This video shows how to entertain yourself while exercising your dog or cat. DT http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRWHIQoHAmk
Re. the Virgin Galactic mothership: Is it just me, or does that thing seem inherently unsafe to others? I realize that during its flight up, it will carry a smaller space plane between the two fuselages. But on the way back it will be flying without the centerpiece, so to speak, and then it will depend on the single wing staying together. Yet the wing looks especuallly spindly in the center, and any wind sheer hitting just one side could snap it -- that's how it looks to me. Patrick? Or any other aviation expert want to tell me why this is just a misapprehension? Thanks, Joe --- On Tue, 7/29/08, daniel turner <outwest112@yahoo.com> wrote: From: daniel turner <outwest112@yahoo.com> Subject: [Utah-astronomy] something to do with your laser To: utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com Date: Tuesday, July 29, 2008, 1:27 AM This video shows how to entertain yourself while exercising your dog or cat. DT http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRWHIQoHAmk _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
It looks like a glider kit I built when I was a kid. It crashed and broke. ;) Quoting Joe Bauman <josephmbauman@yahoo.com>:
Re. the Virgin Galactic mothership: Is it just me, or does that thing seem inherently unsafe to others? I realize that during its flight up, it will carry a smaller space plane between the two fuselages. But on the way back it will be flying without the centerpiece, so to speak, and then it will depend on the single wing staying together. Yet the wing looks especuallly spindly in the center, and any wind sheer hitting just one side could snap it -- that's how it looks to me. Patrick? Or any other aviation expert want to tell me why this is just a misapprehension? Thanks, Joe
--- On Tue, 7/29/08, daniel turner <outwest112@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: daniel turner <outwest112@yahoo.com> Subject: [Utah-astronomy] something to do with your laser To: utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com Date: Tuesday, July 29, 2008, 1:27 AM
This video shows how to entertain yourself while exercising your dog or cat.
DT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRWHIQoHAmk
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: 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://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Joe, I haven't read the press release yet, just glanced at a photo, but if memory serves, it's another Rutan composite design. Composites are inherently stiffer than metals, per unit mass. Looks can be deceiving. Remember the Voyager that went all around the world non-stop? Another Rutan design and actually very similar in terms of structure. And it's aspect ratio was much higher than this ship. It's wing tips deflected upwards by several METERS in flight, under load, and flying in a jet stream of a couple of hundred miles per hour. They didn't snap (although the vortex tips did break off on takeoff because they bounced while the wing tanks were full to the brim with fuel...the flight wasn't scuttled, and went on to complete it's mission. It was deemed too risky to attempt an emergency landing with full fuel tanks). A couple of years ago I went back to school and got certified to use 3D design software. The program I learned actually has a module that does stress analysis of the design. No doubt this craft was designed using the same or similar program. And checked, re-checked, and checked again. Computer flight simulations as well as actual wind-tunnel testing of scale models. I think the design team has done the best job they were capapble of. What's going to cause the first crash of a space tourist craft probably won't be a design flaw, it will be when the thing hits a goose. On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 10:54 AM, Joe Bauman <josephmbauman@yahoo.com>wrote:
Re. the Virgin Galactic mothership: Is it just me, or does that thing seem inherently unsafe to others? I realize that during its flight up, it will carry a smaller space plane between the two fuselages. But on the way back it will be flying without the centerpiece, so to speak, and then it will depend on the single wing staying together. Yet the wing looks especuallly spindly in the center, and any wind sheer hitting just one side could snap it -- that's how it looks to me. Patrick? Or any other aviation expert want to tell me why this is just a misapprehension? Thanks, Joe
Then his goose will be cooked! Thanks, Chuck, I guess this is an example where looks are deceiving. -- Joe --- On Tue, 7/29/08, Chuck Hards <chuck.hards@gmail.com> wrote: From: Chuck Hards <chuck.hards@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Mothership To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Tuesday, July 29, 2008, 2:29 PM Joe, I haven't read the press release yet, just glanced at a photo, but if memory serves, it's another Rutan composite design. Composites are inherently stiffer than metals, per unit mass. Looks can be deceiving. Remember the Voyager that went all around the world non-stop? Another Rutan design and actually very similar in terms of structure. And it's aspect ratio was much higher than this ship. It's wing tips deflected upwards by several METERS in flight, under load, and flying in a jet stream of a couple of hundred miles per hour. They didn't snap (although the vortex tips did break off on takeoff because they bounced while the wing tanks were full to the brim with fuel...the flight wasn't scuttled, and went on to complete it's mission. It was deemed too risky to attempt an emergency landing with full fuel tanks). A couple of years ago I went back to school and got certified to use 3D design software. The program I learned actually has a module that does stress analysis of the design. No doubt this craft was designed using the same or similar program. And checked, re-checked, and checked again. Computer flight simulations as well as actual wind-tunnel testing of scale models. I think the design team has done the best job they were capapble of. What's going to cause the first crash of a space tourist craft probably won't be a design flaw, it will be when the thing hits a goose. On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 10:54 AM, Joe Bauman <josephmbauman@yahoo.com>wrote:
Re. the Virgin Galactic mothership: Is it just me, or does that thing seem inherently unsafe to others? I realize that during its flight up, it will carry a smaller space plane between the two fuselages. But on the way back it will be flying without the centerpiece, so to speak, and then it will depend on the single wing staying together. Yet the wing looks especuallly spindly in the center, and any wind sheer hitting just one side could snap it -- that's how it looks to me. Patrick? Or any other aviation expert want to tell me why this is just a misapprehension? Thanks, Joe
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Hi Joe, Chuck already answered your question from the technical standpoint. So I'll just add that as a pilot of some 40 years who has grown up with ever increasingly unconventional Rutan aircraft, I've pretty well come to the conclusion that if Burt Rutan says it will fly, it will. :) patrick On 29 Jul 2008, at 10:54, Joe Bauman wrote:
Re. the Virgin Galactic mothership: Is it just me, or does that thing seem inherently unsafe to others? I realize that during its flight up, it will carry a smaller space plane between the two fuselages. But on the way back it will be flying without the centerpiece, so to speak, and then it will depend on the single wing staying together. Yet the wing looks especuallly spindly in the center, and any wind sheer hitting just one side could snap it -- that's how it looks to me. Patrick? Or any other aviation expert want to tell me why this is just a misapprehension? Thanks, Joe
Remember too that the center section of that wing is the "hard point", that is, it's the attachment zone for the actual "spacecraft" (and I use that term very loosely. As far as I'm concerned, if it can't achieve at least orbital velocity, it's not a true spacecraft). It's probably the most rugged portion of the whole design. On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 12:46 AM, Patrick Wiggins <paw@wirelessbeehive.com>wrote:
Hi Joe,
Chuck already answered your question from the technical standpoint.
So I'll just add that as a pilot of some 40 years who has grown up with ever increasingly unconventional Rutan aircraft, I've pretty well come to the conclusion that if Burt Rutan says it will fly, it will. :)
Anyone else planning on Wolf Creek this weekend. I will be there Friday and maybe late Saturday. Clear Skies, Don Colton
Don, How was it up there? Work and weather made me forget I wanted to make it up there for at least one of the nights. Cheers David On 2008-07-30 15:42, Don J. Colton wrote:
Anyone else planning on Wolf Creek this weekend. I will be there Friday and maybe late Saturday.
Clear Skies,
Don Colton
participants (7)
-
Chuck Hards -
daniel turner -
diveboss＠xmission.com -
Don J. Colton -
Joe Bauman -
Naz & David -
Patrick Wiggins