SS1 flight set for June 21

"Christopher M. Jones" wrote:

Derek Lyons wrote:
Joe Strout wrote:
Hot damn! The X-Prize will be won in less than three weeks. This will
be a historic occasion.

Nope. The June 21 attempt will not meet the requirements of an
X-Prize flight.

Perhaps it's just sloppy wording on your part but this is
an incorrect statement. The X-Prize involves two flights,
if the June 21st flight is the first of a pair of flights
meeting the X-Prize requirements then it would indeed be
an X-Prize flight. Aside from the flying within two weeks
criterion, the flight certainly looks to meet all the other
X-Prize requirements.

From http://xprize.com/teams/guidelines.html :
6. Entrants must specify and provide the ANSARI X PRIZE Rules
Committee with their take-off and landing location, and the date of
their launch, not less than 30 days prior to any flight attempt.

So, unless the X-Prize commitee has kept the notification secret, they
don't meet the requirements.

Also, the press release does not mention whether or not ballast will
be carried as required by the rules.

Also, the press release states that "Based on the success of the June
space flight attempt, SpaceShipOne will later compete for the Ansari X
Prize,", leading me to conclude that this flight is not part of the
competition.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 00:44:34 +0100, Darren J Longhorn
wrote:

I haven't seen any mention of the required passengers for the June
21st flight.

But I was wrong about that requirement. Did they change that, or was
ballast always an acceptable alternative?

In article ,
Pat Flannery wrote:

Herb Schaltegger wrote:


An excellent example of form-over-substance in the mission requirements
if I've ever heard one. That gets a definite "Harrrrrrumph!" from me.
Has Scaled been ballasting their test flights so far? I haven't seen
anything too technical in their press releases.


They'd almost have to have been to keep the CG in the right place for
the return glide.

Pat

That would depend on the inherent stability/flying qualities of the
vehicle and the degree of control authority provided, I should think.
That big plank of a wing and featherable tail would seem to have a
pretty decent margin.

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
Columbia Loss FAQ:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

In article ,
"Karl Hallowell" wrote:

On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 19:37:34 -0500, Herb Schaltegger wrote:

In article ,
"Christopher M. Jones" wrote:

Herb Schaltegger wrote:
Actually, no. They have to do it with triple the payload: three people,
not just one pilot. And they have to do it again within two weeks, not
a month or two (or three) between each flight.

Nope. They only have to demonstrate the payload and
volume, they need only one person to actually make the
flights. They can do a "how many people can fit in
the phonebooth" ground test and carry sand bags to 100 km.

An excellent example of form-over-substance in the mission requirements
if I've ever heard one. That gets a definite "Harrrrrrumph!" from me.
Has Scaled been ballasting their test flights so far? I haven't seen
anything too technical in their press releases.

You're being too harsh. Why should we risk three people on an experimental
vehicle when we can risk one and the ballast equivalent of the other two?
Sounds prudent to me and not just a matter of "form-over-substance".

First of all, "we" aren't risking anything. The financial risk (for
this team, anyway) is being borne by Paul Allen, the risk to reputation
and career is being borne by Burt Rutan (who's already soiled it
somewhat by publicly stating his beliefs that the Pyramids of Egypt are
somehow connected with extraterrestrials); the risks of bodily harm and
injury are borne predominantly by the volunteer flight crew.

Again, if the requirement is so lenient as to allow dead weight ballast
in place of actual human beings, what's the point of using ANYONE?
Pat's cute, personality-filled monkey(s) would fit the bill perfectly.

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
Columbia Loss FAQ:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 06:23:24 GMT, (Derek
Lyons) wrote:

Also, the press release states that "Based on the success of the June
space flight attempt, SpaceShipOne will later compete for the Ansari X
Prize,", leading me to conclude that this flight is not part of the
competition.

....On the other hand, the fact that whoever pilots the damn thing will
make it up there first may just make the X-Prize qualifications moot.
Ergo, if someone gets up there regardless of whether they kissed
X-Prize judges' butt, they still got up there *first*, and that's all
that really counts as Gagarin proved a while back.

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

Joe Strout wrote in message ...
In article ,
Hop David wrote:

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches...te_040602.html

Hot damn! The X-Prize will be won in less than three weeks. This will
be a historic occasion.

I'm not sure this will be a 3 person flight.
--
Gene Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.

In article ,
Darren J Longhorn wrote:
But I was wrong about that requirement. Did they change that, or was
ballast always an acceptable alternative?

It might not have been that way from the start, but it has been since very
early.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

Herb Schaltegger wrote:

That would depend on the inherent stability/flying qualities of the
vehicle and the degree of control authority provided, I should think.
That big plank of a wing and featherable tail would seem to have a
pretty decent margin.



But the passengers would be sitting up in the nose of the ship; which
would put them pretty far forward of the CG;
I assume that the rocket motor sits just astern of the CG and the NO2
tank just forward of it, so as to keep the aircraft's balance correct as
the fuel and oxidizer are expended- if that is the case, then you are
going to need to carry ballast in the crew compartment to represent the
passengers if the aircraft is not to stall on the return glide- the only
other thing you could do is fly it in a controlled dive via fly-by-wire
to compensate for its tail-heaviness; this would make a landing flare
very tricky. Besides, knowing that it has to carry the ballast for the
prize flights, you would want to carry it during the envelope expansion
flights so as to get a true measure of the aircraft's handling and
velocity capabilities at operational weight.

Pat

Herb Schaltegger wrote:

Again, if the requirement is so lenient as to allow dead weight ballast
in place of actual human beings, what's the point of using ANYONE?
Pat's cute, personality-filled monkey(s) would fit the bill perfectly.


I can see the rationale for allowing ballast instead of people for the
prize flights; even with the basic "straight up out of the
atmosphere/fall back into the atmosphere/glide back to launch site"
nature of the mission without much horizontal velocity being involved,
this is a fairly risky enterprise, given that a lot of the flight will
leave no escape option for the pilot or passengers should the aircraft
suffer a serious malfunction. Given that aspect of the flights, I can
see why the rules allow an equivalent amount of ballast to be carried in
the interests of safety; in much the same way that the first 5 Shuttle
flights went up with just the minimal crew to operate it and get it
home. I would consider Spaceship One to be a _very_ experimental
aircraft, and the FAA says no passengers during the first 40 hours of
flight with a non-FAA certified motor installed. I assume that it only
is considered to be "flying" when it's separated from White Knight, so
40 hours flight time could take a while to accrue.

Pat

In article ,
Pat Flannery wrote:

Herb Schaltegger wrote:

That would depend on the inherent stability/flying qualities of the
vehicle and the degree of control authority provided, I should think.
That big plank of a wing and featherable tail would seem to have a
pretty decent margin.



But the passengers would be sitting up in the nose of the ship; which
would put them pretty far forward of the CG;
I assume that the rocket motor sits just astern of the CG and the NO2
tank just forward of it, so as to keep the aircraft's balance correct as
the fuel and oxidizer are expended- if that is the case, then you are
going to need to carry ballast in the crew compartment to represent the
passengers if the aircraft is not to stall on the return glide- the only
other thing you could do is fly it in a controlled dive via fly-by-wire
to compensate for its tail-heaviness; this would make a landing flare
very tricky. Besides, knowing that it has to carry the ballast for the
prize flights, you would want to carry it during the envelope expansion
flights so as to get a true measure of the aircraft's handling and
velocity capabilities at operational weight.


Good points; on the other hand, don't the two passengers sit
side-by-side behind the center/forward pilot's seat? Or am I making
that up out of poor memory combined with how I would arrange the thing
internally? (I thought I'd seen a sketch of that layout somewhere but I
could be wrong.) Because if so, they would be seated closer to CG of
the vehicle and thus have smaller impact to the CG, at least compared
the impact of the rocket fuel and oxidizer in the rear and the single
pilot perched up closer to the nose.

The data sheet from Scaled isn't terribly clear about crew seating, but
it appears that they are all three seated fairly far forward. The NO2
tank, however, appears to be situated very damn nearly at the center of
lift of the wing or perhaps a bit forward of that point, probably right
at the CG as well. Thus, if they have a rocket failure of some type and
terminate boost, the CG won't change too much. Note that Scaled has
already demonstrated cold-flowing the oxidizer in-flight; I would
suspect that with the tank where it is, it has little impact on vehicle
stability either full or empty. I also see from Scaled's data sheet
that in addition to elevators on the tail for pitch and roll control,
the entire horizontal tail surface is electro-servo actuated for
supersonic flight control and overall vehicle trim. I would suspect
that that control surface, as far back as it is, can do very well at
trimming out the effects of two passengers (total weight of what? 350
pounds?) just a few feet forward of the CG.

Hmmmm . . . this very much sounds like something for Mary to comment on.

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
Columbia Loss FAQ:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html