SpaceShipOne Flight Not as Perfect as it Seemed 609
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?"
This says quite a bit about... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Attitude? (Score:5, Interesting)
Still 62% willing to fly? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Nice to see them so honest (Score:5, Interesting)
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
right angle turns at 62 miles... (Score:1, Interesting)
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.
Amateurs (Score:5, Interesting)
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*
Rrecorded video of interior SpaceShipOne in space? (Score:3, Interesting)
Thank you in advance.
Not surprising (Score:5, Interesting)
Meanwhile, at the BBC (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Is it true? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Accept the risk (Score:3, Interesting)
Still 62% willing to fly!! (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd vote yes again
Re:This isn't what I expected (Score:4, Interesting)
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/prices/
Any landing you can walk away from... (Score:3, Interesting)
"Any landing that you can walk away from is a good landing."
Free Objects in Cockpit (Score:2, Interesting)
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?
Re:minor setbacks and some carmack links :P (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Reminds me of the old joke... (Score:5, Interesting)
On time.
Re:It should have been expected (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Yeager (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Indeed (Score:3, Interesting)
You mean, they're producing a better solution for less money on an otherwise level playing field -- and making it look shiny too?
Actually, although I'm not sure you could declare SS1 'better' than the shuttle, it's a pretty interesting analogy, with NASA in the role of Detroit.
Re:This is why more people didnt go (Score:3, Interesting)
My clearest moment of "damn, did these guys do ANY research before showing up??" came when SpaceShipOne was on descent, followed by two chase planes, and the CNN cameraman got confused as to which one was SpaceShipOne, and zoomed in on one of the chase planes for about ten second, before finally panning over to SSO for the rest of the shot. Uh, wrong plane, bucko.
unbelievably stupid stunt (Score:3, Interesting)
You CAN do it in the atmosphere, of course... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:This is why more people didnt go (Score:2, Interesting)
When they change the definition (and they will eventually), can they revoke the astronaut status?
Re:Yeager (Score:3, Interesting)
Why wouldn't the peroxide thrusters work? All the thruster needs is for the peroxide to pass through the catalyst, right? That's going to happen at sea level just as well as in space.
I'm talking out of my ass but I'm guessing the peroxide thrusters didn't get the nose of that F-104 down because of some other severe aerodynamic thing the plane was experiencing. But the thrusters fired and exerted their pressure - it just wasn't enough. But maybe that's what you meant.
Re:Weightless.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Microgravity [reference.com]:An environment in which there is very little net gravitational force, as of a free-falling object, an orbit, or interstellar space. (emphasis mine)
Weightlessness [reference.com]: Not experiencing the effects of gravity.
Therefore, you're not weightless.
In other words, he was in freefall, and experiencing 'microgravity.'
And you're right; in orbit, you're still very much affected by gravity; an 'orbit' is simply 'falling towards, but keep missing' sort of thing. You're not weightless, you're in freefall, and therefore experiencing 'microgravity.'
From a howstuffworks.com [howstuffworks.com] article:
Re:Dictionary missed yaw. (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, that definition excludes yaw - at least when the craft is wings-level and nose-level. But it also excludes pitch when the plane is wingtip-straight-down, and roll when the plane is nose-straight-down or nose-straight-up.
I've always understood attitude to include all three. And I've seen other definitions referenced on