off the coast of Japan.
Remember that this was decades ago, way before camcorders, though I had a neat 8mm Bell & Howell... It may not still be there, I recall once many years ago, before the current drought cycle, that it was spotted when the water was low. I think it may be no longer in one piece. Anyway, it went to the bottom in the shallows at East Canyon, though memory fails me now as to the precise location. I'm closer to 50 than 40, and this happened when I was in high-school, so it's been a while. --- diveboss@xmission.com wrote:
Or, he could be on America's funniest home videos... That leaky hatch probably saved his life. Where is this thing now? I'll go retrieve it for you. Wouldn't he just crap to wake up one morning and find it sitting on his front lawn. ;)
Quoting Chuck Hards <chuckhards@yahoo.com>:
He could be anywhere now, from commmanding a nuclear sub for the US Navy, to working on a Europa ocean probe for NASA, to pearl diving off the coast of Japan.
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
That's a hoot. Nothing like a good hoax. I hope a few people spotted the monster before it was "retired".
Hi Michael and Guy, Chuck here:
What I am about to relate is the honest truth:
Way back when I was in high school I had a friend who was fascinated with 2 things: Submarines and pliesiosaurs (sp?). Anyway, he somehow got his hands on a surplus marker bouy, about four or five feet in diameter, and used it as the core of a home-made sub. He filled the bottom with concrete until he had an approximate neutral bouyancy, then built a superstructure resembling his favorite aquatic dinosaur. My friend (Vincent) was physically small in stature so fit in the "cabin" just fine.
He really thought himself a latter-day Nemo! But an incredibly nice guy, really on the sensitive side and very intelligent. --- Michael Carnes <moogiebird@earthlink.net> wrote:
That's a hoot. Nothing like a good hoax. I hope a few people spotted the monster before it was "retired".
_______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com
especially when the loads are substituted with dad's smokeless powder. ;)
My wife works with the mother of the fellow who died in that accident. It does appear that he didn't know what he was doing and paid the ultimate price. As an even more sad aside, the same mother lost another son to suicide some years earlier... _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com
We were discussing this very event just the other night at coffee, as well as other stupid acts, and wondered how it was that we (members of the immediate group) had survived some of the crap we pulled. Some people get a second chance at life and some don't. There was a kid not long ago who blew half his face off (and lived) while attempting to blow up his neighbors mail box with a home made bomb. What kids don't put their parent's through... Quoting Chuck Hards <chuckhards@yahoo.com>:
especially when the loads are substituted with dad's smokeless powder. ;)
My wife works with the mother of the fellow who died in that accident. It does appear that he didn't know what he was doing and paid the ultimate price. As an even more sad aside, the same mother lost another son to suicide some years earlier...
_______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
--- Chuck Hards <chuckhards@yahoo.com> wrote:
...and a more cost-effective alternative to chemical rockets will be needed for that.
Chuck, An amateur rocket friend of mine was telling me yesterday at lunch that Rutan's rocket ran on recycled tire rubber and laughing gas! Doesn't sound too exotic or expensive to me, but I'm sure he was oversimplifying it just a bit. Can you (or others in the know on this list) tell me more about it (risks, costs, etc.)? Sounds very interesting to me. -Rich __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Richard Tenney wrote:
An amateur rocket friend of mine was telling me yesterday at lunch that Rutan's rocket ran on recycled tire rubber and laughing gas! Doesn't sound too exotic or expensive to me, but I'm sure he was oversimplifying it just a bit.
He was not kidding (except maybe for the part about the recycled rubber tires). On some scale the SS1 engine is complicated but certainly not when compared to the engines being used on shuttle, Arianne and H-IIA.
From the Scaled Composites web site FAQ:
***** What's the deal with laughing gas and rubber? All rocket motors have some form of "fuel" and an "oxidizer". In solid rocket motors the oxidizer is embedded into the fuel (like an Estes rocket motor) and when lighted will burn until depleted. In liquid rockets the oxidizer is usually liquid oxygen and the fuel another liquid like hydrogen or kerosene. In our hybrid motor we use Nitrous Oxide (N2O or laughing gas) as an oxidizer and hydroxy-terminated polybutadiene (HTPB or rubber) as the fuel. Both of these can be safely stored without special precautions and will not react when put together. Finally N2O has the nice quality of self-pressurizing when at room temperature so that the space ship doesn't need complicated turbo pumps or plumbing to move the oxidizer into the combustion chamber. ***** Patrick
Hi Rich, as I understand it, the energy requirements to put SS1 at 100 kilometers are pretty modest. There are not a few fairly safe fuel/oxidizer combinations and Rutan exploited that. NASA must boost much heavier loads to much higher speeds, so must use fuel/oxidizer combinations with the highest energy release (I think it's called specific impulse, jeez physics class was a long time ago. In the last century.) and those are usually the nastiest. The tourist/private space industry won't be able to run on controlled tire-fires forever, I suspect, though that does on the surface seem to kill two birds with one stone!
Chuck,
An amateur rocket friend of mine was telling me yesterday at lunch that Rutan's rocket ran on recycled tire rubber and laughing gas! Doesn't sound too exotic or expensive to me, but I'm sure he was oversimplifying it just a bit. Can you (or others in the know on this list) tell me more about it (risks, costs, etc.)? Sounds very interesting to me.
-Rich
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Rich, The ship was indeed powered on Laughing gas - nitrous oxide I believe. They also used parts from WW2 planes and things for the body of the craft. It was very cool and different thinking than the governments "lets see if they will let us pay $5000. for a toilet seat" mentality. Everyone should catch the second showing tonight. I believe its on the Science channel and Discovery. It will be on the Discovery channel at 4 pm eastern time today. Should be 2 - 4 pm MST. Lisa Zeigler www.johnstelescopes.com www.mirrorkits.com An amateur rocket friend of mine was telling me yesterday at lunch that Rutan's rocket ran on recycled tire rubber and laughing gas! Doesn't sound too exotic or expensive to me, but I'm sure he was oversimplifying it just a bit. Can you (or others in the know on this list) tell me more about it (risks, costs, etc.)? Sounds very interesting to me. -Rich __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
diveboss@xmission.com wrote:
Private funding, no government involvement, or, interference??? Hmmm, there's an idea! ;)
No (or little) government interference. Yet. I can only hope that it stays that way. I wonder how long it will be before the FAA envolves into the FAAA (Federal Aviation/Astronautics Administration). Patrick
The FAA already regulates private and commercial space flight. There is a part of 14 CFR that specifically addresses it. Remeber, Mojave had to be licensed as a spaceport by the FAA. Brent --- Patrick Wiggins <paw@trilobyte.net> wrote:
diveboss@xmission.com wrote:
Private funding, no government involvement, or,
interference??? Hmmm,
there's an idea! ;) No (or little) government interference. Yet. I can only hope that it stays that way.
I wonder how long it will be before the FAA envolves into the FAAA (Federal Aviation/Astronautics Administration).
Patrick
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com
Doh! ;) Quoting Brent Watson <brentjwatson@yahoo.com>:
The FAA already regulates private and commercial space flight. There is a part of 14 CFR that specifically addresses it. Remeber, Mojave had to be licensed as a spaceport by the FAA.
Brent
--- Patrick Wiggins <paw@trilobyte.net> wrote:
diveboss@xmission.com wrote:
Private funding, no government involvement, or,
interference??? Hmmm,
there's an idea! ;) No (or little) government interference. Yet. I can only hope that it stays that way.
I wonder how long it will be before the FAA envolves into the FAAA (Federal Aviation/Astronautics Administration).
Patrick
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Brent Watson wrote:
The FAA already regulates private and commercial space flight. There is a part of 14 CFR that specifically addresses it. Remeber, Mojave had to be licensed as a spaceport by the FAA.
Brent
True, but at this point they are being treated more like "homebuilders" which get a lot less snoopervision by government that those involved in commercial operations. Of course once companies like Virgin Galactic (http://www.virgingalactic.com ) come on line there will certainly be much more regulation. Not necessarily a bad thing, provided the regulators know what they are doing. Patrick p.s. Thanks to Chuck for starting this thread. It's been fun.
You're quite welcome, Patrick, I was taught in Caltholic school that every silver lining has a cloud! ;) --- Patrick Wiggins <paw@trilobyte.net> wrote:
p.s. Thanks to Chuck for starting this thread. It's been fun.
_______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com
Chuck Hards wrote:
You're quite welcome, Patrick, I was taught in Caltholic school that every silver lining has a cloud! ;)
Taught to you, no doubt, by Atilla the Nun? :-) BTW, this thread has inspired me to search the web for articles on the subject for the next issue of News. Have already found one in the NY Times, hopefully I'll find more. Cheers! Patrick
The new issue of The New Atlantis arrived a few days ago. One article discusses directions into space. I include the first few paragraphs below, and a URL for those interested. Jim
The Path Not Taken
Rand Simberg
On June 21, 2004, with thousands in attendance in the small southern California desert town of Mojave, a sexagenarian test pilot performed the first trip to space in a privately-built spacecraft. SpaceShipOne, as it is called, cost less than $30 million and was funded by Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen.
Occurring seventeen months after the loss of the shuttle Columbia put America’s manned space program on hiatus, the SpaceShipOne flight received a surprising amount of publicity. The achievement, while impressive, was also limited: SpaceShipOne’s flight was only a suborbital test, roughly the equivalent of Alan Shepard’s historic suborbital flight in 1961. Surely, the technical achievement did not rival the achievements of NASA in its prime.
But NASA, clearly, is not in its prime, at least when it comes to manned space travel. Aside from a single American astronaut on the International Space Station, who only got there because he went up in a Russian capsule, NASA’s manned space program is currently on hold. It remains unclear when the shuttle will fly again, if ever. And so one of the reasons the flight of SpaceShipOne was so compelling was its contrast with NASA’s wounded, grounded shuttle fleet, and the fact that the entrepreneurs achieved this feat for far less money than NASA could.
And the contrast is telling. Unlike SpaceShipOne, a private venture born of competition and risk, NASA’s present space activities remain mired in institutions and thought patterns that are decades-old artifacts of the Cold War. The way NASA works is a historical contingency that could easily have manifested itself differently had we not been locked in a global confrontation with totalitarian communism. It is distinctly at odds with traditional American values of individualism and free enterprise.
To read the rest, go here: http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/6/simberg.htm ---- Jim Cobb james@cobb.name
Just caught the replay of the SpaceShipOne program on The Discovery channel. Actually I thought it was pretty good. I did notice that me and the pilot Mr. Melvill have a couple of things in common. First, his current wife and my exwife both need ironing, and second, we both dropped out of school. ;) I'm glad to know that there are some successful people who can't do math either. I walked away from this program with a couple of unanswered questions nagging me like, did anyone notice how ugly that windmill farm looked out in the desert? Personally I think it would look better off the coast of Massachusetts. ;) And second, didn't Burt Rutan design John Denvers airplane? The one that crashed into Monterey Bay? Thanks for the heads up on the replay Lisa. It was worth the 2 hours. :) Guy
The builder of Denver's plan modified the fuel select valve location to "make it safer" by keeping fuel lines out of the cockpit. Unfortunately it made it unsafe to fly. That's my understanding Wayne -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+waynereese=qwest.net@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+waynereese=qwest.net@mailman.xmission.com ] On Behalf Of diveboss@xmission.com Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2004 5:43 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] Re: Spaceship One Just caught the replay of the SpaceShipOne program on The Discovery channel. Actually I thought it was pretty good. I did notice that me and the pilot Mr. Melvill have a couple of things in common. First, his current wife and my exwife both need ironing, and second, we both dropped out of school. ;) I'm glad to know that there are some successful people who can't do math either. I walked away from this program with a couple of unanswered questions nagging me like, did anyone notice how ugly that windmill farm looked out in the desert? Personally I think it would look better off the coast of Massachusetts. ;) And second, didn't Burt Rutan design John Denvers airplane? The one that crashed into Monterey Bay? Thanks for the heads up on the replay Lisa. It was worth the 2 hours. :) Guy _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Yes, the fuel selector valve was over the left shoulder of the pilot. John Denver exhausted the fuel in one tank and tried to switch to the second. The act of turning to reach the valve (which had a pair of vise grips for a know - not a Rutan design) he put the plane into the ocean. rutan's design had nothing to do with the wreck. There was still fuel on board in the tanks that was switched "off". Brent --- Wayne Reese <waynereese@qwest.net> wrote:
The builder of Denver's plan modified the fuel select valve location to "make it safer" by keeping fuel lines out of the cockpit. Unfortunately it made it unsafe to fly. That's my understanding Wayne
-----Original Message----- From:
utah-astronomy-bounces+waynereese=qwest.net@mailman.xmission.com
[mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+waynereese=qwest.net@mailman.xmission.com
] On Behalf Of diveboss@xmission.com Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2004 5:43 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] Re: Spaceship One
Just caught the replay of the SpaceShipOne program on The Discovery channel. Actually I thought it was pretty good. I did notice that me and the pilot Mr. Melvill have a couple of things in common. First, his current wife and my exwife both need ironing, and second, we both dropped out of school. ;) I'm glad to know that there are some successful people who can't do math either.
I walked away from this program with a couple of unanswered questions nagging me like, did anyone notice how ugly that windmill farm looked out in the desert? Personally I think it would look better off the coast of Massachusetts. ;) And second, didn't Burt Rutan design John Denvers airplane? The one that crashed into Monterey Bay?
Thanks for the heads up on the replay Lisa. It was worth the 2 hours. :)
Guy
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
participants (12)
-
Brent Watson -
Chuck Hards -
cpclark＠xmission.com -
David L Bennett -
diveboss＠xmission.com -
Jim Cobb -
John and Lisa Zeigler -
Josephine Grahn -
Michael Carnes -
Patrick Wiggins -
Richard Tenney -
Wayne Reese