Talk:SpaceShipOne/Archive 1

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


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

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

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)

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

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

or
 * Thrust/weight: 20
 * 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)

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)

Infobox
I was looking at 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)

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)

Discrepancy with FAI list
FAI gives the height for the June 21, 2004 flight as 85 743 m, 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)

Landing photo uploaded
I uploaded. 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)

Google's replica
The replica that hangs over the staircase just off the lobby of building 43 at Google's Mountain View campus isn't mentioned. I don't have much information about it other than I don't think it's a full scale replica and yet it's still really big. StarkRG (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's full scale - there was only room for 3 seats, as per the original X-Prize rules. The X-Prize Foundation constructed those replicas in Building 25 at the Mojave Air & Space Port across the street from Scaled.  Bldg 25 is now occupied by Masten Space Systems.  There are epoxy spills still visible on the floor from XPF's SS1 replica construction. Anyway, to verify for yourself, next time you get a chance go measure the Google replica and compare with the SS1 dimensions posted in public. Ikluft (talk) 05:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

equivalent of three people?
What does this mean?
 * "... won the ... X PRIZE, by reaching 100 kilometers in altitude twice in a two-week period with the equivalent of three people on board".

I guess it's about average people's mass, but it could also mean one man and two monkeys, or the mass of three people plus the weight of life support, etc... There seems to be no precise description in the article Ansari X Prize, either. -- Flipote (talk) 07:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's correct - the equivalent mass. Originally the rule was to carry 3 people.  But later that was changed in order to put only one life at risk aboard an experimental spacecraft attempting a record-breaking envelope expansion.  If you can't find a reference for the original X-Prize rules, let me know.  I've met several people at the X-Prize Foundation (at the recent Lunar Lander Challenge) and can forward a request to them. Ikluft (talk) 05:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on SpaceShipOne. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080828171414/http://www.space.com/spacenews/businessmonday_070226.html to http://www.space.com/spacenews/businessmonday_070226.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Moved Material from Scaled Composites Tier One
I moved a bunch of material out of the Scaled Composites Tier One article and into this one. The two articles covered the same vehicle, under two different names ("Tier One" is the name of the project that built SpaceShipOne); in an attempt to make the two articles less redundant, I tried to put all the material about the vehicle here in this article, with the Scaled Composites Tier One covering parts of the program other than the vehicle itself. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 21:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 06:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on SpaceShipOne. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090203060101/http://www.nationalspacesymposium.org/symposium-awards to http://www.nationalspacesymposium.org/symposium-awards
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120204110642/http://www.itnsource.com/compilation/S26100601 to http://www.itnsource.com/compilation/S26100601#48

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on SpaceShipOne. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151018225245/http://www.fai.org/fai-record-file/?recordId=9881 to http://www.fai.org/fai-record-file/?recordId=9881
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924043352/http://www.fai.org/fai-record-file/?recordId=10434 to http://www.fai.org/fai-record-file/?recordId=10434
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924045447/http://www.fai.org/fai-record-file/?recordId=9882 to http://www.fai.org/fai-record-file/?recordId=9882

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Please clean up the horridly verbose opening section
I am not competently qualified to edit so I present this as a suggestion for someone who is.

The opening paragraph leaves me dizzy and distracted from understanding almost any essentials. How about something like this, assuming I got it right:

SpaceShipOne was a privately funded experimental rocket ship that made 17 manned suborbital flights in 2003 and 2004.

And that's it. Period. Unless I missed it, those are all of the truly essential facts. As it stands now, I had to spend several minutes to arrive at these simple essential encyclopedia-worthy facts.

By the way, why does the opening paragraph say "is"? It should say "was" at very least.

tyvm to all of you generous and valuable volunteers. Unlike Microsoft interface designers, you genuinely make the world a better place.24.27.72.99 (talk) 05:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

EDIT: Did anyone see this? The intro section here is the worst I've ever read, but one year later, it retains its crown of infamy :(76.185.10.9 (talk) 15:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons you might want to). - BilCat (talk) 21:31, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Information.svg Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.

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)

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.

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)

relatively non-polluting ?
Is this right?

I've added NOx to the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.218.56 (talk) 16:51, 26 June 2023 (UTC)