 |
 | 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 / September 2004SS1: Abort to Apogee ?
Mike Melvill, quoted at: http://spaceflightnow.com/ss1/040621launch.html "This time, right after I lit the motor, the airplane by itself rolled 90 degrees left. I stomped on the rudder pedal and put in some control and it rolled 90 degrees right. And it's never, ever done that before. So at that point, I was kind of reaching for the switch to shut (the engine) down in case I was going to lose control. But I was able to get it back, get it leveled up and started trimming the nose up to pick up the proper gamma, ..." Is anyone else surprised that Mike didn't hit the kill switch? An advantage of the SS1 hybrid engine is that if you turn off the laughing gas, you stop burning rubber. I would have thought that SOP for this sort of anomaly was abort and RTB. However, since the unspent fuel and oxidizer does present some landing risks (esp. if there might be a serious roll control issue), I can also imagine that it might be pilot discretion. Has anyone seen any statements or analysis on this?  SignatureRegards, PO Box 248 Bob Niland Enterprise mailto:name@ispname.tld Kansas USA which, due to spam, is: 67441-0248 email4rjn AT yahoo DOT com http://www.access-one.com/rjn Unless otherwise specifically stated, expressing personal opinions and NOT speaking for any employer, client or Internet Service Provider. > Mike Melvill, quoted at: > http://spaceflightnow.com/ss1/040621launch.html [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Has anyone seen any statements or analysis on this? I imagine that as a test pilot he wanted to categorise the instability as much as possible before he aborted. He ought to know his craft's and his own capabilities to some degree by then I'd have thought. Brian SignatureBrian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email. graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them Email: briang1@blueyonder.co.uk ____________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________ > An advantage of the SS1 hybrid engine is that > if you turn off the laughing gas, you stop burning > rubber. You do have a way with words. ;) -- Gene Seibel Space Ship One - http://pad39a.com/gene/ss1.html Because I fly, I envy no one - except Mike Melvill. Might be a duplicate. My other NNTP server burped. >> An advantage of the SS1 hybrid engine is that >> if you turn off the laughing gas, you stop >> burning rubber. > You do have a way with words. ;) I'd be surprised to learn that I was the first to craft that obvious play on words to describe Burt's space hot rod (it even has tail fins). Since no one seems to have opinions on Mike's decision to decline "RTLS", here's another SS1 question: What is the maximum capability of the existing SS1 craft/design? The flight on the 21st was by no means close to whatever the limit is, both because of the trim issue, and because it was likely less than full fuel load (no dummy mass for passengers). I'd guess that SS1 can exceed the X-Prize targets by at least 10%, but since the design began before it was an XP contestant, perhaps it has rather more capability than that. SignatureRegards, PO Box 248 Bob Niland Enterprise mailto:name@ispname.tld Kansas USA which, due to spam, is: 67441-0248 email4rjn AT yahoo DOT com http://www.access-one.com/rjn Unless otherwise specifically stated, expressing personal opinions and NOT speaking for any employer, client or Internet Service Provider. > Since no one seems to have opinions on Mike's > decision to decline "RTLS", here's another SS1 > question: But he did RTLS, didn't he? :) > I'd guess that SS1 can exceed the X-Prize targets > by at least 10%, You guess correctly. The target altitude for last Monday's flight was 360,000 ft, roughly 10% above the X-Prize altitude. SignatureJRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. They should save their money. Its not going to work. Nobody's going to risk his life and spend 200 Grand for a few minutes of weightlessness in a glorified 4th of July sky rocket. If its not a true orbital flight lasting a few days, nobody with enough smarts to have a loose 200 Grand laying around is going to give it a second thought. |
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.