Slashdot Mirror
SpaceShipOne Flight Not as Perfect as it Seemed
ArbiterOne writes "SpaceShipOne's flight wasn't as perfect as it seemed, according to Burt Rutan and New Scientist. Apparently, at one point in the descent, the pilot completely lost attitude control. According to him, "If that had happened earlier, I would never have made it and you all would be looking sad right now." Could this pose some problems for the X-Prize contender?"
I don't see anyone doing any better than they did (yet).
Don't believe anything I say. I crash test crack pipes for a living.
Is this a mistake or do pilots really have control over their attitude?
Cure cancer.. and stuff! www.team45.info
He did it en ended alive, so he's more than a pioneer, he's a surviving one :)
Trolling using another account since 2005.
Build...test...improve...retest...etc
It's how aeronautical design's been done for decades. I very much doubt this'll be a major setback for them.
'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
...the pilot's skill. However, this is to be expected with any prototype. It's always the early pioneers who take the risks; I guarantee that Rutan and crew are working on fixing the attitude problem as we speak. And, knowing those guys, the next flight will be perfect.
Don't be a looter...and yes, I know that it's spelled with an "A" instead of an "E".
And these so-called "experts" still lose control of their attitude. Surely they would have come to grips with their emotional problems before leaving.
Did he get all mean or start crying or what?
I also heard on the news thay had a problem with the engine cowling coming loose or breaking, something along those lines.
A few of my friends were very surprised that this run wouldn't count at all for the X-Prize, since it didn't have enough people or weight to replace them.
This is exactly why, it was a test run, things can, and did (though fortunatly not bad enough to have resulted in loss of life) go wrong.
I think this was exactly the right way for them to have approached this, go up with as little extra as possible, see what goes well and what doesn't, and make revisions based on that. Though an extra 300lbs might not have mattered much with this particular problem, in other cases it could have turned a small problem into a disaster.
paul reinheimer
Apparently, at one point in the descent, the pilot completely lost attitude control.
This just makes me picture the pilot swearing and punching the control panels.
is in a better position than them to win the prize when this group is the only one who has achieved the goal, whether with luck or not?
And despite this: it *is* rocket science, and an experimental vehicle to boot. It isn't surprising there are some problems. Let's all be happy the pilot actually survived.
Who said it was perfect in the first place? Every news story I read talked about the problems they had. Where were you guys?
(Pilot Transcript:)
"Damn Spaceship! Bring me home already! This is never going to work! Help! Why didn't I learn something useful? Mummy!"
"Could this pose some problems for the X-Prize contender?"
Of course it could, bubblehead. Getting into space is HARD.
thats all good, but it said attitude control, not altitude.
must have been obstructed by the M&M's flying around.
"The position in space of a spacecraft or aircraft. A satellite's attitude can be measured by the angle the satellite makes with the object it is orbiting, usually the Earth. Attitude determines the direction a satellite's instruments face. The attitude of a satellite must be constantly maintained; this is known as attitude control."
You're welcome.
Hmmm.
F#$@ing X prize!! Damn this m*******ing piece of flying s#@$! No way there going to drag me back into this tin can next week! I WILL HUNT YO... oh look, shiny wings!!!
Sig? What sig?
No, it is attitude
It seems many slashdotters need to take a look at the basics of airplanes.
Here's a nice picture too.
Casual Games/Downloads
Just rig that baby with some of the inflatable cushions that we used on the Mars Rovers. If something goes wrong we'll just bounce him around the landing site for a while.
This way to the egress...
attitude n. - The orientation of an aircraft's axes relative to a reference line or plane, such as the horizon. - The orientation of a spacecraft relative to its direction of motion.
Version Control:
SpaceShipOne | v1.0 | 06/21/04 | Initial Draft
SpaceShipOne | v1.1 | Pending | Minor bugfixes
I'm really impressed with the White Knight launching vehicle and the new rocket design but all the Spaceship One team have proven that given enough money, anyone can build a spaceship. We knew that already however. I don't suppose anyone thought that a prerequisite for space travel was for it to be sponsered by a government.
Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought the XPrize was a contest for amateurs.
"Captain, we've lost attitude control."
"Well fix the f*cking thing!"
Its (possibly) called attitude because it resembles a person's mood - whether the face is pointing up or down ;)
if i had mod points, id certainly give you funny - dammit, that made me laugh out loud!
I can see it happening.. pilot zooming along normally, *clunk*, "YOU STUP*&(^&%?%*&..", regains control, lands, adjusts tie, steps out.
I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you.
Apparently, at one point in the descent, the pilot completely lost attitude control. Did he start start throwing things and pointing fingers?
This is something that has always impressed me with Rutan; he has always been pretty honest with regards to the performance and safety of his designs.
He could have just as easily hid the issues and blamed the time to fix the problem on the FAA or a vendor (like the rocket motor supplier).
The attitude changes on motor light are significant problems that will have to be addressed although I wonder if it is due to center of gravity changes caused by the fully fueled motor. The big bang and deformed panel is a potentially bigger problem and may require significant changes to the structure.
myke
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
For spaceflight it seems to take fewer imperfections to kill you. For a first run mostly perfect is fantastic...especially since the not perfect parts didn't involve dying.
The flight was a success, the pilot survived, and the ship wasn't damaged? Good job guys! Don't get lazy!
As a society viewing the initial private sojourns into space we need to prepare for the risk these people will take and we need to prepare ourselves for the first casualties. Otherwise, when someone does die, we'll knee-jerk the issue to the point that someone will suggest "There ought to be a law...".
There's been quite enough of that already, thank you very much. Get ready for it, it's going to happen. Every pioneering effort accumulates causualties.
Mod me troll, if you must, I can't help it.
Its funny that 90% or so of the comments in this story so far are making fun of the pilot for not being able to control his "attitude", but what is funnier is that attitude is actually a flight term. (I don't know what it means). Sadly Melville is being made fun of for overcoming a problem in the launch to make a near disaster a huge success. He should be commended not made fun of, but we are too busy wallowing in our ignorance to realize his achievment.
I tried for 5 years to come up with a clever sig...only to realize that I am not clever.
The article says that he lost attitude control at the end of the burn as the ship was leaving the atmosphere. What else would you expect, considering the primary attitude controls are atmospheric flight surfaces? Once the ailerons, elevators and rudders have no air to push agains you're pretty much stuck with gyros, attitude thrusters or a controllable main engine thrust nozzle. This craft had NONE of those, so It would be completely reasonable to expect it to tumble until the air friction had built up enough for the fins to reorient the aircraft along the motion vector.
this was a test flight. they never intended this to be an offical X-prize flight because they knew stuff like this happens. this is why there was only one person on board. they know what they are doing.
read the other posts that actually define 'attitude control' in relation to planes and spaceships. attitude is correct.
and SpaceShipOne has no chance of winning the X-Prize unless they can
a) fit 3 people it in at once
b) launch the same craft twice in 14 days
c) reach an altitude of 62 miles
they only have one of them so far, they could get two down fairly quickly (easily?) but as i understand it, SpaceShipOne can only carry one person.
Consider as well that even the big boys have had their fair share of problems, and still managed to get out with everyone alive.
Space flight is dangerous. What amazes me is that even big problems don't result in fatalities whereas, in the case of Challenger(maybe Columbia), a minor problem resulted in the death of the crew.
May the Maths Be with you!
Indeed! NASA never has accidents that kill people. Through the mass application of science and billions of taxpayer dollars, all risk has been eliminated from space travel. Carry on, sir.
While i'm sure this will get a -1 Flamebait, i have to at least start by expressing my dissapointment with the vast number of "attitude" jokes so far...
That said, I'm surprised the development team isn't more concerned with the extreme instabilities reportedly experienced while firing the engines. Seems to me that such a huge misalignment of thrust is a much greater problem than a "slight glitch in the attitude controls"
Perhaps Jon Carmack's team still has a shot at the big bucks.... Even without bothering to make any cash from finally releasing Doom3.
There's an old story from Analog (a science-fiction magazine) titled 'Amateurs' which reminds me quite a bit of the guys at Scaled Composites, except in 'Amateurs', they didn't have a government prize to spur them on, just a drive to get into space, and a willingness to ignore and/or bend a few laws, such as re-using the ID of a salvaged Lear jet for their experimental SSTO vehicle[1], called 'Dervish Also', because the original, titled 'Dervish', blew up.
On the top of the hatch that led into the interior of the ship was stenciled the words: "Experimental Space Rocket -- Dangerous As Hell"
[1] Probably one of the funnier points in the story is during a radio exchange between the pilot of the Dervish Also and the ground, where the pilot requested clearance to take his "Learjet" to a flight level of 600. *grin*
--
I Hit the Karma Cap, and All I Got Was This Lousy
Its (possibly) called attitude because it resembles a person's mood - whether the face is pointing up or down ;)
I kinda thought attitude was more spatial in origin and later applied to moods. A quick check of the dictionary leaves me unsure.
Perhaps Taco should read check his submissions a little more closely before approving them: Melvill lost attitude control "end of the rocket engine's firing time of about 70 seconds, just as Melvill reached space". That would be in the ascent phase.
Attitude control? The article states that he lost attitude control as he left the atmosphere. For those of you that don't know: attitude control is granted be the moving control surfaces of a plane's wing, and "tail" area. Wait, wait, unless SpaceShip One had tiny "thrusters" or "puffers" then the moment there is no air to affect the control surfaces, then they are essentially useless. The shuttle uses these tiny thrusters (many of them) to change it's attitude when it's up in orbit. It is possible that these engineers failed to think of such a simple thing as lack of an atmosphere for the control surfaces? Last I checked I didn't hear anything about it having any thrusters.
...I've ever known agrees with the notion of 'any landing you walk away from, is a good one.'
Ads are broken.
I think that they only need to have the weight of 3 people on board not three actual people.
"You can now flame me, I am full of love,"
Credit Mike Melville and Burt Rutan for being so open about the problems they experienced. Remember, this is 1 day after the flight! Compare that with how NASA closed ranks and divulged Columbia information with an eye dropper for weeks after the disaster. The only statements made by the mission controllers were through their lawyers. The Russians and Chinese would never admit to problems at all. Burt Rutan is a genious, he puts his work on the line for all the world to see. Space Ship 1 is a class act all the way around.
an ill wind that blows no good
"Any landing you can walk away from is a good landing."
Especially when your descent was from 62.5 miles.. or 330,000 feet. For reference, airliners typically fly between 30 and 35,000 feet.
quote:
"There was also a loud bang behind him while the rocket engine was firing"
What are the odds of that?
Attitude of an aircraft: The relationship of longitudinal axis (fuselage) and lateral axis (wings) to the earth's surface or any plane parallel to the earth's surface.
The part where Mike Mevilla opened a bag of M&Ms and the candies went flying? I saw it on news, but it was freaky short! Do you know where I can watch the whole video online?
Thank you in advance.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
In my opinion, they have the greatest chance of winning. Scaled is the only team that have performed actual flight tests with their real spacecraft and not only testfiring their rockets or prototypes. They have come a very long way through a careful series of testflights, going higher and faster every time. Now they've reached space. Even the other promising teams (Canadian Arrow, Starchaser, da Vinci, etc.) have yet to fly a fullscale rocket, manned or not. They still have six months to do it. They've come the farthest, and unless they experience some serious setbacks, they have a great chance of winning. Sure things might not go perfectly now or later, but if noone is making mistakes, then how are they supposed to learn from them?
How does SS1 control it's attitude when its out of the atmosphere? I don't recall seeing any sort of directional thrusters on the craft.
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
... despite a few glitches, which were handled well it seems by a very good test pilot, Scaled Composites has still managed to achieve something that neither Boeing nor Lockheed Martin have been able to do, with all their billions. They'll get it fixed, and this also is not the first glitch they've had ( http://www.space.com/news/ssone_mishap_031218.html ).
Seing as they are the first to exit the atmosphere in the way that they did it. Its not entirely unexpected that the ship would encounter things that it had not previous to this. The stresses (and lack of conversely as atmospheric pressure lessens) required to do what it did are hard to calculate and test. I wouldn't even count this as a set back...my bet is that they will take June and Most of July to figure out what was up during this flight make design changes and do another single pilot test flight in Late July Early August. And then another in September, the winning flights will probably take place in late October early November...just my guess...
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
According to one article they had to run on backup systems, another said the pilot heard a loud BANG at one point (lost that link). Not happy stuff, clearly they moved too soon.
For me, i'm not all that interested in the higher cost version of scaled composites, Rutan IS a pioneer, but previous work has also been government related. Which is why I laugh at the whole notion of public/private. Don't get me wrong, govt funding/projects are a good thing. But im sick of the BS pretending that there's the government and there's private industry. They are interelated, and we would do well to discuss, and plan, that relationship and public funding of r&d. And dont get me started on healthcare.
All your preview button are belong to hello kitty.
The loss of attitude control was during the ascent, not the descent. Mike lost control of attitude right before SpaceShipOne popped out of the upper atmosphere. Because there was no air, he was able to more easily regain control as the loss of attitude had no more effect.
actually you are mistaken-it CAN hold 3 people. They just choose not to for this test flight. Overall these folks rock.
...is a good landing!
Any landing you can walk away from is a good one!
quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.
Its (possibly) called attitude because it resembles a person's mood - whether the face is pointing up or down ;)
The word comes from Latin aptus, meaning fastened or fitted. Actually, the aeronautic meaning is the primary one - originally the word was used to describe a position of an object related to some framework, backdrop or just the horizon, only in the modern times it attained the new meaning, a position of human being versus the society.
Hey! I always have a good attitude towards everything !
:)
So I think they should have chosen ME... ME I TELL YOU !!! >:(
This... this... gets me on my nerves!!
Control yourself... control... yes!
Whew! I'm back in control! You see how easy it is for me to control my attitude?
I know I should have manned that ship.
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3829489.stmh ey quote Rutan:
T
"The fact that our back-up system worked and we made a beautiful landing makes me feel very good."
I find it quite insightful of Rutan to have designed a backup system into his space-plane. And it did work as designed... a clear demonstration that should win even more future safety-weary customers/passengers.
The full quote it:
"Any landing which you can walk away from is a good landing.
Any landing after which you can use the plane again is a great landing."
Or, if you work for American Airlines:
"Any landing after which our customers, or their surviving kin, don't sue us is a good landing."
--
I Hit the Karma Cap, and All I Got Was This Lousy
Could this pose some problems for the X-Prize contender?
;-) Not everything works seemlessly out of the box. If anything this is a perfect reason why there should a human behind the controls. "Yeah, the controls got stiff then I lost attitude control. Then they became softer." That is the kind of feedback that engineers, especially those making it up on the spot, live by.
C'mon. What are you a Mac user?
Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
Any landing you walk away from is a success.
Cheers
And yes, Chuck Yeager (IMHO) was the greatest. The book reminds us of the distinction between real pilots and astronauts (mostly passengers). The guy who piloted Richard Noble's Thrust (supersonic on land) and the guy who piloted the Rutan craft are pilots.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
thats why this was a test flight - to help get the kinks and bugs out of the process so they can send three people up (which is required to win the 10 mil prize).
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
I want to know what poor guy gets stuck cleaning the M&Ms out of the cockpit. I'm sure they all melted in the desert heat once the spacecraft sat on the runway for a few minutes. This isn't exactly the best way to treat a cockpit full of fancy electronics, to bathe them in blobs of sugary fat.
It's a good thing you don't have mod points since that post was way past redundant.
Burt Rutan -> B Rutan -> Buran. Co-incidence - I think not!
FYI, 'Buran' was the Soviet space-shuttle that only made a single un-manned test flight in the late 80's (or early 90's) before it was prematurely shelved.
regardless of who wins the X-prize... we win. everyone of us.
So they had some problems, and they need to repair a buckled part on the ship. I still think its an incredible success. We're talking about commercial flight in to space and the guy lived to tell about it. They've got to figure out what went wrong, but they've help put us a lot closer to our goal that we were.
To ignore that by letting a flaw or problem overshadow the achievement would be foolish. It is a great achievment and nothing less. There's work yet to be done, but what they've accomplished so far is worth a lot more than a $10 million prize.
Presently here, but not there.
Your attitude and not your aptitude determines your altitude? Turns out it's grounded in reality, not just a squishy Oprah-esque platitude. Woah.
From the New Scientist Article:
r ea gan_challenger.html
But it was the sublime view that affected him the most. "The sky was jet black, with light blue along the horizon - it was really an awesome sight," he said. "You really do get the feeling that you've touched the face of God."
That just brought me back to 1986 when the Challenger exploded during ascent and Ronald Reagan's address to the nation that night...
http://www.nasa.gov/audience/formedia/speeches/
Say what you will about Reagan, regardless of how you felt about his policies (many were quite controversial), he sure could deliver great speeches.
wasnt when i read it :)
I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you.
..some part of "Test" Pilot you don't understand...? ;-) 777 which was mostly built on CAD. To quote Churchill, this is "the end of the beginning".
However good your simulation is, eventually someone is going to have to climb into the thing and light the fuse. Every single aerospace project has a test phase like this, even projects like the Boing
I'd have to say that number would be even greater now, actually. Think of it this way-- 62% of /. were willing go with a total unknown, where the chance of failure was just as high as the chance of success. Now you not only have a successful return, you have some major issues brought to ligh that will undoubtably be corrected before the next flight that will only raise the chances of success.
:D
I'd vote yes again
You need a FREE iPod Nano
Is Burt upset he didn't do it himself? Most pilots will say, "Any landing you can *walk* away from, is a good one." For the feet they've just performed, I'd say that this was a good launch, and a good landing.
;)
Burt's acting like NASA doesn't have *any* problems *every time* they launch a shuttle. There's always problems when they launch the shuttle, it just has a lot of backup mechanisms and repalcement parts for redundancy. I've heard it said that it's fairly routine after reaching orbit that the crew's responsibility is to *again* recheck the redundant systems for failures. That said, this was an excellent *test* flight of an *experimental* aerospace craft. The data gained from these tests are invaluable to the improvement of the craft, the race, all the companies involved, and most importantly the people and lives surrounding the competition.
Maybe Burt's just got too much at stake in the wrong company?
--SuperBug
pffff, I don't like the tone of this post. Could this be yada yadya blahblah. Typicalle the tone of voice of people who have not accomplished much and keep on pointing at the so-called 'failures' of others.
Here's my opinion. What these dudes have accomplished is a big thing in itself, but, more importantly, they have shown the world that we do not need tax money burning organizations like NASA, or ESA for that matter. Great achievement and a job well done!
Pilot to Ground: "Ground this is One. I am experience attitude control problems. Oh no, it can't be that! Not that!"
Ground to Pilot: "One, what is it? Tell us what is wrong?"
Pilot to Ground: "It's .... it's.... it's .... The blue screen of death" [Loud gasping sound followed by silence.]
--Mike Perry, Inkling blog , Seattle
wrong.
Most objects do not spin cleanly about most axes. Rigid bodies (such as books, spaceships, rocks, lollipops, and bullets) have three "principal axes" that pass through the center of gravity and are determined by the mass distribution in the object. There's a "minimum" axis that minimizes the kinetic energy for a given angular momentum -- that's the axis around which the thing is the most clustered. For a screwdriver, the minimum axis generally points down the length of the scredriver shaft. There's also a "maximum" axis around which the thing is the most spread out of any direction. For a flat object like a book or a pancake, the maximum axis points directly out of the flat face. Those are the only two axes around which you can spin the object and have it stay stable.
Any other direction will give rise to precession and tumbling, even in vacuum! You can try it with a book -- most closed hardback books have the minimum axis pointing up through the top of the middle pages, and the maximum axis pointing out through the front of the cover. The third dimension -- pointing out through the spine -- is not stable. Tape a book shut and flip it in the air: if you flip it around the maximum or minimum moment axis it will do what you think -- just flip over before you catch it again. If you flip it around the intermediate axis (by, say, starting with the book facing you right-side up with the spine on the left, and pulling the bottom edge toward you as you throw it up in the air) then you might expect the spine to stay on your left side -- but it will flip back and forth, often ending up on your right side, as the book tumbles in the air. (Remember to tape the book closed before tossing it!).
Anyhow, that's a problem for stopping spin and tumbling, because it's not always obvious which way to fire the cold-gas jets to slow down your rotation: by the time you actually fire them you might have tumbled around so that they are speeding you up instead of slowing you down.
I guess that's why "carefree re-entry" is such a great feature of SpaceShipOne -- it's remarkable that they were able to land safely even without good attitude control at apogee.
greywar is correct. SS1 is a 3-passenger vehicle. parent of his post needs to do a little more research.
The flight was convered in greater detail in yesterday's news. While they weren't expecting loss of trim, they did anticipate the possibility, and had a backup system.
There was a show recently on PBS about the Joint Strike Fighter selection competition. The first flights of the aircraft were done with the landing gear down because with all the other uncertainties they didn't want to take the chance that the gear would fail to lower. They had glitches with hydraulic leaks, landing gear brakes, the VTOL systems, and refueling equipment. In any kind of new aircraft, you expect there to be lots of little problems, more than a few of which are capable of killing the test pilots.
Rutan doesn't seem to be taking any unnecessary chances; he's taking this step by step. If he was just rushing break-neck to win, he'd be going for the prize today. We don't know at this point how much of a setback these glitches were, but I'm reasonably sure he has time for dealing with them charted out in the project.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
The history geeks among us will remember that Yeager had the same problem with that modified F-104 used for NASA pilot training. Enough out of the atmosphere for the aerodynamic controls not to work, but not enough into space for the peroxide jets to function either. I hope SS1 recovers from a spin better than an F-104 does.
What if it is just turtles all the way down?
But it was the sublime view that affected him the most. "The sky was jet black, with light blue along the horizon - it was really an awesome sight," he said. "You really do get the feeling that you've touched the face of God."
What does God need with a starship?
The two recoverable incidents we are talking about are ones where human pilots were in the loop to repair an anomaly (SS1 and Apollo 13).
The space disasters where everyone dies are ones where the pilots have no idea there is a problem, and the computers can't fix it.
Challenger had an o-ring problem that was wilfully ignored by engineers, and hidden from the pilots. Had the pilot been told that a catastrophic breach been possible with a forzen ring, the flight would have never left, and 7 people would still be alive.
Columbia had an accident on ascent, the problem was never properly explained to the pilot, nor was any engineer allowed to view the problem area before re-entry. Had either happened, all 7 would still be alive. They could have orbited for another 28 days at least.
"Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
That was a typo. He meant "altitude control," not "attitude control."
OOoooh you're so much smarter than Rutan... he never would have thought of this issue but you clever guy did! </sarcasm>
Mod -1 disinformation. Of course it had attitude control.
Surprised nobody yet has cited the old pilot saying...
:-)
"Any landing that you can walk away from is a good landing."
I would love to see this too.
When learning aerobatics I used to place my wallet on the dashboard above the instrument panel. I would dive the airplane, pull up, then nose over with forward stick to follow a parabolic curve to achieve near zero observed gravity. By pushing the stick a little further forward I could lift the wallet off the dash. By adding some throttle I could bring the wallet back to me. It was a fun exercise to fly the airplane around a falling wallet.
I wonder if Melvill had a similar plan with the M&M's?
So the flight didn't go perfect. There were problems, but there is a long ways between "almost failed" and "failed". So there are kinks and I'm sure this flight gave the engineers the information they need to improve on the design.
Look at it this way, the last time NASA screwed up people died. Scaled Composites screwed up and a craft buckled slightly but returned home safely. I think they are doing alright.
Yeah, that's a big problem! We can't risk hiring people to sit on rockets who may explode on a moment's notice.
-Alex
This warrants a change in attitude.
Umm. I think you'd still be considered an astronaut even if you never managed to land successfully.
Jump out if you get uncomfortable, just remember your Tinfoil Parachute!
That's funny.
"exit/ the filetrader/ today's Tom Sawyer/ he gets bytes from you/ and the signal you trade/ he gets right on to the meme of the day"
You know, if Rush didn't suck so much, I'd like them.
I forget what 8 was for.
The estimate of 5% is correct for a 747 configured similar to this model. Boeing gives you just the stock price. The customizations needed for each one before it is used (seat fabric color, exterior paint scheme, sound system, extra windows, flashy rims, etc.) add up quickly.
You know what we call almost late?
On time.
www.bannination.com Two things float to the top he
1. could 'white knight' have an ILS and be converted to a 'drone'.
2. given #1, could the 'BD5' be redesigned to do the same thing as 'space ship one'?
3. given #2, could a 300 pound payload be lobbed to either mars, or the moon?
4. given #3, could ion engines be used to stir, and land the payload on the moon?
right now, all i can think about are those dawn japanese transiter jokes of the late 60's.
and what's even funnier is that no ones' laughing now.
Hello
First, I'm a pilot, and for a pilot, attitude is just one simple thing:
"Attitude is the aircraft's pitch and roll angles relative to the ground."
Second, are we really any closer to space?
The X15 from the 50's flew at more than Mach 6. And that was with technology of the 50'. Since traveling to space is all about speed, is this flight any significant?
Any good stable orbit requires at least Mach 28, and that is well below the speed required for interplanetary travel.
SS1 reached 62miles, that's about 3 times what a U2 or SR71 can reach, but those are airplanes that can also fly for hours. Orbiting thingees usually fly at 130+ miles at more than 7000 meters per sec. So, why is this flight any significant?
I guess it is significant because of the way it was founded. And that's incredible enough but, I'm still not feeling any close to walking on the moon any time soon.
...they describe weightlessness as though it's a property of leaving the atmosphere...
He became "weightless" the instant he cut the thrust, because then the only acceleration acting on the aircraft was gravity. I.e., he still had weight, but he was unable to feel it, because he was coasting freely along with it.
Call me old fashioned, but I'm still terribly impressed by the fact that they were travelling faster than an M-16 bullet. God damn, that's pretty sweet. And like many previous posters stated, I am impressed that they are open about the failures and sucesses of their project. I've never understood the secrecy surrounding science. It's counter productive.
Hmm. Well, total program costs back then were $150 million (which is about $843 million in '02 dollars). Scaled Composites looks to have a hell of a bargain on their hands.
SP
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong." - Voltaire
Just my $0.02
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
The part where Mike Mevilla opened a bag of M&Ms and the candies went flying?
What brilliant product placement. How much did the Mars corp (appropriate name!) pay towards the project?
As being in the lead locomotive going over the first bridge made from Rearden metal? :-)
Yes, but then you would be "the late astronaut"
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
It just means they've got something specific to work on for SpaceShipTwo, plus some revisions to the pilot training. You probably had a few thrilling moments the first time *you* piloted a ship back from space, right? :-)
Compare the length of the engine nozzle on this picture before flight and this picture, taken from the space ship after the engine cut-off.
I know they are using ablative materials for the nozzle and that the entire engine casing has to be replaced after each flight, but the difference between these two pictures is amazing. It looks like more than a half of the nozzle is missing! Is this because that part of the nozzle was burned away or these two pictures show SpaceShipOne with two different engine nozzles installed?
The pilot said that he wasn't afraid on the ascent, but coming back was a bit scary. The fact of the matter is that people on the ground, myself included, were plenty scared for him -- albeit to a lesser a degree and without risk of death. Humor is how most people dispel that feeling, because laughing about it is much better than stressing out. "Bad attitude" is a long-standing industry joke.
Melvill stating that he was uneasy about the descent humanizes this endeavour, and more importantly, makes it understandable and accessible to more people. Moreover, this will greatly publicizing Rutan's group and the X Prize. It's only a death-defying feat if there is actual risk, and in this case, there's more than enough to go around.
So hats off to Scaled Composites! And may their subsequent flights be safe and successful.
-Hope
That is NOT the limiting factor for whether or not it would be able to reach orbital velocities - the issue would be whether or not it could carry enough fuel to maintain trust long enough (or whether the design can accomodate changes to allow it to). Once you're out of the gravity well, ANY sustained trust will eventually allow you to reach orbital velocities if you can carry enough fuel, and it is by no means given that low trust (and hence lower ascent speeds) wouldn't be more economical.
Discussing speed during ascent as some sort of indicator of whether or not the technology can bring us into orbit is meaningless.
here is a preview:
Entry 1 - ok light the rocket, lets get this baby up into space - (switch) - holy crap! this crazy thing is going sideways! must hold it steady!, geeze I almost bought the farm! ok lets keep going.
Entry 2 - holding, steady, climbing to space, all is going well - BANG!! - holy crap! wtf was that!! am I still alive?! misson control, I just shit my pants.
Entry 3 - man - I almost made it, well I think might have gone far enuff, get ready to shut down rocket - fzzzzzz - wtf?, it just shut itself off - that can't be good. christ! now I have no attitude control at all! I am going to float all the way to the Sun and freaking MELT!!!, oh, man, got it back - my god I am stupid for doing this.
Entry 4 - this is cool - I'm in space!! where are those m&m's I'm hungry?, - rip - damnit! little bitches are floating around the damn cabin!
Entry 5 - ready to go home, up flaps, - whoooooosh!! holy fuck I am dropping like a rock!, I hate badminton!!!
Entry 6 - OMFG its sound like I'm in the center of a freaking HURICANE!, I am soooooo gonna die! hold together you piece of sh i i i i i i i i t t t t t t!
Entry 7 - OMG I see the runway!, I swear on my mothers children I will never do anything like this again, please just let me land this can!
Entry 8 - mission complete
I gather that happens quite often in flight test.
The "Star Trek" reference or the "Neither Lark or Eagle" reference?
And it did work as designed... a clear demonstration that should win even more future safety-weary customers/passengers.
I know it's just a typo -- you meant safety-wary, I'm sure -- but it's very apropos.
I'm safety-weary, myself. I'm tired of everything having to be 100% safe and boring. My kids know not to jump off the top of the slide, but because some kids don't, you hardly ever see the old-school metal slide with a narrow set of steps and a steep drop at the end.
On the grownup side, all Rutan's test pilots know that they're strapping themselves to a very large firecracker that could as easily go BOOM as not. They know the risks, and accept them. I hope we'll continue to see more willingness to take a personal risk when the rewards are justified. That's where heroes come from.
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
A bizjet at 60,000ft would be pretty crazy. Some have service ceilings in the vicinity of 50,000ft, but even that would be pushing it, and the last 10,000 is definitely nontrivial :)
FL600 makes sense in the context of the story, since it's the upper bound of controlled airspace.
Is it too late to change my answer to no?
You are checking your backups, aren't you?
There would likely be no aviation industry without government subsidy.
In the early days of aviation, mail delivery contracts kept the early aviation companies afloat until there were other paying customers.
Where would Boeing and others be without military aircraft orders?
How many commercial pilots have never flown military aircraft?
Similarly, there would be no nuclear power industry without the government picking up a large portion of the insurance tab.
The Price-Anderson act was passed in the 50s to nurture the fledgling nuclear power industry. It has been renewed up through the current administration.
Basically, the industry only has to insure the first 80 million or so per reactor. After that, the federal government picks up the tab.
No private insurer would ever cover all the risk of nuclear power plants.
Without this subsidy, there would never have been commercial nuclear power plants.
And the subsidy continues after more than 40 years.
Maybe NASA would not bring space flight to within reach of the average person.
But without the NASA space program having paved the way, there would be no private space program.
So much of rocket and aviation research has been done by the government.
Now there is a large pool of knowlege and talent for aerospace engineering and private companies can make use of that.
When the private space companies succeed, lets not pretend that they did not benefit from all the government aviation and space spending of the previous century.
A good deal of the cost of getting people and things into space comes from physics and not from government waste.
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." -- Albert Einstein
There were two Enron problems: Enron cheated California and Enron was too incompetent to stay out of bankruptcy. A large part of the first problem was caused by Enron gaming a government-crippled electric power industry. In this case, government oversight caused the disaster.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Let' recap, shall we?
(1) The ship was successfully launched
(2) The ship achieved it's goal
(3) Both ship and pilot returned safely to the ground
I would call this a success, wouldn't you?
I'd also point out that the pilot - who, I'd wager, has more experience testing experimental craft than all of Slashdot put together - was so concerned over the irregularities of the flight that he...played with M&M's while weightless.
Yep, ol' Mike was riddled with doubt and fear over the safety of his ship, he was.
Hand-wringers, space never was, and never will be, for you.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Any landing which doesn't break anything is a good landing.
That is NOT the limiting factor for whether or not it would be able to reach orbital velocities - the issue would be whether or not it could carry enough fuel to maintain trust long enough (or whether the design can accomodate changes to allow it to). Once you're out of the gravity well, ANY sustained trust will eventually allow you to reach orbital velocities if you can carry enough fuel, and it is by no means given that low trust (and hence lower ascent speeds) wouldn't be more economical.
Discussing speed during ascent as some sort of indicator of whether or not the technology can bring us into orbit is meaningless.
I'm sorry to disagree.
I agree that, if you can maintain any thrust long enough, you will achieve orbit. Well, let me put it this way, if you can keep thrust long enough, you can get to Alpha Centaury. But that is an academic issue that has nothing to do with SS1 or any of today's spacecraft.
I'm sorry, but today's spacecraft, including SS1, are of the type of one big push, not continuous thrust. And for this specific kind of spacecraft everything is the final speed at MECO. That's why you see lost of people talking about it, and that's why the speed is the first thing in all the panels and calculations. I agree that in theory is not necessary, but the reality of the space shuttle, the soyuz and SS1 is that, if X speed is not reached at MECO, well, you are going back down.
I say this because it might clear some questions, and explain why we insist on this. I look forward to hear your comment.
-Alex
I just released a video of 50 minutes worth of yesterday's CNN coverage into the wild via LimeWire. Load up your Gnutella client of choice and search for CNN-SpaceShipOne.wmv, if it's not 186MB (196,468,036 bytes) then it's not the right thing or incomplete.
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
The missing third element: "almost only counts in horseshoes and handgrenades, and pregnancies!"
That's right. All your base.
So get someone less cocky to do it next time!
-jls
Techno-pagan
Not any longer. Post 9/11 the FAA redefined the airspace above FL600 as Class E, rather than Class G. A subtle but important difference
Of course, at the time this story was written, that wasn't the case...and once you're free of the earth's gravitational well, well, the FAA doesn't have a lot of wherewithall to enforce their authority anyway, nor ATC a great deal of interest in vectoring your flight.
(reference)
YAPPASELIAP ("yet another private pilot, ASEL, instrument aircraft pilot" [Beech owner])
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Oh, you mean nose-uppy and nose-downy?
Nose-uppy/nose-downy (ptich), wingtip-uppy/wingtip-downy (roll).
But (unless I misunderstand the term and it's specificially excluded) the dictionary missed yaw: Nose-righty/nose-lefty.
An aircraft's position at any instant has six degrees of freedom: Three of attitude (roll, pitch, and yaw), three of location.
Additionally there are the deriviatives of each of those (i.e. position gives three each of velocity, accelleration, jerk, snap, etc., attitude gives roll/pitch/yaw rates, etc.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
In space, I think they have even more control - even being able to point the nose of the craft AWAY from the direction of travel or straight up (subjectively speaking, of course).
You can do that in the atmosphere, too.
It's just that some attitudes have consequences, and (at flight speeds) sometimes the consequences involve sudden disassembly of the airframe, so you can't maintain certain attitudes for very long. B-)
Of course if your airframe is strong enough, some of these unusual attitudes can be useful. For instance: In WWII it was a real bitch if you got an enemy on your tail. If his craft was roughly as manouverable as yours he could just follow you through all your manouvers and keep shooting at you, while you mostly got to run. (I never DID figure out why they didn't mout a rear-pointing machinegun on fighters.) That's why fighter craft worked in pairs and the pairs worked in groups (so you had a spare "buddy" if yours got shot down.
Nowadays fighter jocks can just nose-up suddenly and fly belly first for a couple seconds. It's like hitting a wall of pillows in the air: Airspeed drops abruptly, and now YOU'RE the guy at the rear of the parade. (But try that in a WWII craft and you're likely to find it only worked for the wings...)
I hear one of the common models of the learjet gets significantly better mileage flying upside down.
Story goes this was discovered by a three-man consulting firm of autopilot-programmers, who bought one that had had a fire wreck the cabin furnishings at scrap prices, had it redone by a van conversion outfit, and used it for recreational cross-country flying. Of course it costs a LOT to do that, and this was limiting their recreation. So they tried different things to reduce fuel consumption.
After discovering they saved about 10% flying upside down, they rehacked their autopilot to fly it that way if desired, and played cards sitting on the ceiling.
Well one day they were flying near a military base and NORAD got a bit concerned: Seems the radar signature of a lear flying upside-down wasn't in the database. Oops: UFO. Did the Soviets come up with something new ala the U2? Up go a couple fighters to check it out.
They look out the window and see a fighter pacing them. Fighter jock points up. ("Are you aware you're flying upside down?") They nod and point up, too. ("Yes, we are. This is intentional.") (Sometimes pilots get disoriented and fly upside down. This can lead to crashes if he doesn't get it figured out in time.)
So fighter pilot flips over so HE's upside-down, too, paces them a moment more, then flys away, still upside-down.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
You are not very convincing to me with any of these subjects. Without government interferance, all of these things would have happened, just a little bit later, and much cheaper, including the moon flights of NASA.
In the case of Boeing, what exists now is essentially a huge government contractor that on occasion also services a civilian market. And even then the planes like the 747 have a dual government/civian use (Air Forces One not withstanding... that is more of a civilian application simply run by the Air Force).
If I remember history correctly, about the same time that the Wright Bros. were trying to get their plane up in the air, a huge government-sponsored flight projects sponsored by essentially the predecessor to the NSF (connected to the Smithsonian Institution at the time, but today it would be the NSF) tried to launch an aircraft. With lots of media around, the pilot/designer of the aircraft launched it and it crashed in a very miserable fashion (into a lake no less). At the time, it was about $100,000 that was dumped into that program, and it never went anywhere. The principle investigator was begging for some more funding until Orville and Wilbur succeeded and his approach was essentially canned. Sound familiar?
I will admit that flight happened due to substantial improvements in machining technology, due to machining tolerances that compared to things like guns and building construction are incredibly tight. New materials were also being developed, as did development of the internal combustion engine that allowed for strong enough motors that could provide sufficient thrust for flight.
What we have today is miniturization of electronics that the NASA engineers of the 1960's could only dream about (there was a debate wheither the Apollo computer should even use IC's, and at the time NASA represented about 60% of all chip production when the Apollo computers were put together... and they were just simple gate-logic chips for the most part). New advances with composite materials (like Rutan is using with Space Ship One), together with several decades of general space research is what makes this current boom in rocketry take place.
How much of this basic research would have happened with out the government getting involved? While I can't say for certain, I think where we are right now for commercial spaceflight would have been about the same regardless of government programs. Government interferance vs. research reports IMHO just about balance each other out.
I will say that compared to most other government agencies, NASA really is a relatively lean and productive government agency. NASA still has problems, however, with politics getting in the way, and what would have happened without Sen. Proxmire (D-WI) interfereing with NASA, I don't know myself.
Do you think thats why they call it a test flight? Kind of like testing a program, you find the bugs and fix them. Not a big deal, they just need time to polish the apple.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
Nothing like a swift kick in the butt to correct that.
This thing will be a good satellite launching platform and/or extremely high speed intercontinental passenger jet.
Think much?
But some win more than others.
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. - Yogi Berra
This is nothing but as waste of time.
We could be using that money for better things. Like government programs that promote the health and welfare of our country. What a waste. I sure hope John Kerry gets in office so I can help carry more of the tax burden instead of using my money to invest in silliness like this.
Space ships.... what a silly thing to do with your money...
"I am so smart, 'S','M','R','T'", Homer Simpson
This is being presented as some kind of controversy or embarassment. It's neither.
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
What a way to go! Much better than dying in a car accident - and people would probably remember you, too! "First man who died in a privatized spacecraft."
Sweet! I could be famous!
I don't think that you're right about any given dollar being inevitably less efficient in the hands of a government. Getting any large organization to behave in a perfectly efficient and rational manner is apparently quite difficult. Irrational, costly behaviour isn't alien to the private sector, as the tech bubble demonstrated.
Mind the Gap
Now that's a good idea.
As a platform for launching satellites, well, you still have to reach orbital speeds, but as a super fast intercontinental transport, that could work.
SS1 may not be able to fly that fast, but with no drag from the atmosphere; you could fly much farther away. And with a great view!!!
I think that that has a great potential, and could revolutionize travel.
Gee, here I was feeling all impressed -- until you implied that they apparently hadn't planned for the most basic contingencies before they took their shot Monday. I could see it once the engine's firing, the Shuttle can't scrub under those circumstances -- but they've surely figured out "control equations" for a non-launch in their previous flights.
And hundreds of miles off? The entire normal flight takes place right above the airport:
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Could this pose some problems for the X-Prize contender?"
::: surprise :::
Duh? You think? This kind of flying is full of all kinds of problems. Of course that would be the question we would all expect from the local News at 5 info bimbo. "Like oh my gosh... This stuff is like really difficult..."
Get Over it. It's a test flight. Stuff like this happens. Engineering fly toys isn't perfect.
Example: Early test of the big engine to be hung on the 777. All the engineers said the computer sims and such said the new big engine was good to go. That it could be hung on the 777 for its first flight no problem. The boss over-ruled the engineers and played it extra safe. One of the big new engines was hung on a 747 ( with the other 3 of its engines being regular 747 ones ). Right after rotation, the engine starts stalling in the high angle of attack air. -bang- -bang- -bang-, So the first flight of the 777 could have ended up as a big smoking hole.
You try and be as safe as possible, and not kill your monkey pilot.... Even then; stuff happens. That flight yesterday was based on great engineering. It was still full of enough danger and isn't like going out and cranking up a Cessna 172 or something.
"As I came out of the atmosphere I no longer had any attitude control,"
Well duh... welcome to spaceflight buddy. Got thrusters?
Despite Melvill's 25 years of piloting experimental craft, he found even the normal operation of the rocketship alarming, as it travelled faster and higher than any previous privately-built craft.
Again, welcome to a new way of flying
"Coming down is frightening, because of that roaring sound," he said. "You can really hear how that vehicle is being pounded."
You zero experience space wannabe's wanting to pony up some $$$ for a fun ride, better wear some diapers, so as not to be embarrassed at the post flight photo op. Freight train ride down to hell.
Having said all that... that team did a great job.
The satellites would be launched and go into orbit under their own power (a small rocket or something). The energy requirement to reach orbit would be much smaller than normal since they would start so high/fast.
I know you're just trolling, but...
This is not a waste of time. Even without the goal of acheiving space flight,
the research involved in this (and related) projects for the X-prize has done
much to advance our understanding of aircraft design, use of composite materials,
proof of concepts for lauching space-faring vehicles, etc...
Its not "our" money to use, this is a private venture. No government
programs are directly impacted by the SpaceshipOne project. If anything
a few got paid from what national resources (use of airports, airspace
and regulatory agencies) the project makes use of.
... once Mars gets their M&M logo on the nose and Pfizer kicks into the kitty while helpin to "Get it up with Viagra!"
X prize? We don't need no stinking X prize!
... but if they don't launch in the next 12 days with the same craft, it's not going to count for the prize, just for history.
Personally I think that whole piggy-backing launch technique is kinda sad... Go Canadian Arrow (a nice 2 stage ground launching rocket, testing in August!)
Cheezit! We're boned! - famous 31st Century bending unit
Note: My writing abilities, unfortunately, do not appear up to the task of conveying SARCASM to, at /. readers.
least some,
Sorry, my previous note really means:
I think that this is a WONDERFUL venture and worthy of our (meaning my) money. I was also commenting on the fact that if the government (dems and reps) would allow us to keep bit more of OUR (meaning my) money we would see more private funding to back this type of work instead of the wasted (not all but most) billions currently going to NASA (who has the best people in the world, handcuffed into a bureaucratic mess)
to pay for the TENS OF THOUSANDS (yes, that's an accurate figure) of people that care for the freaking monetary sinkhole also known as the shuttle fleet.
I know I'm being a sarcastic jerk here but it's a very sore subject to me. I grew up wanting to work in aerospace and walk on the Moon and Mars and here we are 30 years later, doing less in space than we were in the 70's. I have multiple degrees in engineering and science and, though I have a well paying job, I feel like my work is for nothing but money. I hate the fact that we seem to prize sports figures (worthless) and entertainers (more worthless) more than the future of mankind and actually indoctrinate our kids into thinking more about multiculturalism and political correctness (I have school ages kids) than science and math and engineering.
It's just a crazy world to this techno geek and I don't see it getting any better at the moment. I just hope for the cycles that always come round and maybe SpaceShip1 is the beginning of one.
LOL
I tried for 5 years to come up with a clever sig...only to realize that I am not clever.
"Could this pose some problems for the X-Prize contender?"
No, of course not.
They had technical problems and lost altitude control, and we have to wonder if the problems could pose problems?? Well, Gee, what the fuck could the answer be? I think we need to discuss it!
What is the deal with every other headline on Slashdot having some retarded/rhetorical/obvious/smartass questioncomment attatched to it? I still believe this is a site by and for intelligent people, but the headline commentary sure goes the extra mile to prove me wrong.
Just give me the goddamn information. For the love of God, I'm smart enough to realize that problems are problems without a Slashdot consensus to back me up. argh.
'nuff said
Any landing you make on a runway is a superb landing. (even though it might be the wrong runway)
A few nits:
The airspace above FL600 was changed to Class E in 1998. The events of 9/11 had nothing to do with it.
The upper limit of Class E is not "NaN". Class E ends at 100,000m (62 statute miles if you prefer). Above that is "space".
Class E is only controlled airspace where IFR flight is concerned. You don't need an ATC clearance to fly above FL600 if you are operating in accordance with VFR.
Most people assume you can't get to FL600 without passing through Class A. That's only true if you stay within 12 nautical miles of the U.S.A. coastline, as mentioned above. There is some uncontrolled international airspace, or at least there used to be. Of course, you can also get to FL600 via Class F airspace. This would require permission from the agency responsible for that airspace, but wouldn't technically require an IFR clearance.
nice story! I'd mod you up if I had points left
605413? Yes, it's a prime.
You should be able to sim the whole thing yourself on ORBITER at http://www.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/~martins/orbit/orbit. html
Its an amazing sim that is probably the best free realistic sim of space launches there is, you can make your own real launchs or make your own space ships, shouldnt be
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Check out Rutan's new toy. I wonder what he's gonna be building with that thing. Consequently, how much money do you think it will take for Rutan to design an orbital vehichle?
...or something like that ;)
"...Burt Rutan's Scaled Composites -- the "you're not likely to know what we're up to next until we have to push it outside" people...hopes success in this venture would initiate a new private space race to usher affordable space travel to the common (perhaps upper-upper-middle class) man. Rutan estimates first-generation public spacecraft -- and SpaceShipOne is scaleable -- will offer "rides" at $30,000-50,000 and second-generation craft will do it for closer to $10,000. "We're heading to orbit sooner than you think...The next 25 years will be a wild ride ... and one that
historians will note was done for the benefit of all," said Rutan..."
- full.html
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/255
We need more ambitious dreamers like him. Kudos!
I know I'd lose attitude control if say I lose altitude control. But its not very professional for an astronaut to lose attitude control without losing any other control. Heck astronauts are screened and selected from thousands just so they would never have attitude control at that altitude.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
"In the unlikely event of a sudden change in cabin pressure... " ROOF FLIES OFF! "An oxygen mask will drop down in front of you. Place the mask over your face and breathe normally." Well, I have no problem with that. I always breathe normally when I'm in a 600 mile-an-hour uncontrolled vertical dive. I also SHIT normally! RIGHT IN MY PANTS!
How do you define the centre of the earth, given that it is not a regular solid?
Would you not be better off using the local gravitational field to define the relevant plane?
Nits? We pick 'em.
Hey Monday morning quarterback... He was in the situation, all you hear is 2nd hand stuff. You don't really know how serious this issue is.
I think given that he was carefree enough to fool around in the cockpit mere seconds later says he was a lot less concerned than you are. Perhaps it's not that he's foolish. Perhaps the problems weren't as bad as you have heard. You're a long way away from the issue to make an informed judgement.
at one point in the descent, the pilot completely lost attitude control.
Rutan: Holy shit, i'm in fucking space! Boooooyah! Whoop, whoop! Space spece, I'm in mother fucking outer fucking space!!!!
Control: What was that Rutan?
Rutan: Oops, sorry, lost control there for a sec.
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
"ORBITER is a free flight simulator that goes beyond the confines of Earth's atmosphere. Launch the Space Shuttle from Kennedy Space Center to deploy a satellite, rendezvous with the International Space Station or take the futuristic Delta-glider for a tour through the solar system - the choice is yours.
i t. html
But make no mistake - ORBITER is not a space shooter. The emphasis is firmly on realism, and the learning curve can be steep."
http://www.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/~martins/orbit/orb
Stick your hand flat out the window of a moving car then angle your finger tips up. The increased pressure on the palm of your hand will force your hand up.
Angle the finger tips down and the increased pressure on the top of your hand forces your hand down.
You are basically just converting some of the forward force provided by your propulsion system into a vertical component.
Q.
Insert Signature Here
Well... on Apollo 1, it was initially reported that the astronauts "died instantly", not clawing at the sealed hatch while being gradually immolated. The truth came out a bit later. So NASA wasn't entirely honest about that.
Oh, and NASA was entirely full of shit on their assertions that the shuttle would be reusable. Technically, it's salvageable. It was never even expected to do half of what was promised. That was pretty disingenuous too.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Sounds a mite like Kings of the High Frontier. 'Cept that revolved around a gigantic private cash prize being presented, much like the X-prize, but larger and more ambitious. Still, the amateurish feel of the efforts described is similar.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
According to wikipedia, he's still alive.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Even if we weren't prepared to send up a shuttle, we should have been able to at least send up a rocket with extra supplies. Yank the nuke off of an ICBM, fill with supplies, retarget and launch. Heck, buy a capsule from the Russians. Pile on the overtime and get a shuttle ready early.
No expense would have been spared to rescue them.
I don't read AC A human right
Attitude control control over the way the plane flies. It's yaw, pitch, and roll. Please go to the back of the line and try again.
That which is done from love exists beyond good and evil
At One Point, 'I Was Deathly Afraid,' New Space Visitor Admits
I am a pilot, and no disrespect to your rocket-scientist brethern, but the pilot of ANY craft should know about ANY anomalies in his craft before flight, and should have the option to say go, no-go.
I am aware of what happened with Thiokol and in both instances the managers at NASA definitely were at fault. For brevity's sake, I was probably unfair in using the term "engineer".
My point still remains, a well informed pilot can often avert disaster, and is usually better at evaluating risks than a manager/engineer/assembly worker on the ground if they are given good information. Why? Because it will be their ass in the vehicle, and they will most likely be responsible for several other asses in the vehicle as well. Yes, pilots make mistakes, but when an emergency occurs, humans have an uncanny ability of doing everything possible to save their own ass.
I guarantee you no pilot would ever take a wing strike as casually as that bitch Linda Ham. I hope to high hell she never manages another Shuttle mission again.
"Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
read the article. no it wasnt. it has the phrase "attitude control" in the article, including one in the pilot's quote.