Up Aerospace

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Hospital_Rocket

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2003
Messages
4,009
Reaction score
3
For Immediate Release

UP Aerospace says rocket "needed just three more seconds" to have reached space;
homing-in on anomaly cause

HARTFORD, Conn.--October 6, 2006 -- UP Aerospace, Inc., www.upaerospace.com the
world's premier supplier of low-cost space access, has announced its preliminary
analysis of its September 25th launch at Spaceport America.

According to Jerry Larson, President of UP Aerospace, "We're homing-in on the
cause of our flight anomaly. As we suspected early on, we have not seen any
major issues. The entire vehicle -- from nosecone to airframe to motor to fins
-- remained structurally sound throughout the entire flight. Everything was fine
from launch, through apogee, back through the atmosphere, to landing. There were
no premature flight events. All of the key systems were operating as
anticipated."

Larson continued, "All of our analysis and radar data confirms that the rocket
was traveling on a perfect trajectory towards space. If it continued to fly on
the same trajectory for just another three seconds, and thus exiting the densest
portion of the atmosphere, it would have continued on its way into space. All of
the velocity and trajectory requirements were right on the mark for a fully
successful space flight."

Larson added, "The subtlety of the anomaly is what is making the analysis a
little more time-consuming. But that, in itself, is good news. A major anomaly
would be quickly apparent. We've thus been able to rule out many things that
would be serious issues."

Larson continued, "To assist in the investigation, the Spaceport created an
Anomaly Investigation Board. In tandem with the Board and Spaceport personnel,
we're combing through mounds of radar data collected by our partners at the
White Sands Missile Range. In a very short time, we'll zero-in on the root
cause, inform our Launch Partners and the media, and start preparing for our
next flights. I think people will be surprised at how fast we return to flight
operations."

Larson further added, "We have a very full launch calendar for this year, and
through 2007, 2008, and beyond. We just want to make sure everything is 100%
perfect before proceeding."

Larson concluded, "Our next two rockets -- SL-2 and SL-3 -- are already built,
checked out, and ready to fly. The staff at Spaceport America has been great in
helping us get back on track for our next launch, which is planned to take place
before the end of this year. We're looking forward to getting into a nice launch
rhythm at Spaceport America -- with up to two space-launches occurring there per
month."

UP Aerospace's SpaceLoft XL vehicle can launch up to 110 pounds (50 kilograms)
of scientific, educational, and entrepreneurial payloads into space, with an
altitude capability of up to 140 miles (225 kilometers). The company is
scheduling up to 30 space launches per year from New Mexico's Spaceport America.

For more information on UP Aerospace, Inc., and its uniquely affordable
space-launch capabilities, visit www.upaerospace.com
 
Originally posted by Hospital_Rocket
For Immediate Release

UP Aerospace says rocket "needed just three more seconds" to have reached space;
homing-in on anomaly cause

[ snip ]

I wonder if their payload shifted. :confused:
 
I've seen this, and start to wonder if a temperature inversion, or some atmopheric disturbance could've caused this. It doesn't take much to mess up something that has to be *that* precise. If they ran into a layer of "heavier" air, it would've slowed the vehicle enough by the time it reached the edge of the atmosphere to not be able to penetrate that last bit. There is a layer there that is pretty hard to get through. I noticed they are focusing on that after reading the article.

I have no way to be able to tell though. I'm sure they won't relase preliminary details, and may keep those to themselves becasue this is a endeavor involving buisness. Just a SWAG. That is an extremely complex vehicle and flight with 1000's of variables.
 
Originally posted by Rock_It
.. There is a layer there that is pretty hard to get through. I noticed they are focusing on that after reading the article. ...

Hi Rock_it

I've always wondered that myself. hard layers up in the tropesphere.

I notice you fly real planes, can you tell me more about this layer that is hard to get though ?

thanks
 
I spoke with a member of the team today who was at the launch, and the recovered rocket still had the fins attached. One working hypothesis is that the rocket caught a nasty wind shear on the way up.
 
Originally posted by Hospital_Rocket
I spoke with a member of the team today who was at the launch, and the recovered rocket still had the fins attached. One working hypothesis is that the rocket caught a nasty wind shear on the way up.


don't tell me they did'nt send up a Nike Smoke ahead of time :eek:

JK
 
For some reason the e-mail server just now decided to deliver the notification of this topic reply. Don't know what was up with that. :confused: It wasn't on TRF's end. It was my mail server that didn't deliver it.

I haven't really studied much about upper atmosphere stuff. I did have to elarn the different levels, but it was just basic knowledge. I am a PRivate Pilot and the planes I've flown aren't capable of getting that high. They don't have pressureization, the engines won't run that high, the airfoils will stall about 10K' as the air is too thin and they just aren't designed for that.

Basically once you get to FL180 (Flight Level) you are in the PCA (Positive Control Area) and only Jet traffic is allowed up there. You wouldn't want to be up that high even if they would let you. You'd just be in the way like grandma on a sunday drive down the Interstate in rush hour traffic! LOL

That area is heavy though (troposphere and tropopause speaking), and I do know it takes some speed to penetrate it. High altitude brings lots of variables into the equation. The winds can get very high up there. Up to 15 or even 160MPH in the Jet Stream Level (anywhere from 45-60,000'). You can also go through shear levels, temp inversions at lower levels, freezing and icing levels (depends on season). It's even possible that rocket could've gotten iced up.

It takes alot of study and to be honest, I haven't given it much study time. I know basic things just to keep me out of trouble. Basically, "don't go there, and this is why" kinda stuff, but when I get into high altitude I'm gonna really hit the Internet and the books. It's a cold dangerous place up there for the unitiated. I've been around airplanes all my life, and I've heard stories that would send chills down your spine about icing and things like that. One of the things that is really scary is CAT (Clear Air Turbulence). You can't see it, you can't pick it up on radar, clouds will not show it sometimes, and you can just be flying along and BANG with rates of 2-3000 fps vertical accel...and I *do* mean vertical. Passengers have been injured when they didn't have their belts on and were thrown into overhead compartments or into a bathroom ceiling.

I just know basic things, and what I've picked up along the way, but I really don't have a good understanding of the "why" part. It's one of the things I'm definitely gonna have to study in detail when I get into those high altitude launches with the rockets.
 
Flights of over 18K aren't all that uncommon.

What I'm wondering is, if they were only 3 seconds away, whether they ran into the same aerodynamic issues that SS1 ran into as it got up there. Do the Reynolds numbers change enough at those altitudes to maybe throw the stability off enough to affect things?
 
Oh yeah, if you have a waiver, rockets fly there all the time. I was mainly talking flight rules. They only allow Jets into the PCA up there. If you have a waiver any rocket can go up there at any time. 20K and 30K isn't all that uncommon anymore.
 
Originally posted by Rock_It
Basically once you get to FL180 (Flight Level) you are in the PCA (Positive Control Area) and only Jet traffic is allowed up there. You wouldn't want to be up that high even if they would let you. You'd just be in the way like grandma on a sunday drive down the Interstate in rush hour traffic! LOL

Hmmmm....

According to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altitude)
Pressure altitude is the elevation above a standard datum plane (typically, 1013.2 millibars). Pressure altitude divided by 100 feet is referred to as the flight level; so when the altimeter reads 18,000 ft on the standard pressure setting the aircraft is said to be at "Flight level 180". Below FL180, altitudes are read in thousands, pronounced "one three thousand" for 13,000, "seven thousand" for 7,000 etc.

So, FL180 is 18,000 feet.

Putting the two quotes together, that can be paraphrased to "only jets are allowed about 18,000 feet".

But I've spent several hours above 18,000 feet. In a twin-engine propeller aircraft. I know two guys who do it on a weekly basis...

-Kevin
 
Originally posted by Rock_It
Oh yeah, if you have a waiver, rockets fly there all the time. I was mainly talking flight rules. They only allow Jets into the PCA up there....

Wrong. Cite the FAR that states that.
 
Originally posted by Rock_It
Oh yeah, if you have a waiver, rockets fly there all the time. I was mainly talking flight rules. They only allow Jets into the PCA up there. If you have a waiver any rocket can go up there at any time. 20K and 30K isn't all that uncommon anymore.

Rock_it- This is pure bunk. If you can get there, and get a clearance, you can fly there. You can do it in a glider, a single piston and even a balloon. The only limitation is that you must have an IFR clearance.

PCA is now called Class 'A' airsplace. If you're a PPL and don't know this, I'd be surprised.

Originally posted by Rock_It
[snip] the airfoils will stall about 10K' as the air is too thin and they just aren't designed for that. [snip]

Huh? Tell us about indicated airspeed and true airspeed and explain why an airfoil doesn't work well at a higher altitude. Don't worry about things like planform and lift distribution, just tell us what makes an airfoil fail to make lift above 10,000 feet.

Originally posted by Rock_It
[snip] One of the things that is really scary is CAT (Clear Air Turbulence). You can't see it, you can't pick it up on radar, clouds will not show it sometimes, and you can just be flying along and BANG with rates of 2-3000 fps vertical accel...and I *do* mean vertical. Passengers have been injured when they didn't have their belts on and were thrown into overhead compartments or into a bathroom ceiling. [snip]

You mean 2000-3000 ft/sec/sec? That's 93G!

-Ben
 
Originally posted by Ben Diss
Rock_it- This is pure bunk. If you can get there, and get a clearance, you can fly there. You can do it in a glider, a single piston and even a balloon. The only limitation is that you must have an IFR clearance.

PCA is now called Class 'A' airsplace. If you're a PPL and don't know this, I'd be surprised.



Huh? Tell us about indicated airspeed and true airspeed and explain why an airfoil doesn't work well at a higher altitude. Don't worry about things like planform and lift distribution, just tell us what makes an airfoil fail to make lift above 10,000 feet.



You mean 2000-3000 ft/sec/sec? That's 93G!

-Ben

AMEN!, AMEN! well said!

As a licensed private pilot (since 1978) I find rock_it's statements to be uninformed falsehoods. He quite simply doesn't know what he is talking about!

As an example, Back in the 80's I once flew a Cherokee 140 trainer (an underpowed dog of an airplane) to 11,500 - just to see if I could (light load, 1/2 fuel, etc) It took a while, but I made it.

The aircraft did not stall, I did not die, the wing did not loose lift.

I have also spent many hours in the right seat of turboprops at and above 18,000.

I Have been above 12,500 (on oxygen) in non-pressurized (piston-driven) aircraft (as both passenger & pilot in command) for hundreds of hours.
 
Originally posted by Rock_It

I haven't really studied much about upper atmosphere stuff. I did have to elarn the different levels, but it was just basic knowledge. I am a PRivate Pilot and the planes I've flown aren't capable of getting that high. They don't have pressureization, the engines won't run that high, the airfoils will stall about 10K' as the air is too thin and they just aren't designed for that.


Really. rock_it, how long have you been a private pilot? what type of aircraft did you do your training in?

Even most single-engine, normally-asperated trainers are capable of getting above 10,000.
 
Originally posted by rdm59
AMEN!, AMEN! well said!

As a licensed private pilot (since 1978) I find rock_it's statements to be uninformed falsehoods. He quite simply doesn't know what he is talking about!

As an example, Back in the 80's I once flew a Cherokee 140 trainer (an underpowed dog of an airplane) to 11,500 - just to see if I could (light load, 1/2 fuel, etc) It took a while, but I made it.

The aircraft did not stall, I did not die, the wing did not loose lift.

I have also spent many hours in the right seat of turboprops at and above 18,000.

I Have been above 12,500 (on oxygen) in non-pressurized (piston-driven) aircraft (as both passenger & pilot in command) for hundreds of hours.

Also read what I wrote. I didn;t say every single plane ever made. I said planes I';ve FLOWN.

(edited by mod--attack and language bypass)
 
Originally posted by Ben Diss
Rock_it- This is pure bunk. If you can get there, and get a clearance, you can fly there. You can do it in a glider, a single piston and even a balloon. The only limitation is that you must have an IFR clearance.

PCA is now called Class 'A' airsplace. If you're a PPL and don't know this, I'd be surprised.



Huh? Tell us about indicated airspeed and true airspeed and explain why an airfoil doesn't work well at a higher altitude. Don't worry about things like planform and lift distribution, just tell us what makes an airfoil fail to make lift above 10,000 feet.



You mean 2000-3000 ft/sec/sec? That's 93G!

-Ben

No I don't mean f/s/s I mean what I wrote. Feet per second.
 
Originally posted by rdm59
I have also spent many hours in the right seat of turboprops at and above 18,000.

I Have been above 12,500 (on oxygen) in non-pressurized (piston-driven) aircraft (as both passenger & pilot in command) for hundreds of hours.

Amateur

I've been at 25K+ in a C130 - IIRC lift was ok up there and all four propellors were doing fine. Seatbelts were optional.

:p
 
Originally posted by Rock_It
No I don't mean f/s/s I mean what I wrote. Feet per second.

"Feet per second" is not " vertical accel..." (see your second post to this thread)

Unless there is some other meaning to "accel" (edit), I think that clearly means f/s/s.
I'm not interpeting your post the wrong way, that IS your post
 
Originally posted by Rock_It
No I don't mean f/s/s I mean what I wrote. Feet per second.

How can you measure Acceleration in FT/Sec? Acceleration is the second derivative and thus Ft/Sec per sec. In your otiginal post you refer to:

Originally posted by Rock_It
..and BANG with rates of 2-3000 fps vertical accel...

I believe the correct term would have been velocity.
 
A VVI in an aircraft does not measure in f/s/s. It measures in FPS, and yes that would be velocity. Bad choice of words. :rolleyes:
 
I haven't flown a sundowner - several other single and multi-engine beech's though, but let's see

Sundowner engine: Lycoming O-360 (180 hp)
Empty weight: 1500 lbs.

PA-28 140 (Piper Cherokee):
Engine: Lycoming O-320 (150) - in your dreams! ;-)
Empty weight: 1250.

So, assuming an equal load of fuel and pilot, we would most likely get a similar level of performance.

I doubt any experienced pilot would have trouble getting to 10,500 or so SAFELY.

BTW - the service ceiling for the Beech Sundowner is 12,500.
 
Rock_it:

VVI's in every aircraft I've seen are in ft/min. Which would make sense, as a vertical velocity of 3000fps is approaching mach 3...
 
Originally posted by Rock_It
You can't see it, you can't pick it up on radar, clouds will not show it sometimes, and you can just be flying along and BANG with rates of 2-3000 fps vertical accel...and I *do* mean vertical. Passengers have been injured when they didn't have their belts on and were thrown into overhead compartments or into a bathroom ceiling.

Onlineconversion tells me that 3000 fps is 2045mph vertical. That must be well over mach.

Or am I missing something really obvious? Mind you I'm still confused over fps being acceleration ;)
 
Just for giggles and you-know-what, I did spin training in a c-150 from about 9000 or so. Right there in my log book (5/2/1985)

I remember being surprised how quickly the old 150 could be make to spin (compare the handling to the doggy old cherokee 140) for a trainer, anyway.

;-)
 
Originally posted by rdm59
JI remember being surprised how quickly the old 150 could be make to spin (compare the handling to the doggy old cherokee 140) for a trainer, anyway.
;-)

152's did nicely too. I got spin training because Jay Apt said "you don't want the first one you see to be for real."
 
Originally posted by narprez
152's did nicely too. I got spin training because Jay Apt said "you don't want the first one you see to be for real."

Same reason here, not required, but good to have. ;-)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top