SpaceShipOne Makes it!

[redd]

But why does NASA continue to demand such huge velocities to launch a/c into orbit, which require the decelerating re-entry tactics? Why are they still utilizing the same rocket/missile technology as they did in the 1960's?

 

[Nova]

But why does NASA continue to demand such huge velocities to launch a/c into orbit, which require the decelerating re-entry tactics?

Um, because it's required to achieve orbit. If NASA was all about shooting stuff up into near space and let it fall back to Earth than such speeds wouldn't be requried.

 

[jarhead]

Redd,

It is not NASA that requires such huge velocities to get into orbit. It is Sir Issac Newton who demands it. Simply put, the laws of physics will have the orbit decay and re-enter at anything under 18,000 miles per hour. The further out from the planet the the space craft is orbiting at, the faster it must travel. To close to the earth, and atmospere will bring you down.

 

[414Flyer]

But why does NASA continue to demand such huge velocities to launch a/c into orbit, which require the decelerating re-entry tactics? Why are they still utilizing the same rocket/missile technology as they did in the 1960's?

Its not NASA that requires it, its physics and gravity that do

 

[CDVdriver]

The coolest stuff.....the landing pic shows some damage to the underside of this beast, maybe from reentry?

 

[redd]

Okay, point taken, but what I mean is why not refine the methods to acheive all this? We've had two shuttle break ups, the riskiness of the methods to slow the a/c down, and the way in which decelerization occurs, could use revision. Doing things the same way they have always been done may lead to other shuttle accidents, what can NASA do to be flexible and innovative enough to acheive better results here? Rutan seems to be unhindered in developing cutting edge new technology.

 

[jarhead]

The pilot of SS1 stated that when he was at max altitude, he heard a loud noise.
He looked back and saw a section near the back that had buckled like a coke can.

 

[jarhead]

Okay, point taken, but what I mean is why not refine the methods to acheive all this? We've had two shuttle break ups, the riskiness of the methods to slow the a/c down, and the way in which decelerization occurs, could use revision. Doing things the same way they have always been done may lead to other shuttle accidents, what can NASA do to be flexible and innovative enough to acheive better results here? Rutan seems to be unhindered in developing cutting edge new technology.

Actually, NASA did what Rutan did today, way back in around 1960. They shot Alan Sheperd up into space and straight back down again into the ocean. The difference in these feats really, was that the U.S. government and NASA had a blank check to underwrite the effort on the 60's. Today's success was done as a private venture, and that's what's remarkable, IMO

 

[redd]

The pilot of SS1 stated that when he was at max altitude, he heard a loud noise.
He looked back and saw a section near the back that had buckled like a coke can.

Didn't rain down in peices over Texas, though.

 

[jarhead]

Nope.....he was not moving fast enough for that, like he would
have been had he been at orbital velocity.

 

[redd]

Actually, NASA did what Rutan did today, way back in around 1960. They shot Alan Sheperd up into space and straight back down again into the ocean. The difference in these feats really, was that the U.S. government and NASA had a blank check to underwrite the effort on the 60's. Today's success was done as a private venture, and that's what's remarkable, IMO

Other than going up and comming down, explain the similarities between Sheppard's flight and SS1's? Wasn't Sheppard's in a capsule that landed in the ocean? I see more similarities in configuration to the shuttle than to a capsule.

 

[jarhead]

Shepard's flight(s) were a precursor in development of the manned moon mission. Totally different objective. Other differences than just the speeds (which is a huge one) is that the whole program was to design a space capsule that would re-enter the earths atmosphere at tremendous velocity as the earths gravity pulled it ever faster towards home. Retro rockets for the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo capsules had to be fired to slow them down enough to not burn into a cinder, or 'skip' off the atmosphere like a rock on a pond. Then, once falling in thicker air, and going slow enough, chutes were deployed for landing. Wings were not wanted in space or in orbit around the moon where they would be usless, and a hinderence when traveling at 25,000 mph on re-entry from the moon.

Different missions require different engineering.

Suggest you Google the topic for more definitive information.

 

[redd]

I am not an expert in space travel technology, but myself and others can see the need for change out of NASA's space program. The board commissioned to investigate the shuttle disaster and NASA, the CAIB Board, recommended that, if the shuttle is to be used beyond 2010, that it be recertified and it reached an "inescapable conclusion"-

"Because of the risks inherent in the original design of the Space Shuttle, because the design was based in many aspects on now-obsolete technologies, and because the Shuttle is now an aging system but still developmental in character, it is in the nation's interest to replace the Shuttle as soon as possible as the primary means for transporting humans to and from Earth orbit. (p. 210-211. Emphasis in original.)"


I agree with their findings, the report also claims there were organizational problems inherent in the culture of NASA that also contributed to the accidents. Regarding organizational causes, the Board concluded the accident was -

"... rooted in the Space Shuttle Program's history and culture, including the original compromises that were required to gain approval for the Shuttle, subsequent years of resource constraints, fluctuating priorities, schedule pressures, mischaracterization of the Shuttle as operational rather than developmental, and lack of an agreed national vision for human space flight. Cultural traits and organizational practices detrimental to safety were allowed to develop, including: reliance on past success as a substitute for sound engineering practices..., organizational barriers that prevented effective communication of critical safety information and stifled professional differences of opinion; lack of integrated management across program elements; and the evolution of an informal chain of command and decision-making processes that operated outside the organization's rules. (p. 9)"​

​

You can argue with me, but these are the facts from the experts at hand.​

 

[Airpiraterob]

spending more than the reward does not make them foolish or even just adventurers.

The apollo program generated, off patents and other technology developed, almost twice the return over time on what was spent. something like a return of $1.80+ for every dollar spent.

it was probably the invention of velcro or something.

 

[Publishers]

human

Actually Lax, I think the human element is everything. My point was about the design expense of light jet aircraft which has to go through this elaborate process while an individual can go to space relatively easily without the oversight.


It will be interesting to see how this works when they carry out their stated intention of taking paying passengers up to space. Let's imagine the conversation with the POI about their intention and what about those check rides.

It is exactly the human spirit that I find so great about this industry. You should not take my bottom line attitude about commercial airlines as reflecting my thinking about aviation and aviators. To me there is a substantial difference and my thinking probably has become more jaded with the time spent on these boards. I regret that as I enjoy the human element a great deal more. The people who I have met along the way have made this all worth it.

 

[HerrJeremy]

Anyone know where to find the CFR's he had to follow for this type of flight (Equipment, pilot ratings)? Is a type rating required for rocket powered craft? I also wonder what kind of clearance he needed to release in Class A and shoot through FL600; he had to have been on an IFR flight plan to be in Class A.... What happens to that flight plan when the aircraft splits in two? Did he need a new clearance for the spacecraft before separation to climb from FL500 to FL600? And what about the return, what ATC requirements are in place before descending back through Class A? If there a ceiling on the Class E airspace up there?

Just curious......

 

[dav8or]

Anyone know where to find the CFR's he had to follow for this type of flight (Equipment, pilot ratings)? Is a type rating required for rocket powered craft? I also wonder what kind of clearance he needed to release in Class A and shoot through FL600; he had to have been on an IFR flight plan to be in Class A.... What happens to that flight plan when the aircraft splits in two? Did he need a new clearance for the spacecraft before separation to climb from FL500 to FL600? And what about the return, what ATC requirements are in place before descending back through Class A? If there a ceiling on the Class E airspace up there?

Just curious......

VFR on top. Same rating needed to fly a motorized sailplane would be my guess. White Knight pilot might need a glider tow sign off.

 

[HerrJeremy]

VFR on top. Same rating needed to fly a motorized sailplane would be my guess. White Knight pilot might need a glider tow sign off.

I thought "VFR on top" was allowed everywhere EXCEPT Class A.....

 

[fr0g]

I believe above 60,000 feet is uncontrolled airspace... the question is getting there!

 

[HerrJeremy]

I believe above 60,000 feet is uncontrolled airspace... the question is getting there!

A google search found this:
http://www.jdtllc.com/Version22/primer.htm

If you intend on a cruise altitude of at or above FL600 you need to file for FL600. On RC's Page 2 enter '600' in the altitude box. Again, even if you intend on a cruise of (example) FL650 enter FL600 in the box! In effect, when you file for this altitude you "own" a block altitude of FL600 to outer space! File for FL600, climb to that altitude then continue your climb to FL650 or any altitude above FL600. You'll not be penalized by RC's critique unless you descend below FL600 until cleared to do so..

Intresting.....learn something new everyday...

I am still wondering about a flight plan for an aircraft that will eventually become TWO aircraft....

btw: AIM 3-2-6(e)(7) states that above FL600 is controlled airspace Class E. I guess that makes sense, even the Space Shuttle has to obey a type of ATC ("Huston" Mission Control).