![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Mary Shafer" wrote in message
... Er, they may well have had, but they never flew anywhere near that fast. When discussing aircraft, like other vehicles, it's important to keep actual and predicted number separate. Sorry. I was under the impression they had. -Kim- |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "John Schilling" wrote in message ... It's no longer a contest, IMO and with all due respect to the other teams still working out there. And hopefully continuing to work, because the X-prize is only one step of many... May now is the time to re-start the "Someone Wins the X-Prize, What Next?" thread. Especially since there is clearly an odds-on favorite now, and perhaps the other teams need some encouragement by looking forward to a re-match in 5-7 years. Going for orbit is clearly a non-contender for the next round. By my calculations, you can win the X-Prize with less than 3% of the kinetic energy you need to make orbit. Increasing your vehicle's K.E. by a factor of 30 is *not* an incremental step. How about a competition to reach Mach 6.7+ (record velocity of the X-15)? This is about twice the velocity SpaceShip One will reach. Definitely into the hypersonic regime, so TPS issues start to get interesting. -- Andrew J. Higgins |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jim Kingdon wrote in message ...
http://www.scaled.com/projects/tiero...ews/121703.htm Not only did they break the sound barrier, but they did some tests of the inflight reconfiguration (is there a less awkward term? Maybe not, since I'm not particularly aware of other aircraft that have a similar capability): I suggest the term 'tailbrake,' or 'tailbraking' to describe the braking effect of the high drag configuration, (also it's alliterative with 'tail break' to describe the what's visually happening to the craft's shape). Tom Merkle |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jim Kingdon wrote in message ...
http://www.scaled.com/projects/tiero...ews/121703.htm Woohoo! Great day! So, Rutan has won the silver, will he now go for the gold? If I'm not reading too much into http://www.xprize.org/papers/XPupdate_1203.pdf (page 2), that would appear to be 6-9 months off. Of course if another group looked anywhere near, I'm sure they could speed it up. But right now they're all alone on the playing field. I'm interested at how much wider the spread is in current capabilities of the different teams. When Lindberg actually took off from Long Island, his closest competitor expected to take off a couple of days later. Tom Merkle |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Andrew Higgins" wrote in message ...
"John Schilling" wrote in message ... It's no longer a contest, IMO and with all due respect to the other teams still working out there. And hopefully continuing to work, because the X-prize is only one step of many... May now is the time to re-start the "Someone Wins the X-Prize, What Next?" thread. Especially since there is clearly an odds-on favorite now, and perhaps the other teams need some encouragement by looking forward to a re-match in 5-7 years. Going for orbit is clearly a non-contender for the next round. By my calculations, you can win the X-Prize with less than 3% of the kinetic energy you need to make orbit. Increasing your vehicle's K.E. by a factor of 30 is *not* an incremental step. How about a competition to reach Mach 6.7+ (record velocity of the X-15)? This is about twice the velocity SpaceShip One will reach. Definitely into the hypersonic regime, so TPS issues start to get interesting. I guess you should qualify that by saying , a non-reentry vehicle, since Apollo CMs hit Mach 36 and the Orbiter hits Mach 25. In fact I wonder if Joe Engle is the only man to fly Mach 6+ and Mach 25 in two different kinds of winged craft? |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:00:13 -0800 (PST), "Kim Keller"
wrote: "Mary Shafer" wrote in message ... Er, they may well have had, but they never flew anywhere near that fast. When discussing aircraft, like other vehicles, it's important to keep actual and predicted number separate. Sorry. I was under the impression they had. Don't be sorry. You thought exactly what they wanted you to think and they were very clever about it. I'm not sure, and the SETP proceedings are still boxed up so I can't check, that the BD-10 ever got above Mach 0.8 or so. At first it was an engine-inlet problem but I think it turned into a aerodynamic problem (predicted thrust not being enough, meaning the engine didn't meet spec or drag was much higher than expected). Now, this is all by memory and is probably seriously wrong here and there, so don't believe the details, just the general outline. Bede sold off the BD-10, subsequent owners didn't have any more success going over Mach 1, at least two prototypes crashed and killed the pilot (who was the owner, I think), and, maybe, the BD-10 has lost enough momentum that's it's over. Mary -- Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , Tom Merkle wrote:
Jim Kingdon wrote in message ... http://www.scaled.com/projects/tiero...ews/121703.htm Not only did they break the sound barrier, but they did some tests of the inflight reconfiguration (is there a less awkward term? Maybe not, since I'm not particularly aware of other aircraft that have a similar capability): I suggest the term 'tailbrake,' or 'tailbraking' to describe the braking effect of the high drag configuration, (also it's alliterative with 'tail break' to describe the what's visually happening to the craft's shape). I vaguely recall seeing "shuttlecocking" somewhere, which is nice, although it's a bit unwieldy. (it also conjures up images of a *huge* racquet about to smack them back into the stratosphere g) -- -Andrew Gray |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
Tom Merkle wrote: Of course if another group looked anywhere near, I'm sure they could speed it up. But right now they're all alone on the playing field. ...When Lindberg actually took off from Long Island, his closest competitor expected to take off a couple of days later. As Peter Diamandis commented at last year's Space Access, "it's not over until somebody wins". The odds-on favorite for the Orteig Prize was Admiral Byrd, who sank $100k+ into his entry, back when that was a massive amount of money... and crashed on takeoff and was out of the race. Rutan is *not* alone on the playing field. He's farther into his development program than most of his competitors, but he's also got a rather complex vehicle that needs a longer development program before it's ready to try for the prize. (He's already had one landing accident; all it takes is a slightly worse one to put him way behind.) -- MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. | |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Wednesday, Sep 29 -- the first SpaceShipOne flight in a two-part try at the X-Prize. | Jim Oberg | Space Shuttle | 0 | July 27th 04 10:09 PM |
Private Rocket SpaceShipOne Makes Third Rocket-Powered Flight | Rusty B | Space Shuttle | 10 | May 16th 04 02:39 AM |
Private Rocket SpaceShipOne Makes Third Rocket-Powered Flight | Rusty B | Space Shuttle | 1 | May 14th 04 08:46 AM |
SpaceShipOne Busts Sound Barrier | Rand Simberg | Space Science Misc | 22 | December 23rd 03 09:48 PM |
double or nothing sonic booms | Lynndel Humphreys | Space Shuttle | 77 | October 14th 03 08:11 PM |