Topic: Spaceship One Rockets to 68,000 feet (12.88 miles) (Read 11212 times)

IKV Nemesis D7L · « **Reply #60 on:** December 23, 2003, 12:18:04 am »

Link to page of pictures

The White Knight carrying craft is interesting in its own right. I wonder what its carrying capacity is.

White Knight flying alone.

White Knight carrying Spaceship One in flight.

White Knight carrying Spaceship One in flight again.

Spaceship One going up.

Assuming that Spaceship one wins the X-Prize and carries out the planned 20 flights in 20 weeks I wonder who has the model rights?

Lepton1 · « **Reply #61 on:** December 23, 2003, 01:15:40 pm »

I am guessing this is the Rutan group, considering the design and the chase plane?? That seems llike a rough flight schedule. I thought they just had to take 3 people up and do it a couple of times to win the X-Prize. Exciting stuff.

Stormbringer · « **Reply #62 on:** December 23, 2003, 01:42:08 pm »

Duck Dogers in the twenty fourth and a half century!

Lepton1 · « **Reply #63 on:** December 23, 2003, 01:56:14 pm »

That planned flight schedule was a rumor begun by a misinformed magazine reporter. If you check out the Rutan site (scaled.com), they have that disclaimer clearly stated. If you ask me, Rutan has this one in the bag. He is using his own tested designs and design philosophy so he isn't starting from square one. Around the world non-stop flight, now into space. How does this guy get the money to pull this stuff off???

Stormbringer · « **Reply #64 on:** December 23, 2003, 02:02:35 pm »

Well, he is a visionary. He comes up with ideas conventional engineers think are impossible and makes them work for a living. Plus he has visionaries for supporters. But before he had much support he and dedicated friends used to do all the work themselves. You know; for example, a car is just a couple of grand worth of material. If you could machine or fabricate all the parts yourself you could have a car that cheap. Same thing for vehicles costing millions of dollars (Same principle anyway.) The inflated prices we pay are engineering , factory tool up, labor, sales, distribution etc. At least thats how they justify the prices the charge for things. The fact is building them if done smart is much cheaper than all that.

Death_Merchant · « **Reply #65 on:** December 23, 2003, 02:31:08 pm »

Quote:

The inflated prices we pay are engineering , factory tool up, labor, sales, distribution etc. At least thats how they justify the prices the charge for things. The fact is building them if done smart is much cheaper than all that.

In other words, he uses "off-the-shelf" components and doesn't have to develop anything fundamentally new. Such "cheap" machines are built on the back of previously "expensive" ones.

Design & Assembly is always cheaper than Development, Design, & Assembly.

Don't get me wrong, there is a place for that D&A approach. It's a good thing.

But also don't belittle all the time, effort, and money spent making a better engine, a better metal, a new thrust system. These are not easy things. Do you have any idea how much money is spent researching approaches that never work in practice? I do.
Some of the failed approaches are mine

Some successes are too...

None of it is cheap.

Stormbringer · « **Reply #66 on:** December 23, 2003, 02:46:17 pm »

Ah DM I'm not bellittling the work. I have a great interest in it. You probably can tell by how when someone brings up something related, I'm usually up on it already. I'm saying the prices are artificially inflated. From the raw material on up. That is why engineering is so expensive. the engineer and his corp has to pay all the overhead first and when thier costs are added (at a level that will support his company and further research the price is all that much the higher.

As an aside Ruttan (IIRC) does not just off the shelf stuff though inevitably there is some of that. He fabricates (him and his team) as much as possible. It sounds like you do not think he innovates at all. I know that you did not mean that. It does not square with stories of his previous projects.

Death_Merchant · « **Reply #67 on:** December 23, 2003, 03:54:16 pm »

I believe our disconnect is how we define innovation.

I do basic R&D, not engineering. I view fabricating a new airframe design out of existing materials as not as "innovative" as developing an O2-burn resistant alloy. That's just my bias

Nor are most development costs "artificially inflated". Someone has to pay for the failed efforts, the support facilities (you'd be amazed how much power and LN2 I go through...), the accounting for complying with all the gov regulations, etc....

Remember the $900 coffee pot for the AF? Outrageous right?
Well, yes but:

It was not Mr. Coffee. The gov specified it had to comply with mil spec
Production was limited (maybe 100-200 to be produced total)
Tooling and production lines had to be maintained for 40+ years (ie life of the airframe)

Expensive, yes. But it's not like someone pocketed $880 and bought Mr. Coffee at WalMart.

Stormbringer · « **Reply #68 on:** December 23, 2003, 03:59:35 pm »

what I am saying is more a critique of our capitalist system in this regard than of engineers. Every step of the way is at more than cost and it all adds up. I'm familiar with milspec. I'm part of the development effort for the next generation field artillery radar system currently called the pheonix. Q-47.

News: