Talk:SpaceShipOne flight 16P

Pilot announcement
Has the pilot been announced yet? The article says "as of July 2004", which is now some time past. --Phil | Talk 16:23, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen any news on that front, and I've been wondering about it. When was the pilot announced for flight 15P?  81.168.80.170 20:23, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In the end it was announced as Mike Melvill a couple of hours before launch. Surprising choice, and kept secret till the last moment: I'd like to know at what point the decision was made, especially if it only decided on the day. 81.168.80.170 18:21, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * From SPACE.com:
 * Burt Rutan, head of Scaled Composites, the firm that designed and built the rocketplane, said that Melvill was not the pilot slated for todays flight.
 * The planned pilot fell ill at the same time his wife was giving birth. That unidentified individual felt he was under too much stress to undertake the flight and give a full 100 percent, Rutan said.
 * So which of Binnie, Siebold, and Shane has just become a father? 81.168.80.170 23:56, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Engine-burn
From the article: "It was planned to shut off the motor when the altitude reaches 345,000 feet (105 km)," If they would have shut of the motor at an altitude of 105 km the apogee would have been much much higher then the one achived. Can someone confirm, and if true, correct this?


 * The engine burn was shut off early, and the roll problem meant that the craft wasn't as high as planned for that stage of the burn. Both of these factors mean that the engine cut-off altitude was much lower than intended.  81.168.80.170 18:03, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Flight success?
I just finished watching the web-cast and it looks like the mission was a success! So far as I have watched the craft has landed but the pilot has not left the vehicle yet, so there may or may not be problems to report. But looking at the footage everything was great! :)

altitude
Hmm, getting confusing here. Spaceflight Now reports altitude was 330,000 feet. I just stomped on someone else's edit (oops) that said 358,000 feet, reported by CNN. We need another source. 195.167.169.36 15:52, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Watching the web-cast the commentators said the required altitude was 328,000 feet, but they went 2,000 feet further to 330,000 feet. I have no other link to confirm this other than the commentary on the web-cast.

I've now seen 330kf from several reports, and one added the detail that it would have reached about 360kf if the burn had not been cut off early. Considering CNN's sterling reputation for technical accuracy (note sarcasm), I'm leaning towards concluding that 330kf is correct. If I see nothing else then in a few hours I'll change the articles to say 330kf. 81.168.80.170 18:18, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * According to CNN, 358,000 feet would beat the X-15's record if confirmed. A fact we can add if it is confirmed. Rmhermen 22:33, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

Now got new information from SPACE.com: radar at Edwards Air Force Base give an altitude of 337,500 feet (102.9 km). I'm going with that for the time being. 81.168.80.170 23:56, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

potential altitude
I calculate the following apogee would have been reached if Mike did indeed wait until 105 km before shutting off the motor.
 * From v^2 - u^2 = 2as, a=9.8 and v=Mach 3 = 1020.87 metres per second
 * s= v^2 / 19.6 = 1042175 / 19.6 = 53172. metres, or 53 extra km.
 * final apogee would have been 158 km.
 * This assumes Mach 3 and a vertical flight profile at shut off.

This article has more information than I can find on Scaled's website, where does it come from, live broadcast and insiders?

Does anyone have a profile for the flight giving x and y against time, or velocity against time? I'd like to clarify at what altitude/velocity Mike would need to shut off the motor so that the ship would be guarranteed to exceed 100 km. Shutting it off at 100 would be too late and would certainly push the envelope. -Wikibob | Talk 20:32, 2004 Sep 29 (UTC)


 * Huh? a=9.8? SSO must have been flying in smaller gravity than that?... we simplify things a little too much here I think. &#9999; Sverdrup 21:32, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No, 9.8 is about right, maybe g is 9.48 at 100km, so add maybe 4% to the extra delta-distance travelled (real BOTE guess) for the extra 100km. It's in a near-zero-G ballistic trajectory sure, but it's still very near the Earth with all its pulling power. g depends on M.m/(distance between centres squared) (approx). But I read Mike shut off at 55km with about 11 seconds burn left, so they must have an apogee calculator that tells them real-time what they'll attain. -Wikibob | Talk 22:23, 2004 Sep 29 (UTC) (edited -Wikibob | Talk 22:32, 2004 Sep 29 (UTC))


 * The information in the article generally comes from news reports, which are cited at the end of the article. Scaled give much less information and much later.  No insider here, but I keep waiting for someone to start reporting for Wikipedia firsthand from Mojave Spaceport.  81.168.80.170 23:56, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't think we should use our own calculations in the article, however there is a quote here that we could use: Mike Melvill says:
 * "It was at no time any worry for me. I knew the rates could be handled. I was very glad to see that I passed the altitude (62-mile threshold for X Prize) and I waited a little bit longer just to get a little altitude in hand and then I shut (the engine) down 11 seconds early. I had 11 seconds more of burn -- I could have gone to 360,000 feet today -- but I didn't think it was worth taking that kind of risk because we have a second flight to do. It is better to get the altitude, bring it back clean and undamaged."

&#9999; Sverdrup 16:51, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

logos
I saw a grainy newspaper photograph of White Knight and SpaceShipOne, showing a collection of about five logos on the sides. I couldn't make them out. Can someone provide a complete list of them? 195.167.169.36 09:39, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I've been given a list of logos via email, which I've added to the article. For now I won't say who provided the list, in case the reason why ey didn't edit the article directly is a desire for anonymity.  Another logo-related question: are M&Ms, 7-Up, and the others sponsoring Tier One directly, or are they sponsoring the X Prize?  Many of the logos were clustered next to the X Prize logo, whereas Virgin Galactic was more prominent on its own.  81.168.80.170 22:29, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"X1 spaceshot"
Where does this "X1 spaceshot" terminology come from? User:132.205.15.4 says that MSN uses it; can someone point at an example? I checked MSNBC, which is where the "News" link on MSN's front page points to, and its story on the flight makes no mention of the term. 195.167.169.36 10:05, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I get zero hits for Google and Google. Let's remove that sentence. &#9999; Sverdrup

If it's to be removed, also note a similar sentence in SpaceShipOne flight 17P, and redirection pages X0, X0 spaceshot, X1, X1 spaceshot, X2, X2 spaceshot. 195.167.169.36 14:52, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think it is to be removed: it's of no encyclopedic importance what MSN uses to refer to the event. 80.100.151.120 10:39, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6110323/ • Sept. 28, 2004 | 5:30 p.m. ET Lining up for space history: This event — known as "X1," as opposed to the "X2" flight tentatively scheduled for next Monday — has attracted far lighter advance crowds than June's historic SpaceShipOne flight. But Howard felt he had to be here in Mojave for the start of the prize run. http://www.xprize.org/ The X-Prize organization also calls it "X1", MSN had it as the X1 spaceshot in a newsblurb. X-Prize has it as the X1 Flight. http://www.xprize.org/press_room/press_releases/press.php?articleID=121 The second spacelaunch is called X2 (no Flight) in this press release. If you rewatch the spaceflight, you'll note that at the press conference in front of SSO, Peter Diamandis calls it the X1 flight 132.205.15.4 15:13, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Reusable space craft
Besides the space shuttle, has any space craft flown into space more than once? Did some of the Soviet capsule get reused? Rmhermen 14:10, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

I think only the Shuttles and SpaceShipOne have flown in space more than once. Soyuz is single-use. Note also that the Shuttle can't turn around fast enough for the X Prize: it takes months before it can fly again after landing. 195.167.169.36 14:57, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's my understanding that there was at one time an intent to outfit used Apollo capsules for unmanned flights into space, but I'm not sure if that was ever actually done. But, certainly, Shuttle and SpaceShipOne are the only spaceships that have hade multiple manned spaceflights in the same vehicle. Jeffrey L. Whitledge 21:10, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC) (Oh, and X-15--I forgot. Jeffrey L. Whitledge 21:13, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC))

The Gemini 2 launched unmanned on a suborbital flight by NASA on January 19, 1965. It was launched on a Titan II rocket. It was then refurbished and reflown on an unmanned suborbital test of the (MOL) Manned Orbiting Laboratory by the Air Force on November 3, 1966. The second time it was launched on a Titan IIIC rocket.Reubenbarton 21:39, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Interesting subject. Is there an article that this knowledge belongs in, or should there be a new reusable spacecraft article? 81.168.80.170 22:31, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Here's the list of twice-flown spacecraft as I have it now: No idea if this should go into any articles, or even if it is correct. Jeffrey L. Whitledge 22:40, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)
 * X-15 #3 - 1963
 * Gemini 2 - 1965
 * Columbia - 1981
 * Challenger - 1983
 * Discovery - 1984
 * Atlantis - 1985
 * Endeavor - 1992
 * SpaceShipOne - 2004

images wanted
The Tier One articles are notably lacking in images, though someone who went to Mojave Spaceport came up with some useful ones for SpaceShipOne flight 15P. Some images relating to flight 16P would be good; some particular images that would be useful: Any Wikipedians planning to watch flight 17P firsthand, please take a camera, here's your checklist. 81.168.80.170 22:40, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * crowd of spectators
 * SpaceShipOne or White Knight or both in sufficient resolution to see logos
 * any of the aircraft taking off or landing (SpaceShipOne, White Knight, three chase planes)
 * SpaceShipOne during boost
 * view from SpaceShipOne in space
 * Melvill standing on top of SpaceShipOne to celebrate


 * Good thoughts above, and so noted. Using a disposable camera, I took photos of items 1, 2, 3, and 6 for flight 17P/X2.  (Hard to do 4 and 5 with a disposable camera).  I was not present at the Mojave Airport/Spaceport for the two previous flights.  Antelope Valley photographs - including Mojave - are my specialty!  Feel free to leave me a note at my user discussion page if you would desire more from me.  Thanks!  --avnative 23:54, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

safety ?
i read that the ground crew told him to abort after the rolls, but he didnt abort, rather waiting a little and then shutting off the engine. what is up with that?

would you want to fly on a spaceship where the pilot ignored the ground crew?


 * If the pilot knew better, yes. In this case he did know better.  He understood how the spacecraft was behaving, and he knew the capabilities of the pilot+craft system.  The ground controllers can only look at the pilot+craft system from the outside, so have a much poorer idea of what's going on.  But anyway, in this case, AIUI the ground controllers did not instruct him outright to abort, but merely suggested it.  195.167.169.36 12:55, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"major announcement"
Spaceflight Now's report says:
 * 1309 GMT (9:09 a.m. EDT)
 * The crowds at Mojave are being told to stick around after today's flight for a "major announcement" concerning the X Prize Foundation's future.

Was an announcement actually made in the end? I haven't seen it reported anywhere. 195.167.169.36 12:55, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * The story about an annual "X Prize Cup" (see X PRIZE Foundation) seems to have originated about the same time. Was that the announcement?  195.167.169.36 08:28, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Only 5 minutes?
The table on the right of the article gives a launch time 15:09 UTC and landing time 15:14 UTC, it seems can't be correct. But in SpaceShipOne, it gives a duration of 24 minutes, the both can't be correct at the same time. --221.196.194.40 10:23, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, this can't be right. I corrected the times from this source: &#9999; Sverdrup 18:18, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)