Slashdot Mirror
SpaceShipOne Flight Test
Soft writes "Scaled Composites' entry for the X-Prize, the SpaceShipOne, has had a successful first (unpowered) flight test.
The spacecraft was dropped from the White Knight carrier aircraft at 47,000 ft (14 km) and 105 kt (194 km/h, 120 mph) and touched down after a 1.1-hour glide at Mojave airport.
Photos are available."
We know it sinks. But, will it fly?
SpaceShipOne comes with a 14-day trial from SpaceShipOne Networks. To obtain the free SpaceShipOne, please look harder.
Flight Time: 1.1 hours / 19 minutes
The post refers to a 1.1 hour flight, which shocked me as a rather long glide from 47,000 feet, but after reading the article it seems that total flight duration was 1.1 hours and actual glide time was a more understandable 19 minutes. 19 minutes is still great from that altitude as Nasa's shuttle has a much higher sink rate, despite its greater weight.
I know what Chuck Yeager would say: "Gas that beast up and let's go punch a hole in the sky with it!"
First rule of holes; When in one, stop digging.
Thank God they didn't name it SpaceShipZero. The distance to ZeroWing would be just to small.
That, and we don't mind if they take off every SpaceShipZero for great justice, it's just that we don't want the pilot to have no chance to survive make his time.
All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
The space ship was launched at 47,000 feet and 105 knots, 10 nm east of Mojave.
How the hell did they measure that? I mean, it has an altitude of 47000 feet and a velocity 105 knots and they tell you it is 10 nanometers east of Mojave!
In the older press release they mentioned the entire flight would be very short - something like 30-45 minutes. But with this sort of glide rate (avg sink less than 12fps when moving 150fps?) the possibilities for "space" (subspace? suborbital?) tourism seem much more clear. A 30 minute trip doesn't sound like much fun at all, but if you're in a ship that can glide back to earth over 4 or 5 hours, that opens all sorts of new doors - like transatlantic flight, to name one. Not as many passengers as the Concorde, but an infinitely cooler trip.
Re-entry from orbit involves hitting the atmosphere at almost-orbital speeds - about 17,000+ mph.
SSO is designed to fly SUB-orbital. Its re-entry will be MUCH slower. Scaled Composites' website quotes a maximum speed of about 2,500 mph. Kinetic heating shouldn't be a major problem at that sort of speed.
Maybe this is a stupid question, but could you reduce the amount of heating during rentry by slowing the craft down much much more before it reenters?
Obviously there would be a huge weight penalty because you would need to carry all that fuel into orbit in the first place...
But, since slowing down invariably means a lower orbit, is it physically possible to decelerate enough to just kind of "drop down" into the atmosphere at a cozy suborbital speed, or would the g-forces required to slow rapidly enough before your orbit lowers too much be too high?
Am I making any sense?
I've always wondered about this.
This space available.
The competitors for the X-price are one after the other dropping their capsules / spaceships out of the sky to test at least part of their re-entry profile, and Burt Rutans entry at least flies like a dream (big surprice - he designs flyingmachiens for a living, don't he?). The X-price is running until January 1, 2005 (qoute; The X PRIZE is fully funded through January 1, 2005, through private donations and backed by an insurance policy to guarantee that the $10 million is in place on the day that the prize is won), giving the teams a little more than one year to launch, overhaul their machines and launch again.
I'm getting all excited over the prosects ahead of us. Never mind if the X-price succeds in jumpstarting the space-tourism or not - we're getting a taste of what the spacerace was like when the USA and the USSR were competing about getting the first man up into space, allthought this time all the teams are playing with open cards.
I'm willing to bet all my karma that we'll have the first launch before next summer; anyone willing to bet against it?
Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
Spacedev completed the last and full scale test of it's rocket motor for SpaceShip One last week. So, it has a way go up now. Here's the link...
SpaceDev Performs Successful Rocket Motor Test
is that it's sort of like living in the 1950s and experiencing all of this new space stuff for the first time. We are lucky to be living in interesting times.
NJ Local Music Scene
The amount of fuel necessary to do this would be completely impractical, comparable to the amount of fuel needed to launch the orbiter in the first place. It's *far* more efficient to use the atmosphere to slow down.
First, the X-price is about creating a sub-orbital craft, not an orbital one. Still, it's a valid question you ask.
Rockets to slow the capsule / spaceship down for rentry purposes has been used on every single manned spaceship I know of. They are called retro-rockets and are employed to initiate re-entry at the proper time and place to put the capsule / spaceship down where it's supposed to come down. The alternative is to stay in orbit until it dacays naturaly, and then who knows how long you will stay up there or where you will come down.
That said, I assume you knew that already and are wondering about rocketengines / other engines that can be used continualy for a logner period of time to brake the craft faster than purely aerodynamic braking can achive?
In theory it is nothing stopping you from trying that - apart from the weight of both engines and fuel. Not only does the rule of thumb tells us that for every kilogram you want to take into orbit, you'll burn ten kilograms of fuel to get it there, but as the engiens and fuel will have to be protected against the heat of re-entry, you nead a larger (thus heavier) heatshield as well as a larger (heavier) craft overall. And that in turns means - you guessed it - that you'll have to burn even more fuel getting it up there.
On the other hand, if you're simply suggesting dropping the relative groundvelocity of the craft to zero before it re-enetered the atmosphere, so it would drop straight down, I see two problems. Firstly, you would have to do it fast (since loss in speed means loss in altitude - thus meeting the atmosphere), which means an allmighty kick in the pants for the poor astronauts (very hight G). Secondly, the heatpulse would be about the same anyway - the craft will have a whooping huge potential energy from simply beeing that high, and that will be converted to kinetic energy (read; speed) on the way down. Remember Epot = mgh while Ekin = 1/2mv, and if we assume that all the potential energy is transformed into kinetic energy (which it ain't, a whole lot will turn into heat), we find that Epot = Ekin, thus mgh=1/2mv. Simplify, and you see that the speed (v) equals the square root of two times the height multiplied with the gravitatinal pull (v=sq(2gh) ). Thus, if we set the height to 100 km (100000 meter) and we assume that g is constant at 9.82ms, we find that the speed of the craft as it reaches the surface is no less than 1401.42 meter a second, equal to 5045kmh, equal to 3136mph, or about 4.25 Mach. So to summarise, you won't save anything by 'stopping' in your orbital tracks.
Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
Starship.
Male life is expendable, female is not. So let the stupid males do risky stuff and get killed, and the smart ones can copulate with the women and advance the race by creating new life. Now if only women would stop seeing the risky males as attractive mates, and go for us quiet, non-risky types instead.
If you had the reaction mass in orbit as a refueling point, there is no question that this would work. It is out of reach of today's technology with its dependence on chemical rockets, because the cost of hauling the fuel up with you is much too great. But that could change in a hurry, if we happen to find a source of ice that is already up there somewhere...
What I envision is a reentry vehicle that uses steam jets generated by the heat of reentry as brakes. I'm talking water-cooled wings where the liquid water is brought to temperatures of 250 - 500 deg C before it is flashed to steam in forward-pointing jets. We are past masters of handling live steam in everything from 1850's locomotives to light water nuclear power stations. We've got steam technology pretty well nailed. It is hard to imagine not being able to make that work. But it might depend on finding exploitable ice on the Moon, or snagging a passing comet.
It is also possible to use heavy lift, brute force, unmanned rockets to throw big water balloons into orbit, that would then be used as refueling points for the descent of manned craft. From my vague memories of the space shuttle's payload (something like 20 tonnes?) I'd guess that NASA could throw a 30 - 50 tonne water balloon up there within 4 years, with most of that time spent on choosing and approving the contracts. At a WAG, a water balloon of that size would probably provide a half dozen or so manned rides back (depending on what kind of beast you get when you mix a bunch of steam engineers with a bunch of aeronautic engineers). Compared to the cost of extending the space shuttle's service life, this could be economically worthwhile.
Anyway, the thought of this generates some interesting and fun images.
I submitted the report when they were first test flying the White Knight, with the space plane strapped to the belly.
Test flights are test flights, and the space plane neither went orbital or even to the edge of space. It was dropped from the bottom of the White Knight.
Hence my cause for bitching. I submitted several reports of relevence, and not one has been approved (the space flight report was rejected scant seconds after submission).
And similarly, my complaint is on topic, since it covered the above story months earlier. If anyone actually cared (no thanks to mods with itchy trigger fingers and too much time on their hands, yet not enough to actually read the article either), they'd note that the first test flight for the launch platform was successful, and within 4 months the space plane was being tested, leaps and bounds ahead of NASA in terms of speed and R&D.
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
Testoterone poisoning is responsible for quite a few male "accidental" deaths. That includes such things as car crashes, stupid stunts, golfing in thunderstorms and associated darwin-award winning behaviour.
Have you ever noticed that most "darwin award" winners are male?
I'm not. Duh. I do, however, know more about rocketry and aviation than most humans. I wouldn't call myself an expert on all things that fly, but I could explain to you in detail how to compute the fuel consumption for a rocket motor. I won't, though, because you're trolling me.
If you can develop a rocket engine that will drive you at "a couple of machs" for, say, two hours, and will fit in SS1's airframe, I'd wager you could make a very large amount of money.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Maybe this is a stupid question, but could you reduce the amount of heating during rentry by slowing the craft down much much more before it reenters?
Funny you ask. SSO has a unique design in which the wings fold during re-entry and provide an aerodynamically stable "shuttlecocking" effect such that the belly remains down. This means more drag at higher altitudes, simpler re-entry controll, etc. Then the wing converts pack and the pilot glides the vehicle in. More drag at higher altitudes also means that it is decelleration is more spread out, so the heat (potential energy -> kenetic energy -> heat) is applied at a slower rate and is less of a problem.
It is all there in the FAQ.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Blame evolution. Nature, on the communal level, does not favor the timorous. Fret not, the key to the typical woman's reproductive gonads is lots of accumulated possessions...
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon