spaceship one

[Pianome]

getting ready to take off.....CNN live.

--
Pianome

[Richard Lamb]

Pianome wrote:
>
> getting ready to take off.....CNN live.
>
> --
> Pianome

And now, back down sucessfully.

Spectacular job.

Hats off, guys.
New Living Legends fly our skys.

Richard

[Daniel]

Dig the N-number

Daniel


Richard Lamb > wrote in message >...
> Pianome wrote:
> >
> > getting ready to take off.....CNN live.
> >
> > --
> > Pianome
>
> And now, back down sucessfully.
>
> Spectacular job.
>
> Hats off, guys.
> New Living Legends fly our skys.
>
> Richard

[Frank Hitlaw]

Richard Lamb > wrote in message >...
> Pianome wrote:
> >
> > getting ready to take off.....CNN live.
> >
> > --
> > Pianome
>
> And now, back down sucessfully.
>
> Spectacular job.
>
> Hats off, guys.
> New Living Legends fly our skys.
>
> Richard

The launch was probably better seen on TV but,there is nothing like
being there. It was a great way to spend a beautiful desert morning
along with several thousand of my closest friends. It isn't often that
you get to be an eye witness to history,I'm glad I was there.
The only downside for me was that I didn't get to see the mooz. I
think that my presence would have caused his blood pressure to rise
faster than Space Ship 1.

Frank

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, Frank Hitlaw
says...
Hi Frank
I heard mooz is claiming to have been in Beech chase plane .I can't believe Burt
was that unknowing about who he let on board.That is if it's true. Boy talk
about useless baggage he probably got airsick LOL!!!

I watched it on TV today and it was another great aviation event brought to us
by Burt Rutan and Company. Hats off to them all.

Thought you were in Malaysia,I just shipped a plane there.
See ya

el Pollo loco




> The launch was probably better seen on TV but,there is nothing like
>being there. It was a great way to spend a beautiful desert morning
>along with several thousand of my closest friends. It isn't often that
>you get to be an eye witness to history,I'm glad I was there.
> The only downside for me was that I didn't get to see the mooz. I
>think that my presence would have caused his blood pressure to rise
>faster than Space Ship 1.
>
> Frank

[B2431]

>
>In article >, Frank Hitlaw
>says...
>Hi Frank
>I heard mooz is claiming to have been in Beech chase plane .I can't believe
>Burt
>was that unknowing about who he let on board.That is if it's true. Boy talk
>about useless baggage he probably got airsick LOL!!!
>

Chuck, there you go stirring up trouble again. You KNOW he piloted the ship in
all the test runs and has over 500 hours in type. Rutan could not have done it
without zoom and tarver. Juan's BD-5 was used for

[editor's note: shovel broke at this point]


Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, B2431 says...
>Chuck, there you go stirring up trouble again. You KNOW he piloted the ship in
>all the test runs and has over 500 hours in type. Rutan could not have done it
>without zoom and tarver. Juan's BD-5 was used for
>
>[editor's note: shovel broke at this point]
>
>
>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

ROFL!! thanks Dan I needed that :-) I bet he looped rolled and spun it as well
:-)

See ya

Chuck RAH-15/1 ret

[Frank Hitlaw]

ChuckSlusarczyk > wrote in message >...
> In article >, Frank Hitlaw
> says...
> Hi Frank
> I heard mooz is claiming to have been in Beech chase plane .I can't believe Burt
> was that unknowing about who he let on board.That is if it's true. Boy talk
> about useless baggage he probably got airsick LOL!!!
>
> I watched it on TV today and it was another great aviation event brought to us
> by Burt Rutan and Company. Hats off to them all.
>
> Thought you were in Malaysia,I just shipped a plane there.
> See ya
>
> el Pollo loco
>

I dislocated my right foot over in Indonesia and came back to
California where we have an office. Had to have a couple of surgeries
to put it back together at the local VA hospital. I should be going
back over to Indonesia in about a week or so.
Awful news nutwork reported that our favorite test pilot was the
still camera pool photog. You are correct that was a waste of space.I
was standing next to a guy that had a scanner tuned to the air to air
channel. Several times they came on and told someone to stay off that
freq and that someone kept keying a mic. I wonder......?
Did you ever send a plane to Makkassar on the island of Celebes. Due
to a traffic jam on the ramp we taxied out a back way. I looked back
as we turned and got a fleeting glimpse of a couple of light planes in
a shade hangar.Like I said it was a very fleeting look and one of them
sure looked like a Hawk,didn't see much it was dark blue and black and
in the shade but I thought that's a Hawk. Guess they know quality over
there also.

Frank "assistant stolen chicken taster" Hitlaw
>
>
>
> > The launch was probably better seen on TV but,there is nothing like
> >being there. It was a great way to spend a beautiful desert morning
> >along with several thousand of my closest friends. It isn't often that
> >you get to be an eye witness to history,I'm glad I was there.
> > The only downside for me was that I didn't get to see the mooz. I
> >think that my presence would have caused his blood pressure to rise
> >faster than Space Ship 1.
> >
> > Frank

[Richard Lamb]

A fellow on one of the email lists sent a note that

Mike will be on the Tonight Show - tonight.

NOW (finally) we might get a better story that the
silly superficial questions asked by the news media.

The news spots (all the news that's fit to print?)
basically asked, "how do you feel about it?" (entertainment)

Jay Leno, an entertainer, will get the news story out.

Odd how it works...


Richard

[Rich]

ChuckSlusarczyk > wrote in message >...

> I heard mooz is claiming to have been in Beech chase plane.

Not only that, but he's claiming to be one of the first to spot damage
to the spacecraft. It's in the headline story on ANN.

[Corrie]

(Daniel) wrote in message >...
> Dig the N-number
>
> Daniel

Cute!

N328KF - 328,000 ft = 100km

http://www.onlineconversion.com/length_common.htm

[Corrie]

(Daniel) wrote in message >...
> Dig the N-number
>
> Daniel

Cute!

N328KF - 328,000 ft = 100km

http://www.onlineconversion.com/length_common.htm

[Corrie]

(Daniel) wrote in message >...
> Dig the N-number
>
> Daniel

cute!

N328KF - 328,000 ft = 100 km

http://www.onlineconversion.com/length_common.htm

[B2431]

>From: (Corrie)
>Date: 6/22/2004 1:47 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
(Daniel) wrote in message
>...
>> Dig the N-number
>>
>> Daniel
>
>Cute!
>
>N328KF - 328,000 ft = 100km
>

Terrific! I didn't catch that :)

And they say engineers have no sense of humour.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Pianome]

ANN Publisher Jim Campbell, flying just feet away from Scaled's
SpaceShipOne in a Beechcraft Starship chase plane, was the first to report
some indications of possible thermal or load damage on the aft portion of
the spacecraft, just in front of the rocket bell. --

Wow!!! Flying just "feet" away!!! Did Zoom get his space wings also???


Pianome

[Robert Bonomi]

In article >,
Corrie > wrote:
(Daniel) wrote in message
>...
>> Dig the N-number
>>
>> Daniel
>
>Cute!
>
>N328KF - 328,000 ft = 100km

They wanted N100KM but it was already assigned. Bummer.

[Daniel]

> The launch was probably better seen on TV ...

I'll credit Pat Panzera with having captured the defining picture though:
http://www.contactmagazine.com/Scaled/Launch/SpaceShipOne_Goverment-Zero.JPG

Daniel

[Only in America]

> http://www.contactmagazine.com/Scaled/Launch/SpaceShipOne_Goverment-Zero.JPG

Yuppers..... You can just imagine all those NASA and public trough
government people watching the spaceship being towed back to the hanger
by a pickup truck with a couple of average joes sitting on the
tailgate.

[UltraJohn]

I wanted n80km (I run 50 mile trail races, 50m =100km) but it was taken by
of all things a Beechcraft Starship!

John



Robert Bonomi wrote:

> In article >,
> Corrie > wrote:
(Daniel) wrote in message
>...
>>> Dig the N-number
>>>
>>> Daniel
>>
>>Cute!
>>
>>N328KF - 328,000 ft = 100km
>
> They wanted N100KM but it was already assigned. Bummer.
>
>
>
>

[UltraJohn]

UltraJohn wrote:


Make that 50mile = 80km

[B2431]

>From: Only in America
>Date: 6/22/2004 8:39 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>>
>http://www.contactmagazine.com/Scaled/Launch/SpaceShipOne_Goverment-Zero.JPG
>
>Yuppers..... You can just imagine all those NASA and public trough
>government people watching the spaceship being towed back to the hanger
>by a pickup truck with a couple of average joes sitting on the
>tailgate.

And not wearing white overalls etc.

I think one of the tidiest actions was when the pilot left the aircraft just a
few minutes after landing unlike 20 minutes or so while the space shuttle is
purged of poisonous gasses.

I wonder how many NASA types felt as if they were slapped.

It's just so sweet :)

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Richard Lamb]

B2431 wrote:
>
> >From: Only in America
> >Date: 6/22/2004 8:39 PM Central Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> >>
> >http://www.contactmagazine.com/Scaled/Launch/SpaceShipOne_Goverment-Zero.JPG
> >
> >Yuppers..... You can just imagine all those NASA and public trough
> >government people watching the spaceship being towed back to the hanger
> >by a pickup truck with a couple of average joes sitting on the
> >tailgate.
>
> And not wearing white overalls etc.
>
> I think one of the tidiest actions was when the pilot left the aircraft just a
> few minutes after landing unlike 20 minutes or so while the space shuttle is
> purged of poisonous gasses.
>
> I wonder how many NASA types felt as if they were slapped.
>
> It's just so sweet :)
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

How about the yourn stud "astronauts" upstaged by a 62 year old
grandpa?

[Only in America]

> Richard Lamb > wrote:

> How about the yourn stud "astronauts" upstaged by a 62 year old
> grandpa?

Oh what the heck..... While we are at it.

How about making the trip in pressurized comfort, wear comfy clothes,
neato pilots sunglasses, oxygen mask, and floating M&Ms around
the cockpit.

What do you think Pepsi would pay to have him scarf down a slice of
pie from Pizza Hut while downing a Pepsi up there.

[Felger Carbon]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>
> I think one of the tidiest actions was when the pilot left the
aircraft just a
> few minutes after landing unlike 20 minutes or so while the space
shuttle is
> purged of poisonous gasses.

Uh, waiting for the hull temperature to cool down so the crew doesn't
get burned while egressing? ;-)

[Regnirps]

Only in America wrote:

>Yuppers..... You can just imagine all those NASA and public trough
>government people watching the spaceship being towed back to the hanger
>by a pickup truck with a couple of average joes sitting on the
>tailgate.

I don't know as I'd call Paul Allen and Rutan average joes.

-- Charlie Sprinegr

[Ron Wanttaja]

On 23 Jun 2004 02:43:58 GMT, (B2431) wrote:

>>Yuppers..... You can just imagine all those NASA and public trough
>>government people watching the spaceship being towed back to the hanger
>>by a pickup truck with a couple of average joes sitting on the
>>tailgate.
>
>And not wearing white overalls etc.
>
>I think one of the tidiest actions was when the pilot left the aircraft just a
>few minutes after landing unlike 20 minutes or so while the space shuttle is
>purged of poisonous gasses.
>
>I wonder how many NASA types felt as if they were slapped.

They probably feel the same way Air Force or airline pilots feel when they
see a Cessna rolled out of its hangar, preflighted, and taxied out for
takeoff in a period of about 15 minutes...by just one guy.

....or, for that matter, how a typical Cessna driver feels when he sees a
guy with a Kitfox on a trailer roll up, unfold the wings, and go flying.

The Space Shuttle and SpaceShipOne have different mission requirements,
thus different performance levels. It's the difference between an
ultralight and a 737. It's not surprising if the ground-handling
requirements and overall acquisition costs are far less, as the required
performance is commensurately lower as well.

It took about forty years from the date the first government-sponsored
manned aerospacecraft left the atmosphere and glided down to a safe landing
in the California desert to the successful flight of the first private one.
If the same timescale was used for conventional airplanes, the first
privately-owned aircraft would have flown in 1943.

If it was easy, it wouldn't be rocket science. All the more credit to the
SpaceShipOne developers and crew.


Ron Wanttaja

[FlyGuy]

ChuckSlusarczyk > wrote in message >...
> In article >, Frank Hitlaw
> says...
> Hi Frank
> I heard mooz is claiming to have been in Beech chase plane .I can't believe Burt
> was that unknowing about who he let on board.That is if it's true. Boy talk
> about useless baggage he probably got airsick LOL!!!


Chuck! You are just not being fair to Zoom. After all, he is probably
the most qualified person to be in the chase plane. Remember, he *is*
a graduate of the Test Pilot School! This could come in handy, should
there be any re-entry problems, where they need Jim to "talk the pilot
back to earth". Besides, this is a risky flight, and if there were any
medical problems, Jim's extensive medical background could come in
handy too.

Thank God he was there to let mission control know they suffered some
damage on the fuselage. ;)

[Frank Hitlaw]

"Pianome" > wrote in message news:<Ng1Cc.89931$HG.26418@attbi_s53>...
> ANN Publisher Jim Campbell, flying just feet away from Scaled's
> SpaceShipOne in a Beechcraft Starship chase plane, was the first to report
> some indications of possible thermal or load damage on the aft portion of
> the spacecraft, just in front of the rocket bell. --
>
> Wow!!! Flying just "feet" away!!! Did Zoom get his space wings also???
>
>
> Pianome

I was listening to the chase planes and I thought that the high
chase (the Alpha Jet) called that Space Ship 1 appeared to have some
damage. It was possible load or thermal damage,great trick for the
mooz to be in both planes at once. They had three chase planes the
Alpha Jet was the high chase,The Beech Starship was for medium
altitudes and a Extra 300 for low chase. Mooz probably logged time in
all three Monday.
I did see the nitwits by-line on a photo for Reuters in USA Today.
Bet that he fed them one of his lines of B.S. he has alot of them.

Frank

[B2431]

>From: (Regnirps)
>Date: 6/22/2004 11:30 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Only in America wrote:
>
>>Yuppers..... You can just imagine all those NASA and public trough
>>government people watching the spaceship being towed back to the hanger
>>by a pickup truck with a couple of average joes sitting on the
>>tailgate.
>
>I don't know as I'd call Paul Allen and Rutan average joes.
>
>-- Charlie Sprinegr

OK, how long before kits are available?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: (Frank Hitlaw)
>Date: 6/23/2004 2:01 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"Pianome" > wrote in message
>news:<Ng1Cc.89931$HG.26418@attbi_s53>...
>> ANN Publisher Jim Campbell, flying just feet away from Scaled's
>> SpaceShipOne in a Beechcraft Starship chase plane, was the first to report
>> some indications of possible thermal or load damage on the aft portion of
>> the spacecraft, just in front of the rocket bell. --
>>
>> Wow!!! Flying just "feet" away!!! Did Zoom get his space wings also???
>>
>>
>> Pianome
>
> I was listening to the chase planes and I thought that the high
>chase (the Alpha Jet) called that Space Ship 1 appeared to have some
>damage. It was possible load or thermal damage,great trick for the
>mooz to be in both planes at once. They had three chase planes the
>Alpha Jet was the high chase,The Beech Starship was for medium
>altitudes and a Extra 300 for low chase. Mooz probably logged time in
>all three Monday.
> I did see the nitwits by-line on a photo for Reuters in USA Today.
>Bet that he fed them one of his lines of B.S. he has alot of them.
>
> Frank

The question I have, and I really should know better than to ask, was zoom
actually there at all? If so why?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[pacplyer]

Richard Lamb > wrote
> NOW (finally) we might get a better story that the
> silly superficial questions asked by the news media.

How about this Richard: America has returned to manned space
launches... and it's not NASA!

We rocked around in an RV all night in 40 kt winds the night before
and were worried that the launch was going to be scrubbed. But
luckily high pressure was over the area and wind died down right
before taxi out. My friend Bubba flew Richard Branson in to Mojave in
a high dollar three blade helo and then landed him back on the top of
the theme restaurant at LAX (he just can't seem to make a low profile
entry anywhere!) William Shantner was supposedly there as well as Buzz
Aldrin. Most of the event was covered by a local FM station but they
screwed it up pretty bad so we just listened to the scanner. The wind
was still blowing stiff after t/o on top of our RV so I missed a lot
of the air to air conversation, but if anybody wants, I'll try to
narrate what I saw in detail. The test pilot community let me in on a
little secret: a major control failure occurred during launch and the
gyro Rutan used for attitude control tumbled (lost alignment.) This
caused an unplanned departure from the vertical profile. Mike M. took
over manually and saved the son of a bitch just in time! However,
this S-turn maneuver put them over 20 miles off course on the re-entry
window! They still made the downwind gear-down position no sweat. I'm
surprised they didn't relate this drama to the media (did they?) since
it kind of parallels John Glenn's re-entry problems (except this was
on launch.) Rutan plans to go into orbit next. Maybe if the media
isn't smart enough to know about this it's better; I just don't know.

I worried that the shuttle cock had to work perfectly twice in a row
and felt like this was a 50/50 operation. Burt had told an engineer
who works for him when the project began: "The problem with NASA is
that they're not killing enough astronauts." Burt is a genius in my
mind because he is willing to hang it way out there and try things no
one else would dare. For example: the attitude control system when
the vehicle is out of the atmosphere is just compressed air! What
would happen if a little moisture froze up the attitude air valves?
The whole thing was a complete cliff hanger! It is equivalent in my
mind to watching the Mayflower disappear over the horizon bound for
the new world. I'll never forget it.

pacplyer

[Harry K]

"Felger Carbon" > wrote in message . net>...
> "B2431" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I think one of the tidiest actions was when the pilot left the
> aircraft just a
> > few minutes after landing unlike 20 minutes or so while the space
> shuttle is
> > purged of poisonous gasses.
>
> Uh, waiting for the hull temperature to cool down so the crew doesn't
> get burned while egressing? ;-)

I don't see where jeers at the space program have anything to do with
this performance.

Not trying to take anything away from the crew but this is a long way
from being able to do the same thing as the shuttle. For one, they
have a long way to go if the goal is to achieve orbit (I don't think
it is). For two, their method of re-entry will never work if
returning from orbit. An admirable achievement nonetheless.

Harry K

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, FlyGuy says...

>Chuck! You are just not being fair to Zoom. After all, he is probably
>the most qualified person to be in the chase plane. Remember, he *is*
>a graduate of the Test Pilot School! This could come in handy, should
>there be any re-entry problems, where they need Jim to "talk the pilot
>back to earth". Besides, this is a risky flight, and if there were any
>medical problems, Jim's extensive medical background could come in
>handy too.
>
>Thank God he was there to let mission control know they suffered some
>damage on the fuselage. ;)

ROFL!! good thing I wasn't drinking coffee when I read that. I guess your right
I wasn't thinking :-) They probably read his bio on one of his book covers and
wondered "where has this guy been hiding for so long?" I bet they got him for a
song. Actually I bet he was such a pest and nag the let him do it just to get
some peace and quiet. Yup ,engineer,designer,skilled parachutist, medical
Doctor,writer ,author, publisher, test pilot,savior of Bob Hoover ,Savior of
aviation, savior of the Etheopians, flight instructor,air show performer,
critic and self proclaimed conscience of homebuilt aviation. WOW what a guy and
no wonder he got to go.LOL!!! He's still a phony , now he's a phony who got a
ride in a Beech Star ship and took some pictures. He'll be bragging about this
for a long time. I'd sure like to know the rest of the story.


Wonder if he'll be on th next one or if he wore out his welcome when he started
to tell his tall tails???

Sheesh of all the photographers they got zoom.

See ya

Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret

"credibility it about credibility and he still has none" chuck s

[Richard Lamb]

pacplyer wrote:
>
> The whole thing was a complete cliff hanger! It is equivalent in my
> mind to watching the Mayflower disappear over the horizon bound for
> the new world. I'll never forget it.
>
> pacplyer

Amen, Pacman.

I only got to watch on CNN, but I was on the edge of my seat,
even during the commercials.

A few weeks ago, bored outta what's left of my mind, I picked up
a few library books on the early space program. I had read all
the hero stuff years back. "The Right Stuff" and "Apollo 13"
tended to emphasize the glory with precious little hard technical
details.

But "Lost Moon", Lovell's side of the Apollo 13 story, and most
especially Gene Krantz's "Failure is Not an Option" gets right
into the nuts and bolts of those early days. They better describe
not just what happened, but why and how it happened.

It's down right scary how critical the most minor details are when
entering a new environment that is as hostile as space.

Your comment about a how a little moisture in an air tank could freeze
up a valve, potentially causing the complete loss of the vehicle was
very much to the point.

Remember the old adage?
"Aviation is not, of itself, inherently dangerous. But to a greater
extent than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness,
incapacity, or neglect".

For space flight, I'd bump that up an order of magnitude (or two?).

Gus Grissom is quoted saying, "If we die we want people to accept it.
We hope that if anything happens to us it will not delay the program.
The conquest of space is worth the risk of life".

And he did.

In the aftermath of the Apollo 1 fire, NASA took a year (and $75 mil)
to redesign the space craft, mature their mental attitudes, and yes,
did come back with a much safer vehicle.

Quite obviously, this was the beginning of the "failure is not an
option"
mentality that took us to the moon and back successfully. I doubt that
public attitude (as shaped by the press) would have allowed for another
disaster of that magnitude during the moon race.

But if Burt were to be lost (Heaven forbid, Please!), end of story.


Richard

[Barnyard BOb -]

>Sheesh of all the photographers they got zoom.
>
>See ya
>
>Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret
>
>"credibility it about credibility and he still has none" chuck s
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You would have preferred Juan, the jet jock itch?


Barnyard BOb -

[Richard Lamb]

ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:
>
> In article >, FlyGuy says...
>
> >Chuck! You are just not being fair to Zoom. After all, he is probably
> >the most qualified person to be in the chase plane. Remember, he *is*
> >a graduate of the Test Pilot School! This could come in handy, should
> >there be any re-entry problems, where they need Jim to "talk the pilot
> >back to earth". Besides, this is a risky flight, and if there were any
> >medical problems, Jim's extensive medical background could come in
> >handy too.
> >
> >Thank God he was there to let mission control know they suffered some
> >damage on the fuselage. ;)
>
> ROFL!! good thing I wasn't drinking coffee when I read that. I guess your right
> I wasn't thinking :-) They probably read his bio on one of his book covers and
> wondered "where has this guy been hiding for so long?" I bet they got him for a
> song. Actually I bet he was such a pest and nag the let him do it just to get
> some peace and quiet. Yup ,engineer,designer,skilled parachutist, medical
> Doctor,writer ,author, publisher, test pilot,savior of Bob Hoover ,Savior of
> aviation, savior of the Etheopians, flight instructor,air show performer,
> critic and self proclaimed conscience of homebuilt aviation. WOW what a guy and
> no wonder he got to go.LOL!!! He's still a phony , now he's a phony who got a
> ride in a Beech Star ship and took some pictures. He'll be bragging about this
> for a long time. I'd sure like to know the rest of the story.
>
> Wonder if he'll be on th next one or if he wore out his welcome when he started
> to tell his tall tails???
>
> Sheesh of all the photographers they got zoom.
>
> See ya
>
> Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret
>
> "credibility it about credibility and he still has none" chuck s


After many years of reading here, I've learned to put the coffee
down before reading the next post. 'Cause you just never know...

Richard :)

[BllFs6]

Did Dennis Fetters take any shots of SS1?

Sorry, couldnt resist :)

take care

Blll

[Dennis Fetters]

BllFs6 wrote:
> Did Dennis Fetters take any shots of SS1?
>
> Sorry, couldnt resist :)
>
> take care
>
> Blll


What's the matter with you?

[G EddieA95]

>atmosphere and glided down to a safe landing
>in the California desert [40 years] to the successful flight of the first
private one.
>If the same timescale was used for conventional airplanes, the first
>privately-owned aircraft would have flown in 1943.

The first private aircraft flew in 1903. The first *government8 a/c flew iirc
10 years after that.

[Corrie]

Ron Wanttaja > wrote in message >...
> It took about forty years from the date the first government-sponsored
> manned aerospacecraft left the atmosphere and glided down to a safe landing
> in the California desert to the successful flight of the first private one.
> If the same timescale was used for conventional airplanes, the first
> privately-owned aircraft would have flown in 1943.

As opposed to 1903? The first airplane WAS privately-owned. Not to
mention amateur-built. The government-funded program wound up in the
Potomac. ;-)

Re preflight envy, keep in mind that a lot of those military and
commerical pilots also fly Cessnas, Kitfoxes, ULs...

[Big John]

Charlie

I hear they put their pants on one leg at a time.

Big John
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On 23 Jun 2004 04:30:55 GMT, (Regnirps) wrote:

>Only in America wrote:
>
>>Yuppers..... You can just imagine all those NASA and public trough
>>government people watching the spaceship being towed back to the hanger
>>by a pickup truck with a couple of average joes sitting on the
>>tailgate.
>
>I don't know as I'd call Paul Allen and Rutan average joes.
>
>-- Charlie Sprinegr

[Steve VanSickle]

From article >, by (Harry K):

> For two, their method of re-entry will never work if
> returning from orbit. An admirable achievement nonetheless.

Why?

[Steve VanSickle]

From article >, by (pacplyer):

> For example: the attitude control system when
> the vehicle is out of the atmosphere is just compressed air! What
> would happen if a little moisture froze up the attitude air valves?

That is the genious of the design. With the wings cocked, the reentry is
stable without attitude control jets at all. I suppose that if the wings
didn't cock, then the jets would have enough authority to control the
reentry. *Both* would have to fail to lose the vehicle.

[Del Rawlins]

In . net> UltraJohn
wrote:
> I wanted n80km (I run 50 mile trail races, 50m =100km) but it was
> taken by of all things a Beechcraft Starship!

In that case check the database, it may be available now...

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

[Regnirps]

(B2431) wrote:

>OK, how long before kits are available?

I think I'll have to start with the pre-drilled autoclave kit as soon as I get
the house wired for a couple hundred amps of 440V power. Hmmm. Am I gonna need
some big vacuum pumps?

-- Charlie Springer

[Regnirps]

Big John wrote:

>Charlie

>I hear they put their pants on one leg at a time.

I'm not sure Paul can do that anymore.

-- Charlie Springer

[FlyGuy]

"Pianome" > wrote in message news:<Ng1Cc.89931$HG.26418@attbi_s53>...
> ANN Publisher Jim Campbell, flying just feet away from Scaled's
> SpaceShipOne in a Beechcraft Starship chase plane, was the first to report
> some indications of possible thermal or load damage on the aft portion of
> the spacecraft, just in front of the rocket bell. --
>
> Wow!!! Flying just "feet" away!!! Did Zoom get his space wings also???

Zoom probably went to some FBO in Florida on Monday, and managed to
get a ride in a Starship, making sure he was in the air at the same
time that SpaceShipOne was in the air in Mojave, listening to CNN on
the intercom. Lets see.. approximately 2700 miles between Mojave and
Florida. 2700 times 5280 feet = 14,256,000 feet.

So when you think about it, his statement was not a lie at all.. He
was just "feet" away at the time (14,256,000 of 'em)

[Frank Hitlaw]

(pacplyer) wrote in message >...
> Richard Lamb > wrote
> > NOW (finally) we might get a better story that the
> > silly superficial questions asked by the news media.
>
> How about this Richard: America has returned to manned space
> launches... and it's not NASA!
>
> We rocked around in an RV all night in 40 kt winds the night before
> and were worried that the launch was going to be scrubbed. But
> luckily high pressure was over the area and wind died down right
> before taxi out. My friend Bubba flew Richard Branson in to Mojave in
> a high dollar three blade helo and then landed him back on the top of
> the theme restaurant at LAX (he just can't seem to make a low profile
> entry anywhere!) William Shantner was supposedly there as well as Buzz
> Aldrin. Most of the event was covered by a local FM station but they
> screwed it up pretty bad so we just listened to the scanner. The wind
> was still blowing stiff after t/o on top of our RV so I missed a lot
> of the air to air conversation, but if anybody wants, I'll try to
> narrate what I saw in detail. The test pilot community let me in on a
> little secret: a major control failure occurred during launch and the
> gyro Rutan used for attitude control tumbled (lost alignment.) This
> caused an unplanned departure from the vertical profile. Mike M. took
> over manually and saved the son of a bitch just in time! However,
> this S-turn maneuver put them over 20 miles off course on the re-entry
> window!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++snip++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

> pacplyer

Amen Pac, did you read the press release from the May 13 flight?They
lost the platform on that flight as well. Maybe the INU just isn't up
to the sort of loads or speed they achieve.

Frank

[Richard Lamb]

Steve VanSickle wrote:
>
> From article >, by (Harry K):
>
> > For two, their method of re-entry will never work if
> > returning from orbit. An admirable achievement nonetheless.
>
> Why?

Because it was designed to be a sub-orbital ship...

[Steve VanSickle]

From article >, by Richard Lamb >:

>> > For two, their method of re-entry will never work if
>> > returning from orbit. An admirable achievement nonetheless.
>>
>> Why?
>
> Because it was designed to be a sub-orbital ship...

This particular *design* won't work, yes, but why not the "method" (i.e.
moving surfaces to make for a "hands off" reentry)?

[Richard Lamb]

Steve VanSickle wrote:
>
> From article >, by Richard Lamb >:
>
> >> > For two, their method of re-entry will never work if
> >> > returning from orbit. An admirable achievement nonetheless.
> >>
> >> Why?
> >
> > Because it was designed to be a sub-orbital ship...
>
> This particular *design* won't work, yes, but why not the "method" (i.e.
> moving surfaces to make for a "hands off" reentry)?


if they can stand up to 3000 degree heat...

Reentry from orbit is a vastly more difficult proposition.

All to the speeds involved.

[bci]

www.space.com/missionlaunches/SS1_press_040621.html

"Private Spaceship Encounters Glitches in Record-Setting Flight"


Betsy

[Steve VanSickle]

From article >, by Richard Lamb >> Steve VanSickle wrote:

>> > Because it was designed to be a sub-orbital ship...
>>
>> This particular *design* won't work, yes, but why not the "method" (i.e.
>> moving surfaces to make for a "hands off" reentry)?
>
>
> if they can stand up to 3000 degree heat...
>
> Reentry from orbit is a vastly more difficult proposition.
>
> All to the speeds involved.

Yes, it is more difficult. Yes, much hotter, much more energy. But I
have heard many people claim that the "shuttlecock" method Burt developed
"won't work" from orbit, and no one says *why*. If shuttle wings can be
protected (most of the time) from the heat, why can't Burt's wings?

[Richard Lamb]

Steve VanSickle wrote:
>
> From article >, by Richard Lamb >> Steve VanSickle wrote:
>
> >> > Because it was designed to be a sub-orbital ship...
> >>
> >> This particular *design* won't work, yes, but why not the "method" (i.e.
> >> moving surfaces to make for a "hands off" reentry)?
> >
> >
> > if they can stand up to 3000 degree heat...
> >
> > Reentry from orbit is a vastly more difficult proposition.
> >
> > All to the speeds involved.
>
> Yes, it is more difficult. Yes, much hotter, much more energy. But I
> have heard many people claim that the "shuttlecock" method Burt developed
> "won't work" from orbit, and no one says *why*. If shuttle wings can be
> protected (most of the time) from the heat, why can't Burt's wings?


That seems like a reasonable question.
Wish I knew a reasonable answer.

Taking a not so scientific wild assed guess(?) it might have to
do with the amount of area exposed to the plasma stream.

On the Orbiter, only (mostly?) the leading edges are exposed to
that level of heating.

The birdie approach splays a LOT of wing surface into the stream.
That would create a LOT of friction heat. Could also maybe have
to do with structural limitations of non-unobtainium?

Lastly, just maybe, the nay sayers are wrong?

Next time I'm out on the road, I'll stop in at a Holiday Inn Express.
Maybe I can zoom up some better sounding answers then?

Richard

[Matt Whiting]

Richard Lamb wrote:


> In the aftermath of the Apollo 1 fire, NASA took a year (and $75 mil)
> to redesign the space craft, mature their mental attitudes, and yes,
> did come back with a much safer vehicle.

Yes, but I still wonder how anyone in their right might would use a
nearly pure oxygen atmosphere in a vehicle full of humans and electrical
equipment...

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Dennis Fetters wrote:

>
>
> BllFs6 wrote:
>
>> Did Dennis Fetters take any shots of SS1?
>>
>> Sorry, couldnt resist :)
>>
>> take care
>>
>> Blll
>
>
>
> What's the matter with you?
>

Dennis, better to ignore folks like that.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Ron Wanttaja wrote:

> It took about forty years from the date the first government-sponsored
> manned aerospacecraft left the atmosphere and glided down to a safe landing
> in the California desert to the successful flight of the first private one.
> If the same timescale was used for conventional airplanes, the first
> privately-owned aircraft would have flown in 1943.

I never knew that the Wright Flyer was gummint sponsored...


Matt

[Richard Lamb]

Matt Whiting wrote:
>
> Richard Lamb wrote:
>
> > In the aftermath of the Apollo 1 fire, NASA took a year (and $75 mil)
> > to redesign the space craft, mature their mental attitudes, and yes,
> > did come back with a much safer vehicle.
>
> Yes, but I still wonder how anyone in their right might would use a
> nearly pure oxygen atmosphere in a vehicle full of humans and electrical
> equipment...
>
> Matt

Probably because it might be possible to run at a lower pressure
in flight and keep the crew alive.

This _was_ one of the very first corrections made to the design.
60% O2 /40% N

[Ron Wanttaja]

On 23 Jun 2004 09:59:41 -0700, (Corrie) wrote:

>Ron Wanttaja > wrote in message >...
>> It took about forty years from the date the first government-sponsored
>> manned aerospacecraft left the atmosphere and glided down to a safe landing
>> in the California desert to the successful flight of the first private one.
>> If the same timescale was used for conventional airplanes, the first
>> privately-owned aircraft would have flown in 1943.
>
>As opposed to 1903? The first airplane WAS privately-owned. Not to
>mention amateur-built. The government-funded program wound up in the
>Potomac. ;-)

Sure, I know the Wrights were private, it was just a way to make a
comparison. Interesting to note that the Wrights attempted to use lawsuits
to deter those who wished to duplicate their feat; in retrospect, the
desire for the technology overcame the legal issues involved.

Ron Wanttaja

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 12:09:46 -0500, Big John > wrote:

>On 23 Jun 2004 04:30:55 GMT, (Regnirps) wrote:
>>
>>I don't know as I'd call Paul Allen and Rutan average joes.
>
>I hear they put their pants on one leg at a time.

Sure, I bet Paul Allen's valet dresses him one leg at a time, just like
mine does. :-)

Ron "Off to the Drone's Club!" Wanttaja

[Regnirps]

(Steve VanSickle)

>This particular *design* won't work, yes, but why not the "method" (i.e.
>moving surfaces to make for a "hands off" reentry)?

I suppose it can be dome somehow, but you are talking 18,000 mph instead of
3,000. If there is a way to skim along and slowly loose energy I'd love to find
it. But as it now stands, as you lose energy you start to drop into more
atmosphere and more drag and loose it faster and drop faster and more heat
and....

Anyway, an ninformed quick calculation. Kinetic energy is proportional to the
square of the velocity. So, 18,000 mph is six times faster than 3,000 mph but
you will have 36 times as much kinetic energy, which will become heat (mostly I
think).

-- Charlie Springer

[Big John]

Matt

My computer bombed so this may go as a dup?

I have thousands of hours in jet fighters breathing 100% oxy.

We had all kinds of electrical stuff in cockpit(s) and aircraft. High
power Radar, Radio's, etc., etc.
..

Big John
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 18:28:37 -0400, Matt Whiting
> wrote:

>Richard Lamb wrote:
>
>
>> In the aftermath of the Apollo 1 fire, NASA took a year (and $75 mil)
>> to redesign the space craft, mature their mental attitudes, and yes,
>> did come back with a much safer vehicle.
>
>Yes, but I still wonder how anyone in their right might would use a
>nearly pure oxygen atmosphere in a vehicle full of humans and electrical
>equipment...
>
>Matt

[pacplyer]

(Frank Hitlaw) wrote in message >...
> (pacplyer) wrote in message >...
> > Richard Lamb > wrote
> > > NOW (finally) we might get a better story that the
> > > silly superficial questions asked by the news media.
> >
> > How about this Richard: America has returned to manned space
> > launches... and it's not NASA!
> >
> > We rocked around in an RV all night in 40 kt winds the night before
> > and were worried that the launch was going to be scrubbed. But
> > luckily high pressure was over the area and wind died down right
> > before taxi out. My friend Bubba flew Richard Branson in to Mojave in
> > a high dollar three blade helo and then landed him back on the top of
> > the theme restaurant at LAX (he just can't seem to make a low profile
> > entry anywhere!) William Shantner was supposedly there as well as Buzz
> > Aldrin. Most of the event was covered by a local FM station but they
> > screwed it up pretty bad so we just listened to the scanner. The wind
> > was still blowing stiff after t/o on top of our RV so I missed a lot
> > of the air to air conversation, but if anybody wants, I'll try to
> > narrate what I saw in detail. The test pilot community let me in on a
> > little secret: a major control failure occurred during launch and the
> > gyro Rutan used for attitude control tumbled (lost alignment.) This
> > caused an unplanned departure from the vertical profile. Mike M. took
> > over manually and saved the son of a bitch just in time! However,
> > this S-turn maneuver put them over 20 miles off course on the re-entry
> > window!
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++snip++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> > pacplyer
>
> Amen Pac, did you read the press release from the May 13 flight?They
> lost the platform on that flight as well. Maybe the INU just isn't up
> to the sort of loads or speed they achieve.
>
> Frank

No I didn't know that Frank, thanks. You could be right. I wonder
what Mike used for guidance reference? The sun? I'll ask my friend
who works for scaled next time I see him.

I forgot to mention that due to the wild S-turns the vehicle's apogee
topped out only 400 feet above 100K! That was according to Edwards
preliminary telemetry. That's so close I wonder if the other
contenders for the X-prize will try to challenge the data?

Another interesting fubar is the FAA issuing a new commercial license
rating to a 62 year old. He can't fly again for pay unless the fuzz
raises the mandatory retirement age above 60 for everybody! Raising
it is something the FAA has been against forever. Mike's probably
saying: "Thanks a lot FAA!" As usual, here's the government here to
help you. No wonder the guys at scaled hate big gov interference so
much. Maybe I'm wrong on this. Maybe it's under part 91 glider and
it doesn't matter. But he's rocket powered going up. WTF? Anybody
know?

pac

[B2431]

>Date: 6/23/2004 8:40 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>Matt
>
>My computer bombed so this may go as a dup?
>
>I have thousands of hours in jet fighters breathing 100% oxy.
>
>We had all kinds of electrical stuff in cockpit(s) and aircraft. High
>power Radar, Radio's, etc., etc.
>.
>
>Big John
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~
>On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 18:28:37 -0400, Matt Whiting
> wrote:
>
>>Richard Lamb wrote:
>>
>>
>>> In the aftermath of the Apollo 1 fire, NASA took a year (and $75 mil)
>>> to redesign the space craft, mature their mental attitudes, and yes,
>>> did come back with a much safer vehicle.
>>
>>Yes, but I still wonder how anyone in their right might would use a
>>nearly pure oxygen atmosphere in a vehicle full of humans and electrical
>>equipment...
>>
>>Matt

The difference is Apollo 1 was flooded with pure O2 where jet fighters push O2
from a LOX converter to a face mask. Big difference. The only electronics in
the mask is a microphone.

Having said that the electrical systems in Apollo 1 were poorly routed and
protected.
It was an accident waiting to happen.

Dan. U.S. Air Force, retired

[nauga]

Big John wrote...

> I have thousands of hours in jet fighters breathing 100% oxy.
>
> We had all kinds of electrical stuff in cockpit(s) and aircraft. High
> power Radar, Radio's, etc., etc.

But you had a mask sealed to you face (usually :-)
Cabin pressure is/was(?) usually supplied by engine bleed
air and is not 100% O2.

OTOH, I have flown with a smoker before, but he took off
his mask and shut off O2 before lighting up.

Also had a friend get a shock by a short in the lip
mike in his mask. There was some 'discussion' about
sparks and oxygen in the cockpit following that one.

Dave 'foom' Hyde

[nauga]

Richard Lamb wrote:

> That seems like a reasonable question.
> Wish I knew a reasonable answer.

For one, the shuttle comes in from much
higher and has no way to slow down _before_
reentering. The speed and angle are pretty much
fixed, so all you can do is find a way to dissipate
the heat that *will* build up. The tiles and other
thermal protection on the shuttle are (compared to
SS1) big and bulky. I suppose they could put more
TPS on SS1, but it would most likely change the
shape, pretty much requiring a new design.
There is no doubt in my mind that if Scaled
decides to go orbital, they will succeed (eventually),
and the design will be, er, revolutionary.

Dave 'ablative' Hyde

[nauga]

bci wrote...

> "Private Spaceship Encounters Glitches in
> Record-Setting Flight"

Must've been hard to close the cabin door
with b*lls that big. <g>

Dave 'tight fit' Hyde

[Harry K]

Matt Whiting > wrote in message >...
> Ron Wanttaja wrote:
>
> > It took about forty years from the date the first government-sponsored
> > manned aerospacecraft left the atmosphere and glided down to a safe landing
> > in the California desert to the successful flight of the first private one.
> > If the same timescale was used for conventional airplanes, the first
> > privately-owned aircraft would have flown in 1943.
>
> I never knew that the Wright Flyer was gummint sponsored...
>
>
> Matt

Looks like you (and others) missed the little "if" in Ron's post.

Harry K

[Harry K]

Matt Whiting > wrote in message >...
> Richard Lamb wrote:
>
>
> > In the aftermath of the Apollo 1 fire, NASA took a year (and $75 mil)
> > to redesign the space craft, mature their mental attitudes, and yes,
> > did come back with a much safer vehicle.
>
> Yes, but I still wonder how anyone in their right might would use a
> nearly pure oxygen atmosphere in a vehicle full of humans and electrical
> equipment...
>
> Matt

If the Russians had just informed us of their loss due to the same
problem earlier it may not have happened.

Harry K

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 18:28:37 -0400, Matt Whiting >
wrote:

>Richard Lamb wrote:
>
>
>> In the aftermath of the Apollo 1 fire, NASA took a year (and $75 mil)
>> to redesign the space craft, mature their mental attitudes, and yes,
>> did come back with a much safer vehicle.
>
>Yes, but I still wonder how anyone in their right might would use a
>nearly pure oxygen atmosphere in a vehicle full of humans and electrical
>equipment...

Just got done reading _Angle of Attack_, the biography of North American VP
Harrison Storms, who led the NA Apollo program. Since he got fired
(actually, transferred to headquarters) as a result of the Apollo I fire,
it goes into the situation with considerable detail.

Early in the life of the program, the decision as to what to use for air in
the cabin fell to two basic issues: The known fire danger of a pure oxygen
atmosphere, and the fact that equipment did not then exist to sense and
maintain a nitrogen/oxygen atmosphere.

Other than the CO2 scrubbers (needed with either scheme) all that would be
necessary for the pure-oxygen system would be a simple valve allow oxygen
into the spacecraft when the pressure dropped. With 5 PSI pressurization,
occupants have the same partial pressure of oxygen as at sea level, and the
fire danger isn't too severe. There was the rather low danger of the 5 PSI
pure 02 system, vs the potential schedule risk of the control system and
the known weight penalties of the 14 PSI N/O2 mix. North American favored
the normal-air mix, but the ultimate decision was NASA's.

Also in their proposal, North American specified an outward-opening hatch
with an explosive device to get rid of it in a hurry.

Two things worked against this part of the design. First, NASA had gained
a considerable black eye with the loss of Gus Grissom's Liberty Bell 7.
Whether you believed that Grissom blew the hatch himself or a technical
fault caused the mechanism to fire, the basic fact was that the accident
would not have happened if an emergency eject mechanism had not been
installed.

And...according to _Angle of Attack_, the NASA manager in charge of the
Command Module program was ex-Navy. An ex-Navy submariner, in fact. And
anyone wearing dolphins will insist that pressure on a hatch should cause
it to close *tighter*. He was dead-set against an outward-opening hatch,
and his background also gave him a negative view of things like explosive
hatches.

After all, the main danger was a loss of pressurization on orbit. Either
way the hatch worked, the astronauts would be able to open it in the case
of a pad emergency. But if a hatch failed once the rocket was in orbit,
the astronauts would be dead. An inward-opening hatch was obviously less
risk, on-orbit.

So... Apollo was directed to make the hatch open inward, to not include an
emergency jettison function, and to use a pure-oxygen atmosphere (IIRC, the
pure-oxy atmosphere was NASA Change Order #1). Mercury and Gemini had used
100% oxygen systems, and no problems had occurred.

Then came the Plugs-Out test of Apollo 1.

The Plugs-Out test was basically a full test to see if all the spacecraft
systems would support launch. The crew was in place, the hatch would be
closed, the capsule would be pressurized, and all the umbilicals normally
used to connect the capsule to the pad would be disconnected.

Unfortunately, the test required the capsule to be pressurized to ensure
that everything sealed properly. Since it was on the ground, not in space,
they had to pressurize it to about two PSI over ambient. And, of course,
they used the only breathable gas aboard: 100% oxygen.

A pure-oxygen atmosphere at 5 PSI has its dangers, but a pure-oxygen
atmosphere at 16 PSI is pure horror.

No one really knows what started the fire. What I found interesting is
that the capsule wasn't completely ready for flight...some items were still
in work. For instance, one piece of cabin equipment had been removed for
repair. Its power connector was left in place, energized. It was located
in close to the area where they determined the first started: near one of
the astronaut's feet.

But whether the cause was a kicked connector, scraped insulation, or any of
the myriad other possibilities, a fire started. The crew started the
painful, awkward process of opening the inward-swinging hatch. But within
about ten seconds, the fire had built the internal pressure to the point
where the hatch could *not* have been budged...either by the crew, nor by
any of the pad support personnel with the equipment they had available.

After I read _Angle of Attack_, I re-watched the Apollo 1 fire episode of
HBO's series, "From the Earth to the Moon." The series shows Frank Borman
testifying to Congress about the fire. I don't know if the dialog used in
the series was directly from Borman's actual testimony, but one line really
rang true:

"The cause of this accident was a failure of imagination."

Everyone worried about what would happen during a failure in space, but
nobody thought about the mundane problems that might occur during a simple,
routine pad test...or how a chain of seemingly logical design decisions
could result in disaster.

Ron Wanttaja

[Tim Ward]

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
> On 23 Jun 2004 09:59:41 -0700, (Corrie) wrote:
>
> >Ron Wanttaja > wrote in message
>...
> >> It took about forty years from the date the first government-sponsored
> >> manned aerospacecraft left the atmosphere and glided down to a safe
landing
> >> in the California desert to the successful flight of the first private
one.
> >> If the same timescale was used for conventional airplanes, the first
> >> privately-owned aircraft would have flown in 1943.
> >
> >As opposed to 1903? The first airplane WAS privately-owned. Not to
> >mention amateur-built. The government-funded program wound up in the
> >Potomac. ;-)
>
> Sure, I know the Wrights were private, it was just a way to make a
> comparison. Interesting to note that the Wrights attempted to use
lawsuits
> to deter those who wished to duplicate their feat; in retrospect, the
> desire for the technology overcame the legal issues involved.
>
> Ron Wanttaja

Well, strictly speaking, they used lawsuits to force other people to pay for
profiting from the use of their ideas. They gave permission for the use of
their patented system in experimental work. They were perfectly willing to
license their technology, but other manufacturers wanted to use it, both for
manufacturing airplanes and doing exhibitions, without paying for it.

There was a lot of suing, in all directions -- and thus the "patent pool"
solution of 1917, when the government wanted to start letting contracts for
airplanes without having to worry about who was suing whom.

The longest-running suit, which at least had the beneficial side-effect of
getting Orville to write and testify about how he and Wilbur developed the
airplane, was filed _against_ the Wright-Martin Aircraft Company (owner of
the Wright patents and to whom Orville was just a consultant at that point)
and the U.S . government by the heirs of John Montgomery. It was filed on
the basis of a 1905 patent by Montgomery covering the use of parabolic
curves as airfoils. The Wrights didn't use parabolic curves as airfoils,
but I guess you can always file a suit. The heirs eventually lost in 1928.

Tim Ward

[Ron Wanttaja]

On 23 Jun 2004 21:23:16 GMT, (Steve VanSickle)
wrote:

>From article >, by Richard Lamb >> Steve VanSickle wrote:
>
>>> > Because it was designed to be a sub-orbital ship...
>>>
>>> This particular *design* won't work, yes, but why not the "method" (i.e.
>>> moving surfaces to make for a "hands off" reentry)?
>>
>> if they can stand up to 3000 degree heat...
>>
>> Reentry from orbit is a vastly more difficult proposition.
>>
>> All to the speeds involved.
>
>Yes, it is more difficult. Yes, much hotter, much more energy. But I
>have heard many people claim that the "shuttlecock" method Burt developed
>"won't work" from orbit, and no one says *why*. If shuttle wings can be
>protected (most of the time) from the heat, why can't Burt's wings?

First off, I should point out that in ~25 years in the space biz, I've only
worked *one* program where safe re-entering the atmosphere was a design
element. And I solved THAT by saying, "...assuming it survives re-entry,
we'll deploy the rotors at Mach 3..." :-)

With that out of the way, let me set up some reasons why the shuttlecock
system may not be the best solution for an orbital mission. Feel free to
whack 'em down.

First, you've got a device that must be in the deployed position during
re-entry. Whatever actuators you've got holding the tail in position are
in danger of exposure to the re-entry plasma. On the Shuttle, everything
gets set into positions that minimizes disturbance of the plasma, but the
shuttlecock mode is exactly the opposite.

Two things can happen: The actuators can jam, or the actuators can break.
If they jam, you're not going to land. If they break, your speed increases
and your structure will probably overheat. If one side breaks and one side
jams, you are probably going to end up in a fairly fierce spin.

Yes, you can design covers for the actuators. But the covers themselves
could jam, and cause the same problems they're designed to prevent.

It's not much of a risk during SpaceShipOne's re-entry at Mach 3...the
interface period is over pretty quickly. But OrbitOne will spend about
10-15 minutes in the plasma. A lot of ugly things could happen.

Second...and, probably more-easily overcome...there's the G-load issue.
IIRC, Melville experienced about 5 Gs, maximum, during re-entry. 5 Gs from
a re-entry speed of Mach 3 vs. a re-entry speed of Mach 25. Hmmmm...think
we'll have to trim the size of shuttlecock tail. :-)

Finally, we get to the heretical part of this posting: Why wings at all,
for an orbital mission?

Forty years ago, a few square feet of ablative heat shield was good enough
to handle most manned space missions. The Russian space program has flown
them continuously.

Just because you want to re-use an orbital vehicle doesn't mean it has to
have wings. Unless the vehicle is able to reposition itself from its
landing location to launch location, you're still stuck with considerable
infrastructure to recover, service, and transport the vehicle. Wings on
your deorbit vehicle don't help those functions. They allow pin-point
precision landings...but if you're just going to land out in the desert,
does it really make a difference? If you're aloft for more than one orbit,
you are not going to be able to land at your departure point until about 12
hours later.

For the most part, American capsule landings were within sight of the
recovery base. Isn't that accuracy enough?

However, wings may well have some good application to an orbital vehicle:
They can be used to change orbit planes by aeromaneuvering. That means you
dip into the atmosphere deeply enough to get some 'bite,' then deflect your
orbit aerodynamically. You'll need thrust to bring your perigee back up,
but that's a heck of a lot less than all but the most minor orbital plane
changes. So Burt might keep the wings for OrbitOne.

To me, Rutan's shuttlecock mode is an outstanding engineering solution to
ANOTHER re-entry problem....one which he might re-think, by the time he
gets to the problems of an orbital vehicle.

The Shuttlecock wasn't the only solution to the stable-reentry problem. A
split-flap system would have worked just as well, and would not have
required as wide a movement range.

But...a split-flap system would have imposed the G-loads on the occupants
in the eyeballs-out mode! In other words, the nose of the craft would be
pointing down, and the pilot would have been hanging on his straps during
5G acceleration.

Instead, in the shuttlecock mode, the nose of the vehicle is high, with the
G-loads being supported by the pilot's seat. Great solution to two
problems...

It remains to be seen whether the increased complexity of a similar system
designed for orbital re-entry will overcome the simplicity of a basic heat
shield.

By the way, NASA has "Astronauts," Russia has "Cosmonauts." We need a name
for the ordinary folks who fly on SpaceShipOne:

I hereby suggest "Commonauts" for those lucky SOBs who get to ride Burt's
space bird.

Ron Wanttaja

[Richard Lamb]

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
>
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 12:09:46 -0500, Big John > wrote:
>
> >On 23 Jun 2004 04:30:55 GMT, (Regnirps) wrote:
> >>
> >>I don't know as I'd call Paul Allen and Rutan average joes.
> >
> >I hear they put their pants on one leg at a time.
>
> Sure, I bet Paul Allen's valet dresses him one leg at a time, just like
> mine does. :-)
>
> Ron "Off to the Drone's Club!" Wanttaja

Missed me! (Dr. Pepper - still in the glass!)

[Richard Lamb]

B2431 wrote:
>
>
> >Date: 6/23/2004 8:40 PM Central Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> >Matt
> >
> >My computer bombed so this may go as a dup?
> >
> >I have thousands of hours in jet fighters breathing 100% oxy.
> >
> >We had all kinds of electrical stuff in cockpit(s) and aircraft. High
> >power Radar, Radio's, etc., etc.
> >.
> >
> >Big John
> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~
> >On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 18:28:37 -0400, Matt Whiting
> > wrote:
> >
> >>Richard Lamb wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> In the aftermath of the Apollo 1 fire, NASA took a year (and $75 mil)
> >>> to redesign the space craft, mature their mental attitudes, and yes,
> >>> did come back with a much safer vehicle.
> >>
> >>Yes, but I still wonder how anyone in their right might would use a
> >>nearly pure oxygen atmosphere in a vehicle full of humans and electrical
> >>equipment...
> >>
> >>Matt
>
> The difference is Apollo 1 was flooded with pure O2 where jet fighters push O2
> from a LOX converter to a face mask. Big difference. The only electronics in
> the mask is a microphone.
>
> Having said that the electrical systems in Apollo 1 were poorly routed and
> protected.
> It was an accident waiting to happen.
>
> Dan. U.S. Air Force, retired

Aaaaaaaaand, pure O2 pressurized at 15 PSI...

That's called a (low pressure) fuel air bomb these days.

[Richard Lamb]

Thanks for the note, Ron.
"Angle of Attack" is next on the list.

This is the first reference I've seen to a likely probably cause
(open connector) of the Apollo One fire.

Changing subjects abruptly...

I haven't seen all of "From the Earth to the Moon" episodes,
but I throughly enjoyed the one about the LEM.

That little monster fascinates me.

Any obsessive compulsive engineers dreamiest nightmare.

So delicate it was not possible to even stand in it (on Earth)
without dammaging it.

Probably the scariest machine ever flown...

But it never failed.

Just plain awesome work.

Richard

[Tim Ward]

"Richard Lamb" > wrote in message
...
> Thanks for the note, Ron.
> "Angle of Attack" is next on the list.
>
> This is the first reference I've seen to a likely probably cause
> (open connector) of the Apollo One fire.
>
> Changing subjects abruptly...
>
> I haven't seen all of "From the Earth to the Moon" episodes,
> but I throughly enjoyed the one about the LEM.

Yup. I love it when the camera pulls back and there's all those pink balls
on the roof.
They are (or were) available as a boxed set of VHS tapes.
My wife bought them for me, I've watched them all several times.
They are _all_ very good. Highly recommended.

Tim Ward

[David Munday]

On 24 Jun 2004 01:35:58 GMT, (Regnirps) wrote:

(Steve VanSickle)
>
>>This particular *design* won't work, yes, but why not the "method" (i.e.
>>moving surfaces to make for a "hands off" reentry)?
>
>I suppose it can be dome somehow, but you are talking 18,000 mph instead of
>3,000. If there is a way to skim along and slowly loose energy I'd love to find
>it. But as it now stands, as you lose energy you start to drop into more
>atmosphere and more drag and loose it faster and drop faster and more heat
>and....
>
>Anyway, an ninformed quick calculation. Kinetic energy is proportional to the
>square of the velocity. So, 18,000 mph is six times faster than 3,000 mph but
>you will have 36 times as much kinetic energy, which will become heat (mostly I
>think).
>
>-- Charlie Springer

You've captured a large portion of the problem.

First let me say that Hypersonics and Reentry are not my field, so
what I say is necessarily of a general nature and may miss the
details.

The higher you go the more potential energy you've got to get rid of
in re-entry. As you move from sub-orbital through low earth orbit
(Shuttle) to high earth orbit to lunar return and beyond you end up
with more and more energy to get rid of. I believe it's significantly
worse than just the additional potential energy because of increasing
orbital velocity. I defer to our resident orbit wonk on the point,
but I seem to remember that the higher your circular orbit the higher
your orbital velocity. I don't even want to think about elliptic
orbits, they make my head hurt. But the higher you go you gain
kinetic energy as well as additional potential energy. All of this
has to go to heat if you want to end up at zero velocity by the time
you reach the dirt.

Reentry trajectories are often depicted on velocity-altitude plots.
These have velocity across the x-axis and altitude going up. A
vehicle arrives at the upper edge of the atmosphere with more velocity
the higher it comes from. so it comes in the top of the plot at a
greater entry speed. If you plot the trajectories we have data for
you see that Mercury and Gemini and Apollo move progressively to the
right on the plots. They begin with more and more energy. Apollo is
the case we have with the highest entry speed and the worst
atmospheric heating problem.

As you move to the right (move from sub orbital, to higher orbits,
etc) you move into regions where the thermochemistry get more and more
difficult. As you move to the right you enter regions where Oxygen
disassociates, then Nitrogen disassociates, then ionization occurs.
SS1's Mach 3 peak velocity avoids nearly all of that. At Mach 3 the
regime is arguably not Hypersonic at all. (The boundary between
supersonic and hypersonic is not a well defined line.)

As you move faster than SS1 and into the Hypersonic regime you end up
being far more concerned with heating problems than aerodynamic ones.
As a case in point, when the shuttle burned up over Texas the peak
dynamic pressure was 75 lbs per square foot. Not much. All the
trouble came from the viscous heating at those Mach numbers.

One additional factor which bears on the shuttlecock concept is that
in the hypersonic regime the heating problem gets worse as the leading
radius of curvature gets smaller. This is why vehicles come back
blunt side forward. Never say never, but I suspect that unless they
are made of pure unobtaneum the leading edges of the shuttlecock's
"fletching" would burn right off once you got up past Mach 5 or so.

With enough ablative material you might be able to counteract this,
but as you move up in speed other techniques of attitude control will
begin to look more attractive. The ESA is planning a vehicle which
will test aerodynamic control of attitude. It's called Cheops or
something like that, and they were testing models of it in the Mach 6
tunnel while I was at von Karman last year.

--
David Munday -
Webpage: http://www.ase.uc.edu/~munday
"Adopt, Adapt, and Improve" -- Motto of the Round Table

[Matt Whiting]

Big John wrote:

> Matt
>
> My computer bombed so this may go as a dup?
>
> I have thousands of hours in jet fighters breathing 100% oxy.
>
> We had all kinds of electrical stuff in cockpit(s) and aircraft. High
> power Radar, Radio's, etc., etc.

They filled the entire cockpit area with pure oxygen? I've never heard
oa a fighter aircraft designed that way. Which model are you talking about?


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

B2431 wrote:


>>Date: 6/23/2004 8:40 PM Central Daylight Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>
>>Matt
>>
>>My computer bombed so this may go as a dup?
>>
>>I have thousands of hours in jet fighters breathing 100% oxy.
>>
>>We had all kinds of electrical stuff in cockpit(s) and aircraft. High
>>power Radar, Radio's, etc., etc.
>>.
>>
>>Big John
>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~
>>On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 18:28:37 -0400, Matt Whiting
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Richard Lamb wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>In the aftermath of the Apollo 1 fire, NASA took a year (and $75 mil)
>>>>to redesign the space craft, mature their mental attitudes, and yes,
>>>>did come back with a much safer vehicle.
>>>
>>>Yes, but I still wonder how anyone in their right might would use a
>>>nearly pure oxygen atmosphere in a vehicle full of humans and electrical
>>>equipment...
>>>
>>>Matt
>
>
> The difference is Apollo 1 was flooded with pure O2 where jet fighters push O2
> from a LOX converter to a face mask. Big difference. The only electronics in
> the mask is a microphone.
>
> Having said that the electrical systems in Apollo 1 were poorly routed and
> protected.
> It was an accident waiting to happen.

Even without the poor electrical system design, a static discharge could
have started a fire. Having a pure oxygen environment was simply stupid
and the risk far outweighed the benefits.


Matt

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 20:59:00 -0700, "Tim Ward" >
wrote:
>>
>> I haven't seen all of "From the Earth to the Moon" episodes,
>> but I throughly enjoyed the one about the LEM.
>
>Yup. I love it when the camera pulls back and there's all those pink balls
>on the roof.
>They are (or were) available as a boxed set of VHS tapes.
>My wife bought them for me, I've watched them all several times.
>They are _all_ very good. Highly recommended.

My in-laws bought the DVD set for me about three years back, and I've
watched 'em through at least twice already...and started a third after
reading _Angle of Attack_. When you own the set, you can't just watch one
episode.

"Spider," the one about the LEM, is my absolute favorite. It illustrates,
better than anything I could say, what it's like to work in the industry
when you get a living, breathing, metal-cutting spacecraft program.

When they showed the sequence where the Program Manager watches the crane
carry off his 'baby' to be shipped away, it looked like he was damn near
crying. Just like I was when I said goodbye to one of my 'babies.'

This was in a clean room atop the launch tower, and they were closing out
the payload fairing. I signed the clipboard (I was the company rep), then
walked away and punched the button for the elevator. The ride down was a
bit rough.

Had more fun several months earlier, when we were getting ready to ship it
from the factory. This was early in the digital photography days, and our
program had a Mk 1 digital...cost $10,000, and had all of a 1 MB array.
Pretty hot stuff at the time, though. Anyway, with a sideline of (film)
photography and a love for goofy hardware, I had ended up with a sideline
of being the program photographer.

On the day before the unit was to be encapsulated, we Team Leaders decided
to get our pictures taken next to the hardware. So we trooped to the clean
room and put on our bunny suits, booties, and mobcaps. I hauled in the
digital camera and tripod. We picked the best spot, and selected where we
were going to stand.

Then I ran into trouble. I'd taken tons of pictures with that digital, but
had never used the self-timer function. As far as I could tell, the darn
thing had only a five-second delay. Not enough for me to join my fellow
team leaders for the group shot. No one else around; and it would take
fifteen minutes to get someone into the room due to the suit-up and
pre-cleaning procedure.

So I shot a couple of the rest of the crew, then told them to wait a
moment. I triggered the timer, ran towards the group, and at the mental
count of four I jumped into the air and clicked my heels.

Turned out pretty good. Got my best side, even.

I got my own picture taken with it by one of the other guys. There was an
interesting post-script, though. When I downloaded the pictures, I found
that I had set myself up so that a certain wall poster was in the
background. It was a full-size portrait of a science fiction character.

So there I stand, next to the hardware, in bunny suit and mobcap, with
Captain Jean-Luc Picard looking disdainfully over my shoulder....


Ron Wanttaja

[Matt Whiting]

Harry K wrote:

> Matt Whiting > wrote in message >...
>
>>Ron Wanttaja wrote:
>>
>>
>>>It took about forty years from the date the first government-sponsored
>>>manned aerospacecraft left the atmosphere and glided down to a safe landing
>>>in the California desert to the successful flight of the first private one.
>>>If the same timescale was used for conventional airplanes, the first
>>>privately-owned aircraft would have flown in 1943.
>>
>>I never knew that the Wright Flyer was gummint sponsored...
>>
>>
>>Matt
>
>
> Looks like you (and others) missed the little "if" in Ron's post.
>
> Harry K

No, I didn't miss it and I doubt the others did either. The comparison
was time delta of the first GOVERNMENT sponsored flight of a spacecraft
to the first private one. If the same timescale was applied to
conventional airplanes, you would be comparing the first GOVERNMENT
sponsored flight of a conventional airplane to the first private one.
Backing 40 years off of 1943 yields 1903, which is NOT when the first
GOVERNMENT sponsored airplane flew successfully, so the comparison is
completely invalid.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Harry K wrote:

> Matt Whiting > wrote in message >...
>
>>Richard Lamb wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>In the aftermath of the Apollo 1 fire, NASA took a year (and $75 mil)
>>>to redesign the space craft, mature their mental attitudes, and yes,
>>>did come back with a much safer vehicle.
>>
>>Yes, but I still wonder how anyone in their right might would use a
>>nearly pure oxygen atmosphere in a vehicle full of humans and electrical
>>equipment...
>>
>>Matt
>
>
> If the Russians had just informed us of their loss due to the same
> problem earlier it may not have happened.

That's the lamest excuse I've heard lately. If we hadn't made a stupid
design decision it wouldn't have happened. Who knows, maybe we were
copying the Russians.


Matt

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 04:50:24 GMT, (David
Munday) wrote:

>The higher you go the more potential energy you've got to get rid of
>in re-entry. As you move from sub-orbital through low earth orbit
>(Shuttle) to high earth orbit to lunar return and beyond you end up
>with more and more energy to get rid of. I believe it's significantly
>worse than just the additional potential energy because of increasing
>orbital velocity. I defer to our resident orbit wonk on the point...

Hmmfff. Weren't referring to me, I hope. :-)

I ain't really an orbit type, though I've picked up a bit over the years.

Anyway, you do have it backwards...orbital velocity decreases with circular
orbit altitude. ~25,200 FPS at 200 nm, ~10,100 FPS at geosynchronous
altitude (~19320 NM).

You're right about the potential energy, though. Dropping from
geosynchronous altitude to ground level, you'll hit the atmosphere at over
23,000 miles per hour. And if you're an old-timer like BOb, you'll have
the turn-signal flashing the entire way....

Ron Wanttaja

[B2431]

(David Munday)

<snip>

>One additional factor which bears on the shuttlecock concept is that
>in the hypersonic regime the heating problem gets worse as the leading
>radius of curvature gets smaller. This is why vehicles come back
>blunt side forward.

<snip>

>David Munday -
>Webpage: http://www.ase.uc.edu/~munday

I believe the shuttle comes in pointed end first albeit nose high.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 01:06:23 -0400, Matt Whiting >
wrote:


>No, I didn't miss it and I doubt the others did either. The comparison
>was time delta of the first GOVERNMENT sponsored flight of a spacecraft
>to the first private one. If the same timescale was applied to
>conventional airplanes, you would be comparing the first GOVERNMENT
>sponsored flight of a conventional airplane to the first private one.
>Backing 40 years off of 1943 yields 1903, which is NOT when the first
>GOVERNMENT sponsored airplane flew successfully, so the comparison is
>completely invalid.

The purpose of the comparison was merely to illustrate the time spans
involved, not to try to contrast the difference between government vs.
private efforts. A less controversial comparison would have been along the
lines of "...it was as if no else other than the Wright brothers had been
technically capable of building an airplane until 1943."

Rutan's achievement is tremendous, but let's not forget, he's standing on
the shoulders of giants. SpaceShipOne's success is due to Rutan's
brilliant combining of today's cutting-edge technology. He probably has
more computing power on his desktop than NASA had in 1960. There wasn't
any wind-tunnel testing done on SpaceShipOne; it was all done on a
computer.

Yet, barely ten years ago, the first flight of an improved launch vehicle
failed because the aerodynamic models used weren't accurate enough. That
company trusted the computer model and didn't do any wind tunnel testing.
The launch vehicle and satellite end up in the drink. Oops.

Burt Rutan was fully aware of this instance...after all, his company built
part of that rocket's structure (which was in *no* way involved in the
failure). Yet, in ten short years, modeling capabilities have improved to
the point where he felt confident in risking a manned flight on
computational data only.

Rutan did one heck of a job, but some folks in this newsgroup have used it
as an excuse to sneer at the people who developed some of the technologies
that made it possible. If suborbital space flight was so doggone easy, the
first private space launch would have been four years after the X-15, not
forty.

Ron Wanttaja

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 23:16:51 -0700, wrote:

>On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 05:28:59 GMT, Ron Wanttaja >
>wrote:
>
>::
>:You're right about the potential energy, though. Dropping from
>:geosynchronous altitude to ground level, you'll hit the atmosphere at over
>:23,000 miles per hour. And if you're an old-timer like BOb, you'll have
>:the turn-signal flashing the entire way....
>
>I wish someone would revive Moose
>http://www.boggsspace.com/strange_but_true.htm

A moose bit my sister once...

Ron "The person responsible for this quote has been sacked" Wanttaja

[Richard Lamb]

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
>
> Anyway, you do have it backwards...orbital velocity decreases with circular
> orbit altitude. ~25,200 FPS at 200 nm, ~10,100 FPS at geosynchronous
> altitude (~19320 NM).
>
> You're right about the potential energy, though. Dropping from
> geosynchronous altitude to ground level, you'll hit the atmosphere at over
> 23,000 miles per hour. And if you're an old-timer like BOb, you'll have
> the turn-signal flashing the entire way....
>
> Ron Wanttaja

So?
To catch up with the guy in front of you, you first slow down?

[B2431]

>From: Matt Whiting
>Date: 6/24/2004 12:07 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Harry K wrote:
>
>> Matt Whiting > wrote in message
>...
>>
>>>Richard Lamb wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>In the aftermath of the Apollo 1 fire, NASA took a year (and $75 mil)
>>>>to redesign the space craft, mature their mental attitudes, and yes,
>>>>did come back with a much safer vehicle.
>>>
>>>Yes, but I still wonder how anyone in their right might would use a
>>>nearly pure oxygen atmosphere in a vehicle full of humans and electrical
>>>equipment...
>>>
>>>Matt
>>
>>
>> If the Russians had just informed us of their loss due to the same
>> problem earlier it may not have happened.
>
>That's the lamest excuse I've heard lately. If we hadn't made a stupid
>design decision it wouldn't have happened. Who knows, maybe we were
>copying the Russians.
>
>
>Matt


Matt, the Soviets had a flash fire in a capsule (during a mission if memory
serves) with fatal results. The Soviets never mentioned it and it occured prior
to Apollo 1. Maybe NASA could have learned from that.

Please reread what was written, no one was blaming the Soviets for Apollo 1.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[nauga]

Ron Wanttaja wrote...

> A moose bit my sister once...

Why not try a holiday in Sweden this year?

Dave 'fruit bats and breakfast cereals' Hyde

[Darrel Toepfer]

Ron Wanttaja wrote:

> By the way, NASA has "Astronauts," Russia has "Cosmonauts." We need a name
> for the ordinary folks who fly on SpaceShipOne:
>
> I hereby suggest "Commonauts" for those lucky SOBs who get to ride Burt's
> space bird.

Can't they be "Space"men? er. Spacepeople, what was I thinking... <G>

[Harry K]

Matt Whiting > wrote in message >...
> Harry K wrote:
>
> > Matt Whiting > wrote in message >...
> >
> >>Ron Wanttaja wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>It took about forty years from the date the first government-sponsored
> >>>manned aerospacecraft left the atmosphere and glided down to a safe landing
> >>>in the California desert to the successful flight of the first private one.
> >>>If the same timescale was used for conventional airplanes, the first
> >>>privately-owned aircraft would have flown in 1943.
> >>
> >>I never knew that the Wright Flyer was gummint sponsored...
> >>
> >>
> >>Matt
> >
> >
> > Looks like you (and others) missed the little "if" in Ron's post.
> >
> > Harry K
>
> No, I didn't miss it and I doubt the others did either. The comparison
> was time delta of the first GOVERNMENT sponsored flight of a spacecraft
> to the first private one. If the same timescale was applied to
> conventional airplanes, you would be comparing the first GOVERNMENT
> sponsored flight of a conventional airplane to the first private one.
> Backing 40 years off of 1943 yields 1903, which is NOT when the first
> GOVERNMENT sponsored airplane flew successfully, so the comparison is
> completely invalid.
>
> Matt

And if you re-read that one line starting with 'if' you will see that
he never claimed that. He was saying that if conventional flight had
been developed by the government it would have been 1943 before it
happened.

Harry K

[G EddieA95]

ISTR that there was A1P a plan to orbit an X15, using iirc a Titan rocket,
reenter, and parachute the pilot to ground. What TPS would have been used?
Might such work be of value on SS2?

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 08:33:29 GMT, Richard Lamb >
wrote:

>Ron Wanttaja wrote:
>>
>> Anyway, you do have it backwards...orbital velocity decreases with circular
>> orbit altitude. ~25,200 FPS at 200 nm, ~10,100 FPS at geosynchronous
>> altitude (~19320 NM).
>>
>> You're right about the potential energy, though. Dropping from
>> geosynchronous altitude to ground level, you'll hit the atmosphere at over
>> 23,000 miles per hour. And if you're an old-timer like BOb, you'll have
>> the turn-signal flashing the entire way....
>
>So?
>To catch up with the guy in front of you, you first slow down?

Precisely. Think of it in terms of angular rate. If you're both in the
same 90-minute equatorial orbit, you're traveling around the Earth at an
angular rate of four degrees of longitude per minute. To catch up to the
guy in front, you need to increase your angular rate, e.g., an orbit with a
shorter period.

The angular rate is inversely proportional to orbit altitude...LEO (Low
Earth Orbit) satellites are at a few hundred miles and go around the Earth
in 90 minutes or so, but Geosynchronous satellites are at ~19300 NM and
take a full 24 hours to orbit the Earth. The velocities needed to maintain
the orbit are lower, and the circumference of the orbits is longer...you're
not only flying slower to start with, but the distance you have to travel
for one orbit is longer.

So... if your buddy is a few hundred miles ahead of you in LEO, you slow
up. This lowers your average orbit altitude and decreases your orbit
period. You've now got a period, say, of 88 minutes and an angular rate of
4.1 degrees a minute. Every minute, you're 0.1 degrees (roughly 6 nautical
miles, in LEO) closer. You're also slightly below your buddy, but when you
catch up, you increase your speed, which raises your orbit.

Mind you, if your friend had been only a hundred feet in front of you, you
just would have popped your little thrusters and flown directly to him. It
will perturb your orbit, but would be minor compared to normal orbit
maintenance maneuvers. Compare it to having to climb 10 feet in an
airplane vs. 10,000 feet. You'll just tug the stick back slightly for the
first case, but add power for the second.

Otherwise, though, orbit mechanics is *definitely* non-intuitive to an
aircraft pilot. In an airplane, we're always concerned about how far we can
fly, and can easily change directions if we desire. The situation is
exactly opposite in orbit... the vehicle has nearly unlimited range, but a
change in compass course is prohibitively expensive.

Ron Wanttaja

[anonymous coward]

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 02:01:07 +0000, B2431 wrote:


>>Date: 6/23/2004 8:40 PM Central Daylight Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>
>>Matt
>>
>>My computer bombed so this may go as a dup?
>>
>>I have thousands of hours in jet fighters breathing 100% oxy.
>>
>>We had all kinds of electrical stuff in cockpit(s) and aircraft. High
>>power Radar, Radio's, etc., etc.
>>.
>>
>>Big John
>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~
>>On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 18:28:37 -0400, Matt Whiting
> wrote:
>>
>>>Richard Lamb wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> In the aftermath of the Apollo 1 fire, NASA took a year (and $75 mil)
>>>> to redesign the space craft, mature their mental attitudes, and yes,
>>>> did come back with a much safer vehicle.
>>>
>>>Yes, but I still wonder how anyone in their right might would use a
>>>nearly pure oxygen atmosphere in a vehicle full of humans and electrical
>>>equipment...
>>>
>>>Matt
>
> The difference is Apollo 1 was flooded with pure O2 where jet fighters push O2
> from a LOX converter to a face mask. Big difference.

Even then, Chuck Yeager get half his face burnt in a fire when he ejected,
IIRC.

AC

[Matt Whiting]

Harry K wrote:

> And if you re-read that one line starting with 'if' you will see that
> he never claimed that. He was saying that if conventional flight had
> been developed by the government it would have been 1943 before it
> happened.

Well, from Ron's later comments I don't think that is what he said or
meant, but whatever....


Matt

[pacplyer]

Ron,

No one's sneering at brilliant aerospace Columbus types like you guys
Ron. But the era of expensive government-only exploration is over.
Burt Rutan is Mayflower. He's trying to get the rest of us slobs over
to the New World for a new life. What Burt *has* always sneered at is
the lack of follow through by the government so that all this
fantastic technology will trickle down to the common man. The common
man is what Burt has always been about. And this always seems to lead
to hard feelings by people who are entrenched in doing things the same
expensive government slow-turtle way all the time that invariable
always leads to the ignorant masses clamoring for cancellation of all
those expensive unnecessary space missions to places we have already
been.

Burt Rutan is, if you like, our de facto Robin Hood of Aviation and
now, Space. Most of us have dreamed all our lives of the emergence
of a "Dutch East India" type company that would greatly supplant the
government's stranglehold of the high seas (or rather in this case:
the high altitudes.) I just didn't think I would be lucky enough to
see it in my lifetime.

The famed Dutch East India Company didn't invent the lateen sail or
the sternpost rudder either, but their improvement of those basic
concepts lead to the greatest commercial conquest the world had ever
seen of the known globe. Burt does the same thing with publicly
available NASA data, e.g. winglet on the vari ezie, lifting body data
on Space Ship One.

Enjoyed your post very much Ron, glad to see you aren't using Acme's
disappearing/reappearing ink anymore, aye "Dr a.a.com."

pacplyer



Ron Wanttaja > wrote in message >...
> On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 01:06:23 -0400, Matt Whiting >
> wrote:
>
>
> >No, I didn't miss it and I doubt the others did either. The comparison
> >was time delta of the first GOVERNMENT sponsored flight of a spacecraft
> >to the first private one. If the same timescale was applied to
> >conventional airplanes, you would be comparing the first GOVERNMENT
> >sponsored flight of a conventional airplane to the first private one.
> >Backing 40 years off of 1943 yields 1903, which is NOT when the first
> >GOVERNMENT sponsored airplane flew successfully, so the comparison is
> >completely invalid.
>
> The purpose of the comparison was merely to illustrate the time spans
> involved, not to try to contrast the difference between government vs.
> private efforts. A less controversial comparison would have been along the
> lines of "...it was as if no else other than the Wright brothers had been
> technically capable of building an airplane until 1943."
>
> Rutan's achievement is tremendous, but let's not forget, he's standing on
> the shoulders of giants. SpaceShipOne's success is due to Rutan's
> brilliant combining of today's cutting-edge technology. He probably has
> more computing power on his desktop than NASA had in 1960. There wasn't
> any wind-tunnel testing done on SpaceShipOne; it was all done on a
> computer.
>
> Yet, barely ten years ago, the first flight of an improved launch vehicle
> failed because the aerodynamic models used weren't accurate enough. That
> company trusted the computer model and didn't do any wind tunnel testing.
> The launch vehicle and satellite end up in the drink. Oops.
>
> Burt Rutan was fully aware of this instance...after all, his company built
> part of that rocket's structure (which was in *no* way involved in the
> failure). Yet, in ten short years, modeling capabilities have improved to
> the point where he felt confident in risking a manned flight on
> computational data only.
>
> Rutan did one heck of a job, but some folks in this newsgroup have used it
> as an excuse to sneer at the people who developed some of the technologies
> that made it possible. If suborbital space flight was so doggone easy, the
> first private space launch would have been four years after the X-15, not
> forty.
>
> Ron Wanttaja

[Rich]

(pacplyer) wrote

> I forgot to mention that due to the wild S-turns the vehicle's apogee
> topped out only 400 feet above 100K! That was according to Edwards
> preliminary telemetry. That's so close I wonder if the other
> contenders for the X-prize will try to challenge the data?

I don't beleive this flight counts towards the X-prize. The two
X-Prize flights must both be made with either two passengers or the
equivalent weight on board. This was a test flight.

Rich

[pacplyer]

Ron Wanttaja > wrote <snip>
> Second...and, probably more-easily overcome...there's the G-load issue.
> IIRC, Melville experienced about 5 Gs, maximum, during re-entry. 5 Gs from
> a re-entry speed of Mach 3 vs. a re-entry speed of Mach 25. Hmmmm...think
> we'll have to trim the size of shuttlecock tail. :-)

Actually it was 6 G's

>
> Finally, we get to the heretical part of this posting: Why wings at all,
> for an orbital mission?
>
> Forty years ago, a few square feet of ablative heat shield was good enough
> to handle most manned space missions. The Russian space program has flown
> them continuously.

You have to keep in mind the objective of Burt's program. Hitting the
ground hard with frozen parachutes might be O.K. for a Ruskie
government pilot, but it's just too risky for common carriage
passengers; the Russians have thumped to death an otherwise successful
mission crew at the last few seconds more than once. Splashing down
at sea might be O.K for a U.S. military pilot, but the expense of
recovery (ships etc,) and possibility of drowning are increasing the
complexity of the mission. Again your government sanctioned solutions
are contrary to everything Burt stands for. On SS1 Burt has dispensed
with parachute heaters, window heat, heavy RCS, expensive launch
facilities, ground simulators, the list goes on and on. And Rutan's
endeavor cost in the ten's of millions, while the illustrious
government shuttle costs two billion just to build and an additional
one-hundred million per launch. Now I love the shuttle, but it's too
old and just too complex to operate commercially. Burt will
undoubtedly offer scaled up orbital versions that can handle
pax/commercial payloads if the gov weenies and corporate CEO idiots
leave him alone all the way to fruition. E.g. the Beech Starship that
failed commercially is not the same as the prototype we saw flying at
Mojave. Burt's is devoid of all the heavy crap that Beech loaded down
the production model with, which in turn with all the gov and
corporate interference ran the cost out of sight (up to bizjet
prices.)

>
> Just because you want to re-use an orbital vehicle doesn't mean it has to
> have wings. Unless the vehicle is able to reposition itself from its
> landing location to launch location, you're still stuck with considerable
> infrastructure to recover, service, and transport the vehicle. Wings on
> your deorbit vehicle don't help those functions. They allow pin-point
> precision landings...but if you're just going to land out in the desert,
> does it really make a difference? If you're aloft for more than one orbit,
> you are not going to be able to land at your departure point until about 12
> hours later.


The base being in the desert is really immaterial. The purpose of a
winged vehicle is that it can deorbit burn and abort into any public
airport in the world. Again no recovery sites required. Again cost
is low. Mojave is not maintained by Scaled or Vulcan. It is a public
airport open to anyone. You do it any other way and now you have a
recovery range to prepare, maintain, pay for, and at all costs reach
with the vehicle. I know the purpose of a gov contractor is to run
costs out of sight so these cost-saving concepts will probably be
alien to you for a while. ;-)


>
> For the most part, American capsule landings were within sight of the
> recovery base. Isn't that accuracy enough?

In sight of a multi-billion dollar aircraft carrier? Do you have any
idea how much an old non-nuke recovery ship burns? What about the
cost of the crew alone? How is that efficient?


<snip good aero stuff here>


> By the way, NASA has "Astronauts," Russia has "Cosmonauts." We need a name
> for the ordinary folks who fly on SpaceShipOne:
>
> I hereby suggest "Commonauts" for those lucky SOBs who get to ride Burt's
> space bird.
>
> Ron Wanttaja

Naa. These people are colonizing space in a much more efficient
manner than the government ever could. For the first time manned space
is going to be commercially viable. I would think "Colonaut" would
be a much better name for them.

Cheers "aye"

pacplyer

[[email protected]]

On 24 Jun 2004 10:11:45 -0700, (pacplyer) wrote:

>Ron,
>
>No one's sneering at brilliant aerospace Columbus types like you guys
>Ron. But the era of expensive government-only exploration is over.
>Burt Rutan is Mayflower. He's trying to get the rest of us slobs over
>to the New World for a new life. What Burt *has* always sneered at is
>the lack of follow through by the government so that all this
>fantastic technology will trickle down to the common man. The common
>man is what Burt has always been about.

Well, yabut, not everyone wants to go into space. Sure it's grand
what he's doing and he's being wonderfully unique about his approach,
but it's freakishly expensive to do and horrifyingly dangerous.

I wish he'd come back down to earth and help reduce the cost of
ordinary fixed wing flying, instead of spending millions on something
that incredibly few people will benefit from.

Corky Scott

[Del Rawlins]

In > pacplyer wrote:
> Ron Wanttaja > wrote <snip>

>> By the way, NASA has "Astronauts," Russia has "Cosmonauts." We need
>> a name for the ordinary folks who fly on SpaceShipOne: I hereby
>> suggest "Commonauts" for those lucky SOBs who get to ride Burt's
>> space bird. Ron Wanttaja
>
> Naa. These people are colonizing space in a much more efficient
> manner than the government ever could. For the first time manned space
> is going to be commercially viable. I would think "Colonaut" would
> be a much better name for them.

That's appropriate, because just the thought of going up in one of those
things is enough to tie my colon in a knot.

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

[Rich S.]

> wrote in message
...
>
> Well, yabut, not everyone wants to go into space. Sure it's grand
> what he's doing and he's being wonderfully unique about his approach,
> but it's freakishly expensive to do and horrifyingly dangerous.
>
> I wish he'd come back down to earth and help reduce the cost of
> ordinary fixed wing flying, instead of spending millions on something
> that incredibly few people will benefit from.

Corky............

Unless you can figger out some way to keep humans from breeding like
lemmings, the only other alternative for survival is more real estate.
"Incredibly few people"? This is the most important thing for the future of
us ALL.

Rich S.

[Dillon Pyron]

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 16:32:15 -0400,
wrote:

>On 24 Jun 2004 10:11:45 -0700, (pacplyer) wrote:
>
>>Ron,
>>
>>No one's sneering at brilliant aerospace Columbus types like you guys
>>Ron. But the era of expensive government-only exploration is over.
>>Burt Rutan is Mayflower. He's trying to get the rest of us slobs over
>>to the New World for a new life. What Burt *has* always sneered at is
>>the lack of follow through by the government so that all this
>>fantastic technology will trickle down to the common man. The common
>>man is what Burt has always been about.
>
>Well, yabut, not everyone wants to go into space. Sure it's grand
>what he's doing and he's being wonderfully unique about his approach,
>but it's freakishly expensive to do and horrifyingly dangerous.

That's what people told my ancestors when they shipped out to
Jamestown.

>
>I wish he'd come back down to earth and help reduce the cost of
>ordinary fixed wing flying, instead of spending millions on something
>that incredibly few people will benefit from.

And you don't think flying is some that "incredibly few people will
benefit from"? Better to demand that he spend the $20 M on cancer
research, if you want to get all puffed up. Me, I think he's barely
started. I'll never make it to space, but I hope my neice does.

>
>Corky Scott

--
dillon

When I was a kid, I thought the angel's name was Hark
and the horse's name was Bob.

[David Munday]

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 05:28:59 GMT, Ron Wanttaja >
wrote:

>Anyway, you do have it backwards...orbital velocity decreases with circular
>orbit altitude. ~25,200 FPS at 200 nm, ~10,100 FPS at geosynchronous
>altitude (~19320 NM).
>
>You're right about the potential energy, though. Dropping from
>geosynchronous altitude to ground level, you'll hit the atmosphere at over
>23,000 miles per hour. And if you're an old-timer like BOb, you'll have
>the turn-signal flashing the entire way....

Thanks. I've had an aversion to orbits ever since an undergraduate
dynamics final exam question: "There is an object over the pole. It's
polar coordinates and velocity are _______. Should we launch a
counterstrike?" A question from a world which is now mostly gone.
RWR, RIP.

An example of the velocity-altitude plot I mentioned is at:
http://www.ase.uc.edu/~munday/pics/trajectories.ppt

You can see Mach 3 is a long way from the STS (Shuttle) LEO return.

I assume AOTV is that winged orbit transfer trick you refered to, Ron.

--
David Munday -
Webpage: http://www.ase.uc.edu/~munday
"Adopt, Adapt, and Improve" -- Motto of the Round Table

[David Munday]

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 07:52:56 -0500, Darrel Toepfer
> wrote:

>Ron Wanttaja wrote:
>
>> By the way, NASA has "Astronauts," Russia has "Cosmonauts." We need a name
>> for the ordinary folks who fly on SpaceShipOne:
>>
>> I hereby suggest "Commonauts" for those lucky SOBs who get to ride Burt's
>> space bird.
>
>Can't they be "Space"men? er. Spacepeople, what was I thinking... <G>

"Please take me along,
I won't do anything wrong."

Dave "Byrds and Beas" Munday
--
David Munday -
Webpage: http://www.ase.uc.edu/~munday
"Adopt, Adapt, and Improve" -- Motto of the Round Table

[Ron Wanttaja]

On 24 Jun 2004 14:11:46 GMT, (G EddieA95) wrote:

>ISTR that there was A1P a plan to orbit an X15, using iirc a Titan rocket,
>reenter, and parachute the pilot to ground. What TPS would have been used?
>Might such work be of value on SS2?

I vaguely recall something along those lines, but don't know how far the
analysis got. About the same time the X-15 was flying, researchers
discovered that blunt...not needle-shapes...were the best solution for
re-entry. IIRC, the G-force is higher, but the heat is distributed over a
wider area. That's why the Mach 25 Shuttle has such a blunt profile
compared to, say, the Mach 2 Concorde.

Another concept was the Dyna-Soar, basically a mini-shuttle from the
mid-60s. It was an Air Force project. Don't really have any information
on why it was canceled, though a quickie look at one web page said it was
basically lack of a definitive mission and NASA's control of the manned
space program.

Years ago, touring Boeing Surplus, I found a lithograph of a painting of
Dyna-Soar at launch for sale. $5. Still got it.

Ron Wanttaja

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 15:47:49 +0100, anonymous coward
> wrote:

>> The difference is Apollo 1 was flooded with pure O2 where jet fighters push O2
>> from a LOX converter to a face mask. Big difference.
>
>Even then, Chuck Yeager get half his face burnt in a fire when he ejected,
>IIRC.

You're right, but he didn't get burned because of his oxygen mask. He got
hit in the face by the still-glowing rocket motor that had powered the
ejection seat.

Ron Wanttaja

[Richard Lamb]

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
>
> You're right about the potential energy, though. Dropping from
> geosynchronous altitude to ground level, you'll hit the atmosphere at over
> 23,000 miles per hour. And if you're an old-timer like BOb, you'll have
> the turn-signal flashing the entire way....
>
> Ron Wanttaja

Hey Ron, help me out some more here on
rec.aviation.homebuilt.spacecraft.

For the reentry phase from orbit...
For the sake of argument (and ignoring the increased fuel required)
wouldn't slowing down too much before reentry be a problem?

Steeper path, higher G load, and even more reentry heat?

Richard (air breathing, gravity bound) Lamb

[B2431]

>
>On 24 Jun 2004 10:11:45 -0700, (pacplyer) wrote:
>
>>Ron,
>>
>>No one's sneering at brilliant aerospace Columbus types like you guys
>>Ron. But the era of expensive government-only exploration is over.
>>Burt Rutan is Mayflower. He's trying to get the rest of us slobs over
>>to the New World for a new life. What Burt *has* always sneered at is
>>the lack of follow through by the government so that all this
>>fantastic technology will trickle down to the common man. The common
>>man is what Burt has always been about.
>
>Well, yabut, not everyone wants to go into space. Sure it's grand
>what he's doing and he's being wonderfully unique about his approach,
>but it's freakishly expensive to do and horrifyingly dangerous.
>
>I wish he'd come back down to earth and help reduce the cost of
>ordinary fixed wing flying, instead of spending millions on something
>that incredibly few people will benefit from.
>
>Corky Scott

Let's see, he's done quite a bit towards making aircraft cheaper with his
composite designs and innovations. Who knows what spinnoffs will come from this
program?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[anonymous coward]

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 01:03:19 +0000, Ron Wanttaja wrote:

> On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 15:47:49 +0100, anonymous coward
> > wrote:
>
>>> The difference is Apollo 1 was flooded with pure O2 where jet fighters push O2
>>> from a LOX converter to a face mask. Big difference.
>>
>>Even then, Chuck Yeager get half his face burnt in a fire when he ejected,
>>IIRC.
>
> You're right, but he didn't get burned because of his oxygen mask. He got
> hit in the face by the still-glowing rocket motor that had powered the
> ejection seat.

http://www.ejectionsite.com/f104seat.htm

has a paragraph about the accident. The motor started his suit burning,
but the oxygen made the fire burn much more fiercly.

AC

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 22:05:10 GMT, Dillon Pyron
> wrote:

>On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 16:32:15 -0400,
>wrote:

>>Well, yabut, not everyone wants to go into space. Sure it's grand
>>what he's doing and he's being wonderfully unique about his approach,
>>but it's freakishly expensive to do and horrifyingly dangerous.
>
>That's what people told my ancestors when they shipped out to
>Jamestown.

True, but when your ancestors arrived, they had atmosphere they could
breathe, water they could drink, wind that would power any ships they cared
to build from the wood that surrounded them, and fertile ground that would,
with luck, provide limited ready-to-eat food and allow them to grow the
foodstuffs they'd need to survive.

The solar system isn't suitable for colonization. Nowhere but on Earth can
humans survive without a HUGE infrastructure first being established. That
costs money; money not likely to be available without some sort of chance
of the investors receiving a return on the investment. Even if it's
government funded, most taxpayers will never benefit from it.

The keystone of that required infrastructure is reliable, low-cost,
*high-capacity* space transportation. Emphasis on 'high capacity.' I can
go out and buy a launch vehicle for $8 million, but all that gets me is
about 500 pounds into a 1000 mile circular orbit. Apollo made it to the
Moon, but with only enough infrastructure to support two humans for a few
days (plus a return trip, of course...not needed if the occupants are
colonists).

I'd be willing to bet that the rest of the infrastructure necessary to
support space colony life exists. We can probably develop movable
factories to manufacture air from lunar or martian soil, we can probably
come up with the hydroponic farms to grow food, and nuclear power can
provide the juice.

It's just the problem of *getting* it there. How much mass would have to
be soft-landed on the Moon to be able to send over a "colony kit," complete
with air-generators, power plants, water-distillers, air locks, structural
beams, and hydroponics farms sufficient to set up a vacuum-based colony
that'll support, say, 100 people. A half-ton per person, maybe?

Plus you have the assembly crew, who'll need air, power, water, and rations
until the colony is set up. Not to mention the lander itself, and the
mining equipment needed to dig up and process the hydrogen, oxygen, and
nitrogen-bearing ore that will have to be there to have any hope of the
colony being viable. We're probably talking a million pounds.

I agree with Rich that population is the world's biggest problem. But
terraforming the Sahara or the seabed is almost within the grasp of current
technology, while soft-landing a million pounds on the moon is not. The
Apollo LM weighed about 32,000 pounds and probably had about 25,000 pounds
of payload capacity (one-way trip). So you'd need ~40 Saturn Vs to set up
one 100-person colony.

To quote Larry Niven: "The entire universe is waiting for us to invent
anti-gravity." :-)

Ron Wanttaja

[anonymous coward]

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 14:24:23 -0700, Rich S. wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Well, yabut, not everyone wants to go into space. Sure it's grand
>> what he's doing and he's being wonderfully unique about his approach,
>> but it's freakishly expensive to do and horrifyingly dangerous.
>>
>> I wish he'd come back down to earth and help reduce the cost of
>> ordinary fixed wing flying, instead of spending millions on something
>> that incredibly few people will benefit from.
>
> Corky............
>
> Unless you can figger out some way to keep humans from breeding like
> lemmings,

Rich people have fewer kids, in general. In Europe our population is
falling through the floor. France even pays people to have children, and I
think Italy does too.

> the only other alternative for survival is more real estate.
> "Incredibly few people"? This is the most important thing for the future of
> us ALL.

I agree, but for slightly different reasons. Consider the amount of
resources it would take to move someone from earth to (say) Mars. It will
be a long time before we can do this using less resources than it would
take to let them and their progeny live out their lives on the Earth. I
don't see that it figures as a solution to overpopulation.

Whenever I turn on the TV I see stories about someone walking to the pole
alone; walking to the pole unsupported; walking to both poles; walking to
the poles backwards; mountain biking to the poles... We're running out of
original challenges; new places to explore - we need to go into space.

AC

[pacplyer]

(Rich) wrote in message >...
> (pacplyer) wrote
>
> > I forgot to mention that due to the wild S-turns the vehicle's apogee
> > topped out only 400 feet above 100KM! That was according to Edwards
> > preliminary telemetry. That's so close I wonder if the other
> > contenders for the X-prize will try to challenge the data?
>
> I don't beleive this flight counts towards the X-prize. The two
> X-Prize flights must both be made with either two passengers or the
> equivalent weight on board. This was a test flight.
>
> Rich

Yes, I believe you are correct Rich. Was listening to the 104.9 disk
jockey that was claiming this was the ten million dollar x-prize
attempt. But I believe you are correct on the plan. But if I was
Burt: I would have stuck in a couple of sand-filled mannequins and
claimed this was attempt #1 since it is so dangerous.

pac

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 01:03:41 GMT, Richard Lamb >
wrote:

>Hey Ron, help me out some more here on
>rec.aviation.homebuilt.spacecraft.
>
>For the reentry phase from orbit...
>For the sake of argument (and ignoring the increased fuel required)
>wouldn't slowing down too much before reentry be a problem?
>
>Steeper path, higher G load, and even more reentry heat?

Like I said on an earlier post, I don't have much background on re-entry
physics. But I think it's possible to deorbit going slowly at a fairly
shallow angle...you just have to time the deorbit burn properly.

But one thing you can't do is "slow fly" a satellite. For any given speed,
for any given velocity vector, there is only one possible orbit. Sure, you
can probably increase your angle of attack and do a "skip", but that just
means that on the other side of the world, you're going to come down at a
much steeper angle. Kinda like bouncing a landing without the ability to
add a burst of power to catch the bounce.

Ron Wanttaja

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 02:47:11 +0100, anonymous coward
> wrote:

>On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 01:03:19 +0000, Ron Wanttaja wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 15:47:49 +0100, anonymous coward
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>> The difference is Apollo 1 was flooded with pure O2 where jet fighters push O2
>>>> from a LOX converter to a face mask. Big difference.
>>>
>>>Even then, Chuck Yeager get half his face burnt in a fire when he ejected,
>>>IIRC.
>>
>> You're right, but he didn't get burned because of his oxygen mask. He got
>> hit in the face by the still-glowing rocket motor that had powered the
>> ejection seat.
>
>http://www.ejectionsite.com/f104seat.htm
>
>has a paragraph about the accident. The motor started his suit burning,
>but the oxygen made the fire burn much more fiercly.

That makes sense, since Yeager was wearing a full-pressure suit. Motor
melts through the visor, oxygen in the suit supports additional combustion.
Thanks for the correction.

Ron Wanttaja

[Tracy]

> I don't beleive this flight counts towards the X-prize. The two
> X-Prize flights must both be made with either two passengers or the
> equivalent weight on board. This was a test flight.
>
> Rich

Was a test flight.

The X prize expires 1-1-05, they have to perform two flights within 14
days with three occupants prior to Jan 1 2005 to win it, and they have
to do it before their competition does it.

[G EddieA95]

>I agree with Rich that population is the world's biggest problem.

I disagree, because as long as we have energy, we can sustain high P on the
Earth, and benefit from the social diversity, cheap labor, and the profusion of
human minds. OTOH, if we run out of energy, life will be **** no matter how
low the P becomes (and it would fall like a rock in such a situation).

Ultimately, only the SPS will ensure sufficient energy for a modern society.
It is the only energy source without a Hubbert peak.

But even if P were the major problem in our world, space would not solve it.
It will *always* be easier to add people than to fly 'em to the moon.

> But
>terraforming the Sahara or the seabed is almost within the grasp of current
>technology,

But in the Sahara, you have to live with some rather crappy national
governments (i.e. Qaddafi). And who would want to live in the cold, darkness,
overpressure and drowning hazard of the seabeds?

[Rich S.]

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
> It's just the problem of *getting* it there. How much mass would have to
> be soft-landed on the Moon to be able to send over a "colony kit,"
complete
> with air-generators, power plants, water-distillers, air locks, structural
> beams, and hydroponics farms sufficient to set up a vacuum-based colony
> that'll support, say, 100 people. A half-ton per person, maybe?

Last year I had the pleasure of riding in a steam train up and over the pass
from Skagway toward the Yukon. Alongside the tracks we could see the
footpath over which the Forty-Niners traveled. One requirement set down by
the Canadians for entry into their territory were that the would-be miners
must bring "A half-ton (of supplies) per person. . .". This meant many
laborious trips up and down the steep path, sometimes in weather conditions
that would kill most of us.

Yet, they prevailed. Why?

If there is gold in the stars, who knows what obstacles we will overcome?
Incidentally saving our species. :o)

Rich S.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 20:54:18 -0700, "Rich S." >
wrote:
>
>If there is gold in the stars, who knows what obstacles we will overcome?
>Incidentally saving our species. :o)

An undesired by-product? :-)

You really hit the nail on the head, though, Rich. Low-cost, simple access
to space will happen if there's sufficient economic motive. Right now,
Rutan has the *only* profitmaking business plan that includes manned space
flight: Tourism. Sending humans into space otherwise has been a
money-losing proposition.

It reminds me of a '50s SF story...I think it was Heinlein's "The Man Who
Sold The Moon." The protagonist is obsessed with the drive to develop a
moon rocket. He oversells to investors like crazy, and just before the
rocket takes off, he hands the pilot a bag of diamonds. He tells the man
to show the diamonds when he returns, to spur a "gold rush" into space.

But when the pilot comes back...he hands the protagonist *three* bags of
diamonds....

Ron Wanttaja

[Regnirps]

"Rich S." wrote:

>Unless you can figger out some way to keep humans from breeding like
>lemmings, the only other alternative for survival is more real estate.
>"Incredibly few people"? This is the most important thing for the future of
>us ALL.

We already know the answer. People in prosperous countries don't even have
enough children to keep up with the natural death rate. When the world wide
standard of living is high enough, the population will start to decrease. Oops.
Better think wbout selling that real estate before the surplus hits.

The only thing that will lead to colonizing space (other than some unforseen
"When Worlds Collide" scenario) is productivity so high that groups of like
minded people can afford to do it on their own.

-- Charlie Springer

[Regnirps]

Ron Wanttaja wrote:

>Another concept was the Dyna-Soar, basically a mini-shuttle from the
>mid-60s. It was an Air Force project. Don't really have any information
>on why it was canceled,

See opening sequence to any episode of The Six Million Dollar Man.

-- Charlie Springer

[anonymous coward]

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 03:41:16 +0000, Ron Wanttaja wrote:

> On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 01:03:41 GMT, Richard Lamb >
> wrote:
>
>>Hey Ron, help me out some more here on
>>rec.aviation.homebuilt.spacecraft.
>>
>>For the reentry phase from orbit...
>>For the sake of argument (and ignoring the increased fuel required)
>>wouldn't slowing down too much before reentry be a problem?
>>
>>Steeper path, higher G load, and even more reentry heat?
>
> Like I said on an earlier post, I don't have much background on re-entry
> physics. But I think it's possible to deorbit going slowly at a fairly
> shallow angle...you just have to time the deorbit burn properly.
>
> But one thing you can't do is "slow fly" a satellite. For any given speed,
> for any given velocity vector, there is only one possible orbit. Sure, you
> can probably increase your angle of attack and do a "skip", but that just
> means that on the other side of the world, you're going to come down at a
> much steeper angle. Kinda like bouncing a landing without the ability to
> add a burst of power to catch the bounce.

I'm having one of those moments...

I had always wondered why you couldn't dolphin in and out of the earth's
atmosphere, cooling down in between hops.

AC

[Anthony]

"pacplyer" > wrote in message
>
> Naa. These people are colonizing space in a much more efficient
> manner than the government ever could. For the first time manned space
> is going to be commercially viable. I would think "Colonaut" would
> be a much better name for them.
>
> Cheers "aye"
>
> pacplyer

I think we saw the last possibility of space colonization for the next
century when project Orion was canceled. Someday some one will make it
cheap enough but for now it's something to dream about.

Tony

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 05:41:36 +0100, anonymous coward
> wrote:

>> But one thing you can't do is "slow fly" a satellite. For any given speed,
>> for any given velocity vector, there is only one possible orbit. Sure, you
>> can probably increase your angle of attack and do a "skip", but that just
>> means that on the other side of the world, you're going to come down at a
>> much steeper angle. Kinda like bouncing a landing without the ability to
>> add a burst of power to catch the bounce.
>
>I'm having one of those moments...
>
>I had always wondered why you couldn't dolphin in and out of the earth's
>atmosphere, cooling down in between hops.

I think you'd re-enter at steeper and steeper angles each time, since you
lose velocity at each encounter with the atmosphere. I suspect, at some
point, you can't "pull out" and may break up due to the overly steep
re-entry.

Just a guess, mind you.

Ron Wanttaja

[Dillon Pyron]

On 25 Jun 2004 04:37:45 GMT, (Regnirps) wrote:

>Ron Wanttaja wrote:
>
>>Another concept was the Dyna-Soar, basically a mini-shuttle from the
>>mid-60s. It was an Air Force project. Don't really have any information
>>on why it was canceled,
>
>See opening sequence to any episode of The Six Million Dollar Man.
>
>-- Charlie Springer

That was long after DynaSoar was killed. DynaSoar was to be a
followon to the X15 project, with the goal to put, first, men into
space, then a space laboratory. This goal died when NASA took over
and dictated "men sitting on rockets run by us". The X15 carried on,
but with the goal of going higher and faster, not developing a manned
space presence.

The lifting body accident in question was part of the development
program for the STS. The original design of the shuttle was a lifting
body, until they proved to be a bitch to fly.
--
dillon

When I was a kid, I thought the angel's name was Hark
and the horse's name was Bob.

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, pacplyer says...

>Yes, I believe you are correct Rich. Was listening to the 104.9 disk
>jockey that was claiming this was the ten million dollar x-prize
>attempt. But I believe you are correct on the plan. But if I was
>Burt: I would have stuck in a couple of sand-filled mannequins and
>claimed this was attempt #1 since it is so dangerous.
>
>pac

If he did that he probably would not have made the altitude required. They
barely made it as it was due to a minor mechanical glitch.This flight proved the
systems and what adjustments must be made. JMHO

See ya

Chuck

[Big John]

Charlie

Some of the Mars shots used aero braking by dipping into the upper
atmosphere of Mars. Some were successful and some not as I remember.

Won't go into the why's and where fores but it's possible but may not
be practicable.

Big John
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On 24 Jun 2004 01:35:58 GMT, (Regnirps) wrote:

(Steve VanSickle)
>
>>This particular *design* won't work, yes, but why not the "method" (i.e.
>>moving surfaces to make for a "hands off" reentry)?
>
>I suppose it can be dome somehow, but you are talking 18,000 mph instead of
>3,000. If there is a way to skim along and slowly loose energy I'd love to find
>it. But as it now stands, as you lose energy you start to drop into more
>atmosphere and more drag and loose it faster and drop faster and more heat
>and....
>
>Anyway, an ninformed quick calculation. Kinetic energy is proportional to the
>square of the velocity. So, 18,000 mph is six times faster than 3,000 mph but
>you will have 36 times as much kinetic energy, which will become heat (mostly I
>think).
>
>-- Charlie Springer

[[email protected]]

On 25 Jun 2004 01:05:57 GMT, (B2431) wrote:

>Let's see, he's done quite a bit towards making aircraft cheaper with his
>composite designs and innovations. Who knows what spinnoffs will come from this
>program?
>
>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

I continually bump up against my perceptions of what cheap is, and
what other people consider to be cheap. I don't consider the EZ
series of airplanes to be cheap. I also feel that they are tiny,
don't carry much and are compromised towards the high speed end of
flight such that they land at excessively high speed. But that's just
me.

What spinnoffs might come from the X prize venture> Good question, I
can't think of any.

Corky Scott

[Jim Carriere]

"Regnirps" > wrote in message
...
> Ron Wanttaja wrote:
>
> >Another concept was the Dyna-Soar, basically a mini-shuttle from the
> >mid-60s. It was an Air Force project. Don't really have any information
> >on why it was canceled,
>
> See opening sequence to any episode of The Six Million Dollar Man.

I don't understand- they cancelled Dyna-Soar, took the money from that
budget, and used it put Steve Austin back together???

:)

(better, faster, stronger)

[Doc Font]

In article >,
Dillon Pyron > wrote:

>The original design of the shuttle was a lifting
> body, until they proved to be a bitch to fly.

So is it feasable at this time considering the advancements in computer
controls? Like the F-117 or F-16 are unstable without their computer
systems but they work because the computer constantly adjusts the
flight. Could they build an easy to fly lifting body now?

Bernadette

[Dillon Pyron]

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 09:37:12 -0400, Doc Font >
wrote:

>In article >,
> Dillon Pyron > wrote:
>
>>The original design of the shuttle was a lifting
>> body, until they proved to be a bitch to fly.
>
>So is it feasable at this time considering the advancements in computer
>controls? Like the F-117 or F-16 are unstable without their computer
>systems but they work because the computer constantly adjusts the
>flight. Could they build an easy to fly lifting body now?
>
>Bernadette

I would guess so (and was thinking the same thing when I made my
post). That said, there's little drive to do such a thing. Even
though I think it would be much safer than the current design for the
ISC "lifeboat".
--
dillon

When I was a kid, I thought the angel's name was Hark
and the horse's name was Bob.

[Pete Schaefer]

You gotta have control power sufficient to deal with the instability, plus
some for maneuvering. The M2-F2 ($6M Man) didn't have it. Fly-by-wire would
have done nothing for it; it was just a bad design. The M2-F3 (big center
vertical fin) flew much better due to adequate open-loop roll damping and
directional stability.

That crew return vehicle concept (X-38??) that was/is in the works was
basicallly a lifting body design. But that one used a steerable parachute
for final approach and landing. Not a bad trade, actually, when you
consider the weight cost of something like a deployable control/lift device.
This way, the shape can be optimized for controlled re-entry and initial
descent.

Pete

"Doc Font" > wrote in message
...
> So is it feasable at this time considering the advancements in computer
> controls? Like the F-117 or F-16 are unstable without their computer
> systems but they work because the computer constantly adjusts the
> flight. Could they build an easy to fly lifting body now?

[Pete Schaefer]

Ya know, for $6M these days, you'd only get powerpoint slides and promises
of a better/faster/stronger dude.

"Jim Carriere" > wrote in message
...
> I don't understand- they cancelled Dyna-Soar, took the money from that
> budget, and used it put Steve Austin back together???

[Regnirps]

"Jim Carriere" wrote:

>I don't understand- they cancelled Dyna-Soar, took the money from that
>budget, and used it put Steve Austin back together???

No, he real money went into making time slow down when he powered up and
defying the normal laws of physics, like pushing a wakk over without tearing
the soles out of his shoes or bunding down a light post by pulling on it. And
that ear! Still Top Secret technology.

-- Charlie Springer

[Pete Schaefer]

Hmmm...... Suborbital global high-speed strike concept? Maybe, maybe not.

> wrote in message
...
> What spinnoffs might come from the X prize venture> Good question, I
> can't think of any.

[Regnirps]

Big John wrote:

>Some of the Mars shots used aero braking by dipping into the upper
>atmosphere of Mars. Some were successful and some not as I remember.

Isn't Mars orbital velocity about 1/3? Maybe 6,000 mph? I should check before I
post. And atmosphere is very thin. It's a heck of a problem though.

-- Charlie Springer

[anonymous coward]

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 04:14:25 -0700, ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:

> In article >, pacplyer says...
>
>>Yes, I believe you are correct Rich. Was listening to the 104.9 disk
>>jockey that was claiming this was the ten million dollar x-prize
>>attempt. But I believe you are correct on the plan. But if I was
>>Burt: I would have stuck in a couple of sand-filled mannequins and
>>claimed this was attempt #1 since it is so dangerous.
>>
>>pac
>
> If he did that he probably would not have made the altitude required. They
> barely made it as it was due to a minor mechanical glitch.This flight proved the
> systems and what adjustments must be made. JMHO

Has anybody made a guess as to how high spaceship 1 will be able to go
when it has passengers + a full rocket engine?

AC

[Big John]

Dan

True story.

Guy in P-51 at low altitude (10K). Opened mask and lit a cigarette.
Oxy from mask caused cigarette to flare and burned his face.

Made me nervous about the cigars I used to smoke after we got airborne
with mask open just hanging by strap.

Used the flare gun port on left side of cockpit to get the ashes out
of cockpit. Just put cigar down near the hole and flick and poof they
were gone.

Would be interesting to see the specs on cockpit of SS1. Had to have
some pressurization and probably used pressure breathing in
conjunction to keep pilot awake/alive.

Big John
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`````

On 24 Jun 2004 02:01:07 GMT, (B2431) wrote:


>>Date: 6/23/2004 8:40 PM Central Daylight Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>
>>Matt
>>
>>My computer bombed so this may go as a dup?
>>
>>I have thousands of hours in jet fighters breathing 100% oxy.
>>
>>We had all kinds of electrical stuff in cockpit(s) and aircraft. High
>>power Radar, Radio's, etc., etc.
>>.
>>
>>Big John
>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~
>>On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 18:28:37 -0400, Matt Whiting
> wrote:
>>
>>>Richard Lamb wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> In the aftermath of the Apollo 1 fire, NASA took a year (and $75 mil)
>>>> to redesign the space craft, mature their mental attitudes, and yes,
>>>> did come back with a much safer vehicle.
>>>
>>>Yes, but I still wonder how anyone in their right might would use a
>>>nearly pure oxygen atmosphere in a vehicle full of humans and electrical
>>>equipment...
>>>
>>>Matt
>
>The difference is Apollo 1 was flooded with pure O2 where jet fighters push O2
>from a LOX converter to a face mask. Big difference. The only electronics in
>the mask is a microphone.
>
>Having said that the electrical systems in Apollo 1 were poorly routed and
>protected.
>It was an accident waiting to happen.
>
>Dan. U.S. Air Force, retired

[Dillon Pyron]

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 14:29:02 GMT, "Pete Schaefer"
> wrote:

>Ya know, for $6M these days, you'd only get powerpoint slides and promises
>of a better/faster/stronger dude.

I'll bet AOL spent more than $6M on their ad.

>
>"Jim Carriere" > wrote in message
...
>> I don't understand- they cancelled Dyna-Soar, took the money from that
>> budget, and used it put Steve Austin back together???
>

--
dillon

When I was a kid, I thought the angel's name was Hark
and the horse's name was Bob.

[Richard Lamb]

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
>
> Like I said on an earlier post, I don't have much background on re-entry
> physics. But I think it's possible to deorbit going slowly at a fairly
> shallow angle...you just have to time the deorbit burn properly.
>

Me either, Ron. And I don't think my Holiday Inn Express line is gonna
work on this one, either.

I thought I'd try to see if I could at least set the problem up.
Hey, it's only calculus, right? But I found nothing there I could get
hold of except the (obvious) arrogance of ignorance. Humbling...


For a body in motion, the first derivative gives the rate of change
in position per unit time (i.e.: speed = rate of change of position
per second)

If the object is accelerating, the second derivative gives the rate
at which the first derivative is changing, or the rate of change in
speed (acceleration = rate of change in position per second per second).

Third derivative gives the rate of change in acceleration (what the
physics guys call 'jerk' = rate of change of position per second per
second per second). Like the way an old car jerks if there is too
sudden a change is how it is accelerating.

Quoting Martin Gardner, "Beyond the third, higher order derivatives are
seldom needed. This testifies to the fortunate fact that the universe
seems to favor simplicity in it's fundamental laws".

BUT
Simplicity is relative.

On orbit, our ship is in steady state unaccellerated motion, right?
Well, not exactly.

Due to the curved path of the orbit there is an 'outward' centrifugal
force that is exactly opposed by the opposite 'inward' centripetal force
(of gravity).

So our steady state 'unaccelerated' motion is actually a _second_
derivative from the straight line path (ASSUMING the orbit path is
perfectly circular?).

therefore

Adding an acceleration to our _forward_ motion (second and third
derivatives) causes an immediate third derivative reaction of the
orbital
altitude, i.e.: motion inward (if slowing) or outward (if speeding up).

If I'm not too badly mistaken, we are up to the SIXTH derivative,
and still haven't accounted for any deviation that would result if the
acceleration vector is not EXACTLY aligned with the true orbital path
in both pitch and yaw.

Taking those into account, we are looking at the TWELFTH derivative
just to predict what's going to happen when we try to change speed.

If we are off in pitch, I think the end result would be an oscillation
in the the orbital path. Think about an AC electrical signal imposed on
a DC carrier.

If we were thrusting straight 'outward', the thrust pushes us to a highe
altitude that our orbital velocity will not be able to maintain.

As soon as the thrust is removed, and momentum decays, we will drop back
down, gaining inward momentum on the way, which will cause an
'undershoot'
of our previous altitude, which will again bleed off momentum until we
go back 'up', and over shoot again.

There is probably going to be a fairly strong damping effect that will
eventually (sota) stabilize at the original altitude, but I haven't a
clue
how to set THAT one up...



Sheesh! Rocket Science....

[Richard Lamb]

Big John wrote:
>
> Dan
>
> True story.
>
> Guy in P-51 at low altitude (10K). Opened mask and lit a cigarette.
> Oxy from mask caused cigarette to flare and burned his face.
>
> Made me nervous about the cigars I used to smoke after we got airborne
> with mask open just hanging by strap.
>
> Used the flare gun port on left side of cockpit to get the ashes out
> of cockpit. Just put cigar down near the hole and flick and poof they
> were gone.
>
> Would be interesting to see the specs on cockpit of SS1. Had to have
> some pressurization and probably used pressure breathing in
> conjunction to keep pilot awake/alive.
>
> Big John
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`````
>
> On 24 Jun 2004 02:01:07 GMT, (B2431) wrote:
>
>
> >>Date: 6/23/2004 8:40 PM Central Daylight Time
> >>Message-id: >
> >>
> >>
> >>Matt
> >>
> >>My computer bombed so this may go as a dup?
> >>
> >>I have thousands of hours in jet fighters breathing 100% oxy.
> >>
> >>We had all kinds of electrical stuff in cockpit(s) and aircraft. High
> >>power Radar, Radio's, etc., etc.
> >>.
> >>
> >>Big John
> >>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~
> >>On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 18:28:37 -0400, Matt Whiting
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>>Richard Lamb wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> In the aftermath of the Apollo 1 fire, NASA took a year (and $75 mil)
> >>>> to redesign the space craft, mature their mental attitudes, and yes,
> >>>> did come back with a much safer vehicle.
> >>>
> >>>Yes, but I still wonder how anyone in their right might would use a
> >>>nearly pure oxygen atmosphere in a vehicle full of humans and electrical
> >>>equipment...
> >>>
> >>>Matt
> >
> >The difference is Apollo 1 was flooded with pure O2 where jet fighters push O2
> >from a LOX converter to a face mask. Big difference. The only electronics in
> >the mask is a microphone.
> >
> >Having said that the electrical systems in Apollo 1 were poorly routed and
> >protected.
> >It was an accident waiting to happen.
> >
> >Dan. U.S. Air Force, retired

Mike was wearing a standard military style oxygen mask, so the cockpit
had to
be pressurized. But what the cabin altitude was is anybody's guess.


Rihcard

[Roger Halstead]

On 25 Jun 2004 04:37:45 GMT, (Regnirps) wrote:

>Ron Wanttaja wrote:
>
>>Another concept was the Dyna-Soar, basically a mini-shuttle from the
>>mid-60s. It was an Air Force project. Don't really have any information
>>on why it was canceled,
>
>See opening sequence to any episode of The Six Million Dollar Man.

Sooo.. It was a little unstable and the landings a bit rough.

It was affectionately referred to as the flying bath tub.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>-- Charlie Springer

[B2431]

>Date: 6/25/2004 7:52 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On 25 Jun 2004 01:05:57 GMT, (B2431) wrote:
>
>>Let's see, he's done quite a bit towards making aircraft cheaper with his
>>composite designs and innovations. Who knows what spinnoffs will come from
>this
>>program?
>>
>>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>I continually bump up against my perceptions of what cheap is, and
>what other people consider to be cheap. I don't consider the EZ
>series of airplanes to be cheap. I also feel that they are tiny,
>don't carry much and are compromised towards the high speed end of
>flight such that they land at excessively high speed. But that's just
>me.
>
>What spinnoffs might come from the X prize venture> Good question, I
>can't think of any.
>
>Corky Scott
>

Remember the "space plane" NASA was working on that would get you from NYC to
Tokyo in a couple of hours? I think a spin off might just be the commuter
equivillent between Lost Angeles, Peoples' Republic of California and NYC, NY.
I know it took about an hour just to get to launch altitude, but SS1 is
essentially a proof of concept. Maybe Rutan has a 200 passenger version in the
back of his mind.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: "Jim Carriere"
>Date: 6/25/2004 8:31 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"Regnirps" > wrote in message
...
>> Ron Wanttaja wrote:
>>
>> >Another concept was the Dyna-Soar, basically a mini-shuttle from the
>> >mid-60s. It was an Air Force project. Don't really have any information
>> >on why it was canceled,
>>
>> See opening sequence to any episode of The Six Million Dollar Man.
>
>I don't understand- they cancelled Dyna-Soar, took the money from that
>budget, and used it put Steve Austin back together???
>
>:)
>
>(better, faster, stronger)

Viagra® ?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: (Regnirps)
>Date: 6/25/2004 9:30 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"Jim Carriere" wrote:
>
>>I don't understand- they cancelled Dyna-Soar, took the money from that
>>budget, and used it put Steve Austin back together???
>
>No, he real money went into making time slow down when he powered up and
>defying the normal laws of physics, like pushing a wakk over without tearing
>the soles out of his shoes or bunding down a light post by pulling on it. And
>that ear! Still Top Secret technology.
>
>-- Charlie Springer
>

The $6 million dollar monkey had the eye, the bionic babe had the ear.

I can't believe this thread has devolved into this. OK, I can.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Dillon Pyron]

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 18:14:58 GMT, Richard Lamb >
wrote:

>Big John wrote:
>>
>> Dan
>>
>> True story.
>>
>> Guy in P-51 at low altitude (10K). Opened mask and lit a cigarette.
>> Oxy from mask caused cigarette to flare and burned his face.
>>
>> Made me nervous about the cigars I used to smoke after we got airborne
>> with mask open just hanging by strap.
>>
>> Used the flare gun port on left side of cockpit to get the ashes out
>> of cockpit. Just put cigar down near the hole and flick and poof they
>> were gone.
>>
>> Would be interesting to see the specs on cockpit of SS1. Had to have
>> some pressurization and probably used pressure breathing in
>> conjunction to keep pilot awake/alive.
>>
>> Big John
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`````
>>
>> On 24 Jun 2004 02:01:07 GMT, (B2431) wrote:
>>
>>
>> >>Date: 6/23/2004 8:40 PM Central Daylight Time
>> >>Message-id: >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>Matt
>> >>
>> >>My computer bombed so this may go as a dup?
>> >>
>> >>I have thousands of hours in jet fighters breathing 100% oxy.
>> >>
>> >>We had all kinds of electrical stuff in cockpit(s) and aircraft. High
>> >>power Radar, Radio's, etc., etc.
>> >>.
>> >>
>> >>Big John
>> >>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~
>> >>On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 18:28:37 -0400, Matt Whiting
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>Richard Lamb wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>> In the aftermath of the Apollo 1 fire, NASA took a year (and $75 mil)
>> >>>> to redesign the space craft, mature their mental attitudes, and yes,
>> >>>> did come back with a much safer vehicle.
>> >>>
>> >>>Yes, but I still wonder how anyone in their right might would use a
>> >>>nearly pure oxygen atmosphere in a vehicle full of humans and electrical
>> >>>equipment...
>> >>>
>> >>>Matt
>> >
>> >The difference is Apollo 1 was flooded with pure O2 where jet fighters push O2
>> >from a LOX converter to a face mask. Big difference. The only electronics in
>> >the mask is a microphone.
>> >
>> >Having said that the electrical systems in Apollo 1 were poorly routed and
>> >protected.
>> >It was an accident waiting to happen.
>> >
>> >Dan. U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>Mike was wearing a standard military style oxygen mask, so the cockpit
>had to
>be pressurized. But what the cabin altitude was is anybody's guess.
>
>
>Rihcard

It's all a question of partial pressure. At 29,280 feet, even 100%
oxygen is barely capable of keeping a human alive, never mind let them
do any type of serious exercise (which is why 8000 meter mountains are
so hard).

I doubt the cabin was at much higher than 15,000 feet, probably lower
than that. Which makes the bird all the more impressive, to me.
--
dillon

When I was a kid, I thought the angel's name was Hark
and the horse's name was Bob.

[Dillon Pyron]

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 18:26:15 GMT, Roger Halstead
> wrote:

>On 25 Jun 2004 04:37:45 GMT, (Regnirps) wrote:
>
>>Ron Wanttaja wrote:
>>
>>>Another concept was the Dyna-Soar, basically a mini-shuttle from the
>>>mid-60s. It was an Air Force project. Don't really have any information
>>>on why it was canceled,
>>
>>See opening sequence to any episode of The Six Million Dollar Man.
>
>Sooo.. It was a little unstable and the landings a bit rough.
>
>It was affectionately referred to as the flying bath tub.

More bath tub than flying.

>
>Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>www.rogerhalstead.com
>>
>>-- Charlie Springer

--
dillon

When I was a kid, I thought the angel's name was Hark
and the horse's name was Bob.

[[email protected]]

On 25 Jun 2004 19:14:42 GMT, (B2431) wrote:

>Remember the "space plane" NASA was working on that would get you from NYC to
>Tokyo in a couple of hours? I think a spin off might just be the commuter
>equivillent between Lost Angeles, Peoples' Republic of California and NYC, NY.
>I know it took about an hour just to get to launch altitude, but SS1 is
>essentially a proof of concept. Maybe Rutan has a 200 passenger version in the
>back of his mind.
>
>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

I can remember two things that the public got their hands on that were
developed for the Space Program: Tang and a pen that works upside
down.

I recall someone mentioning that the Russians also realised that a
normal pen would not work in outer space, they gave their astronauts a
pencil....

Corky Scott

[Bill Daniels]

"Dillon Pyron" > wrote in message
...
>
> It's all a question of partial pressure. At 29,280 feet, even 100%
> oxygen is barely capable of keeping a human alive, never mind let them
> do any type of serious exercise (which is why 8000 meter mountains are
> so hard).
>
> I doubt the cabin was at much higher than 15,000 feet, probably lower
> than that. Which makes the bird all the more impressive, to me.
> --
> dillon
>
> When I was a kid, I thought the angel's name was Hark
> and the horse's name was Bob.

Not quite. At that 29,000' 100% O2 is the same partial pressure as 20% O2
at sea level. Glider pilots reach these altitudes in unpressurized cockpits
all the time. The record altitude for a glider is just under 50,000' again
with no pressurization.

Did you know that Spaceship One is registered as a glider?

Bill Daniels

[Bill Daniels]

"Dillon Pyron" > wrote in message
...
>
> It's all a question of partial pressure. At 29,280 feet, even 100%
> oxygen is barely capable of keeping a human alive, never mind let them
> do any type of serious exercise (which is why 8000 meter mountains are
> so hard).
>
> I doubt the cabin was at much higher than 15,000 feet, probably lower
> than that. Which makes the bird all the more impressive, to me.
> --
> dillon
>
> When I was a kid, I thought the angel's name was Hark
> and the horse's name was Bob.

Not quite. At that 29,000' 100% O2 is the same partial pressure as 20% O2
at sea level. Glider pilots reach these altitudes in unpressurized cockpits
all the time. The record altitude for a glider is just under 50,000' again
with no pressurization.

Did you know that Spaceship One is registered as a glider?

Bill Daniels

[Del Rawlins]

In > charles.k.scott@
ddddartmouth.edu wrote:

> I can remember two things that the public got their hands on that were
> developed for the Space Program: Tang and a pen that works upside
> down.

There was also the Temperfoam that a lot of us are using in our seat
cushions, and the emergency blanket I keep in my survival kit (pilots in
Alaska are required to carry one). Besides those examples there were
probably developments in lightweight insulation applicable to aviation
and I'd be be very suprised if the state of the art in storage batteries
wasn't advanced by the space program.

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

[Richard Lamb]

Add a global communications system, smaller faster computers,
new construction material, medical technology, fuel cells,
and scands of other details.

But most of all?

A sense of assurance that, working together, we can do anything.

"Dream not small dreams,
for they have not the power
to fire men's souls"

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

[Bob Kuykendall]

Earlier, wrote

> I can remember two things that the public got their hands on that were
> developed for the Space Program: Tang and a pen that works upside
> down.
>
> I recall someone mentioning that the Russians also realised that a
> normal pen would not work in outer space, they gave their astronauts a
> pencil....

The Fisher space pen was developed privately by Fisher using their own
funds.

The problem with pencils is that when you write with them, it
liberates conductive graphite dust, and occasionally bits of solid
graphite of non-negligible size. They also burn like freakin' roman
candles in the presence of ignition and pure o2. Not a problem when
you're in an 80/20 atmosphere and gravity pulls the smegma onto the
floor where it belongs. In a 100% o2 enviro surrounded by switches and
electronics... I'll take the thing that cost NASA less than $3/unit
and does't burn, thanks.

Snopes has a UL article on it here:

http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp

Thanks again, and best regards to all

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com

[pacplyer]

ChuckSlusarczyk > wrote in message >...
> In article >, pacplyer says...
>
> >Yes, I believe you are correct Rich. Was listening to the 104.9 disk
> >jockey that was claiming this was the ten million dollar x-prize
> >attempt. But I believe you are correct on the plan. But if I was
> >Burt: I would have stuck in a couple of sand-filled mannequins and
> >claimed this was attempt #1 since it is so dangerous.
> >
> >pac
>
> If he did that he probably would not have made the altitude required. They
> barely made it as it was due to a minor mechanical glitch.This flight proved the
> systems and what adjustments must be made. JMHO
>
> See ya
>
> Chuck

Yes I think you're right Chuck. You've probably done a little testing
along those lines in new ships, right? You test pilots are brave Mo
Fo's. Us cowardly cargo dogs just want to get the mission done in as
few trips as possible. Same thing with the Casinos. Reduce the
wife's trips to Vegas and you improve the odds of buying yourself a
new Hawk someday.... ;-)

pac

[pacplyer]

anonymous coward > wrote in message >...
> On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 04:14:25 -0700, ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:
>
> > In article >, pacplyer says...
> >
> >>Yes, I believe you are correct Rich. Was listening to the 104.9 disk
> >>jockey that was claiming this was the ten million dollar x-prize
> >>attempt. But I believe you are correct on the plan. But if I was
> >>Burt: I would have stuck in a couple of sand-filled mannequins and
> >>claimed this was attempt #1 since it is so dangerous.
> >>
> >>pac
> >
> > If he did that he probably would not have made the altitude required. They
> > barely made it as it was due to a minor mechanical glitch.This flight proved the
> > systems and what adjustments must be made. JMHO
>
> Has anybody made a guess as to how high spaceship 1 will be able to go
> when it has passengers + a full rocket engine?
>
> AC


I would think it is a matter of simply increasing the fuel load. The
burn was billed for 90 seconds, but they only got seventy some seconds
before burnout. Greater Burn time = higher Altitude. The designed
gross weight should be able to attain 62.5 miles. But ask Dr.
"A"-o.k. Evil ). He claims to have secret hardware on the
moon and mars! ;^D ROTFOL!

pacplyer

[pacplyer]

wrote in message >...
> On 25 Jun 2004 19:14:42 GMT, (B2431) wrote:
>
> >Remember the "space plane" NASA was working on that would get you from NYC to
> >Tokyo in a couple of hours? I think a spin off might just be the commuter
> >equivillent between Lost Angeles, Peoples' Republic of California and NYC, NY.
> >I know it took about an hour just to get to launch altitude, but SS1 is
> >essentially a proof of concept. Maybe Rutan has a 200 passenger version in the
> >back of his mind.
> >
> >Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> I can remember two things that the public got their hands on that were
> developed for the Space Program: Tang and a pen that works upside
> down.
>
> I recall someone mentioning that the Russians also realised that a
> normal pen would not work in outer space, they gave their astronauts a
> pencil....
>
> Corky Scott

Don't forget the little thing you're typing on right now or the thing
you GPS around with; the mobile computer (VLSI, which you are using
now) was developed specifically for the Space Program (Guidance and
Nav.) Without that, your entire house would be full of electronic
componants right now (or more likely, you'd send letters to us with
your Royal (pain) typerwriter and carbon paper.)


pacplyer

[pacplyer]

anonymous coward > wrote in message >...
> On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 04:14:25 -0700, ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:
>
> > In article >, pacplyer says...
> >
> >>Yes, I believe you are correct Rich. Was listening to the 104.9 disk
> >>jockey that was claiming this was the ten million dollar x-prize
> >>attempt. But I believe you are correct on the plan. But if I was
> >>Burt: I would have stuck in a couple of sand-filled mannequins and
> >>claimed this was attempt #1 since it is so dangerous.
> >>
> >>pac
> >
> > If he did that he probably would not have made the altitude required. They
> > barely made it as it was due to a minor mechanical glitch.This flight proved the
> > systems and what adjustments must be made. JMHO
>
> Has anybody made a guess as to how high spaceship 1 will be able to go
> when it has passengers + a full rocket engine?
>
> AC


I would think it is a matter of simply increasing the fuel load. The
burn was billed for 90 seconds, but they only got seventy some seconds
before burnout. Greater Burn time = higher Altitude. The designed
gross weight should be able to attain 62.5 miles. But ask Dr.
"A"-o.k. Evil ). He claims to have secret hardware on the
moon and mars! ;^D ROTFOL!

pacplyer

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, pacplyer says...

>Yes I think you're right Chuck. You've probably done a little testing
>along those lines in new ships, right? You test pilots are brave Mo
>Fo's.

Hi Pac
While it true I've personally tested every Hang glider I ever designed and did
all the test flying for all my reduction drive testing I am not a "real" test
pilot nor do I claim to be. The "real" test pilots are the brave MO FO's not me.
I was just testing my designs. There are some people who like to be called "test
pilot" because they went to a 1 week course but that's not me. "Real" test
pilot's all have a wheel barrow to transport their gonads to the airplane and my
hats off to those guys:-)

> Us cowardly cargo dogs just want to get the mission done in as
>few trips as possible. Same thing with the Casinos. Reduce the
>wife's trips to Vegas and you improve the odds of buying yourself a
>new Hawk someday.... ;-)

I went to Vegas once for a UL convention and lost $25.00 to the slot machines
and that cured me from gambling forever LOL!!

See ya
Chuck (test pile it ) S

[Kevin Horton]

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 23:08:49 +0000, Richard Lamb wrote:

> Steve VanSickle wrote:
>>
>> Yes, it is more difficult. Yes, much hotter, much more energy. But I
>> have heard many people claim that the "shuttlecock" method Burt
>> developed "won't work" from orbit, and no one says *why*. If shuttle
>> wings can be protected (most of the time) from the heat, why can't
>> Burt's wings?
>
>
> That seems like a reasonable question. Wish I knew a reasonable answer.
>
> Taking a not so scientific wild assed guess(?) it might have to do with
> the amount of area exposed to the plasma stream.
>
> On the Orbiter, only (mostly?) the leading edges are exposed to that level
> of heating.
>

Actually, the Space Shuttle comes into the atmosphere at about 30 deg
angle of attack, so spread the heat load over the whole bottom of the
vehicle.

<http://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/9-12/features/F_Aeronautics_of_Space_Shuttle.html>

--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
e-mail: khorton02(_at_)rogers(_dot_)com

[Ron Wanttaja]

Thinking about all the postings I've made on this subject in the past week,
I realize that I've never really spelled out the difficulties involved in
evolving SpaceShipOne into a vehicle capable of orbit. Several of us have
mentioned the difference in the speed required for Monday's sub-orbital vs
an orbital mission, and the problems of re-entry, but those without a space
or physics background may not grasp the impact of some of the factors so
casually thrown about.

This is an attempt to describe some of the engineering problems that must
be faced, and some typical solutions, when evolving a Scaled SpaceShipOne
(SS1) class of sub-orbital homebuilt spacecraft into one capable of at
least one orbit of the Earth.

REVERSE ENGINEERING SS1

The first thing we have to do is figure out the characteristics of the
vehicle we're starting with. Scaled hasn't released many of the technical
details needed for an in-depth analysis...after all, it *is* a private
rocket, and not a government one where the information is public domain.

Basically, we need two numbers to start with: The launch weight and the
rocket motor's Specific Impulse, or "ISP".

How heavy is SS1? According to Scaled's info sheet, the White Knight can
carry and launch payloads up to 8,000 pounds. Is 8,000 pounds the maximum
gross weight of SS1? I'd like to think that Rutan carries some
margin...considerable margin, in fact. Lets assume the max launch weight
of SS1 is 6000 pounds; a 25% margin for the White Knight.

How much of that is fuel? There are two ways of working this. First, we
can take the known performance parameters (e.g., at least 62 NM altitude on
a ballistic trajectory, with a launch at 8 NM) and compute how much
propellant is required. Or...we can eyeball the photos and drawings on the
Scaled web pages, estimate the capacity of the fuel tanks, and compute the
fuel weight from that.

Let's look at the second method. SS1 uses a hybrid rocket motor, with a
combination of liquid oxidizer (carried in a tank) and solid propellant
(cast into motor housing). The external dimension of the oxidizer tank is
the same as the fuselage (five feet) and about 75% long as its diameter.
It's listed as liquid nitrous oxide, which, converting some data found
online, has a density of about 76 lbs per cubic foot (which seems high, to
me). Given insulation, wall thicknesses, etc. for the tank, I'm guessing
SS1 can carry about 2500 lbs of oxidizer.

The fuel is apparently cast into the motor housing, which, eyeballing, is
about 1.5 feet in diameter and six feet long. With wall thicknesses, etc,
and using the density of "normal" solid fuel (which admittedly could be
quite different from the rubber-based fuel SS1 uses), I get a fuel weight
of 650 lbs.

Total propellant load, then, is about 3150 lbs, leaving a no-fuel weight of
2850 lbs. Subtract another 510 pounds for three FAA-standard commonauts
aboard, we get an SS1 empty weight of around 2340 pounds.

Making the calculation the OTHER way (by mission parameters) gets a
quite-different answer... needing only 1500 pounds of propellant, with a
6000-pound launch weight. This gives an empty weight of about 4000 pounds;
a bit closer to my eyeball engineering estimate.

But let's use the lighter weight...and the larger propellant load.

The second parameter is the Specific Impulse ("ISP") of the motor. The ISP
is a measure of how much ooomppph a rocket has; it is defined as the length
of time (in seconds) a motor can produce one pound of thrust from one pound
of fuel. ISPs can range from a few tens to in the thousands. But the very
high numbers are the provinces of electrical propulsion systems that
produce a few micropounds of thrust. LOX/Hydrogen comes in about the
mid-300s, the LOX-JP4 yields around 250 seconds, and typical solids are a
tad less than 300.

What to use for Scaled's hybrid system? My personal guess is in the 250
range, but let's use 300 seconds so we don't short-change the hybrid
system.

HEADING FOR ORBIT

So: We're assuming SS1, empty with three commonauts aboard, weighs 2850
pounds. The engine has an ISP of 300 seconds, and the stock SS1 carries
3150 pounds of fuel.

We'll say the White Knight launches at eight nautical miles at a speed of
700 feet per second (fps) horizontal velocity. With the wings, SS1 can
convert that to vertical velocity.

Back from my distance past, I remember that the characteristic velocity for
Low Earth Orbit (LEO) is about 27,000 fps. That includes drag makeup from
the lower atmosphere, which White Knight takes care of by hauling SS1 so
high. For simplicity's sake, let's assume that SS1 has to just accelerate
to the orbital velocity required for a 100 NM orbit...about 25,500 FPS.
Actual increase in speed (Delta-V, or "DV") after we factor in White Knight
is about 24,800. I'll use a flat 24,000 FPS in case I've been too
conservative...but remember, this speed is the DV needed to not only orbit
at 100 NM, but to climb to that altitude as well.

(For those non-US readers, a nautical mile is about 1.8 KM.)

How much fuel will we need? The equation is:

Fuel = Burnout mass * e^(dv/(isp *g)) - Burnout Mass

Burnout Mass: 2840 lbs
DV: 24,000 fps
ISP: 300 sec
G: 32 f/s^2

How much fuel does SS1 need to go orbital? About 31,460 pounds...almost
ten times more than its current capacity.

FILL 'ER UP, RON

OK, how we gonna carry that much fuel?

Internal loading is out, of course, if we're keeping the basic SS1 design.
The obvious answer is a strap-on external tank, like the Shuttle uses.

But...remember, SS1 uses a *hybrid* rocket, with cast fuel. The external
tank could be used for the liquid nitrous oxide oxidizer, but the fuel
itself is solid. An external tank could be used for the oxidizer, but we'd
still need to load about 5,000 pounds into the motor casting
itself...which, in no way, would fit inside the SS1's shell.

If we're keeping the basic SS1 vehicle, there are only two solutions:
Strap-ons (like the shuttle SRMs) or adding a stage (or stages) *behind*
SS1 (like Saturn).

Strap ons...well, they're going to increase drag immensely. SS1 is only
five feet in diameter, and for the amount of fuel they'll have to carry, I
can't see the strap-ons being any less than that. Even with two of them
(ignoring the needed length for a moment) this vehicle is getting
incredibly blunt.

So...the classic staged approach seems the only answer. One or two stages
behind SS1, probably a bit wider than the Space Vehicle itself.

CARRYING THE FIRE

Which gets us back to White Knight. It's got an 8,000-pound carrying
capacity, and SS1 and its launch stages are probably well over 40,000
pounds. To quote Roy Schieder: "We're going to need a bigger boat!"

Will White Knight scale up that far? And what about the extra length of
the initial launch stages? Plus, this long rocket will have to be carried
*horizontally*, and would have to be designed to withstand landing loads as
well, in case a launch is aborted.

Back in the early 90s, Orbital Sciences Corporation developed an
air-launched space booster called "Pegasus." It was carried aloft on the
same B-52 that carried the X-15, and launched exactly the same way. It
carried about 600 pounds to LEO, and the payload could be up to ~4 feet in
diameter and ~7 feet long. It's really rather clever, three off-the-shelf
solid rocket motors stacked in conventional stages, with a wing atop the
first stage and a conventional-style aircraft tail.

Life being what it is, customers immediately wanted more performance.
Orbital came up with the Pegasus XL, which lengthened the first stage
rocket. It was too big for the B-52, so Orbital converted an L-1011 to
carry the XL.

But customers *still* wanted more. Orbital looked at the Pegasus
design...then they ripped the wing and tail off, added yet another solid
motor to the stack, and ended up with the ground-launched "Taurus."

I think we'll end up with ground-launch for our orbital SS1 evolution.
Fortunately, Rutan's operation at Mojave isn't all that far from the launch
facility at Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB). White Knight could be used
for carrying components to VAFB. Scaled would have to design the
appropriate gantries to assemble the launch vehicle on the pad, but that's
just ordinary engineering. Several companies already produce small launch
vehicles that require only quite basic pad services (A trailer, a
"milkstool", a concrete pad, and a cherry-picker, in one case).

UP SHIP!

OK, we've got the commonauts on board, the range is clear, and the
countdown has reached zero. OrbitalOne soars into the California skies.

Since it's operating from VAFB, the flight path has conform to Vandenberg
range safety limitations. Conventional launch vehicles drop stages behind
them, and the Air Force insists they not overfly any population centers.
Since there are population centers the entire western coast of the US,
Mexico, Latin America, and South America, this really restricts the
inclination of the orbits that you launch into.

The "inclination" of the orbit is the orbit's "tilt" relative to the
equator. The inclination also indicates the maximum latitude that the
spacecraft reaches during its orbit. A 15-degree inclined orbit, for
instance, would mean the spacecraft never crosses over the United States,
mid- or southern-Australia, or Europe.

Basically, OrbitOne is going to have to launch into a polar orbit...about a
90-degree inclination. From the Space Tourist's point of view, this is
great, as the spacecraft will fly over the poles as well. The orbit itself
isn't much of a bother, though performance is actually less since you don't
pick up ~600 miles per hour of boost due to the Earth's spin.

The stages drop behind. Finally, OrbitOne cranks up its trusty hybrid
rocket motor to give it the last bit of push into space.

ON ORBIT

OrbitOne flies down the open reaches of the South Pacific, crosses over
Antarctica, then heads northward again. It reaches apogee as it passes
over Mozambique.

(Quick primer: apogee is the highest point of an Earth orbit, perigee is
the lowest...to remember which is which, think "perigee is perilous.")

If OrbitOne intends to perform more than a single orbit, it will have to
perform a short "circularization" burn here. Without an apogee burn, it'll
reenter back on the other side of the Earth, where the launch point had
been. "Had been"? Because in the 90 minutes the orbit will take, the
Earth's rotation will have taken the coast of California about 1300 miles
to the East. OrbitOne is destined to re-enter about 600 miles East of
Hawaii, unless it performs a circularization burn at Apogee or lands in
Alaska (for which it'll probably have to perform some sort of deorbit burn,
to bring it in that much earlier than normal orbit physics).

Unlike launch, though, the apogee burn doesn't have to be very
strong...just a hundred FPS or so. The question is, what does it perform
the burn with? Will its hybrid rocket have restart capability?

Normal solid rockets are neither throttleable or stoppable. They burn until
all the fuel is consumed, just like a bottle rocket. Since SS1's hybrid
rocket has a liquid oxidizer, we can anticipate that they can, at least,
turn off the oxidizer and shut down the rocket (unless the solid fuel
contains just enough oxygen in it to keep a low flame going in a vacuum).

But...will it really support a restart? The solid fuel actually burns away
inside the motor casing as the hybrid runs. You can't just fire the same
igniter...it'd be like dropping a match into the burned-out remains of a
campfire. You have to strike the fire where tinder (intact fuel) still
exists.

And... shutting down the oxidizer as the hybrid is running might coat the
fuel with incomplete combustion products, inhibiting a start. They'll
prove or disprove this during Earth testing, of course, but we really may
want to assume that the Hybrid won't really be suited as a circularization
motor.

Which means we have to have another propulsion system, one capable of
zero-G restarts. It probably doesn't make sense to include both the hybrid
and the new system, so we'll chuck the hybrid and use a restartable
liquid-fueled system for both initial orbit insertion and circularization.

After the circularization burn, OrbitOne flies over Saudi Arabia, the
Caspian Sea, and central Russia. On the next orbit, the commonauts will
view Central Africa, Italy, Greece, Finland, and Sweden, The pass after
*that*, it's western Africa, Portugal, Spain, and the UK.

OrbitOne will probably want to talk to ground control during this. SS1
used aircraft VHF, but that's line of sight and won't work for OrbitOne.
The early US manned missions used low-inclination orbits, which allowed the
US to sprinkle a few ground stations along the equator and get good comm
coverage all through the orbits. But they're no help to OrbitOne's polar
orbit

The Shuttle and the Space Station use NASA's on-orbit Tracking and Data
Relay System (TDRS) satellites. TDRS has plenty of excess capacity, and
Scaled can probably lease bandwidth. I believe TDRS uses S-band, so not
much of an antenna will be required...though you'll have to put several
over the exterior of the spacecraft to maintain coverage no matter what the
attitude.

SpaceShipOne used a compressed-air system for attitude control. IIRC, they
used one quarter of their total system capacity for Monday's flight lasting
just a few minutes. Obviously, a *lot* more is going to be required on
OrbitOne. This is a tourist flight, and the paying customers will want the
pilot to rotate and pitch and yaw the spacecraft to give people the best
view out the window.

Then again, maybe they won't. Have you ever noticed, that when the Space
Shuttle takes off on a mission to the Space Station, that it doesn't
actually rendezvous for two days? That's not the time it takes to get
there...that's time to allow the crew to get over "Space Adaptation
Syndrome" (SAS), a nice NASA term for the motion sickness brought on by
microgravity (My favorite term was coined by SF author Alan Steele: "Star
Whoops"). About half the people exposed experience it to some degree, and
there's no real way to tell who is susceptible. Watch the videos from
space, someone who keeps their upper body, neck, and head stiff is probably
suffering from it.

OrbitOne will undoubtedly carry zero-gee barf bags, and Scaled will no
doubt maintain the appropriate discretion to NOT reveal whom of its
millionaire passengers spent their entire orbital time doing power-yawns
into a sack..

And if OrbitOne performs the circularization delta-V, they'll have plenty
of time to practice: If the ship does NOT land in Alaska prior to
completion of the first orbit, it does not travel over the US for another
eight hours...and it'll take two more orbits (~3 hours) beyond that for a
pass that'll let OrbitOne land back at Mojave.

This problem would be alleviated by a launch from the East coast of the US,
rather than from California. With a 40-degree inclination out of Cape
Canaveral, OrbitOne will cross over Mojave at the end of the third orbit.
Whether Burt will be willing to move his launch operation 3,000 miles away
is a question.

In any case, the design will have to include hours of life-support for the
personnel onboard. Plus carry the batteries or other power generating
equipment required for running it, and for powering all the other systems.
Power limitations alone may prevent OrbitOne from flying more an a couple
of 90-minute orbits.

RE-ENTRY

We've already had a lot of discussion relative to re-entry...that
SpaceShipOne's ballistic flight at Mach 3 maximum doesn't compare to the
amount of energy converted into heat as OrbitOne slows from Mach 25. I've
already posted my worries about exposing a deployable structure (e.g. the
shuttlecock mode) to the re-entry plasma, especially since it'll be
necessary to retract it for landing.

Also as far as I know, if the SS1 planform were re-used, it would be the
first time a discontinuous shape has been used for re-entry. SS1 is a
high-wing design, with a fuselage below. Everything else used in space
presented a smooth, continuous surface to the re-entry plasma... the
Shuttle presents its low-wing delta planform, and non-re-usable systems had
curved re-entry shields. At a full-blown re-entry, I'm worried about
turbulence in the plasma causing hot spots on the structure.

The solutions? Well, like I previously posted, the glider planform could
be eliminated and a capsule-type system with a heat shield could be used
instead. Since OrbitOne will probably have to be ground launched, we've
eliminated one reason for re-using SS1's glider planform.

SS1's winged shape does allow cross-range capability like the Shuttle (use
aerodynamics to offset your final trajectory from a mere ballistic one) but
a disk shape can probably be tilted and steered as well. They experimented
with Rogallo wings for Gemini; using one on a capsule-type OrbitOne would
give some ability to pick the spot for landing. Soft touchdowns may be a
problem, though...the Russians actually have solid rockets on their capsule
that fire just before touchdown to reduce the shock.

Or...heck, combine the approaches. Since OrbitOne doesn't have to "Fly"
during launch, add a heat shield to the design. Stick the spacecraft on
something form-fitting with the bottom shaped like a snowboard (Kowabunga,
dude!), with explosive bolts, etc. to eject it when OrbitOne has shed all
the re-entry heat. This is the system used in Mercury (though I believe
the shield was actually retained).

But then...we get into the problems involved with object release at high
speeds. You'd *really* want to reassure yourself that the shield won't
flip over and belt you on the way past.

Whichever solution you like, don't forget weight. Our 3,000-pound
spacecraft needed ten times its weight in fuel to launch. Every pound that
your re-entry shielding or deceleration system adds will require at least
ten more pounds of propellant at launch. And that includes the additional
communications gear, the new engine, the life support systems, and
batteries that we've added since my initial determination of propellant
requirements.

Personally, if Rutan does go orbital, I think we'll see a whole new shape.
Probably a large lifting body.

Well, that was fun... but it's a nice day outside, and I've already killed
two hours of it at the computer. Time to go fly WoodChipOne! :-)

Ron Wanttaja

[Matt Whiting]

Ron Wanttaja wrote:

> Thinking about all the postings I've made on this subject in the past week,
> I realize that I've never really spelled out the difficulties involved in
> evolving SpaceShipOne into a vehicle capable of orbit. Several of us have
> mentioned the difference in the speed required for Monday's sub-orbital vs
> an orbital mission, and the problems of re-entry, but those without a space
> or physics background may not grasp the impact of some of the factors so
> casually thrown about.
>
> This is an attempt to describe some of the engineering problems that must
> be faced, and some typical solutions, when evolving a Scaled SpaceShipOne
> (SS1) class of sub-orbital homebuilt spacecraft into one capable of at
> least one orbit of the Earth.

[pacplyer]

Ron Wanttaja <snip>
>
> This is an attempt to describe some of the engineering problems that must
> be faced, and some typical solutions, when evolving a Scaled SpaceShipOne
> (SS1) class of sub-orbital homebuilt spacecraft into one capable of at
> least one orbit of the Earth.

Where did Rutan say he was going to do this? "evolv[e] a Scaled
SpaceShipOne (SS1) class of sub-orbital homebuilt spacecraft into one
capable of at least one orbit of the Earth"?

First of all, Scaled is a company. The spacecraft is not homebuilt.
A Rutan Orbiter will most certainly be a different vehicle entirely.
Burt's solutions are each tailor made for the specific application.
I would expect more unconventional solutions every bit as ingenious as
we have seen on this vehicle. But I wager he will stick with an
aircraft launched solution so as to save the weight of the ground
stage. All his designs have gravitated towards simplicity and that
includes avoiding getting tangled up in Uncle Sam's super-regulated
red tape-factory facilities whenever possible. I really doubt he'd
head to Vandenberg. After hitting Nasa's "deep space" mark (100km)
and landing Mike M. unfurled a big sign that read "SS1: Government
Zero." I said: "Right on Mike!"

> REVERSE ENGINEERING SS1
>
> The first thing we have to do is figure out the characteristics of the
> vehicle we're starting with. Scaled hasn't released many of the technical
> details needed for an in-depth analysis...after all, it *is* a private
> rocket, and not a government one where the information is public domain.

Was detailed info on the Saturn program ever made public? I thought
all the blueprints and tech manuals were destroyed as a ploy to argue
for development of the Space Shuttle. I'd love to have some Saturn V
drawings to hang on the wall.

<snip reverse engrng>
>
> Which gets us back to White Knight. It's got an 8,000-pound carrying
> capacity, and SS1 and its launch stages are probably well over 40,000
> pounds. To quote Roy Schieder: "We're going to need a bigger boat!"
>
> Will White Knight scale up that far? And what about the extra length of
> the initial launch stages? Plus, this long rocket will have to be carried
> *horizontally*, and would have to be designed to withstand landing loads as
> well, in case a launch is aborted.

A 747-200F tow plane, like Tim Ward suggested, would be perfect for a
100,000 to 200,000 lbs "Orbit One" staged vehicle. The Shuttle
currently is carried on a lesser powered 747-100 (sans fuel.)

<snip good description of orbital maneuvers here>
> This problem would be alleviated by a launch from the East coast of the US,
> rather than from California. With a 40-degree inclination out of Cape
> Canaveral, OrbitOne will cross over Mojave at the end of the third orbit.
> Whether Burt will be willing to move his launch operation 3,000 miles away
> is a question.

This runs the cost up, so I bet he'll just op to use another delta
wing/lifting body and either land in Hawaii or deorbit burn into
Mojave.

>
> In any case, the design will have to include hours of life-support for the
> personnel onboard. Plus carry the batteries or other power generating
> equipment required for running it, and for powering all the other systems.
> Power limitations alone may prevent OrbitOne from flying more an a couple
> of 90-minute orbits.

This is were Burt's going to shine. Instead of lugging three finicky
APU's up like the shuttle, Rutan will come up with solutions so light
and simple in retrospect they'll seem obvious. The man's a purist.
Just sit back and watch the master at work the next year or so.

>
> RE-ENTRY
>
> We've already had a lot of discussion relative to re-entry...that
> SpaceShipOne's ballistic flight at Mach 3 maximum doesn't compare to the
> amount of energy converted into heat as OrbitOne slows from Mach 25. I've
> already posted my worries about exposing a deployable structure (e.g. the
> shuttlecock mode) to the re-entry plasma, especially since it'll be
> necessary to retract it for landing. <snip>

> Ron Wanttaja

Not to worry. This will all be re-engineered by Burt's engineers.
Teflon coatings by themselves probably won't cut it. But the
Aerospace Valley where Burt lives is full of thermodynamic engineers
with good ideas that Burt can draw on. The difference between Scaled
Composite and Nasa is that Scaled doesn't build vehicles by committee.
Take the ISS. What a piece of ****. Designed like little floating
countries by dim-witted politicians. Burt doesn't have to put up with
these morons. He also doesn't have to brownose five layers of
management to get the project off the ground. That IMHO is why his
stuff always shines and outperforms the government garbage. The
Challenger and Columbia burned up because Nasa Management has a
culture of not listening to engineer's concerns. Burt on the contrary
seems to consistently listen to his people, and unlike NASA learns
from his mistakes. JMHO. GO BURT! GO SCALED! GO-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O!

pac "just light the ****ing candle" plyer

[Richard Lamb]

As a (very!) few people have mentioned over the years,
sucessful aircraft design is all about fullfilling the
stated mission objectives.

I think Ron W's post gave clear indication that SS1
WON'T scale up for an orbital ship.

That is a completely different and much more demanding
mission objective, requiring a completely different design.

But I have purest faith that if Burt bites into that one
it WILL be a success, and it will likely be completely different
from anything we've see so far.

Unless? The lightest simplest cheapest solution to reentry is
soemthing we did before and moved away from. Like a blunt body
heat shield, maybe?

Man, what I'd give to be on THAT team...

Richard

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 20:33:16 -0400, Matt Whiting >
wrote:

>Ron Wanttaja wrote:
>
>> This is an attempt to describe some of the engineering problems that must
>> be faced, and some typical solutions, when evolving a Scaled SpaceShipOne
>> (SS1) class of sub-orbital homebuilt spacecraft into one capable of at
>> least one orbit of the Earth.
> .
> .
> .
>
>> Well, that was fun... but it's a nice day outside, and I've already killed
>> two hours of it at the computer. Time to go fly WoodChipOne! :-)
>
>Ron, you have WAY too much time on your hands! :-)

I get that a lot. :-)

Ron Wanttaja

[Matt Whiting]

Ron Wanttaja wrote:

> On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 20:33:16 -0400, Matt Whiting >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Ron Wanttaja wrote:
>>
>>
>>>This is an attempt to describe some of the engineering problems that must
>>>be faced, and some typical solutions, when evolving a Scaled SpaceShipOne
>>>(SS1) class of sub-orbital homebuilt spacecraft into one capable of at
>>>least one orbit of the Earth.
>>
>> .
>> .
>> .
>>
>>
>>>Well, that was fun... but it's a nice day outside, and I've already killed
>>>two hours of it at the computer. Time to go fly WoodChipOne! :-)
>>
>>Ron, you have WAY too much time on your hands! :-)
>
>
> I get that a lot. :-)

It was an interesting read, though!

Matt

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 14:57:40 GMT, Richard Lamb >
wrote:

>As a (very!) few people have mentioned over the years,
>sucessful aircraft design is all about fullfilling the
>stated mission objectives.
>
>I think Ron W's post gave clear indication that SS1
>WON'T scale up for an orbital ship.
>
>That is a completely different and much more demanding
>mission objective, requiring a completely different design.
>
>But I have purest faith that if Burt bites into that one
>it WILL be a success, and it will likely be completely different
>from anything we've see so far.

Absolutely...if it can be done, Burt is the man who can do it.

We do have to remember the other half of the SpaceShipOne equation, though.
Instead of calling it the "Scaled SpaceShipOne," I should refer to it as
the "Scaled/Allen SpaceShipOne." Whether Rutan moves on to orbital craft
probably depends on whether Paul Allen is willing to pay for it.

>Unless? The lightest simplest cheapest solution to reentry is
>soemthing we did before and moved away from. Like a blunt body
>heat shield, maybe?

I think there's been enough development of high-temperature materials since
the 1970s that a simpler, probably cheaper, heat-shield material is
available. The Shuttle's tiles are still marvels, but we can do better
than that. And no one is better than Burt Rutan at taking experimental
concepts and turning them into operational hardware.

Plus, one thing I didn't mention in my Magnum Opus: There's no reason for
Rutan to re-invent the initial stages needed to boost a small manned
spacecraft into orbit. If we posit a ~3000-pound weight for an orbiter,
there are "low cost" launch vehicles available off-the-shelf (or nearly so)
that can put it into orbit.

Unfortunately, these are "low cost" only in relation to conventional launch
boosters. We're still talking $12-$25M a ride. The beauty of SpaceShipOne
is that the suborbital flight burns only fuel. Space tourism is cheap, on
that basis. But an orbital system will probably push it back into the
Millionaire's club.

>Man, what I'd give to be on THAT team...

I've been watching the mailbox for a job offer every day. :-)

But...in the words of Obie Wan Kenobi, "There is another." Paul Allen is
NOT the only Seattle millionaire funding private spacecraft. About a year
ago, the Seattle Times had an article about how Amazon.com founder Jeff
Bezos had quietly started his *own* space company. Buddy of mine
(propulsion specialist) even had a job offer from them....

Keep watching the skies!

Ron Wanttaja

[Matt Whiting]

Ron Wanttaja wrote:

> On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 14:57:40 GMT, Richard Lamb >
> wrote:
>
>
>>As a (very!) few people have mentioned over the years,
>>sucessful aircraft design is all about fullfilling the
>>stated mission objectives.
>>
>>I think Ron W's post gave clear indication that SS1
>>WON'T scale up for an orbital ship.
>>
>>That is a completely different and much more demanding
>>mission objective, requiring a completely different design.
>>
>>But I have purest faith that if Burt bites into that one
>>it WILL be a success, and it will likely be completely different
>
>>from anything we've see so far.
>
> Absolutely...if it can be done, Burt is the man who can do it.
>
> We do have to remember the other half of the SpaceShipOne equation, though.
> Instead of calling it the "Scaled SpaceShipOne," I should refer to it as
> the "Scaled/Allen SpaceShipOne." Whether Rutan moves on to orbital craft
> probably depends on whether Paul Allen is willing to pay for it.

I'm not sure even Paul has pockets deep enough to fund an orbital
mission. Sure would be fun to watch though if he does!


Matt

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, Ron Wanttaja says...
>
>Keep watching the skies!
>
>Ron Wanttaja

Speaking of watching the sky's .Did anyone see anything last Saturday that
looked like a piece of space debris burning up? About 10:30 PM last Saturday in
sourthern Ohio about 6 of us saw something streaking across the sky from NW to
SE or there abouts .It was about 25 -30 degrees off the horizon and was visible
thru an arc of about 40 degrees horizontally and lasting about 7-8 seconds
before it went out of sight behind some trees. It was a burnt orange color and
seemed to spewing sparks of the same color .Kinda like grinding a piece of steel
on a grind stone.A small piece seperated from the main portion and only lasted a
couple of seconds.

I've seen tons of meteorites of various colors but I can't believe that this was
one. It seemed too slow ,everyone remarked that it seemed about the same speed
as the Shuttle break up.

Just wondering if there's a place that lists times of space debris coming out of
orbit,I'm really curious about what it might have been.

AND no I wasn't drinking any Muzzleloader!!!! :-0

See ya

Chuck (what the hell was that?)S

[Rich S.]

"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
> Speaking of watching the sky's .Did anyone see anything last Saturday that
> looked like a piece of space debris burning up?
snip
> Chuck (what the hell was that?)S

Mooz testing the phugoid oscillations of N328KF?

Rich S.

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, Rich S. says...
>
>Mooz testing the phugoid oscillations of N328KF?
>
>Rich S.

You know he claims to be a test pilot maybe he was testing the phugoid
oscillations of a piece of space junk. He's running out of planes to test so he
has to start on space craft:-) What a guy!! Looping ,rolling and spinning the
MIR space station as it fell out of orbit ,then waiting for the last second
before total burn up and bailing out with his personal ablative shield recovery
system.Finally free falling for 100 miles and spot landing on a bulls eye at
the Golden Knights training field...All in a days work for the mighty zoom!!!
It's no wonder some people worship him LOL!!!


See ya

Chuck (only 1600 hrs) S

[Mark Hickey]

ChuckSlusarczyk > wrote:

>Speaking of watching the sky's .Did anyone see anything last Saturday that
>looked like a piece of space debris burning up? About 10:30 PM last Saturday in
>sourthern Ohio about 6 of us saw something streaking across the sky from NW to
>SE or there abouts .It was about 25 -30 degrees off the horizon and was visible
>thru an arc of about 40 degrees horizontally and lasting about 7-8 seconds
>before it went out of sight behind some trees. It was a burnt orange color and
>seemed to spewing sparks of the same color .Kinda like grinding a piece of steel
>on a grind stone.A small piece seperated from the main portion and only lasted a
>couple of seconds.
>
>I've seen tons of meteorites of various colors but I can't believe that this was
>one. It seemed too slow ,everyone remarked that it seemed about the same speed
>as the Shuttle break up.
>
>Just wondering if there's a place that lists times of space debris coming out of
>orbit,I'm really curious about what it might have been.

Probably a bolide (sp?)... basically a large, fiery meteor that breaks
up as it enters the atmosphere. Sometimes there's even a sound track
to go along (if it's close, that is). Some of them can be pretty
spectacular - I've only ever seen a few of 'em, and I spent lots of
nights laying on my back counting meteors (I must have had free time
when I was a kid).

>AND no I wasn't drinking any Muzzleloader!!!! :-0

You'll see all KINDS of amazing things if you drink that stuff.

Mark Hickey