SpaceShipOne Makes it!

[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).

 

[avbug]

I think the bottom line here is that this represents yet another remarkable achievement by Rutan in a long line of achievements that is nothing short of genius.

It's been many years, and I'm still in awe of his ability to triple the performance of a 172 with the same engine, by designing a new aircraft...what he could wring out of common materials, and the vision he sees that no one else sees until he shows it to them, leave me in awe.

To me, meeting the man is akin to meeting Charles Lindgergh or Glen Curtiss...a cornerstone of aviation history en existant.

The economic benifits of this event are not hard to fathom. At the press conference surrounding the event itself, Rutan spoke quite clearly about the profit potential and the requirements on the program to meet the needs of a tourist environment. He has always considered the economic ramifications, and a way to make the project and the development of future projects self-sustaining.

More importantly...we fly around the world all the time, but not nonstop, like the Voyager. We practice going faster, but not on less, like the Long EZ. Creation, expression, and expansion of the mind are not wasted, even when conducted for their own sake. In my opinion, if nothing else is gained by this endevor, it's greatnes comes in enlarging the limits of the human spirit, and reminding us all that what one can achieve, we can all achieve; it's a reflection of our own potential and opportunity.

After all, how many of us dreamed as kids of rocketing to space or to the moon, building estes rockets and watching flash gorden or other such programs? How many here dreamed of being an astronaut, or watched star trek and long ago decided to put childish things away and assume that truly reaching for the stars is a kids dream? I bet most of us. Rutan and the team here have reminded us that such dreams are possible, if only we combine faith with action to see them realized...just like all dreams.

As for NASA; obviously problems exist. While there is no direct correlation between a low speed suborbital re-entry proceedure in a one man pod like this, and the space shuttle system, the spaceship one event heralds new technology that will very likely serve to enhance future space shots in ways we can't yet envision. We have a glimpse of the future.

NASA has many problems, many of which have been made clearer in the public eye in recent times. Certainly new and innovative methods of launch and recovery are yet to be discovered. At the present time, re-entry vehicles returning from orbit are exposed to dangerous environmental conditions; we don't have a better way. However, I submit that we have a hint of the future yet to come, in spaceship one...we have proof that a better way can still be found, one step at the time. Redd is correct to question the present and the past; it's the only way to a better future. After all, that's exactly what Rutan and his team(s) have done.

A brilliant group of people, who have my deepest admiration.

 

[SuperFLUF]

Just watch and wait.

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.

Rutan's end goal is orbital flight. This is just a step. I, for one, can't wait to see what sort of original concepts he has for acheiving orbital flight and re-entry. This could be the start of a new "Golden Age" in space ops.

Also, Rutan has said his intial work on this project started before he knew about the X-Prize. The 10 million and the award are nice but he would have done this without it.

 

[jarhead]

Also, Rutan has said his intial work on this project started before he knew about the X-Prize. The 10 million and the award are nice but he would have done this without it.

It also is a huge benefit to have a guy like Paul Allen backing this project with a very large checkbook. That's another "plus", of not having to go begging for taxpayer money. Paul Allen deserve some credit also.

 

[some_dude]

Real Value

Think about this: for $20 million, Paul Allen could have gotten a ride on the Russian spacecraft. Or, with Rutan, he got his own complete space program! Talk about value for your money!

And, he could conceivably get some of it back via the X-Prize and commercialization of technology.

It also is a huge benefit to have a guy like Paul Allen backing this project with a very large checkbook. That's another "plus", of not having to go begging for taxpayer money. Paul Allen deserve some credit also.

 

[sqwkvfr]

I gotta say, this is one of the most interesting and informative threads I've ever read on this board.

BUT, did anyone else think that is was just plain fuggin' cool to see an "N" number on the side of the craft as it was looking down from space?