a simple question

[Saxman]

I know this is tangent to the conversation, but you can have a lot of nerdy fun with this: Ask ten normal intelligent people what would happen if you kicked a bowling ball.  Then ask them what would happen if you kicked a bowling ball on the surface of the moon.  

In my experience, few people understand you will actually break your foot either way.  They seem to think the ball on the moon will have less mass.  

That's why I doubt that dogfights will change TOO much in vacuum. The nature of mass, inertia, and human reaction times almost guarantee that fighter designs will be geared towards maneuvering in a manner familiar to terrestrial pilots. Just like some pilots in real life are better than others, some starfighter pilots will be good enough to be able to take advantage of being able to change attitude without actually changing heading (circle strafing, etc).

[RTHolmes]

if u were designing a fighter for space or even air use, why would you want to put a human it in with all the compromises that brings? a starfighter pilot would certainly be a very long way from the action.

[Strip]

yep. and one fatal aftarwards.........when one of the rockets exploded on a test stand.

I heard the composite nitrous tank failed?

Sounds like a NHRA Prostock in the 90's.....

 

[Saxman]

if u were designing a fighter for space or even air use, why would you want to put a human it in with all the compromises that brings? a starfighter pilot would certainly be a very long way from the action.

Need to perfect UAVs and ROVs to the point they can effectively engage in a terrestrial dogfight, first. Last I checked there still needs to be a pilot in the cockpit to be a viable air-to-air combatant.

[eagl]

The Space Shuttle SRB's are ablative nozzles, NASA considers them inherently safer than regen or radiation cooled nozzles.

I dont think thats a fair statement to make about Rutan's design.....

Have you read the test pilot's writeups about the nozzles and every one of the flight debriefs?  I did, from the perspective of a guy who's flown high performance aircraft for over a decade now.  The nozzles ablate very unevenly, with the same effect of random thrust vectoring.  It exceeded flight control authority on at least one flight, possibly two.  They came close to losing at least one flight due to the nozzle design.  And that was the test pilot saying that, not me.

Ablative nozzles are not new, but in a single engine design like spaceship one, they can be hazardous.  In the space shuttle, NASA compensates with another million pounds or so of thrust from gymballed nozzles that swivel to keep things on track.  Spaceship one has no such option...  'Mr. Toad's wild ride' comes to mind when describing what it must have been like to try to keep that thing going straight.

[Strip]

I have read some of the test reports and noticed the ablation issues. However, I think the real danger comes from lack of an active nozzle gimbal. Other wise they need to fire the injector and fuel grain designers. The only thing that will typically cause uneven ablation is poor gas flow and distribution. Aside from poor nozzle construction....

Strip