Space Ship Two - General Thread

[grakenverb]

What a great first flight!  Any footage of the landing?

See reply #990 on the previous page

[JohnFornaro]

Many thanks.  Looks like they didn't need a drag chute?

[Kabloona]

Update: the new angles seem to show that SS2 continued to lose a fair amount of altitude after the burn started. I'd wondered why SS2 didn't go higher yesterday, in comparison with SS1's first powered flight. It seems that they began the climb later yesterday and perhaps at a shallower angle too?

Probably (a) wanted to spend a few seconds in level flight first to verify controllability before pitching up, and (b) stay well clear of carrier aircraft.

[douglas100]

An excellent first powered flight.

[Lars_J]

Update: the new angles seem to show that SS2 continued to lose a fair amount of altitude after the burn started. I'd wondered why SS2 didn't go higher yesterday, in comparison with SS1's first powered flight. It seems that they began the climb later yesterday and perhaps at a shallower angle too?

Probably (a) wanted to spend a few seconds in level flight first to verify controllability before pitching up, and (b) stay well clear of carrier aircraft.

Both are probably true... But seeing how much effort it takes to pull up and reverse your downward momentum after being released makes me wonder why WK2 does not release while in a climb. Or would that be too risky? Or is the WK2 not capably of that at release altitude?

[Garrett]

Many thanks.  Looks like they didn't need a drag chute?

Why would they? They haven't used drag chutes on any previous flights that I'm aware of.

[grondilu]

So, when's the next flight?

[Nickolai]

I have a quick question with regards to SpaceShip1 and WhiteKnight1.  Why wasn't SS1 used to fly paying customers to the edge of space like it was built to do as it can carry 1 pilot and 2 paying customers.

Aeroman

I recall reading something about a market study done by Virgin and Scaled and they came to the conclusion that a larger plane would better serve the market. There seems to be a lot of different answers to your question here, sounds like we need to do some research.

One thing I know for sure is that after the flight that officially won the Ansari X-prize Paul Allen (then-financier of the project) decided the vehicle would go to the Smithsonian. Some people weren't too happy with his decision (they wanted a ride, and who can blame them!), but it was his decision to make.

[JohnFornaro]

Many thanks.  Looks like they didn't need a drag chute?

Why would they? They haven't used drag chutes on any previous flights that I'm aware of.

Why would they?  To slow the vehicle down while landing. 

I hadn't paid attention to the previous flights, however.

[JohnFornaro]

Update: the new angles seem to show that SS2 continued to lose a fair amount of altitude after the burn started. I'd wondered why SS2 didn't go higher yesterday, in comparison with SS1's first powered flight. It seems that they began the climb later yesterday and perhaps at a shallower angle too?

Probably (a) wanted to spend a few seconds in level flight first to verify controllability before pitching up, and (b) stay well clear of carrier aircraft.

Both are probably true... But seeing how much effort it takes to pull up and reverse your downward momentum after being released makes me wonder why WK2 does not release while in a climb. Or would that be too risky? Or is the WK2 not capably of that at release altitude?

They didn't go higher because of risk issues.  They didn't launch on a steep climb because they'd lose too much upward and forward momentum on the drop.

The craft drops from the carrier craft, glides down a bit, then zooms up.  The launch efficiency is measured from that low point.

Probably they will take the carrier craft higher in due course.  As their confidence improves, they could start the burn a bit earlier, but not too much earlier.  They may later chose to initiate the drop on a shallow climb, but that's just me guessing.

[HMXHMX]

I have a quick question with regards to SpaceShip1 and WhiteKnight1.  Why wasn't SS1 used to fly paying customers to the edge of space like it was built to do as it can carry 1 pilot and 2 paying customers.

I believe that the FAA had serious concerns about several aspects of the design and refused SS1 a license for passengers.

Not correct.  FAA/AST has no authority to license for passengers.  The decision not to use SS1 was taken by VG and Scaled (Burt) presumably with MAV input since MAV owned it.  I (and others) specifically recommended development of a SS1 "A" with modified propulsion and improved aero.  After all, there was a reason for an X-prize requirement that required three seats – to allow rapid transition to a passenger carrying operation.

[jfallen79]

Are there any guesses on the timing and duration of the next flight?   I don't imagine there is much to analyze from a 16 second flight.   I have heard that the testing schedule would be agressive, so what can we expect here, a week or two?

[FutureSpaceTourist]

I don't imagine there is much to analyze from a 16 second flight.

I suspect that there's more than we realise! You're also assuming that everything was as expected and that no modifications are necessary. For example, was ignition really as expected? Did the controls react as planned? Any unexpected strains or wear on the vehicle etc etc. They'll also want to refine their models and predictions now they have real flight data to help calibrate them.
IMHO they'll be doing well to have another flight within a month.

Edit: apologies, I wasn't paying attention - welcome to the forum! It's an exciting time to be here

[Moe Grills]

What is the "charring" on the bottom of the wing related to? If you look at the "ignition" picture it is not apparent.

It might be...asymetrical peeling of the ablative heatshield.
Somebody may have (my guess) applied uneven layers of (carbon phenolic?) beneath the vehicle.

Nah! I'm not worried about it! I'm more worried about the 'routine'
passenger jets that I take blowing a tire upon landing, or some other
passenger jet anomaly.
  SS2 flight progress is great, leaving the Lynx in the dust, but both
craft will still be years from routine flight.

 

[FutureSpaceTourist]

SS2 flight progress is great, leaving the Lynx in the dust, but both
craft will still be years from routine flight.

Lynx maybe, but after yesterday I think SS2 has a good chance of routine flights sometime next year. SS1 flew to space 3 times within 10 months of its first powered flight. So unless SS2 hits some significant unexpected problems, why not routine flight within 18 months?

Edit: fixed typos/grammar

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Some hints about how SS2's powered flights may progress: http://www.space.com/20890-virgin-galactic-spaceshiptwo-private-spaceflight.html

Another engine is ready to go for SpaceShipTwo's next flight and should ship within the next few weeks

Within three months from now we'll be going faster than Concorde, and then we will build up from there

[a_langwich]

I have a quick question with regards to SpaceShip1 and WhiteKnight1.  Why wasn't SS1 used to fly paying customers to the edge of space like it was built to do as it can carry 1 pilot and 2 paying customers.

Burt Rutan absolutely did not design SS1 with 2 paying customers in mind.  The only paying customer was Paul Allen and he was not going to be in the ship.  Someone might read that into the "spirit" of the X-prize specs, but Rutan had a history with the general public, paying customers, and lawsuits.  He built a vehicle custom-designed to win the X-prize. 

For example, it was designed to be flown by an expert flight test pilot accustomed to shouldering high risk, designed for only a few suborbital flights, designed for minimal aesthetics and maximum function (eg tiny windows you had to move your head around to get a picture of the outside world), and so on.

Richard Branson is the one taking paying customers, managing the legal issues, and contracting with Scaled Composites for a vehicle.  In that capacity, Sir Richard gets to study the market, look at the profit/cost figures per passenger seat, look at the safety profile, work out the legal/regulatory framework, work out the logistics/operations management, and so on.  Those details are business matters.  A billionaire with ties to the airline industry should be well suited to judge them, far better than random Internet observers without the benefit of Rutan's advice, knowledge of the specifics, or comparable business qualifications. 

Most of the criticism I've read comes from impatience.  I suspect Branson is also a bit disappointed with the time it's taken--after all, he's a big enough fan to commit to being on the first paid flight--but determined to do things right.  And probably also a bit more realistic about how much effort is required to do something completely different.

[QuantumG]

Burt Rutan absolutely did not design SS1 with 2 paying customers in mind.  The only paying customer was Paul Allen and he was not going to be in the ship.  Someone might read that into the "spirit" of the X-prize specs, but Rutan had a history with the general public, paying customers, and lawsuits.  He built a vehicle custom-designed to win the X-prize. 

.. well yeah, the X-prize once the rules were changed to allow flying "equivalent weight" of two passengers.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Hmm, the SS2 flight now appears on the list of historic permitted launches: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/launch_license/permitted_launches/historical_launch/

But it wasn't on the list of upcoming launches prior to this. Can licensees ask for confidentiality?

[JBF]

Hmm, the SS2 flight now appears on the list of historic permitted launches: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/launch_license/permitted_launches/historical_launch/

But it wasn't on the list of upcoming launches prior to this. Can licensees ask for confidentiality?

From what I've seen most of the time permitted launches are not announced ahead of time. As long as the license is active it's at the discretion of the range authority and the licensee.