posted February 28, 2005 11:33 AM            

Is that right ?

I thought it was going be on display at Oshkosh in summer?

posted March 01, 2005 06:37 AM            

I had read your earlier cS article and that is why I was questioning what BBC were alluding too !

posted March 01, 2005 09:27 AM               

Placing SS1 in the same gallery as the X-15 just doesn't make sense to me. The X-15 made the same flights as SS1 some 40 years earlier. And the X-15 tallied more than 200 flights, not just two.

I guess the point here is that, in terms of actual flight achievements, what SS1 accomplished had already been done deades earlier. Simply because it was privately funded doesn't qualify it for milestone status in my opinion.

posted March 02, 2005 02:38 AM               

SS1 didn't carry any passengers either. It just carried a pilot, like Mercury or X-15. Even the maligned shuttle has grown beyond that - it does carry scientific, commercial and political passengers beyond the pilot.

So does the Soyuz, which by the way carried the first real commercial tourist from the US, Dennis Tito. The first commercial passenger of all was again on Soyuz, this Japanese TV journalist back in 1991. Will Tito's spacecraft be shown at NASM?

The fact that one billionaire opened his pocket to finance himself a nice toy (without passengers) doesn't mean that any milestone has been achieved.

Maybe "yet", but this has to be shown. Perhaps it is just a dead end road. Until now - a stunt and a billionaire's fancy. Just a pilot. No passengers.

There are no commercial flights for anyone in the US - there are with the Russians.

posted March 02, 2005 03:21 PM            

quote:

---

The fact that one billionaire opened his pocket to finance himself a nice toy (without passengers) doesn't mean that any milestone has been achieved.

---

Hogwash.

The milestone was *precisely* that it was a billionare's "fancy."

In 1995, the San Francisco Giants did something very, very strange -- they decided to build a sports stadium using *NO PUBLIC MONEY*; and it has utterly changed the way sports franchises are dealt with by cities around the United States. While it wasn't the last of the public financing, sadly, it was the beginning of the end. Cities often ask (as they never did before) why a new stadium cannot be financed privately. And sports teams have to come up with a reason they want to eat out of the public pig trough.

SS1 did *precisely* the same thing. For the first time, space flight is available to someone other than the government. And now there are billions of (private) dollars chasing this very same thing.

Oh, sure, you can define "milestone" anyway you want. The space shuttle "only" went to orbit (so did Gemini!). Soyuz didn't do anything Vostok didn't do (they both went to space, by golly!).

Sure, any Dassault Falcon might be in the NASM -- it's solid business jet and an important indicator of the reemergence of profitable European aerospace after the war -- but it didn't "accomplish" anything new, right? So why have it? Wait, what's this? http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/dassault.htm

It's FedEx's that's in there, because FedEx changed the way the world did business. As it should be.

SpaceShipOne changed how space is going to be financed. Heck, it made it so space can be financed privately. And if you can't see that that's going to change the world, I'm sorry that you'll miss the fun of rooting these grass-root rocket jockeys on.

Economics -- competition, market incentives, venture capital risk taking, capitalism -- is what will get mankind into space to stay. And it is the lack of an economic mechanism, not the lack of aerospikes or SSTOs or Hermes or whatever, that has kept us mired in LEO. It's not rocketry that keeps us from having a robust space program. It's a profit motive.

posted March 03, 2005 04:25 AM               

Rodina, get your facts straight: there are no tickets for no one to be booked on SS1. Not one single ticket. None. Zero. Nix.

And which profits did SS1 create? You tell me. None at all. In the contrary. If you think otherwise, come up with the figures. Shareholders want profits. No profits, no investments.

The only tickets to space that are available at the moment are with Soyuz. About 20 Million a pop, contact Space Adventures. Period. Two flights sold and undertaken so far. That are the facts.

The rest is ideology, prophecy, hopes, but nothing you can wash you face with.

About ideology: Fedex charges about $30 for a document shipped from the US to Europe. You can have the same service from USPS for about $2.40, and it is delivered to your mailbox, no administrative hassle (like you have to be there when Fedex choses to come, or pick it up from their premises). I really hope that is NOT the future.

------------------
Jürgen P Esders
Berlin, Germany http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Astroaddies

posted March 03, 2005 08:49 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by John K. Rochester:
I would like to know when SS1 would be flown into DC.. it would be great to be there when it arrives at Dulles, anyone who finds out please let us know.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by eurospace:
The rest is ideology, prophecy, hopes, but nothing you can wash you face with.

---

posted March 03, 2005 11:59 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by eurospace:
Rodina, get your facts straight: there are no tickets for no one to be booked on SS1. Not one single ticket. None. Zero. Nix.

---

My facts are fine, Juergen. Never said there was a profit, or a passenger, or an orbit.

I said that SS1 (and X-Prize, too) changed the way money is going after space. It doesn't matter, ultimately, whether SS1 becomes a technological dead-end. Or if Virgin Galactic never gets a paying passenger. Private money is now looking to make a buck in space. That's the lesson of SS1.

If you don't see that that changes things, please wait for CEV or Hermes or Shenzhou or something else to suit your particular needs.

I'd like to see the Earth from space before I die -- and I'll have $1M or $2M to buy my ticket by the time I'm 70 -- and if I do, I'll wager that my porthole won't have been built to government spec.

quote:

---

No profits, no investments.

---

This is such an odd statement, Juergen, I don't know where to begin. Venture capital is a gamble -- a discount to potential, long-term profitability (or to a buy-out based on someone elses perception of long-term profitability) -- it comes with no guarantees of profits. VC certainly doesn't expect profits on the *THIRD* flight.

No profits. No investments. That's why it took Airbus, what?, thirty years to make a profit. Because France cut off funding in 1975, right? No profits, no investments. Or Microsoft 6 years, or Yahoo 8? Or Ebay 8?

quote:

---

About ideology: Fedex charges about $30 for a document shipped from the US to Europe. You can have the same service from USPS for about $2.40, and it is delivered to your mailbox, no administrative hassle (like you have to be there when Fedex choses to come, or pick it up from their premises). I really hope that is NOT the future.

---

The same service! Talk about ideology, Juergen! The USPS or Bundespost or the Royal Mail cannot get your document across the Atlantic in a day. And if they can, it's only because they now compete with FedEx. If I need a signed document from London to be here tomorrow? I surely can't spent $2.40. I can use FedEx for $30 or I can use a courier for $150 or get myself on an airplane for $1,000.

If you are ideologically opposed to private space flight, just say so. I'm glad Tito got his ride -- good on him -- but relying on any government program to get more than a few dozen people into space a year has, sadly, proven a complete and total dead-end.

posted March 04, 2005 12:12 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rodina:
The USPS or Bundespost or the Royal Mail cannot get your document across the Atlantic in a day.

---

Ahem...there is no Bundespost (i.e. government regulated agency) anymore...it's called Deutsche Post AG for 15 years now.
Though I must agree that it rather became worse with delivery times.

Oh and btw we have the Euro now...not Deutsche Mark anymore.
A Euro is 1.95583 Deutsche Mark and about 1,32 US-$.

Just clarifying some things, it's amazing how many people still want to pay in Deutschmark.

posted March 04, 2005 02:34 AM               

>>I said that SS1 (and X-Prize, too) changed the way money is going after space. It doesn't matter, ultimately, whether SS1 becomes a technological dead-end. Or if Virgin Galactic never gets a paying passenger. Private money is now looking to make a buck in space. That's the lesson of SS1. >>
Maybe, maybe not. The moment passenger spacecraft take up operational service, we know.

>>>This is such an odd statement, Juergen, I don't know where to begin. Venture capital is a gamble -- a discount to potential, long-term profitability (or to a buy-out based on someone elses perception of long-term profitability) -- it comes with no guarantees of profits. VC certainly doesn't expect profits on the *THIRD* flight.>>
That's what I said - gamble. A toy. No serious sustained investment with the intention to achieve profitability in mid- or long term. A one off stunt. One flight and off to the museum.

>>>No profits. No investments. That's why it took Airbus, what?, thirty years to make a profit. Because France cut off funding in 1975, right? No profits, no investments. Or Microsoft 6 years, or Yahoo 8? Or Ebay 8?>>

Absolutely. Sustained investment to achieve profitability over time. Today, Airbus is the largest player on the market, just beating Boeing. No one off stunt, and off to the museum.

>>The same service! Talk about ideology, Juergen! The USPS or Bundespost or the Royal Mail cannot get your document across the Atlantic in a day. And if they can, it's only because they now compete with FedEx. >>
Actually, they can. Their express mail service DHL is growing larger than your Fedex, btw.

But is that the kind of service I need? Do my autograph requests need to reach the US overnight? And Fedex has no service to offer to me if I want cheap economical service for the private citizen.

Actually, we are using DHL in office. I am occasionnally receiving shipments with Fedex (we don't use Fedex 'cause do not offer transportation within Europe - just US - Europe and back). More than once their carrier did not show, not at the arranged time, or two showed up. More than once the item was not delivered to me, required extensive coordination until it finally got to me, and often enough I needed to go to their central dispatching (no, no office in every neighboorhood as Deutsche Post has) to pick it up. At the end, even with overnight delivery from the US to Germany, it often took them two or three days down here on the ground to get it to the recipient. Good service? My ass. No, overpriced, lousy infrastructure, bad service attitude. They are raisin pickers who want to make a quick buck. They do not offer solid service for the private citizen, available in his neighborhood, to all potential destinations, domestic and abroad.

>>If you are ideologically opposed to private space flight, just say so. I'm glad Tito got his ride -- good on him -- but relying on any government program to get more than a few dozen people into space a year has, sadly, proven a complete and total dead-end.>>
No, I am not ideologically opposed to it. I want to see results before I start to trumpet. Government run agencies have flown private citizens since 1990. Half a dozen ones if you count them all. That is six to nil, so to speak.

You are trumpeting a result that has yet to be achieved. Like a 13 old who has never slept with a woman, but brags about what a hero he is in bed. We all know he might eventually get to it. But we smile and tell him to stop bragging about things he has yet to experience.

You folks keep going. Just do it. And keep your mouth shut until you have achieved it.

posted March 04, 2005 02:55 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by eurospace:

(we don't use Fedex 'cause do not offer transportation within Europe - just US - Europe and back). More than once their carrier did not show, not at the arranged time, or two showed up.

---

That's not correct, FEDEX offers services within Europe though they are pretty expensive and not very reliable.
See my other threads...two times they didn't even find a valid address in the UK !

Other than that I'm happy with them and using them all the time, very good service to the US and back - maybe not for autograph requests though...
And with a base weight of 500gram for around 20 Euro it's not too bad vs. 14,05 Euro for Deutsche Post up to 500g registered !

My 2 (euro) cents

posted March 04, 2005 08:19 AM            

quote:

---

>>>No profits. No investments. That's why it took Airbus, what?, thirty years to make a profit. Because France cut off funding in 1975, right? No profits, no investments. Or Microsoft 6 years, or Yahoo 8? Or Ebay 8?>>

Absolutely. Sustained investment to achieve profitability over time. Today, Airbus is the largest player on the market, just beating Boeing. No one off stunt, and off to the museum.

---

Last time, you said that "no profits = no investment", now (one post later) you say that "sustained investment to achieve profitability overtime" (my point exactly).

If you want to argue about something, have the courtesy not to change your position to the exact opposite of what you just said.

quote:

---

>>The same service! Talk about ideology, Juergen! The USPS or Bundespost or the Royal Mail cannot get your document across the Atlantic in a day. And if they can, it's only because they now compete with FedEx. >>
Actually, they can. Their express mail service DHL is growing larger than your Fedex, btw.

---

Right, Juergen. Let's stay on the subject, shall we?

My point: FedEx's Dassault Falcon is in the NASM because it changed the way business was done in this world.

Your rebuttal: I hate FedEx. I can use the regular mail. It is not worth $30.

My retort: I can't use the regular mail, so I use FedEx. It is indeed worth $30.

Your rejoinder: I hate FedEx's service here in Germany. And DHL's service, owned by DeutschePost, can do it! And, oh yeah, it will soon be bigger than your puny, American FedEx!

Please explain how this undermines my initial point? "FedEx changed packaged delivery." FedEx was so unnecessary that DeutschePost purchased an American company with a very similar business model.

Your preference for DHL goes to your conceding that DHL does something that is so good, it is growing bigger than FedEx. And it is, by your own admission, because they are able to get packages to and from you as faster (or FASTER!) than FedEx. And what does this prove?

Oh, right: that you hope FedEx isn't the future.

My point, of course, remains: FedEx changed the way business was done. And therefore the FedEx Dassault Falcon is rightfully in the NASM.*

Okay, then.

quote:

---

Well, you claimed private passengers now had access to space (see your above message).

---

No, I said "For the first time, space flight is available to someone other than the government" -- I didn't say "private passengers". Everyone (except two people) who have been to space have done so on a government rocket. If you don't think it is fundamentally different to have done it without government funding, then you and I have two very, very different world views.

quote:

---

You are trumpeting a result that has yet to be achieved.

---

What "result" do you think I'm trumpeting, Juergen?

The fundamentally exciting thing about SS1 is that it was a non-government funded space flight. It was done with a staff of 20 or 25 people. NASA can't buy a bolt without involving 20 people. It did some damned interesting aviation stuff, too, but if that had been a NASA X-program, it wouldn't have been all that exciting.

Hey, I'm all for these guys flying on Russian rockets. Good for them. But it's not very interesting to me anymore, because that approach will *never* make space flight available to the people. I hope China succeeds with Shenzhou, that NASA gets the shuttle back on track, and that Europe keeps its astronaut corps busy. Enjoy it, Juergen.

But I am one hell of a lot more interested in what's happening in Culbertson County, Texas and Mojave, California, than I am in Florida or Guyana or Kazakistan.

*(Apparently when DHL heard that FedEx donated its original Falcon, DHL got mad and said that its planes should be in there, instead -- DHL was doing a narrower express service between LA/SF and Hawaii for a couple of years before it got into the more general package business -- NASM basically said: Well, FedEx offered their plane to us first)

posted March 04, 2005 08:21 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by spaceflori:
Ahem...there is no Bundespost (i.e. government regulated agency) anymore...it's called Deutsche Post AG for 15 years now.

---

posted March 04, 2005 08:47 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by eurospace:
No serious sustained investment with the intention to achieve profitability in mid- or long term.

---

But then this has gotten way off-topic; I don't see why the motives of the designers has to have anything to do with the installation of SS1 in the NASM.

Lindbergh didn't have any sustained profit plans when he crossed the Atlantic (only a one-off prize) and yet his flight changed the future of air travel. The Breitling Orbiter didn't change the ballooning world in any sweeping way that I can see, yet it sits in the Milestones Gallery. And the Viking, while representative of the two on Mars, never even left the ground, and yet greets visitors as one of the first artifacts they see.

posted March 04, 2005 01:03 PM               

I think it will, but my own speculation.

I guess we all be following this.

posted March 04, 2005 02:33 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSpace86:
All the people that have really flown into space before Binnie and Melvill have gone into orbit (except X-15 flights).

---

quote:

---

The Voyager aircraft did it first (even if it was with two people), so I don't think it's accomplishment should be toplled by GlobalFlyer.

---

posted March 06, 2005 09:57 AM               

The initial question of Jamie was whether SS1 did actually represent something new in the history of aviation. He rather thought not. So do I.

Those who think it added a new aspect, and so do you implicitly, advance the point that SS1 opened the access of passengers to space. My argument against this is: how that? SS1 did not take any passengers.

>>If you want to argue about something, have the courtesy not to change your position to the exact opposite of what you just said. >>
I think you did not understand my argument. Sustained long-term investment is required to develop passenger access to space. Large industrialists do have the size and the stamina to do that. Several industrialized states like the ones behind Airbus have that. Paul Allen does not.

>>Your rebuttal: I hate FedEx. I can use the regular mail. It is not worth $30.>>
No hate involved. Simple fact based decision: Fedex does not meet my mailing requirements nor does it meet the mailing requirements of most private citizens.

>>Your rejoinder: I hate FedEx's service here in Germany. And DHL's service, owned by DeutschePost, can do it! And, oh yeah, it will soon be bigger than your puny, American FedEx!>>
Rubbish. Never said that. Fedex, DHL, same sort of business. Useless to me. Bad service, overpriced products, insufficient infrastructure for the private end user.

>>Your preference for DHL goes to your conceding that DHL does something that is so good, it is growing bigger than FedEx. And it is, by your own admission, because they are able to get packages to and from you as faster (or FASTER!) than FedEx. And what does this prove? >>
No sorry, never said that, hence your conclusions are without any basis.

>>Oh, right: that you hope FedEx isn't the future.>>
Absolutely. I hope Fedex is not the only thing that is left from postal service.

What I need as a private individual is:
- a mail service that carries my mail to domestic and overseas destinations within a reasonable period of time (and not overnight);
- a mail service that is affordable to the private citizen (and not only for businesses);
- a mail service that has an infrastructure dense enough to serve small remote villages the same way as neighborhoods in large cities. Fedex only has outlets in far away suburbs.
- a mail service that delivers mail into my home timely and without me being present - and not a mail service that requires a) my personal presence, b) complete and total availability for hours, for a mailman that comes or does not come and at an hour he choses.

>>My point, of course, remains: FedEx changed the way business was done. And therefore the FedEx Dassault Falcon is rightfully in the NASM.*>>
In a postal museum perhaps, in a museum of communications, perhaps in a museum of business development, but in a museum of aviation? Nope.

And since SS1's only difference is the way of financing - maybe an exhibit for the museum of finance?

>>No, I said "For the first time, space flight is available to someone other than the government" -- >>
Factually wrong. Toyohiro Akiyama in 1990 was not government, Helen Sharman was not government, Dennis Tito and Mark Shuttleworth are not government. What are you talking about?

And - if you don't mind me quoting an old principle - ideally, government is the combined effort of us all, citizens and taxpayers. In other words: the contradiction you make up between government and society is an ideological construction. Without this ideological fixture, the whole idea falls apart.

>>I didn't say "private passengers". Everyone (except two people) who have been to space have done so on a government rocket. >>
The Space Shuttle is operated by United Space Alliance (itself a joing venture of Boeing and Lockheed Martin), the Atlas is built by General Dynamics, and so forth. RKK Energiya is a private company. All the history of spaceflight is a history of a close co-operation of government and private industry.

What is true is: private industry never bothered to put up own money to set up spaceflight for which they take all risks. They rather preferred to keep sucking government money and depend on it like a junkey depends on the needle.

In other words: the real problem is not that private industry had no chance to organize spaceflight. They had. They never bothered. They lack initiative, risk taking, a business idea, you name it.

>>If you don't think it is fundamentally different to have done it without government funding, then you and I have two very, very different world views.>>
You teach Boeing the lesson. Or Lockheed Martin. Or whomever. Nobody would have prevented them to land Neil Armstrong (or someone else) on the Moon. They didn't. It was government and political initiative that got us into space, to the Moon, and beyond. It is government initiative that created a space station. If private industry wants to do the same, or other - just wak'em up and have'em do it. They won't. No Boeing pilot on Mars. No buck out there.

>>What "result" do you think I'm trumpeting, Juergen?>>
That private investment gets passengers into space and that private industry will organize manned spaceflight.

>>>The fundamentally exciting thing about SS1 is that it was a non-government funded space flight. It was done with a staff of 20 or 25 people. NASA can't buy a bolt without involving 20 people. >>
Can they go to orbit with 20 people? Can they land on Mars with 20 people? Can they maintain a space station with 20 people? NASA aimed at going to orbit and going to the Moon right from the start. That requires a totally different degree of infrastructure and commitment than the commitment, investment and infrastructure Rutan could ever think of. The comparison you make is totally inappropriate, and, once again, ideologically motivated.

>>It did some damned interesting aviation stuff, too, but if that had been a NASA X-program, it wouldn't have been all that exciting.>>
Oh, yes, the similar NASA program was exciting. Damned interesting aviation stuff, too. In 1960. X-15. Fourty years ago.

>>>Hey, I'm all for these guys flying on Russian rockets. Good for them. But it's not very interesting to me anymore, because that approach will *never* make space flight available to the people. >>
Maybe, maybe not. Thus far, they are the only ones available to the people (people with 20 Million bucks to spare). They extend to Kourou in 2006/07. They stick to the capsule concept. Even NASA returns to the capsule concept. SS1 sticks to a winged aircraft to fly where no air is to support it.

Maybe this concept will lead to suborbital tourist flights one day. Maybe Branson will go as far as to really do (he's always jumping onto many ideas, and abandons them just as quickly). Remember that PanAm took bookings for passenger flights to the Moon in the early 70s. No new story there. Did they ever do it? Of course not.

But real spaceflight? Exploration? Going to Mars? You won't see any private enterprise do that. I'm not holding my breath. Answer me: do you think that private industry will get us to Mars?

SS1 and space tourism is to spaceflight what onlookers are to police investigation on a crime site. At best they don't bother the pro's from doing their job.

Do you want the first tour bus into the museum of crimology? Have fun.

posted March 06, 2005 12:04 PM            

quote:

---

SS1 and space tourism is to spaceflight what onlookers are to police investigation on a crime site. At best they don't bother the pro's from doing their job. Do you want the first tour bus into the museum of crimology? Have fun.

---

I'd rather see the crime scene from the tour bus window than have a signature of the police detective.

posted March 07, 2005 04:58 AM               

quote:

---

SS1 and space tourism is to spaceflight what onlookers are to police investigation on a crime site. At best they don't bother the pro's from doing their job. Do you want the first tour bus into the museum of crimology? Have fun

I'd rather see the crime scene from the tour bus window than have a signature of the police detective..

---

I wouldn't want to live in a society where bus tours to crime scenes is all society does about crime ... ;-)

In any case - you mentioned that NASA would need 20 workers to produce a bolt for the shuttle. Actually, NASA does not build the shuttle. Rockwell did. Which is, oh what a surprise, a private company. The competitor in the tender bid probably calculated he needed 22 workers to the same. Did Rutan take part in that tender procedure? And why not?

What ever stopped Rockwell, after they produced 5 vehicles for NASA, to produce another 25 and offer them on the private market, airlines, tour operators, whatever? Are there any reason for that? Is that clear lack of entrepreneurial initiative NASA's fault? Or is there maybe a good reason why Rockwell never did that or even suggested that?

You tell me ...

posted March 08, 2005 12:01 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by STEVE SMITH:
Allow me a related thought; I wonder if Virgin Atlantic GlobalFlyer will follow its SpaceShip One Cousin to Oskosh and NASM.

I think it will, but my own speculation.

I guess we all be following this.

BTW, I think that SS! beklongs in NASM>

---

Yes Steve, GlobalFlyer will be at EAA Airventure in Oshkosh this July (along with White Knight/SpaceShipOne). Here is a link to the confirmation.
http://www.airventure.org/2005/news/050303_global_flyer.html

Looks like an excellent beginning to what is always a great event.

posted March 09, 2005 05:51 PM               

Rutan, Allen and SpaceShipOne Team, and Piasecki are Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum Trophy Winners

The National Air and Space Museum Trophy, the museum's highest honor, has been awarded this year to the designer, the sole sponsor and the team responsible for the breakthrough aircraft/spacecraft SpaceShipOne, and to vertical flight pioneer Frank N. Piasecki. Burt Rutan, Paul G. Allen and the SpaceShipOne team are honored in the category of Current Achievement and Piasecki in the category of Lifetime Achievement.

The 2005 winners received their awards at a private ceremony at the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum building in Washington on March 9. Established in 1985, the award recognizes outstanding achievement in scientific or technological endeavors relating to air and space technology and exploration. As in past years, trophy winners received a miniature version of "The Web of Space," a sculpture by artist John Safer.

For more information on the National Air and Space Museum Trophy and other awards in the museum's collections, visit this website.