SS1 = 10 seconds in space?

I calculate, if he overshot the boundary by 400 feet,
he was 'in space' legally for 10 seconds. Does this compute?

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 20:42:13 +0000, JimO wrote:

I calculate, if he overshot the boundary by 400 feet,
he was 'in space' legally for 10 seconds. Does this compute?

I think so, but you should "show your work."

Assuming, as he almost certainly was, that he was in freefall during that
period, then it would have taken twice the time required to fall that 400
feet. Since s = 1/2 a t^2, t = sqrt(2s/a), since a = 32 ft/s^2 t =
sqrt(800/32) = 5, so 5 up and 5 down makes 10 seconds total.

400 feet is pretty close to the actual "overshoot." The Scaled Composites
press release gives a maximum altitude of 328,491 feet, which is
100.124257 KM. Now the "boundary" is legally at 100 KM, so he actually
overshot by 124.257 M, or 407.667651 feet, which would give just under 0.1
second more.

Of course the "boundary" is rather arbitrary. 100 Km is just a nice round
number.

In article ,
says...
The Scaled Composites
press release gives a maximum altitude of 328,491 feet,

Do they really cite 6 significant figures? If so, how do the measure
altitude to 1 ppm?
--
Kevin Willoughby lid

Imagine that, a FROG ON-OFF switch, hardly the work
for test pilots. -- Mike Collins

"Kevin Willoughby"

maximum altitude of 328,491 feet,

how do they measure
altitude?

By radar. It is in the press reports.

In sci.space.shuttle Rick DeNatale wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 20:42:13 +0000, JimO wrote:

I calculate, if he overshot the boundary by 400 feet,
he was 'in space' legally for 10 seconds. Does this compute?

I think so, but you should "show your work."

Assuming, as he almost certainly was, that he was in freefall during that
period, then it would have taken twice the time required to fall that 400
feet. Since s = 1/2 a t^2, t = sqrt(2s/a), since a = 32 ft/s^2 t =
sqrt(800/32) = 5, so 5 up and 5 down makes 10 seconds total.

400 feet is pretty close to the actual "overshoot." The Scaled Composites
press release gives a maximum altitude of 328,491 feet, which is
100.124257 KM. Now the "boundary" is legally at 100 KM, so he actually
overshot by 124.257 M, or 407.667651 feet, which would give just under 0.1
second more.

.... and since the gravity at 100km is 31.17 ft/s^2, that gives another 0.1
seconds.

Or is that pushing it?

--

Hypnotoad will crush Fiestacat in the November election.

Was this measured by transponder timing,
or exactly how.
just Curious....

T.

Revision wrote:

"Kevin Willoughby"

maximum altitude of 328,491 feet,

how do they measure
altitude?

By radar. It is in the press reports.

JimO wrote:
I calculate, if he overshot the boundary by 400 feet,
he was 'in space' legally for 10 seconds. Does this compute?




James, did you see Rutan's interview with Jim Skeen?
http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1...237427,00.html

An excerpt:

"For suborbital tourism, you've got to give everyone a large window
and a seat close to it, and you have to give them a lot of room," Rutan
said. "I particularly feel 100 kilometers is not good enough. You've got
to go to 150 kilometers (about 93 miles) and give them time to unstrap
and float around."

From the article I got the impression SS1 is just the beginning.

--
Hop David
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html

He said the same thing in the post-flight press conference and i thought it
so significant,
I highlighted it in my to-appear magazine report (IEEE Spectrum). I agree
with the
implications you draw.

JimO


"Hop David" wrote in message
James, did you see Rutan's interview with Jim Skeen?
http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1...237427,00.html

An excerpt:

"For suborbital tourism, you've got to give everyone a large window
and a seat close to it, and you have to give them a lot of room," Rutan
said. "I particularly feel 100 kilometers is not good enough. You've got
to go to 150 kilometers (about 93 miles) and give them time to unstrap
and float around."

From the article I got the impression SS1 is just the beginning.

From the article I got the impression SS1 is just the beginning.

JimO wrote:

I agree with the implications you draw.

Are we getting the impression that SS2 (or whatever it's called)
will have a liquid-fueled engine?

Paul

"Paul F. Dietz" wrote in message ...
From the article I got the impression SS1 is just the beginning.

JimO wrote:

I agree with the implications you draw.

Are we getting the impression that SS2 (or whatever it's called)
will have a liquid-fueled engine?

Paul

Or at the very least LOX instead of NO2. I also recall him saying that
SS2 would be six-seater at least (or to be precise, he said that
"Space travel is only economical when you are using vehicles carrying
6-10 people").

However, I imagine Mr. Allen will probably pursuaded to give him more
money after this recent performance.