Slashdot Mirror


X-Prize Progress Update

savuporo writes "The X-Prize organization has released a summary document (PDF), detailing the recent progress and immediate plans of 13 different competing teams, of those who have publicised information of significant hardware development (there are a total of 27 officially listed competitors from seven nations by now). Some details: quite a few teams are expecting to do full-scale or subscale powered flight tests soon, some as early as January 2004. Burt Rutan can still be considered as leading the pack, but others are not too far behind, and the winner is far from certain. Armadillo Aerospace states that some US teams are hindered more by regulatory hassles, than technical issues. Speaking of Armadillo, the team has just released a very special video, commemorating tomorrow's 100th anniversary of powered flight."

154 comments

  1. Looking Forward to 2004 (pdf articles text) by glassesmonkey · · Score: 5, Informative


    TEAM: SCALED COMPOSITES
    WEBSITE: WWW.SCALED.COM
    TEAM LEADER: BURT RUTAN

    It is expected that the next six to nine months will involve a number of rocket powered flights of SpaceShipOne, with each flight involving a longer and longer burn of the hybrid engine. The first flight may be limited to a short 15- second burn, with later flights demonstrating the full 60+ second burn time bringing SpaceShipOne from 50,000 feet eventually to an altitude of 328,000 feet (62 miles...space!).


    TEAM: ARMADILLO AEROSPACE
    WEBSITE: WWW.ARMADILLOAEROSPACE.COM
    TEAM LEADER: JOHN CARMAC

    Immediately after completion of the engine test program, Armadillo will be testing a full scale boilerplate X PRIZE vehicle with a captive hover test at their 100-acre test facility, followed by some low altitude hover tests to 3,000 ft. With these tests completed, it's their intent to do some additional low altitude launches within the "amateur" classification (and they continue to work with FAA AST for a burn time waiver). The next phase of successively higher altitude tests and ultimately manned X PRIZE flights will be dependent on what the team calls its biggest challenge: the launch license application and accompanying environmental review. Technically, Armadillo claims they will be ready to fly X PRIZE missions well before the end of the year, but Team members are fond of referring to the Wernher von Braun quote: "We can lick gravity, but sometimes the paperwork is overwhelming." Challenges included, this Dallas based group of bicycle repair mechanics is relishing the prospect of an exciting 2004.


    TEAM: STARCHASER INDUSTRIES
    WEBSITE: WWW.STARCHASER.CO.UK
    TEAM LEADER: STEVE BENNETT

    With the Thunderstar and its new engines now in production, Starchaser plans to fly in 2004. The team has also announced that it will make its propulsion system available for sale to other X PRIZE contestants on a commercial basis.


    TEAM: CANADIAN ARROW
    WEBSITE: WWW.CANADIANARROW.COM
    TEAM LEADER: GEOFF SHEERIN

    Next steps for the team will include continued testing of the engine to prepare it for actual flight onboard the first Canadian Arrow spacecraft that is scheduled for launch next year. When successful, the Arrow will make Canada the fourth nation to put humans into space.


    TEAM: DA VINCI PROJECT
    WEBSITE: WWW.DAVINCIPROJECT.COM
    TEAM LEADER: BRIAN FEENEY

    Da Vinci Project celebrated the 100th anniversary of powered flight with a Technical conference and press evening on December 16th & 17th. Early in 2004 da Vinci Project hopes to receive its license to launch from the Canadian Government and begin a sequence of test flights culminating in an series of flights to win the X PRIZE.


    TEAM: PABLO DE LEON & ASSOCIATES
    WEBSITE: WWW.PABLODELEON.COM
    TEAM LEADER: PABLO DE LEON

    During 2004 we will concentrate in launch test of at least two half scale vehicles and in launch operations. Several hybrid static firing tests will also be performed. Construction of a full scale capsule will begin in July 2004. This capsule will be used for training, simulation and to study mating/demating techniques.


    TEAM: HIGH ALTITUDE RESEARCH CORP. (HARC)
    WEBSITE: WWW.HARCSPACE.COM
    TEAM LEADER: TIM PICKENS

    HARC will continue progressing toward full scale launches while keeping safety first. Hardware design and testing will continue into 2004 with a launch of the Liberator Escape Tower and Capsule in the 1st half of 2004. HARC is planning for a summer launch of the "Little Joe" version of the Liberator to an altitude of approximately 40 kilometers. The first full scale launch is planned for late summer and will be followed by another launch in the fall. The two X PRIZE competition flights will take place in late 2004, and there are already astronaut candidates pitching in to help move the Team toward that goal.


    T

    1. Re:Looking Forward to 2004 (pdf articles text) by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 2, Insightful

      how does the very first post to the thread get moderated as redundant? :rolleyes:

      --
      This space available.
    2. Re:Looking Forward to 2004 (pdf articles text) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      how does the very first post to the thread get moderated as redundant? :rolleyes:

      Perhaps because it simply repeats the article.

    3. Re:Looking Forward to 2004 (pdf articles text) by nebbian · · Score: 1

      It shouldn't be modded as redundant though -- since the site is slashdotted I went looking through the posts, looking for some mirrored text. Eventually I found it, but only due to the above comment!

      If I had karma I'd award the parent post 'informative' because it's the only way I could get the information...

    4. Re:Looking Forward to 2004 (pdf articles text) by forgetful · · Score: 1

      Too bad these folks don't have after-market V-2s from Taiwan to work with.

      --
      "...while history is usually explicable it is often irrational" --Roger Spiller
    5. Re:Looking Forward to 2004 (pdf articles text) by glassesmonkey · · Score: 1

      If you RTFA you would see it wasn't, plus the source was a huge PDF doomed for /.-ing

  2. lol by Quasar1999 · · Score: 2, Funny

    regulatory hassles? If those regulations weren't there, everyone and their dog would be building inter-continental ballistic missiles, and claiming to be contending for the 'X-Prize'...

    The government damn well better keep those regulations in place... otherwise WWIII here we come!

    --

    ---
    Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
    1. Re:lol by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      regulatory hassles? If those regulations weren't there, everyone and their dog would be building inter-continental ballistic missiles, and claiming to be contending for the 'X-Prize'...

      I haven't yet finished the PDF linked in the article, but I've already noticed one rocket that bears a resemblance to a V2, and another one similar to an Atlas missile.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    2. Re:lol by Moofie · · Score: 2, Funny

      Considering how there's pretty much one shape that makes any sense for a rocket, that shouldn't surprise you very much.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    3. Re:lol by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      One general shape, yes, but many variations on that shape.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    4. Re:lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      OH right, because if it werent for Uncle Sam and his regulations, we all would have nothing better to do than spend millions building ICBMs.

      Tell me something, do you think regulations would stop Al Queada from trying to build a rocket or missle? Do laws against homicide prevent murder? Do laws against theft prevent stealing?

      Many of these regulations are unncessary and hinder private access to space. Private access to space should not be regulated anymore than access to other areas not under the control of a governmental body. Do I need the govt's permission to go fishing outside of U.S. waters?

      P.S.
      The regulations you refer to regard access to space and have nothing to do with the technology involved in ICBMs, which by the way has been around for close to 50 years and is available in many countries and I have yet to see some lunatic launch his own IBCM. Think before you post, kthx.

    5. Re:lol by sketerpot · · Score: 1

      And naturally they wouldn't be making anything that looked like a V2 or an Atlas unless they were up to something?

    6. Re:lol by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      Exactly!

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
  3. space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and then we colonize the moon!

    1. Re:space by Exiler · · Score: 1

      Of course not. Once the people establish cheap, reusable space flight, THEN the governments will swoop in and start working on the moon. They know it's not like they have to help or anything.

      --
      Banaaaana!
  4. Makes you wonder by BWJones · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Armadillo Aerospace states that some US teams are hindered more by regulatory hassles, than technical issues.

    It really makes one wonder where we would be if Goddard had restrictions on fuel sources and flight space or even where the Wright Bros. would be if they had to constantly check with local authorities every time they wanted to make a flight.

    When my grandfather learned how to fly, planes had three or four instruments and they simply ran the engine up and took off and landed wherever they wanted. Times change of course and when I learned, we had significant classroom time talking about all sorts of regulations before we could even get into planes. Granted, some of this control is simply because of crowded airspace, but it seems sometimes that our fear of terrorism is actually hampering development of a whole variety of technologies and progress in fields as disparate as aerospace to biology. Where to draw the line?

    --
    Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    1. Re:Makes you wonder by pinchhazard · · Score: 5, Funny

      It really makes one wonder where we would be if Goddard had restrictions on fuel sources and flight space or even where the Wright Bros. would be if they had to constantly check with local authorities every time they wanted to make a flight.

      The Wright Brothers would be in the same place now regardless of the governmental regulations of 1903. Unless inventing airplanes is a condition for getting into heaven.

      --
      Do you love freedom??? Do you love freedom!!! DO YOU LOVE FREEDOM!!!!!!!!
    2. Re:Makes you wonder by Moofie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Lots of people also died in those old airplanes. They also didn't have to fly in and out of controlled airspaces (like airports).

      Should Carmack be able to buy rocket fuel? Sure, if he can store it safely. Should any old yokel be allowed to fly a plane? I don't know about you, but we let any old yokel drive a car, and that seems to me like a pretty bad idea.

      There were no good old days.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    3. Re:Makes you wonder by SheldonYoung · · Score: 1, Flamebait


      I get it now, participating in the X-Prize is Carmacks way of staying out of hell for creating Doom! If there is a hell, I can imagine creating a game about slaughtering countless hellspawn would really piss them off.

    4. Re:Makes you wonder by jonbrewer · · Score: 4, Funny

      Should Carmack be able to buy rocket fuel?
      If you have to ask that question, you've never played Doom.

    5. Re:Makes you wonder by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 3, Insightful


      Should Carmack be able to buy rocket fuel? Sure, if he can store it safely.


      Good point. One of my consulting gigs came about when the regular admin killed himself working on a rocket engine. Partially blew himself up in the backyard. Died in his wife's arms.

      It could have been worse. He could have hurt someone else too (I have no idea how competent the guy was with this stuff).

      Now... I appreciate the drive that makes someone want to work with that stuff (unlike some of the admin's former coworkers). But at the same time, its no toy. The stuff is dangerous. To those who work with it and those who just happen to be in the area at the wrong time.
    6. Re:Makes you wonder by SheldonYoung · · Score: 1

      My fault, replied to the wrong post.

    7. Re:Makes you wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What would the Wright brothers be doing if they were alive today?

      Clawing at the lids of their coffins.

      Apologies, apologies...

    8. Re:Makes you wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "There were no good old days."

      Smoking the peace pipe, naked women running around, and no cops searching your house cuz your drum is too loud sounds pretty chill to me

    9. Re:Makes you wonder by larkost · · Score: 1

      Actually, if there had been more controls on Goddards work, he might not have almost burned down one of the halls a my alma matter... And yes, I was an aerospace engineering student at the same school where Goddard graduated.

    10. Re:Makes you wonder by mpoulton · · Score: 1

      Since there are not many deaths in the amateur rocketry community, I'm fairly sure I know which incident this was. In fact, it is the only amateur-rocket-related death I know of. It is worth noting that the blast that killed him was apparently not the result of a chemical reaction, or even related to the fact that he was working on a rocket engine. It was a mechanical failure of a pressure vessel which threw shrapnel -- just like a steam boiler exploding in the 1800's.

      --
      I am a geek attorney, but not your geek attorney unless you've already retained me. This is not legal advice.
    11. Re:Makes you wonder by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1


      Since there are not many deaths in the amateur rocketry community, I'm fairly sure I know which incident this was. In fact, it is the only amateur-rocket-related death I know of.


      It may be the same. This happened in a Houston, TX suberb. I don't know the details and what little I have been told came from skeptical (and completely misunderstanding) former coworkers and employer of the individual mentioned.
    12. Re:Makes you wonder by wsloand · · Score: 1

      [I]t seems sometimes that our fear of terrorism is actually hampering development of a whole variety of technologies and progress in fields as disparate as aerospace to biology.

      It shouldn't just seem that way. It is true. One of my professors when calling roll this year at my grad school (in chemical and biomolecular engineering) asked about a student that didn't show up. He jokingly asked if they had their visa revoked. This has happened significantly more since Dubya started his war on terror. Countries used to complain that the US was causing a brain drain pulling their best minds from them to us. I guess we don't have to worry about that as much anymore.

  5. Blam! by i_am_syco · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm still wondering whether John Carmack's ship is going to have a BFG 9000 on it or not.

    1. Re:Blam! by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 3, Funny

      Remember the unidentified "Blam" sort of noise that created such an uproar on the space station a few weeks ago?

      Well maybe we already have an X-prize winner and they have not yet claimed the prize.

    2. Re:Blam! by Orne · · Score: 1

      ... if only to take out the other projects on its way up... Blam, Blam!

    3. Re:Blam! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone knows the Armadillo IS the BFG.

    4. Re:Blam! by Galvatron · · Score: 0

      I'm more concerned with his plan to detonate explosives under the craft for propulsion...

      --
      "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
    5. Re:Blam! by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1


      Remember the unidentified "Blam" sort of noise that created such an uproar on the space station a few weeks ago?

      Well maybe we already have an X-prize winner and they have not yet claimed the prize.


      Look... an astronaut trying to cover up "misuse of government resources" charge when his Quake game was uncovered by his headphones slipping from the laptop sound jack doesn't count. Carmack can't claim the X-Prize for launching a rocket in space - whether he programmed to rocketlauncher or not.
  6. This is what's needed by Cap'nMike · · Score: 5, Insightful

    to get commercial space exploration started. As long as NASA is the only serious space agency, progress will be slow and safe. By letting individuals and small groups take risks that NASA is unwilling or unable to take, progress can be expected much sooner. The same thing has been seen throughout history as individuals willing to take risks have always surpassed massive, slow, cautious exploration by governments.

    --
    Celebrities are like ads, if we all ignore them, they'll just go away.
    1. Re:This is what's needed by criordan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      True, but in order to be commercially successful you need customers. Would you be willing to PAY money to take risks like that?

      --
      http://www.aaplblog.com/ - News about Apple Inc.
    2. Re:This is what's needed by Nucleon500 · · Score: 2, Funny
      Would you be willing to PAY money to take risks like that?

      Perhaps we could convince McBride to go. Heck, I'd pay $699 for that!

    3. Re:This is what's needed by Saeger · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I love the privateer spirit behind the X-Prize contest as much as the next guy, but I gotta say that ultimately, chemical rocket powered flight out of Earth's gravity well will never get cheap enough to bootstrap a new age of space exploration. Be it a non-profit, for-profit, or negative-profit beaurocracy, rocket propulsion is inherently energy wasteful and dangerous.

      When we finally see sub-$1 per kg "launch" costs, it will be because we've finally built a series of space elevators around the equator, and that (unfortunately) takes a metric buttload of international redtape.

      I admit that explosive phallic rockets are more exciting to dream about, though. I mean, who wants to take a cheap, practical, slow, silent maglev ride up a stationary elevator to geo, instead of blasting off scream'n "yeehaw!" all the way?

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    4. Re:This is what's needed by bug-eyed+monster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What kind of risk? Financial risk, hoping the operation will be profitable? Well I don't have the money, but there is always some bank or philantropist that can be convinced.

      Or are you asking about risking my life to go on a space tour? the answer is Hell YEAH! Perhaps Americans have become overly safety-wimps^Wconscience, but in the rest of the world, we pay to take risky thrill-rides every day, the example that comes to mind is skydiving. And this'll be the ultimate thrill-ride if nothing else.

      Are you seriously asking me that, if I'm presented with the opportunity to go for a ride into space, I'll turn it down because I might die? Just try to stop me...

    5. Re:This is what's needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On Rutan's ship? Yes. Carmack's ship scares the hell out of me.

    6. Re:This is what's needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      how much is a metric buttload in pounds?

    7. Re:This is what's needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Building a space elevator won't take any more "international red tape" than any other major space venture.

      The things it will take are some major advances in engineering and material science, and a budget which makes that of the Moon missions look like chump change.

      Oh no! Everybody's got their heads up their asses for thinking of using rockets!

    8. Re:This is what's needed by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 1
      I don't think you should count on space elevators yet though. The materials to build them don't currently exist, and there are lots of potential problems, they may never be practical.

      The underlying costs of rocketry are very low; the fuel costs are below $50/kg (if you stick to hydrocarbon/LOX fuel). Currently the low costs are masked behind the incredibly low launch rate. The low launch rate means that currently expendable rockets are the cheapest way to go into space. The partly reusable Space Shuttle is no cheaper, because of similar reasons. The market size does not currently support fully reusable vehicles.

      Still, as (if) the launch rate goes up then the costs of rocketry will gradually begin to approach the cost of the fuel; as is currently happening in the airline business.

      It's tempting to think that a new technology like space elevators will solve all of the problems. However, elevators have limited life, tend to be cut by micrometeorites and space junk and are going to be more expensive than rockets to initially construct for the foreseeable future- but may get rapidly cheaper. Initially, the Space Elevator is going to be, surprisingly, little cheaper than rocketry due to the high construction costs; even if somebody works out how to actually build them.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    9. Re:This is what's needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Perhaps we could convince McBride to go. Heck, I'd pay $699 for that!

      Wow! Over two hours old and no one's yet moderated this dead-horse-beating as funny. Perhaps there's hope for Slashdot.

    10. Re:This is what's needed by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1
      how much is a metric buttload in pounds?

      Maybe it's a volume, not a weight.

    11. Re:This is what's needed by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Seeing as how there are exactly zero maglev trains in public service, I think there is a very, very, very long way to go before we can get a space elevator.

      Unless you think you've got a clever idea for making a hyperstrong cable 36,000 km long.

      Space elevators are a great idea. They're also science fiction for the next 50 years. Waiting for a space elevator to explore space is like waiting for a steam engine to the Western Atlantic.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    12. Re:This is what's needed by Saeger · · Score: 1
      A metric buttload would be... 2.4710439 English buttlodes.

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    13. Re:This is what's needed by Saeger · · Score: 1
      Building a space elevator won't take any more "international red tape" than any other major space venture.

      I was comparing the "personal rocket" ideal that the XPrize embodies (IMO), that you could conceivably fly from your independent backyard, to a space elevator elevator, that has to be built and shared in international space.

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    14. Re:This is what's needed by twiddlingbits · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Maybe not 50 years. I happened to run into one of the toplevel scientists on that project the other day at our local NASA facility. He claims that they are much further along than the public thinks they are. They have adequate funding for the Research (for now) and are actually HIRING people who want to work on the problems (don't ask for much in salary!). They seem really postive they can make this thing work. That "can-do" attitude was what got us to the moon in the 1970's. It's good to see that coming back.

    15. Re:This is what's needed by Saeger · · Score: 1
      The materials to build them don't currently exist

      Well, carbon nanotubes do exist, just not in sufficient quantity or length yet.

      elevators have limited life, tend to be cut by micrometeorites and space junk and are going to be more expensive than rockets

      Space junk isn't such a huge problem if you design with redundancy; what are the odds of all, say, 3 ribbons being severed at the same time? And only the first elevator would cost an arm and a leg.

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    16. Re:This is what's needed by Saeger · · Score: 1
      At least you didn't outright laugh at the idea of a space elevator, or it would have taken much longer than 50 years. :)

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    17. Re:This is what's needed by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1


      As long as NASA is the only serious space agency, progress will be slow and safe. By letting individuals and small groups take risks that NASA is unwilling or unable to take, progress can be expected much sooner.


      "Slow and safe"? What? Have you been sleeping through the history of NASA? Heck - even if you limit your perspective to recent history and manned exploration... you're still facing some rather noteworthy disasters. Challenger. Columbia.

      While NASA may do a lot to minimize the risks, they have hardly made space travel (manned or otherwise) "safe".
    18. Re:This is what's needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love the privateer spirit behind the X-Prize contest as much as the next guy, but I gotta say that ultimately, chemical rocket powered flight out of Earth's gravity well will never get cheap enough to bootstrap a new age of space exploration.

      I agree with your opinion, but I must point out that the word "privateer" does not mean what you think it means...

    19. Re:This is what's needed by Moofie · · Score: 1

      I think any scientist who laughs at such a well-founded engineering concept isn't a very good scientist.

      Is it feasible now? Certainly not. But anybody who says it's impossible is a fool.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    20. Re:This is what's needed by ttsalo · · Score: 0
      Well, carbon nanotubes do exist, just not in sufficient quantity or length yet.

      Actually, it's looking like nanotubes made from other materials than carbon are going to be the answer. Carbon nanotubes just have had an extremely effective hype going for them. ("Everyone" "knows" that the space elevator is going to be built from carbon nanotubes.)

      --
      If the road to hell is paved with good intentions, where does the road paved with evil intentions lead to?
    21. Re:This is what's needed by dillon_rinker · · Score: 1

      "carbon nanotubes do exist"

      Hey, I'll go you one better...quarks and electrons exist, just not in the correct configuration yet. Any idea how to get them into the correct configuration? No? I'm thinking you're more of an idea rat.

    22. Re:This is what's needed by Johnnienumlock5 · · Score: 0

      The problem is that most of the teams are using rocket based technology. If you look at the development costs for the Gemini and Apollo space programs they were astronomical. ScramJet is a new promising technology. Hopefully these companies will see this and thats the only way space travel will enter the public sector.

      --
      http://www.users.muohio.edu/reamsjp/donate.html
    23. Re:This is what's needed by Idarubicin · · Score: 1
      When we finally see sub-$1 per kg "launch" costs, it will be because we've finally built a series of space elevators around the equator, and that (unfortunately) takes a metric buttload of international redtape.

      Even with a space elevator, we're not going to see sub $1/kg launch costs. Going from the Earth's surface to geosynchronous orbit straight up a vertical cable will cost you about 50 MJ (megajoules) per kg. That's a bit more than 14 kWh, so even at 100% efficiency, just the electricity for the trip would have to cost less than 7 cents per kWh to break the $1/kg barrier. Yes, you could probably recover some energy from the cargo coming back down, but still.... And this leaves out any thought of recouping the capital costs of the elevator, or paying for any maintenance.

      On the other hand, bear in mind that people still regularly pay five or ten dollars per kg for an airline to fly them from London to New York. (Depending on their mass.) Dropping the price to orbit to $25/kg would be enough to really impress me--and is still a high enough price to sound credible. (Remember, bean counters often avoid Linux because, hey, how good could something so inexpensive be?)

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    24. Re:This is what's needed by sketerpot · · Score: 1
      That "can-do" attitude was what got us to the moon in the 1970's. It's good to see that coming back.

      As I recall, there was also a large amount of money involved in getting us to the moon.

    25. Re:This is what's needed by twiddlingbits · · Score: 1

      Of course, but throwing money at a problem does NOT guarantee a solution!! The drive, desire and dedication of those doing the work is important.

    26. Re:This is what's needed by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      So rockets have astronomical development costs and you want scramjets instead because they are cheaper to develop? Good luck. The military has been dumping billions on scramjets for decades now, you can see the results for yourself.

    27. Re:This is what's needed by sketerpot · · Score: 1

      Of course. What I meant was that you need more than drive, desire and dedication to put people on the moon, not that those things are unimportant (or unessential).

    28. Re:This is what's needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...Nah.

  7. Canada by Kallahar · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Uh, why do they have the canadian flag for armadillo? Armadillo is in Texas and fly's out of Oklahoma...

    1. Re:Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All your armadillos are belong to Can!

  8. Mmm.../. cache by NewWaveNet · · Score: 5, Informative

    Armadillo Videos

    windows media
    quicktime
    mpeg

  9. Is 10 million really enough? by nertz_oi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    By the looks of some of these entries, is 10 million dollars really enough to compensate these guys? Sure, alot of them are doing it to live out some childhood dream, but wouldn't a prize >$20 mill give that extra motivation?

    From the looks of their craft, 10 mill would hardly make a dent to recoup what some of these companies have put in already, and they haven't even made it to space yet!

    1. Re:Is 10 million really enough? by randall_burns · · Score: 0

      The prize money isn't really the point. Sure, the money is helpful, but more important is the fact that since serveral teams are trying for the same goal, we'll see which team can actually meet that goal.

    2. Re:Is 10 million really enough? by Gorobei · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They mostly aren't looking for compensation. It's a prize, not an R&D funding exercise.

      Looking at the teams:

      Rutan - wants to build cool flying vehicles (e.g. round the world on one tank of gas.) Ignoring his photoshopped SpaceShipOne images, actually has a chance at the X-Prize within two years.

      Carmack - wants to make cool rocket toys. Working on hovering, not space shots. 5% chance of X-Prize within 5 years.

      Steve Bennett - publicity seeking loon. 0% chance of any rocketry of interest, ever.

      All the rest - 20% chance of success with 5 years. Seriously, if you aren't test firing a R motor (think model rocketry A, B, C, etc) every week at this point, you don't have a hope of meeting the X-Prize goals in the next couple of years.

    3. Re:Is 10 million really enough? by AKAImBatman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Think of it like competing for funding. The first one to take a baby step into space gets unprecidented prestige and a cool 10 mill in future funding. :-)

    4. Re:Is 10 million really enough? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Rutan - wants to build cool flying vehicles (e.g. round the world on one tank of gas.) Ignoring his photoshopped SpaceShipOne images, actually has a chance at the X-Prize within two years.

      I'd say Rutan will with SpaceShipOne will be winner sometime next year having reached to final stages required before being ready for an X-Prize flight.

      Carmack - wants to make cool rocket toys. Working on hovering, not space shots. 5% chance of X-Prize within 5 years.

      If for some reason Rutan fails I think Carmack could win the X-Prize but not before 2005. Black Armadillo has had all the necessary structural tests done to prove it's actually viable as an airframe. The only big remaining issue for Armadillo is solving the motor design problems, which it looks like they are close to doing finally. Control systems have been demonstrated as functional, given another couple of years they should be ready to make a X-Prize flight.

      Steve Bennett - publicity seeking loon. 0% chance of any rocketry of interest, ever.

      I'd say the best case for Bennet is that the full scale prototype will malfunction on a test launch and be terminated by range safety officer.

      Starchaser appear to have done near to zero work on control and guidance systems since sharp 2/nova hoping it will end up where its pointed and still haven't done any construction on a three person vehicle. If anything they seem to have gone back to the drawing board having realised "thunderbird" simply won't work.

      Starchaser which started off in 1997 as the most likely to win has not progressed past the point they where at in 1997 having failed to demonstrate a functional vehicle or motor capable of being used for the an X-Prize flight profile and having decided to abandon the current motors and airframes for a revised and untested design. Might be ready to start on X Prize flight pre-tests in five years.
      Someone else will win years before then however.

    5. Re:Is 10 million really enough? by Kallahar · · Score: 2, Informative

      You should check the armadillo site more often, they haven't worked on the hovering for the last two years. The current ship is a fully functional rocket capable of getting into space with a crew pod and full flight electronics.

    6. Re:Is 10 million really enough? by sketerpot · · Score: 1

      I don't think they've got the engines on the big vehicle yet, but they're going to build them this week now that they've got their engine design and propellant issues worked out.

    7. Re:Is 10 million really enough? by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      I think Carmack said that last month as well... I wish him luck, but considering he is an amateur and we wants to use a bleeding edge peroxide monoprop engine, his chances aren't very good of the engine working to meet prize requirements.

  10. Rutan is ready to flight-test the rocket motor by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I've been following the test updates on the Scaled Composites site. It looks as if they are ready to flight-test the rocket motor. On the last flight, they tested the entire propulsion system with nitrogen flow. It sounds to me as if they could be ready to fire on the very next test flight.

    I guess the first firings would be short, and would be designed to test the vehicle in the powered and high-speed-glide speed and dynamics envelopes rather than the lower-speed glide one which is now reasonably well characterized.

    This is all very exciting.

    Bruce

    1. Re:Rutan is ready to flight-test the rocket motor by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      Their report in the PDF file says that they'll be doing the space shot sometime in the summer or fall of 2004.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    2. Re:Rutan is ready to flight-test the rocket motor by Ulven · · Score: 1

      Now that is sad.

    3. Re:Rutan is ready to flight-test the rocket motor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ``Stick in your ear!!''---Love, Bruce

    4. Re:Rutan is ready to flight-test the rocket motor by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      My autograph and $1.10 will get you a ride on the New York subway. :-)

    5. Re:Rutan is ready to flight-test the rocket motor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dammit. I'm moving to New York. I'm gonna need a lot of autographs.

    6. Re:Rutan is ready to flight-test the rocket motor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your autograph is worth 90 cents to the MTA?
      (current NYC subway fare is $2)

    7. Re:Rutan is ready to flight-test the rocket motor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he autographs a buck, then yes.

  11. Morbid musings... by Genghis9 · · Score: 0

    ...I wonder how many people will die testing their vehicles? Rocket fuel, (over)enthusiastic amateurs, not much official oversight. Sounds dangerous!

    1. Re:Morbid musings... by Tackhead · · Score: 4, Insightful
      > ...I wonder how many people will die testing their vehicles? Rocket fuel, (over)enthusiastic amateurs, not much official oversight. Sounds dangerous!

      Rocket fuel, (PowerPoint-slide obsessed) professionals, and a whole NASA-load of official oversight. Experimentally verified as dangerous.

      Anything less than 14 dead is an incredible improvement over the present situation.

    2. Re:Morbid musings... by T9D · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...I wonder how many people will die testing their vehicles? Rocket fuel, (over)enthusiastic amateurs, not much official oversight. Sounds dangerous! Rocket fuel, (PowerPoint-slide obsessed) professionals, and a whole NASA-load of official oversight. Experimentally verified as dangerous. Space travel is dangerous. We know this to be so, and we do it anyway. The astronauts knew the risks before they got into that shuttle. THat isn't to say the situation can't be improved, but the mere fact that space travel is dangerous is known and has not deterred us in the past.

    3. Re:Morbid musings... by Durindana · · Score: 1

      ... On the other hand, if 138 (or so; I can't recall the precise number of shuttle flights leading up to Columbia) X-Prize contestants make manned flights into orbit, with cargo, with less than 14 dead, I'll be damned surprised.

      No denying NASA's bureaucratic failures. But the preventable nature of both crashes, coupled with the number of successful flights, speaks more good of the agency's engineering prowess than it does ill of its managerial problems.

    4. Re:Morbid musings... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should also note that what the X-prize folks are doing is probably orders of magnitude easier than putting the thing into orbit.

    5. Re:Morbid musings... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Engineering prowess?

      The shuttle is a horrible design, its the epitome of form over function. This is primarily because it was insisted that the shuttle be able to glide back to earth. Thus its design is poorly suited to reentry and it also must carry heavy mass penalties such as wings and landing gear that eat into its available payload. And perhaps most damaging of all to the overall design are the cockpit windows, which aside from serving almost no function at all, create numerous difficulties during re-entry. To avoid having the glass melt, the shuttle must take on a very high angle of attack on re-entry - akin to doing a belly flop off a diving board as opposed to diving head first. The shuttle glides about as well as a cinder block and its reusable main engines ( a technological breakthrough at the time) are actually more costly than nonreusable engines that were available. The choice of liquid hydrogen as a fuel is equally as ridiculous as hydrogen is one of the most difficult substances to store and did anyone mention expensive?

      Space flight must be reliable, cost effective and practical. The space shuttle has failed miserably in all of these aspects. To NASA's credit they devloped a vehicle that posed many design challenges, but close to a 1 in 50 failure rate is far from reliable. Its sad that NASA cares more about wowing the public with wings and cockpit glass than it does about producing measureable results.

      NASA originally told congress that the shuttle would be so cheap and reliable it could fly 100 times a year, by 2003 we were down to a miserable 4. Why? Because the shuttle requires so much maintenence and inspection to maintain any sort of reliability.

      As i end this rant i just want to say that a better design would have saved the lives of both the Challenger and Columbia crews. Buraucracy killed them but a better design would have saved them.

    6. Re:Morbid musings... by Tackhead · · Score: 1
      > Space travel is dangerous. We know this to be so, and we do it anyway. The astronauts knew the risks before they got into that shuttle. THat isn't to say the situation can't be improved, but the mere fact that space travel is dangerous is known and has not deterred us in the past.

      Absolutely.

      For all the times I bash NASA here, I'd fly on either the Shuttle or an X-Prize vehicle if offered the chance.

      My slams against NASA and the Shuttle are largely along the lines of the AC who posted in this thread: With a 1-in-50 catastrophic failure rate and 4 launches a year at a cost of $500M per launch, performing virtually no useful science, the American taxpayer deserves better, the scientific community deserves better, NASA's astronauts need better, and if NASA's engineers won't (because a bureaucracy hasn't and won't, not because the engineers can't) build something better, someone else will.

      Hence, X-Prize. Sure it's dangerous. But so were the first aircraft 100 years ago. Bring on the risk.

  12. Heh by Ryvar · · Score: 2, Funny

    I love the objective point of view Fountainhead Entertainment and the rest of the ultra-libertarian Rand fanbois express in the 100 years of flight vid.

    Nevermind that a good portion of the redtape involved has nothing to do with the environment - it's easier to just paint yourself as wounded by crazies on a crusade than rationally represent the problems the other side has with your actions. Not that I don't sympathize with Armadillo Aerospace here (the bureaucracy mindlessly bent on preventing its citizens from doing anything out of the ordinary is a tough thing to stare down), but it's good to know KAK was kicked out of id before she could really Yoko Ono Carmack . . .

    1. Re:Heh by bwy · · Score: 1

      "ultra-libertarian Rand fanbois?"

      Rand's philosophy is sharply critical of libertarians because in practice they are typically anarchists, not those who advocate individual rights as protected by the Constitution.

      The Apollo program was pretty rough on the Earth's environment in many ways too. And for God's sake, we left JUNK ON THE MOON! The astronauts who did this will surely burn for defacing the prestine lunar surface.

      Of course, this sets an interesting precedence. The next time a volcano erupts and fills the upper atmosphere with "pollution" or the next time a nice sized meteor impacts the lunar surface, we have to make some arrests or pass some new laws or something. Hey, you want to walk on Washington and protest meteors and volcanoes?

    2. Re:Heh by dmiller · · Score: 1

      QED

    3. Re:Heh by BiggerBoat · · Score: 1

      The environmental liaison at White Sands said that simply by putting a person on the vehicle would significanlty lengthen the time to get the environmental study complete. That sounds pretty crazy to me.

    4. Re:Heh by Bibbity · · Score: 1
      Corrections to an error prone message:

      1. Katherine Anna Kang is neither an Ultra nor Mild Libertarian.

      2. There are no Rand "fanbois" at Fountainhead Entertainment. There is an appreciation for a well written book and a good author, though IMHO Rand pales in comparison to Tolkien's literary genius.

      3. Katherine Anna Kang was not "kicked out" of id but rather quit, was asked back, declined, and started her own company.

      4. Unless you have something against strong independent Asian women who wed strong independent white males, you should really reassess how your views about women (Asian women in particular) come across in print because your comments make you sound ignorant, racist, sexist and quite frankly a bit like an attention monger since you do not know nor socialize with any of these people you so loosely write about.

  13. Going down to the wire by kingdon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Keep in mind that the funding for the prize expires on 1 Jan 2005 ("the X PRIZE is fully funded through January 1, 2005, through private donations and backed by an insurance policy" from the X Prize web site). That's less than 13 months from now. Scaled Composites, which I suppose is the leader, is planning flight tests for the next 6-9 months leading "eventually" to a 100 km altitude which is the altitude needed to win the prize.

    That doesn't give them a lot of extra time if they experience trouble. Of course what is great about having multiple teams is that if one falters, another may succeed. Given the number of things which can go wrong (a zillion technical things, and of course the legal/funding/etc ones), however, it isn't hard to imagine all the teams being delayed past the deadline.

    But having said all that, it is great to see this activity going on. Should be fun to watch!

  14. Har har, but no regulations against my warp drive by samjam · · Score: 2, Insightful

    All I have to do is pay sales tax on the parts.

    My real worry is not regulations against my warp drive cos there aren't any, its submarine patents.

    I'm afraid in 1982 somebody may have made an initial filing which by the time my invention comes out will cover my invention.

    Sam

  15. Re:what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  16. Recent Da Vinci story by AndroidCat · · Score: 2, Informative

    The Toronto Star had a recent human-interest story A do-it-yourself shot at the final frontier about Brian Feeney behind the Da Vinci team project.

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  17. An Appropriate Memorial by randall_burns · · Score: 3, Insightful
    It is strange that the Wright Flyer wound up in the Smithsonian-an organization that sponsored Langely and denied the priority of the Wright Brothers for quite some time.


    I suspect that if they were somehow brought into the present era, the Wright Brothers would relate for more to the efforts of folks like Armadillo Aerospace than any of the official government programs.

  18. VolksRocket, what happened to it ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know this is a little different than the X-Prize , seeing as the X Craft has to fly more than once , what ever happened to the fellow (and the rocket) VolksRocke made from surpluss Saturn V rocket engines and the like, looked kinda like a scud missle ? If I'm thinking right it was sometime in the mid 70's to early 80's .

    1. Re:VolksRocket, what happened to it ? by Krapangor · · Score: 1

      They just found him in some hole in Iraq.

      --
      Owner of a Mensa membership card.
  19. Armadillo is Canadian? by peacefinder · · Score: 4, Funny

    I wonder why Armadillo is listed as a Canadian effort in the X-Prize PDF. Maybe I just haven't been paying close enough attention lately... did we trade Texas for Quebec when I wasn't looking?

    Hmm... come to think of it, maybe that's not such a bad idea.

    --
    With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
    1. Re:Armadillo is Canadian? by TCaM · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a good deal to me, then canada would have to take dubya as one of their own.

    2. Re:Armadillo is Canadian? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      But who would want such a self-centered bunch who always have to have one of their own bossing the whole country?

      Sounds like an even trade.

    3. Re:Armadillo is Canadian? by Yanray · · Score: 1

      You're refering to Quebec right?

      Alway's making us use that French speak.

      --
      --"Sorry for the inconvience." Gods Last Words to his Creation
      DNA, So Long and Thanks for all the Fish
  20. Selling "droppings" by PhoenixOne · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I like the fact that Armadillo Aerospace is selling bags of "assorted curious gizmos and scrap taken right off of "decommissioned" AA rockets."

    http://www.armadilloaerospace.com/n.x/Armadillo/Ho me/Paraphernalia

    Not only can they laugh at their mistakes, they can try to profit from them. ;)

    --
    Spell cheek you've failed me four the last thyme!
  21. No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We got moose, you can keep your armadillos :P

    1. Re:No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You got moose. What about squirrel?

      Signed,

      B. Badenov.

    2. Re:No thanks by hplasm · · Score: 1

      Sorry. Squirrel eet eez off today...

      --
      ...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
  22. Goddard? by gloth · · Score: 2, Informative


    It really makes one wonder where we would be if Goddard had restrictions on fuel sources and flight space

    Not to diminish Goddards achievements, but in terms of who-influenced-whom, he was more on a side-track of space explocation. Both Wernher von Braun and Sergej Korolov had most of their roots elsewhere. And of course, the military behind them, paving the road...

    1. Re:Goddard? by JCMay · · Score: 1
      Actually, Goddard came along way before von Braun, and was one of von Braun's main influences. Goddard's published works saved the German rocket design effort years of research; von Braun even said as much when he came to the United States:

      Braun always recognized the value of the work of U.S. rocket pioneer Robert H . Goddard. "Until 1936," said Braun, "Goddard was ahead of us all."


      Without the pioneering work of Goddard, space exploration would not be nearly as advanced as it is.
  23. See the Rutan X-Prize fly today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
    Download a rendered movie at http://rc.explosive.net/rutan.

    Captive carry takeoff, launch, and re-entry modelled.

  24. MOD UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The video was kind of amateurish but it was good enough to understand how the whole shabang is going to work

  25. Lies of the Patriarchy!!!!!111 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    There's no need for all of these rockets to be penis-shaped. A vagina-shaped rocket would work just as well, if not better!

    1. Re:Lies of the Patriarchy!!!!!111 by Moofie · · Score: 1

      No, no it really wouldn't.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  26. Did anyone else notice... by azav · · Score: 1

    That Texas based Armadillo Areospace is listed as a Canadian participant?

    The Canadian flag on pg 3 gave them away.

    --
    - Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
  27. Re:Standardizing on hexadecimal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just how clueless are you? 0x0A would then mean... (decimal) 10 what? inches? cm? carrots?
    Would you do the human race a favour and not breed? What am I saying... you are just above a slashdot troll, of course you won't breed!

  28. Anyone remember superconductors? by Goonie · · Score: 2, Insightful
    In the 1980's, there was a huge fuss about the new high-temperature superconductors, and a lot of speculation in the popular science press about the coming revolution of room-temperature superconductors. Guess what? It never happened. Whilst the new superconductors have found industrial application, they sure aren't working at room temperature. The majority of the world's electricity is still carried on bits of copper and aluminium, and still suffers resistive losses.

    Until somebody actually demonstrates a macroscopic piece of material with sufficient tensile strength to build a space elevator, I'm not getting too excited.

    --

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
    --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
    1. Re:Anyone remember superconductors? by twiddlingbits · · Score: 1

      I agree there are challenges ahead, but when we decided to go to the moon we could hardly build rockets that didn't blow up. The journey of a 1000 miles begins with a single step. They have taken the first step on a long path.

    2. Re:Anyone remember superconductors? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      There ARE challenges ahead. It IS a viable idea. However, if I were making the funding decisions, I'd spend that money on building cheap, reliable rockets (probably disposable, staged rockets) because that's the most economical lift option for the short to medium term.

      After all, how are we going to get the stuff to build the space elevator into space? Pulling really hard on our bootstraps won't do it.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    3. Re:Anyone remember superconductors? by twiddlingbits · · Score: 1

      Funny you should say that. I saw an RFP the other day on the MSFC site for a new LOX/Kerosene rocket engine for the NGLT. Seems someone at NASA wants to build a moderately cheap BIG rocket again. Not quite a S-V but not little.

    4. Re:Anyone remember superconductors? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      I didn't say anything about little. : )

      Big dumb boosters are a great solution, for now.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  29. Not such a silly idea... by Goonie · · Score: 2, Informative
    Ever heard of Project Orion, the plan to go to the Moon (as well as Mars and Jupiter), by sticking a really big, thick, steel and concrete plate at the back of a spacecraft and letting off atomic bombs behind it? Probably would have worked, too.

    However, given his difficulties of getting hold of something relatively benign like hydrogen peroxide, I'm not liking Carmack's odds of getting the requisite quantities of plutonium :-)

    --

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
    --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
  30. Misread of the day by richie2000 · · Score: 1
    100th anniversary of powered flight

    I thought it said "powdered flight" and wondered if cocaine wasn't older than that...

    --
    Money for nothing, pix for free
  31. Re:Har har, but no regulations against my warp dri by CaptnMArk · · Score: 1

    1982 is too late. There is prior art. :)

  32. Payout is insured? by WoTG · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I guess I shouldn't really be surprised that it's covered by an insurance policy, rather than a $10M in a bank account.

    Still, can you imagine trying to put together a team to do that actuarial calculations for the premiums on that policy?

  33. Re:Har har, but no regulations against my warp dri by samjam · · Score: 1

    D*mn

    Still, I'd like to see them try that with my time machine invention.

    Sam

  34. We aren't being held up by regulatory issues. by John+Carmack · · Score: 5, Informative


    We have a good working relationship with AST, the division of the FAA that handles launch license, and we are one of only three companies (along with Scaled and XCOR) currently in the RLV launch license process. We have found all the people there helpful and eager to work with us. There is a lot of paperwork to be done, but we are working through it, and do not see a problem satisfying them. Things like calculating and minimizing expected third party casualty rates are obviously necessary and sensible.

    The environmental aspects are less rational, with no analytical sense of scale.

    Still, I'm only mildly concerned about the regulatory side of things. I think it will work out. None of our work is held up by any of this, so the worst case is that we have a vehicle built and tested repeatedly at the 200,000 lb-sec waivered impulse limit, with no launch license to allow us to fill the tank the rest of the way up. If that happens, THEN we get peeved about the situation, but continue flight testing with what we can.

    Let me repeat: In no way have we been hampered by regulatory burden. Yet. We have been VERY hampered by commercial companies being too worried about liability exposure to work with us - peroxide companies, filament winders, and parachute companies have all caused us significant problems.

    The supply issue with 90% peroxide basically cost us almost the entire year of flight testing. We spent the last six months developing a propellant combination that could conveniently replace the 90% peroxide based on widely available chemicals instead of the ultra-specialized propulsion grade. We are in the final optimizing and scale up phase of that. Instead of being irate about it, I try to look on the bright side - it is lots cheaper, easer to handle, and even a bit higher performance.

    There are lots of problems still to be worked, but everything is coming along fine. We are behind schedule and somewhat over budget, but no worse off than any other project I have ever worked on...

    John Carmack

    1. Re:We aren't being held up by regulatory issues. by savuporo · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected, apparently i misinterpreted what was written in the X-prize document.

      The next phase of successively higher alitude test and ultimately manned X Prize flights will be dependent on what the team calls its biggest challenge: the launch license application and accompanying environmental review. Technically, Armadillo claims they will be ready to fly X Prize missions well before the end of the year, but Team members are fond of referring to the Werhnher von Braun quote: "We can lick gravity, but sometimes the paperwork is overwhelming"

      BTW, how come Armadillo is presented with Canadian flag in this document ? 8|

      --
      http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
    2. Re:We aren't being held up by regulatory issues. by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

      What will you do with that fuel formula?
      Will you give it to the public domain (on the one hand helping everyone with the same problem and stimulating [future] 'amature' spaceflight, one the other hand losing some of your competitive edge on the xprize) or will you try to make money from it (you did do the research!...and it could become quite profitable)?

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    3. Re:We aren't being held up by regulatory issues. by p4k · · Score: 1
      What will you do with that fuel formula?

      Will you give it to the public domain?

      You can read considerably more than you could possibly want to know from the weekly updates on www.armadilloaerospace.com.

      The fuel is a mixture of 50% peroxide and methanol, nothing revolutionary, just a nice solution to the problem.

  35. Re:Har har, but no regulations against my warp dri by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's horrible! You mean our government lets slashdot posters experiment with space-time warping techonology? What if a neighbor's child wanders off near the warp field and falls into a space-time anomaly? Do you even have the appropriate training in flux capacitor theory? I say, let's all contact our legislators and call for minimum safety standards and competency testing for anyone experimenting with the nature of time and space!

  36. Lighting the Candle. by HenryWirz · · Score: 1

    My guess is that he is going to light the candle today: 12/17/03 The last publicized flight was 12/4 , we've seen he's had the ability to turn it around in 5 days, he had a 11/14 and 11/19 flight. I'm thinking he had a 12/10 cold flow flight. His website acknowledged in the rocket motor update that they had validated and were ready for the two powered flights.

    The only real question is how far up is he gonna go today.

    All of this could have happend yesterday to give him time to be in Kittyhawk today. However he is not listed as a speaker at the event.

  37. MicroSoft, Amazon, PayPal funding by peter303 · · Score: 1

    The founders of these companies are funding several of the x-prize attempts. http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviation/article/0,12 543,458589,00.html

  38. Eez breedge forst! by HiggsBison · · Score: 1
    You got moose. What about squirrel?

    Forst, vee blow up breedge. Then vee get Moose and Sqvorrel!

    Eez signed, Mr. Beegk.

    --
    My other car is a 1984 Nark Avenger.
  39. Space Ship One by daj24 · · Score: 1

    Scaled Composites did indeed fire their rocket engine today. Now it's only a matter of time.

    --
    And thats why I have my own private, well lit padded room.
  40. So you were right. He did test the rocket engine! by cheesybagel · · Score: 1
  41. Re:So you were right. He did test the rocket engin by HenryWirz · · Score: 1

    Yep, I haven't had this much fun since granny got her tail caught in the wringer.