Talk:SpaceShipOne flight 16P

message: 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)
thread_title: Engine-burn

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: altitude

message: 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. ✏ Sverdrup 21:32, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: "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."
✏ Sverdrup 16:51, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: potential altitude

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  logos 

message: 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)
replies: text: I get zero hits for Google and Google. Let's remove that sentence. ✏ 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  "X1 spaceshot" 

message: 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)
thread_title: Reusable space craft

message: 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)
thread_title:  safety ? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: "major announcement"

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes, this can't be right. I corrected the times from this source:  ✏ Sverdrup 18:18, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only 5 minutes?