Spaceship One in perspective

Not to belittle the great achievement made yesterday, but are the SS1 concept
and materials usable for real space flight ? Or is this a design that is
really limited to the Xprize mission ?

From what I heard, it only reached top speed of about Mach 3. Is that correct
? So from a re-entry perspective it is quite far from orbital re-entry. Does
anyone know if the structures/materials would potentially be usable for much
faster re-entries after a real orbit ?

Did the flight just go vertical, and when it ran out of fuel, just had gravity
decelerate it and it then began a vertical free fall back to earth ? Could
such a trajectory really be considered sub-orbital ? (seems like just shooting
a bullet in the air and letting it fall back).

I was under the impression that sub-orbital meant that the speed would be
mostly horizontal with just enough vertical thrust to maintain altitude since
the vehicle woudln't be going fast enough to be in "orbit".

If I remember correctly, during re-entry, the shuttle gets to "re-entry
interface" at 400k feet, which would be 123km altitude. So, at 100km
altitude, would SS1 have been totally under RCS control, or would its
aerodynamic surfaces still have had some effect ?

(Again, I don't wish to belittle this achievement; the nitrous oxide rocket
(laughing gas) seems like a big advance in rocket engine safety, and the
ability to generate a mach 3 vehicle at such low cost is also a great achievement).

"John Doe" wrote in message
s.com...
Not to belittle the great achievement made yesterday, but are the SS1
concept
and materials usable for real space flight ? Or is this a design that is
really limited to the Xprize mission ?

The design is optimized to meet the requirements of the X-Prize. Exactly
what do you mean by "real space flight"? The X-Prize requirements are far
more specific than your question.

From what I heard, it only reached top speed of about Mach 3. Is that
correct
? So from a re-entry perspective it is quite far from orbital re-entry.
Does
anyone know if the structures/materials would potentially be usable for
much
faster re-entries after a real orbit ?

About Mach 3 is what I heard as well. Since the craft is optimized for this
mission, you clearly can't expect it to reenter at speeds near orbital
velocities.

Did the flight just go vertical, and when it ran out of fuel, just had
gravity
decelerate it and it then began a vertical free fall back to earth ?
Could
such a trajectory really be considered sub-orbital ? (seems like just
shooting
a bullet in the air and letting it fall back).

The flight profile is exactly as you describe. If you could fire a bullet
that went past 100km (the generally accepted definition of where "space"
begins), it would indeed be considered a suborbital spaceflight.

I was under the impression that sub-orbital meant that the speed would be
mostly horizontal with just enough vertical thrust to maintain altitude
since
the vehicle woudln't be going fast enough to be in "orbit".

This is not the definition of suborbital space flight. Anything that flies
above 100km but does not have sufficient velocity to orbit the earth is
suborbital space flight. A flight straight up and down qualifies (e.g.
sounding rockets used to perform research in space).

Jeff

"John Doe"
Not to belittle the great achievement made yesterday,

Most of you comparisons/assumptions here are not even wrong. Instead of
expending your limited resources on clumsy comparisons you might do well
to understand what was done, and what the capability implies.

The effort is private. Big difference in concept from tax supported.
Sub-orbital means sub-orbital. The suitability of the materials for
"real" space flight is a rediculous question. It is suitable for a
sub-orbital flight. Rutan is an expert on materials....made a career out
of using the right ones. Study some physics. Your post resemble a
troll.

I was under the impression that sub-orbital meant that the speed would
be
mostly horizontal

nonsense

"John Doe" wrote in message
s.com...
Not to belittle the great achievement made yesterday, but are the SS1
concept
and materials usable for real space flight ? Or is this a design that is
really limited to the Xprize mission ?

From what I heard, it only reached top speed of about Mach 3. Is that
correct
? So from a re-entry perspective it is quite far from orbital re-entry.

I don't think Enterprise ever went that fast, yet it is still called a Space
Shuttle.

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004, Neil Gerace wrote:


"John Doe" wrote in message
s.com...
Not to belittle the great achievement made yesterday, but are the SS1
concept
and materials usable for real space flight ? Or is this a design that is
really limited to the Xprize mission ?

From what I heard, it only reached top speed of about Mach 3. Is that
correct
? So from a re-entry perspective it is quite far from orbital re-entry.

I don't think Enterprise ever went that fast, yet it is still called a Space
Shuttle.

More accurately, OV-101 never got the chance to. If you knew the true
history behind Enterprise, you would know why she was, and still is called
a space shuttle orbiter.
-Mike

"Mike Dicenso" wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.58.0406221925400.2494@seds...


On Wed, 23 Jun 2004, Neil Gerace wrote:

I don't think Enterprise ever went that fast, yet it is still called a
Space
Shuttle.

More accurately, OV-101 never got the chance to. If you knew the true
history behind Enterprise, you would know why she was, and still is called
a space shuttle orbiter.

It was intended to be refitted for space flight (hence the designation
OV-101), but the structural test article (STA-099) turned out to be a better
choice for building into an orbiter. When this was done, it became
Challenger (with its designation changed to OV-99 to reflect its new
status).

Enterprise, as it was flown during drop tests, was much less of an orbiter
and much more a test article. It lacked even basic pieces like a proper
crew cabin. It would have been cost prohibitive to tear it down to the bare
structure and build it back up again.

Here is a post which lists many things Enterprise lacked that a "real" space
shuttle needs in order to fly into space (the list is quite long):

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...&output=gplain

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

In message , Jeff Findley
writes

Here is a post which lists many things Enterprise lacked that a "real" space
shuttle needs in order to fly into space (the list is quite long):

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...%40aio.jsc.nas
a.gov&output=gplain

Jeff

Point 13 in that list is interesting (explosive bolts and gravity to
lower the landing gear). Isn't lowering the gear a strictly one-shot
operation with no provision for retraction, which is why there has to be
a hand on the controls during landing?
I'm surprised they didn't keep the simpler system.

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004, Jeff Findley wrote:


"Mike Dicenso" wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.58.0406221925400.2494@seds...


On Wed, 23 Jun 2004, Neil Gerace wrote:

I don't think Enterprise ever went that fast, yet it is still called a
Space
Shuttle.

More accurately, OV-101 never got the chance to. If you knew the true
history behind Enterprise, you would know why she was, and still is called
a space shuttle orbiter.

It was intended to be refitted for space flight (hence the designation
OV-101), but the structural test article (STA-099) turned out to be a better
choice for building into an orbiter. When this was done, it became
Challenger (with its designation changed to OV-99 to reflect its new
status).

Correct.

Enterprise, as it was flown during drop tests, was much less of an orbiter
and much more a test article. It lacked even basic pieces like a proper
crew cabin. It would have been cost prohibitive to tear it down to the bare
structure and build it back up again.

Ultimately those are a couple of reasons why, but the lessons learned with
building and testing Enterprise were incorporated into the later orbiters
and the STA-099, which is why the latter was converted into a space flight
rated OV instead of OV-101.

Here is a post which lists many things Enterprise lacked that a "real" space
shuttle needs in order to fly into space (the list is quite long):

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...&output=gplain


Thank you for repeating something which I have long since know, but our
friend could have, and should have looked up on his own.
-Mike

Mike Dicenso wrote:

Jeff Findley wrote:
"Mike Dicenso" wrote:
Neil Gerace wrote:

I don't think Enterprise ever went that fast, yet it is still called a Space
Shuttle.

More accurately, OV-101 never got the chance to. If you knew the true
history behind Enterprise, you would know why she was, and still is called
a space shuttle orbiter.

It was intended to be refitted for space flight (hence the designation
OV-101), but the structural test article (STA-099) turned out to be a better
choice for building into an orbiter. When this was done, it became
Challenger (with its designation changed to OV-99 to reflect its new
status).

Correct.

Enterprise, as it was flown during drop tests, was much less of an orbiter
and much more a test article. It lacked even basic pieces like a proper
crew cabin. It would have been cost prohibitive to tear it down to the bare
structure and build it back up again.

Ultimately those are a couple of reasons why, but the lessons learned with
building and testing Enterprise were incorporated into the later orbiters
and the STA-099, which is why the latter was converted into a space flight
rated OV instead of OV-101.

Here is a post which lists many things Enterprise lacked that a "real" space
shuttle needs in order to fly into space (the list is quite long):

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...&output=gplain

Thank you for repeating something which I have long since know, but our
friend could have, and should have looked up on his own.

Not having either SSME engines or OMS engines, would certainly be major
"lacks" for flying into space!

"Mike Dicenso" wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.58.0406231541000.3336@seds...


On Wed, 23 Jun 2004, Jeff Findley wrote:
Here is a post which lists many things Enterprise lacked that a "real"
space
shuttle needs in order to fly into space (the list is quite long):


http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...&output=gplain


Thank you for repeating something which I have long since know, but our
friend could have, and should have looked up on his own.

Google is your friend. It's amazing how fast you can find things if you
have the Google Toolbar installed. It's nice not having to first load the
Google home page to do a search.

;-)

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.