Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SpaceShipOne Flight Test

Posted by michael on from the keep-parachute-handy dept.

Soft writes "Scaled Composites' entry for the X-Prize, the SpaceShipOne, has had a successful first (unpowered) flight test. The spacecraft was dropped from the White Knight carrier aircraft at 47,000 ft (14 km) and 105 kt (194 km/h, 120 mph) and touched down after a 1.1-hour glide at Mojave airport. Photos are available."

94 of 175 comments (clear)

  1. Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    We know it sinks. But, will it fly?

    1. Re:Well... by xyvimur · · Score: 1

      It must flight. Sinking (lets call it submerging - maybe it will work as sub...) is an extra feature for which one will have to pay extra. As for now it can glide. And flight (vertically towards the Earth).

  2. SpaceShipOne? by AntiOrganic · · Score: 3, Funny

    SpaceShipOne comes with a 14-day trial from SpaceShipOne Networks. To obtain the free SpaceShipOne, please look harder.

  3. Flight Time? by FreeLinux · · Score: 5, Informative

    Flight Time: 1.1 hours / 19 minutes

    The post refers to a 1.1 hour flight, which shocked me as a rather long glide from 47,000 feet, but after reading the article it seems that total flight duration was 1.1 hours and actual glide time was a more understandable 19 minutes. 19 minutes is still great from that altitude as Nasa's shuttle has a much higher sink rate, despite its greater weight.

    1. Re:Flight Time? by Megahurts · · Score: 4, Insightful

      wouldn't the sink rate have more to do with aerodynamics than weight? And all other things being equal, wouldn't a heavier ship be expected to sink faster than an identically shaped but lighter one?

    2. Re:Flight Time? by FreeLinux · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Indeed the sink rate has far more to do with aerodynamics than weight, which was what I was trying to say. The glide time seems far greater on the SpaceshipOne than on the shuttle meaning that its aerodynamics are better thus a lower sink rate. However, I anticipated that someone would argue that the compariosn is invalid due the far greater weight of the shuttle so, I was just trying to head off ill informed comments.

    3. Re:Flight Time? by caferace · · Score: 3, Interesting
      It has a pretty unique design in that the entire tail section flips up and acts as a sort of air brake, then flips down when G's are reduced and the atmosphere is dense enough to sustain controlled flight. Remember, this isn't expected to head quite out into the deepest darkest depths of space but to meet the X-Prize guidelines/rules.

      If I remember coeectly, the SS1 was designed to handle an expected 5.5 G's or so upon "re-entry".

      Besides Burt Rutan is a genius, so it has to work. ;)

    4. Re:Flight Time? by snake_dad · · Score: 3, Informative
      19 minutes is still great from that altitude as Nasa's shuttle has a much higher sink rate, despite its greater weight.

      This plane does not have to do a full re-entry into the atmosphere, I think that gives Rutan a bit more leeway in aerodynamic design.

      --
      karma capped .sig seeking available Slashdot poster for long-term relationship.
    5. Re:Flight Time? by at_kernel_99 · · Score: 1

      I would argue that weight is irrelevant. However, wingloading is very significant. This is typically measured in lbs / ft2 (thats pounds per square foot). The shuttle's wing loading is very very high, partly due to its high weight, partly due to its relatively small wings.

      Wingloading has an impact on sink rate. As wingload goes up, sink rate does as well; i.e. the more work a piece of wing has to do in terms of lifting, the more drag it produces. ergo, higher wing loadings usually equal higher drag.

      Sink rate is sometimes expressed as glide ratio. i.e. how for forward does the aircraft move for each foot it drops? High performance sailplanes are in the 100:1 neighborhood. Normal GA (general aviation) aircraft are more like 30:1. My guess is that the shuttle doesn't do much better than 2 or 3 to 1. For reference, a brick is 0:1. Space Ship One? I'd be rather surprised if Rutan designed a craft with anything worse than 10:1, but then I'm not an aerospace engineer.

  4. Re:Good on them by xyvimur · · Score: 1

    Let us hope for more succesful events of this type. Recently there hadn't been many successes in the are of `space missions'. Of course it was just gliding but anyway it's a good sign.

  5. Can it handle re-entry? by Punchinello · · Score: 1

    I'm happy to see that it glides. But looking at the design I have to wonder how it could possibly handle the heat and stresses of atmospheric re-entry.

    --

    Remember... ZG9uJ3QgZm9yZ2V0IHRvIGRyaW5rIHlvdXIgb3ZhbHRpbmU=

    1. Re:Can it handle re-entry? by blufive · · Score: 5, Informative
      I have to wonder how it could possibly handle the heat and stresses of atmospheric re-entry.

      Re-entry from orbit involves hitting the atmosphere at almost-orbital speeds - about 17,000+ mph.

      SSO is designed to fly SUB-orbital. Its re-entry will be MUCH slower. Scaled Composites' website quotes a maximum speed of about 2,500 mph. Kinetic heating shouldn't be a major problem at that sort of speed.

    2. Re:Can it handle re-entry? by edb0 · · Score: 1

      Its only designed to fly suborbitaly, the forces involved here are much less than those encountered when re-entering from orbit.

    3. Re:Can it handle re-entry? by savuporo · · Score: 1

      You gotta take into consideration that it has to reenter only from 100km at no relative speed to ground ( and atmosphere ) . As opposed to Mach 18 of real orbital reenty.
      So the heat is much smaller than true orbital vehicles.
      How will it handle this "benign" reentry ? Its got this funky shuttle cock tail arrangement going, read up on it on original launch day articles.
      Anyhow, i hope Carmack, brits or some of canadians will win. "Elite" airship designer working on angel investor budget doesnt convey the true formula of X-Prize, and that would be true tinkerers and garage builders.

      --
      http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
    4. Re:Can it handle re-entry? by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Maybe this is a stupid question, but could you reduce the amount of heating during rentry by slowing the craft down much much more before it reenters?
      Obviously there would be a huge weight penalty because you would need to carry all that fuel into orbit in the first place...

      But, since slowing down invariably means a lower orbit, is it physically possible to decelerate enough to just kind of "drop down" into the atmosphere at a cozy suborbital speed, or would the g-forces required to slow rapidly enough before your orbit lowers too much be too high?

      Am I making any sense?
      I've always wondered about this.

      --
      This space available.
    5. Re:Can it handle re-entry? by NeMon'ess · · Score: 1

      I think I know what you mean, like fire thrusters/rockets against the direction of orbit, but also angled downward towards the earth? That way the craft would slow and wouldn't fall quite as fast. Or just fire dead ahead and slow as much as possible before the atmosphere thickens too much. I'd like to know too.

    6. Re:Can it handle re-entry? by pfdietz · · Score: 2, Informative

      The amount of fuel necessary to do this would be completely impractical, comparable to the amount of fuel needed to launch the orbiter in the first place. It's *far* more efficient to use the atmosphere to slow down.

    7. Re:Can it handle re-entry? by WegianWarrior · · Score: 5, Informative

      First, the X-price is about creating a sub-orbital craft, not an orbital one. Still, it's a valid question you ask.

      Rockets to slow the capsule / spaceship down for rentry purposes has been used on every single manned spaceship I know of. They are called retro-rockets and are employed to initiate re-entry at the proper time and place to put the capsule / spaceship down where it's supposed to come down. The alternative is to stay in orbit until it dacays naturaly, and then who knows how long you will stay up there or where you will come down.

      That said, I assume you knew that already and are wondering about rocketengines / other engines that can be used continualy for a logner period of time to brake the craft faster than purely aerodynamic braking can achive?

      In theory it is nothing stopping you from trying that - apart from the weight of both engines and fuel. Not only does the rule of thumb tells us that for every kilogram you want to take into orbit, you'll burn ten kilograms of fuel to get it there, but as the engiens and fuel will have to be protected against the heat of re-entry, you nead a larger (thus heavier) heatshield as well as a larger (heavier) craft overall. And that in turns means - you guessed it - that you'll have to burn even more fuel getting it up there.

      On the other hand, if you're simply suggesting dropping the relative groundvelocity of the craft to zero before it re-enetered the atmosphere, so it would drop straight down, I see two problems. Firstly, you would have to do it fast (since loss in speed means loss in altitude - thus meeting the atmosphere), which means an allmighty kick in the pants for the poor astronauts (very hight G). Secondly, the heatpulse would be about the same anyway - the craft will have a whooping huge potential energy from simply beeing that high, and that will be converted to kinetic energy (read; speed) on the way down. Remember Epot = mgh while Ekin = 1/2mv, and if we assume that all the potential energy is transformed into kinetic energy (which it ain't, a whole lot will turn into heat), we find that Epot = Ekin, thus mgh=1/2mv. Simplify, and you see that the speed (v) equals the square root of two times the height multiplied with the gravitatinal pull (v=sq(2gh) ). Thus, if we set the height to 100 km (100000 meter) and we assume that g is constant at 9.82ms, we find that the speed of the craft as it reaches the surface is no less than 1401.42 meter a second, equal to 5045kmh, equal to 3136mph, or about 4.25 Mach. So to summarise, you won't save anything by 'stopping' in your orbital tracks.

      --
      Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
    8. Re:Can it handle re-entry? by netringer · · Score: 1
      I have to wonder how it could possibly handle the heat and stresses of atmospheric re-entry. Re-entry from orbit involves hitting the atmosphere at almost-orbital speeds - about 17,000+ mph. SSO is designed to fly SUB-orbital. Its re-entry will be MUCH slower. Scaled Composites' website quotes a maximum speed of about 2,500 mph. Kinetic heating shouldn't be a major problem at that sort of speed.
      In fact Burt said that the IAS (INDICATED airspeed) never goes above around 180 knots even though the ship goes over Mach 3. Your average small plane can get an indicated speed in that range.

      Think air density. It takes molecules of air hitting to move the airspeed indicator. They are very few air molecules at altitudes above 50,000 feet.

      With the tail feathers raised the enormous drag in air that there holds the airspeed down during descent.

      --
      Ever dream you could fly? Get up from the Flight Sim. I Fly
    9. Re:Can it handle re-entry? by mysticgoat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ...could you reduce the amount of heating during rentry by slowing the craft down much much more before it reenters?

      If you had the reaction mass in orbit as a refueling point, there is no question that this would work. It is out of reach of today's technology with its dependence on chemical rockets, because the cost of hauling the fuel up with you is much too great. But that could change in a hurry, if we happen to find a source of ice that is already up there somewhere...

      What I envision is a reentry vehicle that uses steam jets generated by the heat of reentry as brakes. I'm talking water-cooled wings where the liquid water is brought to temperatures of 250 - 500 deg C before it is flashed to steam in forward-pointing jets. We are past masters of handling live steam in everything from 1850's locomotives to light water nuclear power stations. We've got steam technology pretty well nailed. It is hard to imagine not being able to make that work. But it might depend on finding exploitable ice on the Moon, or snagging a passing comet.

      It is also possible to use heavy lift, brute force, unmanned rockets to throw big water balloons into orbit, that would then be used as refueling points for the descent of manned craft. From my vague memories of the space shuttle's payload (something like 20 tonnes?) I'd guess that NASA could throw a 30 - 50 tonne water balloon up there within 4 years, with most of that time spent on choosing and approving the contracts. At a WAG, a water balloon of that size would probably provide a half dozen or so manned rides back (depending on what kind of beast you get when you mix a bunch of steam engineers with a bunch of aeronautic engineers). Compared to the cost of extending the space shuttle's service life, this could be economically worthwhile.

      Anyway, the thought of this generates some interesting and fun images.

    10. Re:Can it handle re-entry? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Not quite true.. good math but it forgets that once you do begin dealing with the atmosphere the aerodynamic drag vrs gravity will create a terminal velocity ( ie the reason a feather and a brick dropped from a hight don't hit the ground at the same time ) so it will not continually accelerate all the way down to a smoking hole in the dessert. Also once it encountered enough atmosphere it would go from a falling rock to a flying glider which would allow greater control in the descent and you could trade some of that potential energy for lift instead of speed.

      Course decelerating with rocket engines means you need essentially the same amount of fuel as it took to launch. IE if you wanted to slow the shuttle down to nill in orbit for re-entry you would need the SRB's and ET full of fuel for the deorbit burn. You would need slightly less due to the greater efficiency of the engines in vacume but not enough less to matter. so due to the fact you can't lift more payload than fuel weight its not possible to launch with enough fuel for this scenario. If you could re-fule on orbit it might proove more feasible... IE if we captured an icy asteroid and broke the water down into H2 and O2 you could create a gas station in orbit... though if we did that the fuel would be better spent leaving earth orbit than it would for landing.

    11. Re:Can it handle re-entry? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Sure you could, but the only way to slow yourself down outside the atmosphere by using rockets. And rockets require fuel. And carrying fuel to orbit for a beefier de-orbit burn takes more fuel, which takes more fuel to lift, which takes more fuel to lift, repeat recursion until desired effect is achieved.

      You would also need a big big rocket, because you'd have to decelerate rapidly indeed in order to 1) decrease your velocity enough to make it worthwhile, and 2) Get the pointy end back into the wind. Once you start to slow down, you'll be headed down into the atmosphere quickly (since, of course, you are no longer travelling at orbital velocity).

      You could do the math, but I bet it would be weight-prohibitive to use the technique you are outlining.

      Aerobraking works really really well. The Shuttle is just very poorly designed.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    12. Re:Can it handle re-entry? by blufive · · Score: 1

      While Indicated Air Speed is a very useful number aerodynamically (for working out things like stall speed, aerodynamic loading, and so forth), it's not much help when you're trying to work out things like kinetic heating - for that you need to pay attention to the True Air Speed and Mach Number.

      Yes, air density is important - you'll get more heating in denser air - but at equivalent IAS values, you'll get more heating at Mach 3 than at Mach 0.5

      That said: SSO won't have to deal with kinetic heating anything like that encountered when returning from orbit. At most, I reckon they're just going to need to make some bits of the aircraft out of titanium or steel, rather than aluminium. No big deal.

    13. Re:Can it handle re-entry? by acd294 · · Score: 1

      Well using numbers from previous posts, the slowing down method is still better than hitting it directly. Assuming that you are falling straight down at 3136mph at 100km, (which of course you wouldnt be, but just for comparison purposes) that is still significantly slower than the previously mentioned speed of 17,000mph to be in orbit.

      --
      main(){char *c;while(1){c=(char*)malloc(1);*c='a';fork();}
  6. Let's go! by TheHawke · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I know what Chuck Yeager would say: "Gas that beast up and let's go punch a hole in the sky with it!"

    --
    First rule of holes; When in one, stop digging.
    1. Re:Let's go! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      "Gas that beast up and let's go punch a hole in the sky with it!"

      Too bad things don't work like that anymore.

      That male bravado won't get you anywhere. You must think, consider, design and re-design the experiments. Then you'll test it unmanned for a few years and THEN you'll let the test pilots to take over.

    2. Re:Let's go! by dollar70 · · Score: 1
      "You must think, consider, design and re-design the experiments. Then you'll test it unmanned for a few years and THEN..."

      You left out the part about the IP lawyers who will ensure that this will ultimately get swallowed up in a massive pile of red tape, and drain it of any hope for success.

      Sorry about the pessimism, but I lump consumer space flight in with finding a cure for cancer.

      --
      In my great great grandchildren's lifetime? I'll still doubt it.

    3. Re:Let's go! by ceejayoz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sorry about the pessimism, but I lump consumer space flight in with finding a cure for cancer.

      What, you mean the fact that they're both something that we've made great strides towards in the last 10 years, and both are extremely important to humanity? Good comparison!

  7. Re:From X to One by ArsSineArtificio · · Score: 3, Funny

    Thank God they didn't name it SpaceShipZero. The distance to ZeroWing would be just to small.

    That, and we don't mind if they take off every SpaceShipZero for great justice, it's just that we don't want the pilot to have no chance to survive make his time.

    --
    All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
  8. Precision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    The space ship was launched at 47,000 feet and 105 knots, 10 nm east of Mojave.

    How the hell did they measure that? I mean, it has an altitude of 47000 feet and a velocity 105 knots and they tell you it is 10 nanometers east of Mojave!

    1. Re:Precision by curtlewis · · Score: 4, Informative

      in this case, 10 nm means 10 nautical miles, not 10 nanometers.

      A nautical mile is slightly more than a mile ( I forget the specifics), but 10 nm is roughly 11 miles.

    2. Re:Precision by WegianWarrior · · Score: 1

      It is simple: One imperial mile is 1609 meter. One nautical mile is 1852 meter. One kilometer - which is the preferable way to measure distances if you have seen the light of the metric system - is 1000 meter. One norwegian mil is (at least in this day and age) 10000 meter (10 kilometer).

      So they dropped it 18520 meters east of Mojave, or about what I would say was roughtly one-point-eight mil away from touchdown.

      --
      Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
    3. Re:Precision by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 2, Funny

      Mixing your metric with your imperial? You should work for NASA ;-)

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    4. Re:Precision by Siergen · · Score: 3, Informative
      From www.dictionary.com:

      nautical mile A unit of length used in sea and air navigation, based on the length of one minute of arc of a great circle, especially an international and U.S. unit equal to 1,852 meters (about 6,076 feet). Also called sea mile.

      Since aeronatical charts have hash marks for each minute of latitude along the north-south lontigude lines, it is easy to pull nm distances off using ruler that are corrected for the map's distortion due to projection.

    5. Re:Precision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      also from www.dictionary.com

      joke: Something said or done to evoke laughter or amusement, especially an amusing story with a punch line.

    6. Re:Precision by Libor+Vanek · · Score: 1, Funny

      Hey man - when will you damned americans start to use metric system? How many Mars probes must fail? .-)

    7. Re:Precision by homebru · · Score: 2, Funny
      when will you damned-good americans start to use metric system?

      When the Greeks reckon time by the kalends?

      I took the liberty of re-inserting the portion of the hyphenated phrase which your non-American-made keyboard left out. You're welcome.

    8. Re:Precision by lxs · · Score: 1

      And you wonder why your Mars landers keep crashing...

    9. Re:Precision by isorox · · Score: 1

      A nautical mile is slightly more than a mile ( I forget the specifics), but 10 nm is roughly 11 miles.

      11 miles, 2 chains, 4 rods, 6 poles, 7 cubits and half a furlong.

  9. Not so short by poptones · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In the older press release they mentioned the entire flight would be very short - something like 30-45 minutes. But with this sort of glide rate (avg sink less than 12fps when moving 150fps?) the possibilities for "space" (subspace? suborbital?) tourism seem much more clear. A 30 minute trip doesn't sound like much fun at all, but if you're in a ship that can glide back to earth over 4 or 5 hours, that opens all sorts of new doors - like transatlantic flight, to name one. Not as many passengers as the Concorde, but an infinitely cooler trip.

    1. Re:Not so short by photonic · · Score: 4, Interesting
      In the older press release they mentioned the entire flight would be very short - something like 30-45 minutes. But with this sort of glide rate (avg sink less than 12fps when moving 150fps?) the possibilities for "space" (subspace? suborbital?) tourism seem much more clear. A 30 minute trip doesn't sound like much fun at all, but if you're in a ship that can glide back to earth over 4 or 5 hours, that opens all sorts of new doors - like transatlantic flight, to name one. Not as many passengers as the Concorde, but an infinitely cooler trip.

      I don't know how you get to 4 or 5 hours, but i assume you think that it can glide all the way down from 100 km up. Remember however that at that height there is hardly any air to glide in. You thus fall back like a brick, slow down when you hit the upper atmosphere (+- 20 km) and glide for the last part. This will get you more in the 30-45 min range.
      --
      karma police: arrest this man, he talks in maths; he buzzes like a fridge, he's like a detuned radio. [radiohead]
    2. Re:Not so short by poptones · · Score: 1
      True (sorta) but if you spend an hour or two "getting up" then an hour coming down - and you're doing a couple of machs peak speed, then you can travel a really, really long way in that last hour.

      Wasn't the plan to launch this thing at 60,000 feet or more at 300+ MPH?

    3. Re:Not so short by Moofie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Um, where exactly are you going to keep the fuel to keep yourself travelling at "a couple of machs"? You'd have to make SpaceShip One about (loose guess) seven times its current size. I bet the carrier a/c won't be able to deal with that.

      High speed atmospheric flight is obscenely expensive, fuel-wise.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    4. Re:Not so short by poptones · · Score: 1

      Uh... dude... the thing has a fucking rocket engine on it to take it up to 100,000+ feet. Did you miss that part?

    5. Re:Not so short by Moofie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...which then runs out of fuel. The rocket engine will not keep the airplane going at "a couple of machs" for any length of time.

      I promise.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  10. Now things are heating up... by WegianWarrior · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The competitors for the X-price are one after the other dropping their capsules / spaceships out of the sky to test at least part of their re-entry profile, and Burt Rutans entry at least flies like a dream (big surprice - he designs flyingmachiens for a living, don't he?). The X-price is running until January 1, 2005 (qoute; The X PRIZE is fully funded through January 1, 2005, through private donations and backed by an insurance policy to guarantee that the $10 million is in place on the day that the prize is won), giving the teams a little more than one year to launch, overhaul their machines and launch again.

    I'm getting all excited over the prosects ahead of us. Never mind if the X-price succeds in jumpstarting the space-tourism or not - we're getting a taste of what the spacerace was like when the USA and the USSR were competing about getting the first man up into space, allthought this time all the teams are playing with open cards.

    I'm willing to bet all my karma that we'll have the first launch before next summer; anyone willing to bet against it?

    --
    Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
    1. Re:Now things are heating up... by TotallyUseless · · Score: 4, Funny
      What the hell is the X-Price?!?!? I thought most software for X was free? This is not +1 interesting... hell, the link doesn't even work!

      X-Prize

      There ya go, a working link to the X-Prize site.

      I'm sure I will now be modded into oblivion. Enjoy!

      --

      Time for some tasty Shiner Bock!
    2. Re:Now things are heating up... by karmavore · · Score: 1

      The X-Price payable to SCO is 100 Trillion Dollars per X application.

      Yours Sincerely, Darl McBride

      --
      Speech: Free
      Beer: $699.00
  11. SpaceDev's engine is ready by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Spacedev completed the last and full scale test of it's rocket motor for SpaceShip One last week. So, it has a way go up now. Here's the link...
    SpaceDev Performs Successful Rocket Motor Test

    1. Re:SpaceDev's engine is ready by re-geeked · · Score: 1

      Do we know whether it's SpaceDev that will be providing the engine, or are they still competing with eAc? (Both companies have recent ground tests listed on scaled.com)

      BTW, I see little evidence that any other X-Prize competitors are anywhere near as ready as SpaceShipOne. Or maybe they're the only ones that seem to be building a commercially useful vehicle. Thoughts?

      --
      "You can't get something for nothing." - my grandfather, on the stock market and Reaganomics.
    2. Re:SpaceDev's engine is ready by foolish · · Score: 1

      No choice made yet, I believe both competitors have now performed full length runs, essentially ground level endurance runs of the same time as the expected launch runs.

      While they may select one hybrid provider now, testing an engine on the ground is not always the same as testing it in flight (which is why this stuff really IS rocket science).

      I'm still boggled that eAc is allowed to perform rocket tests over waterways in Florida (check their test videos). There must be a lot of exemptions near the Cape for rocket-related testing.

  12. The cool thing about all of this by chadamir · · Score: 5, Interesting

    is that it's sort of like living in the 1950s and experiencing all of this new space stuff for the first time. We are lucky to be living in interesting times.

    --
    NJ Local Music Scene
    1. Re:The cool thing about all of this by RestiffBard · · Score: 1

      I do believe that wishing that someone always lives in "interesting times" is a curse.

      --
      - /* dead coders leave no comments */
    2. Re:The cool thing about all of this by SailorBob · · Score: 1
      is that it's sort of like living in the 1950s and experiencing all of this new space stuff for the first time. We are lucky to be living in interesting times.

      Ancient Chinese Curse: May you live in interesting times.

      --

      Woopty Doo Basil, what does it all mean?!

  13. gratz, but... by curtlewis · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    No way in hell you'd catch me hitchin a ride on such a flimsy lookin rig. I can just see the wings getting ripped off by turbulence.

    I wish them and all the contestants success, though.

    1. Re:gratz, but... by jericho4.0 · · Score: 1

      Flamebait!? Moderators are on crack. It amazes me how dumb some people are. It's someones opinion, you idiots!

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
    2. Re:gratz, but... by NeMon'ess · · Score: 1

      of course the moderator was on crack, because its a troll, not flamebait. why flamebait? because he based his decision on it LOOKING flimsy. how he figures its flimsy is beyond me. a sphere is a very strong shape, he doesn't know how thick the walls are. he didn't offer qualifications for knowing the wings might get ripped off.

      supposing he is just ignorant, he deserves to be modded down for not saying anything worthwhile. he's adding more noise which interferes with the signal, and he needs to learn not to do that. his post has all the quality of something out of a small message board and belongs in a /. journal comment, or not here at all. that's just my opinion.

    3. Re:gratz, but... by Corgha · · Score: 1

      And now you're flaming the moderators. Looks like they were right, after all. :)

    4. Re:gratz, but... by curtlewis · · Score: 1

      A troll? Flamebait?
      I think not.

      I don't feel the craft looks very strong. Am I an aeronautics expert? No. Am I a Structural Engineer? No.

      But would I ride in the plane? No.

      And am I likely to be given the opportunity to? No.

      I wished the team all the success. Just because I wouldn't feel comfortable flying in the craft does not make the post either a troll or a flame.

      And I'll bet I'm not the only slashdotter that wouldn't feel comfortable riding in that plane.

    5. Re:gratz, but... by NeMon'ess · · Score: 1

      your post was not a flame, lets get past that

      from the FAQ
      Insightful -- An Insightful statement makes you think, puts a new spin on a given story (or aspect of a story). An analogy you hadn't thought of, or a telling counterexample, are examples of Insightful comments.

      Informative -- Often comments add new information to explain the circumstances hinted at by a particular story, fill in "The Other Side" of an argument, provide specifications to a product described too vaguely elsewhere, etc. Such comments are Informative.

      Your comment was not insightful or informative. you offered your opinion but nothing to back it up. Here's what the FAQ says about a troll comment:

      Troll -- A Troll is similar to Flamebait, but slightly more refined. This is a prank comment intended to provoke indignant (or just confused) responses. A Troll might mix up vital facts or otherwise distort reality, to make other readers react with helpful "corrections." Trolling is the online equivalent of intentionally dialing wrong numbers just to waste other people's time.

      You may be too new to have observed this, but just tossing your opinion out without anything to back it up may cause many people to spend their time offering corrections. You said it was flimsy, as a troll comment, it could cause some to type up many paragraphs defending their position that the ship is quite strong. I feel like I've been trolled into spending all this time replying, which is why I don't give much of a damn about grammar in this entry. Like I said before, you shouldn't just post your opinion here without reasons. Make your words worth reading.

      Suppose you'd said 'I won't use Mac OS 10.2.xx until it looks professional, all the pictures on the linked-to-site look like candy cartoons.'

      Without knowing enough, and making snap judgements, you'd get many people pointing out all the customizations you didn't know about, didn't research.

    6. Re:gratz, but... by curtlewis · · Score: 1

      by the definition you posted, it's not a troll.

      It was not a prank comment, nor was it intended to provoke ANY response.

      But enough of the dickering over moderation. Posts are poorly moderated all the time.

  14. Ugly by Easy2RememberNick · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Is it just me or are both those airplanes/spaceships ugly as hell?

    ------------
    Off topic: Could someone get rid of that white dot in the ad banner at the top of the page it's driving me crazy!

    1. Re:Ugly by random_static · · Score: 1
      it's mostly just you. that carrier plane actually looks kinda neat to me... weird as all hells, but so weird it flips over into neatness. looks like a slimmed-down container crane with wings, almost. except most container cranes don't have that all-fiberglass sleekness, of course.

      SS1 could do with a smaller wing, perhaps, but i guess if you wanna fly where there's barely any air you need all the lifting surfaces you can get...

      (for a really weird-looking Rutan creation, google for the Boomerang. asymmetric multi-engine aircraft rox0r!)

    2. Re:Ugly by bigpat · · Score: 1

      "Is it just me "

      Yup

    3. Re:Ugly by Gogo+Dodo · · Score: 1
      Almost all of Rutan's designs look different than "normal" planes. Check the Projects gallery and you'll see that WK and SS1 has the same design features as many of his other designs.

      Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as they say.

    4. Re:Ugly by lxs · · Score: 1

      Well, personally I would like to see more spaceships modeled on 1930's science fiction

  15. Question by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

    Can anyone tell me what type the chase plane is in this pic?</trainee geek>

    1. Re:Question by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Beech Starship. Beautiful aircraft, pioneered mass-production composites fabrication.

      Designed by Burt Rutan, but unfortunately, not a commercial success.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  16. It is called by Kickasso · · Score: 4, Informative

    Starship.

  17. Looks great.... by xA40D · · Score: 1

    Well, it certainly looks like space-craft I'd happilly ride in. Yet I want the Brits building a rocket out of a cemet-mixer to win.

    --
    Do you mind, your karma has just run over my dogma.
    1. Re:Looks great.... by homebru · · Score: 1
      ... I want the Brits building a rocket out of a cemet-mixer to win.

      Too late. Andy Griffith already did it in 1979.

  18. Read the EULA! by dasboy · · Score: 1

    It states clearly on the EULA that is located inside the SSO that once you've removed the shrink-wrap, you can't return it.

    1. Re:Read the EULA! by dtfinch · · Score: 1

      That sounds an awful lot like the warranty notice I found in the shrink wrapped box that my new hard disk came in.

  19. Re:Creating life vs. creating technology by Grishnakh · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Male life is expendable, female is not. So let the stupid males do risky stuff and get killed, and the smart ones can copulate with the women and advance the race by creating new life. Now if only women would stop seeing the risky males as attractive mates, and go for us quiet, non-risky types instead.

  20. Re:Feh... Old news. by NeuroManson · · Score: 1

    How is this offtopic? I DID submit this as a story over 2 months ago (in April, actually):

    2003-04-19 18:59:53 Private Space Plane Unveiled with Eyes on the X-Pr (articles,space) (rejected)

    And it was exactly the same story as above.

    --
    Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
  21. Wired Story by solferino · · Score: 1

    Wired Story on Burt Rutan and the White Knight/Space Ship One aircraft/spacecraft can be found here

  22. Re:Feh... Old news. by NeuroManson · · Score: 2, Informative

    I submitted the report when they were first test flying the White Knight, with the space plane strapped to the belly.

    Test flights are test flights, and the space plane neither went orbital or even to the edge of space. It was dropped from the bottom of the White Knight.

    Hence my cause for bitching. I submitted several reports of relevence, and not one has been approved (the space flight report was rejected scant seconds after submission).

    And similarly, my complaint is on topic, since it covered the above story months earlier. If anyone actually cared (no thanks to mods with itchy trigger fingers and too much time on their hands, yet not enough to actually read the article either), they'd note that the first test flight for the launch platform was successful, and within 4 months the space plane was being tested, leaps and bounds ahead of NASA in terms of speed and R&D.

    --
    Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
  23. Orbital Mechanics and re-entry by mks113 · · Score: 1

    There is a basic flaw in the idea of slowing down the spacecraft before reentry:

    Orbital mechanics show that there is a direct link between speed and orbit height. If you slow down, your orbit height increases. If you speed up, height decreases. This makes rendevous in space tricky to say the least. The first attempts during gemini were not real successful, but they have it down to an art form now.

    So in orbit you have to speed up to get down to the atmosphere. Once you get the atmospheric drag, orbital laws transfer to aerodynamic laws.

    1. Re:Orbital Mechanics and re-entry by blufive · · Score: 1

      That is a really warped version of orbital mechanics you're using.

      Yes, a lower orbit means you're moving faster, but speeding up will not move you into a lower orbit.

      Imagine a ship in a circular orbit. If it fires thrusters to speed up, its orbit will change shape, into an ellipse, with the "lowest" part of the orbit in line with the circlular orbit. As the craft moves from the lowest part of the orbit to the highest, it will be slowed down by gravity, trading kinetic energy for gravitational potential energy. If, at the highest point, the ship fires thrusters to accelerate again, it is possible to end up in a new circular orbit at the higher altitude.

      You are correct to state that such a ship will be travelling more slowly in the higher circular orbit than in the lower one, but it got there by using its thrusters to speed up.

      The fun involved in doing a rendezvous in orbit is that every time you use thrusters, you change your orbit, and not necessarily in an obvious way.

      Speeding up will widen your orbit (taking you "up" or "out") So if your rendezvous target is ahead of you in your orbit, thrusting straight at it will kick you into a wider orbit, and you'll go "over" you target. Slowing down will contract your orbit, taking you under it. Thrusting outwards will widen your orbit, slowing you down; thrusting inwards will contract your orbit, speeding you up.

      If your orbit is matched with your target, then every time you thrust, you change orbits, which can take you further away from the target. The way to do it is to get into an orbit which intersects that of your target at the correct moment, and use thrust to match orbits just as the two vehicles intersect.

  24. a.k.a. testoterone poisoning by mks113 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Testoterone poisoning is responsible for quite a few male "accidental" deaths. That includes such things as car crashes, stupid stunts, golfing in thunderstorms and associated darwin-award winning behaviour.

    Have you ever noticed that most "darwin award" winners are male?

    1. Re:a.k.a. testoterone poisoning by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Well of course. While women can certainly be very stupid as well, they almost never do it in a dangerous or violent way. They just make stupid decisions about what men to date...

      Are they ANY female Darwin Award winners? Seriously, now that you mention it, I can't think of any.

      Imagine how peaceful the world would be without men.

    2. Re:a.k.a. testoterone poisoning by Kinetix303 · · Score: 1

      The woman playing Tamagotchi in her car while driving won a few years back.

      --
      Urban Detail
  25. Wow, that's fast... by griblik · · Score: 1

    The space ship was launched at 47,000 feet and 105 knots, 10 nm east of Mojave

    10 nanometres in around an hour? Man, I love progress...

    --
    Warning: May contain nuts
  26. promise? by poptones · · Score: 1

    Hilarious. So in what capacity are you working on this project?

    1. Re:promise? by Moofie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not. Duh. I do, however, know more about rocketry and aviation than most humans. I wouldn't call myself an expert on all things that fly, but I could explain to you in detail how to compute the fuel consumption for a rocket motor. I won't, though, because you're trolling me.

      If you can develop a rocket engine that will drive you at "a couple of machs" for, say, two hours, and will fit in SS1's airframe, I'd wager you could make a very large amount of money.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  27. SSO and Reentry by einhverfr · · Score: 3, Informative

    Maybe this is a stupid question, but could you reduce the amount of heating during rentry by slowing the craft down much much more before it reenters?

    Funny you ask. SSO has a unique design in which the wings fold during re-entry and provide an aerodynamically stable "shuttlecocking" effect such that the belly remains down. This means more drag at higher altitudes, simpler re-entry controll, etc. Then the wing converts pack and the pilot glides the vehicle in. More drag at higher altitudes also means that it is decelleration is more spread out, so the heat (potential energy -> kenetic energy -> heat) is applied at a slower rate and is less of a problem.

    It is all there in the FAQ.

    --

    LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    1. Re:SSO and Reentry by JediTrainer · · Score: 1

      Funny you ask. SSO has a unique design in which the wings fold during re-entry

      Anyone else read that as SCO the first time? I almost jumped out of my chair... what? You mean they've got their grubby fingers in this IP pie too?

      --

      You can accomplish anything you set your mind to. The impossible just takes a little longer.
    2. Re:SSO and Reentry by einhverfr · · Score: 1


      Anyone else read that as SCO the first time?

      After I wrote this, I realized that SSO was also the acronym for Single Sign On.....

      FWIW, SSO is SpaceShipOne, not SCO or Single Sign On ;)

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    3. Re:SSO and Reentry by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 1

      yep, noticed that.

      --
      This space available.
  28. Re:Creating life vs. creating technology by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 2, Informative


    Blame evolution. Nature, on the communal level, does not favor the timorous. Fret not, the key to the typical woman's reproductive gonads is lots of accumulated possessions...

    --
    There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
  29. Rutan Interview by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 1

    Smithsonians Air and Space mag did an interview on Rutan, is pretty interesting and includes a quicktime panaorama of some of his aircraft.

    http://www.airandspacemagazine.com/ASM/Web/TWD/rut an.html

  30. The most amazing thing is... by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 1

    All of Burt Rutan's designs come from his intuition of aerodynamics. He uses "exactly zero" wind tunnel testing. Makes me think all the time I spent dinking around with wind tunnels back in school was wasted.

    --
    That that is is that that that that is not is not.
  31. Boldface 'z' ? by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 1

    Why did you make the letter 'z' in X-Prize boldface?

    --
    That that is is that that that that is not is not.
  32. snooze by release7 · · Score: 1

    you snooze you lose. I'm waiting, waiting, waiting.

    --

    <a href="http://www.joblessjimmy.com">Work is dumb and so is Jobless Jimmy.</a>