SpaceShipOne Makes it!

[Kingairrick]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=2&u=/nm/20040621/ts_nm/space_flight_dc

Pretty cool.

 

[Nikes]

Ya that was awsome



62 miles stirght up, mach 3+ with a final approach speed of 90 kts, and accoarding to the FAA the pilot is to old to fly airliners around.

 

[Gulfstream 200]

yup, and all for the cost of a typical government paper study.

what NASA was many many years ago.

pretty neat.

 

[Nova]

I hear JO has already bid for the new flying and will be able to do it for half the price. Of course his astronauts will be 300 hour private pilots working for free.

 

[Skygod]

Very very cool!

And yeah, Mike Melvill was single-pilot rocketing 62 miles up, earning the title astonaut, then glided down . . . but would not be allowed to fly a B-737 with a co-pilot.

Great coverage at www.Space.com

 

[PurpleInMEM]

"And yeah, Mike Melvill was single-pilot rocketing 62 miles up, earning the title astonaut, then glided down . . . but would not be allowed to fly a B-737 with a co-pilot."

and our seniority is better because of it...

 

[Timebuilder]

...but your public perception of being too frail and unreliable to fly as you approach age sixty means that someone may get the bright idea to further limit your ability to fly by lowering the age for cutoff. That could conceivably limit your becoming vested in a pension plan, or just your ablity to earn a living.

But seniority isn't about ability or fairness, is it?

 

[BornAgainPagan]

...but your public perception of being too frail and unreliable to fly as you approach age sixty means that someone may get the bright idea to further limit your ability to fly by lowering the age for cutoff. That could conceivably limit your becoming vested in a pension plan, or just your ablity to earn a living.

But seniority isn't about ability or fairness, is it?

Ability? No. Fairness? Yes.

 

[XGmaninGA]

So when can I apply for my ATP Spaceplane- Single-engine-rocket rating?

 

[jarhead]

Does anyone know for certain the exact altitude achieved? I was watching the news about this effort as it was underway, and a spokesman stated that
the flight was being tracked by both China Lake and another radar site. He said the altitude would be verified within plus or minus "inches" of the goal of 62 miles. They said later that the exact altitude would be given to the public a short time after it landed, but so far I've not seen it.

Quite an accomplishment, in any event.

 

[Publishers]

One thing

One thing to think about is the money being spent on light jets like the Eclipse or Safire to certify a relatively benign design and for the Safire or Cessna Mustang, a traditional construction method. These guys are spending $100's of millions with no aircraft yet at all.

On the other hand, the concept of spending $20 million for a $10 million prize refelcts true aviation thinking.

 

[jarhead]

On the other hand, the concept of spending $20 million for a $10 million prize refelcts true aviation thinking.

Hmmmm......maybe it's something more than just the money? Guys climb Mount Everest and don't get a dime for it. The old slogan of "just because it's there" comes to mind.

 

[LAXSaabdude]

Hmmmm......maybe it's something more than just the money? Guys climb Mount Everest and don't get a dime for it. The old slogan of "just because it's there" comes to mind.

Obviously you aren't familiar with Publishers' way of thinking, then. Everything boils down to the bottom line. There is no "human" element.

LAXSaabdude.

 

[jarhead]

Hope this works.........

Here is a link to a pretty good photo gallery of today's launch and recovery.

http://www.startribune.com/images/ss/1184_0.html

 

[enigma]

Ability? No. Fairness? Yes.

Mark this day on your calenders. I agree with the pagan. Seniority may strike some as being an anchor holding the best down. I see it as a shield, protecting me from butt kissing suck ups and the managers who show them favoritism.

enigma

edit. Congrats to the entire team, especially Burt Rutan. Mr. Rutan continues to provide a light shining in the darkness that is aircraft design innovation.

 

[redd]

David and Goliath...

One of the most notable achievements by Rutan and SS1 is the fact that they were able to overcome a problem that NASA with all it's billions of dollars of funding couldn't seem to ever figure out. He did it at a fraction of the cost, and in a shirt sleeve environment.

The problem is of re-entry and the aero/thermal/speed loads that contributed the shuttle Columbia's disintegration upon entering into the earth's atmosphere.


"[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]An unusual design feature of SpaceShipOne reduces the heating loads of the vehicle on reentry. Before reentry begins, the vehicle raises the trailing edge of its wing, along with its twin tails, to more than a 60-degree angle to the horizontal. This "carefree" reentry mode, Rutan said, is designed to put the spacecraft into a "superstable" configuration that is far more forgiving to trajectory errors than the space shuttle or the X-15. The wing and tail sections are rotated back to the horizontal position at 24,000 meters to allow the vehicle to glide to a landing....The SpaceShipOne "wings are folded up to provide a shuttle-cock or "feather" effect to help stabilize the vehicle for reentry." The "'Care-Free' configuration allows a 'hands-off reentry and greatly reduces aero/thermal loads." Here's the link for this article:[/font]
http://www.hobbyspace.com/AAdmin/archive/RLV/2003/RLVNews2003-04.html

In fact, the committee that was set up to investigate NASA and the shuttle disaster, Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB), recommended that NASA figure out another way to achieve re-entry before ever sending anything manned outside the earth's atmosphere again, something which unfortunately, NASA with its incestuous culture has chosen to ignore and is unable to figure out.

Other CAIB recommendations included changing the bureauocratic political culture at NASA, which will be the hardest thing to do in my opinion. A good article analyzing the Columbia accident and the CAIB report is by William Langewiesche (son of Stick & Rudder author) in the Atlantic Monthly.
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/11/langewiesche.htm

CAIB report and website:
http://www.caib.us/


Rutan is a true aviation and engineering pioneer with the the highest of motivations, and should be commended for his achievements.


"Rutan...said he is developing this private spacecraft now in the hopes of igniting a "renaissance" in spacecraft development similar to the one seen in aviation between 1909-1912. While by 1908 only the pilots had flown, by the end of this three-year aviation renaissance hundreds of aircraft types had been developed and thousands of pilots had flown. The development of a private suborbital spacecraft could create a similar renaissance in spaceflight to end the decades of stagnation in government-run programs, Rutan said....[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The unveiling is not a marketing event. We are not seeking funding and are not selling anything. We are in the middle of an important research program - to see if manned space access can be done by other than the expensive government programs. After the unveiling, we will go back into hiding to complete the flight tests and conduct the space flights.[/font]...."

 

[eddie]

The press release from Scaled Composites said he reached 328,491 feet.

 

[Kingairrick]

redd:

I'm not trying to start anything.
The shuttle begins re-entry at around Mach 25, SS1 peaked at around Mach 3. There is a slight difference in frictional heating in those two speeds. SS1 doesn't turn the air into plasma for instance.
Rutan definately is the $hit though...

 

[redd]

Exactly!

Man, but that's exactly the point, Rutan did it without the speed, the backward flight, the angle, the plasma, the heat, the tiles, the spacesuites, the funding, the masses of engineers, the huge orginization, the committees...need I go on?

Behemoth NASA hasn't changed the way a/c breakthrough and re-enter the atsmosphere since they started manned flights, and still hasn't discovered what Burt Rutan knows.

 

[jarhead]

To be fair, Rutan did not need to, nor did he ever approach speeds required for orbit. Once those speeds are reached in space, the energy must be bled off upon re-entry. I can't fault NASA engineers for not having designed the shuttle for a low speed re-entry.

 

[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.