Diamandis Predicts X-Prize Winner Within One Year

Do they just have to reach outer space by Trigun · 2003-09-30 00:57 · Score: 2, Funny

Or do they have to come down as well?

There's a star man.... by qIroS · 2003-09-30 00:58 · Score: 1

I'd like to go. It'll be a blast.

Re:There's a star man.... by lessgravity · 2003-09-30 02:22 · Score: 1

It's amazing how many people would be willing to take the risk. I would also be happy to take the flight. Centrifugalforce

And space exploration is not easy! by 192939495969798999 · 2003-09-30 00:58 · Score: 4, Interesting

From my dad's dealings with NASA, and from my own experiences with the kinds of robust computer systems involved, I think it would truly be an accomplishment for any private enterprise to successfully launch into space, do something productive, and potentially come back, manned or unmanned. It is just remarkably difficult to get things into space!

--
stuff |

Re:And space exploration is not easy! by GileadGreene · 2003-09-30 02:22 · Score: 4, Interesting

Damn! Better alert Boeing (the Delta series and others), and Lockheed Martin (the Atlas series and others), and Orbital Sciences (Pegasus and Taurus), and let them know how amazing it would be for a private enterprise to succesfully launch into space and do something productive. Last time I checked, none of them are government departments.
The key question is whether or not it's possible for privately funded groups to get things into space. Right now every successful launch vehicle program that I'm aware of has been funded by a government. Which has led many people to believe that it costs so much to build a launch vehicle that only a government could afford it. Personally, having observed government space orgs an action, I'm more prone to believe that because launch vehicles have been government funded they cost a lot to build. Hopefully the X-prize guys, and groups like Elon Musk's SpaceX can validate that belief for me.
Re:And space exploration is not easy! by Kvasio · 2003-09-30 02:25 · Score: 1

Remember, that computer systems involved in 1960's
missions had power similar to pocket scientific calculator, and somehow they succeeded. I think the core problems lie in engineering area...
Re:And space exploration is not easy! by wass · 2003-09-30 02:47 · Score: 2, Funny

Don't forget the age-old adage about space travel :
"To make a small fortune in the space business, start with a large one."

--
make world, not war
Re:And space exploration is not easy! by mortonda · 2003-09-30 02:48 · Score: 1

I think it would truly be an accomplishment for any private enterprise to successfully launch into space, do something productive, and potentially come back, manned or unmanned.
Indeed. This competition is to get into space, but it does not require LEO. Thus not much time can be spent in space. In order to spend significant time in space, they need to reach LEO, or even higher speed orbits, or in the extreme case, even higher speeds to reach escape velocity. This prize is a long, long, long way from developing anythng useful for space exploration.
For one thing, the current attempts don't have to worry about the high speed re-entry heat problems that NASA has to deal with. They don't have the extended life support systems. I'm sure the list goes on and on... Things that NASA has known for years.
I fear that this prize is, for some, an attempt to prove that NASA is behind the times. Unfortunately, the proof falls really short.
Re:And space exploration is not easy! by drakaan · 2003-09-30 03:06 · Score: 1

Not when you consider today's computers are about 1000-1500 times faster, and have 100,000-500,000 times more RAM than the Apollo Guidance Computer
You do have to worry a lot about shielding the components from radiation, but if we could do it with a computer that's less powerful than your garden variety calculator watch, I'd say commercialization is going to be limited by propulsion technology, not the control equipment.

--
"Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
Re:And space exploration is not easy! by Cosmonut · 2003-09-30 03:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

No, actually, it's NOT difficult to get things into space; we've been doing it since 1957. Heck, we pretty much use the same techology now. The difficulty with space travel, I'm afraid, isn't technical, it's organizational.
Re:And space exploration is not easy! by fenix+down · 2003-09-30 03:56 · Score: 1

Well, that much is obvious. NASA's just the best excuse Johnson could come up with for giving everybody in Texas free money.

It's not that it's so expensive to build a rocket, I mean, look at the French, but that there's only so much stuff that anybody wants to toss up there. Sure, Lockheed could make something that could dump your satilite on Mars, but nobody wants that. They've got NASA stuff laying around that can do anything anybody wants, so there's no reason to build anything new.

If you're doing 30-something launches a year, there's no point in investing billions in a slightly more efficient vehicle. And it's not like DirectTV's been building 20-ton geosyncronous satilites for years, just in case somebody builds something to launch them with. Why would you be speculating on the possibility that somebody's going to want that capability when you can try and bitch-slap the Chinese into buying another jet and make 10x the profit, right away.

I just think we're making the same mistake the sci-fi guys did back in the 50s. The reason they were convinced we'd have hypersonic jets and nuclear-powered everything was because they assumed high technology just generated it's own profits, largely from mysteriously ubiquitous lilly-white businessmen. Look at 2001. Where's the point in going to the moon? The only money anybody made was the videophone call back home. Can you even think of any reason Pan-Am would have for making that flight? Where were all the other guys on the plane going? Even if there were some profit to be made up there, it wouldn't be in the form of business meetings. You can have those in Iowa. At most, you'd have barely-airtight shipments of Mexicans getting sent up to run heavy machinery, not middle-class salarymen traveling millions of miles to have a business meeting in a lunar high-school cafeteria.

My prediction, whoever wins the X-prize will be all the hell over Jay Lenno for a week, and then we'll hear about how they went out of business 6 months later. Some insipid freak of nature on Fox News will make a ".space bust!" LOLOMGROFAL!!1 joke and we'll be right back where we started.
Re:And space exploration is not easy! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-30 05:34 · Score: 1, Insightful

My prediction, whoever wins the X-prize will be all the hell over Jay Lenno for a week, and then we'll hear about how they went out of business 6 months later.

I don't think that Scaled Composites (who have a pretty good chance of winning) is going out of business anytime soon. And Armadillo Aerospace doesn't seem to give a fig about "business" period.

The X-prize is strictly for show and consists of just getting to the edge of space. I haven't seen any competitor that plans to go any further (though I could be wrong).

start saving... by lanswitch · 2003-09-30 00:59 · Score: 3, Funny

and send Darl McBride up? We could make a community effort out of this.

Re:start saving... by Ayaress · 2003-09-30 01:45 · Score: 1

I'm assuming you aren't shooting to win the X-prise here? I mean, we WOULD have to bring him back in that case.
Re:start saving... by Stephen+Maturin · 2003-10-01 01:37 · Score: 1

Do we HAVE to bring him back down again?

--
Non tam praeclarum est scire Latine, quam turpe nescire
-- Cicero

Re:Do they just have to reach outer space by 91degrees · 2003-09-30 01:00 · Score: 3, Informative

:)

Harder than that. They've got to reach "space" twice. Using the same vessel. Although I believe the definition of space is a little subjective. It is high enough for NASA to consider them astronauts, but I believe it is not high enough for a satellite launch.

Homebrew Satellites by L-s-L69 · 2003-09-30 01:01 · Score: 5, Interesting

Will these cheap and private enterprise driven launches lead to many more privately owned satellites in low earth orbit? Just wondering as this would have many very practical applications as well as leading to intense crowding in LEO. Just a thought.

Re:Homebrew Satellites by AlecC · 2003-09-30 01:36 · Score: 1

Unfortunately, this is a long way from LEO capability. This is just vertically up to approximately the height of the lowest LEO possible and down again. For LEO, you need a massive amount of transversal velocity and, if you want to get back down again, to get rid of it afterwards. The first killed Challenger, the second Columbia.

--
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
Re:Homebrew Satellites by Zeriel · 2003-09-30 02:36 · Score: 1

While they may lead to more LEO satellites, they also make it easier to retrieve/repair obselete and broken LEO satellites. I suspect it will even out.

--
"America has done some terrible things. But I know that Americans don't cheer when innocents die." -Dave Barry
Re:Homebrew Satellites by GileadGreene · 2003-09-30 03:39 · Score: 3, Insightful

Yeah, and the Wright Flyer could only stay off the ground for around 12 seconds on it's first flight. Stupid Wright brothers! What were they thinking? That their Wright Flyer might actually be the first (albeit small) step towards something much more capable?
What killed Challenger was a stupid design that used solid motors on a manned vehicle, followed by an idiotic management decision to launch during weather conditions known to be outside the tolerance of said motors. What killed Columbia was a known design flaw that everyone ignored, and that probably could have been mitigated if the astronauts had (a) a better understanding of the problem (e.g. through recon satellite imaging), and (b) the ability to perform an EVA outside the cargo bay to evaluate the problem up-close-n-personal. I won't even get into whether or not the hole could have been patched - at a minimum they would have known that they shouldn't reenter, and could look for alternative options ("scramble" a shuttle? launch a couple of Soyuz capsules? ferry everyone to the station using Progress modules? Who knows what might have been tried?). Trying to claim that orbital flight won't work because NASA has saddled itself with an idiotic design is a stupid argument. The Russians seem to be doing ok on the manned front, and that's even with their well-known reputation for being a little "casual" on the safety stuff. Their system appears to be robust enough to allow them to be casual without generating casualities in the process.
The problem with NASA is that they are a government program, which means they have to come up with the "one true solution" to everyone's problems, and make a launch vehicle that's all things to all people. The beauty of the X-prize is that we'll get to see a whole bunch of different approaches. Some will work. Some won't. But we'll learn something from both, and hopefully that will allow manned orbital craft to evolve in the same way that early aircraft evolved.
Re:Homebrew Satellites by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-30 04:18 · Score: 0

Therer already are homebrew satellites up there. A few years ago on the Dicovery channel, I remember seeing a show about a guy working to get HAM radio satellites in orbit. Instead of custom made parabolic dishes, he used cooking bowls, and so on. After manufacturing it and getting it shot into orbit from South America, the total cost was around $5 million US. Not chump change for the everyday person, but dirt cheap when it comes to satellites.
Re:Homebrew Satellites by kurosawdust · 2003-09-30 05:17 · Score: 1

Will these cheap and private enterprise driven launches lead to many more privately owned satellites in low earth orbit? Just wondering as this would have many very practical applications as well as leading to intense crowding in LEO. Just a thought.
I have the solution: satellite condoms.
Re:Homebrew Satellites by PD · 2003-09-30 06:57 · Score: 1

Let's simplify things: What killed both shuttles was the bad design decision to locate the fuel, SRB's, and orbiter side-by-side instead of stacked.

--
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.

Re:Do they just have to reach outer space by CrazyTalk · 2003-09-30 01:02 · Score: 1

Considering they have to repeat the feat in two weeks, I'd guess they have to come down at least the first time!

And I predict not just yet.. by JusTyler · 2003-09-30 01:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

From statistics you can learn one thing. That is, whenever anyone claims something is definitely going to happen within a short time frame, it almost certainly won't.

"Duke Nukem Forever will be out in time for Christmas 1999!" - 1999

"Doom 3 will be out sometime next year." - 2002

"By 1999, most homes will have access to broadband."

But I'm not being pessimistic. I think the X Prize WILL be won within "the next decade." The promise is there, but I think the next year will contain a lot of launches, but a lot of mid-air explosions and failures too. It's natural, it happens in every industry.. software and hardware.

--
Web Hosting Reviews

Re:And I predict not just yet.. by Nyphur · 2003-09-30 01:22 · Score: 1

Doom three has to be worked on a lot because the "leaked" alpha got a bad reception compared to the Half Life Two "leaked" alpha. They claimed the Doom three leaked alpha was on medium settings, so I assume they now have to work very hard to get it to a standard where the highest setting at the moment are medium settings in the game.
Most homes did have access to broadband by 1999 in the UK, with most being defined as more than 50%. Some places int eh Ukstill don't have broadband (I know, I live in one. They are 100m away but refuse to go further until 2010), but the vast majority now do.

As for Duke Nukem Forever. That'll never come out and we know it ^^

--
Re:And I predict not just yet.. by Recoil_42 · 2003-09-30 01:28 · Score: 1

So you think that the X-prize will be won within the next decade? Then its too bad the competition expires at the end of 2004...

--

Newsie, Moderator, www.tauniverse.com
Re:And I predict not just yet.. by Hieronymus+Howard · 2003-09-30 01:32 · Score: 1

"Doom 3 will be out sometime next year." - 2002

Since one of the entrants for the X-prize is John Carmack, if things go wrong, then Doom 3 may never be finished.

HH
---
Re:And I predict not just yet.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-30 01:45 · Score: 0

"so I assume they now have to work very hard to get it to a standard where the highest setting at the moment are medium settings in the game."

Fortunately, this hard work involves simply waiting 6 months until graphics cards have caught up with Doom Three's requirements.
Re:And I predict not just yet.. by schmaltz · 2003-09-30 02:01 · Score: 1

The Slashdot fortune cookie had this to say when I viewed your comment--

"The trouble with doing something right the first time is that nobody appreciates how difficult it was." -- Walt West

--
Big Daddy, Johnny, Burp, Aunt Zelda, Scott, Slurp, Big Momma ... where's Siggy?
Re:And I predict not just yet.. by Telastyn · 2003-09-30 05:59 · Score: 1

Personally I'm fairly certain that one of the groups will get into space successfully, though getting back in one piece will be questionable, and being able to do it again in 2 weeks will be near out of the question.

Scaled Composites by fudgefactor7 · 2003-09-30 01:02 · Score: 5, Interesting

Right now, it's a clear lead for Scaled Composites, at 57%, according to the poll. I admit, I haven't followed this really closely--except for the occasional Armadillo story--but I think I'm going to have to look into Scaled Composites a bit more. Although it would be really cool to see Carmack win, I kind of doubt it will happen that way.

Re:Scaled Composites by transient · 2003-09-30 02:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'll be very surprised if Scaled doesn't win. Burt Rutan has tremendous experience with experimental aeronautical engineering. Their carrier aircraft is flying and they've done several successful gliding tests of the spacecraft, including a test of the "feathered" re-entry system. They have a safe, working rocket motor. I agree that it would be cool to see Carmack win, but I just don't think he's a match for Rutan.

--

irb(main):001:0>
Re:Scaled Composites by MtViewGuy · 2003-09-30 03:07 · Score: 2, Interesting

I think it was obvious from the the start that once Burt Rutan's company unveiled its project it was going to be in the lead to win the X-Prize. =)

Remember, when Scaled Composites unveiled the Proteus high-altitude airplane back in the mid 1990's everyone knew it wouldn't take much of a technological leap for the company to build an airplane that could launch something to very high altitudes soon afterward. Essentially, the White Knight carrier plane bases a lot of its technology on what Proteus pioneered.

Unless Carmack's company (Armadillo Aerospace) suddenly gets a major breakthrough for its rocket engine, the prize is now essentially for Burt Rutan to claim--possibly as early as late November 2003!

Re:Do they just have to reach outer space by 192939495969798999 · 2003-09-30 01:06 · Score: 2, Informative

They discussed "manned" exploration, so I would assume they want to bring him/her back down :)

--
stuff |

I predict something else... by toupsie · 2003-09-30 01:06 · Score: 1, Insightful

A really big stain near the launch site. This isn't trying to fly across the English Channel by human power. This is a really super dangerous thing to try. Even with a budget of billions and thousands of super geeks, NASA still ends up with BBQ-ed astronauts. As much as I think the free market, private industry is superior to Government, NASA is one of those exceptions. I hope these guys kiss their loved ones before punching the button. It will most likely be the last thing they do.

--
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.

Re:I predict something else... by The+G · 2003-09-30 01:20 · Score: 5, Interesting

As the article notes, it is quite likely that someone will die in this endeavor. But private -- the first step to ubiquitous -- space flight is a cause worth risking, and losing, one's life for. If I were given the opportunity, I would accept in an instant.

Our society has lived for 110 years without a frontier, and in that time we have forgotten that there are things more important than human life -- that there are risks worth taking. Living without a frontier has sapped our courage, our will to freedom, and our sense of proportion. But frontiers aren't opened without pain and loss and death. In the end, though, they're worth it, for what they do for us as individuals and for us as a civilsation, and that's as true of the next (never say final!) frontier as of the earthly ones.

Beside the grandeur of the universe and the infinite potential that we unlock when we open it to humanity, what is life? A valuable and unique thing that we must stand ready to sacrifice for the dreams and goals that make humanity worth its place in the world. The last and most valuable coin we have to bet for one more step toward the ultimate prize: A wider and stranger and more glorious human universe.
--G
Re:I predict something else... by adeyadey · 2003-09-30 01:25 · Score: 1

A lot of people died in the pioneer days of aviation - and yet its largely thanks to those pioneers that we have (relatively) safe and cheap air transport for the masses today..

--
"You lied to me! There is a Swansea!"
Re:I predict something else... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-30 01:31 · Score: 0

Beside the grandeur of the universe and the infinite potential that we unlock when we open it to humanity, what is life? A valuable and unique thing that we must stand ready to sacrifice for the dreams and goals that make humanity worth its place in the world. The last and most valuable coin we have to bet for one more step toward the ultimate prize: A wider and stranger and more glorious human universe.
What is going to be unlocked is not the universe or infinite potential, but a few extra planets. We're going to need something much weirder than a combustion engine if we're ever to get outside our own tiny solar system.
Re:I predict something else... by scharkalvin · 2003-09-30 01:31 · Score: 1

The scaled composites approach seems to be the one to bet on. The takeoff will be uneventuful, Burt has been building aircraft for so long, he knows what he is doing. The real problems will start at 50000 feet up when SS1 is dropped from the WK and ignites it's engine.
Re:I predict something else... by WolfWithoutAClause · 2003-09-30 01:47 · Score: 4, Informative

The real problems will start at 50000 feet up when SS1 is dropped from the WK and ignites it's engine.
No, not really, it's a hybrid engine he's chosen. They're generally reckoned to be much simpler and far safer than the solid rockets that the Shuttle uses; even amateurs fairly regularly build them, and with generally good results. Provided he can keep it pointing in the right direction he should be fine.

--
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
Re:I predict something else... by falconed · 2003-09-30 01:58 · Score: 1

Our society has lived for 110 years without a frontier...
Uhh... what about space? Going to the moon? Neil Armstrong? The sixties weren't that long ago. Also, what about technology? One could argue that the technology explosion is the latest great new frontier even though it isn't exploration in the traditional sense. I believe the human race is pursuing many, many frontiers right now. Artificial intelligence, deep sea exploration, medical science, just to name a few.
...we have forgotten that there are things more important than human life...
No, we've learned that nothing is more important than human life. What good is exploration if the explorer dies before the rest of us can learn from their experiences (e.g. midflight)?

--
USE='clever' emerge -u sig
Re:I predict something else... by Cid+Highwind · 2003-09-30 03:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

we have forgotten that there are things more important than human life -- that there are risks worth taking.

Thank Jeebus someone else still feels that way.

I have a simple answer for the "space travel is too dangerous" crowd: Don't do it. If you think flying into space is too much risk for the reward then you are welcome to stay on earth for the rest of your (hopefully long) life. However, please don't assume that everyone feels the same way you do, and when other people want to take extraordinary risks for what they think are extraordinary rewards, keep out of the way and let them do it!

--
0 1 - just my two bits
Re:I predict something else... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-30 03:22 · Score: 0

What good is exploration if the explorer dies before the rest of us can learn from their experiences (e.g. midflight)?
That's what realtime telemetry and video is for :)
Re:I predict something else... by Eight+01 · 2003-09-30 03:48 · Score: 3, Interesting

I'd bet on Rutan also for a first flight. However, Carmack may end up furthering the goals of the X-Prize more than Rutan.

Carmack seems to be focusing on basic engine refinement - making engines cheaper to build and run. Getting mass into space isn't hard, it just requires a lot of money for the vehicle and the fuel. If he is as successful with this as he has been in refining 3D rendering algorhithms, his effect on space access will be profound.
Re:I predict something else... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-30 03:56 · Score: 0

"Uhh... what about space? Going to the moon? ... even though it isn't exploration in the traditional sense. I believe the human race is pursuing many, many frontiers right now. Artificial intelligence, deep sea exploration, medical science, just to name a few."

I would argue that even space was not a traditional frontier.

There have been times when any man could stand up and say, "I'm going to China!", "To the New World!", or even "Wagons west!"

Out of all the examples you've given, indeed, I would say that deep sea exploration is probably the closest thing to a traditional frontier. And that doesn't quite cut it.

"No, we've learned that nothing is more important than human life."

Sir, I call you a fool, and were modern law different, would duel and slay you for your idiocy.

The Constitution of the United States alone is chock full of many things that are certainly worth more than a single human life. They've been proven to be worth more than thousands of human lives. And there's cases to be made that these things are worth more than all human life.

Where people value life over liberty, tyranny follows.

"What good is exploration if the explorer dies before the rest of us can learn from their experiences (e.g. midflight)?"

Inspiration, and progress. Fortune, after all, favors the bold.
Re:I predict something else... by fenix+down · 2003-09-30 04:09 · Score: 1

What good is exploration if the explorer dies before the rest of us can learn from their experiences (e.g. midflight)?

"Second stage ready?"
"Second stage ready."
"Ok, in 3... 2... 1..."
*FWOOOM* ...
"Right, so, the second stage has some problems then?"

You can always learn at least that much.
Re:I predict something else... by soft_guy · 2003-09-30 13:25 · Score: 1

I told Orvin and I told Wilbur and now I'm telling you: That thing will never fly and congress should pass a law before you break your fool necks!

--
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score

X-Prize spaceport events.. by adeyadey · 2003-09-30 01:09 · Score: 4, Interesting

One interesting proposed idea was to turn these launches from spaceports into paid-entry "events" - with different competitors competing for the best performance etc. When you think about how much money is made in other racing events, this may not be such a bad way to make this technology pay..

--
"You lied to me! There is a Swansea!"

Re:X-Prize spaceport events.. by HarveyBirdman · 2003-09-30 01:13 · Score: 1

One interesting proposed idea was to turn these launches from spaceports into paid-entry "events" - with different competitors competing for the best performance etc.
For best viewing, I recommend a steel and concrete bunker, preferably in another state.
Not sure I'd pay to be in the immediate vicinity when Salvage 1 goes on it's maiden voyage. I wish 'em well, but I'll watch the video tape, I think.

--
--- Ban humanity.
Re:X-Prize spaceport events.. by adeyadey · 2003-09-30 01:36 · Score: 1

I dont know exactly how the proposed idea would work, I guess there is a pretty big distance between the launch site and the spectators. There have been spectators at shuttle and other launches..

--
"You lied to me! There is a Swansea!"
Re:X-Prize spaceport events.. by Azghoul · 2003-09-30 01:42 · Score: 1

That's a sweet idea. PPV, HBO, what the heck. I bet you could make well over the million you'd win for the prize...

Of course, it'd only be real successful for the first launch or two, then the sheen's off, you'd have to come up with something bigger:

Fear Factor X-Prize! Joe Rogan's up there with some hottie in a skimpy white wife-beater, I can see it now...
Re:X-Prize spaceport events.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-30 12:50 · Score: 0

I can picture Trojan Condom's sponsoring an entry.

Re:In other news... by HarveyBirdman · 2003-09-30 01:11 · Score: 2, Funny

In other news, Lance Bass is willing to give 11 million dollars if he is the first guy to reach space in a private craft.

How much for him to be the first to get blowed up real good in a private spacecraft?

Yeah, I'm jealous of vapid pretty boys who get everything they want from a befuddled society. Deal with it.

--
--- Ban humanity.

Re:Do they just have to reach outer space by BDew · 2003-09-30 01:12 · Score: 4, Informative

They have to complete a suborbital flight (100 km IIRC), and then turn around and do it again with the same spacecraft within 2 weeks.

--
"Fifty million Americans can't be wrong," said Rep. Billy Tauzin. Gore - 50,999,897 Bush - 50,456,002

Advertising... And a correction by Nyphur · 2003-09-30 01:13 · Score: 0, Offtopic

This is one story I would have to say is getting a lot of money to the hosters. The advertising on that webpage takes up almost as much room as the article. The text body of the article was even interrupted by an advertisement for a something (a DVD player, I think) which has absolutely nothing to do with the news story and a Travel agency's website popped up in the background.

I know that's a little off topic, but it should be taken into consideration when articles are approved. I'm sure an alternate place reporting the same thing could have been found if enough effort had gone into it.

ALso, I noticed on the site they said:
"Correction: AP erred in reporting FAA approval; agency still considering teams' applications"
I'm just pointing it out because I thought it would be at least marginally relevant.

--

Re:In other news... by JusTyler · 2003-09-30 01:18 · Score: 0, Offtopic

It's worse than you think, Lance Bass has his first solo album and single out soon. The chorus is kinda catchy though:

L*nux sux, and Windows rox.
I eat crotch, I don't sux cox.
Download this song, you got no class.
Cuz the RIAA just sued your ass.

--
Web Hosting Reviews

Brink of a Revolution by ChuckDivine · 2003-09-30 01:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

I agree with Diamandis on this one. We are about to see the first vehicle not initially developed for government reach space. And, as the X-15 was a precusor to the space shuttle, I expect the X Prize contestants to be the precusors to a variety of orbital vehicles.

Instead of a one size fits all vehicle, though, I expect to see various vehicles developed for various uses. We've learned the shortcomings of that approach.

NASA predicts it will take a number of years to develop the OSP. If they do get bogged down in bureaucracy too much, they'll wind up losing that race to private entrepreneurs. That will radically change the way humanity does work in space.

Even if all doesn't go well, I expect to see a broad range of humans boarding space ships before I die (probably 30 to 45 years from now).

--
"Beer is proof God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- B. Franklin

Re:Brink of a Revolution by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-30 03:12 · Score: 0

I expect to see a broad range of humans boarding space ships before I die (probably 30 to 45 years from now).

Good luck with that. Pervasive space travel has been "30 to 45 years" off for about the last 50 years.

Re:Do they just have to reach outer space by _Upsilon_ · 2003-09-30 01:20 · Score: 4, Informative

Or do they have to come down as well?

From the article:
The X Prize contest calls for launching a manned craft to 62 miles (100 kilometers), generally considered the cusp of space, and returning it safely to Earth. And then doing it again within 14 days.

So it does have to come down, and then go back up, and back down again... safely.

Easy Challenge? by delibes · 2003-09-30 01:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

"Well, after all, it's hardly rocket science is it?"

But seriously, these people are sending perhaps 1000kg (3 people + capsule) to 100km. They are *not* going into orbit. The "delta-vee" they need is a small fraction (1/10 at a guestimate?) of that needed to reach Low Earth Orbit. And still it might kill them - they've got guts and they want to prove it.

--
This is not a sig

Re:Easy Challenge? by WolfWithoutAClause · 2003-09-30 02:16 · Score: 2, Informative

Delta V for a suborbital flight like that is about 2km/s compared to around 10km/s for an orbital flight; so it's about a factor of 5x less delta-v.

--
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
Re:Easy Challenge? by Baron_Yam · 2003-09-30 04:46 · Score: 1

Sadly, that means a much more than 5x factor of difficulty to get to LEO.

If you've achieved a 5x greater delta-v, that means a lot more friction (for longer, too) on the way back down... so, more thermal shielding which is more weight to carry up with you. Also, getting to LEO is a nice trick, but once you're there, you're going to want a little extra life support as well - because who wants to kick themselves out of LEO right after reaching it? So, far more weight, which means more fuel.

I'm going to pull a number out of my ass and say that reaching LEO is 100x harder than a quick sub-orbital flight to the 'edge of space' despite only needing 5x more delta-v.
Re:Easy Challenge? by dr_dank · 2003-09-30 04:56 · Score: 0, Flamebait

And still it might kill them - they've got guts and they want to prove it.

I seems to me that they have guts... and they're eager to spread them over a five mile radius.

--
Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
Re:Easy Challenge? by WolfWithoutAClause · 2003-09-30 05:20 · Score: 1

I'm going to pull a number out of my ass and say that reaching LEO is 100x harder than a quick sub-orbital flight to the 'edge of space' despite only needing 5x more delta-v.
I don't agree that it's one hundred times harder.
The rocket equation suggest it's about ten times harder or anyway ten times as much fuel; but that probably very much overstates it- just because you need ten times as much fuel doesn't make it ten times harder; by the time you are returning from space safely you already have most of the systems well sorted, and it's mostly just a question of scaling things up.
Historically, I don't think that the suborbital to orbital jump is anything like 100x as much money or 100x as much effort; a few times at most.

--
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
Re:Easy Challenge? by Baron_Yam · 2003-09-30 07:00 · Score: 1
Two things:
1. I believe you are overly optimistic.
2. You pay to much attention to numbers clearly identified as having orginiated from human hindquarters. :)

Re:Do they just have to reach outer space by Trigun · 2003-09-30 01:20 · Score: 1

Same spacecraft, but same pilots?
Computer equipment can stand a bit higher heat than the human body. Saves on the thermal insulation.

Meat popsicles are cheap. Spacecraft, not so much.

Ah, the bureaucrats... by vudufixit · 2003-09-30 01:24 · Score: 1

I have to wonder if the launch permit will be held up until NASA's shuttle flights resume? I also suspect that the launch permitting process will actually become more cumbersome and lengthy as these private space ventures start to succeed? Why? Because I don't think the government wants to be "shown up" by scrappy space entrepreneurs.

Re:Ah, the bureaucrats... by vudufixit · 2003-09-30 01:27 · Score: 1

Sorry about those extra question marks in that post of mine. Not sure why I put them in there.
Re:Ah, the bureaucrats... by 2short · 2003-09-30 02:20 · Score: 1

NASA is worried about being "shown up"? I think not. NASA sent Alan Shepard on a flight roughly equivalent to what these guys are attempting. In 1961. Maybe NASA will be worried when these guys are a little less than 42 years behind.
Re:Ah, the bureaucrats... by 17028 · 2003-09-30 04:31 · Score: 1

Because I don't think the government wants to be "shown up" by scrappy space entrepreneurs.

Or maybe they don't want the nearest neighborhood torn to scraps?
Re:Ah, the bureaucrats... by vudufixit · 2003-09-30 05:38 · Score: 1

Scaled Composites has chosen a test flight area that's already been used countless times. Yes, permit consideration should center around safety first, but when a test area is long-established as safe (as I understand that part of the Mojave is), taking a long time to approve a launch is just a bunch of bureaucratic BS.

Great, but... by allanj · 2003-09-30 01:26 · Score: 3, Insightful

Even assuming he's right (and I think he's being a bit too optimistic), it will still be a LOOONG time before anyone does anything commercially viable in space. Only when someone figures out what endeavors in space that makes money we'll see real innovation to get there, driving down the cost immensely. Until then, it'll just be "space geeks" doing it just to prove it's possible.

I know that space has been profitable for some (TV satellites, for instance), but MANNED spacecrafts have so far had such ridiculously high cost that any gain would be dwarfed by that cost. I know that's part of what the X-Prize is designed to remedy, but realisticly it will take "big business" to drive down the cost.

So what can we get from manned spacecrafts that couldn't just as easily be handled by automated crafts? Science perhaps? Practically any form of production would be handled better by onboard robots, IMHO.

--
Black holes are where God divided by zero

Re:Great, but... by mst76 · 2003-09-30 01:36 · Score: 1

So what can we get from manned spacecrafts that couldn't just as easily be handled by automated crafts? Science perhaps? Practically any form of production would be handled better by onboard robots, IMHO.
It can be sold as vacation to billionaires.
Re:Great, but... by cosmicpossum · 2003-09-30 02:29 · Score: 2, Informative

Tourism is a commercially viable business. Don't think that just because they are not orbiting communications satellites that there is no money to be made!
If you had, oh say, $750K in your investment account wouldn't you be tempted to take a ride for $100K?

--
(This sig intentionally left blank)
Re:Great, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-30 03:19 · Score: 0

I don't know. If I was a bored billionaire, a week in space with a robot could have a certain appeal.
- Ebh
Re:Great, but... by bulletman · 2003-09-30 04:28 · Score: 1

>

How about tourism? I don't know if there truly is, as Diamandis suggests, a $1 billion market for space tourism, but maybe tourism is the "killer app" for these vehicules, letting an industry form.

Stephen
Re:Great, but... by DunbarTheInept · 2003-09-30 05:26 · Score: 1

I know that's part of what the X-Prize is designed to remedy, but realisticly it will take "big business" to drive down the cost.

Realisticly, if you wait for big business to make leaps in technology you'll be waiting a LONG time. Typically it's the little companies that make the giant leaps in technology, and then the big companies eventually get interested only after it's a proven concept. Yes, it takes big business to take a novel idea and make it cheap. But it takes a little business to risk trying that novel idea the first time. Big business is too concerned with protecting what they already have to try anything risky.

--
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

Not quite a dupe but... by fruey · 2003-09-30 01:29 · Score: 1

From the article:

What follows is a corrected version of the story that first ran on Sept. 26:

So not exactly news. I dare say Slashdot ran a story on Sep 26 about this too. Can't be bothered to check.

--
Conversion Rate Optimisation French / English consultant

Cheap space transport? by adeyadey · 2003-09-30 01:32 · Score: 2, Interesting

The X-Prize has proven that you dont need to spend huge amounts of money to get really promising technology on the road. Ok, it doesnt deliver the payload/height yet, but compare the $10 million against the $600 million per shuttle launch - and to be honest, I prepared to guess in the long term we will see more out of the X-Prize than the next Shuttle mission.. NASA are great at somethings, but genuine cheap space transport needs to come from a competitive commercial environment.

--
"You lied to me! There is a Swansea!"

Re:Cheap space transport? by Kulic · 2003-09-30 03:39 · Score: 1

NASA are great at somethings, but genuine cheap space transport needs to come from a competitive commercial environment.

Actually, I've always thought that the whole problem was about the economics. I think that history has proven that if you are willing to throw enough time and money at something, you can generally get it done. The thing is, who outside of the government (pick one) is willing to spend that much money and not get some sort of guaranteed return? At least initially, my bet is on the rich geeks (eg Carmack), although Scaled Composites seems to be the most technically qualified and they seem to have solid backing. I can't really see enough people being able to raise the capital (and develop the technology) to develop profitable businesses in this industry in the short term. Let alone create a competitive commercial environment (note that I'm talking manned flight here, not just satellites or the like).

As other posters have mentioned, prize money motivated the early aviation industry, and I think that the X-Prize will manage to do the same for sub-orbital flight. Sure, skipping around the globe is fun, but what (monetary) incentives do we have to develop real space travel? Unless someone offers an X-Prize for LEO and above, I'm afraid that we still won't be getting off the planet in the near future. Maybe someone could sign up some rich space tourists in advance?

On a related note, what are all wealthy people in the world doing with their money besides making more money? Even just a few million tossed in the direction of some qualified and enthusiastic engineers could probably yield some interesting results. The same probably goes for quite a few other fields (medicine, science research etc).
Re:Cheap space transport? by kalidasa · 2003-09-30 03:49 · Score: 1

What's the payload breakdown? Let's see: shuttle can bring 65,000 lbs to LEO. http://shuttlepayloads.jsc.nasa.gov/flying/accommo dations/payloadbay.htm At $600M, that's $10,000/lbs/LEO. How many pounds can one of the X-Prize ships bring up to LEO? 0. So what's the cost per pound to LEO? Infinity. Now if someone can point to a high-arc to LEO transfer vehicle that an X-Prize ship can use, then I'll be more impressed.
Look, the X-Prize is a great thing, but it's competing with 1960 NASA, not 2003 NASA. Give it time, and commercial space flight will push NASA out of the way for everything but the most experimental work. But don't imagine that the future is now.
Re:Cheap space transport? by adeyadey · 2003-09-30 08:26 · Score: 1

Oh sure, I dont think the X-Prize will yeild an immediate competitor to the Shuttle, or the best rockets come to that. For instance, the Atlas 551, as commissioned for the Pluto New Horizons mission in 2006, can lift 20.6 metric tonnes to LEO for a mere(!) $110 million. But even that is too expensive - what the Xprize could eventually deliver is the technology for what the Shuttle should have been - a genuine cheap reusable craft for LEO. When the Shuttle was first concieved, they were going to have 100 missions a year.. It just never really worked out.

--
"You lied to me! There is a Swansea!"
Re:Cheap space transport? by fucksl4shd0t · 2003-09-30 09:10 · Score: 1

As other posters have mentioned, prize money motivated the early aviation industry, and I think that the X-Prize will manage to do the same for sub-orbital flight. Sure, skipping around the globe is fun, but what (monetary) incentives do we have to develop real space travel? Unless someone offers an X-Prize for LEO and above, I'm afraid that we still won't be getting off the planet in the near future. Maybe someone could sign up some rich space tourists in advance?
I think that one of the problems here is the idea that space is the destination. As a stepping-stone industry, it makes sense to work towards replacing airliners with rockets. You could significantly shorten flights that go around the world, and in fact make it possible to fly directly from New York to China in a pretty short amount of time. All the skills and technology that come out of the X Prize contest can be put to that end, and that industry would be able to fund a lot of the research needed to make space as a destination a real possibility.
On a related note, what are all wealthy people in the world doing with their money besides making more money? Even just a few million tossed in the direction of some qualified and enthusiastic engineers could probably yield some interesting results. The same probably goes for quite a few other fields (medicine, science research etc).
You don't get wealthy by tossing your money around. Wealthy people are the most conservative demographic. It's for this reason, incidentally, that they're not likely to make tourism a valid business model until the technology is proven safe.

--
Like what I said? You might like my music

Re:FAA ? by illuvata · 2003-09-30 01:32 · Score: 1

What is the FAA ?

Federal Aviation Administration

Other X-Prize Pilots we'd love to see... by FreedomOfSpea-MMNnnf · 2003-09-30 01:34 · Score: 1

The rest of Nsync. All backstreet boys. OTown. Every other boy band.

Finally a trip to the doctor's office will be pain free (no lousy boy bands to make my ears bleed coming through the waiting room speakers).

--

~~I went to battle M.C. Escher, but drew a blank...~~

Re:Other X-Prize Pilots we'd love to see... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-30 02:21 · Score: 0

Unfortunately, you're wrong. The death of these pop bands won't remove them from the public eye.

Look at tupac, he's been dead and still released like 10 albums. And now that John Ritter is dead, everyone is talking about him.

Killing n'sync would only glorify them.

Re:Do they just have to reach outer space by hanssprudel · 2003-09-30 01:34 · Score: 0

Once rockets go up,
whether they come back,
"that's not my department",
says Johnny Carmack.

One of those three things is still in play by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-30 01:38 · Score: 0

Doom3 is still scheduled for release in 2003, just as that prediction (w/o a source) called it.

Scaled Composites seems to be very close by johnjay · 2003-09-30 01:39 · Score: 5, Informative

Although I'm rooting for Armadillo Aerospace, I visited the Scaled Composites website a few days ago. They seem to be very close to a successful launch. They've been doing all sorts of drop/glide tests of their spaceship, and they've seen a lot of success with those tests. Their crazy shuttle-cock decent seems to work fine. (This is especially amusing after all of the slashdot posts about how a winged successor to the space shuttle is the worst idea ever.) Also, they outsourced their engine construction which, seeing the kind of trouble Armadillo is having with their engines, might turn out to be a winning strategy.

Re:Scaled Composites seems to be very close by borzwazie · 2003-09-30 07:27 · Score: 1

holy rollercoaster ride, Batman -

Link to Mission Log

Descent rates > 10000 ft/min!! ...they really mean "rock" stable. Look out 6 Flags!

--
"We apologize for the inconvenience."
Re:Scaled Composites seems to be very close by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-30 10:31 · Score: 0

Except there web site design is atrocious. Forcing new windows when opening links is crap, particularly when that window has no back button and sublinks to photos.
Re:Scaled Composites seems to be very close by mandolin · 2003-09-30 17:49 · Score: 1

Also, they outsourced their engine construction which, seeing the kind of trouble Armadillo is having with their engines, might turn out to be a winning strategy.
It may be a losing strategy. They lose direct control over the design, test, and schedule of the engine. Last I checked, this was a pretty critical part, and it's also.. uh.. "rocket science". Hopefully the integration of the engine into the rest of the vehicle won't take too long.
We won't really know how this works out until Scaled issues some "rocket progress" reports.
I do understand why Scaled would outsource the engine work. It's not really the business they want to be in.

Re:Do they just have to reach outer space by c.derby · 2003-09-30 01:41 · Score: 0

twice within two weeks... and yes, it is suborbital. ;)

--
-- derby

Unless that immortality research pays off early... by Goonie · 2003-09-30 01:45 · Score: 1

you've got a 100% chance of dying someday.

So what's worse - dying of Alzheimer's in some rathole nursing home never having achieved anything, or going out young taking a calculated risk to get yourself (and eventually humanity at large) off this rock?

--

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)

Not Big Business!!! by goldspider · 2003-09-30 01:55 · Score: 2, Funny

"I know that's part of what the X-Prize is designed to remedy, but realisticly it will take "big business" to drive down the cost."

But, but, but BIG BUSINESS is EVIL!!! Any corporate conglomerate that digs its meat-hooks into space will surely do so on the backs of the people, and manage to destroy the interstellar environment in the process! And just like they exploit aliens here on earth, what's stopping them from enslaving aliens from other worlds?

Don't you tell me there's something that the Geek Collective can't do with idealism and free (beer AND speech!) software alone! I refuse to believe it! That's blasphemy, and such heresy should be moderated accordingly!

--
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy

LEO: The Real Challenge by Bearpaw · 2003-09-30 02:01 · Score: 2, Interesting

They are *not* going into orbit.

I think this is important to note. Diamandis talks about this being comparable to Lindburgh's trans-atlantic in being "a mind-shift breakthrough", but I think he's wrong. While it will be a hell of an accomplishment, and may encourage more private efforts, I doubt that it will be a "mind-shift breakthrough" for the general public.

I think most people will think of an private "edge of space" flight as mildly interesting, but probably not worth a mention at the neighborhood bar. If anything, it'll invite inaccurate and condescending (tho' understandable) comparisons to Evil Knieval. To really get that mindshift breakthrough, some private effort will need to get a human into orbit. I think that's what most people will think of as "real spaceflight".

I hope someone is willing to fund additional levels of X-Prizes, at least as far as LEO.

Re:LEO: The Real Challenge by MtViewGuy · 2003-09-30 03:56 · Score: 1

I think that Scaled Composites may be in the lead to get something into low Earth orbit (LEO), too.

Remember, what SpaceShipOne demonstrates is only the beginning; what is learned from this vehicle could make it possible to build something that is launched on top of a modified 747 fitted with rocket motor within ten years, and such a vehicle will likely carry 4-6 astronauts into a high enough LEO to dock with the International Space Station. :-)

X-prize before Space Shuttle by guacamolefoo · 2003-09-30 02:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

Perhaps most exciting, Peter Diamandis says he expects a winner within one year."

I would love to see an X-Prize winner before regular space shuttle flights resume.

GF.

--
Lots of petrified grits

Re:X-prize before Space Shuttle by Yanray · 2003-09-30 02:46 · Score: 1

The way NASA has been progressing we are likely to see Commerical ORBITAL flights before they get back up.

--
--"Sorry for the inconvience." Gods Last Words to his Creation
DNA, So Long and Thanks for all the Fish

Moon Landing by archetypeone · 2003-09-30 02:05 · Score: 1

Excellent, we're that much closer to finding out the truth...

Re:Do they just have to reach outer space by Cat_Byte · 2003-09-30 02:10 · Score: 1

Not if we use RIAA lawyers for the ass-tronauts.

--
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one the bus load of girls just went down.

A little Canadianism. ^_^ by MarvinMouse · 2003-09-30 02:16 · Score: 4, Informative

I know this is out of character for a Canadian, but I do have to say I have a soft spot for the Canadian Arrow project. http://www.canadianarrow.com

I have been following it closely, and all of their tests have been reasonably successful, they have their astronaut team now, and they are almost done training. They've finished engine testing, and are even preparing for secondary business ventures when the project is complete (read "spacediving" on their page.)

So currently now, I am just waiting for them to do their launch (which if I remember correctly from the latest clip of them on "Daily Planet" they were saying was going to be early to mid 2004, barring no complications.

The Da Vinci project looks good as well, but I just haven't paid that much attention to it.

Oh well, no matter what happens, hopefully this will get the publics attention, and these companies will continue development further into even more spaceworthy vehicles (ie orbital, etc.) with the money they make from tourism (Assuming they make money. ^_^)

--
~ kjrose

Re:A little Canadianism. ^_^ by fenix+down · 2003-09-30 04:26 · Score: 1
Every time I get freaked out by the number of flags we stick all over everything down here, I just look at you guys and suddenly we don't look so bad.
- Name: Canadian Arrow
- Rocket: red and white
- Capsule parachute: red and white
- Rocket tail: Maple leaf pattern
- Team uniform: reverse Maple leaf pattern
- Policy for austronaut protraits: a flag from wherever they're from, and another Canadian flag for good measure
Armadillo needs to get in on this. Replace the parachute with a giant inflatable Uncle Sam hat, paint it with stars and stripes, have it play "God Bless America" in space by venting compressed air and then belting out with a loudspeaker, spray red, white and blue smoke trails on the way down, drop country music CDs over France, that kind of thing.
Re:A little Canadianism. ^_^ by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-30 06:46 · Score: 0

This is extremely rare in Canada. You should come and visit you'll likely see 1 or 2 flags during your whole trip. I think we canadians don't need constant reminders that we live in Canada, we have a good memories. We don't fly the flag at McDonald's or the local pron shop like you guys do.
Re:A little Canadianism. ^_^ by samurphy21 · 2003-09-30 06:47 · Score: 1

Naming it the Arrow and expecting sucess is like naming a new shit the Titanic and expecting it to stay afloat. Bad omens..
Re:A little Canadianism. ^_^ by samurphy21 · 2003-09-30 06:50 · Score: 1

Doh! Ship! SHIP!! I swear I proofread that!
Re:A little Canadianism. ^_^ by nexthec · 2003-09-30 07:55 · Score: 1

Sorry, My wife is a canadian and all her friends back home make this same statment, then I see a "I am Canadian" Commercial or a Hockey night commercial, or any number of things. Canada also has an inferiroty complex, or something when it comes to the states. (Dont ask me why, it shouldnt, I think they are just tired of being ignored by us, and called americans by others;->) As far as I can tell, alot of canada defines it self as "Not American"
Re:A little Canadianism. ^_^ by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-30 08:31 · Score: 0

Those astronauts have balls of brass to ride in that thing.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2003-09-30 02:16 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Unless that immortality research pays off early by MouseR · 2003-09-30 02:24 · Score: 1

Exactly.

I'd accept a one-way ticket to Mars anytime, albeit only to prove that humans CAN reach the red planet alive.

For as long as I have a suit to walk outside and a long beach chair to watch the sunset.

Oh, and I'm bringing along my dual G5.

X-Prize This Year by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-30 02:34 · Score: 2, Informative

I've been following the X-Prize competition quite closely. There are two contenders that might win the X-Prize before this year's end: ScaledComposites and CanadianArrow. I belive Burt Rutan has planned the prize's required second flight for this 13th December, just in time to celebrate one century of flight. Rutan's company seems to be the most advanced competitor (I'd bet real money they win the X-Prize), though the canadian team has that cool prospect of extreme skydiving.

Re:X-Prize This Year by VanillaCoke420 · 2003-09-30 09:00 · Score: 1

Absolutely. Those are my two favourite teams as well, and Starchaser too. However, I think Scaled is in the lead, Canadian second, maybe Starchaser is second or perhaps third. Armadillo, no matter how cool they are with their pioneer spirit, will not win this prize. I know the X-Prize might be extended with the X-Prize Cup, and I hope that somehow there will be a prize for the first team who can reach LEO. Once they can do that safely, there's no stopping them.

Re:Do they just have to reach outer space by akgunkel · 2003-09-30 02:36 · Score: 1

Same spacecraft, but same pilots? Computer equipment can stand a bit higher heat than the human body. Saves on the thermal insulation.

Yeah, that's just what I want... to go into space in a giant flying oven. Maybe my family could eat me for Christmas.

Scaled Composites December 17 2003 10:35 EST. by HenryWirz · 2003-09-30 02:39 · Score: 1

First Flight XPrize flight will be completed by
Scaled Composites on December 17 2003 at 10:35 EST.

Re:Scaled Composites December 17 2003 10:35 EST. by 100lbHand · 2003-09-30 03:15 · Score: 0

Too bad I will miss it, trying to compete with ROTK? Crazy.

--
"I'm not high, just stupid" --JY
Re:Scaled Composites December 17 2003 10:35 EST. by HenryWirz · 2003-09-30 03:32 · Score: 1

Wilbur and Orville had no idea of the kinda conflicts that they were going to cause for us geeks. I'm sure had they known they would have been happy to move it to the 18th.

Rocket vs. Space Plane by Yanray · 2003-09-30 02:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

This race is essentially becoming one of Rocket (Armidillo) vs. Spaceplane (Scaled). Might NASA take a hint from this in the developement of thier next generation of spacecraft. From my experience with American politics they are likely to try the one that has previously exploded in their face.

--
--"Sorry for the inconvience." Gods Last Words to his Creation
DNA, So Long and Thanks for all the Fish

Re:Rocket vs. Space Plane by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-30 03:47 · Score: 0

Sadly, both have exploded in their faces before now. NASA isn't really motivated by good desing, but by the desire to get money out of their government.

It's just The MAN trying to keep us down!!! by Thud457 · 2003-09-30 02:56 · Score: 1

"It is just remarkably difficult to get things into space!"

Well, maybe when NASA 's involved.

NASA's trying to protect their own turf by claiming space launches have to be difficult and expensive. Come one people, it's not like they're trying to write bug-free software. This is merely rocket science.

--

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

Re:It's just The MAN trying to keep us down!!! by PierceLabs · 2003-09-30 04:29 · Score: 1

Dude, industrialized nations can't even reliably land ballistic missles in the right place - a far simpler problem. Getting into space isn't simply a matter of 'point this end at sky and light fuse' :)

Haha...China won the X-Prize in 1500AD!! by castleguardian · 2003-09-30 03:02 · Score: 1

No, really! Check out the following link: http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/09/30/china.wan hu/index.html From the sounds of it, the explosion certainly sent him onto outer space, and he (most likely) flamed down in the outback... ...can the X-Prize be awarded post-humously? ;)

--
--- Welcome my son, welcome to the machine.

Re:Haha...China won the X-Prize in 1500AD!! by JimPooley · 2003-09-30 04:40 · Score: 2, Funny

No, really! Check out the following link: http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/09/30/china.wan hu/index.html From the sounds of it, the explosion certainly sent him onto outer space, and he (most likely) flamed down in the outback... ...can the X-Prize be awarded post-humously? ;)

No. He didn't do it again within a fortnight...

--

"Information wants to be paid"

Re:Do they just have to reach outer space by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-30 03:05 · Score: 0

As far as I know, they have to bring 3 people up to 100km and back down, and then reuse the vehicle within two weeks to do the same.

What I have not heard of so far however is if the 3 people have to be alive after reentry. I wonder if a team would win if they just bound 3 people together with a string, catapult them to 100km height, collect the string and fire 3 other people up reusing the same string.

I honestly don't see the use of the X-Prize though by caveat · 2003-09-30 03:11 · Score: 1, Interesting

The X-Prize is an incredibly good idea, the perfect way to spur innovation and experimentation, but at the end of the day, I see ti as mostly a wash...I can't find the blurb on the X-Prize page, but IIRC they say they chose 62mi because it's accepted as being in space, but doesn't require any "exotic and expensive" heat shielding for reentry. Now, suborbital barnstorming is rad as hell, and a very neccessary step to orbit and beyond - but if we really want to commoditize true spaceflight, we're going to to need to be able to reenter as well as blast off. Maybe a Y-Prize for the fist private team to successfully deorbit and land from >Shuttle altitudes?

--

Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley

The relevant 2-sided maxim by Bikku · 2003-09-30 03:12 · Score: 1

Whenever an expert claims something is definitely going to happen within a short time frame, it almost certainly won't.

And conversely, when they say something won't happen within a long time frame, it almost certainly will.

Sorry, but I can't remember the correct attribution for this observation - some SF writer no doubt. Perhaps another ./er remembers who?

X-Prize is GOV. money maker by Darkoth · 2003-09-30 03:20 · Score: 1

I think this event is absolutly great for for the entire world. This will promote private spaceflight and will improve the speed with it is as routine as air flight today. But I personally think this is just a money making scheme for the goverment. Isent Nasa currently working on a next generation spaceship because there currnt spaceships are from the 60s. 10 million dollars is nothing when they get the bluprints for a new spaceship. There is no risk for them. On top of this if this space flight thing becomes more popular and people are forking out the money to ride this.....who is going to profit from this.... the privatly owned companies or Nasa.

succesful drop tests by photonic · 2003-09-30 03:24 · Score: 4, Informative

The mission log of Scaled Composites says they already did two succesful drop tests with the SpaceShipOne!

The video cameras mounted on the spaceship recorded dramatic views particularly during the unique feather maneuver. Observers in the chase Starship were treated to a closeup bizarre view of the spaceship plunging downward in a rock-stable near vertical feathered descent. First public showings of these videos will be on 26 September at the annual SETP symposium in Los Angeles

Anybody knows where to find those movies?

--
karma police: arrest this man, he talks in maths; he buzzes like a fridge, he's like a detuned radio. [radiohead]

Re:Do they just have to reach outer space by jpvlsmv · 2003-09-30 03:26 · Score: 1

If it's "manned" exploration, why "him/her"?

--Joe

Re:Do they just have to reach outer space by Trigun · 2003-09-30 03:28 · Score: 1

Just how much energy would be required to throw a 10m diameter ball of near-solid titanium (minus the volume of 3 people) into space?

Crowding LEO? by malakai · 2003-09-30 03:30 · Score: 1, Insightful

I don't think you appreciate the surface area of LEO. Are you worried about overcrowding the sea with wine corks?

--
-Malakai
A Dragon Lives in my Garage

Re:Crowding LEO? by kalidasa · 2003-09-30 03:40 · Score: 1

Mod parent up insightful. Crowding LEO is something for them to worry about in 3003, not 2003.
Re:Crowding LEO? by GlassHeart · 2003-09-30 05:40 · Score: 3, Informative

I don't think you appreciate the surface area of LEO. Are you worried about overcrowding the sea with wine corks?
Yes, if the corks move at hundreds of miles per hour, and are each capable of sinking a ship on collision.
Point is, while individual satellites are small, you cannot simply consider their size. If you were launching another vehicle through its orbit, and expect to cross it at exactly 5:03 pm plus or minus 10 minutes, then what you need to consider is an arc formed by the said satellite moving at high velocity for 20 minutes. Now repeat for each orbit you are likely to cross. A "crowded" orbit simply means that you have increasing difficulty scheduling a safe launch, because the overlapping arcs make your launch window very small. Finally, consider that satellites don't just orbit. Sometimes they fire their boosters to correct decays in their own orbit, each of which would throw off your timing somewhat. Consider also that while you may not care if your payload is destroyed in a collision, the US government might be rather irate if you destroyed a spy satellite of theirs, or bring down the International Space Station.
But mainly, any such accident would be so expensive (mostly in terms of money, but sometimes in terms of human lives) that even if the risk of collision is low, any potential spacefarer must still be very careful. It is certainly worth far more attention (and NASA does track objects and debris in orbit) than corks in the ocean.
Re:Crowding LEO? by MrBlue+VT · 2003-09-30 19:11 · Score: 1

You don't only have to worry about physical crowding. Already Geosyncronous orbit is getting filled up because you need a certain minimum space between them to keep the radio signals from overlapping. Imagine millions of satelites, each able to see a huge swath of ground broadcasting at once. It could easily become overcrowded.

Re:Do they just have to reach outer space by roystgnr · 2003-09-30 03:37 · Score: 1

Or do they have to come down as well?

These are all suborbital craft being tested, so yeah, they have to come down, but it's mostly due to Newton's rules rather than the XPrize's.

I love you. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-30 03:45 · Score: 0

When will you see sense, you fool?

Does X-prize have enough money? by MickLinux · 2003-09-30 03:56 · Score: 1

I don't see it listed at www.x-prize.org, but I wonder if they've already collected the $10M?

If they haven't, then what happens if the prize is won, and they only have $8M? Will they be able to find the other $2M, or will the prize have to be just $8M?

--
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's

Re:Does X-prize have enough money? by aallan · 2003-09-30 06:54 · Score: 1

I don't see it listed at www.x-prize.org, but I wonder if they've already collected the $10M? If they haven't, then what happens if the prize is won, and they only have $8M?

I believe the prize is actually funded through an insurace policy. The insurace company pays out if someone actually wins the prize, all the X-Prize people had to come up with was the premium. I could be wrong, but thats my recollection anyway...
Al.

--
The Daily ACK - Eclectic posts by yet another hacker
Re:Does X-prize have enough money? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-30 16:49 · Score: 0

Yeah, it's something like that. From what I've read it's "guaranteed" by a financial institution of some kind until the end of 2004.

So that's why the prize has to be won before then.

Re:Do they just have to reach outer space by jo42 · 2003-09-30 04:15 · Score: 1

Is it also a requirement that they be alive when they come down?

Re:Do they just have to reach outer space by PierceLabs · 2003-09-30 04:23 · Score: 1

Like the profs in college used to say - they don't HAVE to in order to fulfill the requirements, but if you really want to ensure you chances of coming out on top it is strongly recommended :)

1. Launch veacle into space 2.??? 3.PROFIT!!!!! by stfvon007 · 2003-09-30 04:26 · Score: 1

I disagree. I feel this prize is meant as more of a first step. Its designed to mimic the first flights of the governments in design (except these craft have to be reusable) It will promote companies to compete with each other for developing spacecraft increasing efficency, safty, and lower the cost. Having just NASA has the efficency of communism.

As to making money in space, there are two main ways that I see where profit can be made. The fisrt is tourism. People are willing to pay $20 million now, How many will be wiling when the price drops to a mere $10,000? @ondly, there is medicine. Many desieses progress slower or have there sypmptoms lessened in space. In the next 25 years i would be surprised to see hospitals, or even old folks homes set up in space. They will be expencive, probably to the point where only the very rich can afford them, but they will have the potential to make money and be profitable.

--
All misspellings and grammatical errors in the above post are intentional and part of my artistic expression.

After the X-prize by CDS · 2003-09-30 04:27 · Score: 1

Altitude really is relatively meaningless (after the 100KM limit is reached - that altitude is useful for proving commercial ability to work in an airless environment -- rocket technologies, stabilization of the craft, etc). After you get into space, Orbital ALTITUDE doesn't matter so much as Orbital VELOCITY.

you can get HIGH without having to go FAST. But you're still not in orbit. In order to orbit, you have to be going fast enough horizontally that you "miss" the Earth as you fall - you still fall, but you are falling in a circle... Orbital velicity for the shuttle (at a typical altitude 300 km) is approximately 8 km/s (18,000 mph).

In order to return to Earth from 300 km up, the straight falling velocity (discounting air resistance, which is quite substantial!) is 1.7KM/s (approx 3800mph).

As you can see, slowing down from orbit (18,000mph) is quite a bit more difficult than just slowing down from a great height (3800mph).

The X-prize demonstrates the usability and reusability of commercial rocket engines. This is a major step for for commercialization of space. The next step would be orbital velocity, which is quite a bit more difficult than just getting up into space...

No. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-30 04:34 · Score: 0

No. The "white" in the name is only because the color of the aircraft in the standard white plastic gelcoat of the composite materials. This is for purely scientific reasons, to keep the material from overheating in sunlight and losing structural strength. Most all composite aircraft are white in color to make the composite material last longer and stay stronger without degrading in the sunlight.

groan by edwinolson · 2003-09-30 04:35 · Score: 1

Diamandis not only predicts it, he diamands it.

ugh. why did i post this?

Ahh, splitting hairs :P by caveat · 2003-09-30 04:40 · Score: 1

Yes yes yes, you're absolutely right, altitude and velocity are totally different - I was rolling them into one, assuming orbit at the specified altitude; I probably should have said >Shuttle orbit. My point still stands though, the X-Prize is a great first step, but it cuts out the real bear of spaceflight, at least assuming you don't want to make planetfall as a small, smoking cinder...

--

Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley

Re:Ahh, splitting hairs :P by CDS · 2003-09-30 04:53 · Score: 1

I guess I wasn't horribly clear either. I am agreeing with you. The Xprize is a great first step, but it's JUST the first step. I was just differentiating between altitude and LEO and specifically stating that once we hit 100KM, altitude doesn't matter anymore - the next step has to be LEO (and I was going into greater detail for the readers who get "going into space" confused with "orbiting" -- that seems to be a common occurrance)

The BIGGEST obstacle the X-prize is useful for overcoming is the attitude that "space is so tough that it requires government involvement" -- that attitude has GOT to be overcome before we can ever make a stab at getting off this rock -- and we overcome the psychological aspect by taking baby steps like the X-prize.

Note: You're right --unless you're careful, high altitude will allow you to make planetfall as a small smoking cinder. Orbital velocity will allow you to make a big black smear across several states :(
Re:Ahh, splitting hairs :P by caveat · 2003-09-30 06:38 · Score: 1

Or a horribly beautiful flaming contrail across several states, if your shielding gives early enough...

--

Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley

a view from the fringe by rj-45web · 2003-09-30 05:06 · Score: 1

i have been following the x-prize and a particular entrant for several years now. the da vinci project (www.davinciproject.com) from Toronto, Canada caught my attention in 2000 at a university lecture. since then the progress has been relentless. all of these x-prize projects have potential in their own right, each equally able to succeed. The Spirit of St Louis was an overlooked contender in 1929. the one barrier equal to all projects is funding. i request, if you believe this endevour is worthwhile, buy a hat, make a donation or get involved. think of the history you will be making (general support-the-cause speech). spend some time on the www.xprize.org. the da vinci project obtained a flight permit from the Canadian Launch Safety Office back in June for a location in Saskatchewan. with luck, they plan to use it very soon (launch date announcement in late 2003). the Canadian Arrow has also applied for the same permit with a decision still unannounced. for full disclosure, i myself have volunteered with the da vinci project in the pass.

Re:a view from the fringe by CanadaDave · 2003-09-30 05:37 · Score: 1

Launch date announcement in late 2003? Don't they have to announce the launch 5 months before they launch? So the latest launch announcement date could be in summer 2003 for lunch by the end of the year, when the X-prize expires.
Re:a view from the fringe by rj-45web · 2003-09-30 08:50 · Score: 1

i don't know what you refer to as expiring? the x-prize doesn't "expire" unless a team successfully completes the requirements.

the brief rules are: three person suborbital flight to a distance of 100km that is repeated within 14 days using the same craft. the full rules are posted on the xprize.org website and probably all the entrants sites as well.

if you refer the permit expires, you could be right. i don't know if a "window" for launch was indicated.
Re:a view from the fringe by CanadaDave · 2003-09-30 09:33 · Score: 1

As far as I know, the contest ends January 2004. So if no one does it before then, the contest is over. Although it could be extended.
Re:a view from the fringe by CanadaDave · 2003-09-30 09:36 · Score: 1

From an email sent to daVinci members: 09/14/03 da Vinci Space Team Members: Thought I would give you a quick update on the status of works on the engineering and other related aspects of the project and on our immediate plans into the Fall of 2003. First, please notice that X-Prize as we know it right now will seize to exist on Jan 1st, 2005. So it is essentially "do-or-die" situation for ALL X-Prize competitors.
Re:a view from the fringe by Teancum · 2003-10-01 01:28 · Score: 1

There is a hard-funded level for the X-Prize (about $5 million approximately), but the remainder of the prize was funded with an insurance policy (on condition that somebody actually meets the X-Prize conditions). This is something that is done even with TV game shows like "Who Wants to be a Millionaire".

They are seeking sponsors to extend the premium and hence the deadline for a few more months or years, but with a couple of teams being very close to winning it the current attitude is "why bother?"

The big task ahead for the X-Prize committee is trying to determine what is going to be next.

Extend the prize for orbital flight? Set up a "NASCAR" like spaceship race? Space Station development?
Re:a view from the fringe by Centurion509 · 2003-10-03 09:44 · Score: 1

From an email sent to daVinci members

You seem to have some inside knowledge of the Da Vinci Project. Could you share a few tidbits with us, or is that not allowed?

I'd love to hear how you folks are doing, seeing as all the news lately is about Starchaser, Armadillo, or Scaled.
Re:a view from the fringe by CanadaDave · 2003-10-04 08:47 · Score: 1

I haven't been to any meetings yet. All I know is that they want to takeoff before the Jan. 1 2004 deadline and they think they can be the first ones. They have some new factory space where they plan to assemble the final rocket. The software and electrical aspects are in the planning stages. They are very serious and and after taking some time off at the end of August for holidays they're going to be working hard this Fall and into next year.

Rendered Movie of Rutan's Entry by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-30 05:21 · Score: 1, Informative

Check it out at:

http://rc.explosive.net/rutan

Let me know what you think,

- jason

What happens next? by WoTG · 2003-09-30 05:27 · Score: 1

Is there an X-Prize 2 planned? Will all the teams that don't win still finish and launch their projects for the sake of accomplishment?

Scaled Composites vs. China by johnjay · 2003-09-30 05:28 · Score: 1

What about a bet on who gets to space first? I guess I favor China, since they're just strapping a guy onto the tip of an ICBM. But, they also have a more difficult mission to fulfill. It would be weird if the next space race was between China, India, and American private enterprise. And, of course, NASA tooling around in the background, coming up with cool tech every once in a while.

Re:Scaled Composites vs. China by MtViewGuy · 2003-09-30 07:30 · Score: 1

China has said that Shenzhou 5, the next launch of the Shenzhou spacecraft, will likely carry a single taikonaut (Chinese for astronaut) some time this fall--probably in October. My guess is that the rocket with the Shenzhou spacecraft on top is in final assembly now and will be ready to launch by the third week of October 2003.

Mind you, Shenzhou is not much more than a highly-modified and modernized Soyuz spacecraft, in my humble opinion.

That's Clarke's First Law by DrMorpheus · 2003-09-30 05:30 · Score: 1

That's Aurthor C. Clarke's First Law:

When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

Here's the Wikipedia entry.

--
Debunking the "59 Deceits"

Re:Do they just have to reach outer space by BiggerBoat · 2003-09-30 06:04 · Score: 1

Here are the basics: -Send a vehicle to 62 miles twice in two weeks without replacing more than 10% by mass (not including propellant). - The vehicle has to be able to carry three people up and back *safely*, but only one living person actually needs to go. The other two must be represented with ballast. Yes, the person must come back safely.

Pie in the Sky by parkov · 2003-09-30 06:34 · Score: 1

And lest we forget: "First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth." - JFK, 1961

Great by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-30 06:35 · Score: 0

How far off are home made terrorist ICBMs?

Let's terminate Arnold by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-30 06:45 · Score: 0

Maybe he can be the test pilot.

Re:Do they just have to reach outer space by Illbay · 2003-09-30 06:52 · Score: 1

How can it be "exploration" when everyone knows what's there already?

What are they gonna do, discover a new HBO satellite?

--
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.

Re:Do they just have to reach outer space by default+luser · 2003-09-30 06:53 · Score: 1

If it's "manned" exploration, why "him/her"?

The word "peopled" sounds too weak due to its lack of gender, as all genderless words tend to.

"Populated" sounds far too technical and general to be speaking about humans.

"Manned" has become the preferred term because the masculine gender makes it sound more proactive, while gender-specific additions like "him/her" can make it more flexible, rather than just be redundant.

--

Man is the animal that laughs.
And occasionally whores for Karma.

Re:Do they just have to reach outer space by fucksl4shd0t · 2003-09-30 08:19 · Score: 1

If it's "manned" exploration, why "him/her"?

Women's liberation need not fuck over the language. Mankind refers to men and women everywhere, not just men. Manned spaceflight doesn't exclude women, all it means is that humans will be going. Man, him, he, etc have all been accepted as neuter in many cases for centuries, and I really don't see a need to change that. Each person will perform to the best of his abilities. Consider that when you have a sentence like that, you could likely be referring to people who are women. On the other hand, had you said "her abilities", the assumption would be that they're all women. So women actually get a one-up on men, because their pronouns are kept feminine and only refer to women, while men's pronouns have been stolen and used to refer to women as well.

When does the language tyranny stop?

--
Like what I said? You might like my music

Re:Unless that immortality research pays off early by fucksl4shd0t · 2003-09-30 08:41 · Score: 1

Hell, I'd quit smoking to take that trip with you. In a heartbeat. Phone rings, Carmack says "Hey, fucksl4shd0t, we're sending you to Mars" and I've smoked my last cigarette.

--
Like what I said? You might like my music

Incremental Progress after Initial Launch by Teancum · 2003-10-01 00:43 · Score: 1

The really impressive feat to me with being able to reach this altitude (100 km) is that once you can achieve it, real engineers can continue to refine the concept through incremental adjustments to eventually become a true orbital vehicle. After the initial rush of getting to orbit, the next big push will be to see what kind of range they can get.

From the articles, they are currently pushing for about a 35 mile range from launch site to landing site. I can see strong economic viability in trying to push further for an express service going from Los Angeles to London in 1 hour, or how about London to Sydney in 1 - 1/2 hours.

Engineering works better as a discipline when you can achieve goals in smaller steps, rather than pushing for one big goal at once. One of the reasons rocket science is so difficult is that in order to put something in orbit the leap from your Estes class "A" Mosquito rocket to a Delta 4 is quite a bit more than even a soapbox derby car to a Corvette. Even NASA had to go through several hundred rockets well before Alan Shepard got his first ride.

BTW, all that Alan Shepard got to do anyway was ride a sub-orbital flight for 15 minutes on a flight that would have barely qualified for the X-Prize itself. (He got to an altitude of 116 miles, distance of 300 miles)

The point here is that the X-Prize can certainly ignite the spark necessary to develop manned Low-Earth Orbit activities, and as the classic statement goes (I believe coined by Robert A. Heinlin) "Low Earth Orbit is half-way to the rest of the Solar System" Once people are up there, going on to other places in the Solar System is just more incremental steps.

Science Fiction Authors and their predictions by Teancum · 2003-10-01 01:19 · Score: 1

Hypersonic jets did try to come into their own commercially, but conventional sub-sonic jets (like a Boeing 747 or a DC-10) have pretty much been "good enough" compared to the huge expenses of running a plane like the Concorde. Not to mention that environmental issues and other legal BS that is holding such planes from being developed. About the only routes that it was legal to fly the Concorde was between London, New York, and Paris. Liability issues is what finally killed the Concorde.

In regards to consumer-owned nuclear power devices, the biggest problem is that wide spread effecient use of nuclear fission devices require breeder reactors, not to mention mass distribution of very powerful materials that would allow any 15 year old the opportunity to make their own nuclear bomb. Kids are constantly making their own Nitro-glycerin as it is, what makes you think they won't be making their own personal nukes if they have access to the materials? This is a clear case where the risks outweigh the rewards.

As far as Pan-Am making flights to the moon, they did get something like 100,000 reservations from the promo they did with Kuberick's 2001: Space Oddesy, several of whom would have gladly put money on the table for the flight if they had the ship to go there. What more does a company want?

Life will go on for luddites, but I for one want to get to space, or at least see that my kids have the opportunity to go themselves.

Slashdot Mirror

Diamandis Predicts X-Prize Winner Within One Year

189 comments