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" 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.

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.

___
"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.
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).

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 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?

SS1 is a prototype; it wasn't supposed to go into orbit, so it's not
disappointing that it didn't. Moreover no shuttle orbiter is expected to
re-enter more than once without servicing either.

In article m,
John Doe wrote:

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 ?

Absolutely, it is narrowly aimed at the X-Prize.

Rutan has a long history of optimizing his designs for fairly narrow
criteria. There's little point in making a "truck for all reasons" if
you're not going to actually be using all the reasons.

When/if (and his own statements strongly support "when") he goes for a
more ambitious goal, the design for that will fit the new goal...and not
a half-dozen steps further on.

Mike Dennis wrote:
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.

Well, Rutan is selling the idea of suborbital tourist flights, and hes pretty
much able to achieve that. Hes talking about a 6 passenger suborbial flight,
for $15 per head. All that really counts is if people will pay that, and if
that would make a profit.

As far as the comparision with Nasa, or a private space launcher, I think
cost for cost is the only real comparision. Rutan spent 20 million (if the
report is to be believed) in development of a craft that can go to 100km
with a single pilot, but probally can carry 3 when fully developed. Clearly
Nasa has no equivalent of that mission. If Rutan does develop an orbital
capability as a sideline, probally something on the order of a multistage
unmanned vechicle in place of SS1, then a cost per pound to orbit would
certainly be available for comparision.

--
Samiam is Scott A. Moore

Personal web site: http:/www.moorecad.com/scott
My electronics engineering consulting site: http://www.moorecad.com
ISO 7185 Standard Pascal web site: http://www.moorecad.com/standardpascal
Classic Basic Games web site: http://www.moorecad.com/classicbasic
The IP Pascal web site, a high performance, highly portable ISO 7185 Pascal
compiler system: http://www.moorecad.com/ippas

Being right is more powerfull than large corporations or governments.
The right argument may not be pervasive, but the facts eventually are.

"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

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.

Another comparison. the Mercury flight reached the altitude of around
200 km at speed around Mach 6~7.

More comparison, the first Sputnik flight reached the altitude of
around 900 km at speed around Mach 27.