From: g_d_pusch_remove_underscores@xnet.com   
      
   Charles Buckley  writes:   
      
   > Gordon D. Pusch wrote:   
   >> "Joe Claffey Jr."  writes:   
   >>>In article ,   
   >>> henry@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer) wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> That aside, such an aircraft would certainly be interesting for such   
   >>>> uses... *if* it already existed.  It's very unlikely to be   
   >>>> cost-effective to build such a thing solely as part of a launch   
   >>>> system.  A rocket stage, even a reusable one, is easier and cheaper.   
   >>>   
   >>> Burt Rutan did design (and build) an aircraft specifically for his   
   >>> X-Prize entry. It's not hypersonic (AFAIK),   
   >>   
   >> It's not even _supersonic_ !!!  It's basically a big high aspect-ratio   
   >> sailplane-like design with a couple of jet engines --- essentially a   
   >> civilian re-invention of the U2 spyplane. It's top speed is at most   
   >> a few hundred knots!   
   >   
   >    Hmm. Are you referring to SS1 or the carrier?   
      
   The carrier, which is very _definitely_ subsonic, not hypersonic!   
      
   The issue being debated here is orbiter/carrier separation, with an   
   earlier poster suggesting that separation could safely occur at   
   hypersonic velocities. I am pointing out that the separation of Rutan's   
   "SS1" from its subsonic "White Knight" carrier aircraft most definitely   
   does _NOT_ qualify as a sucessful example of a hypersonic separation !!!   
      
      
   -- Gordon D. Pusch   
      
   perl -e '$_ = "gdpusch\@NO.xnet.SPAM.com\n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;'   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)