Talk:Scaled Composites SpaceShipOne

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
WikiProject Space
Space Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Space.
B This article has been rated as b-Class on the assessment scale.
Related projects:
WikiProject Spaceflight WikiProject Spaceflight Importance to Spaceflight: High

This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.


Contents

[edit] Landing

News media showed the landing live, though still waiting on official timing.

Done. Vesta 15:52, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Supersonic

"first privately-funded aircraft to go supersonic". Are we sure about that? All military planes are not necessarily government funded when they are developed. DJ Clayworth 17:58, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Clayworth: Other than fighters or research aircraft, what else has there been? Rockets, but those don't count. The Concorde and Tu-144 don't count. What else would there be? -Joseph
Not sure what you mean by "don't count". Why don't they count? Doesn't commercial funding by a private company count as privately funded? I'm not sure what would be a strictly accurate example here, but surely many of those early supersonic planes were developed using non-governmental money? I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to make here. In other words I think Clayworth has a good point. Graham 02:53, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Why exactly does the Concorde not count? -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 21:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Where did that statistic come from? I assume it's refering to manned craft, so even if that would include rockets, it would probably exclude unmanned ones, of which I'm sure there have been plenty (I think private companies launch satellites, like that Sea Launch thing). But so far as companies building supersonic planes without government funding, I don't know. Graham, regarding early supersonic planes, I do know that the Bell X-1 was paid for by the Army. Regarding what Clayworth said about "All military planes are not necessarily government funded when they are developed.", at what point would government involvement make it ineligible to be called non-government? For instance, if a company makes a military plane without government funds, finishes it, rolls some off the assembly line and starts selling them to interested governments, then I think that counts as non-government development. But if one of the defense companies starts to design and test a plane with the intention of pitching it as

a concept to the government, which then gives that company a contract to finish the plane, then that probably can't be considered non-government, even if they did some test flights before picking up the contract. I don't know if that sort of thing ever happens. So the stat feels like it could be right, I'd just like to know where it came from. - Eisnel 06:44, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Graham: Yes, as Eisnel said, we are specifically referring to manned spaceflight here. So a privately funded, but unmanned rocket such as XCOR or SpaceX don't count, IMHO. And the Concorde and Tu-144 definitely had government backing. -Joseph
The Northrop F-5 was a privately funded supersonic fighter, first flown 1959. Northrop F-5
  • That did receive funding from governments after it was developed. So it would qualify. -Fnlayson 21:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

SpaceShipOne
Image:SpaceShipOne-09G.jpg
SpaceShipOne high over the Mojave Desert
Description
Role Sub-orbital spaceplane
Crew Three, pilot and two crew
First Flight December 17, 2003
Manufacturer Scaled Composites
Dimensions
Length ??? ft in ??? m
Wingspan 16.4 ft 5 m
Height ??? ft in ??? m
Wing area ??? ft² ??? m²
Weights
Empty ??? lb ??? kg
Loaded ??? lb ??? kg
Maximum takeoff ??? lb ??? kg
Powerplant
No. of engines one rocket engine
Propulsion system hybrid engine
Fuel & oxidizer N2O-HTPB
Power ??? hp ??? kW
Thrust ??? lb ??? kN
Performance
Max speed Mach 3.5
Max acceleration 3-4 Gs
Service ceiling 62+ miles 100+ km
Rate of climb ??? ft/min ??? m/min
Wing loading ??? lb/ft² ??? kg/m²
Thrust/Weight ???
Power/Mass ??? hp/lb ??? kW/kg
Avionics

I was looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft, and figured that maybe we should have this page conform to that by having the standard data table shown to the right. But I don't have a lot of the info that goes in that table, so it's looking a little sparse right now. Anyone know the missing info? And any ideas on additional fields to add (since this isn't quite like most aircraft)? - Eisnel 23:30, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Look at Template Infobox rocket (or maybe Infobox Aircraft). See Lockheed Martin X-33 for an example of the rocket one. -Fnlayson 22:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Maybe use the Rocket template for the basic info and use a table or other template for specs. -Fnlayson 22:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anomalies

See this article on some of the serious "anomalies" that could have destroyed the craft (and its place in history). Perhaps a line to indicate all was not perfect? 65.237.111.104 17:26, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

Found an image here, which is linked to from NASA's Astronomy Picture of the Day. While the images there are usually public domain, the "courtesy of Scaled Composites LLC" watermark made me doubt if it's OK to add to the article. Would really have liked to, since it's a gorgeous shot imaging precisely what the mission was all about. :-) Jugalator 02:52, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

We've already got images with that copyright notice. Note that the image in question is tied to a press release--therefore we should be able to use it under fair use. -Joseph 04:35, 2004 Jul 20 (UTC)

SpaceShipOne PRESS photo gallery has a bunch of images that it would be nice to have, but no indication of usage conditions. Anyone feel like asking them? 81.168.80.170 18:15, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This really needs a picture of the craft in "feather" configuration.

[edit] Page move

I moved this, in order to be consistent with Scaled Composites White Knight. -N328KF 13:23, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC)

I don't agree that the page should be moved. There is only one thing called "SpaceShipOne," and there's not likely to be a name conflict. There are many things called "White Knight," hence the need for some differentiator - it might better be named "White Knight (vehicle)" or some such, but putting "Scaled Composites" in front of either of them gives the article the distinct flavor of a press release. -- ke4roh 10:23, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
You should note that this standard also conforms to other types, which would be under, for example, "McDonnell-Douglas MD-11," or "BAe Sea Harrier." . The only exceptions seem to be U.S. military types, which would use the designation system (eg. "C-17 Globemaster III," but even that has a redirect from "McDonnell-Douglas C-17." -N328KF
From looking at all the Boeing, Fokker, and Rockwell products, the practice is to use the company name before the commercial things and not usually before the military/space things. Since SpaceShipOne is taking space commercial, it seems reasonable on that basis to call it Scaled Composites SpaceShipOne. I'm not sure I wholly agree with the practice in general, though, but as long as that's the norm, I won't worry about it here. -- ke4roh 11:18, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

Interesting Rutan quote: "“The spaceship is model number 316 and the White Knight is model number 318,” Rutan said at the preflight press conference in June. “I will be making a presentation very quick of a model number 346.”" --NeuronExMachina 07:38, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, I added this to Tier One. -Joseph

Jonathan's Space Report No. 529 has some figures for the inertial orbit parameters at apogee (-6374 x 100 km x 35.0 deg.) might be useful for producing a semi-accurate sketch. -Wikibob | Talk 23:18, 2004 Sep 27 (UTC)


[edit] Astronauts

Currently all four pilots are listed as "astronauts." Since only two of them (Melvill and Binnie) actually broke the 100 km line, should this be adjusted? Does flying to 32 km count for making one an astronaut? Huadpe 22:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

i've removed Doug Shane from the list of astronauts, because he didn't even fly once. which probably wasn't a good idea (and got reverted within some hours anyway^^). i still think it's misleading to list him here. compare that section to any other page about space flights. only those who actually took part are listed. usually there's a seperate section listing the other pilots as e.g. "backup crew". maybe someone can reword this list?88.117.126.62 (talk)

[edit] Energy requirements

Where did we get "The energy requirements of true orbital space flight are in the order of 33 times as much as a SpaceShipOne ascent."? I suspect this neglects atmospheric drag. --P3d0 18:07, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

This is the energy which must be imparted to the orbiting mass: For a rocket the fuel and oxygen (and their tanks) must be accelerated as well and so the energy requirement is actually more than the factor of 33 identified.

Yes, you're talking about the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation. I'm talking about the fact that air resistance decreases exponentially with altitude, so if you neglect air resistance, then you'll underestimate the fuel required by the low-altitude portion of the flight. --P3d0 23:46, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

If you can model the size and shape of the vehicle and take height release into account to estimate the air resistance, please add it in to the energy requirement in the document.

Yeah, well, I can't, so this is just idle speculation for the time being. --P3d0 01:06, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

Can't we just use the wording "net energy requirements" to avoid the intricacies of air resistance and fuel transportation? After all, the paragraph is only meant to make clear that orbiting is much more difficult than just reaching the height. My proposal: "Although impressive, the achievements of SpaceShipOne are not comparable to those of orbiting spacecraft like the Space Shuttle. Accelerating a spacecraft to orbital speed requires about 32 times as much net energy as lifting it to a height of 100 km." --Daniel

I like it. I've put it in the article. --P3d0 00:35, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! After double-checking the facts I suggest a small correction: Low Earth orbit speed is a bit less than 8 km/s, so the ratio between kinetic and potential energy (at 100 km) is closer to 31. I think "about 30 times as much..." would be sufficiently exact to express what you mean. --Daniel

You don't like "over 30"? -P3d0


[edit] Rubber and laughing gas

(P3d0) Recently, the phrase "which is powered by rubber and laughing gas" was deleted. However, the phrase is correct. Can the information be reworked into the article?

It's probably more appropriate on the Tier One page, where it is mentioned, although they use the equivalent term nitrous oxide (in two different places) for laughing gas. Jwolfe 09:38, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Future Tense and Rumor

I removed the following section, see explanations below: --Miketwo 01:55, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

SpaceShipOne will continue to make test flights, as Scaled Composites develops the technology further and designs future spacecraft such as the planned Virgin SpaceShip. It is also expected to carry a handful of paying passengers on barnstorming flights: those prospective space tourists who can't wait for routine space tourism and are sufficiently wealthy to afford the exorbitant fee.

Use of future tense is discouraged. --Miketwo 01:55, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

There is a long-standing plan, known as task 21, that, once spaceflights have been demonstrated, SpaceShipOne will fly into space every Tuesday for twenty consecutive weeks, to demonstrate aircraft-like routine operation. As of November 2004, no date has yet been set for the start of task 21.

According to the VP of Scaled Composites the rumored "task 21" is just that -- a rumor. SpaceShipOne was only intended to win the X Prize, and will likely go into one of the space museums.

If it's just a rumor, it really doesn't need to be in here. And again, this falls under future predictions. I say just nix it for now until it happens. --Miketwo 01:55, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)


Section 2: " 328000 (k{ilo}) feet " Not sure if this is the right place to bring this up, but I suspect that what is meant by this is " 328 kilo (k{ilo}) feet " OR " 328 kilo (k{ilo} ) feet i.e. 328 thousand feet " PMinAU 12:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)PMinAU

[edit] Links

Maybe a link to the wikipedia page on Private spaceflight would help. Could someone do that? I don't know how to.

[edit] Flight 18P

Who was scheduled to be the pilot for Flight 18P - the cancelled flight of SpaceShipOne? Rillian 15:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thrust/weight

From the article:

  • Thrust/weight: 20 N/kg

I was just about to change that to

  • Thrust/weight: 20

since thrust/weight is a ratio, but then realised, just before submitting, that it could technically be either

  • Thrust/weight: 20

or

  • Thrust/mass: 20 N/kg

Which should it be? The source cited in the specifications section doesn't really say ... S. Morrow 22:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I just realised that those two things that it could be "either one of" are both equivalent, you can get from thrust/weight to thrust/mass without changing the magnitude. I'll just go with thrust/weight then and put it in no units. S. Morrow 22:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Thrust to weight is unitless. Thrust to mass is what you're listing above (20 N/kg). -Fnlayson 22:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missing design info?

In just looking at the craft you can see that the designer placed some control surfaces at or behind the main thrust point and as such greatly simplifies its stability. From what I can see, the rocket nozzle doesn't swivel on gimbals like larger spacecraft or non-missles and in effect relies on the engine to pull it forward as opposed to pushing it, no? Combined with a stubby body it seems that that is about the only way it could be managed in a cost-effective manner. It would be great if aerodynamicists or those with expertise in flight controls could speak to any of that. --Hooperbloob 15:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discrepancy with FAI list

FAI gives the height for the June 21, 2004 flight as 85 743 m [1], which is considerable less than that the 100,100 m listed in this article, and FAI does not even list the October flight to 110 km. Can anyone explain the differences?Silverchemist 18:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Landing photo uploaded

I uploaded a photo I took of the June 21, 2004 landing. There are already plenty of photos on the page so for now I'll just mention it's available. Ikluft (talk) 09:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • After the SS1 patch image disappeared and a bot commented out the link, that created a gap with room for this photo. Having heard no objections, I added it to the SS1 page. Ikluft (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)