If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Spaceship 1 hits 212,000 feet!!!!!! | BlakeleyTB | Home Built | 10 | May 20th 04 10:12 PM |