Spaceship One in perspective

"JimO" wrote in message
...
Along the same lines, I note that it attained only one eighth of
orbital velocity, so only one sixty-fourth of orbital energy. Is that
latter computation too simplistic?

From memory, isn't the equation:

kinetic_energy = 0.5 * mass * velocity**2

Considering you've got that "velocity squared" term in there...

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

Hi All,

Heres some home footage from the launch....crappy camerawork on my part,
nothing a good edit cant save though

They ignited the rocket at 50,000 feet and we saw the contrail go
straight up, but it was right in the sun and my camera couldnt focus on
it....too bad

hope you enjoy

http://users.cwnet.com/jgoodman/Scaled/SpaceshipOne.mov

--
_____________________________________________
John K. Goodman - Animation Supervisor
Rhythm & Hues Studios - Los Angeles, CA
http://users.cwnet.com/jgoodman/index.html

*** this message was printed with recycled electrons ***

Scott Moore wrote:

EAC wrote:

The flight of Space Ship One is much just like the flight of the X-15.
But eventhough Space Ship One reached a similiar altitude as the
X-15's, it's slower than the X-15.

As a comparison, the X-15 flight reached the altitude of around 100 km
at speed around Mach 6~7.

Isn't it pretty darned impressive that Rutan acheived the same height as
the X15, which had a titainium hull with fuel circulated beneath the skin
to cool the aircraft, vs. a fiberglass hull used on SS1 ?

It's not impressive at all. What little cooling the X-15 had was
needed for it's speed runs, not it's altitude runs. (The X-15 could
do one or the other, but not both on the same flight.)

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

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

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004, Neil Gerace wrote:


"EAC" wrote in message
m...
The flight of Space Ship One is much just like the flight of the X-15.
But eventhough Space Ship One reached a similiar altitude as the
X-15's, it's slower than the X-15.

The X-15, as I understand it, was a high-altitude, high-speed aircraft.
Spaceship One is a prototype spacecraft built to attain 100 km at any speed.
Not really comparable in my opinion.

Let us instead compare it with another prototype spacecraft, Space Shuttle
Enterprise. That machine had no engines and was much less versatile in its
operations. I think that SS1 does its job better than Enterprise did its.

OV-101 Enterprise did it's job very well. How did Enterprise fail in the
mission it was given?
-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:

Neil Gerace wrote:
"EAC" wrote:

The flight of Space Ship One is much just like the flight of the X-15.
But eventhough Space Ship One reached a similiar altitude as the
X-15's, it's slower than the X-15.

The X-15, as I understand it, was a high-altitude, high-speed aircraft.
Spaceship One is a prototype spacecraft built to attain 100 km at any speed.
Not really comparable in my opinion.

Let us instead compare it with another prototype spacecraft, Space Shuttle
Enterprise. That machine had no engines and was much less versatile in its
operations. I think that SS1 does its job better than Enterprise did its.

OV-101 Enterprise did it's job very well. How did Enterprise fail in the
mission it was given?

Extensive aerodynamic flight testing of the space shuttle in the lower
atmosphere, and landing... Enterprise performed its given mission quite
well.

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 18:34:46 GMT, Scott Moore
wrote:

Isn't it pretty darned impressive that Rutan acheived the same height as
the X15, which had a titainium hull with fuel circulated beneath the skin
to cool the aircraft, vs. a fiberglass hull used on SS1 ?

The X-15 wasn't made of titanium. It was made of steel. Very special
high-nickel steel, Inconel-X, but not titanium.

The black-painted titanium airplane is the SR-71 (and earlier
varieties). It too used fuel for cooling. I think the F-8C did so
also.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

Being able to dive from a diving board into a pool is quite different
from diving from the Golden Gate Bridge into the water below. I think
the SS1 will disintegrate as soon as it hit the atmosphere if it free
falls from orbit. It may need a rocket to slow its approach to the
atmosphere.

The space shuttle needs the protection of the heat tiles when it
reenter at an angle. A free falling reentry would be suicidal if you
come from the orbit.


"Mike Dennis" wrote in message ...
I too greatly respect Rutan's achievements, but this guy really has a big
mouth to go along with his unusually large brain. After the flight he was
bragging about how his design proved one could reenter at low speed, without
all the dangerous heat. Of course, Mr. Rutan is no fan of NASA, but he
needs to respect what they've achieved as well. If the X-Prize requirements
had been for "orbital" flight, he wouldn't be spouting off about how much
different his ideas are. I wonder what SpaceShipOne would look like after a
17,600mph reentry from 160 miles up? How about after doing it 25-30 times?

Let's not lose sight of the fact that these ballistic missions are of little
long-term value. Orbital missions (or beyond) are where the real money is.

"Mike Dicenso" wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.58.0406231546250.3336@seds...


OV-101 Enterprise did it's job very well. How did Enterprise fail in the
mission it was given?

Its mission was much more restricted by its design than SS1's is by its.