 |
 | 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 / October 2004Live SpaceShipOne coverage on NASA TV
I didn't expect this, since SS1 has nothing to do with NASA, but they're carrying the X Prize attempt live right now. Don't be concerned if you tune in and it looks like a pre-recorded event of some time. Evidently the X-Prize folks have put together a fancy production, with an announcer, music and several background films about Burt Rutan and SS1. You can also see that webcast on www.xprize.org. Oops, now they've broken away from the webcast and have some other guys talking about the conditions (windy, but hopefully that will change when the sun comes up). Anyway, tune into NASA TV if you're up. Patty > I didn't expect this, since SS1 has nothing to do with NASA, but > they're carrying the X Prize attempt live right now. Don't be [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Anyway, tune into NASA TV if you're up. They've announced that O'Keefe is there... >> I didn't expect this, since SS1 has nothing to do with NASA, but >> they're carrying the X Prize attempt live right now. > >They've announced that O'Keefe is there... Yeah, he just spoke. That may be part of why they're doing it. Patty Many news sites (Yahoo, BBC, Google, Reuters,...) with articles saying flight was successful despite some control problems, which might be a form of PIO (Pilot Induced Oscillations). Cut off the engine early, so didn't use the whole increased fuel supply (or increased oxidizer supply? Wasn't it the NOX that was increased?). /dps > Many news sites (Yahoo, BBC, Google, Reuters,...) with articles saying > flight was successful despite some control problems, which might be a > form of PIO (Pilot Induced Oscillations). Yeah, he did say, at his press conference, that he might have been the cause of the roll. > Cut off the engine early, so didn't use the whole increased fuel > supply (or increased oxidizer supply? Wasn't it the NOX that was > increased?). That, I don't recall. But, they did specify that the engine was shut down 11 seconds early. And, that had they fired it for the full duration, that they believed that they could have attained 360,000 feet. Andre -- " I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. " The Man Prayer, Red Green. > Many news sites (Yahoo, BBC, Google, Reuters,...) with articles saying > flight was successful despite some control problems, which might be a > form of PIO (Pilot Induced Oscillations). Number of complete rolls during an ascent to space: Space Shuttle: ~1 (initial roll to heading, and roll to heads-up) SS1: >25 Impressive. ;-) Jon > > Many news sites (Yahoo, BBC, Google, Reuters,...) with articles saying > > flight was successful despite some control problems, which might be a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Impressive. ;-) Number of _intended_ rolls during an ascent to space: Space Shuttle: ~1 (initial roll to heading, and roll to heads-up) SS1 - Big Zero Number of heart attacks caused by rolls: Space Shuttle: 0 SS1: HEAPS!  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 > Number of heart attacks caused by rolls: > Space Shuttle: 0 > SS1: HEAPS! It's probably unwise to compare the safety of SS1 unfavorably to that of the Shuttle just yet. > > Number of heart attacks caused by rolls: > > Space Shuttle: 0 > > SS1: HEAPS! > > It's probably unwise to compare the safety of SS1 > unfavorably to that of the Shuttle just yet. Tell you what, my heart did a "thumpety-thump" when SS1 started to roll; thought it might break up. 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 > Tell you what, my heart did a "thumpety-thump" when SS1 started to roll; > thought it might break up. I'm glad they found a test pilot with the balls to keep going, despite the problems. In this day and age, few people seem to have the balls for this sort of work. The names of the streets at Edwards Air Force Base prove that this wasn't always the case. Jeff SignatureRemove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address. > > Tell you what, my heart did a "thumpety-thump" when SS1 started to roll; > > thought it might break up. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > sort of work. The names of the streets at Edwards Air Force Base prove that > this wasn't always the case. On the news last night they had Mike on to say it was a "victory roll" ????? > On the news last night they had Mike on to say it was a "victory roll" > ????? It was a joke. On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 23:29:55 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@greenms.com> wrote: > > On the news last night they had Mike on to say it was a "victory roll" > > ????? > > It was a joke. Do we all know that the first think Joe Engle did in the X-15 was to roll it? It was firmly suggested that he not do that again and he didn't. On the other hand, the Grumman test pilot (Chuck Sewell, a really great stick) rolled the X-29 on an early flight that didn't have a roll in the test cards and that was, I believe, the last time he flew it. Autre temps, autre mores. Or something. Mary SignatureMary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer miliff@qnet.com >> I'm glad they found a test pilot with the balls to keep going, despite the >> problems. In this day and age, few people seem to have the balls for this [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >On the news last night they had Mike on to say it was a "victory roll" >????? foolhardy first few flights should of been unmanned. If pilot gets killed, and vehicle destroyed it will put back the future of private space for a long time... End the dangerous wasteful shuttle now before it kills any more astronauts.... "bob haller" <hallerb@aol.com> wrote in message > >> I'm glad they found a test pilot with the balls to keep going, despite the > >> problems. In this day and age, few people seem to have the balls for this [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > If pilot gets killed, and vehicle destroyed it will put back the future of > private space for a long time... There were likely hundreds of unmanned virtual flights prior to the first flight. That's what simulators are for. How many times was the rocket fired on the ground? Good grief, do you ever go outside? Please continue to stay inside and cower, at least you are out of the way. Do you honestly believe that if SS1 were to suffer a mishap, that the Canadian Arrow guys would give up? Da Vinci? I doubt it. Jon >There were likely hundreds of unmanned virtual flights prior to the first >flight. That's what simulators are for. How many times was the rocket fired [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Jon virtual doesnt cver things like unplanned roll:*( If theres a high profile death I thinki the X prize offer will be withdrawn....:( This isnt the 60s, in this day and age we as a people are risk adverse///// End the dangerous wasteful shuttle now before it kills any more astronauts.... "bob haller" <hallerb@aol.com> wrote in message > >There were likely hundreds of unmanned virtual flights prior to the first > >flight. That's what simulators are for. How many times was the rocket fired [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > virtual doesnt cver things like unplanned roll:*( Actually it does. They saw the same thing in the simulators. > If theres a high profile death I thinki the X prize offer will be > withdrawn....:( Not a chance. > This isnt the 60s, in this day and age we as a people are risk adverse///// You certainly are risk "adverse" [sic]. If what you say was true, though, there would not be a line of people ready and willing to step onto the shuttle, ready and willing to pay over $100,000+ for a ride on something similar to SS1, ready and willing to step into a various craft to hurl them 100km into space, etc. Immediately after Columbia was lost polls indicated that a majority of Americans still favored flying the shuttle: http://gallup.com/poll/content/login.aspx?ci=7708 "Despite the tragic loss of the space shuttle Columbia on Saturday -- the second such disaster in 17 years -- Americans want the shuttle program to continue and most remain convinced that the nation should not abandon its emphasis on a manned approach to space exploration." Face it, SpongeBob, you're a turtle in his shell, an armadillo all balled up, a spiny pufferfish that never exhales, etc. You are just plain wrong. See "SpaceShipOne Flight 16P Anomaly" here: http://www.scaled.com/projects/tierone/logs-WK-SS1.htm >> Tell you what, my heart did a "thumpety-thump" when SS1 started to roll; >> thought it might break up. > >I'm glad they found a test pilot with the balls to keep going, despite the >problems. Sometimes it's balls to continue. Sometimes it's ego. Sometimes it's pride. Sometimes it's suicide, howsoever unintentional. > In this day and age, few people seem to have the balls for this >sort of work. In the day and age I live in, there are boatloads of test pilots doing all manner of dangerous work for the Armed Services and private industry. They've always been few and far between though. (The same is true of folks in my previous line of work, and many other lines of work.) >The names of the streets at Edwards Air Force Base prove that >this wasn't always the case. Those names prove nothing beyond the fact that people died flight testing aircraft. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. > > Tell you what, my heart did a "thumpety-thump" when SS1 started to roll; > > thought it might break up. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > sort of work. The names of the streets at Edwards Air Force Base prove that > this wasn't always the case. Or the names of the pilots who didn't know when to punch out in time. Getting killed doesn't mean you've got balls. > Jeff On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 23:30:26 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@greenms.com> wrote: > > I'm glad they found a test pilot with the balls to keep going, despite the > > problems. In this day and age, few people seem to have the balls for this [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Or the names of the pilots who didn't know when to punch out in time. Like Lindbergh or Doolittle or Mitchell or Yeager? > Getting killed doesn't mean you've got balls. Getting a street named after you at Edwards doesn't mean you got killed, either. Incidentally, some of them did punch out (Gray, Kincheloe) and some of them didn't have e-seats (Swann). Mary SignatureMary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer miliff@qnet.com > On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 23:30:26 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" > <mooregr_deleteth1s@greenms.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Like Lindbergh or Doolittle or Mitchell or Yeager? To be honest, I wasn't aware of that. But seriously, we both know what Jeff was referring to. > > Getting killed doesn't mean you've got balls. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Mary > > On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 23:30:26 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" > > <mooregr_deleteth1s@greenms.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > To be honest, I wasn't aware of that. But seriously, we both know what Jeff > was referring to. What I meant is that many of the people who post today seem to be risk averse to the point that they don't want to accept placing test pilots on "the first flight of a vehicle". With most aircraft test flights, sticking a pilot on board is the only way that the aircraft will get off the ground. This is certainly true of the days at Edwards when aircraft were being tested at a fast and furious pace. Without pilots willing to take the risk, we'd have never gone supersonic, nor would planes like the X-15 ever have flown. Without that sort of groundwork, the shuttle may not have been possible. Note also that the shuttle was piloted for the "drop tests" and for the first orbital flights. Jeff SignatureRemove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address. "Alan Erskine" <alanerskine1@bigpond.com> wrote in message news:<TyL6d.9103 Im Alan Erskine (alanerskine1@bigpond.com) i have polaroids of me having sex with little boys , girls , men and dogs. I just love seeing litttle boys cry when i put my hands on there dick and when i give them a blow job. 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 "Alan Erskine" <alanerskine1@bigpond.com> wrote in message news:<TyL6d.9103> >Tell you what, my heart did a "thumpety-thump" when SS1 started to roll; > thought it might break up. XDFTYLM THIS IS NOT TRUE Hi guys, my name is Rob and I just joined. I just have a question about what these civilian flights will mean to NASA. Will NASA embrace and work together with any such projects to further themselves and their technologies? It seems they are in favor of the X-Prize with them sending their guy to watch the last flight. It seems to me they could develop new ideas and incorporate them into their programs - have they done this already? > Hi guys, my name is Rob and I just joined. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > It seems to me they could develop new ideas and incorporate them into > their programs - have they done this already? Welcome. If you've been reading the group for a while, you know some of us have strong opinions -- about a few pet projects, or about everything! [If you haven't been reading for a while, cruise the archives...if your newsreader/newserver doesn't go back very far, visit google for newsgroup hystery. Er, history. As to the specific question, I'd say the best evidence of official acceptance would be how the DC-X project was treated...embraced by a few, tolerated by some, and stonewalled by others. The upper levels seemed to be inclined to stonewall, IIRC. On the other hand, I can imagine guys in the trenches saying, "Cool! I've pushed people up the hill since STS-1 (or MR-3, or whatever)....now it's my turn...", and head off to the ticket wicket at Virgin Galactic. /dps |
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.