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.
I want to get me one of these ... :)
(And yes, I know that Kirk never said "beam me up scotty")
"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
---- El diablo esta en mis pantalones! Mire, mire!
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.
This just in. The government is sueing after patenting using "One" after vehicles, thus meaning SpaceShipOne is reserved for the President.
-bort
Could the lucky few who got to see that page dig through their caches and post some mirrors?
...nobody can hear your webserver scream.
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
...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
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?
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.
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.
Only one measly picture, but better than nothing for the impatient..
0 5
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=8
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!
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.
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.
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/
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;
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.
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,
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?
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
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"
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
"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!!
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?
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."
I have seen this rocket/airplane space orbital type mentioned for a long time. By the way , what is the spaceship made out of ?
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...
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.
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
could be the 10 million greenbacks.
>
>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.
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
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.
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
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?
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
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
A cross between a bird and a spider. A Bider? A spird?
-- (Score:i, Imaginary)
Found a nice mirror.
10 minutes working on a sig. What a waste.
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.
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.
Welcome to the new, improved /. - where even the editors make jokes about turning your webserver into a pile of slag!
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.
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
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.
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)
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.
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
And this thing isn't intended to reach orbit, only the 100 km limit imposed by the X Prize (a Shepherd-style flight).
It's a plane! It's a bird! It's a flying vibrator!
I mean, 'SpaceShip One'? Guy, intercaps are *so* dotcom-era...
You must think in Russian.
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.
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.
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..."
no... really! (read the article)
Wierdest fuel I've ever heard of!
- Preferences: Solaris 10 (servers), Ubuntu (desktops), Solaris 11 (personal servers) -
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.
Space.com article
--JLockard - "Some mornings, it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps." - Emo Phillips
Perhaps they were hoping for a Nerf advertising contract?
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
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
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.
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.
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
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) -
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
Is it compatable with RealPlayerOne? Or Sun One?
Anyway, I'm getting mine on Sunday,
puts ("Python r0cks\n");
Rtfa? RTFA!?! What A!? I only saw a smoking hole where a website used to be!
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
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
... this image appears to have been fiddled with. Look at the red engine exhaust nozzle. Clearly been image-manip'ed.
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.
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
the Sontaran empire is trying to catch up.....
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
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!
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
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.
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!
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.
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.
His name is Yossarian.
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...
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.
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. =)
Check out the pictures of Space Ship One. The rocket nozzle on all of the pictures look "funny".
is that this thing will spend a lot more time at airshows and county fairs than in actual "high flight"
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
Uhm no. The geosynchronous satellites have a velocity of zero (relative to me). What are you talking about?
Joe
Joe Batt Solid Design
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
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).
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."
It's a lot more interesting to look at than the space shuttle!
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
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
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.
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).
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
> 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....
yup - buy it at your local speed shop
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?
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.
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
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
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 :-)
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?
Dude, that was good.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
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.
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.
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:
.8 mach. Going higher means you go slower.
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
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.
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
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)
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 :)
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.
hehe - that's great. Thanks!
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Big American Physics Lesson Party Time!!!
/. hates my asciiart visual aids. Taco, you square! Quit opressing my art!
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
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!
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.
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.
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.
...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"?
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.
Well I love the cock! Fabulouth!
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 informative
"Weapons should be hardy rather than decorative" - Miyamoto Musashi
I think that goes for OS's too
Obligatory Simpsons reference...
Quick! Someone put out the Sprinfield tire fire! We're going to need it for fuel for spaceship one!
-- Terry
The "mated" image includes the shadows of the landing gear from the non-mated image in the litho.
Well spotted!
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 :)
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) -
Considering who's building this, Burt Rutan is an aeronautical genius.
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
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.
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
Orbital calculator. I haven't checked to see if everything is correct or not, but I am lazy.
h tml
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/orbv3.
Yep, That sounds familiar.
There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
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!
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!
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
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
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
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.
Hey Bill,
:)
Totally OT, but what happened to quakeforge.net and taniwha.org? I can't get through to either and mail is bouncing.
LRC, the best-read libertarian site on the web
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?
Thanks for the info MtViewGuy - and for others interested there are some interesting photos and info here and here and a directory listing here.
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
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.