It's not necessarily the sudden shock that makes parts separate themselves from each other. The airframe was rated to 0.8 Mach. Okay, let's assume that the FAA is being their usually pessimistic selves when it comes to airframe ratings and that it can sustain twice that much for a short duration. The speed of sound (Mach 1) is roughly 780 mph. If the airframe is capable of short bursts of 1.6 Mach, then I can't really see it surviving 2.97 Mach.
Once they hit transsonic, they will undergo a severe amount of turbulence. The longer they spend in the transsonic region, the bigger danger to those long, thin wings.
I don't disagree about Rutan's chances vs. Carmack's. Rutan has quite a lead. Even Carmack has commented on Rutan's chances.
I think you might have read too much into my comments. I didn't say I thought Carmack was likely to win because of his approach. I said I was cheering for him.
The problem is that the airframe and the wings are NOT designed to withstand the necessary stress of escape velocity.
If you look at the successful "space plane" type vehicles that NASA or any other big research team has developed, you'll see that it required designs that looked more like a rocket than an airplane to get anything anywhere near the edge of space.
If not a "junkyard wars" approach, it is an extremely optimistic design. I would expect the wings to rip out at the roots when they light up the rocket motors.
It's interesting to note that Carmack, with Armadillo Aerospace, is taking more of an Open-Source approach to the X-Prize by participating in mailing lists and discussing various aspects of his designs with others in the rocketry community. While he's not going full-disclosure, he's at least sharing a lot more than Rutan.
Outlaw the engines and the hobby is outlawed. Make the requirements to purchase and own the motors strict enough and people will drop the hobby. I know a lot of people that are seriously considering dropping out of the hobby rather than go through fingerprinting, photographs, full background investigation and interviews whereby an ATFE bureaucrat can decide, on a whim, to deny you entry into a hobby that has, in over 40 years, had a better safety record than model airplanes or high-school football.
No, we're NOT talking about the little Estes engines. These motors are a bit larger.
Fireworks have exemptions to allow their purchase by non-licensed citizens. Just go ahead and drive to any fireworks stand and you can pick up a heck of a lot more explosive potential than any hobby rocket motor. No LEUP required.
Besides, as defined by Congress, the propellant is NOT an explosive. ATFE has chosen to declare it as such and regulate it since the Clinton administration. (So, all you Republican bashers out there, get over it. It's both parties that are at fault here.) Heck, they even listed an exemption for "propellant actuated devices." Gee, but a rocket motor sure sounds like a "propellant actuated device" to me! ATFE says, "No, they're not propellant actuated devices because we say they're not." Despite being shown explicitly the definition that Congress put into the law, the ATFE continues to stick to the "rocket motors are explosives" definition.
BTW: less rocketry geeks means more computer geeks or game programmers? Bull. I'm a rocketry geek (Level 3 certification, meaning I've successfully flown a 40lb. rocket with 10lbs. of propellant.) and am ALSO a computer geek. (As well as a ham radio geek, a medieval reenactment geek, a gun geek, a photography geek, a music geek, a beer-brewing geek, etc.)
Look up Niemoller. Read what he had to say on the subject of encroachment. It's an incremental thing, folks. Right now, it's rocketry. It has been encryption. It could very well be encryption again. We could, if we're not careful, end up having to show our "papers" at checkpoints whenever we travel anywhere. All in the name of "security."
It is NOT worth it to give up liberty in trade for so-called security. If it was, then the Founding Fathers would have stayed home and knuckled under to King George III. They would not have set the example that was followed by the French, Mexicans, and every other country that threw out a totalitarian monarchy and established a democracy or republic. Mahatma Ghandi risked his life by defying British rule in India and marching to the sea to refine his own salt. He felt that the liberty to provide for himself was worth the risk to life and limb. Martin Luther King, Jr. knew the risks to his life when he decided to speak out against segragation, prejudice and bigotry.
"All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke
Slashdot Mirror
If that was the case, then the X-15 wouldn't have needed the short, stubby wings that it had. It, too, could have used long, thin wings.
There's a lot of air at 50,000 feet. Make no mistake. That transsonic region is still going to be problematical.
That's because when he wasn't doing the wild thang with Mrs. Bach, he was escaping from the kids by writing music!
It's not necessarily the sudden shock that makes parts separate themselves from each other. The airframe was rated to 0.8 Mach. Okay, let's assume that the FAA is being their usually pessimistic selves when it comes to airframe ratings and that it can sustain twice that much for a short duration. The speed of sound (Mach 1) is roughly 780 mph. If the airframe is capable of short bursts of 1.6 Mach, then I can't really see it surviving 2.97 Mach.
Once they hit transsonic, they will undergo a severe amount of turbulence. The longer they spend in the transsonic region, the bigger danger to those long, thin wings.
I don't disagree about Rutan's chances vs. Carmack's. Rutan has quite a lead. Even Carmack has commented on Rutan's chances.
I think you might have read too much into my comments. I didn't say I thought Carmack was likely to win because of his approach. I said I was cheering for him.
The problem is that the airframe and the wings are NOT designed to withstand the necessary stress of escape velocity.
If you look at the successful "space plane" type vehicles that NASA or any other big research team has developed, you'll see that it required designs that looked more like a rocket than an airplane to get anything anywhere near the edge of space.
If not a "junkyard wars" approach, it is an extremely optimistic design. I would expect the wings to rip out at the roots when they light up the rocket motors.
It's interesting to note that Carmack, with Armadillo Aerospace, is taking more of an Open-Source approach to the X-Prize by participating in mailing lists and discussing various aspects of his designs with others in the rocketry community. While he's not going full-disclosure, he's at least sharing a lot more than Rutan.
I'm cheering for Armadillo.
Huh?
Honey! Can you get one of the kids to bring me another beer? Thanks!
Now, what's this about genius?
Outlaw the engines and the hobby is outlawed. Make the requirements to purchase and own the motors strict enough and people will drop the hobby. I know a lot of people that are seriously considering dropping out of the hobby rather than go through fingerprinting, photographs, full background investigation and interviews whereby an ATFE bureaucrat can decide, on a whim, to deny you entry into a hobby that has, in over 40 years, had a better safety record than model airplanes or high-school football.
No, we're NOT talking about the little Estes engines. These motors are a bit larger.
Fireworks have exemptions to allow their purchase by non-licensed citizens. Just go ahead and drive to any fireworks stand and you can pick up a heck of a lot more explosive potential than any hobby rocket motor. No LEUP required.
Besides, as defined by Congress, the propellant is NOT an explosive. ATFE has chosen to declare it as such and regulate it since the Clinton administration. (So, all you Republican bashers out there, get over it. It's both parties that are at fault here.) Heck, they even listed an exemption for "propellant actuated devices." Gee, but a rocket motor sure sounds like a "propellant actuated device" to me! ATFE says, "No, they're not propellant actuated devices because we say they're not." Despite being shown explicitly the definition that Congress put into the law, the ATFE continues to stick to the "rocket motors are explosives" definition.
BTW: less rocketry geeks means more computer geeks or game programmers? Bull. I'm a rocketry geek (Level 3 certification, meaning I've successfully flown a 40lb. rocket with 10lbs. of propellant.) and am ALSO a computer geek. (As well as a ham radio geek, a medieval reenactment geek, a gun geek, a photography geek, a music geek, a beer-brewing geek, etc.)
Look up Niemoller. Read what he had to say on the subject of encroachment. It's an incremental thing, folks. Right now, it's rocketry. It has been encryption. It could very well be encryption again. We could, if we're not careful, end up having to show our "papers" at checkpoints whenever we travel anywhere. All in the name of "security."
It is NOT worth it to give up liberty in trade for so-called security. If it was, then the Founding Fathers would have stayed home and knuckled under to King George III. They would not have set the example that was followed by the French, Mexicans, and every other country that threw out a totalitarian monarchy and established a democracy or republic. Mahatma Ghandi risked his life by defying British rule in India and marching to the sea to refine his own salt. He felt that the liberty to provide for himself was worth the risk to life and limb. Martin Luther King, Jr. knew the risks to his life when he decided to speak out against segragation, prejudice and bigotry.
"All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke