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?"

Comments

Still a great flight

[PFactor]

I don't see anyone doing any better than they did (yet).

Re:Still a great flight

[Toadpipe]

They'll do far better next time. For the purpose of learning more about their craft and what it will take to acomplish their goal, these (small) failures did far more to advance them than a "perfect" flight ever would have. A report of a "perfect" flight would have me worried. This report has me cheering.

It's perfectly normal

[JosKarith]

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.

This is why more people didnt go

[PktLoss]

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.

Re:This is why more people didnt go

[stanmann]

Well, because TECHNICALLY he entered space. He IS an Astronaut.

100km is defined as space... and its not a big deal that its being done, the big deal is that he did it for cheap.

If I get my wife Barely pregnant, barring complications she will nevertheless have a baby

if I barely hit you with a hand grenade, you will be just as dead.
if I barely hit your house with a nuclear weapon, you will still be dead.

the wright brothers barely went 100 meters, but it was powered flight.

Barely is the difference between hitting and missing.

Minor Issue + Space = Scary, but keep trying!

[Ayandia]

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!

Accept the risk

[mratitude]

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.

It should have been expected

[Jetson]

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.

Re:It should have been expected

[Thagg]

SpaceShipOne is fairly unique in that the horizontal tail surfaces are outside the span of the wings. It uses differential movement of these tail surfaces to control roll. At subsonic speeds the pilot controls the elevons at the back of these surfaces, through a fairly normal linkage, but as you get to supersonic speeds the aerodynamic forces become impossible for human strength to overcome. So, at high speeds the front half of the tail control surfaces are moved electrically to generate pitch and roll forces. Apparently one of these electric trim systems failed.

The Bell X-1 used a similar electric trim for pitch, to overcome instabilities going through Mach 1.

Because the elevons on SpaceShipOne control both pitch and roll, Melville was left with no control on two out of three axes at the end of his climb. I cannot imagine how this must have felt, but he recovered with astonishing speed -- and was playing around with floating M&M's a few seconds later. It's unclear to me just what kind of "backup system" he used to control the ship after the trim motor failure, perhaps it was the cold-gas thrusters.

SpaceShipOne depends on still being within the vestiges of the atmosphere for control while the rocket is firing, although the parent poster is correct, control will get sloppy toward the end of the burn as they get above 150,000 ft. The ship has the advantage that it is going very fast indeed at that point, so while there is not a lot of air up there, the forces is generates is more than you would expect.

I was surprised watching the launch that the exhaust plume did not change much during the flight from 50,000 ft to burnout -- I would have expected to see far more expansion as it left the atmosphere -- as you see during a MinuteMan launch, for example. This again points to the ship still being atmosphere of some significant (while small!) density at burnout.

That Mike Melville is one hell of a pilot, his skill and Burt Rutan's innovative feather recovery saved the day. Every previous manned exoatmospheric craft depended on flying an extremely precise attitude before and during re-entry. Failure to maintain this attitude led to the loss of an X-15 and the NF-104 as dramatically recounted in The Right Stuff. SpaceShipOne has no effective attitude control during re-entry, but feathering the wing put the ship into an extremely stable high-drag configuration. Once the ship was subsonic and the wing was folded back into its normal position, the manual control of the elevons was used to fly the ship to a perfect landing.

If you look at SpaceShipOne as it flew yesterday, there was significant work done in the tail booms after the previous flight and prior to this one -- the most obvious change is the installation of a few more camera portholes (presumably with cameras behind them). That's the first place I'd look for the cause of the trim failure.

The launch yesterday was great fun to attend, and I really do think that it will mark a profound change in our access to space.

Thad Beier

Don't be too harsh

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

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.

Re:Don't be too harsh

[malfunct]

Um, I don't call an exploding rocket booster a small problem.

I also don't call a big hole in the heat resistant paneling when you plan to endure metal melting temperatures a small problem either.

In contrast getting your ship pointed in the wrong direction for a while is smaller in that at least you get a chance to correct the problem (and in fact he had already corrected some issues in control moments after he fired the rockets proving he is an excellent pilot, damn lucky, or both).

All in all this flight was probably as perfect as any adventure into space can hope to be.

Indeed

[adequacy]

Maybe there is a valid reason why Nasa is so expensive after all.

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.

Re:Indeed

[Gyorg_Lavode]

In NASA's defense, NASA designed the space shuttles how many years ago with what level of technology? Their spacecraft is how many years old? Working how many years after it's expected lifespan? Carries how large of payloads? Acts as living quarters for how many people for how many days? Is capable of supporting what range of experiments? Can dock with what other types of space craft?

SpaceShipOne and Scaled Composites are very good, but they are like the japanese entering the car market. Also, they are designing to a much smaller scope than the space shuttle.

Re:Indeed

[GileadGreene]

Were the material constraints understood though?

Yes.

Thiokol engineers specifically warned against operating the O-rings that caused the Challenger mishap in very cold weather (i.e. weather with temperatures that exceeded the design values for the shuttle). They gave these warnings because they did not have sufficient data to be confident that the O-rings would work at those low temperatures, and (IIRC) even had some data that tentatively indicated that the O-rings would fail at low temps. NASA ignored these warnings, and chose to operate the shuttle in a flight regime outside of the specified design envelope.

The fragility of the RCC tiles that led to the Columbia mishap was well known. Several studies pointed out that allowing impacts to these tiles was dangerous. In fact, I have heard from a friend who works with some of the original shuttle design engineers that the shuttle external tank was specifically designed to prevent the chunks of falling ice that caused the Columbia mishap precisely because they knew that the RCC was fragile. NASA later chose to change the tank design to one that was much more susceptible to creating ice fragments. Again causing a situation in which the original design assumptions were violated, and failure resulted.

Bottom line: neither Columbia or Challenger were caused by a lack of knowledge when it came to material properties, but rather an active decision to violate the known design envelope. This kind of action might be excusable in a test flight program that is truly "pushing the envelope" (and even then, I'd expect to see much more in the way of ground testing first), but is certainly not acceptable in an operational program (which is how NASA portrayed the shuttle after the first few flights).

Class act

[amightywind]

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.

Re:Class act

[oni]

Compare that with how NASA closed ranks and divulged Columbia information with an eye dropper for weeks after the disaster.

Wait a sec. If congress and the press started accusing Rutan of being negligent, you can bet your ass his coworkers would close ranks.

And if something really complicated and non-obvious has occured, they will release the information they learn as they learn it. Today they tell us there was a problem with attitude thrusters. Maybe tomorrow they will learn that the problem was with the main engine gymbal. If that happens, are you going to say they are divulging info with an eye dropper?

Re:Class act

[SilentChris]

"Compare that with how NASA closed ranks and divulged Columbia information"

I don't think that's fair or even justified. NASA is (primarily) a government organization. They have contractors to pay, politicians to appease, etc. Every flight is a multimilion dollar undertaking, and consider the vast majority for them have gone well, they must be doing something right.

Yesterday's flight, while incredible, was done with a very low budget (and in some ways, seat of the pants). Not that that's inherently "wrong", but they'd have a lot less people to answer to if something catastrophic happened. They'd probably have some investors to explain to, but NASA had over 300 million with Columbia. Would you rather the answers come out quickly or correctly?

they will win

[VanillaCoke420]

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?

minor setbacks and some carmack links :P

[FaerieBoy]

I've been following armadillo for some time, and though armadillo/carmack doesn't think armadillo is going to win the x-prize, carmack stated before that control systems/requiring a pilot could lead to major setbacks for Space Ship One and change the odds (back in august). And more recently he discussed his focus on control systems.

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.

Re:minor setbacks and some carmack links :P

[neurojab]

>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

Commie. :)

The fact is, in a capitalist society (or at least one that's MOSTLY capitalist), spending tax dollars and non-tax dollars are different things. If tax dollars are spent, you get a $900 toilet seat, $5 million in wireless equipment that never leaves the loading dock, etc. It's impossible for government to be efficient, because there's no incentive for efficiency. On the other hand, if private dollars are spent, there's a very big incentive to be efficient: They get to keep the money they don't spend! (or at least whoever is funding them gets to).

That is the very reason SpaceShipOne cost $20 million instead of $2 billion. If we ever want space flight to be within the reach of the average person, NASA is NOT going to get us there. It's private programs like this that will make the cost reasonable.

Re:attitude control

[Trurl's Machine]

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.

Re:This isn't what I expected

[Coryoth]

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.

Really? It seems to me that Scaled Composites have redefined "enough money" to be a hell of a lot lower than it used to be. So far they've spent about $20 million, which sounds like a lot, but let's put that into some perspective: That's less than the cost of a brand new 747. It's about 5% of the cost of a single shuttle launch. It's less than a 5th of what the Canadian government recently pissed away on cronyism in the recent sponsorship scandal. It's the amount of cash Peter Jackson is getting paid to direct King Kong. On the scale that these guys are operating $20 million is a piss in the bucket. It's more than you or I might happen to have lying around in spare change, but compared to the costs for standard everyday (non space going)performance aircraft it is unbelievably cheap.

Jedidiah.

Chicken Little

[The Ape With No Name]

Could this pose some problems for the X-Prize contender?

C'mon. What are you a Mac user? ;-) 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.

we will win

[WormholeFiend]

regardless of who wins the X-prize... we win. everyone of us.

Re:right angle turns at 62 miles...

[joeldg]

it was actually the roll not pitch angle..
if he had done a 90 deg turn at that speed he would not be talking about it.

Challenger reference?

[glucoseboy]

From the New Scientist Article:

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/r ea gan_challenger.html

Say what you will about Reagan, regardless of how you felt about his policies (many were quite controversial), he sure could deliver great speeches.

Re:This says quite a bit about...

[at_kernel_99]

This says quite a bit about... ...the pilot's skill.

It does. Though I'm not sure what it says about his judgement. I certainly have the highest respect for Melville as a pilot - he's been testing for Burt for decades. However, when you look at the flight - he noticed control anomalies immediately after separating from White Knight, but chose to continue the flight - maybe he did indeed get very lucky. What caused the bang? What caused the control problems both early and late in the flight?

In flight training, my instructor called it 'get home-itis'. When you're close to home you're a lot more likely to press on in deteriorating circumstances than if you're still far from home. With the public & press invited to this launch, was there too much pressure on Melville to make the flight despite early signs of possible problems? I hate to second guess a professional of his caliber, but it feels like there was a lot of luck involved in this flight.

So What?

[m1a1]

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.

Re:This says quite a bit about...

[Daniel Dvorkin]

It seems to me that test pilots don't think like normal pilots. Normal pilots -- even fighter jocks -- have to think like anyone else operating a piece of expensive and potentially dangerous equipment: do the job, get yourself and the machine back safely. Test pilots don't have a "job" to do in the same sense; their job is to push the machine to its limits, and if they get back to the ground in one piece, well, that's gravy.

I'm glad there are people out there doing that kind of thing. I'm also glad I'm not one of them.

yada yada

[maxpublic]

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

Re:Still 62% willing to fly?

[kfg]

Minor things can be catastrophic things at 3.2G, though.

Just ask Ayrton Senna da Silva. You can end up dead easily enough without leaving the surface of the earth.

Doesn't mean I wouldn't jump at a chance to take a demo ride with Schumi or Sir Jackie.

Shit happens, but mostly, on a day to day basis, it doesn't. It's a fucking crap shoot out there, or even if you stay home in bed. Might as well compute some odds, take a few calculated risks, and have a bit of fun before you die.

Or even while you're dying. You really can you know. I doesn't have to suck at all.

That doesn't mean I don't want to see my 100th or some such, but even then, I'd rather die by falling off Denali than lying in some hospital bed with tubes stuck in me.

So please God/whoever/whatever, if you only grant me one wish in this life, make it that in my final hours I'm doing something I love, which might only mean granting me the strength to escape from my hospital bed, crawl into the woods somewhere, sit down with my back to a tree where I can feel the grass, smell the air, see the sky, and die with some fucking dignity, even if that does mean dying a bit "early."

Would I fly in this thing? Shit yeah. Who knows, it might well result in my having a great story to tell my grandkids about, instead of getting hit by a car while crossing the street for a popsicle if I'd stayed home.

Life is not certain. Death is. Stop worrying about it so much.

KFG

Get Over It

[ericlp]

Could this pose some problems for the X-Prize contender?"

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 ::: surprise :::

"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.

Re:This isn't what I expected

[fucksl4shd0t]

When was the last time you saw any innovation in commercial aviation?

September 11, 2001

Sure, mod me down, troll and all. It's an honest answer, at least.