Setback for Rutan

[Peter Kemp]

Looks like the flight did not go to plan.

According to BBC reports quoting Rutan there were severe control
problems that forced the pilot (ok, ok, astronaut) to resort to backup
controls just after boost (uncommanded roll) and again near Apogee
(nothing specific mentioned).

He says they're not flying again until they know what the hell
happened, and the next flight will not now be the first for the
X-Prize, but another test flight.

Can't say I blame him, and Starchaser (the next closest IIRC) are 18
months away, so time isn't that critical.

Peter Kemp

[Buzzer]

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 22:58:19 -0400, Peter Kemp
> wrote:

>Looks like the flight did not go to plan.
>
>According to BBC reports quoting Rutan there were severe control
>problems that forced the pilot (ok, ok, astronaut) to resort to backup
>controls just after boost (uncommanded roll) and again near Apogee
>(nothing specific mentioned).
>
>He says they're not flying again until they know what the hell
>happened, and the next flight will not now be the first for the
>X-Prize, but another test flight.
>
>Can't say I blame him, and Starchaser (the next closest IIRC) are 18
>months away, so time isn't that critical.
>
>Peter Kemp

And besides they have to try and find all those stupid M&Ms he let
loose in the cockpit.

[miso]

Note that they will have to make 2 more trips for the prize if they
miss the 2 week window. Still better to delay then risk life, limb,
and the hardware.

Peter Kemp > wrote in message >...
> Looks like the flight did not go to plan.
>
> According to BBC reports quoting Rutan there were severe control
> problems that forced the pilot (ok, ok, astronaut) to resort to backup
> controls just after boost (uncommanded roll) and again near Apogee
> (nothing specific mentioned).
>
> He says they're not flying again until they know what the hell
> happened, and the next flight will not now be the first for the
> X-Prize, but another test flight.
>
> Can't say I blame him, and Starchaser (the next closest IIRC) are 18
> months away, so time isn't that critical.
>
> Peter Kemp

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"miso" > wrote in message
om...
>
> Note that they will have to make 2 more trips for the prize if they
> miss the 2 week window. Still better to delay then risk life, limb,
> and the hardware.
>

They have to make at least two more trips for the prize regardless of
anything else, as they have yet to make a single qualifying flight.

[Jeff Crowell]

Peter Kemp wrote:
> According to BBC reports quoting Rutan there were severe control
> problems that forced the pilot (ok, ok, astronaut) to resort to backup
> controls just after boost (uncommanded roll) and again near Apogee
> (nothing specific mentioned).

From where I sit, let's call him a a pilot... he WAS driving, after all,
not just watching the pretty lights.

Melville and Rutan were on Leno last night, pilot said the problem
was with the trim system near/at apogee, not control system, though
ISTR someone mentioning right after the flight that they had had
some roll instability during the flight, and right after launch it looked
in the video as if the plane (spacecraft?) was rolling back and forth
about 40-50 degrees each way from vertical.


Jeff

[Jim Yanik]

Peter Kemp > wrote in
:

> Looks like the flight did not go to plan.
>
> According to BBC reports quoting Rutan there were severe control
> problems that forced the pilot (ok, ok, astronaut) to resort to backup
> controls just after boost (uncommanded roll) and again near Apogee
> (nothing specific mentioned).
>
> He says they're not flying again until they know what the hell
> happened, and the next flight will not now be the first for the
> X-Prize, but another test flight.
>
> Can't say I blame him, and Starchaser (the next closest IIRC) are 18
> months away, so time isn't that critical.
>
> Peter Kemp
>

What sort of maneuvering controls do they have for when the SS1 is out of
the atmosphere and the aero control surfaces don't work? If any.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Jim Yanik > writes:
> Peter Kemp > wrote in
> :
>
>> Looks like the flight did not go to plan.
>>
>> According to BBC reports quoting Rutan there were severe control
>> problems that forced the pilot (ok, ok, astronaut) to resort to backup
>> controls just after boost (uncommanded roll) and again near Apogee
>> (nothing specific mentioned).
>>
>> He says they're not flying again until they know what the hell
>> happened, and the next flight will not now be the first for the
>> X-Prize, but another test flight.
>>
>> Can't say I blame him, and Starchaser (the next closest IIRC) are 18
>> months away, so time isn't that critical.

> What sort of maneuvering controls do they have for when the SS1 is out of
> the atmosphere and the aero control surfaces don't work? If any.

There's a Reaction Contol System (RCS), for Roll, Pitch adn Yaw. I
don't have any specifics on it - Rutan says that it's a "Cold Gas"
system, which is usually compressed gas, but could potentially be
HTP (High Test Peroxide). The RCS can control attitude, but can't
change the trajectory.


--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Alan Minyard]

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 07:38:39 -0600, "Jeff Crowell" > wrote:

>Peter Kemp wrote:
>> According to BBC reports quoting Rutan there were severe control
>> problems that forced the pilot (ok, ok, astronaut) to resort to backup
>> controls just after boost (uncommanded roll) and again near Apogee
>> (nothing specific mentioned).
>
>From where I sit, let's call him a a pilot... he WAS driving, after all,
>not just watching the pretty lights.
>
>Melville and Rutan were on Leno last night, pilot said the problem
>was with the trim system near/at apogee, not control system, though
>ISTR someone mentioning right after the flight that they had had
>some roll instability during the flight, and right after launch it looked
>in the video as if the plane (spacecraft?) was rolling back and forth
>about 40-50 degrees each way from vertical.
>
>
>Jeff
>
At apogee there would be almost no control authority (lack of sufficient air
molecules). Do they have a thruster system for control at that altitude??

Al Minyard

[Robert Briggs]

Alan Minyard wrote:

> At apogee there would be almost no control authority (lack of sufficient air
> molecules). Do they have a thruster system for control at that altitude??

If there is *any* remotely usable control authority then the thing ain't
in space for any reasonable value of "space".

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Alan Minyard > writes:
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 07:38:39 -0600, "Jeff Crowell" > wrote:
>
>>Peter Kemp wrote:
>>> According to BBC reports quoting Rutan there were severe control
>>> problems that forced the pilot (ok, ok, astronaut) to resort to backup
>>> controls just after boost (uncommanded roll) and again near Apogee
>>> (nothing specific mentioned).
>>
>>From where I sit, let's call him a a pilot... he WAS driving, after all,
>>not just watching the pretty lights.
>>
>>Melville and Rutan were on Leno last night, pilot said the problem
>>was with the trim system near/at apogee, not control system, though
>>ISTR someone mentioning right after the flight that they had had
>>some roll instability during the flight, and right after launch it looked
>>in the video as if the plane (spacecraft?) was rolling back and forth
>>about 40-50 degrees each way from vertical.
>>
>>
>>Jeff
>>
> At apogee there would be almost no control authority (lack of sufficient air
> molecules). Do they have a thruster system for control at that altitude??

Yes - there's a cold-gas RSC system. See my response to Jim Yanik's
post on this thread.


--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Robert Briggs > writes:
> Alan Minyard wrote:
>
>> At apogee there would be almost no control authority (lack of sufficient air
>> molecules). Do they have a thruster system for control at that altitude??
>
> If there is *any* remotely usable control authority then the thing ain't
> in space for any reasonable value of "space".

A couple or three points:
Control Authority doesn't have to mean aerodunamic controls - SS1
has a cold-gas RCS system for attitude control a very low EAS.

There is no such thing a "a reasonable value of 'space'".
It's not like there's a definite dividing line between Atmosphere
adn Vacuum - the density of the atmosphere thrails off as height
increases, but it doesn't entirely go away. Aerodynamic drag, and
the variations in that that occur was the Earth's atmosphere expands
and contracts due to Solar Radiation, are a significant factor in
the lifetime of an orbiting satellite. (Remember Skylab). That
Orbital Decay that you hear so much of is mostly caused by
atmospheric drag.

(By the same token, I'd like to punch Eugene Sanger, or his
translators, in the nose for starting that whole like of crap about
"skipping" off the Earth's atmosphere with a lifting spacecraft. It
doesn't and can't happen that way. The only way to change your vector
with such a craft while re-entering is to fly up, rather than bounce
up - you've got to be flying fast enough, in thick enough air, to
allow a normal pull-up. (As a reference, note that Columbia had
almost reached an EAS that would have allowed a pull-up, but hadn't
yet))

The definition of where "space" starts is completely arbitrary. The
USAF specifies it as 50 miles MSL. The FAI specifies it as 100 km.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Alan Minyard]

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 13:35:44 -0400, (Peter Stickney) wrote:

>In article >,
> Alan Minyard > writes:
>> On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 07:38:39 -0600, "Jeff Crowell" > wrote:
>>
>>>Peter Kemp wrote:
>>>> According to BBC reports quoting Rutan there were severe control
>>>> problems that forced the pilot (ok, ok, astronaut) to resort to backup
>>>> controls just after boost (uncommanded roll) and again near Apogee
>>>> (nothing specific mentioned).
>>>
>>>From where I sit, let's call him a a pilot... he WAS driving, after all,
>>>not just watching the pretty lights.
>>>
>>>Melville and Rutan were on Leno last night, pilot said the problem
>>>was with the trim system near/at apogee, not control system, though
>>>ISTR someone mentioning right after the flight that they had had
>>>some roll instability during the flight, and right after launch it looked
>>>in the video as if the plane (spacecraft?) was rolling back and forth
>>>about 40-50 degrees each way from vertical.
>>>
>>>
>>>Jeff
>>>
>> At apogee there would be almost no control authority (lack of sufficient air
>> molecules). Do they have a thruster system for control at that altitude??
>
>Yes - there's a cold-gas RSC system. See my response to Jim Yanik's
>post on this thread.

Thanks for the info :-)

Al Minyard

[B2431]

>From: Buzzer
>Date: 6/23/2004 1:50 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 22:58:19 -0400, Peter Kemp
> wrote:
>
>>Looks like the flight did not go to plan.
>>
>>According to BBC reports quoting Rutan there were severe control
>>problems that forced the pilot (ok, ok, astronaut) to resort to backup
>>controls just after boost (uncommanded roll) and again near Apogee
>>(nothing specific mentioned).
>>
>>He says they're not flying again until they know what the hell
>>happened, and the next flight will not now be the first for the
>>X-Prize, but another test flight.
>>
>>Can't say I blame him, and Starchaser (the next closest IIRC) are 18
>>months away, so time isn't that critical.
>>
>>Peter Kemp
>
>And besides they have to try and find all those stupid M&Ms he let
>loose in the cockpit.
>

A miraculous even occurred as a result of the flight. All the M&Ms™ were
converted to Ws.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: "Steven P. McNicoll"
>Date: 6/23/2004 5:49 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: . net>
>
>
>"miso" > wrote in message
om...
>>
>> Note that they will have to make 2 more trips for the prize if they
>> miss the 2 week window. Still better to delay then risk life, limb,
>> and the hardware.
>>
>
>They have to make at least two more trips for the prize regardless of
>anything else, as they have yet to make a single qualifying flight.

How did this one not qualify?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Peter Kemp]

On 23 Jun 2004 21:54:57 GMT, (B2431) wrote:

>>From: "Steven P. McNicoll"
>>Date: 6/23/2004 5:49 AM Central Daylight Time
>>Message-id: . net>
>>
>>
>>"miso" > wrote in message
om...
>>>
>>> Note that they will have to make 2 more trips for the prize if they
>>> miss the 2 week window. Still better to delay then risk life, limb,
>>> and the hardware.
>>>
>>
>>They have to make at least two more trips for the prize regardless of
>>anything else, as they have yet to make a single qualifying flight.
>
>How did this one not qualify?

Not high enough and did not carry 3 humans (although I think 2 of the
"passengers" can be weighted dummies.

Peter Kemp

[Scott Ferrin]

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 06:50:21 GMT, Buzzer > wrote:

>On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 22:58:19 -0400, Peter Kemp
> wrote:
>
>>Looks like the flight did not go to plan.
>>
>>According to BBC reports quoting Rutan there were severe control
>>problems that forced the pilot (ok, ok, astronaut) to resort to backup
>>controls just after boost (uncommanded roll) and again near Apogee
>>(nothing specific mentioned).
>>
>>He says they're not flying again until they know what the hell
>>happened, and the next flight will not now be the first for the
>>X-Prize, but another test flight.
>>
>>Can't say I blame him, and Starchaser (the next closest IIRC) are 18
>>months away, so time isn't that critical.
>>
>>Peter Kemp
>
>And besides they have to try and find all those stupid M&Ms he let
>loose in the cockpit.

I had to laugh at that. If it were NASA they'd ground the Shuttle for
two years and spend a billion dollars on a new
"M&Ms-don't-become-airborne" system.

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Peter Kemp > writes:
> On 23 Jun 2004 21:54:57 GMT, (B2431) wrote:
>
>>>From: "Steven P. McNicoll"
>>>Date: 6/23/2004 5:49 AM Central Daylight Time
>>>Message-id: . net>
>>>
>>>
>>>"miso" > wrote in message
om...
>>>>
>>>> Note that they will have to make 2 more trips for the prize if they
>>>> miss the 2 week window. Still better to delay then risk life, limb,
>>>> and the hardware.
>>>>
>>>
>>>They have to make at least two more trips for the prize regardless of
>>>anything else, as they have yet to make a single qualifying flight.
>>
>>How did this one not qualify?
>
> Not high enough and did not carry 3 humans (although I think 2 of the
> "passengers" can be weighted dummies.

The flight was high enough - IIRC, the apogee was 100.125 km, so they had
1/8 of a km in the bag. (Not enough really, you wnat to have more in
the case of an instrumentation hiccup)

In order to qualigy as an X-Prize flight, it has to be carrying
ballast equivalent to two passengers (And no, you don't get to pick
the passengers, it's a specified weight), and the flight has to have
been pre-announced by 30 days, with another flight following within 14
days.
This flight wasn't intended to be an X-Prize flight, but a test
flight. Burt Rutan's been running an orderly and reaosonable test
program, taking each stage in bite-sized increments, and resolving
problems as he goes. (His normal approach) There hasn't yet been the
30 day pre-boarding call.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>
> How did this one not qualify?
>

The X Prize flights require three people aboard or a pilot and ballast
equivalent to two people. Melvill flew solo and carried no ballast.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter Kemp" > wrote in message
...
>
> Not high enough and did not carry 3 humans (although I think 2 of the
> "passengers" can be weighted dummies.
>

It was high enough but did not carry the two passengers/ballast.

[Peter Kemp]

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 02:14:44 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"Peter Kemp" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Not high enough and did not carry 3 humans (although I think 2 of the
>> "passengers" can be weighted dummies.
>>
>
>It was high enough but did not carry the two passengers/ballast.

Sorry for some reason I had 120km in mind - checking I am wrong
(again!)

Peter Kemp

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >, Peter Kemp
> wrote:

> On 23 Jun 2004 21:54:57 GMT, (B2431) wrote:
>
> >>From: "Steven P. McNicoll"
> >>Date: 6/23/2004 5:49 AM Central Daylight Time
> >>Message-id: . net>
> >>
> >>
> >>"miso" > wrote in message
> om...
> >>>
> >>> Note that they will have to make 2 more trips for the prize if they
> >>> miss the 2 week window. Still better to delay then risk life, limb,
> >>> and the hardware.
> >>>
> >>
> >>They have to make at least two more trips for the prize regardless of
> >>anything else, as they have yet to make a single qualifying flight.
> >
> >How did this one not qualify?
>
> Not high enough and did not carry 3 humans (although I think 2 of the
> "passengers" can be weighted dummies.

Would political candidates qualify as the latter, and would they have to
be returned to earth? I see a new industry...