X-Prize: Scaled considering passengers on second flight

BBC run a story:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3538346.stm

"The aviation pioneer behind SpaceShipOne, Burt Rutan, has said he aims
to fill the passenger seat during the craft's second X-Prize flight."
(...)
"Mr Rutan added a decision had not been made on who the pilot would be
for the flights, or whether it would actually carry passengers on the
second flight. "But I am going to be one of the first passengers, for
sure," he told BBC News Online."

It's been reported elsewhere as "Rutan will fly", which seems to be
slightly jumping the gun, but it's interesting to see that he's not
ruling out flying with passengers rather than sandbags.

There are some interesting comments later, where he seems to say that
they can either fly

pilot + two seats
or
pilot + seat + X-Prize 'black box'

which is different from the way I'd been interpreting the rules so far.
But hey. The prize committe are presumably happy with it, so long as the
seats are in the plane and the additional mass is, but it seems a bit
odd that the kit wouldn't allow you to fly three people.

--
-Andrew Gray

Andrew Gray wrote in message ...
BBC run a story:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3538346.stm

"The aviation pioneer behind SpaceShipOne, Burt Rutan, has said he aims
to fill the passenger seat during the craft's second X-Prize flight."
(...)
"Mr Rutan added a decision had not been made on who the pilot would be
for the flights, or whether it would actually carry passengers on the
second flight. "But I am going to be one of the first passengers, for
sure," he told BBC News Online."

It's been reported elsewhere as "Rutan will fly", which seems to be
slightly jumping the gun, but it's interesting to see that he's not
ruling out flying with passengers rather than sandbags.

There are some interesting comments later, where he seems to say that
they can either fly

pilot + two seats
or
pilot + seat + X-Prize 'black box'

which is different from the way I'd been interpreting the rules so far.
But hey. The prize committe are presumably happy with it, so long as the
seats are in the plane and the additional mass is, but it seems a bit
odd that the kit wouldn't allow you to fly three people.

He was clear in his interview on Channel 4 last night that he intends
to be a passenger, but he was also quite cagey about when.

He also dropped some hints about Richard Branson which were *very*
interesting.

Branson could have more impact in this game than any of the other
players mentioned so far.

Dave

Can Burt Rutan's "X-plane" research 350,000 ft THat is the height X-15
went. I believe his design is what I call a back sky or black air
machine. That is just designed to go up above 100,000 ft, long enough
for someone to look around. 350,000 ft is the border to space but the
sky is black above 100,000 ft. Even if it could will be the big
difference, the X-15 was still going over 2000 m.p.h. parallel to the
surface. The X-15 was reason that space was considered to be more
thatn 350,000. I someone can beat Burt Rutan's Oh Well but if he "He
flys higher and fast than anyone else" he will still win. But he has
some of Paul Allen's money now that is almost more money, more fast
than almost any one else before. (Except of course Bill Gate.)

A piggy back plane was once designed to go into space it was called
the Dyn-soar. It is one plane or one plane and some drop tanks.

Bob L. Petersen

X-hybrid SSUV: X-plane Shuttle & Space Station.

The Solar System Utility Vehicle

http://www.angelfire.com/space/where...e/shuttle.html

On 2004-08-06, boblpetersen
wrote:
Can Burt Rutan's "X-plane" research 350,000 ft THat is the height X-15
went. I believe his design is what I call a back sky or black air
machine. That is just designed to go up above 100,000 ft, long enough
for someone to look around. 350,000 ft is the border to space but the
sky is black above 100,000 ft. Even if it could will be the big
difference, the X-15 was still going over 2000 m.p.h. parallel to the
surface. The X-15 was reason that space was considered to be more
thatn 350,000. I someone can beat Burt Rutan's Oh Well but if he "He
flys higher and fast than anyone else" he will still win. But he has
some of Paul Allen's money now that is almost more money, more fast
than almost any one else before. (Except of course Bill Gate.)

You seem to be under some misconceptions.

SS1 is designed to fly to 100,000 metres, which is about 325,000 feet;
it has done this once, reaching an apogee of a hundred metres or so over
the nominal altitude.

This altitude is the target - and, as far as is known, the design aim -
of all of the X-Prize competitors. None of them are merely intending to
reach 100,000 feet.

The X-15 made two flights over the 100km mark, in 1963; the highest was
at 107,960 metres.

--
-Andrew Gray

In article ,
Andrew Gray wrote:

SS1 is designed to fly to 100,000 metres, which is about 325,000 feet;
it has done this once, reaching an apogee of a hundred metres or so over
the nominal altitude.

About 328,000 ft, hence the registration: N328KF

In fact Rutan has said that with a full engine burn it would get to
considerably higher -- I can't recall the number right now but I think
it was around 130 km.


This altitude is the target - and, as far as is known, the design aim -
of all of the X-Prize competitors. None of them are merely intending to
reach 100,000 feet.

Right.


The X-15 made two flights over the 100km mark, in 1963; the highest was
at 107,960 metres.

Which is presumably why SS1 was aiming for 108 km on the Jun 21 flight.
Enough past 100 km to allow for slight problems, but also to claim the
record from the X-15.

-- Bruce

On 2004-08-08, Bruce Hoult wrote:
In article ,
Andrew Gray wrote:

SS1 is designed to fly to 100,000 metres, which is about 325,000 feet;
it has done this once, reaching an apogee of a hundred metres or so over
the nominal altitude.

About 328,000 ft, hence the registration: N328KF

Aha - I knew there as a cunning pun like that. I just wasn't sure of the
accuracy of my metres to feet conversion factor...

("three and a bit... hmm... wait... .50 cal is 12.7mm, right? So...")

In fact Rutan has said that with a full engine burn it would get to
considerably higher -- I can't recall the number right now but I think
it was around 130 km.

Ah, that's reassuring; good margin in there.

(I was surprised to see how powerful the engine was, apropros of
nothing)

The X-15 made two flights over the 100km mark, in 1963; the highest was
at 107,960 metres.

Which is presumably why SS1 was aiming for 108 km on the Jun 21 flight.
Enough past 100 km to allow for slight problems, but also to claim the
record from the X-15.

I didn't know he was aiming for 108km; it does seem a little bit greedy
to try and grab the aircraft altitude record like that ;-)

(That said... are the X-Prize recorders acceptable to the FAI?)

--
-Andrew Gray

Andrew Gray wrote:

On 2004-08-08, Bruce Hoult wrote:


snip

The X-15 made two flights over the 100km mark, in 1963; the highest was
at 107,960 metres.

Which is presumably why SS1 was aiming for 108 km on the Jun 21 flight.
Enough past 100 km to allow for slight problems, but also to claim the
record from the X-15.


I didn't know he was aiming for 108km; it does seem a little bit greedy
to try and grab the aircraft altitude record like that ;-)

(That said... are the X-Prize recorders acceptable to the FAI?)



What category?