Ron Wanttaja snip

This is an attempt to describe some of the engineering problems that must
be faced, and some typical solutions, when evolving a Scaled SpaceShipOne
(SS1) class of sub-orbital homebuilt spacecraft into one capable of at
least one orbit of the Earth.

Where did Rutan say he was going to do this? "evolv[e] a Scaled
SpaceShipOne (SS1) class of sub-orbital homebuilt spacecraft into one
capable of at least one orbit of the Earth"?

First of all, Scaled is a company. The spacecraft is not homebuilt.
A Rutan Orbiter will most certainly be a different vehicle entirely.
Burt's solutions are each tailor made for the specific application.
I would expect more unconventional solutions every bit as ingenious as
we have seen on this vehicle. But I wager he will stick with an
aircraft launched solution so as to save the weight of the ground
stage. All his designs have gravitated towards simplicity and that
includes avoiding getting tangled up in Uncle Sam's super-regulated
red tape-factory facilities whenever possible. I really doubt he'd
head to Vandenberg. After hitting Nasa's "deep space" mark (100km)
and landing Mike M. unfurled a big sign that read "SS1: Government
Zero." I said: "Right on Mike!"

REVERSE ENGINEERING SS1

The first thing we have to do is figure out the characteristics of the
vehicle we're starting with. Scaled hasn't released many of the technical
details needed for an in-depth analysis...after all, it *is* a private
rocket, and not a government one where the information is public domain.

Was detailed info on the Saturn program ever made public? I thought
all the blueprints and tech manuals were destroyed as a ploy to argue
for development of the Space Shuttle. I'd love to have some Saturn V
drawings to hang on the wall.

snip reverse engrng

Which gets us back to White Knight. It's got an 8,000-pound carrying
capacity, and SS1 and its launch stages are probably well over 40,000
pounds. To quote Roy Schieder: "We're going to need a bigger boat!"

Will White Knight scale up that far? And what about the extra length of
the initial launch stages? Plus, this long rocket will have to be carried
*horizontally*, and would have to be designed to withstand landing loads as
well, in case a launch is aborted.

A 747-200F tow plane, like Tim Ward suggested, would be perfect for a
100,000 to 200,000 lbs "Orbit One" staged vehicle. The Shuttle
currently is carried on a lesser powered 747-100 (sans fuel.)

snip good description of orbital maneuvers here
This problem would be alleviated by a launch from the East coast of the US,
rather than from California. With a 40-degree inclination out of Cape
Canaveral, OrbitOne will cross over Mojave at the end of the third orbit.
Whether Burt will be willing to move his launch operation 3,000 miles away
is a question.

This runs the cost up, so I bet he'll just op to use another delta
wing/lifting body and either land in Hawaii or deorbit burn into
Mojave.


In any case, the design will have to include hours of life-support for the
personnel onboard. Plus carry the batteries or other power generating
equipment required for running it, and for powering all the other systems.
Power limitations alone may prevent OrbitOne from flying more an a couple
of 90-minute orbits.

This is were Burt's going to shine. Instead of lugging three finicky
APU's up like the shuttle, Rutan will come up with solutions so light
and simple in retrospect they'll seem obvious. The man's a purist.
Just sit back and watch the master at work the next year or so.


RE-ENTRY

We've already had a lot of discussion relative to re-entry...that
SpaceShipOne's ballistic flight at Mach 3 maximum doesn't compare to the
amount of energy converted into heat as OrbitOne slows from Mach 25. I've
already posted my worries about exposing a deployable structure (e.g. the
shuttlecock mode) to the re-entry plasma, especially since it'll be
necessary to retract it for landing. snip

Ron Wanttaja

Not to worry. This will all be re-engineered by Burt's engineers.
Teflon coatings by themselves probably won't cut it. But the
Aerospace Valley where Burt lives is full of thermodynamic engineers
with good ideas that Burt can draw on. The difference between Scaled
Composite and Nasa is that Scaled doesn't build vehicles by committee.
Take the ISS. What a piece of ****. Designed like little floating
countries by dim-witted politicians. Burt doesn't have to put up with
these morons. He also doesn't have to brownose five layers of
management to get the project off the ground. That IMHO is why his
stuff always shines and outperforms the government garbage. The
Challenger and Columbia burned up because Nasa Management has a
culture of not listening to engineer's concerns. Burt on the contrary
seems to consistently listen to his people, and unlike NASA learns
from his mistakes. JMHO. GO BURT! GO SCALED! GO-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O!

pac "just light the ****ing candle" plyer