Slashdot Mirror


Flight Testing Of Burt Rutan's X Prize Entry

evenprime writes "The X Prize website is reporting that Burt Rutan's company Scaled Composites did some flight testing on their SpaceShipOne/White Knight launch platform on May 19, 2003. Next up: drop tests. There's also a nice write-up at the BBC website."

180 comments

  1. Re:The Y Question by xutopia · · Score: 1, Informative

    http://www.xprize.org/

  2. Armadillo's page recently updated too! by Lawmeister · · Score: 4, Interesting
    1. Re:Armadillo's page recently updated too! by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Funny

      Am I the only one who wouldn't ride in the black armadillo because of this section:

      The crushable, aluminum nose cone neatly and systematically collapses into itself, decelerating the vehicle to a stop. The capsule then falls on its side to end the mission.

      So let me get this straight. You're going to fire this thing into space and then it's going to land and crush like a beer can? Pass.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Armadillo's page recently updated too! by the_other_one · · Score: 3, Funny
      it operates in a manner which can only be described as "ground breaking."

      IANARS, however, I do believe there are breaking methods that that I would prefer if I was going along for the ride.

      --
      134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
    3. Re:Armadillo's page recently updated too! by RabidOverYou · · Score: 5, Funny

      But ... but ... but ... according to your sig, you're a street walking cheetah, with a heart full of napalm. You're the runaway son of a nuclear A-bomb! Of course you'd do it! Else, you must retire your sig. No, I insist.

    4. Re:Armadillo's page recently updated too! by zaneIO · · Score: 3, Informative

      here is a link to info about it and a link to a video of the tests.

    5. Re:Armadillo's page recently updated too! by Rxke · · Score: 1

      maybe he's not searching to be destroyed...

    6. Re:Armadillo's page recently updated too! by EnglishTim · · Score: 2, Insightful

      To be fair, it does have a parachute as well, it's just that even with a parachute you tend to be going at a reasonable speed (say, 20mph or so) when you land. This is why all the Apollo space capsules landed down in water.

      I think the crushable nose is a good idea to soften the landing, if you're going to be landing on land.

    7. Re:Armadillo's page recently updated too! by kinnell · · Score: 4, Funny
      The crushable, aluminum nose cone neatly and systematically collapses into itself, decelerating the vehicle to a stop. The capsule then falls on its side to end the mission

      This is why I'm rooting for armadillo aerospace - if they win, the history videos of the future will show a fat, cheap looking rocket crashing head first into the ground then falling over. It's about time history got a little comic relief :o)

      --
      If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
    8. Re:Armadillo's page recently updated too! by black_widow · · Score: 1

      To be critical, how many cosmonauts wound up crinkled by accident?

      I'll take my chanced with rutan's glider; those parachute cords get tangled too easily.

    9. Re:Armadillo's page recently updated too! by Moofie · · Score: 1

      That is a really neat design....

      until the vehicle comes down anything other than vertically. Hope they try to land on a day with zero wind.

      In my not-quite-expert opinion..."Yikes!"

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  3. The profit is not in underpants. by inertia187 · · Score: 3, Funny

    1. Build nifty spacecraft for $20,000,000US
    2. Maybe win $10,000,000US X-Prize
    3. ???
    4. Profit!

    --
    A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
    1. Re:The profit is not in underpants. by aiabx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You forgot the details:
      3a) Take passengers for $50k rides.
      3b) Licence technology
      3c) Sell space planes for $5m.
      -aiabx

      --
      Just this guy, you know?
    2. Re:The profit is not in underpants. by BabyDave · · Score: 2, Funny

      Where '???' = 'Get twatface from N*Sync to be a passenger in your third flight, paying $20,000,000US'

    3. Re:The profit is not in underpants. by WEFUNK · · Score: 2, Funny

      Or you can sell space plane kit plans for $20 a pop by placing "tiny" ads in Popular Science and Popular Mechanics. Not that you need to win to do that...

      --
      My next sig will be ready soon, but friends can beat the rush!
    4. Re:The profit is not in underpants. by realdpk · · Score: 2, Funny

      I hear you can put tiny ads in all sorts of newspapers and magazines, but I think you have to move in to a tiny one bedroom apartment for it to work, and you have to have big teeth.

    5. Re:The profit is not in underpants. by TheSync · · Score: 1

      And sell 10 million toy Scaled Composite rockets for $3-4 in licensing fees each...

    6. Re:The profit is not in underpants. by stiller · · Score: 1

      Not to mention:
      3d) Be sponsored by Coca-Cola while being watched by tens of millions of people worldwide during your maiden voyage. Hasn't anyone here seen Deep Impact? (Ok, can't blame you for that.)

    7. Re:The profit is not in underpants. by milkid7 · · Score: 0

      Sounds like a joke is in order:

      What's a surefire way to make a small fortune with the X-Prize ?

      First, you start with a LARGE fortune...

    8. Re:The profit is not in underpants. by arivanov · · Score: 2, Funny

      Have the US DOD sponsor you for life so you do not sell it to Clnl Cadaffi.

      Actually, it will be for the second time. They already are paying. That is after Burt showed that he can develop and build a fully functional fighter jet on a 10M budget to cost under 2M a piece. Which also has a negligeable radar sig due to the fact that engine is one of the very few metal parts in it.

      Nothing new here. Even no need for taking tourists. DOD will foot the bill. Once again...

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    9. Re:The profit is not in underpants. by sg_oneill · · Score: 1

      3d) Then cop the big payout from pepsi when the x-prize rocket with the coke logo gets burned to shred cause John carmac attached the batteries with gaffa tape.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    10. Re:The profit is not in underpants. by at_kernel_99 · · Score: 1
      1. Build nifty spacecraft for $20,000,000US
      2. Maybe win $10,000,000US X-Prize
      3. ???
      4. Profit!

      Having had the pleasure of seeing Mr Rutan speak on several occasions, it is my opinion that his primary motivation is not profit. The man has a passion for areonautical / aerospace engineering that goes beyond making a buck. Sometime in the mid-90's he presented the idea of the X-Prize, based on the Orteig prize that inspired Lindberg. I paraphrase, but the idea is something like this: people will spend ten times the value of the prize solely in order to win the prize. Orteig demonstrated this in the 1920's, and the X-Prize is doing it again now. People with the resources to do this aren't worried about the 10 mil. And even if they were, the value of the prize is nearly inconsequential compared to the value of being the first non-government entity to put a reusable vehicle into space.

    11. Re:The profit is not in underpants. by inertia187 · · Score: 1

      Sometime in the mid-90's he presented the idea of the X-Prize, based on the Orteig prize that inspired Lindberg.

      Ok, maybe he is not motivated by profit, but now it seems like a conflict of interest, to me. At the very least, it's like one of those rebate offers.

      Remember, Charles Lindberg helped designed and flew the Spirit of St. Louis, but he didn't fund it directly. He also didn't come up with the idea for the prize. And when he won, the prize was donated to Aeronautics research. He collected lots of fame, but even then, he donated everything to his passion.

      If Rutan's motivations are the same, I'm all for it. And if they are not, I'm still for it because private space missions are worth it. But it would seem like he used this prize for self gain, in that case.

      We'll just have to see how this plays out.

      --
      A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
  4. Try it yourself by GrubInCan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    X-Plane v7.0beta has both aircraft (apparently Scaled Composites used it for their simulator)

    1. Re:Try it yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      mmm...I don't fly in a airplane which is called X-Plane V7.0 BETA. Sounds pretty flakey to me.

    2. Re:Try it yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the simulator you dimwit

    3. Re:Try it yourself by CracktownHts · · Score: 1
      Ok this is pushing the limits of offtopic-ness, but... I wansn't too clear on what exactly he (Austin) meant by that. Here are his exact words:

      Take a look at the next-generation SPACE-SHIP being built by Scaled Composites. Then take a look at at the picture HERE to see the simulator their pilots use to train.. yup, the visuals are X-Plane

      Now does that mean *just* the visuals or is he just being careless with his wording? I know the X-Plane code has been used by other a/c designers but for it to be used in a space plane is something new.

  5. Huge things at stake by Ignorant+Aardvark · · Score: 0, Troll

    In the contest to win the X Prize, there can be only one winner. The runner up wins the Darwin Award. Is Burt Rutan's entry X Prize worthy, or will he join the thousands of other people who've killed themselves spectacularly to win Darwin Awards?

    1. Re:Huge things at stake by rodney+dill · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If not the Darwin Award the runner-ups will surely get worse, Aviation (or space travel depending on how you look at it) obscurity. Who remember's, without googling, other aviators that were competing against Linberg for the first non stop transatlantic flight.

      --

      Use your head, can't you, use your head,
      You're on earth, there's no cure for that
      - S. Beckett
    2. Re:Huge things at stake by Moofie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Rutan has a better track record than the rest of the competitors, combined.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    3. Re:Huge things at stake by lnoble · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Darwin awards are about people killing themselves in a manner of utter stupidity and negligence to their own lives. The assumtion being that in doing so they better the human race by removing themselves from the gene pool. Those competing for the X Prize are far different, taking the utmost precaution in ensure the safty of the test pilots. This also isn't a life or death game. It's a race, and though more dangerous than most everyone still has the ability to cross the finish line, only the one to does it first wins the prize.

    4. Re:Huge things at stake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Googling counts. At least a record exists that they tried. Better to be remembered for trying and not succeeding than not to be remembered at all.

  6. X-Prize & Surreality by Merovign · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Memorial day (observed) appears not to be the best time to be serious around here.

    That being said, it's nice to see some progress on the X Prize, which is essentially a prize for the first successful civilian reusable space vehicle.

    Personally I think the Rutans are going about this the wrong way, but they could still get the prize.

    The pluses to the design are the high-altitude launch (elegant), and the low-speed entry (elegant).

    The minuses as I see it are the relatively complex design, lack of cargo space, cost, unpowered landing. Oh, and the fact that it is very, very ugly.

    A similar re-entry vehicle, but larger with powered maneuverability on re-entry, with a high-altitude balloon as a "first stage" would rock. And be cheaper. I'm not really sure how huge a balloon (hydrogen or helium) would have to be to drag something that big to the requisite altitude, especially if you intended to go beyond 100km. The second stage would be heavier, unless you had a new fuel or more efficient use of the fuel.

    1. Re:X-Prize & Surreality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, and the fact that it is very, very ugly.
      I don't know about you, but I think the design is actually very very slick, certainly much nicer than anything I have seen before.

    2. Re:X-Prize & Surreality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      agreed.

      besides, how does one decide if an airplane is "beautiful", "average looking" or "ugly"?

      c'mon, I want specific criteria.

    3. Re:X-Prize & Surreality by Moofie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Complex design? Airborne launch is well-proven technology. The spacecraft is very cleverly and elegantly designed. The vehicle has enough "cargo" space to carry three people. Or two people and 200lbs of cargo. It carries a lot more than my Miata, and my Miata is a damn useful vehicle. Although I don't want to hold up the Shuttle as a great design, it obviously does fine with unpowered landing. Carrying fuel for re-entry and landing is insanely expensive in terms of weight and vehicle size. Unless there's something mission critical that requires fuel during the landing evolution, you /really/ don't want to waste weight with it.

      What do you base your cost estimates on?

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    4. Re:X-Prize & Surreality by maggard · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The pluses to the design are the high-altitude launch (elegant), and the low-speed entry (elegant).
      Agreed.
      The minuses as I see it are the relatively complex design,
      Compared to what? X-33? Personal jetpacks? NCC-X? Sure it could be brute-forced with a big block of steel and a coupla nukes but this whole thing is about design. Indeed this one looks simpler then most of the others once one gets over it not being designed by a T-square.
      lack of cargo space,
      It's not intended to be a tug. Rather it's a demo meeting the X-Pride criteria put together privately in two years. Pull out the seats if you want luggage. Besides, where would it bring cargo to?
      cost,
      Cheaper then most anything else. Heck, privately financed at that.
      unpowered landing.
      This is the beta version. Ruttan's got a long history with aircraft including unpowered or marginally-powered ones, I'm sure it'll land fine, seems to have worked well for the 99 ton SST.
      Oh, and the fact that it is very, very ugly.
      Oh, well yeah, that it doesn't jibe with your sense of aesthetics means it hasn't a chance. Howzabout you post your photo and the rest of us can predict your odds of success?
      A similar re-entry vehicle, but larger with powered maneuverability on re-entry,
      Why? 'Cause you want a commercial passenger service on the 1st flight? You've got some bias against unpowered landings?
      with a high-altitude balloon as a "first stage" would rock.
      Why? Kewler? I think the first flight succeeding would rock, not your backseat redesigning.
      And be cheaper.
      How? Helium costs y'know. And that balloon & helium wouldn't be recoverable. Plus the first meter off the ground under a big balloon is really hazardous, a heck of a lot more then a glider landing.

      Besides, the White Night is also the trainer for the spacecraft. Yep, you heard me, they load a profile on computer in the WN and it flies the same as the spacecraft! Double duty saving lots of money.

      I'm not really sure how huge a balloon (hydrogen or helium) would have to be to drag something that big to the requisite altitude, especially if you intended to go beyond 100km.
      Big. The math isn't that hard for a rough but trust me, big. and expensive. And non-reusable. And a hazard afterwords.
      The second stage would be heavier, unless you had a new fuel or more efficient use of the fuel.
      Yeah, well now that you've pretty much trashed all the other engineering now you want, what, super rockets? Sure, we'll just use the ones off your Voltron doll...

      How about just come out with it and admit you want Star Trek teleporters, forget this nasty uncomfortable dangerous test vehicle stuff? Hell I bet the thing doesn't even have in-flight service with a decent bar cart!

      Frankly you come off as the the exact sort of useless US holiday poster you mention. Lots of inane second guessing, apparently no homework before reading one article, coming up with ridiculous requirements: Cargo? For a test vehicle? Meeting X-Prize criteria? Have you EVER been around ANY sort of engineering project?

      Score you -3 for silly whiner.

      --
      I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
    5. Re:X-Prize & Surreality by hatmouse · · Score: 1

      How does this get rated "Flamebait"? The poster is making good points.

    6. Re:X-Prize & Surreality by lobsterGun · · Score: 1
      Sure, we'll just use the ones off your Voltron doll...


      Maggard, you are my hero. I havn't laughed so hard in ages.
    7. Re:X-Prize & Surreality by Merovign · · Score: 1

      You need practice at flaming. I wasn't impressed.

      I'm sorry you have to put up with the opinions of those less enlightened than you. Perhaps if you never read anything, you won't be offended.

      Your post reeks of the "engineer mindset" which is the same as the "politican mindset" and every other ivory-tower specialty: If you're not one of us, you're not worthy to be heard.

      I have no desire to prevent anyone else from trying to do whatever they want to do with their own money. I wish the Rutans the best of luck, I just remember their Reno racer - years of design effort, very clever design, beaten before it hit the track by a 50-year-old air-cooled monstrosity.

      I do not set requirements for any of these attempts, I do not claim to be qualified to do so, nor do I claim to be qualified to tell other people what opinions they may or may not state.

      As I recall from the link, the Rutans claimed to be designing for more than just a 100% X-prize craft, which is where the cargo statement came in.

      In any case, neither your nor my opinions really matter to the success of this or other X-Prize contenders. Best of luck to all of them, and may I recommend therapy for you?

      Cheers,

  7. Just Ducky! by Tackhead · · Score: 3, Funny
    "Mommy, what is that duck doing to the other duck?"

    Seriously... you go, Burt - and all the other X-Prize teams, too.

    On behalf of all of us cubicle-bound geeks looking at the stars, may you all show NASA what teams of dedicated engineers can do if given an environment in which... well, an environment in which dedicated engineers can do what dedicated engineers have always done in such an environment.

    1. Re:Just Ducky! by Migrant+Programmer · · Score: 1

      may you all show NASA what teams of dedicated engineers can do if given an environment in which... well, an environment in which dedicated engineers can do what dedicated engineers have always done in such an environment.

      Ow! You just broke my head!

    2. Re:Just Ducky! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Second verse, same as the first...

    3. Re:Just Ducky! by Moofie · · Score: 1

      No mod points, but that was really good. : )

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  8. Optimism by Tancred · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What a great thing, the X-Prize. Space flight will eventually be dominated by private enterprise anyway, and this accelerates it. I think it's important as a way to get younger generations excited about the future in the same way past generations were in the early days of space programs.

  9. Big news, but no interest by knobmaker · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Maybe I'm just early here, but it astonishes me that no one has posted a comment, except for trolls and ACs.

    It's stuff like this that gives me hope that I'll live long enough to get a trip into space before I die. The government, as it usually does with everything it attempts, seems to have completely screwed up the exploration of space. It's been over 30 years since we sent a human being to another world, for heaven's sake.

    I'm writing in Rutan for President in 2004. At least he's actually built something other than a portfolio.

    1. Re:Big news, but no interest by hellswraith · · Score: 1

      It's been over 30 years since we sent a human being to another world, for heaven's sake. Remind me, what world did we visit? I know we visited a satellite of earths called the moon, but I don't remember humans ever going to another world.

    2. Re:Big news, but no interest by isorox · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's a sad fact that most slashdotters cry DARWIN at the first wound of anything thats slightly risky. They claim to want to progress in to space, but then when someone tries it, they just laugh. Perhaps its envy.

    3. Re:Big news, but no interest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The things that the government does well are so integrated into our lives as to seem invisible. The government ensures that the ground beef you buy in the grocery store isn't ground rat, for example. Read Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" for a glimpse back into the golden age of free markets.

      Government isn't the solution for everything, of course, but mindless government-bashing is just stupid.

    4. Re:Big news, but no interest by Saeger · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It's a sad fact that some slashdotters still think slashdot is one homogenous group where every voice represents the whole. Perhaps its human nature to have risk-seeking-mutants and scoffing, scared-shitless-mutants in the same genepool.

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    5. Re:Big news, but no interest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      >>>>Remind me, what world did we visit? I know we visited a satellite of earths called the moon, but I don't remember humans ever going to another world.

      If you lived there, what would you call it? Your "satellite?"

      Maybe you're confusing the word "world" with the word "planet." After all, the Earth is just a satellite of the sun. If you go by my old Funk & Wagnall's, the only planet that's a world is Earth. That seems fairly small-minded to me.

    6. Re:Big news, but no interest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simple enough. Most of the people who are passionate about this and care about the issue knew about it the flight a week ago. It's been discussed in detail in several forums.

      And those people, myself included, read Slashdot once or twice a day, maybe, and even then it's to skim headlines and note the reasons why some sites aren't working. Slashdot's fucking worthless for discussion of anything important.

  10. Space-travel industry. by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 3, Funny

    It'll be about private industry until United Spacelines and American Spacelines start losing too much money, and the space-citizens of the United Space-states of Earth have to shell out billions of space-dollars to keep them afloat. I mean, in orbit.

  11. Rutan can do it if anybody can by Animats · · Score: 5, Informative
    Rutan has a very good track record in aircraft design, and can probably bring this off. He's designed many strangely-shaped aircraft, and they all fly well.

    Of course, there's the problem that maybe he can, but nobody else can. This happens. Paul MacReady made human-powered flight work two decades ago. Nobody has done it since. Gregg Williams designed almost all the really small jet aircraft engines - he did his first one in the 1950s, and he designed the engines for cruise missiles, and he's still designing them. One person, Ed Kleinschmidt, designed all the mechanical teletype machines from the 1930s to the last one in the 1970s.

    1. Re:Rutan can do it if anybody can by Sanity · · Score: 4, Funny
      Paul MacReady made human-powered flight work two decades ago. Nobody has done it since. Gregg Williams designed almost all the really small jet aircraft engines - he did his first one in the 1950s, and he designed the engines for cruise missiles, and he's still designing them. One person, Ed Kleinschmidt, designed all the mechanical teletype machines from the 1930s to the last one in the 1970s.
      Clearly all of these people subscribe to the Perl doctrine of job preservation: "If nobody else can figure out how it works - they can't fire you".
    2. Re:Rutan can do it if anybody can by VoidEngineer · · Score: 1

      Clearly all of these people subscribe to the Perl doctrine of job preservation: "If nobody else can figure out how it works - they can't fire you".

      Yeah, but you can't be promoted either...

      The question becomes whether or not Rutan can do it, and then teach others how to do the same thing....

    3. Re:Rutan can do it if anybody can by torpor · · Score: 1

      Is it teaching, or is it just inspiration?

      You can't do what Rutan does without having serious doctrine, and amazing capital. I only hope this becomes apparent to those he inspires, fast.

      Maybe we will get a chance at anti-g before we die.

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    4. Re:Rutan can do it if anybody can by jayrtfm · · Score: 1

      >>Paul MacReady made human-powered flight work two decades ago. Nobody has done it since.

      Ha anyone else WANTED to? Human powered flight is kinda impractical.

      >>Williams designed almost all the really small jet aircraft engines - he did his first one in the 1950s, and he designed the engines for cruise missiles, and he's still designing them.

      from the bits that I've come across, I think that a lot of his basic tech is still classified or isn't allowed for civilian use.

  12. Re:on the good side.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    knowing how Rutan builds things it most likely has a geat deal of foam under its skin.

    just ask any Long-EZ owner/builder.

  13. Rutan rules! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Rutan amazes me.. I mean, he has an interest in aircraft, then goes out and designs builds tons of them, makes a business out of it, sets all sorts of records, and so on. All with sideburns! He rules!

    -J

  14. Nitrous Oxide and Rubber? by salimfadhley · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Quote from the BBC Article: "SpaceShipOne will then fire its hybrid rocket engine, fuelled by a mixture of nitrous oxide and rubber, to reach the blackness of space."

    Surely this is a typo? Nobody uses rubber as a rocket fuel... unless this is a new kind of rubber that is completely diferent to the stretchy, boingy stuff?

    1. Re:Nitrous Oxide and Rubber? by farnerup · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's a hybrid: half rocket engine, half rubber band attached to a propeller.

    2. Re:Nitrous Oxide and Rubber? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not a typo. And from what i know no one else uses it, but it seems to work.

    3. Re:Nitrous Oxide and Rubber? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, rubber is correct. Look into it, it's quite a neat sollution.

    4. Re:Nitrous Oxide and Rubber? by seth_k · · Score: 2, Informative

      Almost anything will burn if you supply oxygen at a high enough of a concentration/pressure. I remember a college lab were we made a test rocket engine out of a cylinder of acrylic with a hole bored down the center and hooked up to an oxygen tank. I know its sounds odd, but it does work. This seems of be using the same principles with a different fuel/oxidizer.

    5. Re:Nitrous Oxide and Rubber? by nietsch · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not quite true: these fuels are used in a hybrid fuel enigine. The benefits are an enigne that isn't very explosive, has easy storage and can be throttled back. Liquid fuel or solid fuel engines don't have both of these properties.
      Rubber is used because of it's high carbon content, nitrous oxide is used because it stores easier than liquid oxide.

      --
      This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
    6. Re:Nitrous Oxide and Rubber? by Gorobei · · Score: 3, Informative

      um, what do you think solid rocket fuel (i.e. the stuff used in the space shuttle's booster) is? It's basically rubber with an oxider and some metal powders.

      The stuff that reacts with the oxygen in most of these rocket engines is a hydrocarbon: rubber, plastics, asphalt, kerosene, etc.

  15. Re:Who gets prize if they die on landing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they die, they don't win. They get nothing.

  16. Re:Who gets prize if they die on landing? by physicsnerd · · Score: 3, Informative
    No, if they are killed they do not win the prize. You have to sucessfully fly to an average height of 100km twice, and the craft must land intact. The prize is only for a pair of round trips. Not a one way.

    Physicsnerd
    _______________
    "Even logic must give way to physics" - Spock

  17. Re:MOD PARENT UP!!! +1 INFORMATIVE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    disgusting

  18. Yes! Rubber! by Gharlane+of+Eddore · · Score: 5, Informative

    From an article on KMSB-TV This history of space missions has been written with solid- or liquid-fuel rockets. Solid-fuel rockets are simple, reliable and inexpensive, but thrust at only one speed, can't be shut down, and produce toxic exhaust. Liquid-fuel rockets can be throttled to control thrust and turned off and on, but are highly complex and less reliable. Hybrid technology combines the advantages of both types of fuel, but can be made more cheaply and with more environmentally benign materials, said Brad Linenberger, a senior in aerospace and mechanical engineering. "The components themselves are safer, because the solid fuel is basically tire rubber and the liquid fuel is nitrous oxide, which is just laughing gas" liquefied under pressure, Linenberger said. "The stuff they put in solid rockets to keep them burning, you don't want to be inhaling that stuff."

    1. Re:Yes! Rubber! by pacc · · Score: 1

      "environmentally benign materials"

      For the sake of the environment burn tires instead :)

    2. Re:Yes! Rubber! by random_static · · Score: 1

      burn 'em with a good oxidizer (like liquid nitrous) at high enough temperatures, and tires too will be mostly just another source of clean-burning hydrocarbons. the exhaust should be mostly water, CO2, N2 and little else.

    3. Re:Yes! Rubber! by Mannerism · · Score: 2, Funny

      The stuff they put in solid rockets to keep them burning, you don't want to be inhaling that stuff.

      Whereas nitrous oxide and burnin' rubber, well, shucks, that's better'n air!

    4. Re:Yes! Rubber! by dublin · · Score: 1

      The stuff they put in solid rockets to keep them burning, you don't want to be inhaling that stuff.

      Whereas nitrous oxide and burnin' rubber, well, shucks, that's better'n air!


      Those of us who are serious hackers of horsepower as well as MIPS have a particular fondness for the combination of nitrous oxide and burning rubber. :-)

      I love that Yamaha commercial set to "Smoke Gets in Your Eyes", with the "crying" bikers. Or, to ripp off Apocalyse Now: "I love the smell of burning Goodyears/Yokos/Hoosiers in the morning - it smells like... Victory!"

      --
      "The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last ./ post
  19. Seven minutes in heaven by endquotedotcom · · Score: 3, Funny
    From the BBC article: "SpaceShipOne will start its mission with a climb to 50,000ft under the twin-engined White Knight. SpaceShipOne will then fire its hybrid rocket engine, fuelled by a mixture of nitrous oxide and rubber, to reach the blackness of space.

    "After experiencing weightlessness at the top of its trajectory, the ship will extend its wings and tail and glide back to the runway that it left 90 minutes earlier."

    Okay, so we have a plane with a "spaceship" under it, and we're going to go up real high and then fling it up into what's just barely "space," and watch it fall down. So you'll actually be in "space" for just a few minutes? No orbiting around and trying to see if you can find your house from up there? How much fun is this really, when the majority of your time is spent screaming your head off as you fall back to Earth? Maybe the inflight meal will be really good.

    1. Re:Seven minutes in heaven by Katalyzt · · Score: 2, Funny

      guess which suitably named game will be available for the crew of three to play during the flight onboard John Carmack's Black Aramdillo.

      --
      version 0.0002
    2. Re:Seven minutes in heaven by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seven minutes to heaven?

    3. Re:Seven minutes in heaven by arivanov · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That is called proof of concept silly.

      And the interesting bit conceptually is not the spaceship. It is the White Knight.

      Multiple attempts have been made in the past to use planes as a launch platform. Most have gone nowhere because a general purpose plane cannot reach altitude and or speed to replace a proper stage 1 rocket.

      Only exemption seemed to be a project to use russian backfire class supersonic bombers and the second stage of some american missile (forgot which one). Unfortunately it died off due to lack of funding, agreement, etc. Otherwise it had a chance as the backfire has both the thrust and operating ceiling to do this.

      Anyway, the backfire project is apparently dead. So this seems to be the only game in town in terms of proving that the 60 years old "rocket on top of a rocket" design can now be abandoned in favour of something more environmentally and economically sound.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    4. Re:Seven minutes in heaven by Gorgonzola · · Score: 3, Informative

      Hm, you got your insightful points out of moderator ignorance I suppose. Ever heard of this little launch system called Pegasus? There is actually a commercially viable business around that one. It uses a solid fuel rocket that is launched from a refurbished Lockheed Tristar. Look here.

      --
      -- Spelling and grammar errors tend to be a sign of erroneous thinking.
    5. Re:Seven minutes in heaven by Moofie · · Score: 1

      You forgot the part about winning the designer ten million bucks, and international acclaim.

      You're the kind of person who believes that Alan Shepard wasn't the first American in space, aren't you?

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    6. Re:Seven minutes in heaven by Moofie · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not to pick nits, but I'm not sure why you think that planes haven't been used as successful launch platforms.

      Most of the X-Planes were air-launched, mostly from B-36 and B-52 bombers. Orbital Sciences' Pegasus rocket is launched from an L-1011 (commercial jet liner).

      The Backfire was a bomber, designed to launch cruise missiles. At one point, I believe that the Backfire was hypothesized to fire the cruise missiles backwards out of the bomb bay. I don't know if this was ever proven operationally, but I have a hard time understanding how it would have been advantageous to do so.

      Some variants of SU-27 can fire short range air to air missiles backwards, but that's a different kettle of fish.

      Anyhow. : )

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    7. Re:Seven minutes in heaven by Whyrph · · Score: 1

      How much fun is this really, when the majority of your time is spent screaming your head off as you fall back to Earth? Maybe the inflight meal will be really good. If it's got enough G-force to make you scream your head off, maybe the inflight meal will be the last flight's inflight meal . . .

    8. Re:Seven minutes in heaven by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Wow.

      My post below contains most of the same content, but I posted without being a dick about it.

      You might try that sometime.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    9. Re:Seven minutes in heaven by Thagg · · Score: 2, Informative

      And who builds the wing and tail surfaces for the Pegasus? You guessed it -- Burt Rutan.

      thad

      --
      I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
    10. Re:Seven minutes in heaven by morcheeba · · Score: 1

      Pegasus is a great. You don't even need to own the L1011; the first pegi were launched from a borrowed B52.

      If you check out their record, major problems in 5 of the first 10 launches isn't quite the reliability record I want for a manned flight. Especially since the x-prize requires 2 back-to-back flights - something that didn't happen until flights 7 & 8. The contest also requires reusability, but that's another story.

      p.s. I shared an office with the original glomr... click click click of the tx/rx relays. Ok, it wasn't an office: they put the intern in the lab.

    11. Re:Seven minutes in heaven by slew · · Score: 1

      Shooting missles backwards means the cruise missile (which is more like a slow speed plane, than a missile), doesn't immediately experience forward airspeed faster than what it was designed to handle. This was especially important for the Soviet backfire bomber (Tu22M3) which could go supersonic during a bombing run and there aren't too many supersonic cruise missiles, but of course the Tu22M3, never got ALCM (air launched cruise missile) ordinance, and just dropped dumb bombs and short range attack missles. The newer bear H (Tu95MS) and blackjack (Tu160) pulled the ALCM duty and were forward launch.

      Some people have speculated that the back launch capabilities were to avoid supersonic slip-stream issues when firing missiles (the missiles could be fired backwards and turn around and go forwards...), but of course who knows why they did what they did in SOVIET RUSSIA ;^)

    12. Re:Seven minutes in heaven by Moofie · · Score: 1

      But they'd be seeing a (say) Mach 1.5 airstream right up the tailpipe, which would be far worse! The only way I can figure that would work is if there was a big, weighted fairing covering the tailpipe to change the CG of the missile such that it could be stable flying backwards.

      Do you have any links on this practice? I couldn't find any on quick Google survey. Thanks. : )

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    13. Re:Seven minutes in heaven by Gorgonzola · · Score: 1

      I am a dick and proud of it. Besides, I find it rather strange that you are mixing up cruise missiles and genuine rockets in your posts while claiming to be a rocket scientist.

      --
      -- Spelling and grammar errors tend to be a sign of erroneous thinking.
    14. Re:Seven minutes in heaven by Gorgonzola · · Score: 1

      Wow, didn't know that. Thanks.

      --
      -- Spelling and grammar errors tend to be a sign of erroneous thinking.
    15. Re:Seven minutes in heaven by Humpinate · · Score: 1

      Yes,
      Take it from an OLD (as opposed to BOLD)
      EOD ....#1 Fling the bomb at the other motherfucker, then ( VERY important )#2 RUN
      AWAY FAST....
      This being a consensus from experienced troops, from the field, THAT's why you would fire a rocket backwards from an aircraft, and why you would vent the gases to AID delta V, cause #2 says run away FAST !

    16. Re:Seven minutes in heaven by Moofie · · Score: 1

      I know more about aviation and rocketry than any three people you know.

      Try me.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    17. Re:Seven minutes in heaven by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > How much fun is this really, when the majority of your time is spent screaming your head off as you fall back to Earth?

      It is 100 times more fun than the biggest roller-coaster ever designed, without the rolling part, but with MAJOR bragging rights (the kind unseen since Apollo).

      Go to six-flags, poor people! I'm going to space!

    18. Re:Seven minutes in heaven by Moofie · · Score: 1

      I have a real hard time buying this. Not to say it wasn't considered: In the 50's, they considered all kinds of wacky things (like launching ICBMs from cargo planes with open nose and tail hatches).

      You could in fact fire a rocket out the back of the aircraft, and you could in fact use the exhaust gases to give your aircraft a little "boost" for the infinitesimal fraction of a second when the rocket is burning inside the airframe. Problems, as I see them:

      1) You have to fire the engine while inside the plane. Zero operational aircraft do this right now. Missiles are ejected from bomb bays and ignited below the aircraft. Some missiles fire their engines while still on underwing or under-fuselage rails, but never in internal weapon bays.

      2) The missile would (from its own frame of reference) have a large negative velocity. Try throwing a dart backwards and you'll understand how this makes stability a big problem.

      3) As referenced above, even if you do fire the engines inside the aircraft, most rocket-powered missiles accelerate pretty fast. You really are on the horns of a dilemma here: If the rocket motor is powerful enough to make venting its exhaust gases to enhance thrust a useful alternative, it's powerful enough to give the missile a huge acceleration out the back of the airplane, taking its motor with it. If it's a lower thrust motor (like a cruise missile) then the motor isn't big enough to make a difference to the mother aircraft.

      Those are the problems as I see them. I'd be curious to know if there are any weapon systems that engineered around, or ignored, my percieved issues. : )

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  20. we need research into fuel tech as well by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 2, Interesting

    we need a fuel that can burn more efficently, is lighter and provideds more thrust than current fules out there. that way we can have smallercrafts that might be able to employ an all in one solution with a Ram jet taking it up to high altitueds and speeds then the rocket is lite to take it into orbit...perhaps even a high orbit.

    --



    I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    1. Re:we need research into fuel tech as well by jeremy_at_supporttea · · Score: 1

      we need to research non-combustible propulsion methods. perhaps a completely electrically powered drive system, fueled by batteries, solar panels, and submarine class nuclear reactors.

    2. Re:we need research into fuel tech as well by Nazmun · · Score: 1

      Yes, nuclear reactors might work out... for some really large ships :)

      Panels provide shit electricity and even all forseable advancements in the future seem to way below that required for spaceflight.

      --
      Hmmm... Pie...
    3. Re:we need research into fuel tech as well by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      what would be used for the externel thrust system?

      something needs to blast out the back of the craft for thrust....in the atmosphear I guess we could use super heated air heated up by the reactor but what about in space or to get us to space?

      one thing solid and liquid fules do is produce matter expulsion at high speed to give thrust.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    4. Re:we need research into fuel tech as well by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      pannels might be useful to produce electricity on long missions if Nuclear power is not used...though Nuclear power would be better fro long trips.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
  21. Payload? by EMH_Mark3 · · Score: 1

    How much payload would SpaceShipOne be able to take into orbit?

    --
    Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me
    1. Re:Payload? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3 people or 2 people and 200 lb

    2. Re:Payload? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      According to the X-Prize rules, three people at a weight of 90 kilos. So you can swap people for cargo.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    3. Re:Payload? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      0 lb, or 0 kg. SpaceShipOne doesn't go into orbit :)

  22. Who to root for? by Dstrct0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The whole idea of the X-Prize is great, and I love what it is going to do to the space travel industry.

    The only problem I'm having is figuring out who to root for :)

    The Black Armadillo is definitely starting to take shape, it looks a lot better lately than the first time I remember checking it out. Using an environmentally friendly fuel is brilliant, and possibly my favourite thing about the way Carmack and his crew are going about this project.

    The White Knight and SS1 look slick. There's no other word for it. I'd expect to find a ship like that in anime, but not real life!

    I hope Armadillo takes the prize money, but I wish (eventual) success to all teams involved.

    I firmly believe that getting private citizens/companies into space travel is the best way to get the human race to the next level of space exploration, and I can't wait to see the end results!

    Congratulations on all the progress so far guys!

    Who is everyone else cheering for?

    --
    Build boards not bombs
    1. Re:Who to root for? by hswerdfe · · Score: 1

      The Davinci Project

      And the

      Canadian Arrow

      I like Davinci Cause I Think Baloon Launch is a neet way around the masive amounts of fuel problem needed by most single stage rockets.

      But the Arrow is more turist friendly (who wants to sit in a crampt rocket for hours while you raise to 40,000 feet)

      and hey they a both Canadian...:D

      --
      --meh--
  23. Why space tourism is not a good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Space tourism is a horrible idea. People are only fascinated by space because of a glut of bad science fiction that has proliferated in the past 50 years. Now, people are willing to put their lives at risk to fulfill some childish fantasy. It is sad to see people wasting all this energy on useless pursuits when it is far better spent feeding the poor and fighting for justice. Isn't there enough suffering in the world? Do we really need more headlines showing obituarial photos of a dozen "brave" american astronaut-wannabes who died because one of the ground control engineers watched a little too much Star Trek and read 1 too few books on aerodynamics?

    1. Re:Why space tourism is not a good idea by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      you are a fool. the Destany of Humans is to explore Deep space and have interplanetry travel....we will be able to exploid the riches of our solar system soon and perhaps in 100 years we will have cities on mars and the moon (though they might be analogus to Mining towns of the old west...mostly populated with workers.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    2. Re:Why space tourism is not a good idea by Tancred · · Score: 1

      Troll. First off, there's been lots of good science fiction as well. Second, some people have always been willing to put their lives at risk for things they're passionate about, and it's not (always) a childish thing. We owe them our thanks. Third, feeding the poor and pushing the limits of human knowlege are not mutually exclusive ideas. Fourth, there's plenty of suffering in the world, but there are plenty of other things to point your finger at than space exploration. Fifth, it sounds like you've got a problem with media coverage of space tragedies. Might I suggest alternative media? Sixth, if you can do it better than NASA, I'm sure some X Prize teams want to talk to you. Then again, you've probably spent a little too much time blathering on Slashdot and too little time reading about aerodynamics.

    3. Re:Why space tourism is not a good idea by arivanov · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Rutan has read enough books on aerodynamics.

      Actually he has the most impressive track record of any living aircraft designer. Only a few dead people like Toupolev and one of the McDonnel-Douglas guys come close in terms of closeness of the design and concept to a working plane (and the lack of rows of pictures dead test pilots in the briefing room).

      It is also not about tourists. All space agencies have no research budget to work on new concepts. They can barely operate what they have got with what they are given. So they are entrenched and new things can come only from small private ventures.

      A good example is the launch from floating platforms. The idea has been on the table for ages and still no space agency has made it happen. It took an outsider to break the entrenchment.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    4. Re:Why space tourism is not a good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear fellow anonymous coward:

      When the earth overcrowds, runs out of resources, and is incinerated by the aging sun simultaneously because a few bureaucrats a few eons ago couldn't get their asses in gear and start working towards an efficient means to leave the planet, don't complain.

      Assertively,
      Anonymous Coward

  24. More photos at Pournelle's web site by chroma · · Score: 4, Informative

    Jerry Pournelle posted some more photos on his web site a couple days ago: http://jerrypournelle.com/view/view258.html#SS1

    --

    Your design to a real part online: Big Blue Saw
  25. Of course it's a typo by AvantLegion · · Score: 2, Funny
    urely this is a typo? Nobody uses rubber as a rocket fuel... unless this is a new kind of rubber that is completely diferent to the stretchy, boingy stuff?

    They meant to put flubber.

    1. Re:Of course it's a typo by 3waygeek · · Score: 1

      If they used flubber, they wouldn't have any need for fuel. Just make the ship out of the stuff, then drop it onto terra firma from the tow plane; it'll then bounce into space.

  26. Mustangs! by rjoseph · · Score: 1

    Burt Rutan is a graduate of the AERO department at Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo! Go Poly!

  27. date of first flight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    does anyone noticed, in the bbc article, they say they are aiming for a first flight in december, that's pretty close!

  28. Even if this fails... by tycheung · · Score: 2, Informative

    Rutan still has some nifty defense dept. contracts. Scaled Composites created the airframe for the Boeing X-45 UCAV, and I'd bet they probably have a hand in a lot of the other UCAV's too. They have more experience than anyone else when it comes to lightweight, composite material aircraft construction.

    1. Re:Even if this fails... by mnemonic_ · · Score: 1

      Scaled Composites has frequently been contracted by NASA to perform final design analysis and manufacturing of experimental aircraft. That is their business. The X-prize is just on the side.

    2. Re:Even if this fails... by iAlex · · Score: 1

      Not quite. Scaled didn't do the airframe for the X-45. Their work was with Northrop Grummans X-47A Pegasus. The funding didn't come from the DoD, but instead it was all internal funds comming out of Northrop's pockets. Here is a link a couple pictures of the X-47A on it's first flight at the China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station.

      http://www.is.northropgrumman.com/gallery/pegasu s/ pegasus.htm

      --
      What's a Sig???
  29. Hey, cool so like ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... you guys know each other. Get a room already.

  30. Re:The Y Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is this modded troll? I didn't know what the x prize was either. Thank you very much to the person who posted the URL with more information.

  31. Karma blow. by torpor · · Score: 1

    LOL!!!!!!

    If I had mod points, this'd be +5 Funny already.

    Into the /. quotebin.

    --
    ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
  32. President, no thanks by Julian+Morrison · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My only disagreement is with "Rutan for president". It's an insult to this great man to lump him in with an organization, government, whose whole existence is predicated on force and which can only fund itself by theft.

    To the contrary it's the efforts of Mr Rutan and others like him which will finally put our species out of the reach of government.

    1. Re:President, no thanks by Moofie · · Score: 1

      I smell an objectivist.

      You are aware that Mr. Rutan has done much work as an evil government contractor, right?

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    2. Re:President, no thanks by Julian+Morrison · · Score: 1

      Technically, you smell an anarchist ;-)

      It's a pity he's worked for the govt at all, but regardless, the effect of private space travel will be the end of government. As a purely pragmatic exercise, it's is impossible to rule space. There's simply too much of it, it's too easy to hide in, too hard to fight in. Meanwhile groundbound governments are sitting ducks for anyone in space, one merely has to drop rocks down the gravity well.

    3. Re:President, no thanks by Moofie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You and I are coming to the same conclusions from opposite sides.

      Which probably means we're right. : )

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  33. Cackle by jpmorgan · · Score: 2, Funny
    I am the only one who wants to see 'em light up the SS1 without detaching it from the White Knight first? :)

    Okay, so I'm sure it'd probably explode or something. But it'd look cool for a few moments.

    1. Re:Cackle by svb · · Score: 1

      Anyone remember 'Star Trek:Generations'?

      *Locking Clamps Engaged*... *Locking Clamps Engaged*... *Locking Clamps Engaged*...

      BOOM! Hee hee hee.

  34. Only got 24 hours to save the Earth! by Kaemaril · · Score: 1

    Is it just me, or does that thing look like a 1930s Flash Gordon rocket ship?

    Of course, there's something ineffably cool about it looking like a 1930s rocket ship :)

    1. Re:Only got 24 hours to save the Earth! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they'll play the Queen soundtrack during re-entry!

      "FLASH! AH-AH!"

  35. check the website by rebelcool · · Score: 1
    they have more details about the engine. Pretty interesting stuff. Like a liquid fueled engine, it has the 2 components, the nitrous and the rubber. Unlike most liquid rocket fuel, these elements are benign and easy to store.

    Apparently when you mix these 2 together, and combine it with a significant heat source, you get quite alot of thrust.

    Unlike a liquid though, you can't throttle the thrust. I wonder if its possible to stop the thrust though if you remove the heat source, or is it self-sustaining once you get ignition?

    --

    -

    1. Re:check the website by physicsnerd · · Score: 2, Informative
      Actually, you can throttle them. The oxidizer is in a gasous/liquid form and by changing how much is pumped into the chamber, you change the thrust. Of course you can just have the valve all the way open or all the way closed, that keeps the cost of development down. In that case the system produces a set level of thrust, which works fine for most applications.

      It is possible to stop all thrust with the solid fuel(HTPB in this case) still in the chamber. All you have to do is shut off the oxidizer. The rubber can't burn, even if it's at temperature without the oxidizer. Infact, hybrids can also be restarted.

      physicsnerd

      -------------

      "Even logic must give way to physics" - Spock

  36. almost.. by rebelcool · · Score: 1
    you can throttle liquid fuel engines, but the plumbing and mechanics behind them are really quite complicated. Many points of failure. You need turbopumps and other things to make it work. Also, the fuel components themselves are terribly corrosive, toxic, and difficult to store.

    Solid rocket motors are fairly easy to store (just don't accidentally light one). However, once they're lit, they burn until they're gone.

    This hybrid seems to use to use the better elements of the two, though I don't believe it is throttleable. At least thats my impression from scaled.com's write up.

    --

    -

  37. Xprize Fatalaties are not subject to Darwins by LordZardoz · · Score: 2, Informative

    Or, at least they should not be.

    Darwin's are for people who take questionable actions which the person in question should be able to anticipate the result. Like checking the gas tank at night and lighting a match to see better. Darwins should also extend to people who disregard warnings of danger.

    The X-Prize people are knowingly taking a big risk, and are aware of the dangers, and have tried to minimize them. The fatalaties are not going to result from monstously absurd ignorance or stupidity. The errors will be a magnitude or two lower.

    If X Prize contenstants are viable Darwin Awards, then so should test pilots, infantry soldiers, and car accident fatalaties.

    END COMMUNICATION

  38. It's called Hydroxyl Terminated PolyButadiene by physicsnerd · · Score: 2, Informative
    No, it is not a typo. The solid portion of the fuel is called Hydroxyl Terminated PolyButadiene (HTPB), and it is a rubber. It's roughly the consitancy of those rubber bouncy balls when it hardens. It's a very common rocket fuel, and as I recall it's what they use in the shuttle bosters (need to check that to be sure). It's been around for as long as I've been building rockets.

    Physicsnerd

    ------------------

    "Even logic must give way to physics" - Spock

  39. Great video! by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

    Oh man, that's just great. After the first test I thought, "They're going to to put a person in that?!" Then comes out a guy in t-shirt, jeans, and a helmet...

    Priceless.

  40. Heh, mod me down, couldn't resist by Julian+Morrison · · Score: 1

    "The government ensures that the ground beef you buy in the grocery store isn't ground rat, for example."

    Take a look at this then.

    Government regulation doesn't work. Political forces as impersonal and automatic as the laws of physics push regulators to preserve the appearance of regulation rather than the actuality, and to serve the politically powerful big business over the individually powerless citizen.

    And the very presence of government regulation distorts the market, allowing products which slip through the loopholes to pass themselves off, in this case as chicken despite being injected with beef protiens. You could probably be sued for calling this "not chicken" or "adulterated", because the government makes the definitions and its the only game in town.

    This is not an isolated example. Everything government touches it fouls up. How could it not? It's the expression of force in the market, while the market itself is the free choices of individuals. Anything the government does is by definition a less-desired and probably less desirable outcome than whatever would have happened in its absence.

  41. "amazing capital" not. by pixel.jonah · · Score: 1

    I don't concider $20 million "amazing capital" these days.

    1. Re:"amazing capital" not. by CommieOverlord · · Score: 1

      "I'm gonna built me a real big rocket and fly to the moon". Try giving that line to bank and see how much money they loan you.

      $20 million is a lot considering what it's for.

    2. Re:"amazing capital" not. by torpor · · Score: 1

      Well if that's the case, how about a loan? I'm sure you've got $2million at least to spare for my own little ... 'space' ... project.

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    3. Re:"amazing capital" not. by pixel.jonah · · Score: 1

      Sure, just show me your resume of related experience. These guys can!

  42. Comprimise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, instead of getting thrills going out into space and helping reduce the number of poor - how about helping reduce the number of poor through hunting them? You would pay a cool $10 million for a license to hunt anyone under median income. The catch? You'd have to wear a vest stuffed with $1 million in cash so that the poor people(s) would get to take a crack at you too! Talk about heart-pounding. And, everyone would probably dress a little nicer rather than risk being mistaken for someone making less than median income...

    Still, I think I'd rather go visit space.

  43. Contestants by nnnneedles · · Score: 1

    I've been browsing through the X-Prize contestants and just realized how many people are going to die attempting this.

    These people are crazy. I wonder if the crashes will even make the news.

    --
    Will code a sig generator for food
  44. MacReady by ishmaelflood · · Score: 1

    Not knocking him, but several other people have designed and built human powered planes since then. eg http://www.nasg.com/hpa/birdman-e.html

    Trouble is, it costs a lot, and the easiest (not easy), big prize has been taken.

    Mind you, he has also worked on a lot of other interesting projects, http://www.aerovironment.com/
    lists a few

  45. It was supposed to have a powered landing... by malakai · · Score: 2, Informative

    but because of X-Prize pressure, they are scraping that plan for now. John Carmack said in one of his diaries, that if someone else got the X-Prize before AA, then they'd go back to a powered landing (true VTVL SSTO).

    -Malakai

  46. not according to the website... by rebelcool · · Score: 1

    it says it is not throttleable. The pilot is given 2 controls, an Arm switch, and then a final ignite button to do the burn.

    --

    -

    1. Re:not according to the website... by physicsnerd · · Score: 2, Informative
      This particular enigine isn't, but hybrid rockets in general can be. One of the key componets on the thrust of any rocket is the fuel to oxidizer ratio. By changing this ratio, you can vary the thrust. One of the advantages of hybrids is that the oxidizer is in a liquid/gasous from. You don't get the same level of control that you do with a liquid fuel / liquid oxidizer, but you still are able to change the thrust level. If you're interested in learning more about this I suggest a couple of books.

      The first is "Space Propulsion Analysis and Design" by Humble, Henry, and Larson. Chapter 7 is all about hybrids and their characteristics.

      The second is "Rocket Propulsion Elements" by Sutton, and Biblarz. Chapter 15 is on hybrids.

      Physicsnerd

      ---------------

      "Even logic must give way to physics"

  47. Re:Quick ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we are all individuals

  48. Re-usable ballon launch platform by evenprime · · Score: 2, Informative
    with a high-altitude balloon as a "first stage" would rock....And be cheaper.
    How? Helium costs y'know. And that balloon & helium wouldn't be recoverable.

    Just in the interest of accuracy, it is worth noting that at least one X-prize team thinks that balloon launch platforms will be reusable:
    IL Aerospace Technologies
    --

    "Weapons should be hardy rather than decorative" - Miyamoto Musashi
    I think that goes for OS's too
  49. No thanks... by Lobo_Louie · · Score: 1

    ... I'll wait for the Eclipse 500.

  50. I don't think so, either. by MtViewGuy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    After reading on Armadillo's plane for trying to win the X-Prize, I think I'll pass on this idea, too.

    What happens if ALL the parachutes fail, something that is not impossible? The resulting landing would kill the pilot and two passengers almost instantly from the impact forces.

    At least with Rutan's White Knight/SpaceShip One combination, SpaceShip One will fly a fairly benign flight regime, and the vehicle will glide to a safe horizontal landing between Mojave Aiport and those big dry lake beds at Edwards AFB. And Rutan has carefully studied how the X-15 did its re-entry after its high-altitude flights and designed SpaceShip One to handle safely in the re-entry phase.

    1. Re:I don't think so, either. by Moofie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What happens if the wings break off?

      It's always possible to have a mission-failure point in a design. Good engineers identify those points, and design redundancies and fail-safes. That's why we pay engineers lots of money.

      I hope. Anybody want to hire me? : )

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    2. Re:I don't think so, either. by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > What happens if ALL the parachutes fail, something that is not impossible?

      While that is a good point, I don't think they are too worried about the landing. Look at it this way: What if the heat tiles fell off of a NASA space shuttle? Oh, they did? Not everyone needs or expects 100% safety, especially when going into a new field.

    3. Re:I don't think so, either. by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

      It's always possible to have a mission-failure point in a design. Good engineers identify those points, and design redundancies and fail-safes. That's why we pay engineers lots of money.

      In that case thank God Burt Rutan's company is building the White Knight/SpaceShipOne combination. =)

      I believe right now Scaled Composites has the best chance to win the X-Prize because Rutan has applied his innovative use of strong, non-metallic aerospace materials to win the prize. Also, Rutan has given lots of thought about safely re-entering the atmosphere, something that kind of concerns me regarding the other X-Prize competitors. Given Rutan's proven track record of building a line of innovative airplanes, I'll put my money on Rutan getting there first.

      The very fact that both the DoD and NASA has entrusted experimental designs to Scaled Composites proves that Rutan is on the right track. Indeed, the spinoff from Scaled Composites' entry may include a orbiting spaceplane launched from the top of a modified 747 that could carry 7-8 crew or several thousand pounds of cargo into low Earth orbit (LEO).

  51. I'll put my money on Rutan. by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

    The reason is simple: Rutan has a demonstrated track record of safe, yet technologically-innovative flying machines.

    SpaceShip One is designed for an aerodynamically benign flight profile, and Rutan has designed SS1 so there is lots of safety margins during the re-entry phase.

  52. more on powered landing... by rebelcool · · Score: 2, Insightful
    powered landing is a long way away. Simple reason being: Aero Engines weigh alot.

    And pounds you put in for aero engines is that much less weight you can carry to orbit (or edge of space, as is the case here). For small craft, putting in a single aero engine would mean ditching the crew and all their luggage entirely.

    --

    -

  53. Photoshop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok, maybe this was mentioned on a past article. But their credibility really suffers when their "photos" of the flight have an obviously photoshopped rocket engine pasted onto the back in each picture. I understand that the flight testing doesn't require a working rocket be installed, but how stupid do they think we are?

  54. None by Inominate · · Score: 1

    SpaceShipOne is not an orbiter.
    It goes straight up, and comes straight back down.

    To reach orbit you need to get going really really fast, as well as reach those high altitudes.

    1. Re:None by EMH_Mark3 · · Score: 1

      So, that thing is like totally useless? :(

      --
      Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me
  55. It's like Unix by Rhinobird · · Score: 1

    You can't be an airplane designer without sideburns and you can't be a Unix guru with out a big bushy beard.

    --
    If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
  56. That's true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Until Steve Bennett blows himself up.

  57. Rutan isn't perfect by rcousine · · Score: 1

    Burt Rutan hasn't had a lot of design failures, but he has had at least one: the "Pond Racer", built for pylon racing, crashed in 1993, killing its pilot, apparently not due to pilot error.

  58. What sig? by DrMorpheus · · Score: 1

    I don't see no stinkin' sig, seriously.

    --
    Debunking the "59 Deceits"
  59. Why the hell isn't this mod'ed flamebait? by DrMorpheus · · Score: 1

    Or at least off-topic? Oh yeah, it's jives with the moderators' political biases. Watch, my comment is going to get a negative moderation merely for pointing out that a bayesian moderation system would be vastly better than a human one. Certainly less biased.

    --
    Debunking the "59 Deceits"
    1. Re:Why the hell isn't this mod'ed flamebait? by Julian+Morrison · · Score: 1

      Don't blame me, I said to mod me down. ;-)