Spaceship 1 - going for it

Grypd · 2004-06-25 16:00:41

The two flight routes concorde did use where the London/Paris to New york and Paris to Rio.

These flights went across the Atlantic and did not have to worry about scaring the whales so supersonic speed was used. But when it reached land it was reguired to slow to standard commercial speeds.
This was may have been due to national interest (Boeing/ lockheed had attempted to create its own supersonic plane but failed(far too expensive ). But the knowledge we have how sonic booms are created was at a limited degree in the 1960's and the concorde could and did smash windows miles from its course.

Rxke · 2004-06-26 01:34:54

the concorde could and did smash windows miles from its course.

Wow... First thing i hear about that. You have links?

Not attacking your statement, far from it, genuinely interested, because as an Europan i never heard about it, and BBConline dedicated quite some articles on the Concorde, duriing its latest flights etc, but they never mentioned that. So this could be a very good example of media-spin.

Grypd · 2004-06-26 05:18:02

When concorde was being made there where a lot of companies interested in it. It would have flown under a lot of different liveries but it was in the main cancelled by all except AirFrance and BA.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/260235.stm]Concorde chicken tests

This shows how concerned that the sonic boom of the concorde would be a real problem. As a further note the british goverment did pay out i believe for most of these structural complaints....mostly cracked or broken windows, The Concorde as a plane had a very noisy sonic boom.

Rxke · 2004-06-26 05:27:38

Thanks, but darn, it's not on their servers anymore, at least i can't access it...

off to google...

(EDIT: it is still up: there's a typo in your link: "," instead of "." before "stm"

Grypd · 2004-06-26 05:33:36

Frankly i think its me just not getting the codes right and it is still not coming up even with me having removed the typo.

Anyway as stated the Concorde was supposed to be flying in a lot of different colors and liveries but these orders where all cancelled one after another in the 60's leaving the AirFrance and British Airways to be the only users.

Rxke · 2004-06-26 06:03:57

it's
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2602 … 602345.stm

(there was a '4' missing...)

bolbuyk · 2004-06-28 07:15:40

When concorde was being made there where a lot of companies interested in it. It would have flown under a lot of different liveries but it was in the main cancelled by all except AirFrance and BA.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/260235.stm]Concorde chicken tests
This shows how concerned that the sonic boom of the concorde would be a real problem. As a further note the british goverment did pay out i believe for most of these structural complaints....mostly cracked or broken windows, The Concorde as a plane had a very noisy sonic boom.

The Russians also had such a kind of plane.

Grypd · 2004-06-28 15:50:43

The russians did have a plane similar the so called Concordski but it was an attempt to make a direct copy.

The information to do this was well was stolen by spies, its just they did not get all the information and a couple of really important bits where missing, resulting in a plane that was seriously flawed.

GCNRevenger · 2004-06-28 21:26:43

I still maintian that no suborbital vehicle will be a practical air transport system for a long, long time even if Lockheed built it, much less Burt or Elon...

...The reason being, at the moment you must use rocket power to exit the atmosphere. No air-breathing engine exsists nor will exsist for some time most likly that could provide the nessesarry performance, so a rocket engine is the only option.

And to put it simply, rocket engines aren't that reliable or quick to turn around yet. Such a vehicle would have to have extreme reliability for a rocket-plane, or they would simply be too dangerous or take too long to make ready to fly. Current best engines with decent performance, like the RL-10, are only good for tens or maybe a hundred firings, an so you would need an engine of an entirely new level of reliability.

Ian Flint · 2004-06-28 22:23:40

And I still maintain that you will not be satisfied with anything less than a Gas Core Nuclear Reactor.

lunarmark · 2004-06-29 05:30:03

The point about spaceship1 is that it's rocket is reusable, a refil, service and your ready to go again.

But not wishing to dis the guys achievements, all he has really done is design another high altitude plane, The real problem is that to achieve orbit requires a significantly larger vehicle, with much more fuel etc. then you end up with something like the space shuttle...

I think the areospace companies can learn a lot from the 'two stage, plane launched technique' though, why send a payload through the atmoshere using a rocket? - wings and jets work to the edge of space, so to me the answer is clear:
launch a space craft by carrying it the easy way to the edge, then let it go - cheaply - thats the way to go.

GCNRevenger · 2004-06-29 08:53:17

But that is somthing that SS1 cannot do, the process of readying it for flight is not as simple as just refilling the fuel tanks and pressure bottles and exchanging crews, particularly with its pressure-fed/solid rocket hybrid engine.

As far as the airplane + rocket idea, the answer is "yes and no," since the airplane does shave off considerable fuel weight, but the fuel needed is still very large, so the size of the airplane needed to carry a rocket able to launch substantial payload quickly becomes monsterous. SS1 would need to be over a hundred times larger, hence, White Knight would have to be a hundred times larger.

The airplane + spaceplane idea is not new, it has been around since the Apollo days before Shuttle became a political nightmare... right now the size of the airplane needed to loft a Medium (25MT) payload rocket would be unfeasable, but if the airplane were able to fly faster and higher (say, Mach-6 and 200,000ft), then we'd be in business.

Rxke · 2004-06-29 14:03:32

http://www.scaled.com/projects/tierone/video.htm]SS1 in-flight video (wmv)

Too bad there is no sound, but this sure is a great eye-opener, IMHO... Must be quite an experience...

Including the infamous floating M&M's, a view of the curveature of Earth, with a sun in a black sky...

I couldn't help noticing the extra empty seats behind Melvill's back.

clark · 2004-06-29 14:11:06

Impressive. Thank you Rxke!

John Creighton · 2004-06-29 14:23:19

Maybe it’s just a high altitude plane but to me it looks like it is in space. Looking out the window the earth looks considerably round and the sky looks considerably black. I want a ride.

Ian Flint · 2004-06-29 14:26:23

Nice video!

Is this exciting or what!?!?

I get goosebumps just thinking about all the possibilities.

Rxke · 2004-06-29 14:27:58

Heh, you have to thank Paul Allen, it was him who footed the bill, and his company that made the video

Now imagine this footage, but with sound, hi-res, as an ad for M&M's in 'a cinema near you...'

As an ad for M&M, you couldn't go any better, for this price...

caption: "M&M's: $1.75... Spaceflight: $20,000... "

Ian Flint · 2004-06-29 14:29:38

I think the round look of the Earth is because of the lens on the camera. It probably has one of those fish-eye panoramic lenses.

Still, the sky is black!

Rxke · 2004-06-29 14:35:08

I think the round look of the Earth is because of the lens on the camera. It probably has one of those fish-eye panoramic lenses.

Shhh! (it is a panoramic lens, so they have more of a view of the feather-section)

Still, from that altitude, the curveature is quite spectacular, according to Melvill...

John Creighton · 2004-07-01 23:34:06

Maybe when I am done school someday I will be able to afford a $20,000 ride. In the short term, does anyone know any good simulators. Perhaps with a centrifuge to simulate high g’s and 3 d goggles whose picture changes as you move your head. Preferably not to rough. I am not a fan of jarring motions.

Along with a ride on spaceship one, I would kind of like to know what it would be like to experience flight on some of the newer airplanes. Do you know that the new euro fighter can continuously pull 9 g’s at supper sonic speed? It can go from 0 to 100 in 3 seconds. It has thrust vectoring to allow the plane to point the nose in different directions wile still flying the same direction. Wow.

Rxke · 2004-07-02 00:05:27

IIRC the simulatorsoft they used for SS1 is freely available, but if you register you get more options... You can design your own planes in it etc...

I fiddled around with it a bit, it's very impressive, of course it doesn't supply you with a 'g-seat' but since it's fairly adaptable, you might be able to find add-ons? there's probably a webring dedicated to it...

(but what's its name again... I suggest you google for free or shareware best flightsim etc, it's really popular..)

You can do things like droplaunches from B-52's, and go really crazy, like drop-launching... a b-52

There's a shuttle (w/o propulsion) lander in it; a Mars-plane (rocket in fact) , helicopters etc...

Palomar · 2004-07-02 08:32:33

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/RutanSp … aceShipOne vs The Debt Star

*Editorial cartoons devoted to "The Little Spaceship That Could."

--Cindy

P.S.:

Rik: couldn't help noticing the extra empty seats behind Melvill's back.

*And wishing you were in one of them, right? :;):

John Creighton · 2004-07-02 10:17:06

What is the cost of a trip. I heard it cost 20 million. What does that include? Does that include the development and manufacturing costs? What is the marginal cost per flight, Unless, it is 100 or 1000 times cheaper I don’t think I will ever pay for a ride no mater how much money I ever have.

John Creighton · 2004-07-02 10:21:08

I know space ship one gets a piggy back from an air plane. I heard it suggested that this becomes impractical for larger models. What if it got a piggy back from some kind of rocket. How would such a system compare to the Soyuz and shuttle?

Rxke · 2004-07-02 12:33:50

Cost of the system is closer to 30mil.
Rutan does not plan to use SS1 as a tourist thing, it's purely for tests.

Version two will be about 20-50k a ride. Next-gen suborbitals would be closer to 10k.

Rutan want at least 150km instead of 100, so you have longer time in microgravity...

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2004-06-25 16:00:41

Re: Spaceship 1 - going for it

#52 2004-06-26 01:34:54

Re: Spaceship 1 - going for it

#53 2004-06-26 05:18:02

Re: Spaceship 1 - going for it

#54 2004-06-26 05:27:38

Re: Spaceship 1 - going for it

#55 2004-06-26 05:33:36

Re: Spaceship 1 - going for it

#56 2004-06-26 06:03:57

Re: Spaceship 1 - going for it

#57 2004-06-28 07:15:40

Re: Spaceship 1 - going for it

#58 2004-06-28 15:50:43

Re: Spaceship 1 - going for it

#59 2004-06-28 21:26:43

Re: Spaceship 1 - going for it

#60 2004-06-28 22:23:40

Re: Spaceship 1 - going for it

#61 2004-06-29 05:30:03

Re: Spaceship 1 - going for it

#62 2004-06-29 08:53:17

Re: Spaceship 1 - going for it

#63 2004-06-29 14:03:32

Re: Spaceship 1 - going for it

#64 2004-06-29 14:11:06

Re: Spaceship 1 - going for it

#65 2004-06-29 14:23:19

Re: Spaceship 1 - going for it

#66 2004-06-29 14:26:23

Re: Spaceship 1 - going for it

#67 2004-06-29 14:27:58

Re: Spaceship 1 - going for it

#68 2004-06-29 14:29:38

Re: Spaceship 1 - going for it

#69 2004-06-29 14:35:08

Re: Spaceship 1 - going for it

#70 2004-07-01 23:34:06

Re: Spaceship 1 - going for it

#71 2004-07-02 00:05:27

Re: Spaceship 1 - going for it

#72 2004-07-02 08:32:33

Re: Spaceship 1 - going for it

#73 2004-07-02 10:17:06

Re: Spaceship 1 - going for it

#74 2004-07-02 10:21:08

Re: Spaceship 1 - going for it

#75 2004-07-02 12:33:50

Re: Spaceship 1 - going for it

Board footer