Spaceship One, going for two of two

What precaution is Rutan's organization taking to insure the pilot
doesn't slip on a banna peel or trip over his shoelaces during the
next 24 hours and cost them the prize? Do they lock him in a padded
cell?

Well, it appeared that they were trying to preserve him by pickling him in
champagne....

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On 4 Oct 2004 15:02:25 -0700, (James L. Freeman)
wrote:

Fox Headline News coverage said that one of the conditions for
claiming the $10-milllion prize is that the pilot must return in "good
health," which is defined as surving for 24 hours after the landing.

I remember reading a similar caveat when I read a book about the
Voyager round-the-world flight. Apparently a lot of the arguments
ended 'I'm going to kill him 25 hours after they land!

aw

(lance smith) wrote in message . com...
White Knight and Spaceship One just took off. Wish them luck! You can
watch it live at xprize.org.

p.s. N328KF is listed as a glider... no 'engine' : )

Technically, I guess SS1 *is* a motorglider of sorts. Does that mean
that you need no medical cert to fly it?

So, what exactly does this event tell us about NASA?

On 10/4/04 7:21 PM, in article , "John
Harlow" wrote:

So, what exactly does this event tell us about NASA?



Apples and oranges at this point in time.

NASA put men and their machines in orbit, not just up and down. They put men
on another celestial body, and brought them home safely. NASA has flung
machines to the stars.

Not to diminish what Rutan et al, have done, but a comparison *might* be
valid when they put a man in orbit and land him safely.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino
Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

Wizard of Draws wrote:
Harlow" wrote:
So, what exactly does this event tell us about NASA?

Apples and oranges at this point in time.
NASA put men and their machines in orbit, not just up and down. They put men
on another celestial body, and brought them home safely. NASA has flung
machines to the stars.
Not to diminish what Rutan et al, have done, but a comparison *might* be
valid when they put a man in orbit and land him safely.

It's also easy to forget that what the X prize guys are doing is EXTREMELY
dangerous. The first time one of these guys dies, the entire country is
going to be whining like babies "Why didn't the government prevent these
guys from doing this?!?!". A lot of NASA's manned space flight budget
goes into doing things as safely as possible, and they still have
occasional deadly accidents. In addition, the payload capability is like
night and day.

I think this effort is a great idea, and Rutan's "feather" design is
absolutely awesome and inovative, but they still have a long way to go
(despite what Richard Branson might think).

--- Jay


--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

"Jay Masino" wrote in message
...
It's also easy to forget that what the X prize guys are doing is EXTREMELY
dangerous. The first time one of these guys dies, the entire country is
going to be whining like babies "Why didn't the government prevent these
guys from doing this?!?!".

Why would they? People do dangerous things all the time; usually, as long
as no innocent bystanders get hurt, no one really cares (except friends and
family, of course). I can't imagine this would be any different.

A lot of NASA's manned space flight budget
goes into doing things as safely as possible, and they still have
occasional deadly accidents. In addition, the payload capability is like
night and day.

I assume the philosphy is that the design will "scale" easily. Whether this
is true or not remains to be seen, of course.

I think this effort is a great idea, and Rutan's "feather" design is
absolutely awesome and inovative, but they still have a long way to go
(despite what Richard Branson might think).

It is innovative and cool. But, as someone else pointed out, they didn't
actually enter orbit. It remains to be seen whether the current design
could be in any way suitable for reentry from orbit. The vehicle speed will
be much higher in that situation, and it's not clear to me that the
"feathers" will be sufficient for slowing the aircraft down, nor is it clear
to me that the vehicle has sufficient heat protection even if the feathers
could serve that purpose.

Maybe that's what you mean by "still have a long way to go"?

Pete

The vehicle speed will
be much higher in that situation, and it's not clear to me that the
"feathers" will be sufficient for slowing the aircraft down, nor is it
clear
to me that the vehicle has sufficient heat protection even if the feathers
could serve that purpose.

Mr. Duniho is right on. SpaceShipOne is not designed with any heat
protection. It would not withstand the heat loads of reentry at orbital
velocity and it never will. That's another generation, maybe several
evolutions away. If you need analogies, think of SpaceShipOne as the Spirit
of St. Louis and the orbital craft as the Concord. It is a long way off.
When I interviewed Mike Melvill after his first ride into sub-orbital
space, he explained the feather scheme to me. Feathering the wings has no
direct affect on slowing the vehicle down other than to place the main body
in the attitude of maximum drag, i.e. maximum cross-section normal to the
velocity vector, and provide some limited control to rotate the main body
around the velocity vector.
According to Melvill, the reason the main body is so fat is to have a
very high drag cross-section. At some point of aerodynamic force and
velocity in the decelleration, the wings are moved from the feathered
position to the 'normal' position and roll, pitch and yaw come back into
operation.
The word feathers has been grossly misused by the ignorant media. But
what can you expect from my esteemed colleagues -- especially when one asks
Melvill if they plan to fly SpaceShipOne to the International Space Station.

Peter,

People do dangerous things all the time; usually, as long
as no innocent bystanders get hurt, no one really cares (except friends and
family, of course).


Uh, have you seen the media reporting on GA accidents?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Peter Duniho wrote:
Why would they? People do dangerous things all the time; usually, as long
as no innocent bystanders get hurt, no one really cares (except friends and
family, of course). I can't imagine this would be any different.

Since this is all conjecture, I guess it's a matter of opinion, but these
flights are fairly high profile in the press, and just like a shuttle
disaster, I suspect there would be a lot of press if (when) one of these
commercial guys dies.


A lot of NASA's manned space flight budget
goes into doing things as safely as possible, and they still have
occasional deadly accidents. In addition, the payload capability is like
night and day.
I assume the philosphy is that the design will "scale" easily. Whether this
is true or not remains to be seen, of course.

Agreed.


I think this effort is a great idea, and Rutan's "feather" design is
absolutely awesome and inovative, but they still have a long way to go
(despite what Richard Branson might think).
It is innovative and cool. But, as someone else pointed out, they didn't
actually enter orbit. It remains to be seen whether the current design
could be in any way suitable for reentry from orbit. The vehicle speed will
be much higher in that situation, and it's not clear to me that the
"feathers" will be sufficient for slowing the aircraft down, nor is it clear
to me that the vehicle has sufficient heat protection even if the feathers
could serve that purpose.

Agreed.

--- Jay


--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com