Slashdot Mirror


The Rutan SpaceShipOne Revealed

smartalix writes "Burt Rutan's company, Scaled Composites, announced that they have been developing a commercial manned space program in secret for the past two years. The system consists of a carrier vehicle called the White Knight and a piggyback (actually underslung) orbital spaceplane called SpaceShipOne. My money is on this effort capturing the X Prize." Well, it's pretty, whatever it is. Space.com has a story with pictures for those of you who weren't quick enough to hit scaled.com before it melted.

392 comments

  1. Beam me up SCOTTY! by B3ryllium · · Score: 1, Troll

    I want to get me one of these ... :)

    (And yes, I know that Kirk never said "beam me up scotty")

    1. Re:Beam me up SCOTTY! by B3ryllium · · Score: 5, Funny

      Same thing :)

      And to all those folks who say it's an "ugly aircraft", they need to remember that it's a *spacecraft*. And it's actually *two* craft.

      Although I think the paintjob is ugly. Paint a red maple leaf on it or something, it would look way better.

    2. Re:Beam me up SCOTTY! by mfago · · Score: 1

      Although I think the paintjob is ugly.

      I assume you are talking about the black circles around the front? I have a feeling that these are RCS thrusters and windows -- although the webserver died before I could investigate any further.

    3. Re:Beam me up SCOTTY! by demonbug · · Score: 1

      Okay, its an ugly spacecraft! Actually, the spacecraft part isn't too bad, it just looks like a 40's idea of a rocketship. The carrier part is just plain (or is that plane?) ugly, though.

      I'd post the picture at least, but it seems the site got /.ed entirely just before it finished downloading, so no copy of it in my cache.

    4. Re:Beam me up SCOTTY! by B3ryllium · · Score: 1

      No, I meant the blue and white stars on the orbiter. Icky. I want it to be CANADIAN. :)

    5. Re:Beam me up SCOTTY! by foolish · · Score: 1

      Errr, those are the windows. The front of both the White Knight and the SS1 have portholes encircling the forward sections of each compartment.

      There's a great view of the White Knight cockpit, but well... you'll have to wait for the mirrors.

      Luckily I caught the news on nasawatch and the the arocket list before it got hit by /.

    6. Re:Beam me up SCOTTY! by sharkey · · Score: 1
      Paint a red maple leaf on it or something

      obCartman: "Fuck you. Don't call me Canadian."

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    7. Re:Beam me up SCOTTY! by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 1
      And it's actually *two* craft.

      Actually, in a fairly real sense, it's 3 craft. Both stuck together, each on their own.

      The question is whether all three craft will work as designed. It looks good though.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    8. Re:Beam me up SCOTTY! by dslpwr · · Score: 1

      If Burt Rutan designed it, then it will work as designed. The man is a genius when it comes to breaking the aerospace mold.

      --
      www.robot-invasion.com smart-assed political news, humor, and commentary
    9. Re:Beam me up SCOTTY! by The+J+Kid · · Score: 1

      Gues we'll have a new poll then.

      --
      Moderation: +4. Modded 70% Funny and 30% Overrated. 100% Saturated.
    10. Re:Beam me up SCOTTY! by arivanov · · Score: 1

      It will.

      1. This guy has a fame of designing impossible things. He also has an unlimited budget. Several years ago he showed that it is possible to design, test-fly and bring to test sample production a light military fighter jet with less then 5 million. So all he needs to do now is go to the Home Defense or whatever this abomination is called now and say: "Hay we had two obscure characters in burkas asking for samples of that old jet aircraft programme, and we need some money by the way".

      2. The predecessor of this craft (the Proteus) solved the biggest problem of all drop launches. The drop launches so far have been looked upon (within the Shuttle and Buran programs) and abandoned, because in order to be feasible the drop aircraft needs to go way beond the 12-14 km of the current cargo jets. We are talking 17km+ at least. The Proteus as far as I recall does that. It was designed to fly high as a radio relay.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    11. Re:Beam me up SCOTTY! by B3ryllium · · Score: 1

      I was referring to the blue and white stars. I don't have a problem with the windows. :)

    12. Re:Beam me up SCOTTY! by Randolpho · · Score: 1

      Ironically, it looks alot like Voyager, which was tooled up by the CEO of the company that built this craft...

      --
      "Times have not become more violent. They have just become more televised."
      -Marilyn Manson
  2. Whahhh? by Thud457 · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Mom, what is that duck doing to that other duck?!!"

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:Whahhh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dammit, possibly not funny, but ontopic. The damn thing DOES look like two ducks fucking! Moron moderators!

    2. Re:Whahhh? by TopShelf · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      What's the old Pink Floyd song? "Point me at the Sky and Let It Fly..."

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
  3. sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No comments and already painfully slow....

  4. Hmm by bravehamster · · Score: 2, Funny
    Maybe they can use the XPrize money to replace their webserver. Anyone got any mirrors?

    --
    ---- El diablo esta en mis pantalones! Mire, mire!
    1. Re:Hmm by mr_compsci · · Score: 3, Informative

      I managed to mirror most of the site.. the mirror will stay up until you guys destroy my web server... http://www.happyfunland.org/spaceshipone/projects/ tierone/

    2. Re:Hmm by mr_compsci · · Score: 2, Informative

      of course, take out the extra space in that url and it'll work better... http://www.happyfunland.org/spaceshipone/projects/ tierone/

    3. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems to be back up now, wget -mirror is slaving away....

  5. Pretty??? by demonbug · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    If that thing is pretty, there is no such thing as ugly. Its about as ugly as any aircraft I have seen in the last twenty years.

    1. Re:Pretty??? by Gonoff · · Score: 1

      It's a lot more interesting to look at than the space shuttle!

      --
      I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
  6. mirrors? by tadheckaman · · Score: 1

    wow, 3 posts and the website is crawling. someone get a mirror! quick!!!

    --
    My potato gun was confiscated by the United Nations. They said I wasn't allowed to have weapons of mash destruction.
    1. Re:Mirrors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      cache? you mean those ads that said someone could tell where i have been going on my computer were true??!!

      i ... uh ... gotta go

    2. Re:mirrors? by EinarH · · Score: 1

      Word.
      Extremly fast /. I clicked on it aprox. 2.44; 2 min after launch and the server was gone beyond imagination.

      --

      Melius mori in libertate quam vivere in servitute.

    3. Re:mirrors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've got a mirror... but, umm, all that let's me do is see it backwards... how does that help?

  7. Watch out for the patents by menasius · · Score: 3, Funny

    This just in. The government is sueing after patenting using "One" after vehicles, thus meaning SpaceShipOne is reserved for the President.

    -bort

    1. Re:Watch out for the patents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      No no no, that's "earth force one".

    2. Re:Watch out for the patents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you mean Trademark. You don't patent words.

    3. Re:Watch out for the patents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      president santiago? is that you?

    4. Re:Watch out for the patents by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 1

      Well then, perhaps he should be the first one to go.

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    5. Re:Watch out for the patents by MBCook · · Score: 1

      I know this is a joke, but here is a question for you /.ers. I know that whatever the President is on is usually called "whatever-one". So if he's on a plane (the airforce's territory) it's "Airforce 1". If he's on a ship, it's "Navy 1", etc. But if it's not a military craft, it's "Civilian 1" or something like that, right? So my question is this: what's it called if he were to be abord a space craft? Would it be "NASA 1"? Or since NASA isn't a military organisation, would it be "Civilian 1"? Since it's above the ground, would it be "Airforce 1"? Just wondering.

      --
      Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    6. Re:Watch out for the patents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "So, who are you voting for?"
      "I think I'll vote for Marie Crane. .. I do not like Santiago. I always thought that a leader should have a strong chin. He has no chin and his vice-president has several. This, to me, is not a good combination."
      -- Sinclair and Ivanova in Babylon 5:"Midnight on the Firing Line"

    7. Re:Watch out for the patents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      If he's taking public transportation, it's called Short Bus One.

    8. Re:Watch out for the patents by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      Above 50km, it would be "SpaceForce 1".

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    9. Re:Watch out for the patents by Russ+Steffen · · Score: 1

      Actually, whatever plane the President is on is called Air Force One, no matter if it's military or civilian. Even if it's just Uncle Jethro's Piper Cub, it's still called Air Force One while the President is aboard. The only exception is if the Pres. is on one of the US. Marine Corps helicopters assigned to White House duty, it's called Marine One. There is no "Navy One" for ships, or anything like that.

      The whole Air Force One convention came about back in the '50s before there was a designated fleet for the President. There was close call when an air traffic controller confused the "AF-tail number" call sign of the president's Air Force transport plane and the "AA-tail number" call sign of an American Airlines flight.

    10. Re:Watch out for the patents by tinrobot · · Score: 2, Funny

      Riding a boat - Navy One

      Riding a Plane - Air Force One

      Hmmmm... I guess by this logic, it would be "Laura Bush One" when he's riding... ummm... well... nevermind.

    11. Re:Watch out for the patents by Schaffner · · Score: 1

      I don't know what it would be if he was on a spacecraft, but if the president is on a civilian aircraft it would use the callsign "Executive One". Back in the 70's Richard Nixon went on a United Airlines flight to encourage us all to save fuel and not fly our own 707's so often, and it used the "Executive One" callsign.

      If the president flys in a Navy aircraft it would be "Navy One", an Army aircraft would be "Army One", etc. But usually he only flies in Air Force and Marine aircraft.

    12. Re:Watch out for the patents by Captain+Nitpick · · Score: 1
      Actually, whatever plane the President is on is called Air Force One, no matter if it's military or civilian. Even if it's just Uncle Jethro's Piper Cub, it's still called Air Force One while the President is aboard. The only exception is if the Pres. is on one of the US. Marine Corps helicopters assigned to White House duty, it's called Marine One.

      The FAA disagrees with you.

      When the President is aboard a military aircraft, state the name of the military service, followed by the word "One."

      When the President is aboard a civil aircraft, state the words "Executive One."

      You continue:

      There is no "Navy One" for ships, or anything like that.

      Of course not, this is a communications protocol for aircraft. You stick the President on a Navy aircraft, and it will be referred to by ATC as "Navy One".

      The reason you never hear about anything other than Air Force One is that the President doesn't fly on anything else.

      --
      But then again, I could be wrong.
    13. Re:Watch out for the patents by jnhtx · · Score: 1

      If the President is riding in a civilian plane, it uses the callsign "Executive One".

    14. Re:Watch out for the patents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then who flys on Marine One?

  8. Mirrors? by lommer · · Score: 1

    Could the lucky few who got to see that page dig through their caches and post some mirrors?

  9. In space... by American+AC+in+Paris · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...nobody can hear your webserver scream.

    --

    Obliteracy: Words with explosions

  10. The only thing that scaled� by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...was the domain name.

  11. Oh, I get it.... by DesScorp · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...it's a stealth plane. Forget radar invisible, we can't even SEE this puppy.

    Damn, Burt Rutan is a genius.....

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
  12. In Secret? by ItWasThem · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What surprises me is that they went for 2 years developing this project "in secret"... why would they want to do that? It's neat to see that they've already done some rocket testing and all, but why announce now after two years when they don't even have a full scale version done? What did they get by waiting to announce?

    I could understand the secrecy if they wanted to develop the whole thing first to avoid the vaporware critiques, and then bam they come out with a ready-to-use orbiter, man that'd be sweet huh? But why announce in the middle of it? Need funding? Sick of keeping it quiet? Poor planning? Any ideas?

    1. Re:In Secret? by foolish · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Did you miss the fact these ARE full scale?

      Essentially Rutan is going 'Look at what I built, we're going to launch this for the X-Prize and none of you can HOPE to catch up'

      The only things they have left are flight tests with the rocket suite. The White Knight is working and has flown some test flights... It's the SS1 that need some flight time before the X-Prize attempt.

      It'll be interesting to see what XCor does in response to this.

    2. Re:In Secret? by WegianWarrior · · Score: 1

      It's neat to see that they've already done some rocket testing and all, but why announce now after two years when they don't even have a full scale version done? What did they get by waiting to announce?

      They probaly wanted to make sure the concept wasn't flawed before they announced it - running a few subscale tests and so on - and then announce it before they went and build the real deal. Because if they didn't announce it before they build and launch it, because if they didn't a lot of people would call then cheaters.

      --
      Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
    3. Re:In Secret? by peacefinder · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I imagine that they have gone public now because they're ready to go public. It sounds like they've done everything they can reasonably do in private.

      Probably they have reached the stage of testing where the tests can't be hidden anymore. When they send piggyback aircraft up and start separation tests, it's going to be pretty obvious what they're working on.

      He also makes it clear in the space.com article that he is not looking for funding.

      --
      With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
    4. Re:In Secret? by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

      Not only that but they hardly did it in secret. I knew of this years ago, even thought of joining 'em for my working study...but then I discovered how impossible it is to get a greencard for something like that: you need one to work, but you have to have work ready to get one...Rosarian would be proud.

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    5. Re:In Secret? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i think you missed the main point: those pictures are showing the actual flight hardware!

    6. Re:In Secret? by Chairboy · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing you didn't bother to read the article. Those aren't sub scale models, those are the actual carrier aircraft and spacecraft. The only thing left is to finalize the hybrid rocket and complete the glide tests.

    7. Re:In Secret? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok I have just one question, how does this space craft compare to this

    8. Re:In Secret? by The_K4 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, if they are ready to test the orbiter (which it sounds like they are) they need to get more FAA approvals for that. They can tests airplanes without really cataching any attention. The instant they apply to tests an orbiter it'll be all over the news.

    9. Re:In Secret? by Moofie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You didn't even make a cursory inspection of the article, did you? Neither did your bone-head mods.

      The man said that this was "flight hardware". That means it's the actual vehicle that is going to do the mission.

      He said he wasn't soliciting money.

      It's still undergoing flight tests, but they're full-up hardware in the loop tests. Rutan is not going to make an X-Prize attempt before he's actually done it successfully more than once outside the scrutiny of the public (and the judges).

      It's a PR stunt, yes...but for somebody who actually knows something about things that go up in the air (that'd be me) it's pretty fucking impressive.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    10. Re:In Secret? by ryanwright · · Score: 1

      Neither did your bone-head mods.

      See, I was going to mod him down to where he should be, but there was no "-1, Didn't RTFA". I need one. While I'm at it, I could also use a "-1, Clueless" for those people who get modded up after posting false quotes, urban legends, etc...

      --
      -Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
    11. Re:In Secret? by Just+Another+Perl+Ha · · Score: 2, Informative
      ...Rosarian would be proud.

      If you're talking about the character from Heller's Catch-22, then I believe his name was "Yossarian".

    12. Re:In Secret? by teslatug · · Score: 2, Funny

      They didn't want Carmack after their ass with an RPG trying to get their rocket fuel.

    13. Re:In Secret? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Yeah. What you said.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    14. Re:In Secret? by netringer · · Score: 2, Informative
      What surprises me is that they went for 2 years developing this project "in secret"... why would they want to do that? It's neat to see that they've already done some rocket testing and all, but why announce now after two years when they don't even have a full scale version done? What did they get by waiting to announce?
      1 - Because the X-pize is a competition2 - The X-prize didn't have the $10 million for the prize until recently.

      It wasn't that much of a secret. Rutan let it be known that the long-flying Proteus was (the prototype of) the launch vehicle. They are also two full scale aircraft. One has been flying already.

      I could understand the secrecy if they wanted to develop the whole thing first to avoid the vaporware critiques, and then bam they come out with a ready-to-use orbiter, man that'd be sweet huh? But why announce in the middle of it? Need funding? Sick of keeping it quiet? Poor planning? Any ideas?
      Yeah, that's it. The article also says they don't need or want outside funding, but to know that and the above you would have had to have read the article.
      --
      Ever dream you could fly? Get up from the Flight Sim. I Fly
    15. Re:In Secret? by Rubyflame · · Score: 1

      It'll be interesting to see what XCor does in response to this.

      Probably nothing. XCOR and Scaled are not in competition. Scaled is doing this for the X-Prize, and XCOR is doing it for tourism. Scaled has stated that it does not intend to sell rides on its vehicle....

      --

      All it takes is nukes and nerves.
    16. Re:In Secret? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      this Will get you a Darwin Award. The other has a good chance at 10 million.

  13. Another DoS Attack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slashdot Style

  14. A rutan? Dr Who was real! by Jim+Hall · · Score: 5, Funny

    Aha! Finally, it is revealed that the rutan landing at Fang Rock, from Dr Who, was in fact real event! The truth can come out.

  15. "He's hurting him!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Greaaaat... public spaceflight set back another 50 years because it looks obscene and silly!

  16. /.'ed by bigirondawg · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Wow... already slashdotted. Anybody have the Google cache?

    --
    - Proofs of Sturgeon's Law Delivered Daily -
  17. Slashdot cache? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about a cache? I have seen people ask for it before so whats the dilly-o? How hard can it be?

    Slashdot has become a large nerdy gorilla

    Jebus

  18. The design shows some imagination by MyNameIsFred · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The thing I like about Rutan designs is that they show some imagination. They don't look like everybody elses design. And this spacecraft design is no different. It reminds me of those futuristic designs in magazines of the 40s and 50s. Very off the wall.

    1. Re:The design shows some imagination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those futuristic designs you cite are some of the most unrealistic and least aesthetic designs of any period to date.

    2. Re:The design shows some imagination by silentbozo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      True, there's a retro-future feeling that combines the organic styling of the present with the rocket designs of the late 50's and 60's. Ironic that a basic design first proposed by private enterprise for the government (a manned booster/spaceplane competitor/forerunner of the US shuttle system), needed to wait for half a century before it could be built - not by government, but by private enterprise.

      Tom Swift would no doubt be proud of the resumption of US (and other world) efforts to open up space to everyman.

    3. Re:The design shows some imagination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [Rutan's designs] don't look like everybody elses design... [This] reminds me of those futuristic designs in magazines of the 40s and 50s

      So, it does look like everyone else's design, so long as everyone lived in the 40s and 50s?

    4. Re:The design shows some imagination by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      That 2 part/2 stage system was suppose to be how the shuttle was going to be done. Then Nixon stepped in and cut funding giving us the overpriced shuttle.
      I suspect that Rutan's next rocket ship will use the same engine design from the X33(fewer moving parts and an elegent design). The craft that W. killed (or moved over to the DOD) showing that same style of leadership.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  19. cheap access to space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    will never ever happen.

    I repeat it will ever ever happen. Maybe somebody may win this X-prize ... but dont expect cheap trips to space .. ever.

    1. Re:cheap access to space by smartalix · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You probably said that nobody could fly around the world on a tank of gas, too.

      --
      Read a preview of my novel CYBERCHILD at www.smartalix.com/cyberchild
    2. Re:cheap access to space by gurps_npc · · Score: 1
      We have the technology today to offer cheap access to space. Theoretically, an Orion Starship costs only around $1,000 / pound to get there. But NASA decided that building a spaceship that uses small nuclear bombs as it's propulsion unit is a bad idea.

      Look, we have not had space travel for more than 50 years yet.

      Give us another 100 years, and we WILL have cheap spacetravel.

      If we do it right, we might be able to make it cheap in 50 more years.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    3. Re:cheap access to space by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Dude, that was good.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  20. ....what the hell..... by HaloZero · · Score: 0

    ...IS that thing? The article says it's a spacecraft. I... er.... well... this is surely one of those 'I'll believe it when I see it' things.

    In all seriousness, it looks completely impractical. I mean, aerodynamic, yes, but... well.. no. It looks way too fragile to withstand the immense forces needed to achieve escape velocity. I understand it's made of a superstrong composite material, but, have any tests been performed on it, yet?

    I think it'll make for a pretty atmospheric glider, but not a transorbital vehicle.

    --
    Informatus Technologicus
    1. Re:....what the hell..... by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Escape velocity is only high if you are using ballistic flight. Flying under continuous power, you can go 1 mph and still make it to orbit, provided you can sustain that speed for long enough.

      If you are using aerodynamic lift to reach a given altitude, the delta-V you need to reach orbit or break out of the Earth's gravity well is much less than it is to do the same from a stationary vertical liftoff from the surface.

      --
      You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    2. Re:....what the hell..... by demonbug · · Score: 1
      It looks way too fragile to withstand the immense forces needed to achieve escape velocity.


      The big, fragile-looking thing is only the aircraft that carries the spacecraft to high altitude, where it is released and (hopefully) goes into orbit on its own. The actual spacecraft is the little pod hanging beneath it that looks like a 40's concept of a spacecraft except without the fins.

    3. Re:....what the hell..... by fgodfrey · · Score: 4, Informative
      Err, escape *velocity* is always high regardless of what kind of flight you are using. You need to reach a certain speed to achieve orbit. What I think you were trying to say is that the forces the craft absorbs (ie, the acceleration) only are massive if you have to blast the thing into orbit. Once you've used the aerodynamic lift to get into the upper atmosphere, there's less wind drag and you're already moving at some amount of speed so you need less fuel to accelerate to orbital velocity and there's less stress put on the craft by air moving over it.


      Your example of going 1mph all the way to "orbit" doesn't work 'cause you won't *be* in orbit at 1mph. Being in space and being in orbit are two very different things.

      --
      Go Badgers! -- #include "std/disclaimer.h"
    4. Re:....what the hell..... by jcr · · Score: 1

      RTFA, will you?

      It's not supposed to be an orbiter. It's made to win the X prize, which means it has to get a man 100KM high, and return him safely to the ground.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    5. Re:....what the hell..... by digitalgiblet · · Score: 1
      I think it'll make for a pretty atmospheric glider, but not a transorbital vehicle.

      In the couple of sketchy bits I saw before the slashdot effect overwhelmed their servers... I did notice that they refer to it as a SUB-orbital craft.

      I also noticed that it basically has a cockpit just barely big enough for a pilot and he sits with a BIG spherical tank 'o explosive rocket fuel right up against his back. Fun.

      My biggest question is how they get back without burning up. Doesn't say if they plan to come back under power. Wish there was more detail on their plans...

      This is definitely something that could be interesting if they a) finish it and b) don't blow up all their guys testing it...

    6. Re:....what the hell..... by TopShelf · · Score: 2, Funny

      The man doesn't have to be alive to start with, does he? That would loosen up the "safely" part and gimme a shortcut...

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    7. Re:....what the hell..... by battjt · · Score: 1

      huh? If you go "up" (away from Earth) at 100 mph for 800 hours, then deccelerate by 100mph. What happens? I think you just hang out for a very long time.

      Joe

      --
      Joe Batt Solid Design
    8. Re:....what the hell..... by scd · · Score: 5, Informative

      You are also confused. Escape velocity is the velocity at which an object with no attached propulsion needs to be launched from the surface of Earth in order that the object will never fall back down to the surface due to Earth's gravity. Often explained as the velocity need for an object to reach infinite distance from another object.

      It is true that you won't be orbitting at 1mph. However, if you consider the the velocity vector that is perpendicular to the Earth's surface, it is most certainly possible to reach orbit with a vertical velocity of only 1mph. Not fuel-efficient, of course.

    9. Re:....what the hell..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      er... actually the rocket fuel isn't explosive.

    10. Re:....what the hell..... by jafac · · Score: 2, Informative

      Escape velocity is NOT the same as what's required to reach orbit.

      Escape Velocity is what's required to escape the earth's gravity.

      Reaching Earth Orbit is NOT escaping earth's gravity.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    11. Re:....what the hell..... by WegianWarrior · · Score: 1

      The 'immense forces' you're refering to is probaly the G-forces of acceleration.. so if you cut back on trust and instead prolonged the burn, you would end up with the same amouth of enegry delivered to the craft with lot less stress involed. You don't need to be a rocket-scientist to know that, but it helps.

      For most things spacerelated, visit Encyclopedia Astronautica.

      --
      Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
    12. Re:....what the hell..... by kalidasa · · Score: 1

      And this thing isn't intended to reach orbit, only the 100 km limit imposed by the X Prize (a Shepherd-style flight).

    13. Re:....what the hell..... by digitalgiblet · · Score: 2, Funny
      er... actually the rocket fuel isn't explosive.

      When it's a couple inches from my back, I don't really distinguish between exploding and burning really fast.

      "He didn't technically EXPLODE, Jim, he just burned to cinders very quickly..."

    14. Re:....what the hell..... by eericson · · Score: 1

      I'm sure I'm not the first in a long string of people to tell you that the "fragile" piece is just the carry vehicle.

      Other thing to keep in mind is that all aircraft that are certified under FAR 35 (I think that's right, It's been a while since ground school) in the Transport category (That's just about all private aircraft, except for some of the bush birds) have to be able to withstand 4 G's as a normal service load, and can't have any structural failures at less than 6. That combinded with the fact that Rutan's birds are notoriously strong (the Long-EZ his first real trendsetter was certified to 9Gs) and that the White Knight is pure composites means it's stronger than it looks.

      Cheers,

      -E2

      --
      The evil monkey commands you to dance.
    15. Re:....what the hell..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the "Fuel" in the tank right behind the pilot is nitrous oxide. i.e. laughing gas.

    16. Re:....what the hell..... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      If you go "up" (away from Earth) at 100 mph for 800 hours, then deccelerate by 100mph. What happens?

      Gravity pulls you to to Earth, just as it would pull in any body with zero velocity that was 80,000 miles away. My physics is too rusty to say offhand how long it takes you to crater or what your impact speed is.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    17. Re:....what the hell..... by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

      Rtfa? RTFA!?! What A!? I only saw a smoking hole where a website used to be!

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    18. Re:....what the hell..... by battjt · · Score: 1

      There is lots of stuff 80,000 miles up with a ground speed of zero that has me worried now. Why isn't it falling back down?

      Do you pick up ground speed as you acclerate straight line from Earth?

      Joe

      --
      Joe Batt Solid Design
    19. Re:....what the hell..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      would a horizontal take off craft (or rather just not breaking free of orbit vertically) be able to actually break free and if so would it go with or against the rotation of the Earth?

    20. Re:....what the hell..... by afidel · · Score: 1

      Often explained as the velocity need for an object to reach infinite distance from another object.

      Not really, in the case of a multibody system you only need to achieve a point where the gravitational pulls of the bodies are balanced so that you aren't moving towards any of them.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    21. Re:....what the hell..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The rule is that your velocity at impact if you fall from an infinite (or good approximation of infinite) distance is the same as escape velocity... for Earth that would be 11 km/sec... BAMMMM!!!!!

    22. Re:....what the hell..... by Flamerule · · Score: 2, Informative
      There is lots of stuff 80,000 miles up with a ground speed of zero that has me worried now. Why isn't it falling back down?
      Dude, what are you talking about? "Ground speed"? If you mean an object in space that stays above the same point on the Earth, that's geosynchronous orbit, and said object would have to be 35,786 kilometers = 22,241 miles up, and the point must be on the equator. An object in said orbit would have a velocity of 3339 m/s.
    23. Re:....what the hell..... by vocaro · · Score: 1
      There is lots of stuff 80,000 miles up with a ground speed of zero that has me worried now. Why isn't it falling back down?

      Because of inertia. The gravity of planets Earth and Jupiter, for instance, are constantly pulling on each other, but they don't crash into one another because at that distance, gravity is so weak that it can't overcome the tendency of each planet to continue on its current path.

    24. Re:....what the hell..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Re-entry is not as big a problem for this type of mission as it would be with an orbital vehicle. An orbital vehicle is traveling at about 7km/s when it re-enters. These guys wont be going anywhere near that fast an will therefor experience less aerodynamic heating.
      A steap dive could be a problem given there would be large density gradients and the craft may not have enought time to slow down before it hits denser air, but i'm sure they plan for stuff like that
      The oxidizer they are using is nitrous oxide which isnt explosive and their fuel is some sort of rubber. so ther is no tank'o explosives

    25. Re:....what the hell..... by battjt · · Score: 1

      Uhm no. The geosynchronous satellites have a velocity of zero (relative to me). What are you talking about?

      Joe

      --
      Joe Batt Solid Design
    26. Re:....what the hell..... by robi2106 · · Score: 1

      Those objects are in geo-synchronous orbit. They are moving at the same speed the earth is rotating and in the same direction.

      If the earth were not rotating on its axis, those objects would orbit the earth 365.26 times every earth year (or every orbit of the earth around the sun).

      But because the earth is rotating on its axis and because the satalites are moving the same direction at the same speed, they appear to stay over the same part of the earth.

      robi

    27. Re:....what the hell..... by WegianWarrior · · Score: 1

      As long as you provide enought energy, sure. The one reason why all conventional rockets take off vertically is to minimise the time they travel to the most dense area of the atmosphere. Energy is the key here, provide enought and you can take off in any direction you want.

      --
      Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
    28. Re:....what the hell..... by shawnce · · Score: 1

      If they have no over ground velocity then they are in geo-synchronous _orbit_, orbiting the earth in sync with the spin of the earths surface. In other words the have an angular velocity around the center of the earth at their orbital radius that matches the angular velocity of the surface of the earth.

      Think of a ball (with a decent amount of mass, so you don't get dizzy) on the end of a rubber band with you holding the other end. If you spin around in a fixed spot the ball will sweep a circle around you. The faster you spin the farther the ball moves away (assuming the rubber band stretches) from you because you are giving the ball more energy, its moves faster rotationally because you are. If it wasn't for the rubber band the ball would fly in a line away from you, let go of it as you spin to see that.

      This is similar to what happens with satellites (things that orbit a body because of gravity and velocity), at least in the case of circular orbits. The rubber band is gravity, the ball is the satellite and you are the earth with a rotational velocity, in the case of the earth a fixed velocity (at least fixed enough for this discussion). The main difference is that rubber bands pull harder the more you stretch them but the pull of gravity lesses as you get farther away (important detail to keep in mind that affects the radius of orbit). Also obviously the rubber band exerts a "rotational" force that gravity cannot but rockets can when something is launched into orbit.

      Anyway... satellites do what they do because their angular velocity "generates a force" directed away from the earth (the ball wanting to fly away from you) that equals the force that the earths gravity puts on the satellite (the rubber band), a force that is directed at the earth. If these forces are balanced then the object will orbit the earth, it won't fly away and it won't crash down on your head.

      So the closer you orbit the earth the more gravity you feel and hence the faster you have to orbit in order to offset gravity (low earth orbit objects circles the earth faster then the earths surfaces spins). As you move farther out gravity lessens a hence you can rotate slower. At some distance out form the earth the rotational speed of the satellite will match with the apparent rotational speed of the surface of the earth and those are called geo-synchronous satellites (this distance depends on the mass of the object).

    29. Re:....what the hell..... by JCholewa · · Score: 1

      > Uhm no. The geosynchronous satellites have a velocity of zero
      > (relative to me). What are you talking about?

      That's because you're in an accelerating frame of reference.

      Actually, relative to you, the satellites are going very fast. If they're 80000 miles up, and you're 4000 miles from the center of the planet, then in one day you travel 25000 miles, but the satellite travels half a million miles. From your perspective, the satellite travelled over 450000 miles. Remember that from your perspective, the satellites appear to be rotating around you, which means that relative to you, they're moving.

      -JC

      PS: Yeah, I know, 80000 miles isn't geosynch orbit. Lazy today....

    30. Re:....what the hell..... by taniwha · · Score: 1

      yup - buy it at your local speed shop

    31. Re:....what the hell..... by shawnce · · Score: 1
      Escape velocity is only high if you are using ballistic flight. Flying under continuous power, you can go 1 mph and still make it to orbit, provided you can sustain that speed for long enough.


      I think you mean you can accelerate slowly and still reach orbit if you have other means of avoiding chrashing back down to earth, which you can do in the case of aerodynamic flight. You do need enough propulsive force to over come aerodynamic drag and energy used in aerodynamic lift, this force would vary during your flight.

      If you fly at a fixed velocity (1 mph) you could in theory climb (assuming you could maintain lift as you climbed) using aerodynamic lift to the edge of space, you could not however simply climb a latter out into space and be in _orbit_. You would not have enough angular velocity to over come gravity (you lose your aerodynamic lift out in space). You could not remain in orbit as a result, especially at 1 mph.

      In other words the object you wanted to orbit would need a massive boost in angular velocity to remain in orbit.
    32. Re:....what the hell..... by battjt · · Score: 1

      Yah, it's 20000 mi (I was wrong earlier).

      No, I checked. The satellites that were above me earlier are exactly where they were (above me) (give or take some wobble). I haven't moved; they haven't moved. Zero change in position relative to me. As far as I'm concerned, they have zero velocity (0 m change in position/ 1 hr).

      Joe

      --
      Joe Batt Solid Design
    33. Re:....what the hell..... by leeward · · Score: 1

      Really 366.26 (I'll take your word for the .06 part). Think about and it will come to you where that extra day comes from :-)

    34. Re:....what the hell..... by taniwha · · Score: 1
      yeah - think of it this way going straight up doesn't get you into orbit - if you go straight up at 1mph then turn the motor off you will fall back down (unless you are in someone elses gravity gradient - so you can go straight up at 1pmh then fall into the sun when you turn it off if you are high enough).

      However if you go straight up at 1mph and at a couple of hundred miles you start going sideways fast enough that as gravity curves your tragectory you miss the earth by 200 miles .... then you are in orbit

      What;'s confusing is that rockets seem to go straight up .... they do this to avoid aerodynamic drag, once they're out of most of the atmosphere they pull a 90 degree turn and head for the horizon - which is also why flying up to 100k feet and letting her rip is also a great idea - you can head out on an angle and save doing 2 sides of a triangle on your way up

    35. Re:....what the hell..... by Genyin · · Score: 1

      Actually, they only have a velocity of zero relative to you because you're looking at it in terms of a non-inertial reference frame.

      Let's reduce this to two dimensions. Imagine you're on a huge carousel, one that has a 100000 mile radius. You are standing at, say, 5000 miles from the center. Label this point ground. Now, a friend of yours stands 30000 miles from the center. The merry go round rotates at one rotation per day.

      Relative to an observer not attached to the carousel, how much more quickly is your friend moving than you are?

      In the original system, there is a 'force', gravity, that counteracts the centrifugal [1] force you would feel outward in the example. In the case of your friend, the geosynchronous sattelite, the two forces exactly cancel (that is an equivalent definition to what the geosynchronous orbit is) Whereas, in your case, the outward force is much smaller; the extra force from gravity is counteracted by the ground below you physically stopping you.

      If you tried to just move up to where the geosynchronous sattelite is at, it would be moving far more quickly than you are. Furthermore, the ground would be moving quite quickly eastward with respect to you, as the ground is a lot closer to the center of the earth than you would be. Thirdly, you would fall back to the ground quite rapidly (without your own counteracting rocket or something) due to lack of a force keeping you at your height. If you added the extra velocity to match speeds with the sattelite, you would be in orbit and the other two problems would then disappear. :)

      [1] note that the argument can be made that the centrifugal force isn't a 'force', it is inertia. At this point, I would make the same statement about gravity (inertia on a curved spacetime); treating both as forces is a nice simplification. Looking from the outside, gravity doesn't counteract a centrifugal force: the satellite is moving so quickly with respect to the ground that the gravity inwards just counteracts the outward component of the satellite's velocity. There might be a similar insight looking at gravity as inertia; my head hurts trying to do so, though. (probably from inexperience)

    36. Re:....what the hell..... by Tackhead · · Score: 1
      > When it's a couple inches from my back, I don't really distinguish between exploding and burning really fast.

      Speak for yourself. When it's a couple inches from my back is when I'd tend to be very concerned with the distinction between rapid combusion and explosion :)

    37. Re:....what the hell..... by shawnce · · Score: 1

      I get what you are trying to say now... your wording had me confused. You didn't intend to mix 1 mph and aerodynamic flight per say... you could use just enough power from say a rocket to keep you moving at 1 mph vertically as you gained altitude.

      Unless you injected a rotational force (torque) you could not reach and maintain orbit (ignoring other gravitational sources).

      It also depends on how far out you want to orbit... anyway back to work.

    38. Re:....what the hell..... by fenix+down · · Score: 1

      Big American Physics Lesson Party Time!!!

      There's plenty of us that need this, I'm sure.

      1) Basic parabolic flight path
      You throw a ball straight out, it curves toward the ground. The harder you throw, the farther it goes before it hits the ground.

      2) The earth is round.
      If you go in a perfect, absolute straight line perpendicular to the ground wherever you're standing, you'll end up going higher and higher as the earth curves away below you.

      3) Perpendicular flight path on a scale where the curvature of the earth becomes a factor
      If you throw something really freakin' hard, it'll go far enough for the earth to curve away before it hits the ground.
      Gravity continues to pull towards the center of the earth, so the ball continues to fall in that direction. However, since the ball was fast enough to fly past the ground the first time, and since above the atmosphere there's not much friction to slow it down, the ball will keep orbiting the earth until something stops it.

      You can reach whatever altitude you want maintaining 1 mph the whole time, however, you'll start falling the moment you turn off your rocket unless you get enough lateral velocity to get into an orbit.

      Escape velocity is nyah an entirely different concept from orbits. Escape velocity tells you when you're going fast enough that you can turn off your rocket and keep drifting towards infinity, or how fast the muzzle velocity on your space cannon has to be to get your cannonball to Mars.

      If this is incomprehensible it's because /. hates my asciiart visual aids. Taco, you square! Quit opressing my art!

    39. Re:....what the hell..... by trollabyte · · Score: 1

      Uh, yes really. Escape velocity is just that, velocity. It's not a position, and isn't really referred to when dealing with multi-body problems. You're thinking of things like Lagrange Points.

    40. Re:....what the hell..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Low earth orbit requires about 17,000 MPH - at that speed the curve of the earth falls away just as fast as the spacecraft falls toward earth.

      Slower than that, you re-enter the atmosphere before you make a complete orbit. That's why the shuttle turns tail first and fires it's engines to leave orbit - it has to slow down to start going down.

    41. Re:....what the hell..... by m1a1 · · Score: 1

      Orbital calculator. I haven't checked to see if everything is correct or not, but I am lazy.

      http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/orbv3.h tml

    42. Re:....what the hell..... by budgenator · · Score: 1

      No the orbital period is the same as the earth's day. The only reason they don't appear to move is because both the surface of the Earth and the geo-sync sattalite are rotating around the Earth's center of gravity at the same period.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    43. Re:....what the hell..... by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Burt Rutan has a long history of building strong safe composite aircraft. A biographry of found at Burt Rutan may boost your confidence in his ability to pull this off. Two other points to consider is first in aircraft almost every part contributes to the strength of the total aircraft (Which sometimes explain $300.00 toilet seats). With composites the various parts are bonded which tend to relieve stress points. Secondly the big stresses that most space-craft experience are often on launch; I worked on the HAWK missile and launcher in the Army and the launcher didn't even release the misslie until the engine had developeds 2000 pounds of thurst. The space plane wont have to deal with that, by being dropped at high altitude, the thrust can come up slower and gradual. With most scace craft the hardest thing is the first inch of the flight. After the boast phase it just coasts not a lot of stress there either, it doesn't even have to get that much velocity up because it's sub-orbital. My guess is that this thing will have less flight stresses than most aircraft are designed for.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    44. Re:....what the hell..... by runderwo · · Score: 1

      Hey Bill,

      Totally OT, but what happened to quakeforge.net and taniwha.org? I can't get through to either and mail is bouncing. :)

    45. Re:....what the hell..... by taniwha · · Score: 1

      ummm - I'm not Bill and while I've had taniwha.com and before that taniwha!... as a uucp address for maybe 20 years I've never held taniwha.org - must be some other guy

    46. Re:....what the hell..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, as bill (taniwha) had posted here before I got you confused with someone else. :)

  21. Looks a lot like that flying gastank� by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...he flew non-stop around the world with the orbital part bolted on the bottom.

  22. Picture of SpaceShipOne by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Only one measly picture, but better than nothing for the impatient..

    http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=80 5

    1. Re:Picture of SpaceShipOne by Nikkos · · Score: 1

      "Master of Ceremonies, Cliff Robertson, introduced Burt Rutan who explained the history and the components of the program. Other dignitaries who attended the event were Dr. Maxim Faget (pioneer configuratioin designer of the early NASA space program from the Mercury through the Apollo programs), Erik Lindbergh (grandson of Charles Lindbergh and President of the Lindbergh Foundation), and Dennis Tito (Soyuz space tourist)."

      Some big names attended the revealing - but I feel sorry for anyone with a name like Maxim Faget.

      Nikkos

    2. Re:Picture of SpaceShipOne by Jon+Abbott · · Score: 1

      Whoever said you don't learn anything from cartoons?

  23. Distinguished Names by humpTdance · · Score: 1, Funny


    Other dignitaries who attended the event were Dr. Maxim Faget

    I bet that guy got hell when he was a kid. I wouldn't be able to stand people calling me Maximus.

  24. Photo links pulled off of page by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.scaled.com/projects/tierone/photos/imag es/Astronaut%20hero%20shot.JPG
    http://www.scaled. com/projects/tierone/photos/imag es/Monods%20and%20test%20stand.jpg
    http://www.sca led.com/projects/tierone/photos/imag es/Pete%20in%20sim.jpg
    http://www.scaled.com/proj ects/tierone/photos/imag es/Rocket%20Test%20Fire.jpg
    http://www.scaled.com /projects/tierone/photos/imag es/Space%20program%20elements.jpg
    http://www.scal ed.com/projects/tierone/photos/imag es/SS1%20above%20front%20left.jpg
    http://www.scal ed.com/projects/tierone/photos/imag es/SS1%20above%20rear%20left.jpg
    http://www.scale d.com/projects/tierone/photos/imag es/WK%20airborne%20above%20front%20right.jpg
    http ://www.scaled.com/projects/tierone/photos/imag es/WK%20and%20SS1%20mated%20front%20left.jpg
    http ://www.scaled.com/projects/tierone/photos/imag es/WK%20cockpit%20view.jpg
    http://www.scaled.com/ projects/tierone/photos/imag es/WK%20front%20landscape.jpg
    http://www.scaled.c om/projects/tierone/photos/imag es/WK%20head%20on.jpg

    I would have made them active links, but I was having troubles getting past the lameness filter. I think this way will be easier on their server anyway.

  25. Re:Can I get the prize? by pe1rxq · · Score: 1

    No you can't....

    Unless you managed to shoot three people into orbit with it..... Then you would have to blow up another heater (and three more people) within two weaks :)

    Jeroen

    --
    Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
  26. Flamebait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Right...

    As if Canada would ever make it to space...

    1. Re:Flamebait... by B3ryllium · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hey, we have the resources and the technology. But the only real reason to go in to space is to colonize, and there aren't enough Canadians for that. :)

      I mean, we have millions of square kilometers of uninhabited land (and some of it is even liveable!), we don't really need to colonize.

    2. Re:Flamebait... by Konowl · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Population is irrelavant. Look at how much of the world was once controlled by Great Britian and then look at their population during those times.

    3. Re:Flamebait... by Galvatron · · Score: 1

      He said "colonize," not "conquer." You're right, population is often not important for conquest.

      --
      "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
  27. Re:A rutan? Dr Who was real! [worst episode ever] by graveyhead · · Score: 1

    Man that episode was awful. The budget must've been like $2.00. The "alien" was a blob of cellophane with some green yuk inside it. It was supposed to be scary because it killed people and turned 'em into electric zombies which provided about 95% of the plot.

    Tom Baker definatly was a good doctor, but you've caught him at his worst. Well, perhaps not the worst, there was that time his herpes was showing.

    --
    std::disclaimer<std::legalese> sig=new std::disclaimer; sig->dump(); delete sig;
  28. google mirror by I'm+A+Librarian · · Score: 1

    well, we pretty much wrecked this guy's webserver for the day, so here's all google knows about scaled.com.

    Naturally, there are no pictures, but you can read all about some of the other projects over there.

  29. And the FAQ: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Frequently Asked Questions

    VISION
    What does Burt Rutan think of the other X-Prize designs?
    Burt prefers to discuss this only after the X-Prize is won.

    How long has Burt been working on all this?
    The concept dates back to April 1996. Design work and some limited testing was started 3.5 years ago. The full development program began in May 2001.

    What's going to be next in Burt's bag of tricks?
    Scaled has completed 34 manned research aircraft and none were announced until they were ready to fly.

    BUSINESS
    How much does it all cost?
    This is generally not known until the program is complete, but projections place it close to a Soyuz ride.

    How much will it cost to get a ride into space?
    Rides will not be offered in SpaceShipOne. The price of a ride will have to take in consideration the cost of certification and establishing an airliner-like operation. One goal of this research program is to see how low it might be without the burden of regulatory costs. At program completion we will have good data for operational costs and may publish them.

    Is it physically stressful?
    It is expected to be on the order of some modern theme park rides. The highest forces occur during reentry but build up gradually and peak near 6 G's for less than 10 seconds. With the pilot and passengers reclined, these forces should be quite tolerable for anyone in reasonable health.

    Is Burt Rutan going to ride in the vehicle?
    Yes, as soon as the opportunity presents itself.

    WHITE KNIGHT
    Why did the first flight last only 2 minutes?
    The airplane had outboard spoilers on the wings to help improve roll control in the event of gusty cross wind landings. They were pneumatically actuated (using the same tanks, valves and fittings as the RCS system on SpaceShipOne) and returned to recesses in the wings by springs. On the first flight, the low air pressure, at rotation was sufficient to "suck" the spoilers out which killed the lift and caused the return springs to slam them closed. Four of these surfaces chattering out on the wingtips during the climb out produced significant airframe vibrations and the pilot elected to turn downwind and land immediately rather than aggravate the condition any longer than necessary.

    How can you see where you're going?
    The visibility is actually much better than you might imagine. By moving your head slightly you can piece together an acceptable picture of the outside world and maintain adequate "situational awareness". What is more difficult is spotting other airborne traffic. However, between radar advisories from ground controllers and an onboard traffic alert system called "Skywatch," this limitation is minimized.

    Isn't it hard to land with all those wheels?
    No. The pilot doesn't notice that he has two nose wheels up front and with excellent elevator control
    he can hold them off until about 45 knots during the landing roll.

    Why is the cockpit called a "pressure vessel"?
    The cockpit is airtight and the air is not freely exchanged with the outside air. So like a submarine the structure must be able to withstand large forces due to the pressure differential. In the case of this vehicle, there is high pressure air inside compared to the near vacuum outside.

    How do you keep the air breathable?
    There are three components to keeping the cockpit environment suitable for flight. One, oxygen needs to be added at a small rate for that used by breathing. This is done with a small bottle carried in the cabin. Two, the carbon dioxide from the exhaled air needs to be removed and this is done by means of a substance called "Sodasorb". Finally, the humidity is controlled by another substance called "3X"that removes water vapor, keeping the cabin cool and dry.

    Have there been any surprises during flight test?
    Right from the start the White Knight has been one of Scaled's best handling aircraft. It has good control harmony and is surprisingly responsive for a large airplane. Despite its high wing,

  30. Dyna Soar Projects by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 2, Informative

    It looks like the re-entry orbital vehicle borrowed heavily from the NASA program on rentry. Cool to see another application of the technology!

    --
    If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
    1. Re:Dyna Soar Projects by Surak · · Score: 1

      It looks like the re-entry orbital vehicle borrowed heavily from the NASA program on rentry. Cool to see another application of the technology!

      Because as we can all tell, it works very well...never blows up or anything!

  31. Lets Just Hope... by LordYUK · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    That the ship holds up under strain better than their webserver...

    -- there's a really fine line between humor and trolling, isnt there...--

    --
    This is my sig. Its pathetic.
  32. Burt Rutan and "Kelly" Johnson by peacefinder · · Score: 1

    If this program captures the x-prize, I think that Burt Rutan will securely surpass "Kelly" Johnson as the cleverest engineer in aviation history. :)

    Good work and good luck!

    --
    With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
    1. Re:Burt Rutan and "Kelly" Johnson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      screw "if". based on the work rutan has already done (not counting this x-prize stuff), he's already on par with kelly johnson. burt rutan is a genius.

    2. Re:Burt Rutan and "Kelly" Johnson by Thud457 · · Score: 1
      Burt Rutan didn't build:
      • The U2
      • The SR-71
      Which have both been flown for more that thirty years.

      The guy's bright and has some interesting ideas, but how much real impact has he had (so far?).

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    3. Re:Burt Rutan and "Kelly" Johnson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We wont know what kind of impact he makes until he returns to earth... *ba-dum-dum*rimshot*

      Its friday, forgive me. I hope we see this spacecraft used soon...

  33. handle stress of space?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    how can that thing handle the extreme environment of space when it cant even cope with slashdot??

    1. Re:handle stress of space?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please go stand by the stairs.

    2. Re:handle stress of space?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and take the short bus home today, m'kay?

  34. Fuel by effer · · Score: 4, Funny

    "SpaceShipOne officials are reviewing use of hybrid rocket propulsion system provided by SpaceDev of Poway, California. Hybrid propulsion uses Nitrous Oxide -- also dubbed Laughing Gas -- and HTPB (tire rubber)."

    Laughing gas, tire rubber, and flames! A recipe for hilinks!!

    1. Re:Fuel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hilarity ensues.

    2. Re:Fuel by carambola5 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, I just gave a demonstration on a hybrid rocket last week at my university... make that multiple demonstrations.

      It's very interesting that they actually used tire rubber for the following reason:
      While explaining the rocket to everyone, I mentioned that our particular rocket uses acrylic as the fuel because it looks cool (ie: transparent) and that in industry, they would use something similar to tire rubber. Not really surprised it was used here... it's just cool that we were dead on.

      Nitrous Oxide... that's interesting. We used pure oxygen. Wonder what kind of extra boost the Nitrous gives you.

      On to some more pertinent information:
      Hybrid rockets are hybrid because they use a fluid oxydizer and a solid fuel.

      With a solid rocket engine (both components solid), you can't stop the thing. Once you light it, it'll burn til it runs out of its fuel/oxydizer mix. Whereas with a fluid (aka: liquid) rocket, you can shut it off. Unfortunately, you also have a lot of moving parts.... which are bad.

      A hybrid rocket is the best of both worlds. You can shut it off, but it has half as many moving parts as a fluid rocket.

      Cool stuff. Though I think their version can outpower our whimpy 8 lbs. thrust engine.

      --
      IWARS.
      People, in general, disappoint me. Politicians even more so.
    3. Re:Fuel by nelziq · · Score: 1

      Nitrous Oxide, Tire Rubber and Flames? Maybe they got their inspiration from "The Fast and the Furious"??

    4. Re:Fuel by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The impression that I got was that the Nitrous Oxide was used instead of pure O2 because it's stable and easy to store, and won't oxidize with the solid fuel until sufficient heat is present to start the reaction. The Nitrogen might also impart additional energy, but it really seemed to me from the documentation on the site that stability of storage was the important reason for the choice of that particular chemical for use in the hybrid motor.

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
    5. Re:Fuel by Muhammar · · Score: 3, Informative

      N2O is great deal less effective than LOX: by factor 2-3. But if you subtract the complication with cold-resistant turbopumps handling LOX or high pressure cylinder storing non-cryogenic oxygen, N2O may come out just fine. Higher oxides, namely NO2
      would be more effective (they have been used in Titan rockets), but the high toxicity/corrosivity of these is serious trouble.

      The most thrust/weight ratio could be obtained with ozone/oxygen mix (which is spectacularily nasty and explosive), then the next best oxidant is oxygen difluoride. (Another nasty boy, potentialy useful as chemical warfare agent)

      --
      I doubt that we will ever figure out - and I suspect that even if we did figure out we couldn't do much about it
    6. Re:Fuel by Muhammar · · Score: 1

      I was thinking about using the hybrid design in reverse: to have a gaseous compressed fuel and solid non-explosive oxidiser. Ethane would be a good fuel: it has similar physical property to N20 or CO2, and it should be superior as fuel to the butadiene rubber they use (ethane has higher H/C ratio, hence better energy and gas volume per weight).

      The solid oxidizer I would use would be sodium or magnesium perchlorate: The active oxygen weight content in these perchlorates is better than 50% (in N2O it is 35%) and they are cheap and tested as rocket propellant oxidizers.

      The opposite arrangement - gaseous fuel/solid oxidiser would be a new thing in hybrid design, though. Could perform better than what they have now.

      --
      I doubt that we will ever figure out - and I suspect that even if we did figure out we couldn't do much about it
    7. Re:Fuel by Judebert · · Score: 1

      Now THAT is a cool idea. Sometimes you just wish everybody had the time to talk to everybody else. Or are you in a position to be heard on this topic?

      --

      For geek dads: Contraction Timer

  35. Ugly, ugly!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    aarghh it's ugly...

    So what???
    Who gives a shit if it's ugly.
    If it can take me into space and back safely, I won't care about colour or shape.
    hey, who would even care about the inside, or the service onboard? I wouldn't.
    We live in an age where most people can only dream about going into space. Lett us first make that dream come true, and then care about appearence.

    And besides, suppose it was would you hestiate to take it, if it would get you into space?

    1. Re:Ugly, ugly!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Hey, as Doc Brown once said: "If you're gonna travel through time, you should do it in style!"

      The same applies here, doesn't it?

    2. Re:Ugly, ugly!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Just because doc brown said we should travel in style.

  36. Wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hats off to Rutan, that's one gutsy project. Take a look at the spacecraft; there's no ablative or thermal material visible. Might be designed to re-enter under power, without aerobraking.

  37. Sounds like reincarnated idea. I like the ENGINE! by zymano · · Score: 1
    I hope the choose the hybrid rocket motor! Very safe design. Picture below. hybrid/nox/rubberengine

    I have seen this rocket/airplane space orbital type mentioned for a long time. By the way , what is the spaceship made out of ?

  38. The Whiffle Ship? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why? I mean... WHY?

    1. Re:The Whiffle Ship? by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      Perhaps they were hoping for a Nerf advertising contract?

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  39. Re-entry by buddhaunderthetree · · Score: 1

    That carrier vehicle looks pretty fragile for re-entry purposes. Any guesses as to it's composition.

    --
    "Technology.....the knack of so arranging the world that we don't have to experience it." Max Firsch
    1. Re:Re-entry by smartalix · · Score: 1

      The carrier vehicle isn't involved in re-entry.

      --
      Read a preview of my novel CYBERCHILD at www.smartalix.com/cyberchild
    2. Re:Re-entry by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      As the other post said, the carrier doesn't re-enter. My guess about the SSO is that it's made mainly of composites and is extremely light compared to a shuttle. As a result, it doesn't have to make such a hot'n'heavy re-entry. (And since it's sub-orbital to start with, that takes a load off too.)

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    3. Re:Re-entry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I actually got to see a cross section of a Rutan design at the OshKosh fly-in last year, and if it's anything like that the hull is a single piece of honeycombed carbon-based composites. Most of the time craft break apart it's pieces of material coming apart at seams and joints, something you can get around if you simply build the whole craft out of one piece.

    4. Re:Re-entry by hobbesmaster · · Score: 1

      Also, remember that the shuttle re-enters under no power at all, so it has to exert all breaking forces as friction. A spacecraft that could slow itself in orbit to zero ground speed could fall back to earth and terminal velocity and then deploy chutes, or glide. (This is how people can parachute out of a baloon from 110,000 feet.)

    5. Re:Re-entry by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      Yes, extremely light. Good point about the joints, although you still probably have to check the "honeycomb" carefully to make sure that there's no internal flaws. (Bubbles lined up in a section that gets stress.)

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    6. Re:Re-entry by fenix+down · · Score: 1

      Right, now it just comes apart over the entire hull. I'm sure the honeycomb stuff is hella-strong, but... ok, I can't think of a glib analogy right now, but if I had one it would be pointing out that seams are where things fall apart, generally, you know, and getting rid of seams wouldn't stop it from falling apart, or something. Christ, I'm high.

    7. Re:Re-entry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, don't fall apart on re-entry then.

  40. Nothing unique in the design. by zymano · · Score: 1

    could be the 10 million greenbacks.

    1. Re:Nothing unique in the design. by pboulang · · Score: 1

      Did you say greenbacks? Not for long.

      --

      This comment is guaranteed*

      *not guaranteed

  41. Back Into Hiding by Tackhead · · Score: 4, Interesting
    > "We are not seeking funding and are not selling anything. We are in the middle of an important research program - to see if manned space access can be done by other than the expensive government programs," Rutan explained.
    >
    >Rutan said that after today, plans call for his group to go "back into hiding," to complete the flight tests and conduct the space flights.

    I don't blame him. If I threatened doom for six billion dollars a year of NASA Shuttle Pork, I'd want to be in hiding, too! :)

    Burt - you rock. You rock in the way that NASA used to rock. You rock in the way most NASA engineers would love to be allowed to rock.

    No matter what NASA does to try and shut you down, please don't stop.

    1. Re:Back Into Hiding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Wank wank wank

      NASA doesnt give a shit, NASA has a completely different agenda than space tourism.

      X prize is no threat to NASA, if anything, it's a private resource that NASA can tap to further it's own objectives (space station, another moon mission, mars missions, etc).

    2. Re:Back Into Hiding by FWMiller · · Score: 1

      Note that Max Faget is involved in this. Max is widely credited for the basic configuration of the Space Shuttle design. Hows that for NASA engineers wanting to be allowed to rock like this?!

      --
      Frank W. Miller
    3. Re:Back Into Hiding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      Note that Max Faget is involved in this. Max is widely credited for the basic configuration of the Space Shuttle design. Hows that for NASA engineers wanting to be allowed to rock like this?!

      Max Faget? Somebody actually named their kid Max Faget? I don't know whether to laugh or cry at that. That's the funniest god damn thing I've read in months and I just confirmed he's a real guy. Max Faget! Holy fucking shit that's hilarious!

    4. Re:Back Into Hiding by PuckRembrant · · Score: 1

      Seriously, Max Faget? No wonder he wants to get into space so badly.

    5. Re:Back Into Hiding by Syncdata · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Burt - you rock. You rock in the way that NASA used to rock. You rock in the way most NASA engineers would love to be allowed to rock.
      Classic. I'm sure there's a nasa engineer out there somewhere paraphrasing the words of Homer Simpson
      "I used to rock and roll all night, and party every day, then it was every other day, and now I'm lucky if I can find one night per week with which to get funky."
      The quote that thrilled me the most in the article though was that Mssr. Rutan and co. were not looking for additional funding. This organization seems to be as unlike NASA's current leadership as is possible.

      --
      "Inattention makes clowns of us all" -Bean
    6. Re:Back Into Hiding by orac2 · · Score: 1

      As noted in another thread below, it's pronounced "Fa-jay", not "faggot"

      --
      "Just once, I'd like to meet an alien menace that wasn't immune to bullets." -- The Brigadier, Dr. Who
    7. Re:Back Into Hiding by orac2 · · Score: 2, Informative

      As I noted below:

      You have to be a little careful regarding Faget and the shuttle, given that his short winged 'DC-3' design was on the losing side of the compromise with the Air Force regarding the shuttle's cross range capability. Additionally, the DC-3 looked like it would have suffered from severe heating and aerodynamic instability problems on re-entry. Unlike the Mercury/Apollo era, where Faget's word was the only word, industry pushed back with their own spacecraft designs for the shuttle program and largely won -- the idea for a planform orbiter and a drop tank came from outside his team.

      However, to be fair, after the DC-3 battle, Faget's team did have the crucial insight that the external tank could serve a structural function as the backbone of the shuttle stack, instead of just hanging off it, and their MSC-040 orbiter design was the baseline for the production orbiters.

      --
      "Just once, I'd like to meet an alien menace that wasn't immune to bullets." -- The Brigadier, Dr. Who
    8. Re:Back Into Hiding by Tackhead · · Score: 1
      > Classic. I'm sure there's a nasa engineer out there somewhere paraphrasing the words of Homer Simpson "I used to rock and roll all night, and party every day, then it was every other day, and now I'm lucky if I can find one night per week with which to get funky."

      OK, guilty as charged of first degree hyperbole.

      Basically, I wanted to make it clear that NASA's failures aren't engineering-related, they're political.

      > The quote that thrilled me the most in the article though was that Mssr. Rutan and co. were not looking for additional funding. This organization seems to be as unlike NASA's current leadership as is possible.

      Word.

    9. Re:Back Into Hiding by robi2106 · · Score: 1

      Or even as a talent pool for engineers that want to play with bigger budgets.

      robi

    10. Re:Back Into Hiding by Tackhead · · Score: 4, Insightful
      > X prize is no threat to NASA, if anything, it's a private resource that NASA can tap to further it's own objectives (space station, another moon mission, mars missions, etc).

      In a perfect world, yes.

      In the real world, when Congress tells NASA that due to the availability of a $10M launch platform, (as opposed to the $500M Shuttle) that NASA's launch budget is being cut by 98%, NASA cares very much.

      In the real real world, when $CONTRACTOR tells $LOBBYIST to tell $CONGRESSMAN that the existence of a $10M launch platform threatens $100M per year of funding for jobs in his district, Rutan has to be very careful. Not so much of NASA, or evil Men-In-Black conspiracy theories, but of the FAA and other legal roadblocks that Congress can put up to stop him in order to keep the pr0k a flowin'.

    11. Re:Back Into Hiding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hopefully Rutan won't have that much of a problem. If the FAA doesn't like it, there is always Canada. My guess is that the Canuks would love to have a potential multi-billion dollar space program open up in their purview. If not Canada, then Mexico, Brazil, France or Austrailia.

    12. Re:Back Into Hiding by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      I don't blame him. If I threatened doom for six billion dollars a year of NASA Shuttle Pork, I'd want to be in hiding, too! :)

      When Rutan does threaten doom to the Shuttle it will indeed be news. But the White Knight/SpaceshipOne is a Yugo, while the Shuttle is an eighteen wheeler.

      It's great news that someone outside of NASA is actively producing hardware, but let's not make Rutan's craft into anything than what it is, the first step on a very long a difficult road.

    13. Re:Back Into Hiding by Tackhead · · Score: 2, Insightful
      > If the FAA doesn't like it, there is always Canada. My guess is that the Canuks would love to have a potential multi-billion dollar space program open up in their purview. If not Canada, then Mexico, Brazil, France or Austrailia.

      I was about to say "Mexico, Brazil, or Australia, sure, maybe French Guinea or whatever, but never Canada", because Canada's nowhere near (nor does own any land near) the equator.

      But now that you mention it, it's a piggyback vehicle based on an airplane! If the carrier vehicle is capable of midair refueling, Burt can launch from anywhere on the planet.

      No more big geographical premium for being near the equator, no huge "launch pad" infrastructure to build, no restrictions like "Can only launch $FOO-sats from Vandenburg, can only launch $BAR-sats from Cape Canaveral", just take off from any runway, fly to whatever latitude is appropriate for your payload's desired inclination, point the plane in the desired direction, and punch it. Turn the carrier vehicle around and fly home.

    14. Re:Back Into Hiding by Jerrry · · Score: 1
      As noted in another thread below, it's pronounced "Fa-jay", not "faggot"


      That reminds me of a British TV show called Keeping Up Appearances where the character's name is Bucket, yet she insists on pronouncing it as Bouquet.

    15. Re:Back Into Hiding by sean23007 · · Score: 1

      I'll bet most engineers at NASA would rather work for Rutan.

      --

      Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
    16. Re:Back Into Hiding by sean23007 · · Score: 1

      If there were only 5 computers in the entire world and they were so expensive that only the richest kings of Europe could afford to own one, that would really suck, right? Well, how great would it be if someone built a smaller computer that was cheap enough that a normal person could buy one? At first these alternative options might not be as good or particularly affordable, but surely that situation would improve. Perhaps eventually everyone would own one.

      Analogy: who cares if this initial version isn't the Rolls Royce of spacecraft? As its price goes down and availability goes up, more and more people and companies will get involved in the space travel industry. The first try doesn't have to be the best thing ever; if that is the aim, you get the Shuttle.

      --

      Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
    17. Re:Back Into Hiding by DerekLyons · · Score: 2, Insightful
      If there were only 5 computers in the entire world and they were so expensive that only the richest kings of Europe could afford to own one, that would really suck, right? Well, how great would it be if someone built a smaller computer that was cheap enough that a normal person could buy one? At first these alternative options might not be as good or particularly affordable, but surely that situation would improve. Perhaps eventually everyone would own one.
      That works for computers. But as an analogy between the Shuttle and Rutan's craft it fails utterly. The Shuttle is a heavy lift orbital vehicle. Rutan's craft is a no lift suborbital vehicle. The difference is not only of degree, but of kind.
      Analogy: who cares if this initial version isn't the Rolls Royce of spacecraft? As its price goes down and availability goes up, more and more people and companies will get involved in the space travel industry. The first try doesn't have to be the best thing ever; if that is the aim, you get the Shuttle.
      If it were a spacecraft, you'd have a point. But Rutan's ship isn't a spacecraft.

      That's a problem I've had with the X-prize all along. It's not designed to emphasize the building of a spacecraft, it's designed to emphasize the design of a thrill ride. Their hope is that the thrill ride will inspire people to build real spacecraft. Some X-prize ships have a clear upgrade path to useful orbital capicity, some do not. Rutan's is among the latter.
  42. Conspiracy theories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought Sun had dibs on the ONE trademark? Hmmm. A silent partner perhaps? Maybe that's what happened to all of Sun's money...

  43. Ho Hum. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it can't achieve orbit, it's not a spacecraft. Until it can do that, it's just an expensive, high-flying toy Now, I agree, money can be made with toys. But I think it's going to be a very, very long step from this to orbit. Oh, well.

    1. Re:Ho Hum. by smartalix · · Score: 3, Informative

      If it can get into space, it's a spacecraft. Orbit is another thing entirely. The first American spaceflight by Alan Shepard was sub-orbital, you know. (But you obviously don't, or you wouldn't have made the above comment.)

      --
      Read a preview of my novel CYBERCHILD at www.smartalix.com/cyberchild
    2. Re:Ho Hum. by fenix+down · · Score: 1

      That's stupid. It's not like there's some line where sky stops and space starts. At least not one that wasn't arbitrarially selected. It's a spacecraft if you want to call it one, but without orbit it's still a toy. Alan Shepard was a test pilot testing a vehicle. Beyond testing the stuff that got you there, there's not much a suborbital flight can get you besides a minute of weightlessness and bragging rights. That makes it a toy. There's no work you can do with it that couldn't be done on a trip to Six Flags.

  44. Contact by telstar · · Score: 4, Funny
    "Burt Rutan's company, Scaled Composites, announced that they have been developing a commercial manned space program in secret for the past two years."
    • I though they were supposed to wait for the religious freaks to blow up the first one before letting Jodi Foster know this one existed.

    1. Re:Contact by TheSunborn · · Score: 1

      Nope, that is something the movie got total wrong. You should read the book insted :}

    2. Re:Contact by telstar · · Score: 1

      Wait a second! I think we just figured out who blew up the Columbia!

    3. Re:Contact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      John Hinckley, Jr.?

    4. Re:Contact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you seen my copy of "Cather in the Rye"?

    5. Re:Contact by sean23007 · · Score: 1

      They aren't telling us about the second one hidden in Japan. They only want one blown up -- duh... ;)

      --

      Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
  45. That's some fuel! by AndroidCat · · Score: 5, Funny
    "SpaceShipOne officials are reviewing use of hybrid rocket propulsion system provided by SpaceDev of Poway, California. Hybrid propulsion uses Nitrous Oxide -- also dubbed Laughing Gas -- and HTPB (tire rubber)."

    Burning rubber to orbit, laughing all the way? (Yeah yeah, it's sub-orbital -- for now.)

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    1. Re:That's some fuel! by SuperBanana · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Burning rubber to orbit, laughing all the way?

      Amusing, but on a more serious note, didn't anyone find the following just the least bit suspicious?

      "Benson said the company's motor design is thought to be the largest of its type in the world. It uses clean and inexpensive propellants, namely Nitrous Oxide (Laughing Gas) and HTPB (tire rubber)."

      Burning rubber is -incredibly- toxic. Note the pictures of the rocket firing? Lots of yellow flame(meaning low-temperature, incomplete combustion- watch the shuttle some time, you -can't- really see the flame out of the liquid fuel motors, it's so damn hot) and TONS of thick, thick black smoke?

      I tried googling around, and found out that HTPB stands for "hydroxy terminated polybutadiene"- it's commonly used as a binder in normal solid rocket motors, and...oddly enough, it seems Saddam liked HTPB too. Okay, so I'm getting the sense that Space.com grossly oversimplified HTPB as "tire rubber."

      The only thing I could find on the "how clean is it?" question was a page detailing various solid rocket fuels. Interesting to note that HTPB is NOT listed under the section titled "fuels that meet clean air requirements", but then again, the whole nitrous bit isn't mentioned either. I'm no rocket scientist :-), so maybe the nitrous oxide gets things goin' enough that everything burns cleanly; it is, afterall, a pretty sweet oxidizer.

      I'd personally like to know more about this, as I think the space shuttle needs to be put through some emissions testing. Lots of states require on-dyno testing; imagine dyno-testing that puppy. Maybe NASA can just slip the guy two twenties(it is the space shuttle after all, one twenty probably wouldn't be enough) and get the sticker...

    2. Re:That's some fuel! by random_static · · Score: 1
      burning rubber is toxic if you burn it with just atmospheric oxygen, at the (low) temperatures it'll achieve in open, ambient conditions. but pour on some liquid oxygen (or liquid N2O will work too, i guess) in a bit of confinement to build up some chamber pressure, and the rubber starts being just another hydrocarbon. hybrid engines burn clean, exhausting water and carbon {di,mon}oxide mainly, unless maybe you try to throttle them down i suppose. dunno how long they might smolder and sputter if you cut off the oxidizer flow.

      here's some random links i googled up: some guy's FAQ, a paper on hybrid engines with a lot of formulas and math (not a whole lot about cleanliness, though), a page with some firing pics which also claims clean burning.

    3. Re:That's some fuel! by Muhammar · · Score: 1

      I would not worry about burned rubber over much.
      HTPB is just low-molecular non-vulcanized synthetic rubber. Can't be incredibly more toxic than burned diesel.

      Solid-rocket booster of schuttle use ammonium perchlorate/alumina powder as the main propellant components: we are talking hydrochloric acid and alumina dust - wonderful smog maker for asthma kids. They are lucky that there is breeze from the ocean. And did I mention the original Thiokol SRB design used huge quantities of asbestos too?

      --
      I doubt that we will ever figure out - and I suspect that even if we did figure out we couldn't do much about it
  46. Text of main page by MsWillow · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Mojave, California, April 18, 2003:
    Scaled Composites today unveiled the existence of a commercial manned space program. This previously hidden, active research program has been in the works at its facility for two years. This program includes an airborne launcher (the White Knight), a space ship (SpaceShipOne), rocket propulsion, avionics, simulator and ground support elements.
    Master of Ceremonies, Cliff Robertson, introduced Burt Rutan who explained the history and the components of the program. Other dignitaries who attended the event were Dr. Maxim Faget (pioneer configuratioin designer of the early NASA space program from the Mercury through the Apollo programs), Erik Lindbergh (grandson of Charles Lindbergh and President of the Lindbergh Foundation), and Dennis Tito (Soyuz space tourist).
    Further information about the space program and high-resolution photographs are available at the Scaled Composites website: www.scaled.com.

    --

    Lemon curry?
  47. very sci fi looking .. no ? by Brigadier · · Score: 3, Funny



    Whenever I look at the entries for this competition I can't help but wonder why they all have this sci fi look to them. ie something out of start trek. I always have this image of some guy of a err more feminine persuasion flailing his hands and going " it justht doesnt look spathy enough.... more spathy people ...."

    1. Re:very sci fi looking .. no ? by orac2 · · Score: 1

      Well, setting aside your homophobia, I don't think they look like star trek vehicles at all (no nacelles/no craggy bits, which are the two primary looks in the Star Trek universe). They do have a science-fictiony look because they're all streamlined to some extent, and streamlining was the great motif of early science fiction hardware imagery.

      However, the need for streamlining stems more from the fact that these vehicles will spend most of their operational lives in the atmosphere, either going up or coming down, unlike, say the Lunar Module or the ISS.

      Should we ever get the point where X-Prize type people are developing pure space vehicles, expect to see the sleek science fiction look vanish.

      --
      "Just once, I'd like to meet an alien menace that wasn't immune to bullets." -- The Brigadier, Dr. Who
  48. It looks to me like by 0x00000dcc · · Score: 1

    A cross between a bird and a spider. A Bider? A spird?

    --

    -- (Score:i, Imaginary)

  49. Mirror... by cmorriss · · Score: 2, Funny

    Found a nice mirror.

    --
    10 minutes working on a sig. What a waste.
  50. Capabilities of space craft... by CommieLib · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Between the article and the qualifications of the X-Prize, we can cobble together what the minimum performance levels of this craft are:

    From the XPrize site:

    • able to carry three people to 100 kilometers (62.5 miles)
    • Returns safely to Earth (duh)
    • Repeats the launch with the same ship within 2 weeks
    While the article notes a higher performance level:

    a three-person single-stage fully reusable spaceship up to 112 miles (180 kilometers), giving those onboard some five minutes of microgravity. In addition, two-stage expendable boosters could be lobbed skyward from the aircraft, placing micro-satellite payloads of up to 80 pounds (36 kilograms) into low Earth orbit.

    So we're talking about a total 700 pound payload including crew, capable of traveling to low earth orbit, where many satellites travel. I wonder if you exchanged a crewman and the microsattelite payload, you might have enough fuel to de-orbit with a satellite (though you'd have to have a bay large enough to take it).

    If nothing else, I can see a satellite repair / refueling service come out of this in no time. Seems like the next step is to deploy a ferry to LEO that can truck the payload to GEO and beyond.
    --
    If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
    1. Re:Capabilities of space craft... by kalidasa · · Score: 1

      Actually, doesn't it say it can launch microsatellites into orbit? I'm guessing the micros would have their own booster rockets and would be boosted from a high non-orbital trajectory. In other words, there's nothing there saying this thing can orbit, even without a satellite payload.

    2. Re:Capabilities of space craft... by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      check the section before...with out the pay load it can put 3 people into LEO and give about 5 min of micro gravity.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    3. Re:Capabilities of space craft... by CommieLib · · Score: 1

      Ah...yeah, I think you're right. It would take a parabolic trajectory whose zenith intersected LEO. Sort of kills the satellite maintenance biz idea.

      Maybe you could just strap on a mini-SRB to get it to LEO. I guess the problem at that point would be the de-orbital burn. Anyhow, this could be an interesting system depending on how flexible the system is.

      --
      If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
    4. Re:Capabilities of space craft... by CommieLib · · Score: 1

      Well, the "5 min of micro gravity" implies that you're not in orbit, in which case you have microgravity until you de-orbit.

      Having re-read this article, I'm strongly left with the impression that the craft cannot achieve orbit, at least in the standard configuration.

      --
      If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
    5. Re:Capabilities of space craft... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      repeat after me people: the x-prize is for SUB-orbital flights. rutan's system (e.g. the "spacecraft one") is not intended to go into orbit. just into space (to an altitude of 180 km) in a ballistic trajectory. no satellite recovery or repair. although the carrier vehicle (which btw does not leave the atmosphere) CAN launch microsatellites which do go into orbit.

    6. Re:Capabilities of space craft... by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      I thought that to achieve micr-gravity you either have to fall on a large arc or achive orbit.

      to acheve orbit, for however little time is still acheving orbit...just not a sustainable one.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    7. Re:Capabilities of space craft... by CommieLib · · Score: 1

      Well, it is achievable the altitude of Low Earth Orbit, but it is not achieving the flight profile of an orbit. 6 of one, half dozen of the other...

      You are correct; the 5 minutes of microgravity come from the arc of the trajectory.

      --
      If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
    8. Re:Capabilities of space craft... by Moofie · · Score: 1

      An orbit is just a trajectory that doesn't hit the Earth.

      Well, a better way to say it is, an orbit is /defined as/ a stable trajectory that doesn't strike a large body. So, in other words, a parabolic (sub-orbital) trajectory is, by definition, not an orbit.

      You are in orbit IFF you can maintain it for a long period of time. (Note that low orbits require boosters to maintain. Air resistance and tidal forces cause orbits to decay over medium to long periods of time.)

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    9. Re:Capabilities of space craft... by panserg · · Score: 1
      What is the economical reason to make SUB-orbital flights without any connections to futher ORBITAL programs? Just to show "Hey, mom! Look how high can I fly!", right?

      As for launcing microsatellites, I doubt it's worthy to spend billions for rutan systems just b/c of that.

      --
      "I shall explain this by waving my hands about in an appropriate manner." -- Cambridge University Math Dept.
    10. Re:Capabilities of space craft... by kalidasa · · Score: 1

      My understanding is that you are in orbit (by definition) if you complete a full orbit of the earth before you make the downward plunge.

      I'm not a rocket scientist myself - though surrounded by them on all sides.

    11. Re:Capabilities of space craft... by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Seems like a reasonable enough definition to me. I've slept since my Orbital Mechanics class, so some of the fiddly bits are lost on me.

      Like, you know, definitions of words and stuff. : )

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  51. Notice to new linkees... by demonlapin · · Score: 1

    Welcome to the new, improved /. - where even the editors make jokes about turning your webserver into a pile of slag!

  52. nothing new by lastninja · · Score: 1

    I found a scale model of this in my girlfriend`s drawer years ago, even had a built in scale engine, it will never reach space though, it vibrated too much. My girlfriend claimed it could take a girl to heaven, not far enough to win the X-prize I guess.

    --
    John Carmack fan, browsing at +5 since 1999.
  53. Significant aero prizes by SteveAstro · · Score: 1

    The most significant of these prizes was the Orteig Prize, won by Charles Lindbergh for his 1927 flight from New York to Paris.

    Quoted from the Space.com site.

    Why was this "the most significant" - its not as if he was the first, or the second, but the 67th !

    The first Transatlantic flight was by Alcock and Brown in June 1919- 8 years before Lindbergh got round to it.

    Steve

    1. Re:Significant aero prizes by sprprsnmn · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah, but Lindbergh was the first to fly SOLO, NON-STOP across the Atlantic. That's a pretty significant achievment.

    2. Re:Significant aero prizes by melee · · Score: 1

      Lindbergh flew non-stop by himself across the Atlantic.

      That's a big deal. It meant planes were reliable, powerful, long-range, and easy to handle. Possibly reliable, powerful, long-range, and easy enough to make some real use of (which followed shortly after.)

      Plus it was a media circus. Both which made it more significant.

    3. Re:Significant aero prizes by Tyler+Eaves · · Score: 1

      4 letters: SOLO

      --
      TODO: Something witty here...
    4. Re:Significant aero prizes by cameldrv · · Score: 1

      The point is that it's significant, but would aviation really be any different if no one had ever crossed the atlantic solo? Every passenger flight has multiple pilots, and the vast majority of military flights across oceans have more than one pilot. Getting across in an airplane is a much more significant milestone than doing it with only one person on board.

    5. Re:Significant aero prizes by SteveAstro · · Score: 1

      SOLO, so what ? By then the technology was established as feasible and KNOWN to be reliable enough. Look at what Alcock and Brown did, 8 YEARS before, and think of the engineering progress in the intervening period.

      No, once again a big deal is made of it, because Lindberg was American.

      Steve

  54. Data From Web Site by ChangeOnInstall · · Score: 4, Informative

    The Press Release

    Mojave, California, April 18, 2003:
    Scaled Composites today unveiled the existence of a commercial manned space program. This previously hidden, active research program has been in the works at its facility for two years. This program includes an airborne launcher (the White Knight), a space ship (SpaceShipOne), rocket propulsion, avionics, simulator and ground support elements.
    Master of Ceremonies, Cliff Robertson, introduced Burt Rutan who explained the history and the components of the program. Other dignitaries who attended the event were Dr. Maxim Faget (pioneer configuratioin designer of the early NASA space program from the Mercury through the Apollo programs), Erik Lindbergh (grandson of Charles Lindbergh and President of the Lindbergh Foundation), and Dennis Tito (Soyuz space tourist).
    Further information about the space program and high-resolution photographs are available at the Scaled Composites website: www.scaled.com.

    The FAQ

    Frequently Asked Questions

    VISION
    What does Burt Rutan think of the other X-Prize designs?
    Burt prefers to discuss this only after the X-Prize is won.

    How long has Burt been working on all this?
    The concept dates back to April 1996. Design work and some limited testing was started 3.5 years ago. The full development program began in May 2001.

    What's going to be next in Burt's bag of tricks?
    Scaled has completed 34 manned research aircraft and none were announced until they were ready to fly.

    BUSINESS
    How much does it all cost?
    This is generally not known until the program is complete, but projections place it close to a Soyuz ride.

    How much will it cost to get a ride into space?
    Rides will not be offered in SpaceShipOne. The price of a ride will have to take in consideration the cost of certification and establishing an airliner-like operation. One goal of this research program is to see how low it might be without the burden of regulatory costs. At program completion we will have good data for operational costs and may publish them.

    Is it physically stressful?
    It is expected to be on the order of some modern theme park rides. The highest forces occur during reentry but build up gradually and peak near 6 G's for less than 10 seconds. With the pilot and passengers reclined, these forces should be quite tolerable for anyone in reasonable health.

    Is Burt Rutan going to ride in the vehicle?
    Yes, as soon as the opportunity presents itself.

    WHITE KNIGHT
    Why did the first flight last only 2 minutes?
    The airplane had outboard spoilers on the wings to help improve roll control in the event of gusty cross wind landings. They were pneumatically actuated (using the same tanks, valves and fittings as the RCS system on SpaceShipOne) and returned to recesses in the wings by springs. On the first flight, the low air pressure, at rotation was sufficient to "suck" the spoilers out which killed the lift and caused the return springs to slam them closed. Four of these surfaces chattering out on the wingtips during the climb out produced significant airframe vibrations and the pilot elected to turn downwind and land immediately rather than aggravate the condition any longer than necessary.

    How can you see where you're going?
    The visibility is actually much better than you might imagine. By moving your head slightly you can piece together an acceptable picture of the outside world and maintain adequate "situational awareness". What is more difficult is spotting other airborne traffic. However, between radar advisories from ground controllers and an onboard traffic alert system called "Skywatch," this limitation is minimized.

    Isn't it hard to land with all those wheels?
    No. The pilot doesn't notice that he has two nose wheels up front and with excellent elevator control
    he can hold them off until about 45 knots during the landing roll.

    Why is the cockpit called a "pressure vessel"?
    The cockpit is airtight and

    --
    What has *science* done?!? -- Dr. Weird (ATHF)
    1. Re:Data From Web Site by genka · · Score: 1

      If they just released the information today, how they can already have FAQ? F is for frequently, isn't it?

  55. ugly space plane by budgenator · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Burt's designs have always been a bit bizare looking especial when viewed on the ground. Remember that he designs flying amchine and they fly like a dream. This guy builds machines with little regard for what's conventional, and great regard for what's functional

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  56. It's a by pkunzipper · · Score: 1

    It's a plane! It's a bird! It's a flying vibrator!

    1. Re:It's a by Avakado · · Score: 1

      It's a plane! It's a bird! It's a flying vibrator!

      Why were those people always so amazed to see a plane or a bird?

      --
      The world will end in 5 minutes. Please log out.
    2. Re:It's a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Person 1: It's a bird! It's a plane... no wait, it's a bird.
      Person 2: It's a bird? Wow! Hey everybody, come look, it's a BIRD!
      More people stop and watch the sky.
      Person 3: A bird? Where?
      Person 2: Up there! Look! *points*
      Person 3: Wow, a bird! That's great!
      Person 1: Isn't it amazing?
      Person 2: Yeah, an actual bird! And me without my camera!

    3. Re:It's a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They were amazed at it being a bird, because it was so big. They were amazed at it being ap lane, because it was so small.

      The part that is left out comes before the "It's a bird" part. The actual scene probably goes something like:

      "What the fuck is that?"
      "Huh?"
      *points* "Up there. What is that?"
      "Oh, it's ... hmm. I don't know."
      "Is that a .. a .."
      "Is it a bird?"
      "Naw, it's too big and fast to be a bird."
      "Well, then, what is it?"
      "Hell if I know. A plane, maybe?"
      "It's a bird!"
      "It's a plane!"
      "Holy fucking shit! It's Superman!"

  57. World's most BORING spaceship name! by payndz · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Come on, /.ers! While we're waiting for Rutan's (yes, I instantly saw the Doctor Who connection too) server to stop trembling in fear, let's spend the time coming up with some more interesting names to pitch to him.

    I mean, 'SpaceShip One'? Guy, intercaps are *so* dotcom-era...

    --
    You must think in Russian.
    1. Re:World's most BORING spaceship name! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      how about firebird?

    2. Re:World's most BORING spaceship name! by Thud457 · · Score: 1

      Hey, since it's built by a lone guy out in the desert, just be glad it's not called "Salvage One"! (No slight intended to Mr. Rutan)

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  58. What are the limitations of conventional aircraft? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I haven't got clue one about aerospace engineering so I'm hoping someone else could toss out a quick summary of what the limitations are that keep conventional air craft from reaching the kinds of altitudes that the White Knight craft is capable of (>65,000 ft)?

    Is it an engine issue? That the engines on your typical 747 won't get enough oxygen at the higher altitudes? Or is there a problem with pressure (or lack thereof) at that (65,000ft) altitude.

    It would seem cheaper to buy an existing plane and retro-fit it with new engines than to have to start from scratch on a new design. Now I'm not suggesting you take a Cesna and strap a Big Ass Engine(tm) to it and hit the switch. But take something along the lines of a U-2, which is already capable of very high altitudes, and strap SpaceShipOne to it.

  59. Burt Rutan vs. John Carmack? by Agar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While I realize that a paint job can cover many ills, it does appear that Rutan is significantly farther along in constructing his X-Prize vehicle than Carmack.

    Comparing pictures, you see:
    Armadillo Aerospace Launch Vehicle
    vs.
    Scaled Composites aircraft and drop ship

    Perhaps one of the issues is that Armadillo publishes their status (and myriad problems) openly (see the latest update for example). No one knows what issues Scaled Composites has had as they worked in secret, but it's easy to feel like Rutan's running a professional company while Carmack is leading a group of (brilliant, talented) hobbyists.

    I'd be interested in hearing Armadillo/Carmack's perspective on the competitive landscape, now that this new player has made an announcement.

    1. Re:Burt Rutan vs. John Carmack? by TheSync · · Score: 1

      Armadillo has been held back significantly by limited access to hydrogen peroxide. I wonder if they've looked into "hyrbid" NO2/rubber rockets, and compared the difficulty versus power/weight of each.

    2. Re:Burt Rutan vs. John Carmack? by John+Carmack · · Score: 5, Informative

      We have obviously been eagerly waiting for this unveiling. Nobody has denied that Rutan is the odds-on favorite for the X-Prize, but I take a positive thing away from this unveiling -- I have always contended that being an "airplane guy" is going to hurt Rutan in the X-Prize, and this is definitely a "winged thing". I would have been more concerned if it was just a purely ballistic capsule being air launched. I have little doubt that they will fairly rapidly have successful zoom climbs to somewhat above 100,000', but it is far from the simplest design to go to 350,000'. It is certainly true that complex designs can be made to work with enough talent, experience, testing, and money, which Rutan has all of, but there is plenty of room for things to screw up.

      I don't expect that they will make any flights to 100km this year, but I can certainly be proven wrong...

      I am quite happy with our current design, and we are committed to following through irrespective of what Rutan does. Even if he makes it, we have a different ecological niche in terms of vehicle capabilities -- our entire launch infrastructure can be towed by a light truck, and launched from anywhere. If he does win the X-Prize before us, we will ditch the monopropellant propulsion system and move to something more cost effective (at the expense of more development time) for the long term. We may be forced to do that anyway, if our peroxide situation doesn't resolve itself.

      John Carmack

    3. Re:Burt Rutan vs. John Carmack? by SuperDuG · · Score: 1
      Hey! Quit posting to Slashdot and release Doom III already.


      *smile*


      Does EVERYONE read slashdot instead of working?

      --
      Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
    4. Re:Burt Rutan vs. John Carmack? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      It seems to me that Mr. Rutan is trying to design a multi-trick pony, though.

      The design you guys are using is certainly far simpler, but it seems to me like the carrier aircraft is going to allow for a bunch of different mission profiles that perhaps your capsule won't be able to perform

      I certainly wouldn't argue that one system is better than the other, just that they're designed to scratch different itches. From where I sit, it looks like you all at Armadillo are (at this point in your design evolution) aiming directly for X-Prize, while Rutan is designing something that will be more commercially viable outside the requirements for the prize.

      I love Rutan's designs, but I sure would like to see you guys beat him to 60kft. : )

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    5. Re:Burt Rutan vs. John Carmack? by Agar · · Score: 1
      According to their latest update, they just ran out of peroxide during the latest testing. While peroxide limits have certainly held them back somewhat, it doesn't sound like "significantly" is completely accurate. They have continued to make engineering strides (and bug fixes) while conserving fuel.

      With respect to hybrid rockets, they have looked into them. At the end of the April 12 update, they state,
      We are probably going to be at least two months without 90% peroxide. In that time, we will continue fabrication work on the full size vehicle, and we are going to do more tests with alternate propellant engines. Changing to a bipropellant will complicate our task quite a bit, but if we do work through it, it gives us more performance headroom and drastically cuts down the cost of flights. (Look at the silver lining, damnit...)
      Needless to say, you can also reference John's earlier reply in this thread, above.
    6. Re:Burt Rutan vs. John Carmack? by Agar · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the response, and for answering a question I didn't ask: How Armadillo's plans change if someone else claims the X-Prize first.

      It's good to know that you'll continue the work, whether because it's an interesting hard problem, or because you believe in the importance of accessible, inexpensive space flight. Both are certainly compelling reasons.

    7. Re:Burt Rutan vs. John Carmack? by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 2, Informative

      We may be forced to do that anyway, if our peroxide situation doesn't resolve itself.

      Have you looked into this guy? It looks like he has Peroxide concentrators ready to go. I think you bought one of his engines, didn't you?

      It might not be a high volume, long-term solution, but it might at least get you flying again.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    8. Re:Burt Rutan vs. John Carmack? by BenJeremy · · Score: 1

      Wow. Carmack's ship looks like "Salvage One"

      Is Andy Griffith piloting?

      "This is Matlock; Junkyard, we've got a problem"

    9. Re:Burt Rutan vs. John Carmack? by Muhammar · · Score: 1

      Question to John Carmack:

      What is the big deal about 90% peroxide? People have been distilling it from comercial 50% or 30% stuff using a one-step, simple vacuum low-temp distillation. There are hazards with oxygen -fuelled fires and the system has to be super-clean to avoid catalytic decomposition. But nothing that unusual in industry.

      Transport may be heavily regulated, so it is better to have the "peroxide distillery" close to the launching pad. I would not like to operate a large-scale peroxide still on my back-yard, but why is it so hard to get a lot of this material? Seems like much lesser problem than building the rocket.

      --
      I doubt that we will ever figure out - and I suspect that even if we did figure out we couldn't do much about it
    10. Re:Burt Rutan vs. John Carmack? by sean23007 · · Score: 1

      John -- I don't know if you are willing to disclose this information (and I don't want to try to pry secret data out of you), but how much is yours going to cost and how are you funding it? Just curious.

      --

      Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
    11. Re:Burt Rutan vs. John Carmack? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Secret? He only says it about every other week. You could just read the man's web site (www.armadilloaerospace.com).

      Basically it's self-funded from himself, and he expects to spend about $1M for the X-prize vehicle. The total parts replacement cost of the vehicle is about $100K (just parts, not labor).

  60. This thing really burns rubber... by Kevin+Burtch · · Score: 2, Funny


    no... really! (read the article)
    Wierdest fuel I've ever heard of!

    --
    - Preferences: Solaris 10 (servers), Ubuntu (desktops), Solaris 11 (personal servers) -
    1. Re:This thing really burns rubber... by orac2 · · Score: 1

      I have a pancake of the stuff sitting in my cube that I got from SpaceDev at the 2002 World Space Congress -- it has their biz-card embedded in it! (They were showing off a pretty cool hybrid engine design). I'm sure if you wrote to their PR department they'd send you some.

      --
      "Just once, I'd like to meet an alien menace that wasn't immune to bullets." -- The Brigadier, Dr. Who
  61. Just like Firestar by Michael F. Flynn by Opiuman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The Firestar saga is about a billinaire industrialist who starts her own space program. However, her main motive is fear of killer astroids, not scientific curiosity.

    1. Re:Just like Firestar by Michael F. Flynn by johnburton · · Score: 1

      Yes, just started reading that book. (which I recommend if anyone wants a book to read) I've got about half way through and then I see this and it takes a minute for my mind to separate it from the book I'm reading and realise it was real...

      --
      Sig is taking a break!
  62. Not exactly a surprise... by jlockard · · Score: 1
    This was reported on space.com back in 02-July-2002.

    Space.com article


    The EZ-Rocket, a modified Long EZ plane piloted by retired Lt. Col. Dick Rutan, flew two flights in one day earlier this month. Rutan's brother Burt Rutan, of Scaled Composites, designed the Long EZ plane and is also developing a separate reusable vehicle as part of the $10 million X-Prize competition to put three people in space and return them safely.

    --
    --JLockard - "Some mornings, it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps." - Emo Phillips
  63. I still like XCOR's design... by Analog+Squirrel · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I know that their design is a long way off, but they have been spending lots of time on a their motor designs. They've even been testing them on a Rutan designed Long EZ(modified, of course). Does anyone know if XCOR is officially an X-prize team? They're not on the list...

    --
    I'd rather be flying
    1. Re:I still like XCOR's design... by Lil'wombat · · Score: 1

      According to a recent article in Wired Magazine, XCOR is not in the X-Priz competetion as their research vehicle is only designed to carry one not three as required by the X-Prize rules

      --

      Truth: If it's not one thing, it's another

  64. Rutan history by nuntius · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Burt Rutan designed an airplane for Beech Aircraft (now Raytheon) a few years back - the Starship.

    It too looked futuristic, like nothing else.
    It was a disaster. Overpriced, noisy, slow, fuel hog...
    Only like 60 were ever built, half of them never sold, and most of the rest were quickly returned. If you walk around the plant airport, you can find them hidden in clusters of 3 (so it doesn't look as bad as a boneyard of 50 ;).

    Burt made off with a small fortune before the failure became apparent.

    Rutan's brother was involved in several failed balloon-around-the-world attempts.

    Considering their past "successes", I expect this project to be "pretty" but totally unsuccessful. Good looks don't outweigh good physics.

    1. Re:Rutan history by covertlaw · · Score: 1
      Yeah, well, how many planes have you built are in the Smithsonian because they flew non-stop, around the world, without refueling?

      If the X-Prize was an office pool, my money would be on Rutan.

    2. Re:Rutan history by pVoid · · Score: 1
      You are a typical underachiever.

      so what if his previous attempts were near frodulent... at least he's trying. I'm sure your twin was there when the Wright brothers were building their first paper airplanes... saying how un-gentelmanly it was to run around fields trying to accomplish what prestigious scientists of the Queen's court had deemed impossible.

    3. Re:Rutan history by Moofie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hold on there, skippy.

      Overpriced comes from poor cost control, not poor design.

      Noisy slow fuel hog comes from poor engine design and selection.

      The Starship was a great design that turned into a mediocre aircraft. Burt Rutan has a long history of brilliant, successful aircraft designs.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    4. Re:Rutan history by nuntius · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Disclaimer: I'm an electrical engineer, not an aero engineer.

      However, living in Wichita at the time, I knew several of the aero engineers who were working on the project. Without exception, they said the plane was horribly flawed - before it was even finished.

      Sure, the engines may have been part of the problem, but they were a small part. The main problem was the whole design. Putting the engines _behind_ the plane on the wings where they did subjected the props to large amounts of turbulence. The engineers had to redesign the fuselage and wings to work around this problem, but it was still less efficient than a "traditional" design.

      Also, the engines were on each side of the cabin - where the "big whigs" sit. Engines are noisy, so they had to put large amounts of sound-deadening material in the cabin... which adds weight... which drags the plane down... which again makes it less efficient.

      As for overpriced, the Starship was the first big commercial plane to have the fuselage made out of one big piece of composite material - as Burt specified. Developing this technology and constructing a massive kiln caused several of the major expenses in the project. This expense was due to the design, not poor cost control.

      I'll just sum it up again, the aero engineers hated the plane when they first saw it. The only people who believed in it were managers and other big shots who didn't have experience in the industry.

    5. Re:Rutan history by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Disclaimer noted. I'm far from an expert, but I do know a thing or two about airplanes. : )

      I can think of several aircraft that have used pusher propellers. I can't imagine how that would be a fatal flaw.

      The engines are on the sides of the cabin on just about every light jet on Earth...and a lot of twin-engine turboprops. The fact that the props are far aft should actually decrease noise.

      All-composite construction 10 years ago was really expensive. However, today, Beech (now Raytheon Aircraft) is using it on a couple of their jets. The expertise (and cost savings) of this technique were developed using the Starship, so it's unreasonable to fault the Starship alone for this "flaw". It was real Buck Rogers stuff...and now it's really cost effective.

      I'd say that any aero engineer that hated the plane on first blush were either way pessimistic or didn't have any soul. The airplane was a work of art. It obviously had some serious technical hurdles to vault to get into production, but it is neither the first nor the last great design to have that problem.

      Looks right, flies right. If it works for Kelly Johnson, it's good enough for me.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    6. Re:Rutan history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's exactly what I say about Microsoft. :)
      Windows rocks my world!

    7. Re:Rutan history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a typical ad-hominem writer.

    8. Re:Rutan history by trollabyte · · Score: 1

      Rutan make successful experimental planes, NOT successful commercial or production aircraft (and I don't count kit planes as either of those). When you limit yourself to experimental craft, some things get a lot easier.

    9. Re:Rutan history by Vellmont · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't know anything about aerospace, but I have to wonder why you think this plane was such a great design? The designer looks like he makes pretty designs, but is that the only redeeming quality?

      Frank Lloyd Wright made pretty buildings, but he was also famous for making things that weren't functional, and sometimes were just broken. His house on the waterfall is a classic example. The damn thing is falling over now because he valued pretty over solid design. (IIRC the engineer who built it told him the design would fail, and now many years later they have to spend millions to try to retrofit the house so it doesn't collapse).

      I get the feeling this guy is the same way. So here's your chance to defend him. Is it all about the thing being pretty, or is it just an all around great design?

      --
      AccountKiller
    10. Re:Rutan history by PD · · Score: 1

      But don't forget the climate at the time. Fuel costs were very very high, and many people were looking to provide fast transport without using turbojets.

      If you recall the concepts of the time, you will remember planes that looked like DC-9's, except they had large propellors with about 50 curved blades rather than the usual 2,3, or 4 blades. This was what Beech wanted to build.

      Basically everyone else held off on actually building that sort of plane, and in a few years we had something functionally equivalent: high-bypass turbofan engines.

      So, don't blame it on Burt - he built a plane that embodied everyone's best ideas at the time about how to build a fast non-jet transport. The fact that it wasn't successful is at least partly because technology eclipsed it much faster than expected.

    11. Re:Rutan history by Moofie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Canard aircraft are, in principle, more efficient than conventional aircraft.

      In a conventional layout, the horizontal tail generates lift in the downward direction, to balance the center of gravity, which for stability reasons is located ahead of the lift vector of the main wing. Therefore, the main wing must generate enough lift to carry the aircraft, and enough lift to offset the downward force from the tail. This extra lift also creates extra induced drag. (Any time you create lift, you also create drag. No getting around it.)

      Since the canard locates lifting surfaces at either end of the airplane, with the CG in the middle, both surfaces can generate lift in the upward direction. Less lift overall is required.

      Properly designed canard aircraft are also extremely resistant to stalling. Since the canard is typically shorter in chord than the main wing, it will stall first and bring the nose of the airplane down.

      Rutan has built two aircraft that have been resounding public successes (the Vari-EX homebuilt and its derivatives and the Voyager), and numerous military prototypes. Just for fun, he designed his personal aircraft (the Boomerang) to be completely asymmetrical.

      The thing that I love about aero. engineering is that aircraft that are properly designed also, by virtue of the laws of nature that drive their shape, have an aesthetic sensibility to them. So, in that sense, it IS about the thing being pretty. Obviously, there's more to it than that, but there is a fundamental aesthetic to good aerodynamic design.

      Rutan also has a history of extreme lateral thinking when solving aerodynamic problems. Unlike most designers, he throws the history book out the window when he builds a new airplane, and he often comes up with insightful and clever new layouts in the process.

      The Pond Racer was another favorite of mine, but its engines were problematic. Unfortunately, it crashed in 1993, killing its pilot. Air racing is dangerous.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    12. Re:Rutan history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Quite possible. Although I'm not asserting Rutan is going to succeed. I'm just saying that the parent poster's argument is quite... lazy.

      -pVoid

    13. Re:Rutan history by rwise2112 · · Score: 1

      From what I heard, the main problem with the Starship was the composite materials used. They turned out to be much heavier and expensive than predicted. Perhaps it was slightly ahead of its time.

      --

      "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
  65. Re:TODAY IS GOOD FRIDAY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nah - my wife will go for me and I will stay home, get drunk, watch pr0n and eat sandwiches.

  66. Poor name.... by Kevin+Burtch · · Score: 1


    Sounds too much like Salvage One... and images of flying cement-mixers spring to mind.

    --
    - Preferences: Solaris 10 (servers), Ubuntu (desktops), Solaris 11 (personal servers) -
  67. SpaceShipOne by glwtta · · Score: 1

    You just know that during the first test flight it's going to get sucked into a wormhole and end up on a ship, a living ship, full of strange alien creatures.

    --
    sic transit gloria mundi
    1. Re:SpaceShipOne by Mark+Hood · · Score: 1

      Cool, I'll go!

      Maybe I can find out what happens in series 5 :)

      --
      Liked this comment? Why not buy me something nice
  68. But I wonder by EdMack · · Score: 1

    Is it compatable with RealPlayerOne? Or Sun One?

    Anyway, I'm getting mine on Sunday,

    --
    puts ("Python r0cks\n");
  69. anyone else notice this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ... this image appears to have been fiddled with. Look at the red engine exhaust nozzle. Clearly been image-manip'ed.

  70. Looking for pictures? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    space.com has a story about it with a few pretty good pictures.

    http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technolo gy /rutan_scaled_0304187.html

  71. Return Ticket by IPFreely · · Score: 2, Funny
    I read a Sci-Fi story a few decades ago (don't remember the name) along those lines.

    A more advanced race was visiting a planet with a primitive culture, slightly pre-industrial age. They had rules of involvement based on the advancement of the culture they were contacting. One of the thresholds of the involvement levels was space travel capability.

    So the locals tossed a man into what was the equivelant of a diving bell, set it on a powder keg and blew it into space. They then went to the representative of the more advanced race and said:
    "We have space travel capabilities now. You can deal with us as spacefarers. Oh and by the way, could you please rescue our astronaut before he burns up on reentry?"

    I hope these guys have a return plan. I don't think they're gonna get rescued.

    --
    There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
    1. Re:Return Ticket by Lil'wombat · · Score: 1

      Jerry Pournelle's King David's Spaceship
      Set in the same universe as the Niven/Pournelle books Mote in God's Eye and The gripping hand and Jerry's other stand alone works involving Falkenbergs Leagions and Prince of Mercenaries

      --

      Truth: If it's not one thing, it's another

    2. Re:Return Ticket by RetroGeek · · Score: 2, Informative

      I read a Sci-Fi story a few decades ago (don't remember the name) along those lines.

      King David's Spaceship (Jerry Pournelle)

      --

      - - - - - - - - - - -
      I am a programmer. I am paid to produce syntax not grammar. Deal with it.
    3. Re:Return Ticket by orac2 · · Score: 1

      I know a lot of people have suggested Pournelle's King David's Spaceship, but was the one you were thinking of have a whole thing with an alien race living on the other side of a near impassable mountaing range?

      'Cos that's what I'm thinking of and it's driving me nuts I can't remember the title. I'd love to compare the publications date with King David's Spaceship.

      --
      "Just once, I'd like to meet an alien menace that wasn't immune to bullets." -- The Brigadier, Dr. Who
    4. Re:Return Ticket by TKinias · · Score: 1

      scripsit IPFreely:

      "We have space travel capabilities now. You can deal with us as spacefarers. Oh and by the way, could you please rescue our astronaut before he burns up on reentry?"

      As others have mentioned, it was King David's Spaceship, by Niven and Pournelle.

      More importantly, my inner geek wants to point out that it was ``before she burns up on reentry''...

      --
      In principio creauit Linus Linucem.
    5. Re:Return Ticket by Idarubicin · · Score: 1
      This isn't the story you're looking for, but rather a predecessor--Jules Verne, From the Earth to the Moon.

      Explorers seek to visit the moon by travelling in a large hollow cannonball, launched on their way by some tons of guncotton.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    6. Re:Return Ticket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a halfway decent book, but Messr. Verne had a lot to learn about physics. still, he did manage to work in a nifty twist or two, it's just that modern readers have to suspend a lot more disbelief than the book's original audience did.

    7. Re:Return Ticket by IPFreely · · Score: 1
      Similar indeed.

      I liked H. G. Well's First Men In The Moon better. Anti-Gravity, Calvorite (sp?), moon ants.

      --
      There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
  72. MOD UP PARENT, FUNNY! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    great job

  73. You cant keep good engineers down by FWMiller · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Note that Max Faget is involved in this endeavor. He is widely recognized as being responsible for the basic configuration of the Space Shuttle when he was with NASA. I met him once years ago when I was working on the Space Station. He was involved in the then termed Assured Crew Return Vehicle (ACRV), the lifeboat, I don't know what they are calling it now. You could really sense the frustration in him in the system and how he really wanted to have another oppurtunity to build something. Looks like he found another chance!

    --
    Frank W. Miller
    1. Re:You cant keep good engineers down by Obiwan+Kenobi · · Score: 4, Funny

      Note that Max Faget is involved in this endeavor.

      Never in a thousand years could I imagine a worse name to grow up with. His school years must make prison look like playschool.

    2. Re:You cant keep good engineers down by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 1

      Well, according to the press release Max Faget was invited to the unveiling as a dignatory, as was Dennis Tito, but they didn't say anything about either being involved in the project.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    3. Re:You cant keep good engineers down by orac2 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, you have to be a little careful regarding Faget and the shuttle, given that his short winged 'DC-3' design was on the losing side of the compromise with the Air Force regarding the shuttle's cross range capability. Additionally, the DC-3 looked like it would have suffered from severe heating and aerodynamic instability problems on re-entry. Unlike the Mercury/Apollo era, where Faget's word was the only word, industry pushed back with their own spacecraft designs for the shuttle program and largely won -- the idea for a planform orbiter and a drop tank came from outside his team.

      However, to be fair, after the DC-3 battle, Faget's team did have the crucial insight that the external tank could serve a structural function as the backbone of the shuttle stack, instead of just hanging off it, and their MSC-040 orbiter design was the baseline for the production orbiters.

      --
      "Just once, I'd like to meet an alien menace that wasn't immune to bullets." -- The Brigadier, Dr. Who
    4. Re:You cant keep good engineers down by orac2 · · Score: 1

      Well, the fact that it's pronounced "Fa-jay" not "faggot" might have helped a little.

      --
      "Just once, I'd like to meet an alien menace that wasn't immune to bullets." -- The Brigadier, Dr. Who
    5. Re:You cant keep good engineers down by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Note that Max Faget is involved in this endeavor.

      Faget attentded the roll-out, but nowhere does it state that he is involved with the program.

      He is widely recognized as being responsible for the basic configuration of the Space Shuttle when he was with NASA.

      Which makes for a nice story... But there are no facts to support it. The configuration of the Shuttle flows directly from the requirements laid on it. Faget's design for the shuttle is very different in fact from what is flying.

  74. huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fill me in please

  75. Kirk DID Say "Beam them out of there, Scotty!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know because I was in the studio with William Shatner when he recorded that and a few other voice-only add-ins for the Generations Movie.

    Shatner starts LOUD and then softens it up for the Director (who was on speakerphone listening) to choose from.

    So he SHOUTS "Beam them outta there, Scotty!"
    which lowers into a "Beam them outta there, Scotty" almost whisper.

  76. If We Take Up A /. Collection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



    Can we donate CowboyNeal to the rest of the universe as an example of humanity perfected? If he went, would he even want to come back? Ah to dream...

  77. Now that the Rutans have space supremacy by BluedemonX · · Score: 2, Funny

    the Sontaran empire is trying to catch up.....

    --

    --- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
  78. You insensitive clod! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My father speaks with a lisp!

  79. Rocket nozzle is faked. by Dr.+Zowie · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The scaled.com website has several high-resolution photos of the SpaceShipOne and the launch vehicle. They all look pretty real, except that the red rocket nozzle is pretty clearly pasted on in photoshop.

    The 3/4 front view that's posted in the article appears to have a real "not-for-flight" mockup nozzle, but the shape and color are different than the rear-view photos. The rocket nozzles in the rear-view shots have clear cut-and-paste artifacts around them.

    It's arguably OK to have a mockup nozzle -- it's a longstanding convention that red "not-for-flight" mockup parts get put on during construction and design, and there's no reason to have the real rocket motor on the device for an aerodynamic flight test. But photoshopping a more realistic nozzle is not OK.

    Burt, burt, burt -- don't blow it like that!

    1. Re:Rocket nozzle is faked. by robi2106 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I was pretty impressed with their info and site until you pointed this out and I took a look. My experience in graphics programs stops at PaintShop Pro and using it to change resolutions/image types/sizes, etc. But I could tell that the several pixles surrounding the nozle were obviously artifacts of image insertion.

      I am disappointed that any agency seeking credibility would do that. But time will tell the merits of their work.

      robi

    2. Re:Rocket nozzle is faked. by smartalix · · Score: 4, Informative

      The site plainly states that the rocket engine has not yet been selected. That means that there is no nozzle yet on the craft. Obviously, to prevent morons from pointing and saying "it has no engine!" even though it has already been explained that there isn't one yet, a nozzle was added in the photos for cosmetic purposes.

      --
      Read a preview of my novel CYBERCHILD at www.smartalix.com/cyberchild
    3. Re:Rocket nozzle is faked. by Dr.+Zowie · · Score: 1

      Yah. My objection is that those are alleged documentary photos -- all the objects in them should physically exist, even if they're "not-for-flight" mockup nozzles. The pair-of-ducks picture clearly has such a "not-for-flight" nozzle on board.

    4. Re:Rocket nozzle is faked. by Moofie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wouldn't surprise me if they were photoshopping on a LESS realistic nozzle to disguise their design.

      Just a thought.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    5. Re:Rocket nozzle is faked. by RedWizzard · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Take a look at this picture and note the position of the shadow on the rocket nozzle and the shadow of the launch vehicle cockpit of the landing gear on the right. Now compare to the picture at the bottom of this page. Note that the shadow of the cockpit is identical to the first picture, as are other shadows cast by the vehicle. But in that picture the nozzle is completely in shadow. One of the pictures must be altered.

      In fact the first picture seems to be an altered version of the second picture. What's different:

      • The rocket nozzle.
      • In the first pic SpaceShipOne is mated to the launcher, in the second pic SpaceShipOne is resting on it's own landing gear.
      • In the second pic the launcher does not have it's jet engines installed (in fact those jet engines are not installed in any of the ground based pictures I've seen except the first pic).
      What's the same:
      • The shadows are in exactly the same positions (so the pictures where taken at the same time of day, to within a few minutes).
      • The cracks in the ground are exactly the same so the vehicles have been places in the same position, despite major work having been performed (the jet engines, the mating superstructure).
      • The backgrounds are identical, right down to another vehicle on the tarmac obscured in exactly the same way by the landing gear on the right. All the other planes in the background are also in the same locations.
      IMO, the picture of the mated vehicles has been faked from the picture of the separate vehicles. SpaceShipOne's landing gear has been removed (suspiciously leaving no hatch for it to emerge from), the mating superstructure has been added, and the launcher's jet engines have been added. I can only imagine this has been done to make it appear that they are further advanced than they actually are.
    6. Re:Rocket nozzle is faked. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's with the blue tinge around WK1 in this pic?

  80. hurrah for Burt! by swordgeek · · Score: 1

    Man, this is great news. For years I've been waiting to see some Rutan effort in space exploration.

    Bottom line: If anyone can do it, Burt can. Not only is he a true visionary in aviation, but he has a habit of surrounding himself with like-minded and equally brilliant people. (Max Faget, for one).

    Just take a look at his success record. There are a lot of cool ideas realised.

    --

    "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
  81. More interesting space stuff by fname · · Score: 1
    This looks really good. There are a lot of intersting developments in space lately. My take on all of this (with redundant links):

    Well, sounds like someone might actually build a spacecraft. Scaled Composites has designed a sub-orbital spacecraft launched from the belly of the plane. It is in testing now. They're trying to win the $10 million X-prize, by builing a re-usable spacecraft that can send three people to space (100km) and return them safely. Looks like a neat design, and these guys are for real. Passengers would have a 5-minute micro-gravity environment during the flight. Sounds really cool. Space.com has an excellent write-up.

    In other news, the Columbia investigation continues, and Space Daily has a real good (but long) write-up.

    But NASA soldiers on. They have 2 Mars missions scheduled for this summer, plus the launch of SIRTF (infra-red telescope), which was recently delayed. Check out Spaceflight Now for details, and the best space coverage, in general.

    Oh hell, almost missed this one. Apparently, the founder of PayPal is trying to get into the "microsatellite" launch business, although 1000 pounds is a bit bigger than micro. The company, SpaceX, is based in El Segundo. But, I think these guys are biting off more than they can chew, essentially trying to compete with Boeing, Lockheed, and everyone else. I think Scaled Composites is for real, though; they might pull it off.

  82. Nice design, and functional by koehn · · Score: 1

    When I was a kid, I helped my next-door neighbor build one of Rutan's planes (a Vari-Eze: two passengers, canard, and engine in the back). The designs may look wierd, but they sure are functional: the Vari-Eze had a 180 knot cruising speed, and this was plane we built in the garage!

    I've met both Burt and Dick Rutan, and they're some smart, smart people who love avionics in a way you just don't see very often. I hope they can get the X-Prize!

    1. Re:Nice design, and functional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Avionics are aerospace electronics (NAV/COM/IRF stuff). I think they are into more than just electronics.

  83. Don't bogart the nitrous! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wasting all that n20 just to get into orbit... A few cubic feet should be enough to blast anyone into hyperspace.

  84. who knew? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who knew the private space program was taking its cues from Neon Genesis: Evangelion?

  85. Things that make you go hmmm.. by TheHawke · · Score: 1

    And one of those is when Scaled Composites gets awfully quiet in the public eye, you KNOW that they are up to no good...

    When I heard that Dick Rutan took up that modded
    Long-EZ packin' a rocket engine, I knew that they were gunning after the X-Prize..

    I like the Rutans for they think outside the box.

    This design is VERY unconventional, but is very Rutan and we know that his designs (The EZ series, the globe-trotting VOYAGER, Their tank-busting gunship with the offset engine, need i go on?) are very solid and well-designed for their purpose..

    And they get the job done.

    --
    First rule of holes; When in one, stop digging.
    1. Re:Things that make you go hmmm.. by CDS · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In typical Rutan style (and the Rutans DEFINATELY have a style all their own) this bird doesn't look like it should even EXIST outside an Anime cartoon, much less FLY -- and only Burt Rutan could come up with a working prototype powered by LAUGHING GAS AND OLD TIRES!

      And in typical Rutan fashion, it'll probably work perfectly the first flight, and cost less than 1/10th what NASA could do it for :) By the way, Burt pronounces NASA as "Nay-Say". Kinda tells ya something...

      Interesting story:
      I attended a lecture Burt gave last year (at Oshkosh Airventure 2002) and he was talking about the Proteus. They were involved in an air quality experiment. There were several layers of airplanes in a vertical stack -- the Proteus was assigned the 65,000ft layer, and a NASA U2 was given the 68,000ft assignment. The U2 (which was only flying 3000ft above the Proteus) had a full maintenance crew of 40. The Proteus came with a crew of 2! Rutan stated that they spent most of their day on the ground, playing cards and waiting for the U2 crew to finish maintenance....

    2. Re:Things that make you go hmmm.. by TheHawke · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You gotta consider that the U2/TR1 is a old bird and requires alot of TLC to get it up that high.

      As I recall when the U2 was on the boards, they had to practially reinvent the wheel just to keep it from bursting at their mission altitude.
      Rutan simply capitalized on the work that Lockheed's Skunk Works team did and took it a step higher and further, with fewer nuts to take care of the bird..

      Of course, you gotta remember, the U2 IS a government aircraft so there is some beraucracy behind it..

      If it was still Lockheed's bird they would have had 10 men, doing each others work and knowing dammed full well what was happening at each moment in the preflight process. Not to mention one or two of their engineers working alongside them.

      The U2 is a very specialized aircraft, with alot of components that you would not see on a regular bird these days.

      --
      First rule of holes; When in one, stop digging.
  86. relative to what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lets say I have some method to hover at any altitude (MSL) that does not use aerodynamic flight and I have a propulsion system that also does not rely on any air or other outside matter. OK, now... can I use that propulsion system to push me up, or gain altitude, at a rate of 1 mph and with ONLY that propulsion then achieve orbit? Also, at what point does the air get thin enough so that my horizontal velocity (relative to the perpendicular plane of ground below me) does not equal the rotation of the Earth (assuming I'm not at a pole)? Would I technically exhibit the orbital behavior since I am not "falling" due to my handy hover device?

    1. Re:relative to what? by trollabyte · · Score: 1

      You're not orbiting, you're hovering. However, as you increase altitude, you would start to have motion relative to the ground because you have to conserve angular momentum (assuming your propulsion system only acts up and down). Eventually, you would escape earth's gravity since at some very high altitude, escape velocity is 1 mph. At that point your speed relative to the earth's surface would be very close to the planet' rotational speed (ignoring many other factors), again conservation of angular momentum stuff.

  87. FYI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    His name is Yossarian.

  88. Re:A rutan? Dr Who was real! [worst episode ever] by DJTodd242 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Actually, it wasn't "herpes" ... He was in a pub and was playing with a crew members dog. Apparently this dog went nuts when he heard the sound when you pop your mouth (think pop goes the weasel) and the dog jumped up and bit him on the lip.

    This was covered for at the beginning of The Ribos Operation by showing a shot of him banging his face on the TARDIS console by accident.

    I was I could get a job spouting useless Dr. Who information...

  89. How about borrowing from German ideas? by MtViewGuy · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually, Rutan's concept with SpaceShipOne uses a lot of the technology pioneered first in the UK but perfected in Germany for one large airplane carrying only a slightly smaller plane and launching the smaller airplane once the larger plane needs to return to base. (Note: this idea is much more complicated than a large bomber dropping a small plane like what the US did with its X-plane launches from modified B-29's and B-52's.)

    Late in World War II, the Junkers company built a number of specially-modified Ju 88 bombers that had a large explosive warhead fitted in place of the four-man cockpit. Junkers fitted special brace mounts on top of this modified Ju 88 so accommodated a small fighter like an Me 109G or Fw 190A series fighter airplane. The whole composite flying unit (called Mistel) was guided by the pilot in the fighter until near the final dive into the target, where the fighter separated from the Ju 88 to escape while the bomber flew straight into the target. Mistel was used late in World War II, though its success was marginal at best.

    Very late in World War II, engineers at Daimler-Benz took the idea of Mistel to the next level with their A composite flying machine project proposal. It was essentially a large jet-powered airplane with relatively tall fixed undercarriage that had a smaller jet powered bomber slung underneath. This allowed the smaller bomber to fly much further than possible, since the smaller bomber didn't need to consume fuel on the way to the target.

    Essentially, the Rutan SpaceShipOne unveiled today uses the same technological ideas pioneered on the Daimler-Benz A project, but with modern aerospace materials and engines the whole composite flying unit is vastly lighter than the German project.

    Just FYI. =)

    1. Re:How about borrowing from German ideas? by K. · · Score: 2, Informative

      There were also a couple of US parasite fighters slung off bombers and airships in the 30s. And there were a few Russian air-launch spacecraft projects, though I can't remember any names at the moment.

      --
      -- Proud descendant of semi-nomadic cattle-herders.
    2. Re:How about borrowing from German ideas? by Maserati · · Score: 1

      Two links to the forthcoming patch for Forgotten Battles. They're putting in both the Mistel AND the TB-3 with parasite I-16s.

      Mistel model in 3dStudio

      TB-3 with parasites

      Il-2/Forgotten Battles is a great sim. Give it a shot. Both of these oddballs will be flyable aircraft by early May.

      --
      Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
  90. Dennis Tito, *dignitary*? by barcarolle · · Score: 0

    How in the Universe does Dennis Tito rate as a *dignitary*?

  91. Photos Doctored? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Check out the pictures of Space Ship One. The rocket nozzle on all of the pictures look "funny".

  92. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ROFL

  93. My guess... by chassum · · Score: 1

    is that this thing will spend a lot more time at airshows and county fairs than in actual "high flight"

  94. Looks like a serious Darwin award framework by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but can you still parachute from it while in orbit ? this would be biggest darwin award for sure

  95. So did you hear... by Mir322 · · Score: 1

    about that accident with the test plane a while back? .... i heard they died laughing!

    --
    "There is always some madness in love. But there is also always some reason in madness."- Friedrich Nietzsche
  96. This one won't go to orbit by Dr.+Zowie · · Score: 3, Informative
    Most folks don't realize the enormous difficulty of getting into orbit, compared to getting into space. Just lifting yourself up 150 miles or so is no big deal compared to getting up the tremendous speed required to orbit the Earth. For example, when the Space Shuttle launches, it start out straight up, then rapidly tilts over to thrust eastward, then continues onward, rockets firing, past the horizon. Think about that. In order to go under the horizon, rockets firing, it must now be thrusting slightly downward compared to the original launch. By far the largest part of the effort of a satellite launch is developing orbital speed (order of 5 miles per second); compared to that, tiny things like getting out of the atmosphere are trivial.

    A manned orbital vehicle would have to have a completely different shape than the SpaceShipOne -- the rocket motor assembly would be more than 50x bigger than the passengers, rather than comparable to them in size. (For example, compare the boosters used for the Mercury/Redstone flights and the Mercury orbital flights).

  97. Forget NASA by Tighe_L · · Score: 1

    While the goverment continues to use outdated vehicles, the private industry completely blows them away. Space will soon become another place for BIG BUSINESS. Not that I am against industry, it is jus t it will never be like Star Trek. You will have to play for everything in the future. "Please deposit $200 to use this vehicles restroom, retnal scan confirmed."

  98. Hey John. Your flying Toilet will never work. by zymano · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    good luck. It will never work.

    The pictures on your website make your contraption primitive looking.

  99. Ouch.... by battjt · · Score: 1

    s/80000/20000/g

    I screwed up. Between typos and sarcasm, I'm mostly unintelligible today. Glad it's Friday.

    Joe

    --
    Joe Batt Solid Design
  100. Just $10M? by Gorimek · · Score: 1

    Maybe I'm still dot.com damaged, but the $10M X award sounds like a far too small sum to provide enough incentive for this. Surely designing and building this thing costs more than that?

    1. Re:Just $10M? by silentbozo · · Score: 1

      It's about publicity and prestige. Of course, $10M doesn't hurt as a bonus after sinking in so much of your own money in design, construction and infrastructure. The larger intent is to spur a lot of private risk taking that would never be considered by a monolitic private or government-supported effort. Even if you don't end up winning the $10M, you may be far enough along in your own effort to field a worthwhile competitor once a market is established and funded, presumably by investors who are willing to put up money once working tech is demonstrated.

  101. Carmack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Screw Rutan. My money's on Carmack.

  102. Is it just me... by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
    Or does the thumbnail picture of the plane on the Space.com page look vaguely like a white Klingon Bird of Prey since you can't see the rest of the wings? A glimpse of things to come?

    --
    Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
  103. Designed by Colani? by concepthouse · · Score: 1

    The design for the craft looks very similar to concepts by designer Luigi Colani. I've always liked his design style and I have a book that was published with much of his stuff from the 70s. Especially cool is his design for an aerodynamic tractor-trailor rig (18-wheel type) or his design of a hydrofoil plane/boat combination (a design that has since become a reality...it was posted on /. about a year or two ago, I think).

    I couldn't get to the site to know if he is credited as the designer or if they did this on their own. Anybody have any info on that?

  104. B-52 - X15 comparison by Dethpickle · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This seems kindof a modern shot at the X15 program.

    The X15 got piggybacked up to 40k feet and then would fly/rocket up to 350k feet. Rutan's craft is going to be starting out almost twice as high.

    Granted, part of the purpose of the X15 was going fast in addition to going high. Rutan's probably won't go that fast as low, but all those draggy airfoils won't be so bad higher up.

    Perhaps someone with some aerodynamics knowledge could comment on exactly how benificial the higher starting altitude is.

    1. Re:B-52 - X15 comparison by hubble29 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Rutan has always been one of thos engineers who thinks outside of the box and has quite a few successes and here is another one. The current approach and basically unchanged since rocketry's infancy has been to avoid drag as much as possible in hopes of fuel economy and vehicle efficiency. Conventional wisdom has always said," go straight up and pass through the least amount of atmosphere and get to were you want to be as fast as possible and you will save the most fuel". The current wisdom has always treated drag as an enemy which it is but drag also has a sibling called lift. Now in a rocket going straight up, lift from an airfoil is to be avoided since the lift vector is in an axis perpendicular to the main direction of travel and all it will do is cause extra drag. Rutan's approach, way out of the box when it comes to rockets, is to use an effecient airfoil which will give minimal drag and maximum lift and travel to a high altitude with a minimum amount of fuel. By doing this he is: 1. Drastically reducing the fuel requirements just to get were the air is thin for the high speed portion of the launch. 2.Reducing the size of the launch vehicle system drastically just by not having to carry all that extra fuel. 3.Using smaller propulsion units because of decreased launch vehicle mass. These not only will weigh less but be cheaper to manufacture and be more durable. 4.By using smaller and more conventional propulsion units, he is also gaining a significant level of safety. A moderate sized jet or rocket engine is much easier to control technically. You can always just turn off the fuel and the fire goes out. One of the big safety issuse with the shuttle program has been the solid fuel booster engines. Once they are lit, there is no turning them off until they are consumed. Also because a rocket has no lift, there are limited options of launch abortal in the early moments of launch. Actually as the launch proceeds and gains altitude, the emergency procedure options increase dramatically with conventional launches. By using a quasi-conventional aircraft design, the complete launch vehicle will always have the ability to do an engine out glide return to earth up to vehicle seperation and actual high altitude launch sequence begins. Even this will be at a very great altitude giving many emergency options and this space vehicle is also a lifting body so it will be capable of gliding also. Rutan has had a huge influence on winged aviation for the military and civilian side. It appears that he is leaving his mark on the space program also. As a side note, Rutan and Nasa and the Air Force are on very friendly terms. It wouldn't surprise me if they have not been helping fund some of this research. I can't waqit to see this actually fly and reach orbit.

  105. Re:What are the limitations of conventional aircra by cameldrv · · Score: 1

    I'm not an aeronautical engineer, but I do know of a few reasons why a 747 doesn't fly at 60,000 feet. There are tons of tradeoffs in design, but a few of the simpler ones are these:

    1) The speed of sound goes down as you go higher. Since drag goes way up when you start approaching the speed of sound, and aerodynamics change in other ways, airliners are generally limited to in the neighborhood of .8 mach. Going higher means you go slower.

    2) To make an airplane go fast, you generally want the smallest wings you can get away with, as big wings will produce more drag and add more weight. At high altitudes, the air is thinner, so if you want the plane to fly at an efficient angle of attack, you need bigger wings. This means that you have to sacrifice performance on the way up and on the way down, and you have to haul more weight in wings.

    3) Pressurization is an issue as you mentioned.

    4) Engines are designed to be most efficient at a certain altitude. If you spend a lot of time climbing and descending, you are spending a lot of time operating the engines inefficiently

    5) There is a certain degree of energy loss climbing and descending (The wing is not perfectly efficient, so you don't get back all the energy you spent on the climb), and so it's only worth climbing if you're going to spend some time at the higher altitudes.

    So all of these factors (and probably a bunch more that I don't know about) combine to make subsonic passenger aviation most efficient at around 30,000 feet. Now that's certainly not to say that technology limits your altitude, as demonstrated by the U-2, Concorde, SR-71, etc. However, it's not economical to go that high with passengers on a normal flight, and the airline business is all about econcomics.

  106. Re:Cross-site Scripting Vuln on Space.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    aren't you just special....

  107. SWEET! - someone with mod points, look here by anagama · · Score: 1

    hehe - that's great. Thanks!

    --
    What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
  108. I KNEW it!!! by HPTiPete · · Score: 1

    I was just remarking to a US Airways first officer that I was talking to on a flight home two days ago that I was surprised we hadn't heard from Rutan for a while... That usually means he's up to something!

  109. Uh oh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wherever there are Rutans, their mortal enemies, the Sontarans, are soon to follow.

  110. scaled.com web site. by Codeesan · · Score: 1

    For those of you interested in the about of traffic going to scaled.com the site has had over 600,000 hits since 10:00am this morning. The traffic request are using 20% of 2 DS3s.

  111. Re:Cockpit screen also by asadodetira · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The cockpit image seems to have a lot of retouching too. The screen in the middle probably can't be seen clearly in an actual photograph.

  112. I Hope The Controls On This Thing... by istartedi · · Score: 1

    ...don't use a web interface. The pilot will need to do something, and he'll waste valuable seconds wondering why the scroll bar is invisible, and then realizing that you can't see it unless you size your browser to something greater than 800 by 600, which is where mine is. And all you "just get a bigger monitor or squint and bear it" people can send your replies to dev/null. Web pages should render properly at any reasonable resolution, all the way down to PDA sizes; the browser should make decisions on how to cope with screen size, not the author.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  113. You insensitive clod! by fenix+down · · Score: 1

    Well I love the cock! Fabulouth!

  114. Irony by Julian+Morrison · · Score: 1

    The irony is that this is no more a threat to jobs than the invention of the passenger aircraft was to those employed in the zeppelin industry.

    If $CONGRESSMAN sat and thought a moment, he'd start asking questions like "how will the economy grow if I have a commercial and passenger spaceport in my district?"

    Pork isn't a gain, it's misapplied money.

    1. Re:Irony by Art+Tatum · · Score: 1
      Absolutely. I just hope this takes off in a way that 1) really does grow the economy by leaps and bounds; and 2) gets cheap enough fast enough that I have a chance to get a ride before I die.

      Hey, it worked with hookers, why not with space travel? :-)

  115. Mod parent up! by evenprime · · Score: 1

    +1 informative

    --

    "Weapons should be hardy rather than decorative" - Miyamoto Musashi
    I think that goes for OS's too
  116. Obligatory Simpsons reference... by tlambert · · Score: 1

    Obligatory Simpsons reference...

    Quick! Someone put out the Sprinfield tire fire! We're going to need it for fuel for spaceship one!

    -- Terry

  117. Re:A rutan? Dr Who was real! [worst episode ever] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even if it WAS herpes - and there's no one better than Tom Baker to say - it most likely would have been HSV-I, which is found in > 90% of the UK population.

    I'm sure that Tom would've picked having occasional cold sores over SARS!

  118. Busted! by Dr.+Zowie · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The "mated" image includes the shadows of the landing gear from the non-mated image in the litho.

    Well spotted!

  119. Actually... by ivern76 · · Score: 1

    I remember Burt Rutan's name from a National Geographic from the 80s...this guy made himself a name in the airplane design field for coming out with some really good stuff...among other things, he designed a kit plane that's impossible to stall. I'd like to see how serious he is about this one...because he's not exactly a designer you can laugh at too hard :)

  120. Re:What, no EZ jokes yet?? by Kevin+Burtch · · Score: 1


    Jeez... I can't believe I'm the ONLY slashdotter who knows that what made Burt Rutan famous was his incredibly cool consumer canard known as the Long-EZ.

    Of course no-one's going to see it now since two boneheads that didn't get the reference moderated the posting as offtopic.

    --
    - Preferences: Solaris 10 (servers), Ubuntu (desktops), Solaris 11 (personal servers) -
  121. NASA Succeeds! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think all the frustration over the government space program has actually been a success for NASA: they've managed to get a lot of private interest in building access to space. Instead of spending billions of government dollars on manned space flight, we get private investors spending billions of dollars on manned space flight.

    And all NASA had to do was botch things up. Brilliant!

  122. Well, if Burt Rutan built it... by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 1

    Considering who's building this, Burt Rutan is an aeronautical genius.

    --
    Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
  123. Rutan is a genius by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, as far as I'm concerned they are going to win the X-Prize.

    Rutan is a genius who thinks differently about aerodynamics. He created the Long-EZ and the Voyager and now this.

    He's got the money to throw at this thing and he's obviously VERY close to going to live testing this.

    Heck, he's in the Mohave desert secretly testing this stuff, just like the Government does!

  124. Not that secret by Jonner · · Score: 1

    It hasn't really been that secret. I heard Burt Rutan himself announce that he would be working on a manned spacecraft at the EAA Oshkosh flyin in 1996. I guess I should really read the article before commenting, the Slashdot post is definitely misleading.

    1. Re:Not that secret by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the secret isn't that rutan was working on an x-prize contender. the secret were it's details (what it looked like, how it would work) and, more importantly, how far along his effort is. this announcement is pretty fucking impressive. going from rutan's past record, he's showing the flight hardware now because their ready to fly.

  125. Thank you by IPFreely · · Score: 1

    Yep, That sounds familiar.

    --
    There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
  126. in secret? by Hubert_Shrump · · Score: 1

    if by in secret you of course mean: not handing out blueprints at airports - yes, in secret.

    the rutans have publicly stated they were after the X prize since it was set up. geez. pilots have been waiting for this for awhile. we want them to get back to making another kit plane...

    --
    Keep your packets off my GNU/Girlfriend!
  127. Nomination for Passenger by DavidBrown · · Score: 1

    Let's be realistic. In the suborbital module, there's going to a pilot, and maybe one guy to monitor the oxygen system. So there will be one or two passengers in the module (suborbiter?) who will be little more than cargo.

    So who wants a ride? Who should we send?

    I nominate Wil Wheaton. He's not that tall, or heavy, and he would make a much better passenger than Justin Timberlake.

    Or, for God's sake, Paramount could send up one of their actors with a small camera, and could even film the flight as yet another stupid "time travel" episode. Why not send that Vulcan chick into space? Sure beats ordinary special effects. She'd also set new records for the largest breasts at the highest altitude. We owe it to science.

    --
    144l. ph34r my 133t l3g4l 5k1lz!
  128. X-Prize by spacebus · · Score: 1

    Yeah. The new book 'MADE IN SPACE' talks about the X-Prize and these new types of private rocket companies. http://www.1stbooks.com/bookview/15126

  129. Tom Swift by mamahuhu · · Score: 1

    Ah another fan of Tom Swift.

    Search Google for some sites.... this is the series that I read in the library when I was a kid - great retro future stuff. I came across an old edition in a second hand bookshop and my friends couldn't understand the reason for the gurgles of delight.

  130. Re:Hey John. Your flying Toilet will never work. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are such a sexy iconoclast. Can I suck your dick?

  131. Re:Rutan history - seems you have it backwards by mamahuhu · · Score: 1

    This site has a different story. In summary it appears that Beech had all the parameters for the craft set out and THEN approached Rutan. If so then the onus on the poor performance and cost falls back to the Beech management.

    Management have more responsibility in this in any case as they are the ones who make the final decisions. In the case of the loss of the Shuttle Columbia do we blame the engineers or the management? Of course it's the management who made the decisions, and controlled the process of making both of the crafts flight worthy.

    It seems to me that in the case of the Beech Starship management need to take the heat as much as all those aero engineers and Rutan himself. It was a total business and engineering failure - the opposite of synergistic perhaps?

  132. Link to German ideas? by mamahuhu · · Score: 1

    Thanks for the info MtViewGuy - and for others interested there are some interesting photos and info here and here and a directory listing here.

  133. Where to by LordMyren · · Score: 1

    I really think the government needs to start pushing aerospace someplace new. This is a big step, but i think its going to take a government backed vision to really cause any significant change to aerospace.

    I think we need to make an all out dash for scramjet technology. Apollo style blitz rush.