Community > Forum > Historical Ansari X Prize > Wrong Focus of the X Prize

Wrong Focus of the X Prize

Posted by: dr_david_c - Mon May 17, 2004 2:52 pm
Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 33 posts ] 
Wrong Focus of the X Prize 

Do you support a people focus or a payload focus?
Payload 15%  15%  [ 3 ]
People 85%  85%  [ 17 ]
Total votes : 20

Wrong Focus of the X Prize 
Author Message
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Sat May 22, 2004 8:59 am
Posts: 578
Location: Zurich
Post    Posted on: Tue Jun 01, 2004 8:59 am
dr_david_c wrote:
Dr_Keith_H: Your "proof" is wrong. We were talking PAYLOAD, were we not? I said, ""And what am I going to do with 250 kg of sub-orbital payload? Make sure that 100kg of that is booster rocket so I can get my 150kg payload into orbit!" Read carefully now: "my 150kg payload". That's P-A-Y-L-O-A-D. I have never said that the craft have to be orbitial. I was pointing out that I could (well, I'm guessing since I haven't done the math) get a payload into orbit by using the X-craft as sub-orbital delivery vehicle. And as for "babbling", providing valid reasons why someone might be required to use a sub-orbital craft is not babbling. It's enlightening the folk who can't or refuse to think of a reason why someone might have to take the flight.


Flame on dipstick.

Before you promulgate to us unenlightened day-dreaming about your personal objections to the current set up of an organizational process which has nothing to do with you ... DO THE MATH!

First you say the X-prize focus is wrong, wasted technology development on keeping humans alive in an environment when it could be better spent on payload. Payload, which according to your secondary interpretation above, reduces the prime vehicle to a reusable first stage with a throw-away second stage. There is a big point here that you are not only missing, you are firing in the completely wrong direction. I'm not even going to bother with your guesses at reasonable mass distribution for payload vs booster stage, its just not worth the bandwidth.

Please give me ONE reason why it would be IMPERATIVE for an individual with a significant fear of flight to take a sub-orbital hop against his or her will. Just one. Enlighten me you educator you.

Either that or quit this babbling that you brook.


Back to top
Profile
avatar
Post SR-71   Posted on: Tue Jun 01, 2004 12:33 pm
TJ wrote:
dr_david_c wrote:
Use the right tool for the right job, and the ONLY job of the Blackbird was photo-recon.


ONLY?

Primary yes but hardly only.

Image

Image

Image

One thing it never did was any kind of close air support. Odd that you can now claim that it's only job was photo recon yet earlier you didn't think that it did any close air support during Viet Nam. Which implies a truly severe lack in any sort of knowledge of this particular aircraft. Which also isn't a problem, unless your going to start using it as any sort of example.


Anyone FAMILIAR with the SR-71 knows it never did close air support.

The Phoenix armed A-12 (fighter version of the SR-71) was engineering test NOT an operational deployment.


Back to top
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2004 8:21 pm
Posts: 297
Location: LI/NY - currently
Post Re: SR-71   Posted on: Tue Jun 01, 2004 9:14 pm
Rocketguy wrote:
Anyone FAMILIAR with the SR-71 knows it never did close air support.

The Phoenix armed A-12 (fighter version of the SR-71) was engineering test NOT an operational deployment.


I just hate the use of an absolute when describing something. If someone says 'ONLY' like that, then I merely need a single example of it doing something else and 'ONLY' becomes invalid. So Despite it being a test platform it was still doing something else besides photo recon. Modified Blackbirds also did a lot of materials testing for NASA in the 70's in addition to the X-33 engine test pictured above. One could possibly argue that the Blackbirds didn't do any actual photo-recon on any of the D-21 flights since they were acting as high speed transport/carrier planes for those flights.

Something interesting I recently read about these planes. The A-12 was actually the CIA single seat recon plane. While three of those were modified into the YF-12A planes for the missile launching program. One of the YF-12A's that crashed was used with another plane (the remains of another crash maybe) to build a trainer designated YF-12C. I couldn't find any mention of either a A-12B or a YF-12B which seems like an odd gap for these. I know that modified A-12's that went on to carry the D-21 drones were designated M-21's for some strange reason and that in addition to the regular SR-71's there was two SR-71B trainers with the hump back profile and a single SR-71C trainer. Now I'm wondering if there was ever something that flew with a YF-12B designation.

I also wonder if a Blackbird could be outfitted with rocket and fuel pod that would enable a suborbital hop. figure a rocket engine could be installed in the end of the central body and a fuel pod could be mounted where the D-21 was. Not that it'll ever happen or that it'd be suitable for an X-prize vehicle since it'd only seat two but it might be workable. Probably too much logistics though for flying one of these for something like that when there are plenty of better ways of doing that kind of flight.


Back to top
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ] 
 

Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


cron
© 2014 The International Space Fellowship, developed by Gabitasoft Interactive. All Rights Reserved.  Privacy Policy | Terms of Use