![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Peter Kemp wrote in
news ![]() 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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
Jim Yanik writes: Peter Kemp wrote in news ![]() 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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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". |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|