Ian Woollard wrote:
> With both the Shuttle and Rotary we had the argument that making a
> vehicle manned makes it safer. I'm not sure that there is very much
> evidence of that with the Shuttle. I fail to see how aeroplane
> experience directly translates into rocketry experience, but I'm not
> going to debate this (EZ-Rocket clearly does better with a pilot, I'm
> not taking a pot shot at anyone).
Of course, the EZ-Rocket is more like an airplane with a "non-air-breathing
jet engine" than a rocket vehicle in the sense applicable to space travel...
...and I'd say that, as far as developing practical systems for operating
rocket thrusters as vehicle propulsion (of any type), it is an excellent
platform indeed.
I'm looking forward to seeing what XCOR's next generation looks like: the one
where they apply "lessons learned" from EZ-Rocket... are they building the "Xerus"
configuration they displayed a while back? That looked like a speed-flexible shape
(combination of ample wing area and the ability to behave itself at high speeds)
that could support some interesting flights with the speed-independent thrust of
rocket power! ("We can neither confirm nor deny...." :)
-dave w
_______________________________________________
ERPS-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
