Slashdot Mirror

Even more aptly, it only took 3 years for SpaceShipOne to go from concept to first powered flight. And a little less than an year after that to complete the X-prize. SpaceShipTwo has taken three times as long to get to the same point in development. I know that building the craft for commercial customers and not experimental jet pilots would take some extra time, but I figured most of that would be testing related, and they would have gotten to this point long ago. That engine explosion must have really set them back a long time.

Virgin is suggesting they may even have multiple flights in the same day, and the original Spaceship One had about a 1 week turn around as a specific requirement to win the original X-Prize.

The one problem Scaled Composites has been having is getting their engine to work within the flight performance. It sounds like they may have that bug licked, but I'm not sure what system they are using. From the summary, it looks like Scaled Composites hasn't settled down on a specific fuel/oxidizer combination yet either although I've heard rumors (completely unsourced) they should be flying SS2 with a rocket motor early next year. We'll see.

The original Spaceship One was using essentially tire rubber and laughing gas (where they could extinguish the rocket simply by turning off the fuel). Burt Rutan certainly was planning on something that simple.... and not pushing the engines to be running at 110% of rated thrust performance like the Space Shuttle. That extra "push" (a late design decision on the Shuttle over what it was originally designed to do) really caused havoc on the SSMEs and forced NASA to essentially rebuild the engines completely after each Shuttle flight.

About the only time it was said about the Space Shuttle that they were going to have the rapid turn around and weekly flights was when NASA originally went before Congress getting authorization to start the Shuttle program. It went downhill from there. Virgin Galactic already has competition from other sub-orbital spacelines, so they aren't going to be too happy if the vehicle doesn't meet up with the specifications agreed upon with the contract. Spaceship Two has also done several "unpowered" landings already, so they are getting a pretty good idea on what things to be looking for.

Aircraft have to be light to fly. Ground vehicles carry extra weight to handle impact by other vehicles. I'd like to see how they are going to incorporate bumpers, crumple zones, airbags, side impact protection, etc that make a vehicle safe on the road. Any vehicle light enough to be used as an aircraft would be weak enough to get a one star crash rating. I would like to see what would happen to a BiPod if it was hit head on by a Suburban doing 60 miles an hour.

In fact the more I look at the vehicle the more I think that it will never be a real product. There are certain minimum safety standards for vehicles driven on the road. One main one is bumpers. I see no bumpers on this vehicle. I doubt very much if it would pass any DoT standards as a legal road vehicle. I looked at the company web site, http://www.scaled.com/projects/bipod, and noticed a couple of things. First BiPod is a test bed not a prototype. Second they use the term "roadable" and not "street legal". "Roadable" just means that it is able to drive on a read not that it can legally drive on a highway with other vehicles as "street legal" implies.

Another point that seems to be missed is that the propellers have not even been fitted to the BiPod. The "flights" are accomplished by driving the aircraft down the runway using the rear wheels for propulsion, lifting off and gliding back to the ground. At this point it is not a flying car; at best it is a gliding car. Talk to me when you can fly further than the Wright Flier

I agree. Why should you have to pay tax dollars on this?

But at the same time, why should you prevent me through silly regulations (hint, ITAR... look it up if you like) and government policies that explicitly keep me from experimenting with or even attempting to build rockets on my own dime. The question isn't that somebody like you needs to be able to pay for me to go into space, but rather that there are people (perhaps you aren't one of them) that explicitly want to keep me down on this rock at gunpoint and will sabotage any efforts I make in regards to getting off of this rock.

Organizations like NASA are quickly becoming a relic of the past, where the money is merely a way to have a bunch of bureaucrats spin their wheels and keep some disenchanted aerospace engineers and munitions workers busy when a war isn't going on. I certainly wouldn't cry too hard if NASA was completely de-funded and disbanded by Congress.... as if they have been making any sort of relevant progress towards cost-effective spaceflight at any time over the past 40 years anyway. Doubling the NASA budget is only going to double the number of bureaucrats working in Houston, Texas. It isn't going to get anybody off of this rock in a meaningful way.

On the other hand, there are many different private spaceflight companies with real hardware that can get people into space. We don't need a government agency to get that accomplished. Yes, government grants are nice, but it isn't needed to get this task accomplished.

For myself, if government is going to get involved at all, I'd rather they simply give a "tax holiday" for all federal taxes (corporate and personal income taxes... and other kinds too) by companies directly engaged in putting equipment into space. It would certainly be far and away more cost effective than doubling the current NASA budget, and perhaps something would actually be flying beyond Low-Earth orbit too. I definitely think that such a move would cause private space investment to roar into life in a manner that has never been seen before. The loss in taxes would be minor, and I could argue that the taxes raised from support industries would by far and away more than make up for any "lost" tax receipts to such companies.... and certainly be quite a bit less than going through the appropriations meat-grinder of the U.S. Congress.

Right. Money pit.

That't why Scaled Composites http://scaled.com/ and Virgin Galactic http://www.virgingalactic.com/ are all betting money on re-entry vehicles.

Come on guy! Just because government projects do not have a profit motive does not mean it can never be workable.

A country like the one where this manned space program and a few others are currently being built ?

Building the tether is the issue. I don't know if I believe it can be done. However some things about what they did do make sense.

One can use a dual system as was done in the Space Ship One project: http://www.scaled.com/projects/tierone/

The issue is this. There is a lot of atmosphere near sea level. However one can use a jet in order to get above 2/3 of the atmosphere. One can use a balloon to get much higher than this:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Manhigh

In Manhigh they were almost 20 miles up.

The thing is that if we can get high enough then I see little reason why we can't use space based lasers in order to beam power to a ship. The issue is that one has to get enough kinetic energy into the ship in order for it to go into orbit. In space it still has to be a rocket. But along the way it can be a hybrid.

The high cost of attaining orbit is not the high elevation. Its the kinetic energy and the fact that if we want to use rocket fuel then we need to start out with so damn much of it near ground in order to have a small amount left over when we get to orbit.

Most of that fuel is an oxidizer! The atmosphere is full of an oxidizer.

So as I see it - once we gain enough altitude using oxygen from the atmosphere - or a balloon - or a tether from a balloon - or some other system... then if we can get a space based laser system going to supply energy then we should be able to use what little atmosphere is up there as a reaction mass and one should be able to use that to gain orbit.

It would be a pretty expensive system mind you. However it might be worth it. If we can get a cheap enough lift system then maybe we could carry raw materials into space to be processed into say fuel! That has HUGE potential to create an industry worthy of the investments. Mind you we've been able to use nuclear for over 50 years! There are a number of options here.

1) we can use nuclear to split water and then use the hydrogen to combine with carbon to make synthetic fuels.

2) we can just use methane as a source of hydrogen.

3) if we can develop a good enough battery system then we won't need liquid fuels. But if we want use electricity to power our cars then we need to generate it from something. I rather think this comes back to nuclear. But I know many people are optimistic that solar and wind and other emerging technologies can do it.

If we don't want to use nuclear and the other technologies don't pan out then I suppose a workable lift system might do the job.

This still leaves us with the problem that even if we can get into orbit where there are vast amounts of cheap energy... how would be transport it back to earth?

Actually, radtea is wrong and Anonymous Coward is correct.

"In our hybrid motor we use Nitrous Oxide (N2O or laughing gas) as an oxidizer and hydroxy-terminated polybutadiene (HTPB or rubber) as the fuel."
-- scaled.com

--
"Maybe I should provide a clever tagline"

It sounds like Rutan has found a new use for the Proteus plane he built for Raytheon for the "Angel Halo" system to supply high-speed, low latency bandwidth for a metropolitan area by flying in circles at 60,000 feet. From the Scaled Composites web page about it:

Proteus is a twin turbofan high altitude multi mission aircraft powered by Williams International FJ44-2E engines. It is designed to carry payloads in the 2000-pound class to altitudes above 60,000 feet and remain on station up to 14 hours.

The original plan proposed 3 aircraft on 8 hour shifts. There would be a large AWACS style dish underneath (payload up to one ton) with the jet engines supplying 14 KVA of electricity.

Sounds like they may still deploy the system, with a secondary revenue stream with a camera. The question for Slashdot readers is: would you be so freaked out if the city was going to use the same plane to supply free gigibit wireless?

I found nothing there that proves your point. every endeavor has regulations. how does pointing at the regulation in this area demonstrate your point? I am aware of private companies that are already doing the things which you say they cannot do.

both of these are private companies: http://www.scaled.com/ http://www.virgingalactic.com/

and then a list of 24 additional companies here on the left sidebar of this page: http://space.xprize.org/ansari-x-prize

A couple of the pictures are on the Scaled composite web site.

If anyone of you here wants to express your condolences in a way which reaches the co-workers of the victims, you can use the contact form on. Even a small supportive word from a total stranger can really make wonders. Just remember to select the "Fan letters and well wishes for the SpaceShipOne program" radio button, that makes sure your message will be delivered to the right persons.

The Scaled Composites website says they are "NOW HIRING!"

http://www.scaled.com/

I guess you didn't look at the Ansari X-prize design goals... The rules quite clearly stated that the competition was for a reusable spacecraft. Could they have built a one-shot-wonder for less? Sure! That craft, however, could not have been flown in the the X-prize competition.

Another point to consider: Using half the money that the Starr report cost, SC designed, built, and tested a reusable suborbital craft. Show me ANY other public or private space agency that's done the same. I don't work at SC, nor do I believe their crap is odorless; a design flaw that vented fuel aborted one Global Flyer flight and almost jeopardised that round-the-world shot by Steve Fossett... but it didn't. Even losing around 2885 pounds of fuel, they still made it.

I like good engineering, not one trick ponies. Burt may not be any sort of deity, but he DOES know a bit more than most do about aerospace, and has had years in the industry. The DC-X project and others really, IMHO, can only help enhance Scaled's reputation as a quality aerospace design firm.

Cutting down on his spaceflight experimentation would also get rid of some huge CO2 emissions...

http://www.scaled.com/projects/tierone/

Here's some guys and gals who may have an idea or two for ya, NASA.

A number of private spaceflight firms mentioned in the article are looking for people to hire. These companies are looking for folks with expertise in a variety of areas, from web design, to aerospace/mechanical engineering, to programming. Here's a few links (courtesy of RLV News, listed roughly in order of available resources), with descriptions of what the company does:
 
* Bigelow Aerospace: Inflatable space station modules for orbital research and tourism. Despite being inflatable, their modules are better at withstanding space debris than the ISS, as they're made of a material twice as strong as kevlar. Out of all the private spaceflight firms, they probably have the most resources.
* SpaceX: Orbital rockets which are drastically cheaper than the competition, with plans for building manned orbital rockets. They should be launching their first rocket next month.
* Scaled Composites: Burt Rutan's company and winner of the X Prize. They're currently working on building SpaceShipTwo for Virgin Galactic.
* SpaceDev: They build microsatellites and propulsion systems.
* Blue Origin: Suborbital vehicle company started by Amazon.com's CEO, Jeff Bezos. Author Neal Stephenson also works for them, hoping for the "once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to become a minor character in a Robert Heinlein novel."
* Rocketplane Limited: Suborbital spaceplanes
* Masten Space Systems: Suborbital launch vehicles.
* TGV Rockets: Suborbital launch

A number of private spaceflight firms which are periodically posted about on slashdot are looking for students to hire as summer interns, as well as full-time jobs. These companies are looking for folks with expertise in a variety of areas, from web design, to aerospace/mechanical engineering, to programming. Here's a few links (courtesy of RLV News), with descriptions of what the company does:

* SpaceX: Orbital rockets which are drastically cheaper than the competition, with plans for building manned orbital rockets. They should be launching their first rocket next month.
* Blue Origin: Suborbital vehicle company started by Amazon.com's CEO, Jeff Bezos.
* Masten Space Systems: Suborbital launch vehicles.
* Rocketplane Limited: Suborbital spaceplanes

Also, a few more hiring only for full-time jobs:
* Bigelow Aerospace: Inflatable space station modules for orbital research and tourism. Out of all the private spaceflight firms, they probably have the most resources.
* Scaled Composites: Burt Rutan's company and winner of the X Prize. They're currently working on building SpaceShipTwo for Virgin Galactic.
* SpaceDev: They build microsatellites and propulsion systems.
* TGV Rockets: Suborbital launch

So we're spending billions of dollars to preserve old spaceships, when things like SpaceShipOne only cost tens or hundreds of millions for test flights?

This is kind of like my father's insistence on maintaining his 1972 Cadillac (at a ridiculous annual cost) instead of purchasing a newer vehicle (say, a Honda) that gets three times the mileage and has much lower support costs. Of course, it just isn't as big or masculine... that's probably what this is all about.

Sounds like a job for Branson and Rutan's The Spaceship Company. I doubt they can get Andy Griffith to fly it though.

I haven't heard anything about science in his statement on the topic; merely flag-waving.

I have, but not from GW, who isn't a scientist anyway. Although Steven Hawking would disagree about going to Mars (or the moon), there is some logic to going back to the moon, if we ever expect to do hard core space exploration. We will need a place to launch from, and the moon fits the ticket. It is close enough that we can supply it and rescue from it (remember, we will have many more space crafts at that time). It is also close enough that we can more afford to have crews there. Also, it is easier to capture people's imaginations (and tax dollars) about a station on the moon, especially if it can be seen with a telescope.

It has 1/6th of the earth's gravity, so it will be easier to launch from, and there may be enough raw materials on the moon to use for fuel to begin with, reducing the amount of fuel we have to send to start with. It is the closest and safest place to test theories about space travel, which is not a safe business to begin with. There *IS* commercial potential as well. If commercial space travel seems far fetched, ask Burt Rutan of Scaled Composites, or Sir Richard Branson, the owner of Virgin Galactic, who is investing heavily in the concept of commercial space travel.

I'm not saying this is the best way (because I don't know...), but there is a fair amount of logic *IF* we ever expect to have regular space travel, more than once or twice a year beyond our own planet. Personally, I can't think of a better way for the science communities of all countries to get together, and every country could participate, even if in some small way.

Many people thought JFK was out of his mind for thinking we could go to the moon before 1970, but you don't hear about them any more since we actually did it.

It took me a second to figure out which record-setting Voyager you were talking about: the first plane to fly non-stop around the world (although it took 9 days!) or the one that left our solar system (depending how you define it) a couple months ago. That would've been a really fast return trip!

"I wonder what the re-entry strategy will be for an orbital version."

Rutan may have experience with a TPS similar to the one on the Space Shuttle: "but much more durable - carbon and metallic-silica tiles for the hottest regions, and flexible blanket-like material for areas receiving less heat during atmospheric reentry".

Another project used "a water-cooled heatshield".

"Obviously Scaled Composites hasn't sent anything up besides SS1, and you (as well as others) are correct that SS1 by itself simply won't scale up to orbital velocities without some very substantial structural and raw materials changes. Essentially a whole new spacecraft from the ground up."

The past ten years SC have been involved in building at least four different orbital space craft: they built the aeroshell and aerodynamic control structures of the DC-X 1/3 Scale Demonstrator for McDonnell Douglas, and entirely built the Roton test vehicle for Rotary Rocket and the X-38 Crew Return Vehicle for NASA. These programs died because funding dried up.

However, you would still be right (if entirely beside the point) that "Scaled Composites hasn't sent anything up besides SS1", if it weren't for the wings of the Pegasus rocket SC builds for Orbital Sciences, a rocket which has succesfully flown to orbit dozens of to times.

You may not trust in the space faring abilities of Burt Rutan and his team, but the space corporations of the USA do. Guess who I am going to believe.

"Obviously Scaled Composites hasn't sent anything up besides SS1, and you (as well as others) are correct that SS1 by itself simply won't scale up to orbital velocities without some very substantial structural and raw materials changes. Essentially a whole new spacecraft from the ground up."

The past ten years SC have been involved in building at least four different orbital space craft: they built the aeroshell and aerodynamic control structures of the DC-X 1/3 Scale Demonstrator for McDonnell Douglas, and entirely built the Roton test vehicle for Rotary Rocket and the X-38 Crew Return Vehicle for NASA. These programs died because funding dried up.

However, you would still be right (if entirely beside the point) that "Scaled Composites hasn't sent anything up besides SS1", if it weren't for the wings of the Pegasus rocket SC builds for Orbital Sciences, a rocket which has succesfully flown to orbit dozens of to times.

You may not trust in the space faring abilities of Burt Rutan and his team, but the space corporations of the USA do. Guess who I am going to believe.

"Obviously Scaled Composites hasn't sent anything up besides SS1, and you (as well as others) are correct that SS1 by itself simply won't scale up to orbital velocities without some very substantial structural and raw materials changes. Essentially a whole new spacecraft from the ground up."

The past ten years SC have been involved in building at least four different orbital space craft: they built the aeroshell and aerodynamic control structures of the DC-X 1/3 Scale Demonstrator for McDonnell Douglas, and entirely built the Roton test vehicle for Rotary Rocket and the X-38 Crew Return Vehicle for NASA. These programs died because funding dried up.

However, you would still be right (if entirely beside the point) that "Scaled Composites hasn't sent anything up besides SS1", if it weren't for the wings of the Pegasus rocket SC builds for Orbital Sciences, a rocket which has succesfully flown to orbit dozens of to times.

You may not trust in the space faring abilities of Burt Rutan and his team, but the space corporations of the USA do. Guess who I am going to believe.

There being:

- Virgin Galactic?
- Scaled Composites?
- just any place in orbit?

Considering your poor Googling skills though, I imagine you couldn't get a job there, despite the short corporate ladder.

Rutan is a superb engineer who has accumulated a wealth of experience. If you look over the history of Scaled's projects http://www.scaled.com/projects/index.html you'll see a lot of thematic unity. There's a natural progression to things.

Rutan's politics of all this is also fascinating. He's argued that space development has proceeded along entirely different lines than did aviation, and he explains why. He also argues that this is unfortunate, and explains why. And so he goes on to prove the value of the alternate reality he envisions for his industry.

Burt's an amazing fellow, a design genius, and a maverick who happens to be, I think, right about a lot of things. He's a history-changing fellow, and heaven knows we could use some history-changers who have his passion for excellence in innovation.

Not that I have any strong opinions . . .

I'd give very, very serious thoughts to trading both nuts to work in his shop.

In case you were serious, both Scaled and Virgin Galactic are hiring, as are Blue Origin, Bigelow Aerospace, and SpaceX:

http://www.scaled.com/careers/
http://www.virgingalactic.com/jobs.asp
http://www.blueorigin.com/jobs.htm
http://www.spacex.com/index.html?section=careers&c ontent=http%3A//www.spacex.com/careers.php
http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/employment.html

As I see it, the part that has the most impact on the environment and as well is the most critical part today are the solid fuel boosters.

One feature that could be used for the light shuttle is to have a launch vehicle that carries and accelerates the shuttle to a speed and altitude where the rockets can work best. By using ordinary jet engines for the first step you wouldn't need to carry the oxygen for the first stage, which is a major weight contribution.

This will of course require several different design issues to be solved, but since Burt Rutan has done this (on a sub-orbital scale) it isn't impossible.

If the carrier would be able to go supersonic before the release of the shuttle it would be even better, but then there are a lot of issues to take into account like interfering shock waves occuring at separation. A lot of fun for those guys that like extreme calculations! :->

Goes to what I've been thinking for years. Separate the cargo from the humans. They have vastly different and sometimes conflicting needs and the launch vehicle design to support both is much too complex. Use Big Dumb Rockets (BDRs) to lift cargo (heavy), smarter, safer ones to lift humans (light).

The idea of a runway landing orbital vehicle is nice and, IMHO a great goal. But it turns out to be harder than originally thought. The vertical, rocket assisted capsule design seems to be good compromise for the short term (5 to 10 years).

In the medium term (say 10 - 15 years), advances by companies like Scaled Composites (http://www.scaled.com/) show that runway-to-orbit-to-runway is possible, but needs more work. Eventually that's how we'll get to orbit; using small, "space planes" to take humans to meet with low earth orbiting platforms that were launched with BDRs. We're good at putting together stuff in orbit and we're good at rendezvous and docking.

None of this is new. It's based on concepts from the Apollo days. Remember Earth-orbit-rendezvous? Heck, the Russians have never left the basic capsule design.

Keep It Simple (Stupid) is especially important for manned space flight. It'll never be safe, and the American public has to accept that there is risk, but the less complicated it is the less chance of something going wrong. And the cheaper it will be

You wouldn't consider this to be space?

You know what annoys me more? Geeks like you who dissect every good thing, every litte progress just so you can feel better about the fact that you won't be able to enjoy it, even if it was to "actual" space. No one said this was space travel. However, this is as good a view as you're gonna get for $200,000. But nooo, it's not good enough for you!

launched from a jet you say?

SpaceShipOne Does That

Was it just me, or did anyone else read that as a Scaled Composites Protoss Carrier aircraft?

Funny thing is, now that I think about it, just about all of Burt Rutan's designs actually end up looking like Protoss aircraft. ;)

No, something more along these lines:

SpaceShipOne

You know, when I first read your post I nodded my head understanding your position - though not really agreeing with it, I understood it. But the more I looked at everyone else's posts, the more I realize that your opinion is pretty widespread - and, in my opinion, it's a pretty cynical and clouded view.

I guess I see the state of space exploration differently. Instead of all the glitz and glamor of manned space flight from the past, the focus is shifting. Space exploration is undergoing a maturing phase. To the naked eye, I can see how it may look like things have stagnated, but that's really not true. Yes, the equipment is getting older. Yes, we've not bothered to repeat some of the past successes in favor of attempting new ones. And yes, NASA's goals are sometimes less obvious to the general public while the failures are more pronounced. But the dreams and the talent were not lost with the sixties! If you think that I can see why you'd be crying in your Cheerios.

Look - the focus has shifted some from manned space flight to research. The focus is shifting from a government run program to the private sector. Things can't always move at break-neck speed. But, if you look at the progress made in less than half a century, it adds up to more than was made in all humankind's existence prior. The dreams aren't dead and it isn't at all boo-hoo-sad. I believe your perspective, like many people's, is just narrowed to your acute view from your short lifetime. Look at it from a different standpoint - pushing aside all the mire of politics and funding and failure and memories of glamorous missions from the past - push all that aside and looking at it from what we as a species still dream to accomplish. And if history is any indicator, we'll keep finding a way to move forward. Maybe not fast enough for you to recognize it, but still faster than humanity has moved ever before.

Unless space travel gets REALLY cheap, I don't think anyone but the wealthy will be able to actually go into space.

You may have noticed a little project called SpaceShipOne, and Richard Branson's company Virgin Galactic. They got quite a bit of coverage a few months back (and in the real press as well, not just on here).

There intent (at least in part) is to make it really cheap.

You mean like http://www.scaled.com/projects/pegasus.html and NASA does have a contract out for something Scaled.com is apart of, http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=14933 ?

Dammy

Hey NASA, I suggest you contact this guy named Burt Rutan. Apparently he's pretty good at putting together elegant solutions for a relatively low cost.

You're overlooking the real value here, which was pretty much all accomplished before the aircraft left the ground. The materials science and engineering done to create an aircraft for this mission is the practical purpose. The actual flight was just to show that (1) it all worked, and (2) to provide the sponsors with incentive to foot the bill.

Keep in mind that the aircraft was yet another fine product of Scaled Composites, makers of SpaceShip 1, Voyager, and a host of other projects found on their website. They're pretty much the leading edge of aerospace engineering, and projects like this help advance the state of the art with private funding. In other words, if you want privately funded research in this field, you're going to need to get really smart, frugal, practical companies backed by people with lots of money in order to get oustanding results.

As opposed to good old NASA, flying (err...not flying?) a 25 year old space shuttle on 35 year old design, and spending who-knows-how-much-now on the ISS, where there's no science, but lots of "hey, we're stuck up here and there's not enough food" happening. Maybe it's time for more private funding for this kind of thing? It seems to be getting good results.

It's a Williams FJ44 turbofan. More about that at the Global Flyer Wikipedia page. Fairly common engine these days, used on (or planned for) several other light jets.

And for the thrust you get out of them, jets -- particularly high-bypass turbofans, which are almost like a direct-drive ducted turboprop -- are FAR more efficient than piston engines. Granted, they *do* have to store more fuel on this than on Voyager, but they've enlarged the wings a bit and probably have more room in the fuselage, since there's only one pilot rather than two. There's some discussion of that engineering difficulty at the Scaled project page.

Now, keep in mind that Yeager and Rutan took a WEEK to do this in 1987 in Voyager. Fossett is going to do it in just over three days (that's twice as fast), on only marginally more fuel.

p

Those are just the ones that they can tell you about. Scaled is where the Skunk Works and other such places go when even they can figure something out.

Check out the two websites in question: Voyager and the Virgin thingy

Doesn't the Global flyer look pretty much like the Voyager with a jet engine stuck on top?

The FAI's rules state that a record attempt like this must start and finish at the same airfield and cross all meridians of the globe. What's more the course must not be less than the very precise figure of 36,787.559 kilometres (around 23,000 miles) which is equal in length to the Tropic of Cancer. To allow the Virgin Atlantic GlobalFlyer to catch the vital jet stream winds, the FAI rules don't oblige that record attempts follow the imaginary line of the Tropic itself but simply that the distance flown exceeds it.

with FAI being Federation Aeronautique Internationale (FAI) - the world's air sports federation.

Go Rutan, first non-stop around the world (voyager.) First Civilain plane into space (spaceship one,)and now this

This also does not include his incredibly well known kitbuilt aircraft long and veri ez's, the Beech starship, or the numerous military projects he has done.

Rutan will most likly go down as one the most important aircraft designers of all time.

ShuttleOne counted as a huge stepping stone to orbital vehicles, as you can see in their newer ventures toward such a project.

There is no such thing as "ShuttleOne". If you just make-up space project names from your own imagination, don't be surprised if no one takes you seriously.

So it does have quite a bit to do with building orbital vehicles.

If, on the other hand, you meant to say "SpaceShipOne, and you're actually suggesting that the project had any relationship at all to reaching orbit, then you also appear too ignorant to deserve a serious response.

How about SpaceShipOne? Looks like an aircraft to me.

I don't want marketing, I want real space travel, and that requires being a little harsh on all the marketing that surrounds this.

How would you define "real space travel"?

Judging by the cockpit view, this sure seems like space travel as far as I'm concerned.

The Wright Brother's big advance was controlled, powered flight. Lots of people could shoot a projectile from one end of the field to the other, which is all (effectively) that was accomplished by Burt Rutan.

SpaceShipOne is equipped with (and makes heavy use of) a reaction control system, which operates in the same general fashion as the reaction control systems on other spacecraft.

Does it pollute the atmosphere?
The products of combustion are mostly benign (water vapor, carbon dioxide, hydrogen and nitrogen and some carbon monoxide) and certainly much more friendly than any other class of rocket propulsion.

According to scaled composites it doesn't produce much polution. Any rocket scientists out there want to comment?

Also, don't forget that SpaceShipOne was also "A Paul G. Allen Project".