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."

61 of 180 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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.

    6. 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
  2. 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 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/
  3. 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.

  4. 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 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!
    2. 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. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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 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.

    2. 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
  8. 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.

  9. 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".
  10. 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

  11. 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
  12. 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

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

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

  14. 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 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!

  15. 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!
  16. 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 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/
    3. 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.
    4. 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!
    5. 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.
  17. 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.

  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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.

  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. 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.

  24. 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.

  25. 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/
  26. 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.

  27. 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: 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!
  28. 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.

  29. 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

  30. 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

  31. 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

  32. 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

  33. 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"

  34. 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
  35. 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!
  36. 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.

    --

    -