spaceship one

(Frank Hitlaw) wrote in message . com...
(pacplyer) wrote in message . com...
Richard Lamb wrote
NOW (finally) we might get a better story that the
silly superficial questions asked by the news media.

How about this Richard: America has returned to manned space
launches... and it's not NASA!

We rocked around in an RV all night in 40 kt winds the night before
and were worried that the launch was going to be scrubbed. But
luckily high pressure was over the area and wind died down right
before taxi out. My friend Bubba flew Richard Branson in to Mojave in
a high dollar three blade helo and then landed him back on the top of
the theme restaurant at LAX (he just can't seem to make a low profile
entry anywhere!) William Shantner was supposedly there as well as Buzz
Aldrin. Most of the event was covered by a local FM station but they
screwed it up pretty bad so we just listened to the scanner. The wind
was still blowing stiff after t/o on top of our RV so I missed a lot
of the air to air conversation, but if anybody wants, I'll try to
narrate what I saw in detail. The test pilot community let me in on a
little secret: a major control failure occurred during launch and the
gyro Rutan used for attitude control tumbled (lost alignment.) This
caused an unplanned departure from the vertical profile. Mike M. took
over manually and saved the son of a bitch just in time! However,
this S-turn maneuver put them over 20 miles off course on the re-entry
window!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++snip++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

pacplyer

Amen Pac, did you read the press release from the May 13 flight?They
lost the platform on that flight as well. Maybe the INU just isn't up
to the sort of loads or speed they achieve.

Frank

No I didn't know that Frank, thanks. You could be right. I wonder
what Mike used for guidance reference? The sun? I'll ask my friend
who works for scaled next time I see him.

I forgot to mention that due to the wild S-turns the vehicle's apogee
topped out only 400 feet above 100K! That was according to Edwards
preliminary telemetry. That's so close I wonder if the other
contenders for the X-prize will try to challenge the data?

Another interesting fubar is the FAA issuing a new commercial license
rating to a 62 year old. He can't fly again for pay unless the fuzz
raises the mandatory retirement age above 60 for everybody! Raising
it is something the FAA has been against forever. Mike's probably
saying: "Thanks a lot FAA!" As usual, here's the government here to
help you. No wonder the guys at scaled hate big gov interference so
much. Maybe I'm wrong on this. Maybe it's under part 91 glider and
it doesn't matter. But he's rocket powered going up. WTF? Anybody
know?

pac

(pacplyer) wrote

I forgot to mention that due to the wild S-turns the vehicle's apogee
topped out only 400 feet above 100K! That was according to Edwards
preliminary telemetry. That's so close I wonder if the other
contenders for the X-prize will try to challenge the data?

I don't beleive this flight counts towards the X-prize. The two
X-Prize flights must both be made with either two passengers or the
equivalent weight on board. This was a test flight.

Rich

(Rich) wrote in message . com...
(pacplyer) wrote

I forgot to mention that due to the wild S-turns the vehicle's apogee
topped out only 400 feet above 100KM! That was according to Edwards
preliminary telemetry. That's so close I wonder if the other
contenders for the X-prize will try to challenge the data?

I don't beleive this flight counts towards the X-prize. The two
X-Prize flights must both be made with either two passengers or the
equivalent weight on board. This was a test flight.

Rich

Yes, I believe you are correct Rich. Was listening to the 104.9 disk
jockey that was claiming this was the ten million dollar x-prize
attempt. But I believe you are correct on the plan. But if I was
Burt: I would have stuck in a couple of sand-filled mannequins and
claimed this was attempt #1 since it is so dangerous.

pac

In article , pacplyer says...

Yes, I believe you are correct Rich. Was listening to the 104.9 disk
jockey that was claiming this was the ten million dollar x-prize
attempt. But I believe you are correct on the plan. But if I was
Burt: I would have stuck in a couple of sand-filled mannequins and
claimed this was attempt #1 since it is so dangerous.

pac

If he did that he probably would not have made the altitude required. They
barely made it as it was due to a minor mechanical glitch.This flight proved the
systems and what adjustments must be made. JMHO

See ya

Chuck

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 04:14:25 -0700, ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:

In article , pacplyer says...

Yes, I believe you are correct Rich. Was listening to the 104.9 disk
jockey that was claiming this was the ten million dollar x-prize
attempt. But I believe you are correct on the plan. But if I was
Burt: I would have stuck in a couple of sand-filled mannequins and
claimed this was attempt #1 since it is so dangerous.

pac

If he did that he probably would not have made the altitude required. They
barely made it as it was due to a minor mechanical glitch.This flight proved the
systems and what adjustments must be made. JMHO

Has anybody made a guess as to how high spaceship 1 will be able to go
when it has passengers + a full rocket engine?

AC

anonymous coward wrote in message e...
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 04:14:25 -0700, ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:

In article , pacplyer says...

Yes, I believe you are correct Rich. Was listening to the 104.9 disk
jockey that was claiming this was the ten million dollar x-prize
attempt. But I believe you are correct on the plan. But if I was
Burt: I would have stuck in a couple of sand-filled mannequins and
claimed this was attempt #1 since it is so dangerous.

pac

If he did that he probably would not have made the altitude required. They
barely made it as it was due to a minor mechanical glitch.This flight proved the
systems and what adjustments must be made. JMHO

Has anybody made a guess as to how high spaceship 1 will be able to go
when it has passengers + a full rocket engine?

AC


I would think it is a matter of simply increasing the fuel load. The
burn was billed for 90 seconds, but they only got seventy some seconds
before burnout. Greater Burn time = higher Altitude. The designed
gross weight should be able to attain 62.5 miles. But ask Dr.
"A"-o.k. Evil ). He claims to have secret hardware on the
moon and mars! ;^D ROTFOL!

pacplyer

anonymous coward wrote in message e...
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 04:14:25 -0700, ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:

In article , pacplyer says...

Yes, I believe you are correct Rich. Was listening to the 104.9 disk
jockey that was claiming this was the ten million dollar x-prize
attempt. But I believe you are correct on the plan. But if I was
Burt: I would have stuck in a couple of sand-filled mannequins and
claimed this was attempt #1 since it is so dangerous.

pac

If he did that he probably would not have made the altitude required. They
barely made it as it was due to a minor mechanical glitch.This flight proved the
systems and what adjustments must be made. JMHO

Has anybody made a guess as to how high spaceship 1 will be able to go
when it has passengers + a full rocket engine?

AC


I would think it is a matter of simply increasing the fuel load. The
burn was billed for 90 seconds, but they only got seventy some seconds
before burnout. Greater Burn time = higher Altitude. The designed
gross weight should be able to attain 62.5 miles. But ask Dr.
"A"-o.k. Evil ). He claims to have secret hardware on the
moon and mars! ;^D ROTFOL!

pacplyer

ChuckSlusarczyk wrote in message ...
In article , pacplyer says...

Yes, I believe you are correct Rich. Was listening to the 104.9 disk
jockey that was claiming this was the ten million dollar x-prize
attempt. But I believe you are correct on the plan. But if I was
Burt: I would have stuck in a couple of sand-filled mannequins and
claimed this was attempt #1 since it is so dangerous.

pac

If he did that he probably would not have made the altitude required. They
barely made it as it was due to a minor mechanical glitch.This flight proved the
systems and what adjustments must be made. JMHO

See ya

Chuck

Yes I think you're right Chuck. You've probably done a little testing
along those lines in new ships, right? You test pilots are brave Mo
Fo's. Us cowardly cargo dogs just want to get the mission done in as
few trips as possible. Same thing with the Casinos. Reduce the
wife's trips to Vegas and you improve the odds of buying yourself a
new Hawk someday.... ;-)

pac

In article , pacplyer says...

Yes I think you're right Chuck. You've probably done a little testing
along those lines in new ships, right? You test pilots are brave Mo
Fo's.

Hi Pac
While it true I've personally tested every Hang glider I ever designed and did
all the test flying for all my reduction drive testing I am not a "real" test
pilot nor do I claim to be. The "real" test pilots are the brave MO FO's not me.
I was just testing my designs. There are some people who like to be called "test
pilot" because they went to a 1 week course but that's not me. "Real" test
pilot's all have a wheel barrow to transport their gonads to the airplane and my
hats off to those guys:-)

Us cowardly cargo dogs just want to get the mission done in as
few trips as possible. Same thing with the Casinos. Reduce the
wife's trips to Vegas and you improve the odds of buying yourself a
new Hawk someday.... ;-)

I went to Vegas once for a UL convention and lost $25.00 to the slot machines
and that cured me from gambling forever LOL!!

See ya
Chuck (test pile it ) S

I don't beleive this flight counts towards the X-prize. The two
X-Prize flights must both be made with either two passengers or the
equivalent weight on board. This was a test flight.

Rich

Was a test flight.

The X prize expires 1-1-05, they have to perform two flights within 14
days with three occupants prior to Jan 1 2005 to win it, and they have
to do it before their competition does it.