SpaceShip One to Fly at Oshkosh
Aviation News
SPACESHIP ONE TO FLY AT OSHKOSH
SpaceShip One, the world’s first successful civilian-built spaceship,
will fly into space at AirVenture 2005.
SpaceShip One twice flew into space with a pilot and ballast equal to
two passengers in September 2004, winning the Ten Million Dollar X
Prize. Plans had called for Mothership White Knight and SpaceShip One
to stop at AirVenture for public display prior to being put on display
at the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum.
But in a startling change of plans, Designer Burt Rutan and EAA
President Tom Poberenzy announced that Spaceship One would make
another flight into space during AirVenture, this time with passengers
instead of ballast.
"Spaceship One will be piloted by Aviation Journalist, Publisher and
Test Pilot Jim "Captain Zoom" Campbell." announced Rutan. "The
passengers will be Campbell's close personal friends Chuck Yeager and
Bob Hoover."
"Yeager and Hoover were passed over in Astronaut selection 45 years
ago." said Poberenzy. "This trip into space is our way of making that
up to them."
Campbell, who reminds everyone that "We're a graduate of the National
Test Pilot School," will also be taking his first actual trip into
space.
"I'll pilot White Knight, since even Jim Campbell can't fly two
aircraft at the same time." said Mike Melvill, pilot of the SpaceShip
One's first flight into space. "We'll take off from Whitman field and
climb to nearly 50,000 feet before releasing SpaceShip One. Jim
Campbell will fire the rocket engine and pilot SpaceShip One to more
than 62 miles above the earth (328,000 feet) then glide back to land
at Whitman field."
"With our vast Pilot In Command experience we could simultaneously
pilot both White Knight and SpaceShip One easily." said and obviously
excited Campbell. "We have flown more than a thousand different
aircraft, yet we're still snubbed by those Guinness Book people, and
we're uniquely qualified for this important mission."
We plan to not only fly Spaceship One into space and return to the
runway at Whitman field, but we'll test the phugoid oscillations
during reentry." Campbell continued. "We'll make a low pass over
runway 36, rolling and looping in front of the crowd, then we'll make
a dead stick landing and coast right to the announcers stand just as
we taught our close personal friend Bob Hoover."
"We have worked as a test pilot, stunt pilot, flight instructor
(CFI/A/I/ME/H), you name it... We fly fixed wing, rotorcraft,
single/multi-engine, gliders, balloons, ultralights -- Did I tell you
that we're a former world ultralight record-holder -- jets, warbirds,
antiques... the works in our turbulent thirty plus years as a test
pilot." Campbell explained. "This mission will be even more
challenging than flying relief missions in Ethiopa or serving as
Bodyguard to then Governor Reagan. I've heard from many EAA members
and aviation enthusiasts about this flight, and I believe that they
are just as excited about this as we are."
Turbo Tiger
Just another day in the life of Mooz!!!!
ChuckSlusarczyk
ROFL!!! Best April Fools Joke in a long time !! Bet zoom thinks they wrote it
...so it must be true1! :-) Only one minor item needs to be brought forth
concerning this comment.
>"I'll pilot White Knight, since even Jim Campbell can't fly two
>aircraft at the same time." said Mike Melvill,
Actually I remember that during one of the zoom wars it was mentioned that zoom
claimed to have flown 2 planes at once. I don't have the actual statement but it
was something to the effect that while piloting one plane he flew in formation
with himself with another plane that he flew by RC. He probably did an
aerobactic routine with him self :-)I'm sure it was a blast!!
Happy April Fool's
Chuck (it might be true) S
Jim Carriere
So I guess there must be an astronaut add-on for one's ticket?
Jan Carlsson
"We" had one "AJ 37 Viggen pilot" visiting an airport here in Sweden, taking
about that he was a retired airforce pilot, it was some years ago before
terrorist protection was popular, so he could visit the tower, he met a
private pilot there from the local flying club, and was invited to fly in
the C-172, after take off the private pilot banked 20 degree and the
"Viggen" pilot got scared, so he returned to the safe ground with the now
shaking passenger.
It doesn't take much to reveal a liar.
Another one was talking him self into piloting a Mitchell A 10? He lived but
it was expensive for the owner that let him fly without seeing his licence.
Jan Carlsson
www.jcpropellerdesign.com
"Aviation News" <Edi...@avi-news.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:pf1q41p0ski9htke2...@4ax.com...
karel
"Aviation News" <Edi...@avi-news.net> wrote in message
news:pf1q41p0ski9htke2...@4ax.com...
Aye aye
Took some tough negotiating
But finally they were allowed
to park their whats'it
next to my B17 replica
Just hope they'll behave in the loo
Vaughn
"Jim Carriere" <jimca...@yahoo.nospam> wrote in message
news:bfdf5$424d659b$ce945409$12...@DIALUPUSA.NET...
> Nice, you had me right up to the beginning of the fourth paragraph.
>
> So I guess there must be an astronaut add-on for one's ticket?
Actually, SpaceShip One takes a glider rating. Don't know about the space
shuttle.
Vaughn
Ron Wanttaja
wrote:
> Actually, SpaceShip One takes a glider rating. Don't know about the space
>shuttle.
Government-owned vehicle...no FAA license required.
Ron Wanttaja
UltraJohn
UHHHH I think you mean military vehicle. Government vehicles still need
license (both plane and pilot!).
John
Ron Wanttaja
>Ron Wanttaja wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 01:48:58 GMT, "Vaughn"
>> <vaughnsimo...@att.fake.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Actually, SpaceShip One takes a glider rating. Don't know about the
>>> space
>>>shuttle.
>>
>> Government-owned vehicle...no FAA license required.
>>
>UHHHH I think you mean military vehicle. Government vehicles still need
>license (both plane and pilot!).
As far as I know, "public use" aircraft (and their pilots) are exempt from the
FAA requirements. Agency *policy* may require pilots and aircraft to hold
appropriate FAA documents, but policies can be altered.
Back when the Shuttle was first launched, I seem to recall something about the
FAA ruling that it had no jurisdiction in such a case...basically, transitory
use of the airspace. NOTAM it, and they were satisfied.
But who knows....
Ron Wanttaja
Frank van der Hulst
>>> space shuttle.
>>
>>Government-owned vehicle...no FAA license required.
>
> license (both plane and pilot!).
> John
>
And let's not forget that in this respect, comparisons with the space
shuttle are irrelevant.
The whole point of Spaceship One is that it is NOT a government vehicle.
Does it qualify as a LSA though?
Frank
Richard Isakson
> As far as I know, "public use" aircraft (and their pilots) are exempt from
the
> FAA requirements. Agency *policy* may require pilots and aircraft to hold
> appropriate FAA documents, but policies can be altered.
>
> Back when the Shuttle was first launched, I seem to recall something about
the
> FAA ruling that it had no jurisdiction in such a case...basically,
transitory
> use of the airspace. NOTAM it, and they were satisfied.
>
> But who knows....
Ron,
You're right about public use aircraft, the Forest Service issues its own
pilot licences though all of our company's pilots also had FAA certificates.
That wasn't true for all companies. The Forest Service also inspected all
of our aircraft and ALL FARs were optional. That's NOT a good thing when it
comes to duty times and crew rest. That made for some really miserable days
and nights. The Marshal Service, on the other hand, required FAA
certificates but understood the sensitive nature of our passengers sometimes
required some deviation from the rules.
If you think the Shuttle isn't a military craft, you should try and dig out
the spec mission that sized the payload bay.
Rich
Ron Wanttaja
>If you think the Shuttle isn't a military craft, you should try and dig out
>the spec mission that sized the payload bay.
The sad thing is, much of the shuttle requirements were based on military
requirements...but the Air Force pulled out of the program in the '80s,
including mothballing the brand-new Vandenberg shuttle launch complex.
Ron Wanttaja
Denny
their falsified attendance figures... It will bring a suplus of
visitors this year, heck I might even go to look at Burt's handi
work...
OTOH, it's gonna take a lot of new ticket sales to fund all the
salaries and retirement bennys that are being sucked from the
AirVenture feed trough. (a simple statement of fact, not a political
manifesto)
denny
Ron Natalie
> UHHHH I think you mean military vehicle. Government vehicles still need
> license (both plane and pilot!).
>
Nope... many agencies require them by internal convention, but the FAA has
no authority to require it.
The FAA finally mandated adherance to the FAR's for their own internal
use after a couple of accidents a decade back.
fredf...@spamcop.net
Richard Isakson wrote:
> ...
>
> If you think the Shuttle isn't a military craft, you should try and
dig out
> the spec mission that sized the payload bay.
>
The bay was sized so as to be capable of deploying the HST, which
supposedly just happens to have the same aperture as a KH-12.
--
FF
Dan Nafe
fredf...@spamcop.net wrote:
Or perhaps it was the other way around...
fredf...@spamcop.net
The original LST ws planned to be 120 inches aperture and scaled down
to be shuttle deployed.
That doesn't clarify the issue. Supposedly nobody knows what happened
to the 'spare' HST optics fabricated by Kodak. One supposes they went
into a KH-12.
--
FF
Dan Nafe
fredf...@spamcop.net wrote:
Smile, you are on Candid Camera!
Richard Isakson
> The original LST ws planned to be 120 inches aperture and scaled down
> to be shuttle deployed.
>
> That doesn't clarify the issue. Supposedly nobody knows what happened
> to the 'spare' HST optics fabricated by Kodak. One supposes they went
> into a KH-12.
I've always wondered if putting the wrong mirror in Hubble was an accident.
Is it possible that they launched a black program right in front of our
eyes?
Rich
Morgans
"Richard Isakson" <r...@whidbey.com> wrote in message
news:-fCdnTZN3fn...@whidbeytel.com...
I'm not as up with all of the satelite stuff, but am interested. What is
the HST optics, and what does that have to do with Hubble, and a black
project, right in front of our eyes?
--
Jim in NC
Richard Isakson
>
> I'm not as up with all of the satelite stuff, but am interested. What is
> the HST optics, and what does that have to do with Hubble, and a black
> project, right in front of our eyes?
Jim
HST means Hubble Space Telescope. After the one point five billion dollar
Hubble was launched it was discovered that that it couldn't see the stars
very well. An investigation discovered that the wrong mirror had been built
into the spacecraft. Like they've got large mirrors laying around
everywhere and this was a simple mistake. Oops. Or was it a mistake? The
company that made the mirror also made mirrors for US spy satellites. Could
it be "the wrong mirror" was installed on purpose so that the hubble became
a replacement spy satellite?
Rich
Morgans
"Richard Isakson" <r...@whidbey.com> wrote
> HST means Hubble Space Telescope.
Duh! I should have caught that!
After the one point five billion dollar
> Hubble was launched it was discovered that that it couldn't see the stars
> very well.
Yep, I'm up with that.
An investigation discovered that the wrong mirror had been built
> into the spacecraft. Like they've got large mirrors laying around
> everywhere and this was a simple mistake.
It was my understanding that a rather stupid mathmatic mistake had been
commited. Is that wrong?
Oops. Or was it a mistake? The
> company that made the mirror also made mirrors for US spy satellites.
Could
> it be "the wrong mirror" was installed on purpose so that the hubble
became
> a replacement spy satellite?
>
> Rich
But would the "wrong mirror" in the Hubble be able to focus on terra firma?
I could be wrong, but I don't think so.
Are spy satelites mirrors as large as the Hubble's?
--
Jim in NC
fredf...@spamcop.net
ONe summer at Stellaphane (Amatuer telescope makers' convention)
I heard a talk by the Kodak guy. He said that they tried to talk
NASA into having a contest--test both sets of optics and use
the best of the two in the Space Telescope. Nasa declined (one
presumes that would involve making changes to the existing
contract with Perkin Elmer(?) which they would probably fight
as they would not want to risk losing the good publicity
they'd get from THEIR optics being in the Space Telescope.
Boy did that work out well for them!
So, no to your theory. The contract Kodak won was for
designated back up optics from the moment the RFP was
released.
Unless of course somehow the Kodak and PE optics were
swapped. But that would imply that the fault was discovered
befor the optics went to be assembled--in which case one
hopes they'd have been fixed.
--
FF
fredf...@spamcop.net
Richard Isakson wrote:
> "Morgans" wrote ...
> >
> > I'm not as up with all of the satelite stuff, but am interested.
What is
> > the HST optics, and what does that have to do with Hubble, and a
black
> > project, right in front of our eyes?
>
> Jim
>
> HST means Hubble Space Telescope. After the one point five billion
dollar
> Hubble was launched it was discovered that that it couldn't see the
stars
> very well. An investigation discovered that the wrong mirror had
been built
> into the spacecraft. Like they've got large mirrors laying around
> everywhere and this was a simple mistake. Oops. Or was it a
mistake?
No, they did not put the wrong mirror into the Space Telescope
(It wasn't named for Hubble until after launch). During
figuring and testing of the primary mirror one of the optical
elements in the test aparatus was installed backwards. This
introduced spherical aberration into the test aparatus, and so
the primary mirror was figured to remove that same amount of
spherical aberration from the ensemble, which means the
primary was figured WITH spherical aberration that
compensated for that in the test aparatus.
>
The
> company that made the mirror also made mirrors for US spy satellites.
Could
> it be "the wrong mirror" was installed on purpose so that the hubble
became
> a replacement spy satellite?
No. PE (or whoever it was) got the contract in part because of
their expertise in making large mirrors for spy satellites.
However the people who were experienced in that work were not
allowed to work on teh Space Telescope mirror so it was made
by less experienced people.
Kodak won the contract to make a second set of optics,
a back up set to be used if something happened to the
set being made by the primary contractor. AFAAK, Kodak
did a good job.
That second set has supposedly disappeared and the rumor is
it was used in an KH-12, the issue was moot by then as
it was certainly never possible to replace the primary
mirror in the HST on-orbit.
Unless Kodak screwed up and the mirros were switched so that
it IS the Kodak mirror that is in the HST AND NASA
decided to just use the mirror known to be defective
instead of having it refigured.
OR, I suppose, unless PE was working on a KH-12
mirror at the same time and again, switched them
and didn't bother to fix the bad optics.
Remember, the optical elements were fully completed at
the contractor facility and then shipped to NASA for
assembly into the ST. It's not like the whole telescope
was made at PE and then inserted into a satellite.
Prior to assembly of the Space Telescope, re-figuring
of the primary mirror would not have been a major task.
After assembly, swapping mirrors was not feasible.
So the "mirrors were swapped" theories are a non-starter.
Not a problem for the run-of-the-mill conspiracy theorist.
--
FF
fredf...@spamcop.net
The weather at Vandenberg is often too cold to launch the
shuttle which may be a major reason why the facility there
was mothballed when the drometer problem was fully
appreciated. That, and there were problems with the
launch pad foundation.
The DOD only 'pulled out' in terms of infrastructure and
purchasing DOD-only shuttles. Military payloads are
routinely launched by the NASA shuttles. Previously,
NASA often benefitted from the use of ICBM boosters
for lauching satellites (and in the early years,
astronauts), but befor the shuttle, NASA support for
DOD was less commonplace and remains a sore point
among a lot of NASA civilian scientists.
I've no idea as to whom is subsidizing whom, in terms
of budget.
--
FF
Blueskies
<fredf...@spamcop.net> wrote in message news:1112910642.6...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> The weather at Vandenberg is often too cold to launch the
> shuttle which may be a major reason why the facility there
> was mothballed when the drometer problem was fully
> appreciated. That, and there were problems with the
> launch pad foundation.
>
What is too cold? Vandenburg doesn't get too cold...
The primary reason that I heard was that the shuttle could not lift a large enough payload into the polar orbit that was
the priamry mission for launches from Vandenburg...
The whole facility build was a boon to the central coast economy for many years tho', and is used for delta launches
today...
Edmond Dantes
Neither White Knight, nor SpaceShipOne are government-owned. That's
why this was such a big deal. Space is going commercial.
Brad
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 02:26:25 GMT, Ron Wanttaja <ikv...@gte.net>
wrote:
Morgans
space shuttle." By not saying it was wrong about the glider rating for the
W.K., he was supplying information about the "I don't know" part.
--
Jim in NC
"Edmond Dantes" <nospa...@fuse.net> wrote in message
news:5rdb515q9sdq8e2mn...@4ax.com...
Ron Wanttaja
>On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 02:26:25 GMT, Ron Wanttaja <ikv...@gte.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 01:48:58 GMT, "Vaughn" <vaughnsimo...@att.fake.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> Actually, SpaceShip One takes a glider rating. Don't know about the space
>>>shuttle.
>>
>>Government-owned vehicle...no FAA license required.
>
>Neither White Knight, nor SpaceShipOne are government-owned. That's
>why this was such a big deal.
Yup, I understand that...the question was "Don't know about the Space Shuttle."
Shuttle's a government-owned vehicle, hence an FAA license isn't required.
>Space is going commercial.
Space has been commercial for at least thirty years. Where ya been? :-)
Ron Wanttaja
fredf...@spamcop.net
Blueskies wrote:
> <fredf...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:1112910642.6...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > The weather at Vandenberg is often too cold to launch the
> > shuttle which may be a major reason why the facility there
> > was mothballed when the drometer problem was fully
> > appreciated. That, and there were problems with the
> > launch pad foundation.
> >
>
> What is too cold? Vandenburg doesn't get too cold...
After the Challenger disaster the minimum acceptable ambient
temperature for launch was raised. I do not recall the spec,
but Vandenberg has typical overnight lows below it for
a substantial part of the year. That was about the time
that the decision was made to mothball the South Vandenberg
shuttle facility. Now that heaters are used on the booster
joints that minimum is back down to where launching from
Vandenberg is feasible.
>
> The primary reason that I heard was that the shuttle could not lift a
large enough payload into the polar orbit that was
> the priamry mission for launches from Vandenburg...
Not likely. The shuttle payload has not been reduced since the
construction of the Vandeberg facility. However the types of
payloads permitted have been revised. The Shuttle is not allowed
to carry RPGs or other radioactive materials in any substantial
quantity and the there is now a smaller maximum permissible size
for solid boosters carried in the payload compartment.
Those restrictions probably preclude a number of military payloads.
>
> The whole facility build was a boon to the central coast economy for
many years tho', and is used for delta launches
> today...
The cross-track capability during re-entry was a design spec intended
to allow one-orbit shuttle missions to launch from South Vandenberg,
pop out a satellite and then land at Edwards.
--
FF