Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: moot on January 23, 2008, 02:53:24 PM
-
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/01/spaceshiptwo-un.html
Jim Tighe, Scaled aerodynamicist on the differences in SpaceShipTwo from SpaceShipOne: four main differences:
1) Size. it's as big as his first apartment, he says.
2) Windows are 18 inches.
3) Passengers will be able to get up and walk around.
4) "Since it's a commercial vehicle, we have a lot of safety features."
You can see SpaceShipTwo here, slung beneath the White Knight 2 mothership. Rutan says White Knight 2 will have the wingspan of a B-29 bomber.
It's got noseart too (http://content.zdnet.com/2347-10532_22-184522-184535.html?seq=12) :D
The best part IMO: They're planning to build enough that hundreds of thousands of people will get a ride. With enough success, they'll be able to get point to point passenger flights going, e.g. NYC to Australia in one hour.
And the next step is orbital :)
First test flights are this summer.
-
Thanks for the link. I'm not a big fan of two aircraft joined together even though some, like the F-82, have been successful. They just seem too ungainly.
Sounds as if they have a BIG problem with their rocket.
-
Kinda reminds me of the Twin Mustang project, who gets to fly?
-
Maybe this is the begining of the push to space that will get us out into the galaxy. If civilians coquer space instead of government and the militairy then we will be free to colonise it.
-
What big problem Halo?
Bustr, I sure hope we get past that initial expense. It's all that's needed to get the ball rolling. There's just so much to capitalize on out there, free for us to exploit.
-
Didn't they have an explosion last year that killed a couple of people during a test run of a rocket? Seems to ring a bell.
I really dig the tandem jets with Spaceship Two attached. Looks cool.
-
Yeah, there was an explosion during a static test.
-
That's not a problem with the rocket, but with testing. There wasn't anything wrong with the equipment, but with what one of those guys did while testing it. Splitting hairs, but as far as I've heard, the carrier plane and sub-orbital rocket have nothing wrong with them, so besides red tape and obviously more efficient safety training, they've got nothing in their way to hit their targets.
-
Spaceship 2 looks like an X-20 Dyna-Soar!
I wonder if any of SpaceX's rockets has the same throw as a Titan IIIC...
I had a love affair with the Dyna-Soar, even built an R/C version for launching atop model rockets.
-
The Falcon 9 should be able to lift the Orion capsule, more or less. I don't know how that compares with the Titan IIIC.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Spaceship 2 looks like an X-20 Dyna-Soar!
I wonder if any of SpaceX's rockets has the same throw as a Titan IIIC...
I had a love affair with the Dyna-Soar, even built an R/C version for launching atop model rockets.
I was thinking the same thing. My dad worked on the Dyna-Soar program, back when he was at General Dynamics. I still have an old newspaper clipping somewhere about it.
-
I read a story in Aviation Leak & Space Technology last year:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstar_%28spaceplane%29
Might not be the only thing with that profile up there. ;)
-
(quote) What big problem Halo? (unquote)
The rocket engine that blew up during testing.
-
Halo, every R&D program has problems, that's why we don't ship the first prototype. Why do you think they have a big problem? Or are you one of those folks that assumes that any accident spells long term disaster?
-
Yes, that's what happened. It wasn't the rocket, it was the operator. Pick any machine you want with the safest record you can find, and I could crash it and/or hurt people in the process.
-
(quote) Halo, every R&D program has problems, that's why we don't ship the first prototype. Why do you think they have a big problem? Or are you one of those folks that assumes that any accident spells long term disaster? (unquote)
Couple guys were killed, if I recall correctly, and every reference I've seen to the incident, including the link in this thread, consider it a significant problem. I'm familiar with R&D and associated risks -- I'm retired Air Force and son is an aeronautical engineer.
-
I'm guessing you didn't read too much, with respect, because the problem was determined to be improper training in Nitrous Oxide handling and they were fined appropriately by OSHA. Your 'big problem' text seems to suggest something ongoing, but I bet you that Scaled Composite is probably _the most comptetent_ in nitrous oxide handling now as a result of hard training because of the accident.
So.... what is the big problem you're talking about?
-
The state is in the process of finalizing its summary of the accident, but noted that the blast occurred when nitrous oxide exploded during a cold-flow test, said Kate McGuire, spokeswoman for the California Department of Industrial Relations, known as Cal/OSHA.
-
(quote) I'm guessing you didn't read too much, with respect, because the problem was determined to be improper training in Nitrous Oxide handling and they were fined appropriately by OSHA. Your 'big problem' text seems to suggest something ongoing, but I bet you that Scaled Composite is probably _the most comptetent_ in nitrous oxide handling now as a result of hard training because of the accident.
So.... what is the big problem you're talking about? (unquote)
The following link from this thread's opening item sums it up:
(quote) 11:16
MSNBC's Alan Boyle asks the big question that's on everyone's mind whose been following this story. How has the the accident that took 3 lives at Scaled's test stand last summer in an explosion during a nitrous oxide flow test affected the design of SpaceShipTwo's rocket engine?
Rutan:
"We had a detonation that we don't know exactly yet what caused it. And because of that we are working very closely with not just the government folk, but we are also working with people from aerospace prime, rocketry experts. We are bringing in a lot of experts. I can tell you that when we do determine the cause that it will be published to help others. And that's all that i can tell you... No question, we are having delays in the rocket engine development. We just don't know how long they will be." (unquote)
Sounds like a big problem with three dead and they still "don't know exactly yet what caused it" and "we are having delays in the rocket engine development. We just don't know how long they will be."
-
I'm pretty sure I've heard from people in the know that it's just a protocol problem, not a design problem.
He could very well be overkilling the diplomacy and including handling protocols in the rocket development program, or not commiting himself to any explanation even if it's been narrowed down to handling or excluded from the rocket's design.
-
Originally posted by Halo
(quote) What big problem Halo? (unquote)
The rocket engine that blew up during testing.
It wasn't the engine that blew up. They had an explosion during a fuel flow test event with fuel components that should not have been particularly volatile. The explosion was very unexpected considering the chemicals being transferred, which is why they had fatalities.
I read somewhere that even NASA was scratching their heads over it, but I never read any report of findings so I don't know what the actual cause was. But it had nothing to do with their engine design. It was an unexpected explosion during a testing event.
-
Originally posted by Halo
(Sounds like a big problem with three dead and they still "don't know exactly yet what caused it" and "we are having delays in the rocket engine development. We just don't know how long they will be."
Read it more carefully. It was a cold flow of nitros oxide, which according to industry conventional wisdom *should not* explode for no reason. Cold flow means they were basically testing the plumbing.
Of course they'll have delays, because yea some people died and the investigation into the causes will pretty much halt everything except background design twiddling. But this doesn't point towards any sort of problem with the basic engine design at all, any more than having your toilet clog up points towards a basic design flaw with your bathroom. You fix the clog, determine why it clogged, and don't do that again. You don't (typically) rip out your entire bathroom or cease crapping entirely just because your toilet clogged once, no matter how unpleasant the clog was.
Yes it's a simplistic analogy and people dying is obviously different than a toilet clog (heh) but this is a hazardous endeavour and when this sort of thing happens, you figure it out, fix the problem, and press on. But pointing to an explosion during a test that didn't even involve firing off the rocket, and saying there must be some huge problem with the rocket motor, doesn't make ANY sense.
-
If the "problem" gets analyzed as thoroughly as the semantics in this thread, everything soon will be hunky-dory.
(quote) Sounds as if they have a BIG problem with their rocket. (unquote)
My original reaction from reading the link.
(quote) Read it more carefully. It was a cold flow of nitros oxide, which according to industry conventional wisdom *should not* explode for no reason. Cold flow means they were basically testing the plumbing. (unquote)
(quote) Rutan:
"We had a detonation that we don't know exactly yet what caused it. And because of that we are working very closely with not just the government folk, but we are also working with people from aerospace prime, rocketry experts. We are bringing in a lot of experts. I can tell you that when we do determine the cause that it will be published to help others. And that's all that i can tell you... No question, we are having delays in the rocket engine development. We just don't know how long they will be." (unquote)
-
C'mon, find an opinion and state it.
-
My opinion is you can have my seat on the first flight.
-
And Richard Branson's is that his son can have one on the first flight...
A transcript of Branson before the unveiling. It has a few hints on their intentions with this thing.
http://www.newvoyagenews.com/?p=291