 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Shuttle / June 2004SpaceShip One - good luck!
Interesting to note that the first 'Humanaut" is 62 and obviously not a top-of-the-line physical specimen - good advertising for the rest of us who hope one day to be able to go into space.  SignatureAlan Erskine We can get people to the Moon in five years, not the fifteen GWB proposes. Give NASA a real challenge Alanterskine1@bigpond.com > Interesting to note that the first 'Humanaut" is 62 and obviously not > a top-of-the-line physical specimen - good advertising for the rest of > us who hope one day to be able to go into space. Dick Rutan is reporting on CNN that SS1's engine shut down prematurely, but has confirmed that peak altitude was over 100 km. SignatureJRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. > > Interesting to note that the first 'Humanaut" is 62 and obviously not > > a top-of-the-line physical specimen - good advertising for the rest of > > us who hope one day to be able to go into space. > > Dick Rutan is reporting on CNN that SS1's engine shut down prematurely, but > has confirmed that peak altitude was over 100 km. That's good news - it means it's capable of even higher altitudes. WEEEEEEEEE!!!! AWAY WE GO! (yes, if you hadn't realised, I'm quite happy). SignatureAlan Erskine We can get people to the Moon in five years, not the fifteen GWB proposes. Give NASA a real challenge Alanterskine1@bigpond.com >"Jorge R. Frank" <jrfrank@ibm-pc.borg> wrote in message > >> Dick Rutan is reporting on CNN that SS1's engine shut down prematurely, >> but has confirmed that peak altitude was over 100 km. > >That's good news - it means it's capable of even higher altitudes. No, it means that when loaded to full capacity (which this flight wasn't) the craft will be able to reach it's target altitude. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. > >"Jorge R. Frank" <jrfrank@ibm-pc.borg> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > D. China lake reported 112km, they did good............(I heard Edwards said 110) I was there and saw Alan Shepard on his sub-orbital flight, it's amazing I was more excited today, WOW!!! T3 > China lake reported 112km, they did good............(I heard Edwards said > 110) <flamebait>I wouldn't trust either of them to know what a km is :)</flamebait> Congrats to the SS1 team. >> >"Jorge R. Frank" <jrfrank@ibm-pc.borg> wrote in message >> > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >China lake reported 112km, they did good............(I heard Edwards said >110) The official tally is 100.124 km. Not so good. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. > The official tally is 100.124 km. Not so good. Still over a hundred; that's all that matters. SignatureAlan Erskine We can get people to the Moon in five years, not the fifteen GWB proposes. Give NASA a real challenge Alanterskine1@bigpond.com >>The official tally is 100.124 km. Not so good. > Still over a hundred; that's all that matters. Yeah, but is such measurement really good to one part in a thousand? Most people don't even know the feet->km conversion factor to that accuracy, and the original report was in feet...all you need to do is get the look angle to the target even slightly wrong (by 10-3 radian, or about 4 arc- minutes, if I did the calculation correctly), and you're off by those 100 m. Jan > >>The official tally is 100.124 km. Not so good. > > Still over a hundred; that's all that matters. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Jan According to spaceflight now, the figure was 328,491 feet - at 3.280839895 feet per metre (25.4mm per inch, 12 inches per foot), that works out to be 100124.05680040049622720160198491 feet according to Windows calculator which is more than sufficiently accurate. However, I'm sure that Guiness Book will be more than acceptable. SignatureAlan Erskine We can get people to the Moon in five years, not the fifteen GWB proposes. Give NASA a real challenge Alanterskine1@bigpond.com > According to spaceflight now, the figure was 328,491 feet - at 3.280839895 > feet per metre (25.4mm per inch, 12 inches per foot), that works out to be > 100124.05680040049622720160198491 feet according to Windows calculator which > is more than sufficiently accurate. However, I'm sure that Guiness Book > will be more than acceptable. 328491 ft * 0.3048 m/ft = 100124.0568 metres exactly, or 100124 m to six significant digits (as in the original ft measurement). The 0.3048 is exact. rgds Neil > 328491 ft * 0.3048 m/ft = 100124.0568 metres exactly, or 100124 m to six > significant digits (as in the original ft measurement). The 0.3048 is exact. Just so. And my original questions was whether those six figures are all significant. Jan > >>The official tally is 100.124 km. Not so good. > > Still over a hundred; that's all that matters. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Jan Do you really think that the USAF radars at Edwards AFB can't get the altitude of a single target correct? The base where every major U.S. military aircraft (and many civilian ones) has been tested for decades? Please, Jan. There are many things to discuss about the merits of the flight, the X-Prize itself, and Scaled's approach to it, but the altitude probably isn't one of them. As an aside, I'd wager as well, that the SS1 avionics include a differential GPS receiver - that ought to get them a second altitude measurement good to within several meters as a cross-check. SignatureHerb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D. Reformed Aerospace Engineer Columbia Loss FAQ: <http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html> > Do you really think that the USAF radars at Edwards AFB can't get the > altitude of a single target correct? Correct? Who said anything about "correct"? There is no such thing as a "correct" measurement. Every measurement has at least one error associated with it. And I'm sure it's not a mission requirement of the EAFB radars to measure heights to some arbitrary precision. There's a reason those flight levels are 1000 ft apart, you know. Jan > > Do you really think that the USAF radars at Edwards AFB can't get the > > altitude of a single target correct? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > measure heights to some arbitrary precision. There's a reason those flight > levels are 1000 ft apart, you know. But these places may be presumed to be doing multiple measurements to, loosely speaking, "average out" the errors -- and probably not just from one xmitter/antenna combo. The flight level sep = 1000 has more to do with pilot reaction time than the significant digits on the radar measurement of altitude. /dps > But these places may be presumed to be doing multiple measurements to, > loosely speaking, "average out" the errors -- and probably not just > from one xmitter/antenna combo. Sure, that does get you some reduction in the statistical error. Then, the systematic errors come and bite you 8-)... Jan > > But these places may be presumed to be doing multiple measurements to, > > loosely speaking, "average out" the errors -- and probably not just > > from one xmitter/antenna combo. > > Sure, that does get you some reduction in the statistical error. Then, the > systematic errors come and bite you 8-)... It would have been nice if SS1 had done 105 or 110 km. Maybe next week :) > > But these places may be presumed to be doing multiple measurements to, > > loosely speaking, "average out" the errors -- and probably not just > > from one xmitter/antenna combo. > > Sure, that does get you some reduction in the statistical error. Then, the > systematic errors come and bite you 8-)... Which ones are those? The ones you posited in your earlier post (the one to which I responded) yet have given no evidence of? Had the radar measurements been made by some ordinary, run-of-the-mill ATC (or even military) radars somewhere else, your bald statement might merit serious discussion. As it is, you're talking about radars (and perhaps other measurement methods) in use at the world's premier aerospace test facility. A facility where they presumably have more than a bit of experience in determining height above ground (whether that be height above local ground, height above mean sea level or height above the geometric or gravitational centroid of the Earth). So, precisely which systemic errors do you posit and what is your evidence for them? SignatureHerb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D. Reformed Aerospace Engineer Columbia Loss FAQ: <http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html> >>Sure, that does get you some reduction in the statistical error. Then, the >>systematic errors come and bite you 8-)... > > Which ones are those? I habe no idea - I don't run those radars. Those who do, I hope, do know. > The ones you posited in your earlier post (the > one to which I responded) yet have given no evidence of? Why should I? > Had the radar measurements been made by some ordinary, run-of-the-mill ATC >(or even military) radars somewhere else, your bald statement might merit > serious discussion. As it is, you're talking about radars (and perhaps > other measurement methods) in use at the world's premier aerospace test > facility. Yeah. So what - does that fact exempt them from the laws of physics? > A facility where they presumably have more than a bit of > experience in determining height above ground (whether that be height > above local ground, height above mean sea level or height above the > geometric or gravitational centroid of the Earth). See, you came up with some possible systematic errors. I suspect those are of the kind they _do_ have a handle on. Other errors they may only know exist and not be able to quantify sufficiently. > So, precisely which systemic errors do you posit and what is your > evidence for them? See above. In any case, quoting a measured number to some arbitrary precision is always suspicious - a more useful position actually is to say that a measurement without at least some indication of absolute or relative error is worthless. And that measurement, as reported here and elsewhere, falls in that category. No doubt the people who did the measurement know that, and in all likelihood would be able to answer such questions. That doesn't remove the haut gout of the measured height - above which reference?, as you so lucidly argue above - being so near to that arbitrary border of 100 km. Jan Jan Vorbrüggen <jvorbrueggen-not@mediasec.de> wrote > That doesn't remove the haut gout of the measured height I confess I didn't know that phrase before. http://tinyurl.com/2t7ls While not addressing the 1974 Weight Watcher's recipe for "Fluffy Mackerel Pudding," Korsmeyer asks us to consider the penchant of some westerners for haut gout -- the "high" taste of rotting animal flesh; or our craving for putrefying cheese or for fowl that is killed, plucked, roasted, stuffed with its own organs and presented in the form of the original bird -- sometimes with claws intact, fish served with its head intact, suckling pigs and boar's heads. (The "westerners" part strikes me as somewhat non-PC. There is, of course, pla rah, nuoc mam, etc.) Sorry, gotta go and fix the spinach-gorgonzola salad now. > Sorry, gotta go and fix the spinach-gorgonzola salad now. Isn't all cheese nothing more than extremely rotted milk? > > Sorry, gotta go and fix the spinach-gorgonzola salad now. > > Isn't all cheese nothing more than extremely rotted milk? Allen, bon appetite! <BARF> SignatureAlan Erskine We can get people to the Moon in five years, not the fifteen GWB proposes. Give NASA a real challenge Alanterskine1@bigpond.com > > But these places may be presumed to be doing multiple measurements to, > > loosely speaking, "average out" the errors -- and probably not just > > from one xmitter/antenna combo. > > Sure, that does get you some reduction in the statistical error. Then, the > systematic errors come and bite you 8-)... You may not be familiar with tracking radar, like the FPS-16. It's not at all like the scanning radar that ATC uses. Instead, the FPS-16 tracks the target aircraft by turning and elevating the dish. These systems are quite accurate, particularly when multiple radars, on a long baseline, are used to triangulate. I'm not going to get into a discussion of the merits of the various systems here, because most of the numbers I have are for pattern work, but I will say that I would be greatly inclined to accept whatever height tracking radar produced. Hey, it was good enough for the X-15 and the Orbiter. Mary SignatureMary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer miliff@qnet.com > And I'm sure it's not a mission requirement of the EAFB radars to > measure heights to some arbitrary precision. There is a reason that they were installed at the Flight Test Center... > >> >"Jorge R. Frank" <jrfrank@ibm-pc.borg> wrote in message > >> > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > D. Especially considering they apparently were NOT ballasted with the mass of two additional passengers. They need to troubleshoot those glitches (e.g., engine burn was not as long as expected, there were roll control problems on ascent, and that not-so-comforting fairing buckling that occured sometime during the flight). All in all, a cool thing to do but there are definitely issues Scaled's team is going to be burning the midnight oil trying to solve. SignatureHerb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D. Reformed Aerospace Engineer Columbia Loss FAQ: <http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html> > Especially considering they apparently were NOT ballasted with the mass > of two additional passengers. They need to troubleshoot those glitches [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > All in all, a cool thing to do but there are definitely issues Scaled's > team is going to be burning the midnight oil trying to solve. Fair go Herb, it was the first flight into such territory. Incremental development :) And it looks like Paul Allen is serious, and we all know how much money he has. Until Microsoft does a Worldcom, of course :) In article <40d83202$0$9450$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, > > Especially considering they apparently were NOT ballasted with the mass > > of two additional passengers. They need to troubleshoot those glitches [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > development :) And it looks like Paul Allen is serious, and we all know how > much money he has. Until Microsoft does a Worldcom, of course :) Did you see the quote from Rutan yesterday morning? I don't have the article handy but he said something like, "We will be going orbital sooner than anyone thinks." And if that's not enough of a kicker, his next sentence was something like "We don't intend to spend decades in LEO." Hmmmm . . . . It kind of makes me wonder ho much money Allen has committed behind the scenes for possible work beyond competing for the X-Prize - a hundred million is entirely possible and if Billy G can donate billions to the U.N. and to AIDS research, I'm fairly certain Paul A. could pony up a billion over, say, ten years. I'd really like to see what Rutan has on his viewgraph charts for SS2, SS3, etc. SignatureHerb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D. Reformed Aerospace Engineer Columbia Loss FAQ: <http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html> In article <herb.KILLSPAM.schaltegger-2372D6.09064322062004@news.newsguy.com>, > In article > <40d83202$0$9450$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > billion over, say, ten years. I'd really like to see what Rutan has on > his viewgraph charts for SS2, SS3, etc. That would almost make up for foisting Windows etc on the world, almost.... Signaturesig goes here > Did you see the quote from Rutan yesterday morning? I don't have the > article handy but he said something like, "We will be going orbital [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > billion over, say, ten years. I'd really like to see what Rutan has on > his viewgraph charts for SS2, SS3, etc. Could be that he'll get to Mars before NASA... It took mankind 66 years to go from the first powered flight to landing on the moon. What progress have we made in the past 35 years? Last fall I heard Gene Cernan, the 'last man on the moon' give a talk to high school kids. The comment that stood out in my mind was that the space race in the 60s was as if we'd transplanted a decade from the late 21st century into the middle of the 20th century. Sadly, we're now back where we would have been had we not done so. Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html > It took mankind 66 years to go from the first powered flight to landing on > the moon. What progress have we made in the past 35 years? Yesbut.... Don't forget what von Braun said about Apollo 8 and the 'risk' of going to the Moon on only the second flight of the Saturn V (and the first manned flight of that lv) which went something like: "If it worked once, there's no reason to think it won't work the second time." In other words, the Moon really isn't that big a deal to get to compared to LEO. SignatureAlan Erskine We can get people to the Moon in five years, not the fifteen GWB proposes. Give NASA a real challenge Alanterskine1@bigpond.com [...] > And it looks like Paul Allen is serious, and we all know how > much money he has. Until Microsoft does a Worldcom, of course :) I suspect he's diversified his fortune quite a bit since leaving MS. /dps > Interesting to note that the first 'Humanaut" is 62 and obviously not a > top-of-the-line physical specimen - good advertising for the rest of us who > hope one day to be able to go into space. What happen to Senator John Glenn? The 77 years old 'senior citizen' who was a former astronaut? Or maybe he isn't a human, so his flight isn't valid? Personally, until very high altitude flights, sub-orbital flights, and orbital fligths becomes more like a Concorde flight (special flight for famous person, but the average person can ride it provide they got the cash), there's no way that the average person can go into orbit. And even then, Concorde flights are backed by the governments. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.