Is this unlawful and dangerous?

[Mashugana]

Originally Posted by NH Handbook of boating law:

Unlawful and dangerous operation
New Hampshire law states that these dangerous operating practices are also illegal: ...
Riding on Bow, Gunwales or Transom is allowing passengers to ride on a vessel in places where there may be a chance of falling overboard while underway. This includes passengers straddling the bow, or riding on the gunwales or transom.

Is the boat in this picture operating legally? What do you think?


I see many boats with kids riding on the bow area with their feet hanging over the side. Is that illegal? Other than sitting in the bow of a bowrider or seats designed for that purpose or during docking can people ride on the front of the boat while underway?

Here's the repaired link to the larger version of this picture by Sunset Bob in photopost. Check out the white haired man sitting close to the edge of the boat. Is this legal? What guidelines are appropriate for riding up front while underway?

Is it possible that this is the way to keep a look out for those hard-to-see kayaks



Thanks

[Woodsy]

mashugana...

Sitting on the front of an underway boat as shown in the picture is legal in NH because there is a railing.... might not be smart, but its def legal!

I would be concerned about the wake that boat is making.... WOW! That could do some serious damage! But hey... its not going over 45!




Woodsy

[Dave R]

That's quite the wake. Wonder if the boat was transitioning onto plane, or if the operator runs it that way steadily.

[Seeker]

Kids, or anyone else with feet hanging over the bow while underway is illegal. The boat in the pic is not illegal. They're just kayak hunting.

[Sunset Bob]

Originally Posted by Dave R

That's quite the wake. Wonder if the boat was transitioning onto plane, or if the operator runs it that way steadily.

I took this picture the day they were raising the colbalt that went down off of Rattlesnake Island.
This boat came out of Wolfeboro and went all the way up the broads at the same speed.
I don't want to get into the speed limit debate but that wake will do a lot more damage than a boat going fast where it is safe to do so.

[tis]

Seeker is right, it is illegal to hang your feet over the side. We found out the hard way, many years ago!

[Skip]

Oops....a little slow today!

Anyway, here is the applicable RSA;

270-D:7 Riding on Gunwales, Bow and Transom. – No person shall operate a motorboat or ride as a passenger in a motorboat while sitting on either the starboard or port gunwales or the transom, and no person shall straddle the bow while the motorboat is in operation underway.

[jrc]

They look like they are legal on the bow.

If they threw a wake that big for a more than a few seconds getting on plane, then they really need lessons on operating a boat. Or the boat is severely underpowered.

Driving a boat in that manner is irresponsible but probably legal. If your boat can't plane then don't try.

This is why a horsepower limit is misguided. If this guy had more HP, he would quickly climb out of that hole and the wake would be much smaller.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by jrc

... This is why a horsepower limit is misguided. If this guy had more HP, he would quickly climb out of that hole and the wake would be much smaller.

And if he had a bigger boat he would need even more horsepower to get out of the hole. And if he had a bigger boat than that he would need much much more horsepower to get out of the hole. And if he had ....

With the proper horsepower limit, like the one we will have in the future, that boat will not be on the lake period.

Absolutely unbelievably incredible that that picture is being used as an example of why we DO NOT need a horsepower limit. I am saving a copy of that picture as evidence in my horsepower limit campaign, got any more?

[Mashugana]

Thank you for the RSA Skip but you did not give your opinion about the legality of this boat. Thanks for the other responses too. I did repair the link in my first post so it really goes to the larger view of this picture in photopost gallery.

The fellow with white hair has his feet on the gunwale but his butt is not on the gunwale. That means he is not sitting on the gunwale. Is this not considered dangerous as described in the NH Handbook of Boating Laws and Responsibilities or common sense?

None of the people are wearing life jackets (PFDs) and there is potential for a fall overboard. A sudden turn (to avoid a kayak ) or unexpected wave could probably do that. The small railing is not enough protection. Where it's low it is not good enough and where it is higher someone could slip under the rail. I've seen both happen when vessels are in their slip or at anchor so I believe it can happen underway. What do others think. Is this safe boating? If it is not safe then it is illegal, right?

BI Guy, your interpretation is hilarious. Maybe we need a new thread so this one does not get hijacked. What Horse Power limit insures small wakes? Of course the answer is no HP as found in KAYAKS and camp canoes.

[Orion]

A good rule of thumb for any boat is your fuel consumption is pretty much proportional to the size of the wake you're making. He's definitely maxed out here! As other's have said, I hope he's in transition to plane. Did he go by the area of the boat recovery making that wake?

[jrc]

Mashugana,
I agree with you that the people on the bow are less safe then they could be and maybe the law should be adjusted. My reading of the law and my experience seeing it enforced gives my the opinion that they would not be cited for the behavior in the photo.

Bear Is.
Once again you seem incapable of proposing a law that directly addresses your goal. If you what big power boats off the lake, be honest, propose a law that say no power boats over XX feet long on the lake. A horsepower limit is another back door law that will have consequences like shown in the photo.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Mashugana

...
BI Guy, your interpretation is hilarious. Maybe we need a new thread so this one does not get hijacked. What Horse Power limit insures small wakes? Of course the answer is no HP as found in KAYAKS and camp canoes.

We can all have a good laugh now, but when a 100 hp limit is signed into law, it will not seem so funny.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Mashugana

"...I see many boats with kids riding on the bow area with their feet hanging over the side. Is that illegal? Other than sitting in the bow of a bowrider or seats designed for that purpose or during docking can people ride on the front of the boat while underway..."?

Most states' Boating Handbooks have a staged photo very similar to this staged photo. (Indicating the Captain's dismissive attitude towards his passengers' safety).

Originally Posted by jrc

"...Driving a boat in that manner is irresponsible but probably legal...If this guy had more HP, he would quickly climb out of that hole and the wake would be much smaller.

He's not alone in "driving" that way. I thought my sailboat was in for a cold dip when this different guy went by:



In the absence of any scale, I added my foot. Well, actually the scale is 0ne foot=One foot.

It was not so bad after all. (A hairy ride, but dry).



That said, a wake can be "sculpted" by a turn: the wake to the inside can be made MUCH steeper. Conversely, the outside wake is flattened—true for any boat's wake.

Originally Posted by Orion

"...Did he go by the area of the boat recovery making that wake...?

Making the recovery-workers' day?

If, during these episodes, you've tried to rig a sailboat or work on your dock...you'd know the answer to that question!

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

We can all have a good laugh now, but when a 100 hp limit is signed into law, it will not seem so funny.

I highly doubt we will ever see that limit, especially on Lake Winni.

[JTA]

I've observed that many owners of similar boats operate at that speed continuously creating the huge wakes. I can't understand how that's an enjoyable cruise ... noise, angle of the boat, etc. Slower would be the way to go, then open it up when it's appropriate. These guys do a lot of shore damage!

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by chipj29

I highly doubt we will ever see that limit, especially on Lake Winni.

I'm sure that many people that boated on the lakes and ponds that now have 10 hp limits thought the same thing.

Not that long ago waterfront homes were being built next to, and even OVER lake Winnipesaukee. The septic was a 55 gallon drum with holes punched in it. And this was done without needing even a building permit. A few decades later we have the Shoreland Protection Act and wonder if we are breaking the law by raking up pine needles.

Be careful what you predict will never happen.

[Sman]

email the picture to the marine patrol and ask...If I do this (see pic) and you observe me doing it, will you pull me over and fine me?...not as a wise guy but as a valid question...seeing how they interpret the law versus what the wording is might be interesting.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I'm sure that many people that boated on the lakes and ponds that now have 10 hp limits thought the same thing.

Not that long ago waterfront homes were being built next to, and even OVER lake Winnipesaukee. The septic was a 55 gallon drum with holes punched in it. And this was done without needing even a building permit. A few decades later we have the Shoreland Protection Act and wonder if we are breaking the law by raking up pine needles.

Be careful what you predict will never happen.

Most of the lakes and ponds that have a 10 hp limit SHOULD have that limit, due to their size. Winni is the largest lake in the state. To enact an HP limit would be ludicrous (sp?).
You simply cannot compare an environmental disaster, such as a 55 gallon drum septic system, with the campaign to enact a horsepower limit. It's not even apples and oranges, it is more like apples and eggs.

Bye bye water skiing, bye bye wake boarding. Jet skis, nearly all over 100hp now. Bye. Any bow rider wanting to go over 30 mph, bye bye. Oh, and good luck to those island dwellers who have to traverse the broads on a windy day. With less than 100hp, it won't be an easy trip in a 16 foot Boston Whaler.

[Silver Duck]

Bye bye, Mount. Bye bye Sophie C and Doris E. Bye bye Marine Patrol RIBs (not to mention the mini cutter!) Bye bye commercial barges that service island properties. Bye bye, Camp Lawrence boat. In fact, bye bye almost every inboard and/or I/O powered boat on the lake!

Silver Duck

[Resident 2B]

A 100 HP limit makes no sense at all! Silver duck has a good list of some reasons why.

Just a suggestion folks, do not pay any attention to someone that drops bombs like this. BI has his agenda and he is entitled to his opinions. His posts are designed to get you upset. I am sure he enjoys his narrow-minded, little game.

Ignor him and he will end up just posting to himself and his friends in the vocal minority.

R2B

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Silver Duck

Bye bye, Mount. Bye bye Sophie C and Doris E. Bye bye Marine Patrol RIBs (not to mention the mini cutter!) Bye bye commercial barges that service island properties. Bye bye, Camp Lawrence boat. In fact, bye bye almost every inboard and/or I/O powered boat on the lake!

Silver Duck

Obviously commercial boats, law enforcement and certain events will be an exception.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Resident 2B

A 100 HP limit makes no sense at all! Silver duck has a good list of some reasons why.

Just a suggestion folks, do not pay any attention to someone that drops bombs like this. BI has his agenda and he is entitled to his opinions. His posts are designed to get you upset. I am sure he enjoys his narrow-minded, little game.

Ignor him and he will end up just posting to himself and his friends in the vocal minority.

R2B

I have been dropping this particular "bomb" on this forum since 2004.

A few years ago many members of this forum posted that a speed limit would never happen. A horsepower limit will not happen soon, when it does just don't act all surprised.

The way to tell you have won an argument on an internet forum is that people start insulting you and telling others not to read your posts.

[Resident 2B]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The way to tell you have won an argument on an internet forum is that people start insulting you and telling others not to read your posts.

BI,

I agree! You are a real winner!

Congratulations!

R2B

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I have been dropping this particular "bomb" on this forum since 2004.

A few years ago many members of this forum posted that a speed limit would never happen. A horsepower limit will not happen soon, when it does just don't act all surprised.

The way to tell you have won an argument on an internet forum is that people start insulting you and telling others not to read your posts.

Boderline Troll posting BI. Frankly I am a bit surprised.

Speed Limits, sure I see it happening, (obviously). HP limits? Way way way too much money at stake for the state of NH to even consider it. They'd be cutting off their nose/face/head etc. You can spin the tourism vs Speed Limit argument in your favor to actually make some people believe it but even the dumbest politician would belly laugh at the idea of HP limits on Winni. For reasons already posted here but NH would never deliberately kill the many businesses who rely on large horsepower boats to do business on the lake.

Someone has too much time on his hands and needs a new adventure.

[Lakegeezer]

It could happen. In the time when gas costs $100 a gallon and nuke electric power has yet to become available, most boats will be small. The few high power boats that still exist won't have a signifcant economic impact. Discriminating laws against them could pass.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Boderline Troll posting BI. Frankly I am a bit surprised.

Speed Limits, sure I see it happening, (obviously). HP limits? Way way way too much money at stake for the state of NH to even consider it. They'd be cutting off their nose/face/head etc. You can spin the tourism vs Speed Limit argument in your favor to actually make some people believe it but even the dumbest politician would belly laugh at the idea of HP limits on Winni. For reasons already posted here but NH would never deliberately kill the many businesses who rely on large horsepower boats to do business on the lake.

Someone has too much time on his hands and needs a new adventure.

Go back to the early speed limit posts on this very forum. The never happen, tourism $$$$, political reality, cutting off noses etc. arguments were big back then.

Funny how people start making their comments personal when they can't think of more valid arguments.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

It could happen. In the time when gas costs $100 a gallon and nuke electric power has yet to become available, most boats will be small. The few high power boats that still exist won't have a signifcant economic impact. Discriminating laws against them could pass.

Sure I suppose when we're all driving hydro-electric flying cars I can see it happening. We won't need laws to tell us to stop driving big gas guzzling boats a $100 a gallon. Economics will take care of that. But as B.I. suggests that it could happen in the foreseeable future is optimistic at best. I for one thought a speed limit COULD happen and it is happening. I also believe a ban on 2-stroke motors COULD happen and it might. A horsepower limit, not in my lifetime, not on Winni. Squam and smaller lakes absolutely. Winni is too large a body with too much economic impact at stake.

[lakershaker]

I posted this a few years ago, and was immediately shot down, but here it goes again...
For those boats considered "houseboats," why aren't they taxed at all by the state? I have a camp on an island that only is used during the boating season, and I pay property taxes on it. I have great views, and a great location out in the middle of the lake, and don't really complain about the taxes I pay to enjoy it. Now take as an example that picture in the original post. There is a 2 or 3 bedroom floating camp with a kitchen, septic and probably air conditioning (I don't have AC at my camp), and which with the wake in the picture is doing much more long-term damage to the environment than my camp is. But this floating camp only pays a modest registration fee.

Now the argument from the big boat owners will be that because they own or rent a dock slip, they are indirectly paying taxes... I don't buy it - as an island property owner, I too need to pay a boat slip rent or buy one, but then still pay more in taxes for a piece of property that has no road, little fire protection and where I don't use the schools. And what about the guy who trailers his houseboat? Or they will say they pay taxes via the fuel tax. Again, not the same thing, and I am sure they still apply for the $0.19/gallon refund at the end of the year...

Maybe, if there needs to be a way to limit size or to pay for environmental remediation, we should have the big boats pay property taxes for the floating camps, just like the islanders and other shorefront owners do for their piece of paradise. They way I look at it, a 35' boat has at least 70' of waterfrontage! This would serve to self-regulate boat size.

Just some food for thought!

[Nauset]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

And if he had a bigger boat he would need even more horsepower to get out of the hole. And if he had a bigger boat than that he would need much much more horsepower to get out of the hole. And if he had ....

With the proper horsepower limit, like the one we will have in the future, that boat will not be on the lake period.

Absolutely unbelievably incredible that that picture is being used as an example of why we DO NOT need a horsepower limit. I am saving a copy of that picture as evidence in my horsepower limit campaign, got any more?

I remember reading somewhere that the definition of an environmentalist is someone who already built his vacation home...

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Nauset

I remember reading somewhere that the definition of an environmentalist is someone who already built his vacation home...

Well said Nauset. Reminds me of all the Hollywood types telling us not to eat meat or buy fur or drive SUV's. Meanwhile they make movies that use tons of electricity and fly in private jets promoting themselves.

Why is it the bumper stickers that say Save the Earth are always on the back of old Volvo DL's that have really smoky exhaust spewing from the tailpipe?

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Nauset

I remember reading somewhere that the definition of an environmentalist is someone who already built his vacation home...

and...

on a lot that was originally listed as nonbuildable...

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Well said Nauset. Reminds me of all the Hollywood types telling us not to eat meat or buy fur or drive SUV's. Meanwhile they make movies that use tons of electricity and fly in private jets promoting themselves.

Why is it the bumper stickers that say Save the Earth are always on the back of old Volvo DL's that have really smoky exhaust spewing from the tailpipe?

These are the stories polluters tell each other as they throw trash out their windows, or pee of their swim platform. It helps to ease their consciences.

Supplying electricity to movies makers is part of my business. Usually done with small crystal generators, not much power really. But of course they use fuel. However it's a minute fraction of the electricity the public uses to watch the same movie in their homes.

Here we have the people that think one guy cruising in a 1,700HP boat is OK. But complaining about a 209HP generator used to make a movie with a crew of hundreds and an audience into the hundreds of millions.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Here we have the people that think one guy cruising in a 1,700HP boat is OK. But complaining about a 209HP generator used to make a movie with a crew of hundreds and an audience into the hundreds of millions.

And both the 1,700HP boat (I've yet to see this creature that you claim is so common on our lake) and the movie and its crew are both luxuries that serve no real purpose, other than sheer entertainment.

Since movies (and the bulk of anything that comes out of Hollyweird) has no positive impact on the environment, it is just as easy to argue that you are a key part of a larger-scale destruction of the environment and needless consumer of resources than the "1,700HP" boat you cite.

[Seeker]

I thought the title of this post was "Is this unlawful and dangerous?"
WTH has that got to do with 1700hp boats, etc?

Keep this up and I'll run out of popcorn.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

These are the stories polluters tell each other as they throw trash out their windows, or pee of their swim platform. It helps to ease their consciences.

Supplying electricity to movies makers is part of my business. Usually done with small crystal generators, not much power really. But of course they use fuel. However it's a minute fraction of the electricity the public uses to watch the same movie in their homes.

Here we have the people that think one guy cruising in a 1,700HP boat is OK. But complaining about a 209HP generator used to make a movie with a crew of hundreds and an audience into the hundreds of millions.

How much pollution is a joy ride to space going to create?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

And both the 1,700HP boat (I've yet to see this creature that you claim is so common on our lake) and the movie and its crew are both luxuries that serve no real purpose, other than sheer entertainment.

Since movies (and the bulk of anything that comes out of Hollyweird) has no positive impact on the environment, it is just as easy to argue that you are a key part of a larger-scale destruction of the environment and needless consumer of resources than the "1,700HP" boat you cite.

Wow!... Movies have no positive impact on the environment? Does that include movies like "An Inconvenient Truth"? So Al Gore is destroying the environment but the 1,700HP boat is OK..... What color is the sky in your world?

My spacecraft uses less fuel than this boat.

Nor-Tech
130mph
1,700HP
$700k

Picture of it on Alton Bay

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Here we have the people that think one guy cruising in a 1,700HP boat is OK. But complaining about a 209HP generator used to make a movie with a crew of hundreds and an audience into the hundreds of millions.

We are getting a bit off track here, but really... How many 1700HP boats do you think are really on the lake? I would dare to guess that less than 1 percent (and I am probably being generous) are over 850hp (850hp being twin 425hp 496 Mag HO's found in most WELL Equipped off the floor non-special order performance boats). I bet there are no more than a 10-20 that have the kind of HP that you mention. Again, probably being generous.

You have dodged my comments a few times about your HP law. Technology is getting better and better, so why push/limit people that want HP to buy older, less efficient engines?

[Silver Duck]

BI

So far as I understand, it would be illegal in the State of New Hampshire to grant such exceptions (except, of course, for the MP which is a part of the Division of Safety.)

Skip posted an RSA at one point which stated that no business may be granted rights on the lake that the general public does not have; perhaps he could dig it out again so we could look at the exact wording?

If I'm remembering this correctly, you can pretty much take it to the bank that, if you do get a 100 hp limit passed, there will be a great many furious cruiser owners who will insist that the "no exceptions" interpretation is enforced.....

Silver Duck

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by codeman671

We are getting a bit off track here, but really... How many 1700HP boats do you think are really on the lake? I would dare to guess that less than 1 percent (and I am probably being generous) are over 850hp (850hp being twin 425hp 496 Mag HO's found in most WELL Equipped off the floor non-special order performance boats). I bet there are no more than a 10-20 that have the kind of HP that you mention. Again, probably being generous.

You have dodged my comments a few times about your HP law. Technology is getting better and better, so why push/limit people that want HP to buy older, less efficient engines?

One 1,700HP boat is one to many.

The lake is not big enough for some of the larger cruisers that are showing up. And who knows how much bigger they may be in the future. People will always find excuses and ways around laws. A HP limit is easy to understand an enforce. If you can think of a way to also limit older less efficient engines that is great. Other lakes have HP limits and they work. This "it will never work" argument makes no sense when it is working on so many other lakes.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Silver Duck

BI

So far as I understand, it would be illegal in the State of New Hampshire to grant such exceptions (except, of course, for the MP which is a part of the Division of Safety.)

Skip posted an RSA at one point which stated that no business may be granted rights on the lake that the general public does not have; perhaps he could dig it out again so we could look at the exact wording?

If I'm remembering this correctly, you can pretty much take it to the bank that, if you do get a 100 hp limit passed, there will be a great many furious cruiser owners who will insist that the "no exceptions" interpretation is enforced.....

Silver Duck

Having a different HP limit for commercial and non-commercial boats is not granting a business special rights. Anyway a HP limit signed into law would be its own RSA and supersede the one skip quoted. Or, if need be, an exception could be added to the earlier RSA.

And if you don't like any of those answers remember that my idea is to only limit boats made after 2008. The Mount, Sophie, Doris and Bear can meet that requirement.

I didn't start the 100HP idea. Mine was 300HP.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Wow!... Movies have no positive impact on the environment? Does that include movies like "An Inconvenient Truth"? So Al Gore is destroying the environment but the 1,700HP boat is OK..... What color is the sky in your world?

My spacecraft uses less fuel than this boat.

Nor-Tech
130mph
1,700HP
$700k

Picture of it on Alton Bay

Yes, the movie industry has no net positive impact on the environment, in fact it has a net negative impact. Al Gore is not "the movie industry", that's a mighty big leap to make, but it underscores how you have arrived at some of your other speed limit "conclusions".

There is as much valid evidence to support "An Inconvenient Truth" as there is to dispute it, so your singular example of a hotly disputed movie is either a strawman, an outright troll, or just plain lazy. Of course, much like the speed limit law itself, the people on opposing sides of the argument both firmly believe their side to be the correct one, but you're welcome to go down a rat hole on that topic if you like. I'm sure it's good for another 200 response thread before we're all occupied with actually enjoying the lake in person.

That boat does not appear to be going very fast, or burning much fuel, in that photo. While any boat could presumably idle continuously for its entire useful life, any vehicle that is in fact a "spacecraft" will most certainly burn a large amount of fuel to achieve liftoff, mind you both cases only for the pure pleasure of their occupants. Hurting the environment "less" != "good".

If you care to present data/evidence of that boat operating at peak HP output for a net time period that shows it burns more fuel than "your" spacecraft, I'll cede that singular boat uses more fuel than some rocketship (not sure what point that proves, but if it's important to you, I'll let you win the argument). In the meantime though, you're presenting opinions for which you have no data to support, which is in spirit something that you have called many others to task for on various recent threads here.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

Yes, the movie industry has no net positive impact on the environment, in fact it has a net negative impact. Al Gore is not "the movie industry", that's a mighty big leap to make, but it underscores how you have arrived at some of your other speed limit "conclusions".

There is as much valid evidence to support "An Inconvenient Truth" as there is to dispute it, so your singular example of a hotly disputed movie is either a strawman, an outright troll, or just plain lazy. Of course, much like the speed limit law itself, the people on opposing sides of the argument both firmly believe their side to be the correct one, but you're welcome to go down a rat hole on that topic if you like. I'm sure it's good for another 200 response thread before we're all occupied with actually enjoying the lake in person.

That boat does not appear to be going very fast, or burning much fuel, in that photo. While any boat could presumably idle continuously for its entire useful life, any vehicle that is in fact a "spacecraft" will most certainly burn a large amount of fuel to achieve liftoff, mind you both cases only for the pure pleasure of their occupants. Hurting the environment "less" != "good".

If you care to present data/evidence of that boat operating at peak HP output for a net time period that shows it burns more fuel than "your" spacecraft, I'll cede that singular boat uses more fuel than some rocketship (not sure what point that proves, but if it's important to you, I'll let you win the argument). In the meantime though, you're presenting opinions for which you have no data to support, which is in spirit something that you have called many others to task for on various recent threads here.

I do not care to present data/evidence.

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

....
I didn't start the 100HP idea. Mine was 300HP.

As far as I can tell, you did start the 100HP idea. Maybe I didn't search well enough.

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

We can all have a good laugh now, but when a 100 hp limit is signed into law, it will not seem so funny.

I'm trying to keep these discussions on point and not get into pedantic semantics, that's why I dropped the fact vs opinion thread.

But BI you gotta try to keep this stuff straight. Maybe this is turning into too much of a BI against the world. I haven't seen anyone on this board change their mind in a long time, so maybe we're just churning bits. If you're going to start bringing Al Gore and his "movie" into this, how can we take you seriously.

Finally, the mother ship alone for your space ride consumes over 1000 gallons per hour. That's before you light the rocket. Have a fun trip, but stop kidding yourself, it's a rich man's indulgence. It makes no ecological sense.

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Having a different HP limit for commercial and non-commercial boats is not granting a business special rights. Anyway a HP limit signed into law would be its own RSA and supersede the one skip quoted. Or, if need be, an exception could be added to the earlier RSA.

And if you don't like any of those answers remember that my idea is to only limit boats made after 2008. The Mount, Sophie, Doris and Bear can meet that requirement.

I didn't start the 100HP idea. Mine was 300HP.

Thank you...

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by jrc

As far as I can tell, you did start the 100HP idea. Maybe I didn't search well enough.



I'm trying to keep these discussions on point and not get into pedantic semantics, that's why I dropped the fact vs opinion thread.

But BI you gotta try to keep this stuff straight. Maybe this is turning into too much of a BI against the world. I haven't seen anyone on this board change their mind in a long time, so maybe we're just churning bits. If you're going to start bringing Al Gore and his "movie" into this, how can we take you seriously.

Finally, the mother ship alone for your space ride consumes over 1000 gallons per hour. That's before you light the rocket. Have a fun trip, but stop kidding yourself, it's a rich man's indulgence. It makes no ecological sense.

My idea was a 300HP limit. I think I predicted that in 20 years or more the limit could be 100HP or less. But that was a while ago.

I didn't bring up the movie connection. I was responding to a cheap shot by hezelnut. It just so happens that movies are my business.

I also did not bring up the spacecraft connection. That was another cheap shot. They don't bother me, but don't tell me I am off topic because I respond.

Whether or not you take me seriously is not important to me. I rarely take myself seriously. If a $200k space ride is a rich man's indulgence, what do you call a $700k boat that seats 5?

[Resident 2B]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

We can all have a good laugh now, but when a 100 hp limit is signed into law, it will not seem so funny.

The above was posted yesterday, April 8th at 8:08 AM by Bear Islander, post #13 on this thread.

I do not recall any person on this forum, rational or irrational, mentioning a 100 HP limit on Lake Winnipesaukee before you introduced it. Maybe some of your fellow "thinkers" have brought it up in discussions, but this is the first I have seen it here.

I believe this might be Step 3 in your grand plan.

Step 1: Speed limit to get the GFBL boats off the lake;

Step 2: Wake size limit to get the cruisers off the lake;

Step 3: 100 HP limit to get most power boats off the lake.


R2B

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Resident 2B

The above was posted April 8th at 8:08 AM by Bear Islander, post #13 on this thread.

Possibily too many Gs messing with short term memory.

What a difference a day makes........ Great song!

R2B

I stand corrected. Must have been a typo (or old age).

I have been talking about horsepower limits for a long tiime.

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ower#post11909

[Resident 2B]

BI,

Horse power limits are one thing.

A 100 HP limit is another. You hung the 100 number on this yesterday. Only you can know why.

I'm 60 years old. I seriously doubt I will see a horse power limit on Lake Winnipesaukee in my life. Nor do I think any current poster needs to worry much about it in their lives.

BI, old age might very well be affecting you, but you are still a young pup!

Good night!

R2B

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

... If a $200k space ride is a rich man's indulgence, what do you call a $700k boat that seats 5?

It's a rich man's (or women's) indulgence too, that doesn't mean it should be banned.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I do not care to present data/evidence.

Yeah, facts schmacts. We don't need them around here.
Now hype and scare tactics, that's what we need more of!

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

If a $200k space ride is a rich man's indulgence, what do you call a $700k boat that seats 5?

For $200k, you get a once in a lifetime experience, a week-long trip that you can only share with yourself.
For $700k, you get a lifetime experience that you use over and over, over a period of years, not days. And you get to share that experience with friends and family.

FWIW, I would never own a $700k boat, even if I could afford it. I would love to take a ride into space however, but even if I could afford it, I don't think I would. The pluses def. don't outweigh the negatives.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by chipj29

Yeah, facts schmacts. We don't need them around here.
Now hype and scare tactics, that's what we need more of!

...

He was asking me to provide data to compare "my" spacecraft with a Nor-Tech.

First, it is not my responsibility to do his research for him.

Second, spacecraft data is off topic.

Third, he didn't ask nice. His tone was superior and insulting.

Sorry if this spoils your bash.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

He was asking me to provide data to compare "my" spacecraft with a Nor-Tech.

First, it is not my responsibility to do his research for him.

Second, spacecraft data is off topic.

Third, he didn't ask nice. His tone was superior and insulting.

Sorry if this spoils your bash.

Correct, because the following statement that you made:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

My spacecraft uses less fuel than this boat.

Nor-Tech
130mph
1,700HP
$700k

Seems completely implausible, unless perhaps you are comparing your rocketship in unpowered orbit to the boat at full-throttle, or some similar unbalanced comparison. You brought up the spacecraft vs. boat fuel consumption issue, I'm merely asking you to back up your statement. Or, should we just accept any comparison you present as valid and factual?

Sorry if you don't like my tone, but if you make outlandish statements like the above you should be able to provide even approximate data off-hand. I'm not asking you to "do my research", I'm simply asking you to supply the data that you used to base your statement on.

Had *I* made the initial comment about spacecraft vs. boat fuel consumption, then I would not be offended if someone asked me to back up my argument with facts.

So, do you actually have any data to support the statement that you introduced into this thread?

[Nauset]

Here are some numbers I pulled up with a google search on a real space craft.

Space shuttle fuel consumed in a launch: 3.5 million pounds.

If water, instead of fuel, were pumped by the three Space Shuttle Main Engines, an average family-sized swimming pool could be drained in 25 seconds.

The three space shuttle main engines generate the maximum equivalent of about 37 million horsepower. The fuel pump alone delivers as much as 71,000 horsepower, the oxygen pump delivers about 23,000. Just as a basis of comparison, the fuel pump alone is probably the equivalent horsepower of 28 locomotives. And with the horsepower of the oxygen pump, that's probably the equivalent of 11 more locomotives.

You could also compare the Shuttle engines to a Corvette. The three main engines plus the two solid rocket motors deliver the horsepower of about 120,000 Corvettes.

Each of the Space Shuttle's solid rocket boosters burns 5 tons of propellant per second.

It only takes the Space Shuttle about 8 minutes to accelerate to its orbital speed of more than 17,000 miles per hour.

14 astronauts have died in the two shuttle accidents.

[chmeeee]

I am taking data on fuel usage from the following two sources:

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives...4746.Es.r.html

http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/quickfacts/quickoil.html

Space shuttle uses 3.5M lbs of fuel
US uses 2.5B lbs of gasoline per day
Space shuttle uses the equivalent of 0.14% of US daily gasoline consumption
US uses 388.6M gallons of gasoline per day (second source)
Space shuttle uses the equivalent of 544,000 gallons of gasoline

I can't find figures on the Nortech, so I'll assume it burns 5x as much fuel as my V8 bowrider. That would be 0.6 mpg. The Nortech probably has approximately the same passenger capacity as the space shuttle (ironic!).

You would have to navigate 326,000 miles on Lake Winnipesaukee in that boat to use the same amount of fuel. If you assume a conservative average speed of 60 mph (mix of high speed blasts and low speed cruising), that would be 5,400 hours. I've never seen a boat with hours that high.

Of course this doesn't take into account the fact that the shuttle burns a different fuel, but thats beyond my expertise.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by Nauset

Space shuttle fuel consumed in a launch: 3.5 million pounds.

Rule of thumb on gasoline consumption is .4 lbs of fuel per HP per hour.

So a 1700HP boat would use *approximately* 680 lbs of fuel per hour at peak power output (gasoline being roughly 6lbs/gallon, so about 113 gallons/hour). With a top speed of 130MPH, the boat could go end to end on Winni in about 9 minutes (provided there are no kayakers to maneuver around).

So, after about 5,100 hours of running at full throttle (34,000 lake passes) this 1700HP boat would use as much fuel as a space shuttle launch.

However, the shuttle is a very large and heavy craft, and is much different than the SpaceShipTwo that is carrying civilian astronauts on their brief ride into "space". The launch mechanism is also much different, SS2 probably only burns a few hundred thousand pounds of fuel. I don't know the exact number (they don't list it on their website), but use 400,000lbs as a rough guess (being generous, that's about 1/10th what the shuttle uses). That's ~580 hours of 1700HP boat running. Figure an engine rebuild at 1,000 hrs (again, being very generous), and the fact that it's not very likely the boat can sustain peak HP output for more than a couple of minutes on Winni...


On the other hand, the spaceship does not produce any wake

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Nauset

Here are some numbers I pulled up with a google search on a real space craft.

Space shuttle fuel consumed in a launch: 3.5 million pounds.

If water, instead of fuel, were pumped by the three Space Shuttle Main Engines, an average family-sized swimming pool could be drained in 25 seconds.

The three space shuttle main engines generate the maximum equivalent of about 37 million horsepower. The fuel pump alone delivers as much as 71,000 horsepower, the oxygen pump delivers about 23,000. Just as a basis of comparison, the fuel pump alone is probably the equivalent horsepower of 28 locomotives. And with the horsepower of the oxygen pump, that's probably the equivalent of 11 more locomotives.

You could also compare the Shuttle engines to a Corvette. The three main engines plus the two solid rocket motors deliver the horsepower of about 120,000 Corvettes.

Each of the Space Shuttle's solid rocket boosters burns 5 tons of propellant per second.

It only takes the Space Shuttle about 8 minutes to accelerate to its orbital speed of more than 17,000 miles per hour.

14 astronauts have died in the two shuttle accidents.

I'm not taking the space shuttle. You are comparing apples and elephants.

Spaceship One used 594 pounds of fuel (solid rubber). That is the same weight as 99 gallons of gasoline. I don't think they have released all the specs on Spaceship Two yet, but the weight is about 3 times as much so figure 297 gallons of gasoline. The Nor-Tech's have 300, 360 or 400 gallon tanks.

I will ride just once, my share of the fuel is about the same weight as 37 gallons of gas.

Now go figure the fuel for a family of 4 to fly to Disney World.

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Nauset

Here are some numbers I pulled up with a google search on a real space craft.

Space shuttle fuel consumed in a launch: 3.5 million pounds.

If water, instead of fuel, were pumped by the three Space Shuttle Main Engines, an average family-sized swimming pool could be drained in 25 seconds.

The three space shuttle main engines generate the maximum equivalent of about 37 million horsepower. The fuel pump alone delivers as much as 71,000 horsepower, the oxygen pump delivers about 23,000. Just as a basis of comparison, the fuel pump alone is probably the equivalent horsepower of 28 locomotives. And with the horsepower of the oxygen pump, that's probably the equivalent of 11 more locomotives.

You could also compare the Shuttle engines to a Corvette. The three main engines plus the two solid rocket motors deliver the horsepower of about 120,000 Corvettes.

Each of the Space Shuttle's solid rocket boosters burns 5 tons of propellant per second.

It only takes the Space Shuttle about 8 minutes to accelerate to its orbital speed of more than 17,000 miles per hour.

14 astronauts have died in the two shuttle accidents.

That's beautifull Nauset but that rocket won't be terrorizing kids camps or ruining shorelines so it's no concern to some.Now the emisions and the waste of energy resources might be another story.

[chmeeee]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I'm not taking the space shuttle. You are comparing apples and elephants.

Spaceship One used 594 pounds of fuel (solid rubber). That is the same weight as 99 gallons of gasoline. I don't think they have released all the specs on Spaceship Two yet, but the weight is about 3 times as much so figure 297 gallons of gasoline.

Interesting, do you have a link to the description of the ship? I would love to read further about that, I love this stuff.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I'm not taking the space shuttle. You are comparing apples and elephants.

Spaceship One used 594 pounds of fuel (solid rubber). That is the same weight as 99 gallons of gasoline. I don't think they have released all the specs on Spaceship Two yet, but the weight is about 3 times as much so figure 297 gallons of gasoline. The Nor-Tech's have 300, 360 or 400 gallon tanks.

I will ride just once, my share of the fuel is about the same weight as 37 gallons of gas.

Now go figure the fuel for a family of 4 to fly to Disney World.

You can't directly compare HTPB consumption to gasoline consumption. HTPB is > 20,000 BTU's/pound while gasoline is 17,500 BTU's/pound.

If you somehow were to do a conversion, SS1 used the equivalent of 678 gallons of gas. SS2 would use about 2,000 gallons of gas (using your 3x multiplier).

2,000 gallons of gas *6lb gallon = 12,000lbs of gasoline. Or about 17 hours of operation of the Nor-Tec at full output, or about 113 end-to-end high-speed lake runs, which is purely theoretical, there is no way it could run at full output for more than a few minutes. In fact I would be somewhat skeptical that the Nor-Tec used 2,000 gallons of gas in an entire season.

Tell us again how your spaceship uses less fuel than the Nor-Tec by some measure?

BTW, this doesn't take into account the nitrous oxide used as the catalyst for the HTPB fuel burn.

[lakershaker]

Soldier #1: Listen. In order to maintain air-speed velocity, a swallow needs to beat its wings forty-three times every second, right?
Arthur: Please!
Soldier #1: Am I right?
Arthur: I'm not interested!
Soldier #2: It could be carried by an African swallow!
Soldier #1: Oh, yeah, an African swallow maybe, but not a European swallow. That's my point.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

You can't directly compare HTPB consumption to gasoline consumption. HTPB is > 20,000 BTU's/pound while gasoline is 17,500 BTU's/pound.

If you somehow were to do a conversion, SS1 used the equivalent of 678 gallons of gas. SS2 would use about 2,000 gallons of gas (using your 3x multiplier).

2,000 gallons of gas *6lb gallon = 12,000lbs of gasoline. Or about 17 hours of operation of the Nor-Tec at full output, or about 113 end-to-end high-speed lake runs, which is purely theoretical, there is no way it could run at full output for more than a few minutes. In fact I would be somewhat skeptical that the Nor-Tec used 2,000 gallons of gas in an entire season.

Tell us again how your spaceship uses less fuel than the Nor-Tec by some measure?

BTW, this doesn't take into account the nitrous oxide used as the catalyst for the HTPB fuel burn.

I think you suddenly discovered how wrong you are, and are trying to confuse the readers so they will not realize it.

You need a new calculator. Even using you numbers for BTU conversion that means my share of the fuel is 42 gallons. Did you make up that 2,000 gallon figure? I'm not sure you could fit that much in the passenger cabin let alone the engine compartment.

Oxidizer is not fuel and both vehicles need it in proportional amounts


42 gallons of fuel for a trip to space is tiny compared to the fuel consumption of a Nor-Tech.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

You need a new calculator. Even using you numbers for BTU conversion that means my share of the fuel is 42 gallons. Did you make up that 2,000 gallon figure? I'm not sure you could fit that much in the passenger cabin let alone the engine compartment.

Oxidizer is not fuel and both vehicles need it in proportional amounts


42 gallons of fuel for a trip to space is tiny compared to the fuel consumption of a Nor-Tech.

Of course I didn't make up the 2,000 gallon number, I think the math is pretty obvious. Convert HTPB BTU's to gasoline BTU's to get approximate comparison data. Use numbers *you* provided (fuel burned for SS1 flight, 3x multiplier for SS2 flight).

Your 42 gallons of fuel number is a fully loaded space craft for a single flight.

Let's say the Nor-Tec does one 10 minute high-speed run for the enjoyment of its passengers (basically 1 end-to-end high speed lake run) and 2 hours 20 minutes of casual cruising (to equate to the 2.5 hour SS2 spaceflight experience). Even by very generous calculations it would only use about 70 gallons of fuel *total*. Divide that by 5 passengers, and you're at 14 gallons/passenger for a pleasure trip. Even with only 2 passengers it's 35 gallons/passenger.

Still not seeing how your space flight uses less fuel by any comparable measure than the Nor-Tec.

The "oxidizer" for the Nor-Tec is air (or compressed air, if the engines are not naturally aspirated), which is for now at least free and plentiful and is not generally considered a "consumable" in its operation. That's why I threw in the nitrous oxide comment, the SS2 spacecraft is consuming the HTPB and nitrous oxide.

[offmycloud]

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

Of course I didn't make up the 2,000 gallon number, I think the math is pretty obvious. Convert HTPB BTU's to gasoline BTU's to get approximate comparison data. Use numbers *you* provided (fuel burned for SS1 flight, 3x multiplier for SS2 flight).

Your 42 gallons of fuel number is a fully loaded space craft for a single flight.

Let's say the Nor-Tec does one 10 minute high-speed run for the enjoyment of its passengers (basically 1 end-to-end high speed lake run) and 2 hours 20 minutes of casual cruising (to equate to the 2.5 hour SS2 spaceflight experience). Even by very generous calculations it would only use about 70 gallons of fuel *total*. Divide that by 5 passengers, and you're at 14 gallons/passenger for a pleasure trip. Even with only 2 passengers it's 35 gallons/passenger.

Still not seeing how your space flight uses less fuel by any comparable measure than the Nor-Tec.

The "oxidizer" for the Nor-Tec is air (or compressed air, if the engines are not naturally aspirated), which is for now at least free and plentiful and is not generally considered a "consumable" in its operation. That's why I threw in the nitrous oxide comment, the SS2 spacecraft is consuming the HTPB and nitrous oxide.

Wow! You two have been going at it for about 24 hours now!!

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

These are the stories polluters tell each other as they throw trash out their windows, or pee of their swim platform. It helps to ease their consciences.

Supplying electricity to movies makers is part of my business. Usually done with small crystal generators, not much power really. But of course they use fuel. However it's a minute fraction of the electricity the public uses to watch the same movie in their homes.

Here we have the people that think one guy cruising in a 1,700HP boat is OK. But complaining about a 209HP generator used to make a movie with a crew of hundreds and an audience into the hundreds of millions.

How about a tool like John Travolta flying his personal Boeing 707-138B.

It "only" carries 15000 Gallons of fuel give or take a gallon or two

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

Of course I didn't make up the 2,000 gallon number, I think the math is pretty obvious. Convert HTPB BTU's to gasoline BTU's to get approximate comparison data. Use numbers *you* provided (fuel burned for SS1 flight, 3x multiplier for SS2 flight).

Your 42 gallons of fuel number is a fully loaded space craft for a single flight.

Let's say the Nor-Tec does one 10 minute high-speed run for the enjoyment of its passengers (basically 1 end-to-end high speed lake run) and 2 hours 20 minutes of casual cruising (to equate to the 2.5 hour SS2 spaceflight experience). Even by very generous calculations it would only use about 70 gallons of fuel *total*. Divide that by 5 passengers, and you're at 14 gallons/passenger for a pleasure trip. Even with only 2 passengers it's 35 gallons/passenger.

Still not seeing how your space flight uses less fuel by any comparable measure than the Nor-Tec.

The "oxidizer" for the Nor-Tec is air (or compressed air, if the engines are not naturally aspirated), which is for now at least free and plentiful and is not generally considered a "consumable" in its operation. That's why I threw in the nitrous oxide comment, the SS2 spacecraft is consuming the HTPB and nitrous oxide.

I'm glad you agree that 42 gallons is correct.

You can cook the Nor-Tech data any way you want. It's a 1,700HP boat with a 400 gallon gas tank. By comparison my 42 gallon spacecraft ride is small potatoes.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I'm glad you agree that 42 gallons is correct.

You can cook the Nor-Tech data any way you want. It's a 1,700HP boat with a 400 gallon gas tank. By comparison my 42 gallon spacecraft ride is small potatoes.

I'm not "cooking" anything, just attempting to make a linear comparison.

How many HP is the spacecraft? How many gallons of fuel does it hold?

Your comparative ride on the Nor-Tec would use 17 gallons of gas. How does that equate to your potato size chart?

[John A. Birdsall]

while the boat in question sure puts out a big wake, my dad had a 15' inboard with a displacement hull, (made in name of "Kingfisher" I think was built by hinckley. Had a 60 HP inboard. and it put out one heck of a wake.

Sometimes its not the size of the boat, nor the horsepower, but the design of the hull (displacement) that causes the wake. I suppose that if the boat in question would increase his speed then the wake would not be as bad.

I think that Skip quoted a law as to riding on the bow, stern, gunnels etc. and I did not see anything about rails being involved, thus I would think that those riding on the bow of that boat were illegal.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by offmycloud

Wow! You two have been going at it for about 24 hours now!!

Yeah—and if Bear Islander gets the sniffles, somebody else will take his seat...

...And the Nor-Tech will still be amply polluting Lake Winnipesaukee air and water using three truck engines—or two V-12s.

[Mashugana]

We started out talking about the legality of riding on the bow with a side topic of big wakes. except for John's last post the thread turned into how much fuel will Bear Islander's adventure use. He better do it soon before people get nervous about the increasingly crowded sky. We already have space junk falling out of orbit with the potential of hitting kayaks, campers and regular folks so we'll have to restrict that soon. The space ships make too much noise. They go way too fast for safety. They could collide with slow, hard to see private planes. Imagine if that happened over your home. What about those hard to see ultra lites? Jet jockies don't see those small ultra lites and their pilots are afraid. Bear Islander better get his space travel in before do-gooders put limits on those go fast be loud space ships.

For the record, I don't care how much fuel it takes to get Bear Islander off the planet.

now, back to the topic.

[Mashugana]

Originally Posted by John A. Birdsall

I think that Skip quoted a law as to riding on the bow, stern, gunnels etc. and I did not see anything about rails being involved, thus I would think that those riding on the bow of that boat were illegal.

In addition to Skip's quote this is from the NH boating handbook found on
This Page

Originally Posted by NH Handbook

New Hampshire law states that these dangerous operating practices are illegal. {snip} Riding on the Bow, Gunwales, or Transom is allowing passengers to ride on a power-driven vessel in places where there may be a chance of falling overboard while underway. This includes passengers straddling the bow or riding on the gunwales or transom.

I agree with John, the boat in the picture is not operating legally. For sure it is not a safe way to ride. There are no seats on that bow and it is not designed for passengers while underway.

[fatlazyless]

So, why all the biases against big wakes....like what's wrong w/ big wakes...I happen to like big wakes. Excellent for kayak'n....big wakes give kayaks a Hawai five-O experience...surf'n those big wakes...when the big cruisers slow down to chug past a congested buoy 3. Big wakes....may the force be with the big wakes.

Another good use for big wakes is creeping up to the top of the standing wave in a 14' aluminum-25hp boat and cruis'n along up on plane at about 15mph with noth'n but air under the bow as you balance surf'n style on the top of the wake wave.

Probably the biggest wakes on the lake come from Doris E., Sophie C,, and the Marine Patrol's 41' former Coast Guard launch.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Mashugana,
I think I also heard of a proposed limit on the space craft power to 300 hp. What's the hurry anyway.

3 2 1 rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

[jrc]

Mashugana, the more I look at that photo (and the less time I spend sparring with BI) the more I see your original point.

I use to hang around two similiar boats but their deck was dead flat in front of the cabin. I saw them have people sitting out front several times and it really didn't look that dangerous. A couple times I was in the fly-bridge when a bunch of people were on deck. In hindsight, it may have been too risky, but on those boats there is no sense of speed. They usually cruise around 10-15 MPH, so you become complacent and forget about those big props.

In the picture, the deck is not flat and the passengers have no real place to sit or stand securely. So this may show a case were the law should apply. However, in practice, the MP seem to focus the law on small boats with people obviously hanging off or on larger boats with legs dangling.

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I'm not taking the space shuttle. You are comparing apples and elephants.

Spaceship One used 594 pounds of fuel (solid rubber). That is the same weight as 99 gallons of gasoline. I don't think they have released all the specs on Spaceship Two yet, but the weight is about 3 times as much so figure 297 gallons of gasoline. The Nor-Tech's have 300, 360 or 400 gallon tanks.

I will ride just once, my share of the fuel is about the same weight as 37 gallons of gas.

Now go figure the fuel for a family of 4 to fly to Disney World.

BI,

You really need to read up a little and know what it is your talking about before you start making comparisons between a boat and a spaceship. while I do think your a pretty smart guy, your share of the fuel to required get your passenger flight into space aboard Spaceship Two is alot more than 37 gallons of Nitrous Oxide and Rubber! You originally divided by 8 (the total number of people Spaceship Two can carry aloft, but there are only 6 Passengers, so you should divide by 6 instead of 8 for your calculations)

What you fail to mention is that Spaceship Two is carried aloft to approx 50000 Feet altitude by the mothership White Knight Two. White Knight Two is powered by 4 Pratt & Whitney PW308A turbofans, producing 6900lbs of thrust (@takeoff) each for a total of 27,600lbs of thrust. The equation to convert thrust to horsepower is at best complicated. Here is a link that explains it in detail. But needless to say its WAY more than that 1700 hp Nortech!

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...on/q0195.shtml

Its a safe bet that White Knight Two with its 4 jet engines burns a considerable amout of high polluting JET A fuel during taxiing & takeoff (when the jets are least effecient) and during the climb out to launch @ 50,000 feet. Certainly your 1/6 share of this is WAY more than that Nortech could burn in a weekend... and ALOT more polluting too!

You are right on one thing.. comparing the Space Shuttle an orbital spacecraft, to Spaceship Two a sub-orbital spacecraft is apples to elephants!

Back to our regularly scheduled thread...

Woodsy

[Bear Islander]

I didn't start the boat/spaceship comparison. And the White Knight Two was never part of the question. It's not a spaceship. Divide by 8 or 6 as you wish. The point is the fuel consumption is incredibly low for getting a person into space. And very low compared with other kinds of recreational activities (like yours).

Most of the fuel expended in this junket will be in the commercial jet flying my family and I to and from the spaceport in California.

[Wolfeboro_Baja]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I didn't start the boat/spaceship comparison.

Ummm.........yeah, you did!! In post #36, ITD asked "How much pollution is a joy ride to space going to create?" and you responded with THIS POST, and I quote "My spacecraft uses less fuel than this boat.

Nor-Tech
130mph
1,700HP
$700k"

Highly unlikely, by the way but you brought it up first.

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

And the White Knight Two was never part of the question. It's not a spaceship.

WhiteKnight IS part of the question because without WhiteKnight, SpaceShip Two cannot get off the ground!! While you're correct in asserting that WhiteKnight is not a spaceship, it IS the launch vehicle for SpaceShip Two. And, for that matter, SpaceShip Two is barely a space ship itself, only achieving a sub-orbital flight as opposed to actually achieving true orbital flight in space. Really, the only thing you will be able to claim is you will have achieved true weightlessness and spent a butt-load of money to do it.

[Nauset]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Now go figure the fuel for a family of 4 to fly to Disney World.

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Most of the fuel expended in this junket will be in the commercial jet flying my family and I to and from the spaceport in California.

So if someone is doing something you’re not interested in that is bad and as long as you can justify something that is OK?

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I didn't start the boat/spaceship comparison. And the White Knight Two was never part of the question. It's not a spaceship. Divide by 8 or 6 as you wish. The point is the fuel consumption is incredibly low for getting a person into space. And very low compared with other kinds of recreational activities (like yours).

Most of the fuel expended in this junket will be in the commercial jet flying my family and I to and from the spaceport in California.

So anyway you slice it Bear Islander, before you start claiming pollution is one of your main concerns with regard to enacting a speed limit you might want to take a hard look in the mirror and assess how much your activities pollute the environment. Jetting off to these expeditions and jetting off into space and all this traveling you seem to do introduces a heck of a lot pollution into the environment. I'm not suggesting you curtail any of these activities just don't go around pointing the finger at everyone else before you point it at yourself.