Re: X-prize kits?

"Kevin M. Vernon" wrote

But what about 100,000 km? Altitude is only irrelevant when very near a large object like a moon or planet. The Apollo spacecraft, once they got far enough away from the Earth, were "weightless" not because of trajectory but because they left the perceptible region of Earth's gravitational field. People remember that (or at least scenes from Apollo 13) and have heard "space" and "weightless" together so many times that they link the two. Also, given that the crews in the Shuttle experience weightlessness (and it is noted that they are much higher than the X-craft) lay people conclude quite reasonably and not altogether incorrectly that if you get far enough "up" or "away", a spacecraft crew will experience weightlessness.

I've seen people on here draw far worse (ridiculous bordering on idiotic) conclusions about economics, demographics, statistics, thermodynamics, physics, chemistry, and even aerodynamics, yet no one posts "What do you expect from a bunch of self-important, middle-aged, white men who still want to be fighter pilots?"

KL

You want dumb? My local rag, the Buffalo Snooze, er, News ran a picture of the combined mothership and suborbital rocket and carried the caption: "Seen through the cockpit of a chase plane, SpaceShipOne glides to a landing Monday after the first civilian suborbital space flight over Mojave, Calif." Really nice photo, though.....

-- John The history of things that didn't happen has never been written. . - - - Henry Kissinger

If you're willing to consider a paper (card stock) model, I've released a 1/48 kit of SpaceShipOne at

. It's a free download, and you won't have to worry about painting or decalling all those stars on the underside. :-)

Regards, Ralph Currell

Ralph, Very nice! I've never done a card stock but I'll take a look and give it a try. Allen

Could be, the Snooze is a Warren Buffet enterprise (Buy, "modernize", lay off the union members, hire non-union, raise prices) and the picture is from the Associated Press. Don't know whose caption it is, though.

-- John The history of things that didn't happen has never been written. . - - - Henry Kissinger

I wonder if the Smithsonian sent Burt Rutan an e-mail, asking him to donate SpaceShip One to them.

The picture of Melvill riding on top of SpaceShip One, was reminiscent of Chuck Yeager celebrating on top of the Bell X-1.

Has there ever been an explanation why Rutan designs such ugly (but efficient) airplanes?

Gary

Ugly is in the eye of the beholder. I think the round-the-world ship is very nice. Spaceship One reminds me a bit of the Flash Gordon ships, with an obvious difference in flying surfaces, which isn't so much ugly in my view as retro.

Mark Schynert

I believe the Pond racer was one of Rutan's design and I thought that was gorgeous! Sort of a bow to the P-38 but even prettier (if possible).

Doug Wagner

"m.gary.kroman" wrote

It's because they can be, not because they have to be.

KL

I have to agree, that SpaceShip One has a bit of the Flash Gordon ships. The Pond racer is one of his better designs.

It's just that the White Knight has such radical changes in it's cross sections, the spindly front no-retracting landing gear, and the portholes that look like a compound bug eyes. I under stand that small round windows are better for withstanding the stresses of the altitude at which White Knight and SpaceShip One operate at.

I for one think that the *Boeing/McDonnell XF-85 Goblin is a beautiful example of form follows function. So I must conclude that the appearance of White Knight and SpaceShip One are prime examples of form follows function. I just think they should have looked a little more like the Concorde.

• Why Boeing insisted that it should change the company name of the Heritage company products, is be on me ( I worked for Boeing too). I guess it was "because they could" since they bought the companies. The Boeing P-51 Mustang, Boeing B-25 Mitchell etc, I'll never get use to it.

Gary

Yessiree, I really feel bound in my upcoming books on McDonnell, Curtiss, Douglas and North American aircraft to append the expletive 'Boeing' to everything. The government actually encouraged this process at one time (and possibly still) by rebadging (in its documents) all the Curtiss aircraft it still had in service in 1948 or so, when North American took over most of the Curtiss airframe interests, and maybe that's where this is coming from. Maybe too, where Boeing has an ongoing business relationship with an airline or other organization that uses and maintains legacy products, they have the capacity to twist arms and get this rebadging--this is presumably where the Douglas twins suddenly are listed as Boeing 717s (or is that just the new-build ones?). The Boeing problem is common to corporate America these days--they don't know how to not overreach, and there's nobody to slap their hand when they do. In the meantime, I'm just waiting for some Boeing dude to slap me with a law suit for the following, published in a public forum:

Curtiss P-40 Douglas DC-3 Northrop Gamma McDonnell F-4 Phantom North American XB-21

Mark Schynert

Boeing also bought Sikorsky, right? Does that mean that we'll be hearing from that bottom-feeder,er,lawyer again soon? Or did he go out and get a real job?

-- John The history of things that didn't happen has never been written. . - - - Henry Kissinger

. The Boeing P-51

The only people who should ever refer to the P-51 as a Boeing product should be current Boeing employees who still have the bandages on their fingernails where their employer pulled out their nails to force them into it. Anyone else doing so should be immediately acquainted with a number 2x4 clue stick. Just a disgusting idea, even to contemplate.

Ouch!!!, that 2x4 clue stick hurts.

One note about the new Boeing Company. Even through The Boeing Company bought the McDonnell Douglas Corporation, all of the executive board members are former McDonnell Douglas Corporation employees, except Alan Mulally, president and CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes.

Gary