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?"
...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".
Sure. They can roll the vehicle until its upside down if they want. 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).
Don't believe anything I say. I crash test crack pipes for a living.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
20 million is about 1/10th the cost of a 747 according to boeing :
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/prices/
To expand on your point, that is the way it should be. Governments should not be spending tax dollars on building amusment rides for the public. How much did whats-his-name (tito?) spend to ride on Soyuz up to the space station? Not enough, if you ask me, the the Russians apparently disagree. If the common man is going to space, it is private enterprise that should get him there.
You know what we call almost late?
On time.
www.bannination.com Two things float to the top he
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