spaceship one

Steve VanSickle wrote:

From article , by Richard Lamb :

For two, their method of re-entry will never work if
returning from orbit. An admirable achievement nonetheless.

Why?

Because it was designed to be a sub-orbital ship...

This particular *design* won't work, yes, but why not the "method" (i.e.
moving surfaces to make for a "hands off" reentry)?


if they can stand up to 3000 degree heat...

Reentry from orbit is a vastly more difficult proposition.

All to the speeds involved.

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches...ss_040621.html

"Private Spaceship Encounters Glitches in Record-Setting Flight"


Betsy

From article , by Richard Lamb Steve VanSickle wrote:

Because it was designed to be a sub-orbital ship...

This particular *design* won't work, yes, but why not the "method" (i.e.
moving surfaces to make for a "hands off" reentry)?


if they can stand up to 3000 degree heat...

Reentry from orbit is a vastly more difficult proposition.

All to the speeds involved.

Yes, it is more difficult. Yes, much hotter, much more energy. But I
have heard many people claim that the "shuttlecock" method Burt developed
"won't work" from orbit, and no one says *why*. If shuttle wings can be
protected (most of the time) from the heat, why can't Burt's wings?

Steve VanSickle wrote:

From article , by Richard Lamb Steve VanSickle wrote:

Because it was designed to be a sub-orbital ship...

This particular *design* won't work, yes, but why not the "method" (i.e.
moving surfaces to make for a "hands off" reentry)?


if they can stand up to 3000 degree heat...

Reentry from orbit is a vastly more difficult proposition.

All to the speeds involved.

Yes, it is more difficult. Yes, much hotter, much more energy. But I
have heard many people claim that the "shuttlecock" method Burt developed
"won't work" from orbit, and no one says *why*. If shuttle wings can be
protected (most of the time) from the heat, why can't Burt's wings?


That seems like a reasonable question.
Wish I knew a reasonable answer.

Taking a not so scientific wild assed guess(?) it might have to
do with the amount of area exposed to the plasma stream.

On the Orbiter, only (mostly?) the leading edges are exposed to
that level of heating.

The birdie approach splays a LOT of wing surface into the stream.
That would create a LOT of friction heat. Could also maybe have
to do with structural limitations of non-unobtainium?

Lastly, just maybe, the nay sayers are wrong?

Next time I'm out on the road, I'll stop in at a Holiday Inn Express.
Maybe I can zoom up some better sounding answers then?

Richard

Richard Lamb wrote:


In the aftermath of the Apollo 1 fire, NASA took a year (and $75 mil)
to redesign the space craft, mature their mental attitudes, and yes,
did come back with a much safer vehicle.

Yes, but I still wonder how anyone in their right might would use a
nearly pure oxygen atmosphere in a vehicle full of humans and electrical
equipment...

Matt

Dennis Fetters wrote:



BllFs6 wrote:

Did Dennis Fetters take any shots of SS1?

Sorry, couldnt resist

take care

Blll



What's the matter with you?


Dennis, better to ignore folks like that.

Matt

Ron Wanttaja wrote:

It took about forty years from the date the first government-sponsored
manned aerospacecraft left the atmosphere and glided down to a safe landing
in the California desert to the successful flight of the first private one.
If the same timescale was used for conventional airplanes, the first
privately-owned aircraft would have flown in 1943.

I never knew that the Wright Flyer was gummint sponsored...


Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:

Richard Lamb wrote:

In the aftermath of the Apollo 1 fire, NASA took a year (and $75 mil)
to redesign the space craft, mature their mental attitudes, and yes,
did come back with a much safer vehicle.

Yes, but I still wonder how anyone in their right might would use a
nearly pure oxygen atmosphere in a vehicle full of humans and electrical
equipment...

Matt

Probably because it might be possible to run at a lower pressure
in flight and keep the crew alive.

This _was_ one of the very first corrections made to the design.
60% O2 /40% N

On 23 Jun 2004 09:59:41 -0700, (Corrie) wrote:

Ron Wanttaja wrote in message . ..
It took about forty years from the date the first government-sponsored
manned aerospacecraft left the atmosphere and glided down to a safe landing
in the California desert to the successful flight of the first private one.
If the same timescale was used for conventional airplanes, the first
privately-owned aircraft would have flown in 1943.

As opposed to 1903? The first airplane WAS privately-owned. Not to
mention amateur-built. The government-funded program wound up in the
Potomac. ;-)

Sure, I know the Wrights were private, it was just a way to make a
comparison. Interesting to note that the Wrights attempted to use lawsuits
to deter those who wished to duplicate their feat; in retrospect, the
desire for the technology overcame the legal issues involved.

Ron Wanttaja

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 12:09:46 -0500, Big John wrote:

On 23 Jun 2004 04:30:55 GMT, (Regnirps) wrote:

I don't know as I'd call Paul Allen and Rutan average joes.

I hear they put their pants on one leg at a time.

Sure, I bet Paul Allen's valet dresses him one leg at a time, just like
mine does. :-)

Ron "Off to the Drone's Club!" Wanttaja