SS1 -- one down, one to go!

Numerous news sites (Yahoo, BBC, Google, Reauters) reporting a
successful flight despite control problems, which might be some PIO
(cue Mary).

Engine was cutoff early, so the extra capacity wasn't tested. Not
sure whether a bigger kick at ignition was part of flight.

/dps

Numerous news sites (Yahoo, BBC, Google, Reauters) reporting a
successful flight despite control problems

The SS1 may be destroyed on the next flight, I'm afraid. They had two
major flaws on two flights and their luck will run out .

Remember what Korolev said: three successful unmanned flights for any
space hardware before people are allowed to ride it. This is time-proven
wisdom.

Rutans are flirting with the devil when sending up known faulty craft,
which is outrageous. They will do irrepairable harm to private space
exploration.

Regards: Tamas Feher.

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 13:22:55 +0200, in a place far, far away, "Tamas
Feher" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Numerous news sites (Yahoo, BBC, Google, Reauters) reporting a
successful flight despite control problems

The SS1 may be destroyed on the next flight, I'm afraid.

And it may not. In fact, it's likely not.

Remember what Korolev said: three successful unmanned flights for any
space hardware before people are allowed to ride it.

Well, if Korolev said it, it must be true...

Except for the Saturn V. Or the Shuttle.

This is time-proven wisdom.

It is non-proven opinion.

"Tamas Feher" wrote:

The SS1 may be destroyed on the next flight, I'm afraid. They had two
major flaws on two flights and their luck will run out .

Both "flaws" seem to be due to a similar, if not the same, cause. Neither
event placed vehicle or pilot in any particular danger.

Remember what Korolev said: three successful unmanned flights for any
space hardware before people are allowed to ride it. This is time-proven
wisdom.

Or, alternatively, it is institutionalized folly.

Had SpaceShipOne been unpiloted on its most recent flight to space, it
would quite possibly not have survived.

Rutans are flirting with the devil when sending up known faulty craft,
which is outrageous. They will do irrepairable harm to private space
exploration.

There is not yet a known fault in the craft. Both rolls can be explained
by imperfect piloting. There might be a hardware cause -- off-axis thrust
and an unexpected yaw/roll coupling, for example -- but it is not yet
clear whether that is the case.

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 12:51:23 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Alan Anderson) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Had SpaceShipOne been unpiloted on its most recent flight to space, it
would quite possibly not have survived.

It would certainly have not survived, since it has no ability to fly
unpiloted.

"Tamas Feher" wrote in message
...
Remember what Korolev said: three successful unmanned flights for any
space hardware before people are allowed to ride it. This is time-proven
wisdom.

Rutans are flirting with the devil when sending up known faulty craft,
which is outrageous. They will do irrepairable harm to private space
exploration.

I'm always in shock when I read comments like this. If we had this attitude
in all our endeavors, we'd have never have been able to build and fly
aircraft, let alone spacecraft.

Exactly when did humanity loose its balls? Why are we so averse to taking
risks when the rewards are so high, yet we get up every day and accept the
risks of every day life?

Far more people have died on the ground to further the space program than
have died in space. Few seem to shed a tear when a construction worker dies
on the job, yet they get all upset when an "astronaut" dies. Certainly
there have been a few people killed on the job building the infrastructure
used by the space program.

The number of people killed on the ground gets even higher if you consider
people who die in traffic accidents on their way to or from working on the
space program.

People die every day. I'd rather die for something I believe in than
something trivial.

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

Well, if Korolev said it, it must be true...

Except for the Saturn V. Or the Shuttle.

The Shuttle is a truly reliable, safe workhorse (which pulls the gun
carriage nicely).

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 15:24:56 +0200, in a place far, far away, "Tamas
Feher" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Well, if Korolev said it, it must be true...

Except for the Saturn V. Or the Shuttle.

The Shuttle is a truly reliable, safe workhorse (which pulls the gun
carriage nicely).

The Shuttle's absolute level safety is beside the point. According to
you, it was safe after three flights, but not before. That's
nonsense.

"Tamas Feher" wrote in message
...
Well, if Korolev said it, it must be true...

Except for the Saturn V. Or the Shuttle.

The Shuttle is a truly reliable, safe workhorse (which pulls the gun
carriage nicely).

If you believe that, I've got a beautiful bridge to sell you...

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

Alan Anderson wrote:

There is not yet a known fault in the craft. Both rolls can be
explained
by imperfect piloting. There might be a hardware cause -- off-axis
thrust
and an unexpected yaw/roll coupling, for example -- but it is not yet
clear whether that is the case.

My opinion, after watching the entire flight on video,
is that the SS1 design has a built-in control problem
that makes it very difficult to fly, especially at
higher altitudes. A computer might be able to fly it
straight, but no stick and rudder pilot is perfect
enough to fly it pretty every time.

- Ed Kyle