Talk:Scaled Composites

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
WikiProject Space This article is within the scope of WikiProject Space.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
Related projects:
WikiProject Spaceflight WikiProject Spaceflight Importance to Spaceflight: Mid

This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents

[edit] link

Why was the link to http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040407/D81Q8VQ00.html Government Licenses First Private Rocket to Scaled Composites removed from this article? - Bevo 18:09, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I put the information in the article body - much better than external links. Outside links change. DavidWBrooks 23:44, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. - Bevo 14:19, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Photos

I have not added any Tier One photos to this page. Since there is so much coverage of that project elsewhere, I was hoping we could use this page to cover the other craft that Rutan/Scaled have worked on. -Joseph (Talk) 04:54, 2004 Oct 6 (UTC)

[edit] Tier II UAV

At some point, Scaled built a POC mockup for Northrop Grumman under the Tier II program. It appears to have been a twin-engine aircraft. Anyone have any information?Akradecki 03:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Model numbers?

Does anyone know if the Roton ATV and the Toyota TA-1 had in-house Scaled model numbers while they were being developed?

Ok, found and added the TA-1 model number, but still nothing on the ATV.Akradecki 01:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rocket Test Accident

Shouldn't this be in the SpaceShipTwo article? 132.205.44.5 03:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The nature, cause and location of the explosion are all unknown, statements that the injector exploded are pure speculation so far, no official nor credible announcement has been made. It could be several months before the accident report is finally published. There is some unconfirmed speculation that one or both of the main oxidizer reservoir tanks ruptured. If true it is not curently known whether this was the primary explosion or a secondary result. Charles 01:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Who or what is Cal-OSHA?? 200.54.125.99 16:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Cal-OSHA is the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Conrad T. Pino 00:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Recommend balancing article so the length of the accident section is not so long compared with the rest of the article. There's a lot to add to the article which means the accident section doesn't have to be shortened! Archtransit 23:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the accident doesn't have an incident article of its own. Given that, there are going to be alot of details here. I do agree the rest of the article does need expansion. Perhaps at this point we should consider splitting off the incident to its own page, if there are further notable details that can be added. At first glance, the incident does appear notable on its own, which is the major qualification for having its own article. - BillCJ 00:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Other than the fact that the accident happened, and that three folks were killed, there's not likely to be any further information forthcoming. Scaled keeps such things fairly proprietary. There were some details discussed at the memorial service, but none of these were published, so there's really not much as far as specifics that can or will be added to here. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 03:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other famous vehicles

I am not sure that the (nice) Beech Starship is so famous, specially for the builder. Just see the article about it. Canard designs are innovative, yes, but they have less advantages than often written. Better gobal efficiency because of canard lift instead of tail down lift is a legend, not a physical law. The best efficient aircrafts are gliders and commercial liners, all of classic configuration. Plxdesi january 08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.102.4.123 (talk) 13:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)