The Only Spacecraft Which Flies Under 100% Human Control
Space Ship Two has taken years to get to the point where paying passengers were allowed, 20 years after its predecessor Space Ship One took flight with its eyes set on the Ansari X-Prize. And while many will dismiss it as a carnival ride which barely makes it to space, it represents something almost unique in modern spaceflight, an entirely hand flown spacecraft with no computer orchestrating every maneuver.
The pilots in Space Ship Two are the only people who can claim to be spaceship pilots without qualifying that claim with a comment about the computers doing most of the work.
Follow me on Twitter for more updates:
/ djsnm
I have a discord server where I regularly turn up:
/ discord
If you really like what I do you can support me directly through Patreon
/ scottmanley
Fun fact -- Mike Melvill was the test pilot of Space Ship One on the flight where it performed all of the vertical rolls. The instrument panel lighting got knocked (a result of g-forces/vibration) to full dim right after engine ignition. When it started rolling, he was using the horizon out the window to verify his vertical orientation, so he didn't bother to counter the roll. Discovery of the control panel being on full dim was discovered right after apogee, so he had full instruments to land. Truly a "seat of the pants" test flight. Also, at the time, he was the only astronaut with only a high school education.
Didn't he say "TNU is gone" or something to that effect? On the ground they didn't know he was flying by the seat of his pants. It was only after he landed did they find out and Burt looked more than a little surprised! 😁
Instruments? Who needs instruments?
If u're flying by cables I guess your ass and hands gives you feedback enough to controll the thing.
PS: He is South African.
some more interesting facts. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Melvill
Bert started as a well known model airplane designer and builder before graduating to full size airplanes. His pop up tail system has been used on free flight models for a very long time. It's called a dethermalizer and is used with a timer (today) or a fuse (in my day) to break the model out of a thermal and bring it gently down after a full time flight.
Think I first saw things like that end 70's, early 80's. My cousin had one with a timer.
@@hotdognl70 could you enlighten a non-model-airplane-person on what that structure does?
@@Biped It flips the stabilo like an airbrake so the model will stop flying if it's caught in a thermal bubble. Free flight models have no controls, the sport is to balance and trim your plane perfect for a long glide. So if you get that perfect launch in to a thermal updraft it might stay up for ever without this system.
Normally the horizontal stabiliser is fitted with elastic bands & hinged where the leading edge meets the fuselage. Back when I used to build them the HS was pulled down into flying position with some button thread that passed through a groove filed into a rolled up rectangle of coke can making a tube. This was the "snuffer tube" to stop the chance of catching hillsides alight in the summer as you'd impregnate some thin hemp cord with a solution of Potassium nitrate (Saltpetre, used to cure bacon) & let it dry. There was a fair bit of experimentation, especially if you had some new cord, as it isn't just length that controls the smoulder time. There's airflow, strength of the Potassium nitrate solution, density of the cord & humidity to factor in to get just the right duration of flight. You pulled the horizontal stabiliser down, against the rubber bands trying to pull the HS into a vertical, total stall position and secured it by passing the button thread over the groove in the snuffer tube & then wound it around a little peg. You measure the correct length of fuse cord for the duration of the flight & poke one end into the snuffer tube securing it by nipping the aluminium tight around the end of the cord. Making sure the button thread & the fuse are in intimate contact. Light the end of the cord & blow it out so that it starts its slow smoulder dangling out underneath the tailplane. Launch glider, hit huge, lazy thermal & enjoy! Once the smouldering fuse reaches the button thread it burns through the thread & "Twang!". The horizontal stabiliser flips up causing huge, but symmetrical, drag on the glider. It's speed drops below flying speed pdq & it should come down in a flat, gentle spin landing like a maple leaf in Autumn... Hopefully! On the way down the last tiny bit of cord goes out in the snuffer tube. It was always my favourite bit. The experimentation the night before getting the timing just right & if it all works as it should with no damage it's very satisfying. Hope that made sense!
reminds me of the movie flight of the pheonix lol
As a cirrus pilot I love how you relate everything aviation back to your own experience. When I was a physics major in college, (back in another lifetime), a visiting professor from West Point gave a lecture and clearly remember him saying that as physicists, you will never relate to the world the same way an average person does like when we see an oil slick in a puddle. When I was doing my private pilot, I remember looking up at the clouds and realizing I will never look at the sky the same way again.
Yeah, I love that thin film interferometry in oil!
"that oil do be lowering surface tention!"
Man, cirrus pilots just love advertising that they’re a cirrus pilot
Specific education and occupations change the way we think and solve problems. A plumber will compare marital concerns to plumbing industry terms and so on.
@@SirDummyThicc Ha! I'm a taildragger pilot. We always advertise that to anyone who'll listen, and to some who don't want to!
This is a brilliant example of what makes Scott so good. It's not just that he knows his stuff - he doesn't do hours of 'research' like most 'educational' KZheadrs in order to get an approximate idea of what he's talking about, he just knows it. But also because he's human - he doesn't worry about the occasional mistake, and his enthusiasm always shows through. This is a man so in love with his subjects that he wants to share that enthusiasm with everyone else.
So what you're saying is that Space Ship Two is immune to the Cylon Virus, and will still offer access to space after the AI apocalypse
It is the Cylon Virus. You ppl need to learn understaning "british". LoL What they say is likely 180° the opposite.
100 likes, no replies. Sup AI? 😅
Just don't network the computers
@@John-wd5cb You have recognized your own?
@@i-love-comountains3850 delete/Britain
I like how low-tech this high-tech spacecraft is. Even the mahogany front landing skid is amazing
The White Knight, the aircraft that carried Spaceship One retired to the Flying Heritage & Combat Armor Museum in Everett. I was lucky enough to see and tour it after its final flight, before it was hung from their ceiling. I took pictures of the pitot probe covers, which were Jack In The Box antenna balls 😂 What a beautiful plane!
Cool! I didn't know that Everett had a flight museum. I've only been to the one at Boeing Field in Seattle.
@@nathandanner4030 It was owned by Paul Allen, who didn't mind wasting truckloads of cash on keeping the planes flying regardless of how much the museum made. Every summer weekend I saw some of his planes flying up and down the runway centerline. After he passed away, the place couldn't make enough to stay open (Covid didn't help) and it closed for a while. It recently got bought by the Wartime History Museum and they've opened it up again for limited days during the week, without having the planes fly around. The fact that Paine Field turned into a passenger airport probably makes those kind of flying weekends hard to do as well.
@@muskiet8687Keeping aircraft flying is not wasting cash. They were designed and built to fly, and keeping them doing that is the best way to preserve them.
@@owensmith7530 I remember back in my days in the NAVY there used to be an orginization that restored old war birds and rented them out for quite reasonable prices. One of the best way to preserve something is to make it comercially viable. Which is one of the reason America still has Bison and, I can buy ground Bison meat at Costco.
@owensmith7530 It may not be wasting cash to you and a few other fans of aviation, but a museum without enough income to maintain what was basically a very expensive hobby for a billionaire who is no longer with us, will have to prioritize with what they can scrape together. I loved seeing those planes fly, but when it comes to priorities of what is actually important to be funded... it really is a waste of cash to me. 🤷
I was at the first Space Ship One launch in 2003 while a student at Caltech. It's unforgettable. These days I fly a Bonanza as a private pilot and agree there's not another system like this.
MIT >> Caltech 😉
I've always decided I'd never fly on this.. I never heard of the Titan sub before the catastrophe, however I would neber have ridden on it either. I'm not rich, but you'd still have to pay me a million to ride on this ..and far, far more to ride on Titan if at all. Just like Titan, this is a disaster waiting to happen, and it will happen some day. In fact, you can argue it's already happened twice. The only difference is there is far less regulation for a spare fairing vehicle that carries passengers than a submersible. Even with the space fairing ones, don't they have to technically "rate" the passengers as mission specialists?
@@jonslg240 Respectfully disagree. FAA red tags ANYTHING they don’t like. In fact, SpaceX, Virgin, and Blue Origin currently ask permission from the FAA for every launch whereas Titan seems to have had way more latitude.
Something about seeing an everyday US tailnumber on the side of a "spaceship" is really cool to me.
Except it’s not exactly an everyday tail number :-) I like how they put in the altitude reference! I didn’t know you could do that.
@@DaveInPA2010 Just like a license plate, you can request a specific tail number when you register an aircraft. So, technically it is just an everyday number in the sense that its just another registered aircraft! :P Just another "november" number.
@DaveInPA2010 If you build or purchase any aircraft that requires an "N" number in the US, you can pick that number and letter designate, IF it isn't already being used on another aircraft. With a few exceptions. FAA doesn't want rude combinations, and if they figure out that you're trying to pick something rude or obscene, they'll deny it.
I always found labeling it "starship" to be amusing and totally misplaced. There are clouds on a higher altitudes than its peak altitude. It's not "starship" if you have clouds above your head.
@@fiveoneecho And indeed, they *wanted* 'N100KM' for obvious reasons...but it was already taken. So, this was deemed the next best thing.
One of Burt Rutan's first aircraft designs was a plane called "Vari Viggen" that was inspired by the Swedish fighterplane "Viggen" that was a part of the reason for his fixation of "canard" type of aircrafts.
It's crazy how Rutan's stuff looks so off the wall, like you would think it wouldn't be safe to fly but yet somehow he always made it possible for an average pilot to fly one his things without FBW.
I was there for the first flight by Mike Melville at Mohave and while we couldn't see much from the ground (trail of rocket smoke at launch and, some minutes later, the spiral of SSO down to it's landing) it was a wonderful and historic event to be able to attend. As a pilot, this ride is 10x more interesting to me than New Shepard, especially having followed Burt Rutan's career and amazing accomplishments for so many decades. Thanks for covering this in such detail Scott!
Hear hear, I can’t agree enough!
I LOVE the keeping the mahogany skid tradition! If I was a lot younger, I’d be working to become one of their pilots. This just looks amazing!
kilofeet at 5:20 has got to be one of the most cursed units I've ever heard. It's even worse than kilowatt-hours and kilometre-per-second-per-megaparsec.
Kilobananas is obviously the correct unit of measurement, for both dimension and mass.
Truest me, i am an electrical engineer, and KWH is just a stupid unit.
Kilopound is pretty common.
Kwh/1000h is more cursed imo
kips is even more fun! kilo-pounds lolol. You pronounce it as it is typed "kips"
Scott, I don’t know why exactly, but I think this is one of my favorite videos of yours. Perhaps it’s the “human touch”, and the personal joy and enthusiasm you convey, but this was really great! Thank you!
I always thought of SS1/2 exactly in the caricature you described- "this is just a poorly executed carnival ride for rich people". This video, particularly your outlining the simplicity of the design and that it's flown by a real pilot, neither of which I ever considered, completely changed my view. Great vid as always Scott
100% manually flown is something we only see in science fiction in some ways or with some kind of assisted with the ship's flight computer. It's something we don't see much irl anymore. I wish their were more spaceships like this!
Well, rockets have never been manually flown. Even Vostok and Mercury were entirely guided by their computers.
@@infinitium8460you could control the Apollo spacecraft manually. If I remember right it was done in the case of Apollo 13, normally it was of course computer controlled
@@simonm1447 Yes, very true
@@simonm1447 Yes, they certainly were flown manually, but during ascent, it was completely computer guided. The closest we ever came to an Apollo mission was the lightning strike during Apollo 12, though it never did happen. Apollo 13 was only manually controlled once their mission was aborted.
Trust me, you don’t want to see that. That has the unintentional side effect of setting back Spaceflight by decades every time the spaceship explodes.
We got confirmation at a financial conference that New Shepard will fly an unmanned mission in just a few weeks and then approximately six weeks later, will do a manned flight. The fact that Moon Dao has to find another candidate due to a visa pass port issue for an NS flight seems to also confirm that NS flight will be restarting soon as well.
Cables and rod control system as an old DC-6/7 guy I am impressed..
Thank you for explaining the extreme configuration change of the Space Ship One Scott. I have always wondered why it was done that way as it seems *so* aerodynamically inefficient. But the different realm of re-entry demands different solutions.
I remember reading that Neil Armstrong, after his return from the moon, had a share in a Libelle glider and would spend hours and days soaring around in that. I'm sure he would approve of SC2. 👍🇦🇺
I hope so, there was jabber that he was slightly pro-government only space program and had concerns about commercial space flight. However, not totally against it.
@@Wrangler-fp4ei The US govt is subsidizing Space X, so it's not as if it's a completely privatized enterprise.
Ok, I have generally discarded these carnival ride spaceships as hooey, but Scott, your insights gave me a lot more respect for the design of this one. Well done!
I love Burt Rutan's story and inventions. I've read his biography and I am fascinated from the fact that his intellectual heritage has evolved in such a reality, from a small RC model to a full size extravagant spaceplane
My brother and I drove from Utah to the first Space Ship One launch when we were in college. We just showed up early in the morning without tickets or anything hoping to get a view of it. We found some of the organizers and after some fast talking ended up getting jobs helping out in the VIP section so got to watch the flight from there. It was a pretty amazing experience. Back then we thought it'd only be a few more years before we could take a ride into space because it was the dawn of reusability. We're still waiting for those affordable space flight tickets.
Thank you for answering my previous question about the reason for the feathering system by releasing a whole video. Much appreciated
Fantastic review of Spaceship Two. Hope it can be developed to crack the Karman Line! However I suspect the innovative shuttlecock concept will not allow for significantly higher energy reentries. On a side note, Gordon Cooper, on the last Mercury flight, lost all his automatic controls and had to perform his reentry from orbit manually. For that Gordo (RIP) is still the man with the right stuff!
Another interesting tid-bit, N328KF was chosen because originally they wanted to use N100KM, but unfortunately it was already used.
I really like how your explanation is accessible to all, even people who might have been living under a rock so long, they'd never heard of Scaled/Virgin Galactic.
This is one of my favourite videos and you've really got me hooked on this craft as well :-) Thanks Scott great video
It’s actually incredibly impressive that he kept the price so low, that’s awesome, and you can tell it was a passion project.
Very nice to have an expert's view on this program! Watching the livestream of the flight, it was annoying having all these know-nothings in chat ridicule it for "not actually going to space" and being "just an expensive airplane." This video is a great review of the history and development of this project.
Interesting to see a minimalist rocket plane, not a combination I'd expect.
attached to the "mother ship" which is the world record holder as the largest aircraft in the world and is the antitsis of the word "minimalist"
@@deans178 White Knight 2 is not Stratolaunch, though they look a lot alike WK2 is far smaller.
Ill-fated cost-cutting.
Love the passion you share through your words.
I thank you for that information about this being fully human controlled. I didn't realize that and it reflects back to the X-15 and Mercury flights.
The Mercury Capsule had an analogue fly by wire control system. It had thruster jets which were fly by wire only, and thurster jets which were linked to the control joystick mechanically.
Scott, you never disappoint!!! Your experience as a pilot and your space enthusiasm definitely comes through!! I had a lot of my questions about this program answered!! Thanks for everything!!
You’re welcome
There really is something satisfying about seeing a pilot finesse the controls with the earth disappearing from view. Fantastic video.
Very nice conspectus, thanks Scott Manley.
I love how Rutan saved money and complexity by using 2 fixed front gear on White Knight 1
Love how you're trying to get to fly it! Co-pilot? Imagine the series of vids there'd be out of that. I wonder if enough deep wallet subscribers of yours there are to make it worthwhile marketing for them, but we can hope!
Scott - Great Video! Keep up the good work!
Great video Scott. This has given me a much greater appreciation of Space Ship one and two. If I had the money I'd fly all 3 options. The 3rd being Space-X which isn't strictly in the business of tourism, but it's still an option if your pockets are deep enough.
Scott, there was a ton of CFD done. Jim Tighe was the principal aerodynamics engineer.
In so far as CFD could be done on a shoestring budget in the late 1990s...
The nose wheel is a lump of timber 😂 simply wow
I’m getting real oceangate vibes from this deal 😅
@@NovemberFoxtrotRC I mean who knows but I’d say its probably one of the safest corners to cut…
@@NovemberFoxtrotRCironically safer to go to space than underwater, because pressure be like that
That really isn't uncommon. The X-15 had skids in the rear and tires on the nose gear. Dream Chaser has the front kid. You steer with aerodynamic controls on the rollout until the speed drops, then you use differential braking. One (or two) less tire and wheel assemblies saves a lot of weight and removes a failure point.
The skid blocks underneath formula 1 cars are also made of plywood
Thanks, Scott! I hope you get a ride in Space Ship Two before long!
Thanks for posting this. I had given up on this a while ago. Was not sure why there was no progress. Assumed that there was some fundamental flaw with the entire design. Every time I saw dream chaser, I thought of spaceship one. I really, really want to see this succeed. 🤞
Richard Branson: Space Enjoyer
Fully reversible control system. The last supersonic airplane similar was the X1. Pretty impressive for a supersonic hybrid. Ol Burt was a sharp cookie. He had fully orbital systems on paper.
Burt Rutan is still alive.
Back in early 2003, I got to visit Scaled Composites in Mojave for an open house for employees and certain guests, long story as to how that came about. It was an absolutely fabulous experience. I got to meet the Rutans, Mike Melville, and a whole host of other people involved. Seeing SpaceShipOne in person was mind blowing, and another impressive thing was to see and sit in the simulator they had. Bert talked about taking the first steps toward civilian space flight and making it more like how we use aviation. It was awesome!
I think that the mix of the fact that it is human controlled spacecraft and just how damn cool and futuristic it is. Makes this one of my favourite spacecrafts.
Such a cool plane, I love to watch it fly, hopefully they can get up to that once per month cadence with it, or even more in the future. We need more rocket planes.
42 likes, 42 views... perfect score...
quick scott! unlist it!
The ultimate answer!
Although many people point to disadvantages of the SpaceShipTwo approach over New Shepard, one of the real potential advantages is the ability to conduct tourist flights virtually anywhere in the world. Of course this requires having some ground structure in place. But as demonstrated by the otherwise ill-fated final Virgin Orbit launch attempt which was conducted from England, this is certainly doable. The advantage of flying from other locations in the world is that it provides other markets for the tourist flights. Yes of course someone with the funds to make one of these flights can afford to fly to New Mexico, but for that type of person time is a factor also and this makes the experience more accessible, and also allows more friends and family to witness the flight. And as Scott pointed out the views of California from the Mojave based flights were pretty spectacular, compared to the more featureless New Mexico flights. The view flying 85 km above Hawaii, or France, or Shanghai will I think greatly enhance the experience, especially for the spaceflight participants who live in those areas.
So, 1000 flights or so to make back the R&D-money. 20 years? More? BTW: Watch Tom Scott fly a 1910 designed plane. I'm sure Scott Manley would like to fly that one as well.
About the same as Telsa and to contrast with atimis which never will get those billions back paying for a refurbished shuttle engine.
Great video. I have been following this project since its inception. Rutan is indeed a genius. I rather fly (if I had the means) Space Ship 2 than a Blue Origin rocket. The combination of flight, rocket into the black sky and glide back is a fantastic joy ride, all done by humans handling the space craft adds even more to the experience. Greets from Bogota, Colombia.
Genius? ROFLMAO Obviously you don't know him personally.
Do you?
@@Istandby666 how many aircraft have you designed?
Great video, I enjoyed all that great footage
kind of like a trick a trucker taught me, If you twist your tie downs they won't make noise. like if you drill holes in you craft the wind will go through smoother than going around.
Actually, Cessna aircraft are ‘fly-by-wires’ - steel cables. R
I just hope they have learned to put all the screws in the panels before flights. Plus no more repeats of the elevon de-laminating because the pressure relief vents were blocked. I still place this thing only a few steps above the titanic failure of a submarine in terms of safety. No amount of money would get me on it no matter how much I know I'd enjoy the ride.
2 billion dollars buys you a lot of safety.
@@Seafox0011 -Shuttle engineers in 2002, presumably
@@Seafox0011 Given the record of fatal accidents, it doesn't seem to buy very much.
Love this episode! Thank you so much!
I live in Truth or Consequences, NM, not too far from Spaceport America. I heard Spaceship II take off last week. It's pretty darn neat. I hope that they can develop a Spaceship III or IV and maybe work on intercontinental travel or something.
Burt Rutan. The guy you WANTED to design a submersible. Except he would not have, because he is not an idiot. He knows his limitations. And i will bet cash money that Burt would have told the ocean gate CEO that "this sub won't work, and i don't even know submersibles, but i know composites."
Burt Rutan, AEROSPACE ENGINEER; 'rocket scientist.' Stockton Rush, "spam in a can."
Wow, so many experts on submarines nowadays. If only you were there before the incident too.
The guy you'd want to design a submersible would be Grahame Hawke
"He knows his limitations." Except he didn't...he wasn't a spacecraft or rocket person, and arguably made a terrible mistake selecting the hybrid engine architecture. Not only did their misunderstanding of NO2 kill 3 engineers, but they had tremendous difficultly scaling the hybrid rocket engine for SS2. Hybrids just don't scale that well.
@@geraldmartsy2165 One accident does not a failed design make. Seems like it's working pretty well now. Besides, Rutan is an aircraft designer, he didn't build the engine.
1:13 A wild Elon Musk was spotted!
I love these aircraft for the same reason Scott. 🚀
I remember when spaceship one flew I was in middle school and I thought that was the coolest thing specially, after the loss of Columbia the year before and I thought we were going into a new age of commercial space, but then nothing happened afterwards and I thought it was a one shot deal but here we are and so common place now
I watched that video. That was a very short flight.
I'll just say it: the fact that this is 100% human controlled, combined with the need to fly *daily* (or more!) if Virgin Galactic is to actually make any sort of profit, will lead to deaths. You can't have the equivalent of test pilots flying highly experimental aircraft that often without human error leading to tragedy. With something like New Shepard, they can program the system to never repeat a mistake, but people don't work that way: something *will* go wrong, and passengers *will* pay the ultimate price for it.
Blue Origin had a booster fail on a payload flight. Admittedly, the LES triggered and people would have been fine, but being autonomous doesn't mean 100% chance of success either.
@@geraldmartsy2165 That's the thing, though: Blue Origin had a booster failure, but due to their LES, *no one would have died* even if that flight had been crewed. While Virgin Galactic doesn't have any sort of LES, so if (when!) they have another failure, people *will* die.
I'm going to need to be convinced that human pilots, likely former fighter pilots, are any more dangerous than an unthinking bot programmed by a millennial neckbeard sitting at his computer covered in Cheeto dust who thinks flying KSP makes him good at space stuff. Boeing and Airbus aircraft have killed people because of software combined with aircraft design flaws or system failures. In at least a few cases, had a trained human pilot not been relying on automation the accidents could've been avoided.
Something _already_ went wrong, they lost VSS Enterprise to a stressed pilot with a high workload situation that inadvertently unlocked the feather system well before the very small (less than 2 seconds IIRC) window to make that test. Automating it takes avionics which have some very high certification requirements, but having a human do it is just that. Their posture against the risks of this extremely risky maneuver were mitigated by "they're highly trained, they won't make that mistake". Even in the Richard Branson flight, they were very much off-course and violated their assigned airspace, which is the reason why it took so long to make a second flight.
I think that's just sort of accepted. Anybody who pays attention to such things knows that small, old, or experimental aircraft kill people, often including innocent people, on a routine basis, and it doesn't stop enough people to collapse those industries. Same goes for many activities, e.g. auto racing. Some things are just inherently dangerous, man operated or not. I'd sooner take a ride in that space plane than some random guy's Cessna, at least then I'm risking my life to see something really cool.
I love the charming simplicity of this aircraft, I remember seeing a picture of the cockpit a while back, and there was what appeared to be a ping-pong ball on a string with a smiley face drawn on it, I initially thought that I was seeing things, and that this was really some crucial and expensive piece of aviation tech, but no, further investigation revealed that it was in fact, a ping-pong ball with a smiley face on a bit of string (used, apparently to indicate low gravity). Its simplicity sort of reminds me of yaw string (literally a piece of string stuck to the outside of an aircraft, and visible to the pilot) used on some aircraft to indicate slip-skid.
Loved that, thank you Scott!
I think experience wise (at least for people who aren’t the special type that astronauts/test pilots are), Horizontal Takeoff and Landing will always win out. Granted if you want something more “authentic” New Shepard is the way to go, but I’m not sure if that’s for everyone.
Is that advisable or not tho? Isn’t it the first manually controlled aircraft to break the sound barrier since the X-15? Not sure what to think about that. For one thing the crash was caused when the pilot (?) pulled the lever to switch the geometry to descent mode at the wrong time, while the engine was still running. The LEVER :-O
Better the mechanical system then a fully electric one that can have a runaway. Speaking as a pilot who’s battled a trim runaway before and spent far to much time on analysis of the 737 Max accidents. While I fully understand and appreciate the incredible capabilities of a fly-by-wire flight control system, including the uniqueness of normal law operation like that of Airbus aircraft, there is no replacement for a full manual flight control system for true stick and rudder flying!
I love these sorta topical/historical videos
It reminds me of Stanislaw Lem's space ships. In his books, it was mix of nuclear motors and pushrods, wires pulling stuff and lots, lots of steam pipes. This is just glorious and shows just how little is need to go up. And, important, down.
You forgot to point out that Virgin Galactics head pilot is also the first Scot in space.
Please remember our Lynx was also manual.
Hi Dale, glad to see an XCORian - Doug Jones also commented below. I followed Lynx progress with great interest back in the day, and wish the story ended differently for Lynx and XCOR. There are a lot of people in the comments who say that manual control is a bug and not a feature. How would you respond to them? Cheers!
@geraldmartsy2165 All depends on the size of the ship. If it is possible to use it, you Don't have to deal with years and millions of dollars to prove it works. In my world, Bugs Kill.
@@daleamon2547 Thanks for the reply!
If XCOR had gone fbw, I'd probably have been in the middle of it since I handled all the sensors, data flows, displays, and logging for Lynx, the 5K18 stand and the Trunnel. I didn't see Doug Jones below, but funnily enough, I was recommending him to someone a few days ago at an industry conference who might need a rocket whisperer.
I remember watching the first one with deep excitement and cheering these folks on. Feels similar 20 years later. P.S. That was the longest “Did I mention I’m a pilot?” joke ever! Lol. Nicely done!!!
I always wondered about that crazy fold-upwards wing design, had never seen anything like it so it looked crazy to me.
6:25 “let’s see Paul Allen’s spacecraft”
I wonder about this whole business case. Are there folks who can afford this kind of fun? Sure. Are there enough to keep businesses like Virgin, Blue Origin’s New Sheppard and similar in business? I don’t know.
Yes very much so not only billionaires but also millionaires it's like a trip to Disney if your poor and not from a country with one.
Great program Scott!
Thanks Scott, makes me give them more respect!
Before we go, I’m going to guess the ISS is the only spacecraft that operates on 100% human inputs. Let’s see how I did.
Although the ISS is flown from the ground, not by the astronauts.
@@StevePemberton2And I'm guessing it's mostly adjustments and not really an active job most of the time.
@@Fay7666 Yes I think that is the case but they do rotate it around quite often for different reasons, mainly to get the correct sun angle for thermal management and for electrical generation from the solar panels (which also can themselves rotate to follow the Sun). Sometimes the station flies "forwards" and other times it flies backwards. Some of it has to do with positioning the station for arriving and departing spacecraft. And occasionally they have to do avoidance maneuvers if a piece of space debris is predicted to fly close to it.
@@Fay7666 They do rotate it around quite often for different reasons, mainly to get the correct sun angle for thermal management and for electrical generation from the solar panels (which also can themselves rotate to follow the Sun). Sometimes the station flies "forwards" and other times it flies backwards. Some of it has to do with positioning the station for arriving and departing spacecraft. And occasionally they have to do avoidance maneuvers if a piece of space debris is predicted to fly close to it. As for your original comment, I'm not sure that each and every maneuver is performed by a human, as I suspect that it's a bit more like autopilot on an airplane where it can maintain an altitude and heading and even perform turns, but it needs the pilot to tell the autopilot what altitude, speed, etc to fly. In the case of ISS I don't know if they manually steer it to change orientation, or as I think is more likely they input what new orientation they want it to be in and then the computer performs the maneuver. But I'm not really sure how it's done.
I sure hope we wont see a tragedy of this type of plane like we did with titan submarine recently
The Virgin galactic Spaceships have been in development for almost 20 years if not more now, that's not Oceangate
Fortunately, you will never get high enough for it to be a problem if you disregard the experts in this field.
@@Justowner What do you mean by this?
It has already killed people both on the ground and in the air. Just not paying passengers.
Same but the same could be said for space X too.
Thanks for making this system cool again. 🙂
Great video, Scott...👍
Yay, not another ocean gate!
Are you being sarcastic?
Only a matter of time before another certain tragedy!.... it's the Titan sub of space tourism 💯
i mean people have already died on virgin spacecraft
Already happened in 2014, Rest In Peace Michael.
What's your point? Should they stop flying?
Tragedy is a part of life but we can do as much as possible to prevent it. Regulations are written in blood. Nowadays tragedies happen because regulations and/or maintenance is ignored or disregarded. I should also state that innovation is sometimes restricted by regulations and some regulations are archaic but by no means should the regulations be ignored entirely
@@barklet6110 what nonsense.... there's virtually no regulation for these experimental near space vehicles and are being designed and built on shoe string budgets in comparison to Orbital class vehicles.... the whole reason the shuttle was abandoned is because, of the over complicated designed, excess failure points and variables, over reliant on human interactivity and in the early days had a failure/ total loss of vehicle rate of 1 in 9!! and even after 30yrs billions spent that only improved to low hundreds!.... image a commercial jet crashing every 200-350 flights! So hence the reason both NASA and SpaceX opted for tried and tested relatively simple designs and autopilot systems to eradicate human errors. This isn't innovation, it's a money grab with a vehicle that hasn't had the multi-billions the forementioned have received in research and development.... so I say it again it's only a matter of time (likely short) before the engine implodes again, human error again or loss of aerodynamic control and structural overload results in total loss failure with zero abort system to prevent loss of life... you don't have to be a genius to know this isn't going to end well for Virgin.
I was at that first flight of Space Ship One. What an awesome day that was.
Thank you Mr Burt Rutan for your great insight It was a long journey to get here!!
That perforated edge you speak of dates back to the TBM Avenger of WWII. It was a dive bomber that had serious aerodynamic anomalies in its dive brakes at very high speeds, the vibration and noise being two problems. The third was the dive brakes failing, or falling off altogether. The solution was a bunch of holes in the brake panels. It worked great until Flight 19...
OK. This is probably one of my favorite episodes!
Very educational! Thank you!
If you count valve-actuation, then both Mercury and Gemini (possibly Apollo, I'd have to check with Folgers and/or Mike of CuriousMarc) can be flown manually. Mercury even had a separate tank for full manual control (with FBW using the same tank as the automatic system).
Top notch video as always
I was there for the first flight into space of Space Ship One. I am in the documentary Black Sky. Drove 4.5 hours to get there and drove back afterward and went to work that night very tired.
this is amazing, very cool stuff
You've come a long way since Culloden Scott. Well done.
they need a special program to flay flat earthers to space to show them how much they are wrong.
Thank you for your videos
White Night One is by far my most favorite plane. It has this incredible elegant SciFi vibe without even trying.
great vid scott
Fascinating ship indeed! Thanks a bunch, Scott!!! 😃 Stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊