SpaceShipOne Rockets To 68,000 Feet

Well done and very impressive by zeux · 2003-12-17 11:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

The headline should state that, according to XPrize website, this is the first manned supersonic flight onboard a plane designed by a small private company. That is really impressive and is a great achievement just 100 years after the Wright brothers first flight. Nice birthday present !

100 years ago manned flight was a hot technology, today everybody can jump on a plane (as long as you have the money but its cheaper and cheaper). Today supersonic flight is a hot technology for the masses so it will maybe become commonplace in the years to come...

The biggest point is not the altitude here because 68000 feet is quite 'easy' to reach (although its really impressive too) and going from 68000 to 330000 feet is gonna be way way way more difficult. But everything needs a beginning and that's a very nice one.

Congratulations to the Scaled Composite team for this astonishing result... This plane is a very cool piece of engineering.

This X-Prize is definitely becoming more and more interesting, I have to admit that I never though it was possible for a team to go so far !

--
Iraq: war to save the U

Re:Well done and very impressive by fastidious+edward · 2003-12-17 12:02 · Score: 1

going from 68000 to 330000 feet is gonna be way way way more difficult

I'm not sure, 330,000ft in 2 weeks is about 23,571.43ft/day, or 0.27ft/second. Many can do 0.27ft/second, they just need to it again and again and they're there!

--

karma karma karma karma karma chameleon, you come and go, you come and go.
Re:Well done and very impressive by Quarters · 2003-12-17 12:15 · Score: 4, Informative

100 years ago manned flight was a hot technology
Not quite. 100 years ago manned, controlled, and powered flight had just become a curiosity. It took the Wright brothers about 6-7 years before they could commercialize on their idea.
Re:Well done and very impressive by Bagheera · 2003-12-17 12:54 · Score: 3, Informative

Today supersonic flight is a hot technology for the masses so it will maybe become commonplace in the years to come...

Actually, supersonic flight was a hot technology 40 some-odd years ago, and was more or less abandoned as impractical, uneconomical, and inefficient. Even Boeing has dropped their recent Sonic Cruiser concept (high subsonic cruise) in favor of slower, bigger, more efficient aircraft.

Now, I do NOT want to belittle the work of Scaled Composites. They do some incredible engineering there, and they deserve kudos for getting Spaceship One this far. As you say, they've still got a long way to go before reacing "Suborbital Flight" stage, but this is a nice step and every successful burn of the Hybrid engine gives them more data.

The X-Prize contest is certainly seeing some interesting engineering and innovations - though it seems unlikely any of the systems explored to win it will lead to the ultimate goal of the prize. Namely: Putting spaceflight within reach of "mear mortals."

Even these X-Prize craft are only suborbital birds, and that's a LONG way from putting people into orbit for a few quick laps around the equater.

--
Never attribute to malice what can as easily be the result of incompetence...
Re:Well done and very impressive by ckaminski · 2003-12-17 14:05 · Score: 2, Informative

A large portion of which they spent suing their competitors and stifling competition and innovation. Which is why they never really commercialized on their great invention. They spent so much time trying to protect their patents that other people did better engineering and got second-mover advantage.
Re:Well done and very impressive by Quarters · 2003-12-17 14:53 · Score: 2, Informative

True, although I'm hard pressed to thing of an invention more worthy of a patent, and all the protections granted by it, than controlled, powered flight. Those two guys invented the idea of aeronautical engineering and figured it all out.
Of course, the patent on wing-warping is what utimately lead Curtis to invent ailerons and create a way to have controlled flight, even with metal wings (although he wasn't considering metal wings at the time). It's fairly ironic that now, 100 years later, NASA is using a custom F16 with carbon fiber wings as a testbed to study wing-warping as a more efficient flight control mechanism for sub- and super-sonic flight.
Re:Well done and very impressive by ckaminski · 2003-12-17 14:58 · Score: 1

But patents don't protect you against competition that does what you do but improves upon it. Which effectively, seems to me, is what ended up happening.

Mmm... wing-warping. Thanks, I didn't know such efforts were ongoing...
Re:Well done and very impressive by bedessen · 2003-12-17 20:39 · Score: 1

True. They were so secretive with their planes that they would only fly them in front of potential customers who had signed the equivalent of a NDA (non-disclosure agreement.) They had gradiose plans to license their patents they had acquired on the control methodology, and they kept trying to convince the military (as well as foreign governments) to place orders. The problem was that no one actually believed their claims (distance, maneuverability, agility, etc.) because hardly anyone had actually seen the planes fly. Some inventors in France had achieved flight with a less-capable machine, but they got a lot of attention as they did everything in public.

The Wright Bros were methodical and scientific, but they were terrible at running a business. By the time they got their heads out of their asses there were already competitors that were offering planes with comparable features for less than the Wright Bros $25,000/plane asking price. They took their patent case to court and eventually won (I think) but it really didn't have the effect they were hoping for. Within a dozen years or so the Wright company essentially vanished, and was acquired/merged with one of its competitors.
Re:Well done and very impressive by Vess+V. · 2003-12-17 20:58 · Score: 1

It's an F/A-18, but yes.
Re:Well done and very impressive by fucksl4shd0t · 2003-12-17 21:43 · Score: 1

Those two guys invented the idea of aeronautical engineering and figured it all out.
Well, let's see. They sure in the hell weren't the only group trying to achieve manned, controlled, and motorized flight. However, the three basic concepts involved in flight were actually pioneered by Sir George Cayley:
It wasn't until the turn of the nineteenth century that an English baronet from the gloomy moors of Yorkshire conceived a flying machine with fixed wings, a propulsion system, and movable control surfaces. This was the fundamental concept of the airplane. Sir George Cayley also built the first true airplane -- a kite mounted on a stick with a movable tail. It was crude, but it proved his idea worked, and from that first humble glider evolved the amazing machines that have taken us to the edge of space at speeds faster than sound.

more here
So, what exactly do you mean by "aeronautical engineering"? Especially considering that the Wright Brothers only built and flew the first model that was truly successful. They didn't actually dream up anything new, they just proved existing theories...

--
Like what I said? You might like my music
Re:Well done and very impressive by ehartwell · 2003-12-18 02:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

15 seconds of powered flight doesn't sound like a lot, but don't forget the Wright brothers' first powered flight was only 12 seconds. According to the press release, "The climb was very aggressive, accelerating forward at more than 3-g while pulling upward at more than 2.5-g. At motor shutdown, 15 seconds after ignition, SpaceShipOne was climbing at a 60-degree angle and flying near 1.2 Mach (930 mph).".
I'm too lazy to do the math, but at 2.5-g acceleration it'd take less than a minute to reach 330,000 feet. The engine has been test fired for at least 1 1/2 minutes; there's already very little air at 68,000 feet. Since they simply fall back into the atmosphere, reentry isn't much of a problem (and the feathered configuration avoids the instability problems the X-15 had).

All in all, I'd say they could have reached space the first time, but they're being cautious instead. Sure beats the "Just get it working, then we'll patch it until it's robust" approach.
Re:Well done and very impressive by MickLinux · 2003-12-18 02:44 · Score: 1

I'm sorry, did you say that Microsoft was a small business?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Scaled Composites is sponsored lock, stock, and barrell either by Microsoft or by one of its directors.

That said, Microsoft behaves and functions like a government, not like a business, and has more money to boot than some small governments. As such, Scaled Composites does not have to worry about profitability or even budget, any more than NASA does.

Technically, in my opinion, the company qualifies for the X-prize, but the entry violates the spirit of the X-prize.

--
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
Re:Well done and very impressive by Mysticalfruit · 2003-12-18 03:12 · Score: 1

They might be LSB sponsered, but they also do lots of for profit work as a subcontractor for other firms.

Plus they sell the Proteus...

--
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
Re:Well done and very impressive by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-18 17:55 · Score: 0

They've been doing it for quite some time even before the F-16.

In the '80s, they had an F-111 with no movable control surfaces (flaps, elevons, spoilers or ailerons), instead the leading and trailing edges of the wings were deformable.

They've done other stuff with F-111s, including laminar flow research (pump bleed air into the wings, which comes out lots of holes drilled into the wing surface, etc., going way back, like into the 60's.

As new technologies are developed, they tend to do some of the same ideas over again and again...

If you have someone in your family who subscribed to the encyclopedia year-in-reviews, look back at the older ones and check up on aviation. You'll see what I mean.
Re:Well done and very impressive by plusser · 2003-12-29 04:58 · Score: 1

The Boeing "Sub-sonic" crusier was abandoned because it only cruised just below the speed of sound, only shaving 30 minutes off a flight between London and New York. Since Air-traffic control can easily delay planes by more than this margin, there was no point in an aircraft that might get you there 30 minutes early!

The supersonic Boeing jet would have been a development of the "sub-sonic" cruiser. While this project has been dropped for the time being, when the X-Prize is finally won, there may be more than a little interest in supersonic aircraft again.

Jet Engine technology has come a long way since Concorde. Development of a new supersonic passenger jet is only hindered by the development costs, not the operational benefits, that was Concorde's downfall.

The Plusser
Re:Well done and very impressive by Bagheera · 2003-12-29 13:16 · Score: 1

I haven't done the math on flight times, but I do remember Boeing's stated reason for dropping the Sonic Cruiser project - namely that development costs weren't likely to be justified in the face of current and projected airline economics.

As I remember the Boeing super-sonic passenger jet was developed and dropped quite some time ago, and there's really not much on the boards for trans-sonic passenger aircraft at the moment. While you're definately right about the progress in technology, there are other issues besides simple development costs.

Airlines have to look very closely at their expenditures in order to turn a profit. Unless the operational benefits (eg: Speed. And, um, well, that seems to be about it.) can outweigh the added costs (expensive new aircraft, higher fuel costs, (probably) fewer passengers per flight) the airlines will have no reason to buy the supersonic aircraft. What killed Concorde was not enough people willing to spend the exceptionally high airfare for the faster flight. Even with a new, more efficient, aircraft, it'll still be a premium service.

We won't go into the ecology/economy of passenger miles per gallon of fuel advantages you get with a high sub-sonic aircraft.

The X-Prize is certainly a noble goal and a very cool concept, but it's unlikely to lead to anything in the commercial aircraft world. After all, Boeing, Airbus, etc., already have the technical knowhow to put things into orbit.

--
Never attribute to malice what can as easily be the result of incompetence...
Re:Well done and very impressive by plusser · 2003-12-30 02:20 · Score: 1

Concorde had a large number of design flaws, they were as follows:

1 - Size, 100 passengers, too small. In the days the concept was designed, most passenger jets were of this size. The Boeing 747 was designed about the time the first Concorde flew.

2 - Engines - too thirsty. Concorde used about the same amount of fuel as an early Boeing 747 to get across the Atlantic. However, carrying 1/4 of the payload was always going to be a problem. The reason was at the time Concorde was designed, the only engines capable of supersonic speed (with any reliability) were straight jets. All modern jet engines are bypass, which are a lot more fuel-efficient.

3 - Range, too short. Concorde could not make New York from Paris when the winds were in the wrong direction. Although the plane was designed for this function, a problem found early on in the development meant that Concorde had to land with 10% of its fuel load on board.

4 - Too Noisy. Concorde's engines were compared with a Boeing 707 when permission to use JFK airport was granted. In modern terms the planes were too noisy. Add to that the effect of the "Sonic Boom", which restricted use to over sea and the market for the plane became very limited. It was also worth noting that unless Concorde flew supersonic, it did not have the range to fly across the Atlantic, so overland use was very costly in fuel.

5 - Wing Design - Too complex. All the 16 Concordes in service were effectively hand built in an age before high power computers. The Russians found this out when developing the TU144 (Concordski), and found the solution in using Canards (winglets on the front of the aircraft) that allow a less complex wing. Canards can be found on all modern jet fighter aircraft including JSF and EJ200 Eurofighter Typhoon.

6 - Service Costs - too high. Concorde required 3 times more servicing that any other passenger jet airliner in service. When it was estimated that in the region of 5 million worth of work was required on each jet to keep them in service for the next 10 years, that was the final nail in the coffin. There was no way that passenger number would re-coup the costs. May I add that the company I work for had bid for a contract worth 500000 to upgrade the engine controllers on Concorde.

The about design flaws are due to the age of the aircraft and the era it was designed (late 1950's!). If many of the design rules for the modern jet airliner were applied to the next generation of supersonic passenger jets, then there is no reason why a plane almost as commercially viable as a 747 could be developed.

I have actually asked the managing director of Virgin Atlantic (Sir Richard Branson - the man who wanted to buy Concorde and keep it flying) on a live TV show the day before Concorde was withdrawn when he thought that the next Supersonic Passenger Jet would enter service. He replied (I feel rather disappointingly for us both) not for another 30 to 40 years.

Knowing a few things inside the aerospace industry, I feel that 15 to 20 years is a more likely timescale, although I understand that there may be small and affordable private jets just capable of supersonic cruise within the next five years. EDAS (the company that own Airbus) has plans for a new hypersonic jet on the table, but they are probably going to wait until the Super Jumbo A380 enters service in the next 3 years before deciding whether the market is right.

At the end of the day, it is all down to how quickly people (or goods) need to arrive at their destination. Living in the UK, one of my favourite past times is canal boating. The UK canal network is one of the most under-utilised resources we have. Yet transportation of goods by canal may be slow, and it requires more manpower, but overall the costs to transport are about the same as by road. And the impact on the environment is far less.

Concorde was the most beautiful aircraft ever developed, and I was sad to see it go. Now that it has gone, there will be enough
Re:Well done and very impressive by Bagheera · 2003-12-30 06:34 · Score: 1

1-6: I agree. Concorde was a pretty airplane that went ungodly fast for an insane amount of cash per passenger mile. Though on 5 you make reference to the TU144 that flew briefly with Aeroflot and had the disasterous tendency to fall out fo ths sky. That particular Tupolov design was an abject failure and was designed about the same time as the Concorde. In fact, if memory serves, it actually flew before Concorde, though Concorde entered commercial service first.

At the end of the day, it is all down to how quickly people (or goods) need to arrive at their destination. Living in the UK, one of my favourite past times is canal boating. The UK canal network is one of the most under-utilised resources we have. Yet transportation of goods by canal may be slow, and it requires more manpower, but overall the costs to transport are about the same as by road. And the impact on the environment is far less.

That sounds like a large chunk of the Rail system in the U.S. where there is still a great deal of freight traffic, but our passenger system is underfunded, under utilized, and, unfortunately, not especially effective.

Concorde was the most beautiful aircraft ever developed, and I was sad to see it go. Now that it has gone, there will be enough people who will miss it to demand something as fast and as sophisticated as a replacement. I fear that they will have a long time to wait, but in the meantime anything reliable the X prize will generate is only going to increase their expectations.

Personally, I'd say Blackbird was the most beautiful (and flat out amazing) aircraft ever developed.

I have to question how many people who actually used it will miss Concorde. I'm sure there will be some regular trans-atlantic fliers who'll miss being able to "Fly to Manhattan for brunch" but the vast majority of air travellers are not so well heeled. The super-sonic passenger jets are pretty and sexy and alluring, but they aren't economical. The airlines can charge a premium for speed - as they did with Concorde - but they need to have enough people willing to shell out the extra money to keep the flight full.

The more efficient per passenger you are the less of a premium you'll need to charge. That, unfortunately, implies a larger aircraft. Larger aircraft means more people per flight willing to pay the premium, and a more expensive initial outlay for the aircraft in the first place. This economy of scale is why the Jumbos and future Super Jumbos are popular with the airlines: they're efficient.

In order for a commercial super-sonic airliner to be practical they'll need to solve a few issues and design to a number of goals.

1: "Supercruise" engines with the ability to cruise in supersonic flight without afterburner. The F22 is currently the only aircraft I'm aware of that can do this (may be others, of course) but even it requires burners to reach maximum speed.

2: Mitigated "Sonic boom" - since the boom is the main reason Concorde was only allowed to operate super-sonic over water. Until there is a way to abate the boom, there's no way super-sonic aircraft will be allowed to operate over populated areas.

3: Operational efficiency comparable to conventional commercial airliners. Unless the airlines can turn a profit, or at least operate the plane as a loss-leader, they won't buy into the technology.

While this is certainly an interesting thread here, I'm still not sure how the X-Prize relates to Concorde and super-sonic airliners. The goal of the prize is to promote commercial low-cost spaceflight. Its the same concept as the airly aviation prizes that encouraged long range high speed flights - pushing the envelope.

Concorde, and the Tu144 are well within the current envelope. If the airlines were really pushing for a super-sonic airliner, the technology is pretty much there already to give it to them. The fact is they aren't that interested.

What we can hope for from X-Prize is commercial pressure to open up space.

--
Never attribute to malice what can as easily be the result of incompetence...

John Carmack ? by EmCeeHawking · 2003-12-17 11:43 · Score: 5, Funny

Sounds like someone needs to stop spending so much time tweaking the Doom3 Engine and get on the stick. Sundays and Tuesdays aren't going to be enough to beat a fulltime effort.

Re:John Carmack ? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 11:51 · Score: 0

In their defense, they've been making much more progress now that they have a reliable supplier of 50% hydrogen peroxide. Of course, with all the not so subtle hints in their mpeg video, they might be having paperwork problems...
Re:John Carmack ? by Dark+Lord+Seth · 2003-12-17 11:58 · Score: 2, Funny

It'd be worse if he'd confuse both projects. That'd mean his rocket would require a quad Xeon MP 2,0ghz with 16gb of RIMM memory to launch while Doom3 would put your computer in orbit...

--
Hate me!
Re:John Carmack ? by geekoid · 2003-12-17 12:38 · Score: 1

to hell with that. John, get your ass back to tweaking the Doom 3 engine!

I'll play Doom 3, I won't be going into space.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:John Carmack ? by tunah · 2003-12-17 12:43 · Score: 1

"Hey, no sweat guys, it's just a big rocket jump!"

--
Free Java games for your phone: Tontie, Sokoban
Re:John Carmack ? by EvilTwinSkippy · 2003-12-17 13:51 · Score: 1

But my X-Prize entry works in the game engine!

--
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming

Mirror, just in case.... by RickyRay · 2003-12-17 11:43 · Score: 4, Informative

Privately Funded SpaceShipOne Breaks Sound Barrier

A privately financed passenger-carrying sub-orbital rocket plane screamed its way through the sound barrier today, the 100th anniversary of the Wright Brothers historic 12-second flight over Kitty Hawk, North Carolina.

Privately built by Scaled Composites of Mojave, California, the SpaceShipOne cranked up its hybrid rocket motor after being released from the White Knight carrier plane high over Mojave, California.

"This successful and historic flight is important because we are showing that the private sector can perform human space flight faster, safer and cheaper," said Jim Benson, founding chairman and chief executive of SpaceDev, the Poway, California-based company that built SpaceShipOne's engine.

Test pilot Brian Binnie then put SpaceShipOne into a steep climb. Nine seconds later, SpaceShipOne broke the sound barrier and continued its steep powered ascent.

At motor shutdown, 15 seconds after ignition, SpaceShipOne was climbing at a 60-degree angle and flying near 1.2 Mach (930 mph).

Binnie continued the maneuver to a vertical climb, achieving zero speed at an altitude of 68,000 feet. He then configured the ship in its high-drag "feathered" shape to simulate the condition it will experience when it enters the atmosphere after a sub-orbital space flight.

At apogee, SpaceShipOne was in near-weightless conditions, emulating the characteristics it will later encounter during the planned space flights in which it will be at zero-g for more than three minutes.

After descending in feathered flight for about a minute, Binnie reconfigured the ship to its conventional glider shape and flew a 12-minute glide to landing at a landing strip in the Mojave.

The landing was not without incident.

On touchdown, the left landing gear retracted causing the rocket ship to veer to the left and leave the runway with its left wing down. Damage from the landing incident was minor and will easily be repaired. There were no injuries, according to a press release issued by Scaled Composites.

The milestone flight of SpaceShipOne involved development of a new propulsion system, the first rocket motor fabricated for piloted space flight in several decades.

The new hybrid motor was developed in-house at Scaled Composites. The motor uses an ablative nozzle supplied by AAE and operating components supplied by SpaceDev.

This was the 8th flight of the SpaceShipOne completed this year -- the first done under powered flight.

Re:Mirror, just in case.... by p2sam · 2003-12-17 12:09 · Score: 1

I haven't seen any pictures of this plane... but am I the only one who pictures it as one of those Macross/Robotech robot planes?
Re:Mirror, just in case.... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 12:14 · Score: 0

Apparently google doesn't work in your neck of the woods, so here ya go. Oh, and wtf did the jerk doing the mirror of space.com do to deserve a +5 anyway?
Re:Mirror, just in case.... by Moofie · 2003-12-17 12:42 · Score: 1

You're not too far wrong. It's a weird lookin' bird. : )

--
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2003-12-17 11:43 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Comment removed based on user account deletion

And so it begins. by ActionPlant · 2003-12-17 11:44 · Score: 4, Interesting

How long before commercial spaceflight tickets are offered by competing commercial organizations and WE get to pick the craft?

Damon,

--
http://actionPlant.com

Re:And so it begins. by trentblase · 2003-12-17 11:56 · Score: 2, Funny

How long before commercial spaceflight tickets are offered by competing commercial organizations and WE get to pick the craft?
I choose the Millenium Falcon
Re:And so it begins. by ActionPlant · 2003-12-17 12:09 · Score: 1

But..but..that was MY choice!!

--
http://actionPlant.com
Re:And so it begins. by Luigi30 · 2003-12-17 13:00 · Score: 1

I typed in a cheat code and flew in a TIE Fighter.

--
503 Sig Unavailable

The Signature could not be accessed. Please try again later or contact the administrator
Re:And so it begins. by mcelrath · 2003-12-17 13:22 · Score: 2, Informative

That is exactly the point of the X-Prize.
The real prize is not the 10M purse, but the tourists that will follow. Some estimates are that the global market is in the billions. Several studies have been done indicating that people would spend 10k-100k for a trip, among people financially able to pay that.
I look forward to the day when a flight to space is a mundane vacation activity for rich people, right there next to hang-gliding rides and zorbing. Of course orbital is much harder, but the X-prize lays the first brick on that path.
-- Bob

--
1^2=1; (-1)^2=1; 1^2=(-1)^2; 1=-1; 1=0.
Re:And so it begins. by Sqwubbsy · 2003-12-17 13:42 · Score: 1

2001, just like the movie... Oh, wait.

--
$30 Off All Plans: Use code TRIPLESAWBUCK
Re:And so it begins. by bindo · 2003-12-17 20:55 · Score: 1

1^2=1; (-1)^2=1; 1^2=(-1)^2; 1=-1; 1=0

in fact with your arithmetic:
1=-1
2=0
1=0

n=0
n+1=0

which in fact becomes n+0=0 ... boring

Their prerss release by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 11:46 · Score: 1, Informative

Here's their prerss [sic] release.

--Karma whoring as AC since 2000.

For those that haven't used imperial for ages.... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 11:48 · Score: 1, Funny

Translation:

ehartwell writes "According to Space.com, Scaled Composite's SpaceShipOne flew its first rocket-powered flight today, the 100th anniversary of the Wright Brothers' 12-second first flight. SpaceShipOne's engine burned for 15 seconds, pushing it to Mach 1.2 (1496 km/h) and a peak altitude of 20.7 kilometers . To win the X-Prize they need to reach 100.6 kilometers twice within 2 weeks."

5 times more distance to go by boy_afraid · 2003-12-17 11:48 · Score: 1, Informative

They just needed 5 times more the altitude to reach the goal.

Re:5 times more distance to go by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 11:56 · Score: 0

They just needed 5 times more the altitude to reach the goal.

That would be a snap if it weren't for the fact that each new foot in altitude will be significantly more expensive and complex to reach that the previous foot.

It'll take multiple 100x effort to achieve that 5x altitude.
Re:5 times more distance to go by Total_Wimp · 2003-12-17 12:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

"They just needed 5 times more the altitude to reach the goal."

People seem to be forgetting that this is just one of many test flights. The fact that this didn't come close to the goal isn't really a problem.

These test flights are very important because they build faith in the aircraft and anticipation for the "real" flights to come. Of course they also point to problems that need to be solved like the aparrent landing gear issues.

TW

Looks bad for Carmack by Skyshadow · 2003-12-17 11:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

This is looking worse and worse for Carmack and the crew at Armadillo Aerospace... Even though they've apparently solved their peroxide supply problems, they're nowhere near completing assembly of their full-size rocket and they have yet to have anything like a successful test flight on any scale (unless you count the hover tests).

I wish the other X-prize hopefuls would take after Carmack's blogs, though -- reading about the little engineering challenges is the highlight of my Monday/Tuesday mornings.

--
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.

Re:Looks bad for Carmack by savuporo · 2003-12-17 12:02 · Score: 5, Informative

they're nowhere near completing assembly of their full-size rocket

On the contrary

IMO, they are quite far along, i'd expect a hover test in a week or two ( if not for the _damn_ holidays )
BTW, as you probably know, official X-Prize flight attempt has to be announced at least two months in advance, so everybody still has a chance, as Rutan hasnt made such announcement yet.

--
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
Re:Looks bad for Carmack by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 13:23 · Score: 0

IMO, they are quite far along, i'd expect a hover test in a week or two

Well, Rutan's boy just "hovered" at almost 70,000 feet.

Carmack had better get cracking. Second place in the X-Prize competition is a ticket home on a Greyhound bus.
Re:Looks bad for Carmack by enforcer999 · 2003-12-17 15:29 · Score: 2, Funny

So, where is Carmack? I still think that Scaled Composites has the advantage. BTW, I am new to this message board but very happy I found it. I hate spam and love space science. Perfect. I am not a computer programmer or anything like that. I am a lawyer. Hi.

Damn cold fusion... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 11:48 · Score: 0, Funny

If only my cold-fusion flux-capacitor hadn't gone on the blink my electrogravatic anti-grav drive would humming along nicely and I'd be half-way to the Mars by now...

Re:space race by Carnildo · 2003-12-17 11:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

ok when do i get to go to the moon. seriously. what the max it could cost? two or three billion?

If you want NASA to do it, it'll cost well over $50 billion.

--
"They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.

Can't wait by cybermace5 · 2003-12-17 11:48 · Score: 4, Interesting

When industry gets on the ball and starts developing space programs, we'll start seeing some real progress. Of course NASA's work is extremely valuable, but we need commercial support to really get things done. Satellites have been a huge success; now all we need is a very attractive financial reason to develop space commerce.

It might start off slow, though; in the end it will probably require starting an entirely new economic sector. Why do we need to mine asteroids and build huge solar collectors? To supply energy and materials for other space structures, of course. A self-perpetuating system like that is going to take time to build up. Satellites plug in very well to Earth's existing economy, but where does manned space exploration fit in....

--
...

Re:Can't wait by adrianbaugh · 2003-12-17 12:26 · Score: 2, Interesting

I was thinking about this recently. Of course we need corporations to bring inventions to mass markets, but how many really great inventions are made by corporations? Most of the defining inventions seem to be made, at least initially, by academics or driven private individuals rather than companies.

--
"'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
- JRR Tolkien.
Re:Can't wait by DanielRavenNest · 2003-12-18 04:53 · Score: 1

Note that Boeing has not one, but two semi-
commercial launch systems: Sea Launch and
Delta IV. In both there was some government
development and some private investment.

In the case of Sea Launch, a Zenit rocket
(developed by pre-breakup Soviet Gov't) is
launched from a converted drilling platform
in the Pacific. Boeing paid for the home
port in Long Beach, CA, and builds satellites
that ride on the rocket. The Sea Launch
program is actually a partnership between
Boeing, Kvaerner AG, who is a Norwegian
ship and drilling platform builder, and
privatized Russian and Ukrainian companies
that build the rocket.

The Delta IV, despite it's name, is basically
an all-new launcher built partly with Air
Force funding an partly with Boeing money.
The first and second stages are built here
in Alabama in one of the world's largest
buildings - 30+ acres.

Daniel

SpaceShipOne? by Junior+J.+Junior+III · 2003-12-17 11:49 · Score: 3, Funny

What, did it have the president on board? Please tell me it broke up upon re-entry...

--
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!

Re:SpaceShipOne? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 12:07 · Score: 0

(+5 Wishful!)

what a wonderful world it would be...

P
Re:SpaceShipOne? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 12:27 · Score: 0

Amen, brother.

Shalom.
Re:SpaceShipOne? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 12:56 · Score: 0

Shouldn't that be "Praise Allah"?
Re:SpaceShipOne? by oPless · 2003-12-17 15:56 · Score: 1

No, mores the pity.

Nice thought though, cheered me up no end.
Re:SpaceShipOne? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-18 11:27 · Score: 0

It did, but they had the technology, and they rebuilt him.

Couple of old transistor parts, some leftovers from a failed oil derrick, and an underpowered voting card holepunch.

They were going to include technology from WMDs, but they couldn't find any.

Re:space race by johnpaul191 · 2003-12-17 11:51 · Score: 1

George W. said something in the last week or two about wanting the USA to get back on the moon. I don't remember why, and if he meant building a base or what. I assumed it had something to do with reminding China that we were there first?

google is not helping me, i'm just finding articles wondering is geroge w is a moonie.

i did find this slashdot story from 2 weeks ago where they though he would call for moon mission in some speech scheduled today..... hrmmm

50 years from now... by RobertB-DC · 2003-12-17 11:52 · Score: 4, Interesting

I did a quick Google on the first time humans passed the "sound barrier" in 1947. 50 years later, every school kid knows^W should know Chuck Yeager's name.

50 years from now, will the class of 2060 recognize the name "Brian Binnie"? If this works out, they darn well should... especially if he's the one who gets to fly the craft "for real", twice in two weeks.

* 1903: Orville & Wilbur Wright achieve controlled, manned flight (but birds fly on a regular basis)

* 1947: Chuck Yeager breaks the sound barrier in a military aircraft (but ordinary people fly on a regular basis)

* 2003: Brian Binnie breaks the sound barrier in a home-built spacecraft prototype (but ordinary people fly faster than sound on a regular basis)

* 2050: What's the next big advance when ordinary people fly to space on a regular basis?

I was sure rooting for the local boys (& girl), but I don't see how they can catch up to Scaled Composites' entry.

--
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.

Re:50 years from now... by trentblase · 2003-12-17 11:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

Sadly, I know a ton of people who have never heard of Chuck Yeager. He was not part of my academic curriculum. The only reason I heard of him at a young age was the video game named after him.
Re:50 years from now... by tc · 2003-12-17 11:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

* 2003: Brian Binnie breaks the sound barrier in a home-built spacecraft prototype (but ordinary people fly faster than sound on a regular basis)
Except that, sadly, Brian Binnie breaks the sound barrier in a home-built spacecraft prototype the same year that commercial supersonic flights were discontinued.
Re:50 years from now... by Moofie · 2003-12-17 11:59 · Score: 4, Insightful

I don't know the name of the first doctor to perform any number of amazingly useful surgeries. I don't think that makes me any less well-educated (particularly since I am totally confident I could find that data anytime I felt I needed it).

The information is readily available for anybody with an interest. School shouldn't be about filling your head with facts, but about encouraging you to study things that you're interested in.

For me, that's airplanes. For other people, maybe musical theater. It's all good.

--
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Re:50 years from now... by Gumshoe · 2003-12-17 12:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

School shouldn't be about filling your head with facts, but about encouraging you to study things that you're interested in.

I second that. Ultimately, school is worthless if it doesn't teach people how to learn. The ability to educate one's self should be the greatest lesson of a compulsary education.
Re:50 years from now... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 12:10 · Score: 0

You needed Google to figure out who Yeager was and what he did and you expect school kids to know, hmmm?
Re:50 years from now... by JT27278 · 2003-12-17 12:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

"Home-built" is quite a stretch. How about "not government funded" ? Their ship was built by professional aeronaughtical engineers who were working full time for a company who's mission is to do just this sort of thing. Scaled Composites is a far cry from a garage operation.
Re:50 years from now... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 12:14 · Score: 0

School shouldn't be about filling your head with facts, but about encouraging you to study things that you're interested in.

That's right.

For the record, the only reason I know the name 'Chuck Yeager' was because I got a SoundBlaster 16 pack with 6-speed CDROM and speakers back in 1997. It had a few games included and one of them was Chucky Boy's flight sim.

Now that I think of it, it's very unlikely that I'd ever hear about someone named 'Chuck'. Very American name.
Re:50 years from now... by mabhatter654 · 2003-12-17 12:16 · Score: 4, Interesting

The joke is that most of the companies involved are getting their money from childhood "geeks" that made it big on toys or games and Still went to school to learn the "real work" we were all told in the 70's and 80's was so important. I find it more ironic that the very goverment that told kids to be astronauts and rocket scientists has a problem with them Actually being astronauts and rocket scientists WITHOUT govt help!
Re:50 years from now... by fiftyLou · 2003-12-17 12:26 · Score: 5, Funny

The ability to educate one's self should be the greatest lesson of a compulsary education.

Agreed. With the ability to dress one's self coming a close second.
Re:50 years from now... by ncc74656 · 2003-12-17 12:38 · Score: 1

Sadly, I know a ton of people who have never heard of Chuck Yeager. He was not part of my academic curriculum. The only reason I heard of him at a young age was the video game named after him.

The only textbooks I recall running across that mentioned him would've been for AFJROTC...and there's a fair chance most of the kids taking that would've learned of Chuck Yeager on their own anyway. About the only aerospace milestones you're likely to run across in the average haskrool history textbook are the Wright brothers' first flight and Apollo 11...and even those aren't guaranteed. (It's not even guaranteed that most kids will ever take a real history course before college...instead of history and civics, they're more likely to end up in some watered-down "social studies" classes instead.)

--
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
Re:50 years from now... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 12:44 · Score: 0

Dubya's America - School where you're tested on fact regurtitation rather than on the ability to learn.
Re:50 years from now... by 198348726583297634 · 2003-12-17 12:52 · Score: 1

Really..you need both facts and an ability to get new ones and process them. Thinking without facts is like building without bricks.
Re:50 years from now... by Mantorp · 2003-12-17 12:52 · Score: 2, Funny

I disagree, I'm all about fact retention.
People can only gain my respect by beating me at Trivial Pursuit or shouting out answers before me while watching Jeopardy. I won't vote for someone whom I don't think can stand chance against me at TP which is why Bush is out in 04. That, and the fact I'm not a US citizen yet.
Re:50 years from now... by autopr0n · 2003-12-17 12:57 · Score: 1, Troll

.The only textbooks I recall running across that mentioned him would've been for AFJROTC...and there's a fair chance most of the kids taking that would've learned of Chuck Yeager on their own anyway. About the only aerospace milestones you're likely to run across in the average haskrool history textbook are the Wright brothers' first flight and Apollo 11...and even those aren't guaranteed. (It's not even guaranteed that most kids will ever take a real history course before college...instead of history and civics, they're more likely to end up in some watered-down "social studies" classes instead.)

I think your use of a rush-Limbaugh-ism ought to disqualify your comments in general, ellipsis boi. No doubt the watered-down 'social-studies' classes are the result of 'the liberals' trying to keep real history from the minds of impressionable yoots where they would learn truth, justice, and the neo-con way which is implied by true world history. Do you have any facts, figures, statistics of any kind to back up your wild assertions?

"If Howard Dean had his way, Saddam Hussein would still be in power today, not in prison..." -Joe Lieberman

This is true. And 459 Americans who are now dead, would be alive. If you could make the choice of saddam being in power or sacrificing the lives of people you loved, would you have made that choice. This war was not supposed to be about brining one man to justice. Joe Leiberman is a punk.

--
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Re:50 years from now... by rgmoore · 2003-12-17 13:01 · Score: 1

School shouldn't be about filling your head with facts, but about encouraging you to study things that you're interested in.

That's probably true, but there are two obvious limits. One is that you need some knowledge base just to know what things are out there that you might be interested in studying. You'll never become interested in the surgeon who perfected heart transplants if you never learn that it's possible to transplant organs from one person to another. You won't become interested in Chuck Yeager if you don't have the idea that supersonic flight didn't exsist at one time (or you don't know that it exists today).
The other is that there are some really important facts that everyone needs to know, whether they're boring or not. Everyone needs to know enough about the law to avoid getting thrown in jail, for instance. It's also important to know how the government works, where one's society came from (socially and politically), enough of a common culture to have the same references as everyone else, enough about science to make informed choices, etc. That stuff may or may not be boring, but forcing people to learn it is a critical function of schools.

--
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
Re:50 years from now... by ncc74656 · 2003-12-17 13:17 · Score: 1

2003: Brian Binnie breaks the sound barrier in a home-built spacecraft prototype (but ordinary people fly faster than sound on a regular basis)

Except that, sadly, Brian Binnie breaks the sound barrier in a home-built spacecraft prototype the same year that commercial supersonic flights were discontinued.

There's also that phrase, "ordinary people." I'd think that most of the people who flew the Concorde wouldn't fit under most people's definition of "ordinary people."

--
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
Re:50 years from now... by EvilTwinSkippy · 2003-12-17 13:28 · Score: 1

So how is that different from Orville and Wilber Wright then? Sure the technology is different, but playing with small internal combustion engines in 1903 WAS rocket science.

--
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Re:50 years from now... by Lithus · 2003-12-17 13:29 · Score: 2, Funny

Yes, but sometimes we need facts, like roman numerals!
How else would we know when a movie was made?
Re:50 years from now... by Dirtside · 2003-12-17 13:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

The information is readily available for anybody with an interest.
Exactly. Being educated doesn't mean you know everything; it means you know how to find out.

--
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
Re:50 years from now... by twiddlingbits · 2003-12-17 13:30 · Score: 1

Wow, if that's the criteria for political office we'd have to throw out the whole group! Maybe we should list IQ beside the party affiliation on the ballot ? :) Then we'd have no one to blame if we put dummies in office
Re:50 years from now... by putaro · 2003-12-17 13:31 · Score: 1

Calling Burt Rutan and the Scaled Composites team "home builders" is a pretty big insult. These guys do the engineering behind lots of home-built planes (e.g. Vari-Ez) making them work well and safely and built the first plane to fly around the world on one tank of gas. Small, yes. Small budget, yes. Unprofessional? NO
Re:50 years from now... by ncc74656 · 2003-12-17 13:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

I think your use of a rush-Limbaugh-ism ought to disqualify your comments in general

I think your inability to put forth a cogent argument ought to disqualify your comments in general. Sorry, but argumentum ad hominem doesn't cut it.

"If Howard Dean had his way, Saddam Hussein would still be in power today, not in prison..." -Joe Lieberman

This is true. And 459 Americans who are now dead, would be alive.

You forgot to mention that Saddam's death toll, which is by most estimates about three orders of magnitude greater, is no longer increasing.
If you could make the choice of saddam being in power or sacrificing the lives of people you loved, would you have made that choice.

To get rid of that cancer on the human race? Absolutely. The UN had its thumb up its ass and was unwilling to do a thing to stop the murder, rape, and torture carried out on a daily basis in Iraq. It was unwilling to enforce any of the eightteen Security Council resolutions passed against Iraq. It looked the other way while France, Germany, Russia, and North Korea kept selling Saddam weapons systems and related equipment. Saddam Hussein was a threat to the world on the same scale as Hitler and Stalin. That we eliminated that threat at a loss of hundreds (vs. the tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands lost in your average war) is an acceptable trade for the millions in Iraq who are no longer under his thumb...or for the billions elsewhere in the world who are a little bit safer tonight.
Joe Leiberman is a punk.

I don't agree with most of his social policies, but this is one occasion where he is right on the money. If Howard Dean had his way, Saddam and his thugs would still be tossing dissidents into industrial meat grinders (head-first if you're lucky, feet-first if you're not so lucky), kidnapping and raping women randomly pulled off the streets, and bankrolling terrorists and their training.

--
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
Re:50 years from now... by tc · 2003-12-17 13:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

Concorde passengers were ordinary people in the sense that anybody could purchase a ticket; you didn't have to be in the military. Sure, the tickets were expensive, but they were not totally out of reach for the reasonably affluent if flying on Concorde was important to them, it's just that most people had other priorities. I'm sure there are plenty of geeks here that spend thousands on computers and fancy home theatre setups, and we think of those things as being purchased by 'ordinary people'.
Re:50 years from now... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 13:50 · Score: 0

the ability to get new facts allows you to get new ones... go figure.

So your point was?
Re:50 years from now... by Jeremi · 2003-12-17 14:01 · Score: 0, Offtopic

"If Howard Dean had his way, Saddam Hussein would still be in power today, not in prison..."

... and 500+ dead American soldiers would still be alive, another 2000+ would remain healthy and un-maimed, the USA would have $250 billion more in the bank than it does now, our allies would still respect us as the moral leader of the free world, and we wouldn't be stuck in an endless Iraqi quagmire with more soldiers dying every day.

--

I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Re:50 years from now... by Jeremi · 2003-12-17 14:10 · Score: 1, Insightful

To get rid of that cancer on the human race? Absolutely.

Funny, I seem to recall the given reason for the war was that Saddam was going to rain WMDs down on American cities otherwise. If Bush's real reason was to get rid of a nasty tyrant, he should have based his arguments on that, instead of making up unsupported scare stories. If the world's nuclear superpower is going to make a habit of misleading its public in order to justify otherwise-unjustifiable invasions, then we are going to be in for a rough time indeed.

If Howard Dean had his way, Saddam and his thugs would still be tossing dissidents into industrial meat grinders.

I can guarantee you there are at least a half-dozen other evil dictators who regularly do the same sorts of thing. Shall I expect another half-dozen invasions and occupations if George W. is re-elected? If you think the answer is no, then that should be your first clue that human rights abuses are not what prompts the Bush administration to go to war.

--

I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Re:50 years from now... by orn · 2003-12-17 14:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

This isn't about facts though. This is about heroes.

Look, Orville and Wilbur didn't do much out on those sand dunes. All they did was make a crappy little airplane not capable of flying in anything but a near direct headwind. It's a piece of crap as far as airplanes go and any kid today can make a better one with some balsa wood and a rubberband.

But the point is that they did it before anyone else thought they could. Chuck Yeager did his trick when people thought the sound barrier was a brick wall in the sky that would kill everyone that tried to get close to it. These names are attached to people that did something or discovered something that everyone else thought couldn't be done. You don't remember the name for the sake of the name, you remember the name as something to attach the courage to.

We stand on the shoulders of giants. That's the average person for you. But occasionally, someone sees one of those giants and says, "I can do that too." You see those heroes and you realize that you don't have to be trapped by the preconceptions that hold the rest of the world back.

Knowing the names Chuck Yeager, Orville and Wilbur Wright, Niel Armstrong, Einstein, Curie, Oppenheimer, Franklin, DaVinci, and so on gives you a sense of perspective. These things are done by people with a dream. And determination. A whole lot of determination.

--
1. 2.
Re:50 years from now... by blincoln · 2003-12-17 14:39 · Score: 1, Offtopic

(+1 bonus pre-emptively removed for being offtopic)

The UN had its thumb up its ass and was unwilling to do a thing to stop the murder, rape, and torture carried out on a daily basis in Iraq.

The US is not the world's police force. If you are trying to justify going to war with Iraq based on how poorly its citizens were treated by their leaders, then by that same logic we should be invading North Korea, China, and a host of smaller nations.

Emperor Dubyah "justified" his invasion by lying to the citizens of the US about an alleged threat against them when there was none. If the case was so strong based on the way Hussein treated his people, then why didn't he use that as the basis for his argument?

The answer is obvious - while most Americans will support a war to prevent an imagined danger against their own country, they will NOT support one to remove a foreign dictator who has no effect on them and never will. Dubyah is a deluded fascist, but he's smart enough to figure that out.

It's funny how Republicans wanted to impeach Clinton for lying about a blowjob, but they don't see anything wrong with their president having his lackeys fabricate evidence to support a war that gets hundreds of dedicated US soldiers killed.

If Howard Dean had his way...

If Ronald Reagan hadn't had his way - financing Taliban "freedom fighters" in the 80s and allowing the US to sell Hussein weapons - we wouldn't have gotten into this mess in the first place.

--
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
Re:50 years from now... by EvilBastard · 2003-12-17 14:57 · Score: 1

I did a quick Google on the first time humans passed the "sound barrier" in 1947. 50 years later, every school kid knows^W should know Chuck Yeager's name

Please correct the above.

Not to take anything away from Chuck Yeager, who did a terrible dangerous thing, but in 1997 the US Air Force has admitted that George Welch broke the sound barrier twice in the XP-86 (the test version of the Sabre, which was a front line fighter through the 1950's and early 60's).

Although ordered not to enter supersonic trials until Bell's project was complete, he purposly dove his plane on October 1st, 1947, and again 15 minutes before Yeagers flight on October 15th, 1947. He later died testing the YF-100 in 1954.

This is why Yeager's record has changed from "The first man to break the sound barrier" to "The first man to break the sound barrier in level flight", but they still try to avoid mentioning George Welch.

This is also why you shouldn't always trust Google. Check again, but this time for his name and you'll find a lot of articles that mention this. He was also involved in another famous aviation act, as he was one of the few pilots who took off from Pearl Harbour to attack the incoming Japanese air raid, and you'll find that he is also widely discussed as one of the few people who should have been ordered the Congressional Medal of Honor twice.
Click Here for information on his actions at Pearl Harbour
Click Here for information about him breaking the sound barrier
Re:50 years from now... by bluGill · 2003-12-17 15:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

The Wrights contribution was controled flight, not flying before anyone said it couldn't be done. There were other dare-devils out there flying their homemade "airplanes" as much as 200 feet, before "crashing" to the ground, with no way to tell where they land, at best more or less a straight line. The Wright brothers not only flew, they were able to turn and perdict where they would go. Once that breakthrough was made other engineers could observe why their design worked, and make something better that also got around patents.
Re:50 years from now... by GooseKirk · 2003-12-17 15:28 · Score: 1, Offtopic

I applaud the way you care about all the world's citizens as equals. Most Americans care only about Americans, and screw everyone else. You are, then, no doubt as concerned about all the other tyrants and dictators and oppressors in the world. You may want to take a look at the human rights records of some of America's closest allies. And some of the nations that joined the "Coalition of the Willing" to oust Saddam. And take a look at some of our not-quite-close allies, but pals as long as the checks keep coming. Using human rights as a scale, who would you invade next?

Bonus question: why would the US government fine you $50,000 if you travel to Cuba, while China is A-OK? They both suffer under tyrannical regimes known for brutally crushing opposition and are known for human rights abuses. What's the dif?
Re:50 years from now... by golgotha007 · 2003-12-17 16:09 · Score: 1

The Wrights contribution was controled flight, not flying before anyone said it couldn't be done.

i think to be more specific, the Wrights contribution was powered flight.
Re:50 years from now... by autopr0n · 2003-12-17 16:11 · Score: 1

Bonus question: why would the US government fine you $50,000 if you travel to Cuba, while China is A-OK? They both suffer under tyrannical regimes known for brutally crushing opposition and are known for human rights abuses. What's the dif?

Anti-Communist Chinese "exiles" all live in Taiwan, not Miami, and therefore don't have a huge voting block in a large swing state. If Taiwan had been lost and all the exiles had come to say, Arazona, we never would have normalized relations with Cuba

--
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Re:50 years from now... by autopr0n · 2003-12-17 16:23 · Score: 0, Offtopic

To get rid of that cancer on the human race? Absolutely. The UN had its thumb up its ass and was unwilling to do a thing to stop the murder, rape, and torture carried out on a daily basis in Iraq. It was unwilling to enforce any of the eighteen Security Council resolutions passed against Iraq. It looked the other way while France, Germany, Russia, and North Korea kept selling Saddam weapons systems and related equipment. Saddam Hussein was a threat to the world on the same scale as Hitler and Stalin. That we eliminated that threat at a loss of hundreds (vs. the tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands lost in your average war) is an acceptable trade for the millions in Iraq who are no longer under his thumb...or for the billions elsewhere in the world who are a little bit safer tonight.

So quick with your answer. You must not have much love in your life, I guess. Saddam was never a threat to anyone outside of the middle east, and he wasn't a threat to anyone outside of southern Iraq since 1991.

You forgot to mention that Saddam's death toll, which is by most estimates about three orders of magnitude greater, is no longer increasing.
17 Iraqis died just yesterday, 20 times as many as American solders. And tens of thousands of Iraqis died in the war. This is hardly the end of suffering in Iraq, but hopefully it will be the beginning of then end.

And incase you were sleeping before the war started, inspectors were back in Iraq before the war started. Hans Blix himself has said that military action was not necessary. How can you claim that UN demands were not being met when the people responsible for implementing those said they were?

In the end, this will probably a good thing for the people of Iraq, but I think it's doubtful that bush would have been able to gather the political support he needed if He'd tried to sell the war on a "Saddam is evil" meme in the first place. The reason we had to go to war now is because of the WMD that the administration claimed he had. Bush should not have lied to get us into a war. And if he wasn't lying, if he actually believed what he was saying, then that's far, far worse.

--
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Re:50 years from now... by Ralph+Wiggam · 2003-12-17 16:27 · Score: 1

"He later died testing the YF-100 in 1954."

5 bucks says he died doing something stupid to show off for his pilot buddies.

-B
Re:50 years from now... by afidel · 2003-12-17 16:33 · Score: 1

Actually if the weapons are really gone then Saddam was not only a petty despot but a stupid one at that. Throwing out the UN inspectors kept the world thinking that he was still in the WMD business. We know as incontravertable truth that he possesed at various points in the past large amounts of both chemical and biological agents (his government even accounted for over 13 tons of mustard gas in the early 90's which suddenly dissapeared without records of its destruction). He also persued a nuclear weapons program which was halted only after the Isreali's blew up his reactor. And beyond all that stability in the oil rich portion of the middle east is all the justification a non-twofaced politician should need. Oil is THE strategic supply and assuring it's continued safety and accessibility IS a national security issue despite what anyone on either side of the aisle says.

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Re:50 years from now... by eraserewind · 2003-12-17 16:34 · Score: 1

I second that. Ultimately, school is worthless if it doesn't teach people how to learn. The ability to educate one's self should be the greatest lesson of a compulsary education.

Actually though all that meta-learning is totally useless unless at some point you actually put it into practice and fill out the blanks in your head with facts. (and facts do exist dispite what many education reformers would have you believe)

One of the problems with education in recent times is that too many people finish it without actually knowing anything.
Re:50 years from now... by Galvatron · 2003-12-17 16:40 · Score: 1, Insightful

I don't know the name of the first doctor to perform any number of amazingly useful surgeries.
But do you understand the general process of medical development? Do you know, for example, when penicillin was introduced, or when the germ theory of disease was advanced? Do you know that prior to the 20th century, wounds routinely required amputation, performed without anesthetic? I'm not talking about day, month and year of discoveries, but more about general time frame. If your answer for penicillin is "sometime in the first half of the 1900's, before WWII," that's perfectly fine. If your answer is "I don't know, maybe 1700 or so?" then yes, I believe you are poorly educated.
Many facts are required for a proper perspective on the world. Details, such as inventor's names, are not necessarily important, but part of being a well educated person is having a general understanding of fields beyond your specific interests. It's not enough to simply look up facts as necessary. Indeed, in the above example of penicillin, it is meaningful to know not only that penicillin was introduced in the first half of the 20th century, but moreover that it was available during the Second World War, which in turn implies that you have a general idea of when that took place. I don't care if you think military history is boring and stupid, if you don't know the approximate dates of WWII, you are not going to be able to understand the importance of events that took place around it.

--
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
Re:50 years from now... by thales · 2003-12-17 16:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

"School shouldn't be about filling your head with facts, but about encouraging you to study things that you're interested in."

If that were the case the majority of the students would be studying subjects like Football and there wouldn't be enough demand for Math and Scince to make it worth the effort of building classrooms to teach those subjects in.

--
Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
Re:50 years from now... by Graff · 2003-12-17 17:01 · Score: 1

* 1903: Orville & Wilbur Wright achieve controlled, manned flight (but birds fly on a regular basis)

* 1947: Chuck Yeager breaks the sound barrier in a military aircraft (but ordinary people fly on a regular basis)

* 2003: Brian Binnie breaks the sound barrier in a home-built spacecraft prototype (but ordinary people fly faster than sound on a regular basis)

* 2050: What's the next big advance when ordinary people fly to space on a regular basis?

You forgot one important date in the list there:

* 1901: Gustave A. Whitehead (Weisskopf) flies the first motorized airplane for a distance of 1/2 mile.

Contrary to what most people think, the Wright Brothers were not the "first in flight". Gustave Whitehead achieved motorized airplane flight over 2 years prior to the Wright Brother's maiden flight. Read more about it on this web site.

--
Sapere aude!
Re:50 years from now... by Mantorp · 2003-12-17 17:05 · Score: 1

It's not a bad idea. Every bit as valid as whomever spends the most money wins which is what happens 90% of the time nowadays.
Re:50 years from now... by RickHunter · 2003-12-17 17:12 · Score: 1, Troll

I can guarantee you there are at least a half-dozen other evil dictators who regularly do the same sorts of thing.

Heck, I'm willing to bet there's at least a half-dozen evil dictators who regularly do the same things and are best buddies with Bush. Lets start with China and Pakistan, and move on from there, shall we?
Re:50 years from now... by Shihar · 2003-12-17 17:30 · Score: 1, Offtopic

Not to run too far off topic with everyone else, but the 'why this nation and not that nation' questions are all fairly easy to answer. Why pick on Cuba and not China? Because China has a billion people in it and picking on them is more painful then not. It is the same reason why invading Iraq was considered, but not North Korea. The US can take over Iraq with a minimal amount of casualties, and we did. Even the losses we are taking right now are not that bad compared to all other past wars. Invading North Korea would have been horrific.

The US military went into Iraq not sure if Iraq had WMDs and not sure if they would use them. North Korea has many WMDs which are mostly chemical, though they are adding nukes the pile, and they would without a doubt use them. Not only would they use them, they would use them on civilians in South Korea. There is absolutely no doubt in this. A war in Korea would be horrific on the scale that would likely make all other wars before it since the World Wars look tame.

Now, the morality and cost of the Iraqi war are certainly fair questions, but the why is pretty obvious in my opinion. Why Iraq? Because it was the right place, at the right time, with the right excuse. WMDs were an excuse to try and build a democracy in the Middle East through military force. I imagine their hope is that Iraq will one day be like Japan, practically pacifist with a love of trade. So, in that regards it was the right place, the Middle East. It was the right time as the US is trying to crush Islamic fundamentalism, and while Iraq barely touched Islamic fundamentalism, it is near a horde of nations that do. Having a beacon of Western style democracy in Iraq at this time would probably influence the nations around Iraq pretty strongly. Finally, it was the right excuse. WMDs was the excuse. WMDs were not the reason, just the way to make the war 'legitimate'. You can't push a resolution through the UN saying "We need to invade because they are not a democracy." The UN has never done such a thing and it never will. They were however able to get it close enough to a legitimate invasion on the WMDs issue. It is like locking up a mobster for tax evasion. You are not really locking them up for tax evasion, it is just the only thing you can nail them on.

Like I said, the morality and (even bigger in my opinion) the cost of the war are up for question. The reason why Iraq of all nations is pretty clear. They just happened to the poor bastards who fit all the criteria.
Re:50 years from now... by geoswan · 2003-12-17 17:34 · Score: 1

And beyond all that stability in the oil rich portion of the middle east is all the justification a non-twofaced politician should need. Oil is THE strategic supply and assuring it's continued safety and accessibility IS a national security issue despite what anyone on either side of the aisle says.

Consider this.
What would the USA do if they were not the world's only remaining super-power, in order to assure access to a strategic supply? The USA would have to rely on purchasing those strategic assets just like every other nation.
So, why shouldn't the USA have done so this time?
Re:50 years from now... by maysonl · 2003-12-17 17:37 · Score: 1

ordinary people fly faster than sound on a regular basis
Didn't Concorde shut down recently?
Re:50 years from now... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 17:41 · Score: 1, Informative

I just watched a documentary on this tonight, and my impression is, that if you want to be as specific as possible, it was controlled, powered, manned, heavier-than-air flight.
Re:50 years from now... by EvilBastard · 2003-12-17 17:56 · Score: 1

He was doing what he was told to do, a Demonstration flight for Columbus day, when they discovered that the F-100 was unstable due to a unstable airflow over a newly designed tail fin.

"On Columbus Day of 1954, Welch was performing a demonstration flying the new F-100A. His flight card called for a symmetrical pull-up at 1.55 Mach. The maneuver would generate more than 7 Gs. As he began the maneuver, the airflow over the wing suddenly burbled, completely blanking the newly redesigned and smaller vertical stabilizer. The fighter yawed slightly and then suddenly turned partially sideways to the direction of travel. The nose folded up at the windscreen and crushed Welch in his ejection seat. Miraculously, the seat fired and carried Welch clear of the plane as it disintegrated. Ejecting at supersonic speeds is not only hard on the human body, it's hard on parachutes as well. Welch's chute was nearly shredded by the violent blast of air. With many panels blown out, the rate of descent was much too fast to avoid serious injury, or even death. When rescuers arrived at Welch's side, he was barely alive. He died before he could be transported to a hospital. Ironically, Yeager had complained that the F-100A, with its smaller vertical stabilizer, was dangerously unstable. Welch elected to fly it anyway"
Re:50 years from now... by VanillaCoke420 · 2003-12-17 18:23 · Score: 1

The reason I knew about him was probably because I've been madly interested in aerospace flight and read books and magazines and everything. Sometimes I do realize that lots of people don't know stuff like this. I once talked to some chick who hardly knew what the space shuttle was, even.
And to Scaled, I can only say "bloody well done!". Wow, I love that picture over at Space.com with the rocket engine ignited, the SpaceShipOne soaring upwards :-) "Beautiful" is hardly enough to describe it, but it will have to do.
Re:50 years from now... by Moofie · 2003-12-17 18:27 · Score: 1

Then the teachers, and the administrators, and the parents, aren't doing their job. It's as simple as that.

--
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Re:50 years from now... by Moofie · 2003-12-17 18:30 · Score: 1

Yes, I do. However, my parent's poster was lamenting lack of knowledge of a specific and (for purposes of a WHOLE LOT of discussions) trivial fact.

That's not to say that General Yeager's accomplishment is trivial...far from it. Watching The Right Stuff was one thing that motivated me to start learning about the science and art of aviation. However, to somebody without a particular interest in aviation, that is not a useful or important fact.

Concepts and timelines and gestalt are far more important than dates and facts. My favourite history teachers understood this, and taught that way.

--
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Re:50 years from now... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 19:00 · Score: 0

Moral: if Chuck Yeager is too chickenshit to fly a certain airplane, anyone else with the sense God gave a pumpkinseed roll will stay the fuck away from that airplane.

I guess that excludes this Welch guy, huh?
Re:50 years from now... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 20:05 · Score: 0

our allies would still respect us as the moral leader of the free world

The U.S.'s "allies" never respected it, and certianly never respected it as being the "moral leader of the free world." Anti-American resentment is no higher today than it was ten years ago. Thanks for playing.
Re:50 years from now... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 20:22 · Score: 0

I missed the memo indicating that the United States had the military capacity to invade every single country with a corrupt Government. I mean, here I thought you were making the morally bankrupt argument that because the U.S. can't do everything, it shouldn't do anything; little did I know that you were in fact making the well-founded argument that the U.S. is perfectly capable of bringing social and economic freedom to every single country on the face of the Earth. I would be thrilled if you could please provide me the numerous well-founded sources for which you made your enlightened argument.

As for Howard Dean, might I suggest that (as you probably didn't have him as a Governor) you find a number of his Switchboard (VPR program) appearances and listen to Dean before he decided adopting a far-left voice was the only way of separating himself from the dismal pack of Democratic candidates. I think you'll find that Dean was a moderate, fiscally responsible Democrat until he thought he could use populism to manipulate the poor, homosexuals, and white middle-class college students. If you want to replace a lying retarded monkey with a lying opportunist that's between you and the voting box, but suggesting that it was wrong to depose a Government that systematically tortured and murdered its citizenry because of your boring political affiliations is downright evil.
Re:50 years from now... by livingboy · 2003-12-17 21:03 · Score: 1

Lilienthal brothers also did remarkable work: http://www.lilienthal-museum.de/olma/eotto.htm
Re:50 years from now... by Graff · 2003-12-17 21:10 · Score: 1

Yeah there are considerably better claims to the title of "First in flight" than the Wright Brothers. Unfortunately we are stuck with an inaccurate account of history as usual. It just goes to show that history is written by the victors...

--
Sapere aude!
Re:50 years from now... by fucksl4shd0t · 2003-12-17 21:14 · Score: 1

I disagree, I'm all about fact retention.
I think you're all about anal retention. Give me my penis back!

--
Like what I said? You might like my music
Re:50 years from now... by fucksl4shd0t · 2003-12-17 21:18 · Score: 1

Sure the technology is different, but playing with small internal combustion engines in 1903 WAS rocket science.
Um, the Wright brother's didn't exactly "play" with small internal combustion engines. They played with gliders, and ultimately just gave specs to an engine builder they knew. They focussed on making a heavier-than-air craft that flew under its own power while the human operator remained in control.
Not to put to fine a point on it, that is...

--
Like what I said? You might like my music
Re:50 years from now... by fucksl4shd0t · 2003-12-17 21:21 · Score: 1

Calling Burt Rutan and the Scaled Composites team "home builders" is a pretty big insult. These guys do the engineering behind lots of home-built planes (e.g. Vari-Ez) making them work well and safely and built the first plane to fly around the world on one tank of gas. Small, yes. Small budget, yes. Unprofessional? NO
One of the issues we're up against as Free SOftware developers is the idea that "Home built" == unprofessional. It doesn't. So this guy saying that SC are a bunch of "home builders" is actually a compliment, if he fits a particular personality archetype that typically reads slashdot...

--
Like what I said? You might like my music
Re:50 years from now... by fucksl4shd0t · 2003-12-17 21:30 · Score: 1

Yeah there are considerably better claims to the title of "First in flight" than the Wright Brothers. Unfortunately we are stuck with an inaccurate account of history as usual. It just goes to show that history is written by the victors...
Every motorized flight that happened before the Wright Brothers was uncontrolled, and most of them crashed. It is true that the Wright Brothers didn't have the "first" motorized flight, but that's not even their record. The Wright Brothers had the first controlled, manned, and motorized flight. They combined the 3 principles of flight into one vehicle, and their model of flight is still used today. None of the other guys for whom history is being revised had either the accomplishment or the effect on the technology that the Wright Brothers had. They deserve their place in history exactly as it is.
The problem is that people read "first controlled motorized flight" and think "First flight", which is inaccurate. You, however, have helped to contribute to this inaccuracy with your revisionist history. Our account is accurate, it's the idiots reading the account that keep trying to screw it up.

--
Like what I said? You might like my music
Re:50 years from now... by Graff · 2003-12-17 22:12 · Score: 1

Every motorized flight that happened before the Wright Brothers was uncontrolled, and most of them crashed.

This is entirely untrue. If you will follow my earlier link concerning Whitehead you will see that his flight in 1901 was every bit as controlled as the Wrights' flight in 1903. In fact, it was more controlled since according to the accounts Whitehead travelled a longer distance and was able to bank to avoid some trees.

--
Sapere aude!
Re:50 years from now... by fucksl4shd0t · 2003-12-17 22:24 · Score: 1

Whitehead was a joke, and nothing but a two-bit con-man. Read this
Also read this for a thorough debunking of most of the other competitive claims. There is also a special section for Santos Dumont, the infamous Brazilian.
The closest to beating the Wrights were Samuel Langley and Charles Manly, working with government funding over the Potomac. It is a popular opinion among aeronautic historians that if the Wrights hadn't succeeded in 1903, Langley and Manly would have been first, possibly that same year. Coincidentally, there was a bit of collaboration between the Wrights and L & M.
But Whitehead was definitely a joke. :) A pretty funny one, too. I'm reminded of the Music Man whenever I hear about Whitehead. He was just selling boy's bands.

--
Like what I said? You might like my music
Re:50 years from now... by GooseKirk · 2003-12-17 22:33 · Score: 1

The 'why this nation and not that one' questions are extremely easy to answer, indeed. Every situation has its own nuances, of course, but make a list of nations that don't play ball with US corporations and a list of our "enemies" and, for better and worse, draw your own conclusions. The business of America is business. We're happy to be China's best friend and vice versa as long as the Red Army continues to own most of everything and the money keeps flowing. I sleep better at night knowing that the Chinese Army, no matter the political rhetoric coming from Beijing, has a very vested interest in not messing with us. But the point is, all the happy nationalist rah-rah aren't-we-glorious-altruistic-Americans is a fat sack of lies. We don't embargo Cuba because Castro's a bad, bad man, or because they're communists, or because we want the Cuban people to be 'free' or any of that crap. We embargo them because they won't play ball. And it's the jingoistic BS that prevents us from discussing these policies rationally.

As far as WMDs being the thin justification for an attempted restructuring of the MidEast, that's the stated goal of the PNAC crowd, and anyone who can read knows the WMD and terrorist issues were laboriously hyped excuses. There are lots of other factors that surely went into the decision process -- Israel wanted to get rid of Saddam, and it'd be foolish to let that oil get out from under us, etc. etc. But the only people on the planet who still seem to believe the laughably implausible lies are Americans. And as long as those lies continue to be believed true, they effectively prevent discussion on the real questions: was it moral, ethical, cost-effective, or even very smart? These are good and interesting and necessary questions.

But look at the childish answers Americans settle for. Saddam was a bad guy, the world's a better place without him, he was a threat to everyone... all of these things designed to make us feel scared and then grateful that he's gone, and that's end of story. And this is the best the most powerful nation on the planet can do? Why can't we discuss the real questions rationally, in the open, without all the BS? It's downright embarassing and more than a little disturbing. What couldn't these guys get away with, as long as they wrapped it in a flag?
Re:50 years from now... by ThosLives · 2003-12-18 00:45 · Score: 1

Most Americans care only about Americans, and screw everyone else.
Almost. Most Americans only care about themselves, not even other Americans. If you don't believe me, watch people drive, shop, or perform any other "routine" activity.

--
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
Re:50 years from now... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-18 01:29 · Score: 0

We stand on the shoulders of giants. That's the average person for you. But occasionally, someone sees one of those giants and says, "I can do that too." You see those heroes and you realize that you don't have to be trapped by the preconceptions that hold the rest of the world back.

I am glad that you were given a "5". That is an excellent saying. Great post!
Re:50 years from now... by autophile · 2003-12-18 02:31 · Score: 1

Look, Orville and Wilbur didn't do much out on those sand dunes. All they did was make a crappy little airplane not capable of flying in anything but a near direct headwind. It's a piece of crap as far as airplanes go and any kid today can make a better one with some balsa wood and a rubberband.
I'd like to see the kid who can build a "better one", capable of carrying one person, controlled, under the power of a single rubberband.
Remember, flight had been known for centuries, it was just uncontrolled and unpowered. The Wright brothers (and others in that time frame!) were the ones to demonstrate powered, controlled flight.
--Rob

--
Towards the Singularity.
Re:50 years from now... by belroth · 2003-12-18 02:32 · Score: 1

I wouldn't ever call a test pilot chickenshit.
These are the guys who map the safe flight envelope of a new plane - it's not as hard now with the advances in theory and computer modelling but it's still guys doing things with planes that no one else has done yet and living to tell about it.
It is a slow methodical investigation of the properties of the craft - not taking a new crate and see how she goes.
Remember the old saw: "There's old pilots and bold pilots, but no old bold pilots"

--
I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys.
Re:50 years from now... by protohiro1 · 2003-12-18 02:42 · Score: 1

Would you die to bring a "beacon of democracy" to the middle east? If you are not prepared to die for the cause for which you advocate war I think you are on extremely shaky moral ground. If those arguing for war are not ready to die for the cause no one should have to. Most soldiers, and many Americans, say they are ready to die to protect our nation and our freedom. How many would gladly give their lives to "[create a] beacon of Western style democracy" that "would probably influence the nations around Iraq pretty strongly" This is hardly a cause worth dieing for.

Back to less emotional arguments I understand what you just said is the basic Wolfowitz neo-conservative argument for war. They believe that the only effective way to bring peace and democracy to world is by force. Their argument for invading Iraq, no matter how well elucidated, does not work for me. It seems to forget that "acceptable casualties" are all actual human beings. It also makes the assumption that some how might makes right.

Because America is the most powerful nation our brand of democracy is desirable enough to kill people in order to spread. No matter how certain we are that our government is the best government we cannot assume (imho) that this gives us any right to enforce this government on others. Yes the former Iraqi regime was as close to indisputably awful as they come. But when we start advocating unilateral regime change we weaken the already tenuous international institutions designed to fairly adjudicate international action to protect the rights of all people on earth. It is very difficult for us to criticize other nations for their unilateral actions when we find no fault in our own.

Ok, that was rambling. My conclusions: (1)war kills people and I think it should be approached as the last, last option, not one chosen by finding weak opponents to spread our ideology. (2) Unilateral action strengthens the existing international view of America as fundamentally hypocritical, making future diplomacy even more difficult.

--
Sig removed because it was obnoxious
Re:50 years from now... by SlipJig · 2003-12-18 02:43 · Score: 1
I agree that learning facts is a secondary goal to learning skills, with the exception of some set of facts that everybody should know, as pointed out by other respondents. The *skills* a school should teach should include, IMHO, the following:
- Communication - people need to be able to communicate articulately. This includes good spelling and grammar in my opinion, as they contribute to clear communication (/.ers may disagree ;) I think this also includes reading comprehension.
- Reasoning - this includes deductive analysis, recognition of logical fallacies, etc.
- Study Skills - self-education
- Social Skills
However, skills need to be practiced. I think any good school uses facts and knowledge as a medium to practice those skills, so they become reflexive; so in that sense they're necessary.
--
Read my keyboard review.
Re:50 years from now... by Cyberkidd · 2003-12-18 02:45 · Score: 1

Just one comment about your post: Even today, the only people who fly faster then sound on a regular basis are Air Force pilots in their jets.
As far as I know, with the retiring of the concorde, there are no passenger jets that fly faster then sound during normal flight.

--
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
Re:50 years from now... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-18 02:57 · Score: 0

The Wrights did a far more important thing than build "a piece of crap": they brought good engineering discipline to aeronautics. For example, they created a wind tunnel to test various wing designs for lift. They also were the first to realize that a propellor could be view exactly as a wing.
Re:50 years from now... by LWATCDR · 2003-12-18 03:05 · Score: 1

Breaking the speed of sound was one of those singular events like the first heart transplant. It was one of the major events of the 20th Century.
Barnard
Fleming
Watson and Crick.
Einstien
Whittle
Moore
Goddard
Clark
Teller
Yeager
Hiesenburg SP?
Bohr
These people and many others have shaped our current world. If you think about it the fastest that man had traveled in 1949 was around 745mph by 1961 man had reached 18,000 mph and by 1968 25,000 The space program really started with Chuck Yeager in that little rocket plane. You could also say that it started 100 years ago with two brothers from Ohio.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Re:50 years from now... by stry_cat · 2003-12-18 03:27 · Score: 1

I find it more ironic that the very goverment that told kids to be astronauts and rocket scientists has a problem with them Actually being astronauts and rocket scientists WITHOUT govt help!
It's not ironic. The government's purpose now is to control people. Unlike the past where governemt was only to protect our life, liberty, and property.
Re:50 years from now... by Shihar · 2003-12-18 03:39 · Score: 1

I really was not advocating war, just explaining the reason for it. I think the justification I gave is the one that Bush's team uses. I was just pointing out that WMDs was just the excuse, and not the real reason.

As to the actual morality of it, I don't think you can simply approach it as 'war kills people'. 'Not war' also kills people. Sanctions for instance kill people, and in fact kill far more then any US lead war in Iraq could. The difference is that instead of people dying from bullets, they die to weakened immune systems from malnutrition, poor medical equipment, or because they didn't have enough power or money to run an AC and grandma died. That doesn't even include the people who died for political reasons. The war probably saved lives. I think the absolute worst high end projections for the Iraq war put it at 10,000 deaths including combatants and civilians. That is pocket change next to what sanctions and Saddam killed.

The bigger issues with war is that it is forcing your will upon someone, it is expensive for Americans, and Americans die.

The forcing of will doesn't really bother me much. Yeah, so the US is forcing their style of government down Iraq's throat. Saddam was forcing his style of government down their throat as well. Both governments were run through forcing one's will upon the people. So, you might as well just pick the government that was 'more good' despite the fact that both are founded on force. I would say the US government in Iraq is 'more good' because it generally tries to avoid mass executions and respects the will of the people more so then Saddam's government. You can protest the US lead government and you won't be gunned down unless someone pulls out a gun. Further, the US troops are going to leave one day and hopefully a democracy will be left in its place. This seems more good then a brutal dictator who also used force to stay in power. Both used force, but I would call the US force the lesser of two evils.

The real issue fore me would be the cost in American lives and money. I hate to sound callus, but the cost in American lives doesn't bother me much either. We have not lost a lot of lives. Significantly more Americans die to alcohol then war. That is no consolation to someone who has lost someone, but if society is willing to put with the cost in lives of alcohol, then I don't see why it can't put up with the cost in lives of Iraq. Further, if you are in the armed forces it is understood that you are taking the risk that you will have to fight for the nations interests. Everything is done to avoid the risk of death in the armed forces, but the guns are not just for show, and it should be well understood that the armed forces are not just there for defense of the nations borders. If they were, we would have a much smaller military. So, anyone who has gone in has accepted that they could potentially be used as they are being used in Iraq. It comes with the job.

Finally, there is the issue of money. To me, this is the biggest pause. Iraq is an investment. The investment is good if Iraq one day turns out like Japan. All the money spent on the occupation of Japan was made up and then a thousand times over in trade and technology. Japan and Germany are examples of nations that were occupied that we would happily do again simply because it turned out so good. The converse of Japan and Germany would Vietnam, Haiti, and Somalia. Those are nations that the US occupied, paid a high price, and at the end of the day they are still a mess.

Was the Iraqi war worth it? I don't think we will know for at least another 10-30 years. If 30 years from now Iraq looks like Japan in the desert, I imagine everyone would agree it was completely worth it. If 30 years from now Iraq looks like Vietnam, then this was a total waste of lives and money. The jury is still out as far as I am concerned. If the decision had been mine to make, I wouldn't have been strongly pushed in either direction. I understand booth sides, but both sides are just guessing blindly at the future. It is a gamble, only time will tell if it was a good one.
Re:50 years from now... by hesiod · 2003-12-18 03:47 · Score: 1

> Dubya's America - School where you're tested on fact regurtitation rather than on the ability to learn.

You're an idiot. "Dubya" hasn't been in long enough to really change anything in schools. It has been about fact regurgitation since before I was there, so shut your fucking trolling hole.
Re:50 years from now... by Shadowmist · 2003-12-18 04:11 · Score: 2, Informative

Actually the contribution was controlled powered flight . in a heavier than air craft. Santos Dumont had already made a name for himself in his daily routine of flying to Maxim's (high deal night club in Paris) each night, checking his vehicle, a homemade dirigible, with the doorman. (the invention of valet parking?) There had been several tests with powered flight as well. The contribution of the Wright brothers was "wing warping" a predecessor to modern ailerons which made stable turns possible.

The Wrights didn't think that much of their invention although they defended their patents fiercely enough to retard American progress for quite some time. They apparantly considered air flight impractical for any use save the one they actively marketed it for.... warfare.
Re:50 years from now... by WolfWithoutAClause · 2003-12-18 04:19 · Score: 1

I know plenty of people who flew Concorde; they were pretty ordinary. It was expensive, but not that expensive. A special occasion, not outrageous expense. Also you could get charter flights, they were even cheaper.
Maybe 800 pounds (~$1200) one way from London to New York (going the other way was much more expensive, because it avoided the overnight red-eye, and tended to be booked out.)

--
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
Re:50 years from now... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-18 04:59 · Score: 0

Of course not, he's a white guy.

If he had been black, his face would be on the 3 dollar bill.

No, seriously, schools try to balance history...they'll say "Thomas Jefferson was a brilliant inventor, politician, blah blah, he wrote the declaration of independance, was the 3rd president"

Then, they'll have a side bar that says "Sam Jones was a man of color who invented the vacuum cleaner. Isn't that neat!!!!".

Seriously, I'm making up the example, but I'm not exaggerating.
Re:50 years from now... by OwnedByTwoCats · 2003-12-18 05:10 · Score: 1

powered, heavier-than-air flight.

The powered, steerable, lighter-than-air dirigible came before the Wright Flyer.

The Wright Brothers were the first with powered, controllable heavier-than-air flight. They were also the first ones to fly in a circle, in 1904. Land back where you took off.
Re:50 years from now... by tiger99 · 2003-12-18 05:18 · Score: 1

Correction! Ordinary people no longer fly faster than sound on a regular basis.
Sorry to be pedantic, but Concorde has gone....
Re:50 years from now... by OwnedByTwoCats · 2003-12-18 05:21 · Score: 1

Saddam Hussein never threw out the inspectors.

Why do you think he did?
Re:50 years from now... by OwnedByTwoCats · 2003-12-18 05:45 · Score: 1

The Wrights shopped their engine specs around to a few different engine builders. None of them thought that their requirements could be met. They had a machinist on staff (remember the bicycle business?), Charles Taylor (not the Liberian dictator), who thought he could do better. And he did.
Re:50 years from now... by GooseKirk · 2003-12-18 08:06 · Score: 1

And any gambler will look at the odds. Personally, I'd say the odds of Iraq dissolving into warring factions or being run by a brutal oppressive regime within a few years are very high, and the odds of a Germany or Japan style success are astronomically low.

A quick comparison check will of course show that the US government is preferable to Saddam's, but that doesn't necessarily mean that in the real world, us forcing a government on Iraq is going to produce results that are qualitatively 'better.' There are tons of variables in Iraq - political, cultural, economic, etc. - that need to be accounted for in advance if you're going to try to work out that equation. I honestly don't think anyone in a decision-making capacity on this thing bothered to do that - they naively assumed that, of course, our way is going to be better than Saddam, and with the shyster Chalabi there to egg them on, well...

But it's still difficult for me to believe that all these guys had such profound faith in the geopolitics of the thing. Maybe I'm too generous, but it seems doubtful that these guys really are that incredibly deluded. I can't shake the feeling that the meeting went something like this:

Wolfowitz: We all know Saddam's a bad guy and a real pain in our Israeli side, and we can easily take him out without anyone pitching a huge fit. We'll have a good shot at snipping OPEC's balls for good and casting a big, deep shadow across the rest of the region. Now, maybe we can transform the MidEast into a sane, happy place, or maybe we can't, but at least in the short run we'll be heroes and us and our golf buddies will be rich, rich, and rich.

Bush: Any chance it'll turn into a clusterfuck?

[Rummy, Perle, Wolfowitz and Cheney exchange sideways glances]

Wolfowitz: Mmmmnnooooo.

Bush: Woo-hoo! I wanna land on an aircraft carrier! Number one, make it so!

Cheney: Yeah, keep calling me that, Shrubby McDrunk.

Bush: Sorry. Sir.
Re:50 years from now... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-18 17:47 · Score: 0

Yes. There is even very old movie footage from when they were trying to sell a version of their plane to the US Army Signal Corps, flying around and around for quite some time.

But the Wrights were a bit too geeky. It took people with a bit more of a barnstorming streak in them, like Curtis, to take the idea and really fly [sic] with it.

Curtis did more for nascent aviation in the US than the Wright bros did, although it was the Wright Bros who got it off the ground.
Re:50 years from now... by ralphclark · 2003-12-19 00:16 · Score: 2, Interesting

The U.S.'s "allies" never respected it
Yes we did.
and certianly never respected it as being the "moral leader of the free world.
We did, to a point. Most of the time we were at least prepared to look the other way.
Anti-American resentment is no higher today than it was ten years ago
You could hardly be more wrong. To be honest the US had already lost a lot of respect when Bush stole the presidency, but that would have been recoverable had he proved in the end to be a good man. Instead, though, his hawkish response to the 9/11 terrorist attack, attempting to blow up a single incident into a world war, didn't go down well in Europe.
You may not realize that in the UK we have already lived with terrorism for thirty years and suffered numerous horrifying atacks without either attempting to drag the rest of the world into it, or attempting to invade any other sovereign country. We believe in proportionate response. Clearly, the US government doesn't though. It has behaved in this matter more like a psychopathic criminal who breaks people's legs for failing to show sufficient respect.
It should be obvious to you that this makes the US appear rather dangerous and irresponsible to the rest of the world. Governments who contine to ally themselves with the US now do so only out of fear and self interest rather than through any sense of moral alignment. For the peoples of these countries however the situation is much less ambiguous, and hence the numerous public demonstrations, for example the very large crowd who assembled to protest when Bush came to visit the UK recently. The US will not be able to regain the respect of the world until after Bush, and his corrupt establishment, have gone.
Some anonymous cowards will no doubt want to respond along the lines of "well we can kick your ass". But fear is not the same as respect. And most people don't believe "might is right" to be a moral standpoint. If the US does, then the US only shares the morality of gangsters and bullies.
Re:50 years from now... by ralphclark · 2003-12-19 00:19 · Score: 1

(My apologies and support, of course, go to those free thinking Americans who don't support the policies of their current government).
Re:50 years from now... by ninewands · 2003-12-19 06:21 · Score: 1

You forgot Shockley, Bardeen & Britain ... without whom /. would not exist

--
utter rubbish
Re:50 years from now... by brokenbeaker · 2003-12-19 06:35 · Score: 1

I'm not sure about the 1947 date... Yes, that is when the X1 intentionally broke the sound barrier, but does anyone know if it's possible that an earlier aircraft accidentally broke the sound barrier? say, a WW II jet, on a steep, full power dive (again, intentional or not) ?

i remember reading a story about a Mirage fighter firing its cannon while in a power dive - and hitting itself, as the jet was faster than it's bullets...
Re:50 years from now... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-19 08:21 · Score: 0

People have flown in hot air balloons in a semi-controlled fashion since the Montgolfier brothers first manned balloon flight in 1783.
Some glider flights were made in the 19th and early 20th century, including Cayley's "boy-carrier" glider in 1849.
In 1900 the first airship, LZ-1, was flown by Count Ferdinand von Zeppelin. This achieved sustained controlled manned flight. Control of direction was by propellers so it was also powered flight in a sense of the word.
What the Wright brothers achieved in 1903 was the first sustained powered controlled manned flight in a heavier-than-air machine.
Re:50 years from now... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-19 09:18 · Score: 0

and 500+ dead American soldiers would still be alive, another 2000+ would remain healthy and un-maimed,

Actually the most recent figure I have seen for non-fatal casualties is 6000+ not 2000.

But what shocked me about your posting is that you only mention Americans. What about the thousands of Iraqis, many of them civilians, killed and maimed? The American dead in Iraq are mostly soldiers. They implicitly knew the risks when they signed up. The Iraqi women and kids didn't sign up. They just got their limbs blown off, parents killed etc because G.W. Bush decided to invade their country. The life of an Iraqi child is worth every bit as much as the life of an American child.
Re:50 years from now... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-19 16:24 · Score: 0

Not to disagree with your comments, but which "airplanes" exacctly were able to fly as much as 200 feet? Not any of the gliders I was aware of, nor the aerodrome.
Re:50 years from now... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-20 15:40 · Score: 0

No, School should be about teaching you ***HOW TO LEARN***, not "studying things that you're interested in".

I'm interested in eating clams. Please, oh please, teach me what I'm interested in.

Idiot.
Re:50 years from now... by thirdrock · 2003-12-22 14:11 · Score: 1

Good post. Just one thing ....

You may not realize that in the UK we have already lived with terrorism for thirty years and suffered numerous horrifying atacks without either attempting to drag the rest of the world into it, or attempting to invade any other sovereign country.

One could say that Northern Ireland was under military occupation, even though it wasn't 'invaded'.

--
>>
I am the director, and this is my movie ...
Re:50 years from now... by CaptainAvatar · 2003-12-22 16:42 · Score: 1

Interestingly, it has been claimed that in fact the Wrights did not fly an aeroplane in 1903 - they were flying a glider that happened to have an engine in it (that is, it was too underpowered to be called an aeroplane). Yes, the claim is being made by a Brazilian who wishes to give priority to Santos-Dumont but speaking as a history grad who is involved in researching early aviation, the claims are not without merit. There were only 5 witnesses to the flight besides the Wrights themselves and none of them were qualified to judge the difference between gliding and powered flight.
Moreover, it always struck me as odd that having acheived this momentous feat, they mothballed the Flyer for a couple of years and went back to Dayton to try and sell it, being incredibly secretive in the process - they wanted governments to buy it without letting their experts watch it in flight first! This could be the mark of con men; the alternative explanation is that they beleived they had such a head start on the rest of the world that the US, UK, etc would have to pay up. But if so they miscalculated - only in 1908 did they start publicly demonstrating their craft by which time they were no longer ahead of the game, and the French overtook them while the Wrights stagnated. They never really got the financial return they thought they'd earned.
Not really sure what to make of the idea yet, but the Wrights are not my area of interest as such.
PS I find it hard to believe that Langley's contraption could ever fly. See Hallion on this IIRC.

--
The real Captain Avatar is a fictional character, so I suppose he doesn't mind if I impersonate him.
Re:50 years from now... by fucksl4shd0t · 2003-12-22 18:28 · Score: 1

They didn't exactly go and try to sell their plane. The Flyer didn't exactly fly much. :) This link has more information on the years after the first Kitty Hawk flight.

Most good skeptics doubt the Wright Brothers' flight, and I doubt the flight itself as well, actually. The thing is, they weren't up for long, and they couldn't repeat the feat without building a new airplane, and they developed their catapult system. THey later proved they didn't need the catapult to launch, but they did need it in the early days, and they didn't have it at Kitty Hawk. Why would their first plane not need a catapult, but their third plane did? The Flyer II, as you indicated, never flew.

The Wrights' made a few mistakes, and are one of the well-known examples for intellectual property hording and how it backfires. IN the end, the only way they managed to make any money off their invention (outside of winning prizes similar to the X-Prize) was in their school. They spent too much time fighting over the technology and not enough time advancing it. There's a very important lesson in there that is every bit applicable to the world of software today.

Interesting.

November 12 - Albertos Santos-Dumont, France, flies 722 feet in his 14-Bis. This is considered the first true flight of a powered aircraft in Europe.

He does get a claim to fame, after all. :) And he was quite a pioneer in the area of flight.

Hmm, I read some more on Langley, and you might be right about his craft not flying. His aerodrome had two sets of wings, one fore and one aft (do they use those naval terms for planes? ;) ), and a motor in the middle with propellors on each end. Presumably he just strapped props onto the crank on both sides of the engine. Looks like he picked one of the more powerful engines of the time, and it may have been more powerful than the Wrights', but I haven't found specs on the Wrights'. Anyway, it also looks like he hadn't figured out how to control it because he spent his time focusing on propulsion, where the Wrights worked on control first.

Interesting enough, Langley tried to contact the Wrights and they blew him off. Looks like if they had put their minds together, let Langley put together propulsion while the Wrights worked out control, they might have been able to build the first flyer and fly it to London. ;)

As far as this brazilian wanting to make Santos-Dumont the first flyer, yes he has a slant. :) In the article you referenced, he asks us to redefine what makes the first "true airplane". If I were to cite a "first true airplane", I'd have to say one that could fly as long as it had fuel. And the Frenchies and the Wrights seemed to be very close to one another, close enough that it's highly likely that whoever we credit, we'll be wrong. The other thing is "public demonstration". As far as the Wrights were concerned, they demonstrated publicly at Kitty Hawk in 1903 that they could fly. SO they didn't "publicly" demonstrate again until 1908, they did privately demonstrate for the military and sell the first military planes before then.

IN the end, it all comes with a grain of salt. Whether or not the Wrights' first flyer flew doesn't make a lot of difference in the grand scheme of things. They showed that it can be done, and it was done. They also trained the first pilots, which is a big deal. They also made a lot of bad business decisions which meant that they could only claim the first flight, but they didn't get to claim getting rich off their invention becuase they spent too much time fighting the "bad guys". I always wonder who were the bad guys in the Wrights' world...

--
Like what I said? You might like my music
Re:50 years from now... by ralphclark · 2003-12-23 10:49 · Score: 1

Northern Ireland was an existing situation with a long history, from which the UK government has been desperate to withdraw for a long time. More akin to the situation the US faces in Iraq now, rather than the situation it faced in September 2001.

No kidding by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 11:52 · Score: 5, Funny

The Duke Nukem: Forever team has been working on a fusion reactor in their spare time. We can all see what that did to that project's timeline.

Re:No kidding by Luigi30 · 2003-12-17 12:58 · Score: 2, Funny

Will the game be powered by the Fusion Reactor Engine?

--
503 Sig Unavailable

The Signature could not be accessed. Please try again later or contact the administrator
Re:No kidding by OverlordQ · 2003-12-17 20:57 · Score: 1

Sad thing about it is that no matter what they come up with, it will be a letdown after all this wait.

--
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
Re:No kidding by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 21:23 · Score: 0

Wadda ya mean?

They all stopped waiting and went home.
But they were all waiting at home already!?

What can it mean?

Truely amazing to even think about by dnaboy · 2003-12-17 11:52 · Score: 4, Insightful

The fact that people are willing to take a shot at this takes some serious huevos. When you think about the amount of cash, for one that goes into the design phase alone, sooner or later someone must scratch their head and ask if this is really worth it. Pair that with the need for such nontrivial things as ummm...say...cooking up rocket engines and rocket fuel. Then, last but not least, after you've designed something that seems like it ought to work, cooked up some engines, and a fuselage (not cheap either), you have to convince someone to get in it... Truely amazing. The absolute best of luck, and all my respect to all participating in the contest

Re:Truely amazing to even think about by jdray · 2003-12-17 13:04 · Score: 1

I think Carmack plans to do the whole project for less than $2M. Now, that's a lot of money to me, at least for my personal bank account (as is $2K), but to someone who plans to develop new technology, fly to "the edge of space," and get a check for $10M after his second return trip, it's a reasonable investment. And, even if they don't win the prize, they've still got marketable technology that they've developed.

--
The Spoon
Updated 6/28/2011
Re:Truely amazing to even think about by Timbotronic · 2003-12-17 13:45 · Score: 2, Interesting

Having Burt Rutan in charge is the real key here. Design costs? He's probably the best aircraft designer alive and he's doing it for fun. Fabrication costs? Scaled have been producing experimental composite aircraft for years. They have their own CAD/CAM system and an autoclave to produce parts. They also have a highly experienced team of test pilots.
The biggest cost for them will be the rocket system which they had to contract out. For the most part though, the whole production is a side benefit of all the commercial and government work that funds Scaled. So in some ways there's still a government subsidy of sorts in there.

--
One of these days I'm moving to Theory - everything works there
Re:Truely amazing to even think about by maroberts · 2003-12-18 01:02 · Score: 1

Not quite true. You are overlooking staff costs, often the most expensive component of a team. While Rutan may be doing it for fun, you still have to keep the weenies paid. Even if they are working for you already, you are taking their time from projects that earn the company revenue.

--
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon

Re:space race by sagarsanghani · 2003-12-17 11:53 · Score: 1

Can't wait for the day NASA starts to outsource the space program!

Future of manned space flight by Hurklefish · 2003-12-17 11:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

This is big breakthrough for this team. As soon as I heard Rutan was in the mix, I figured these folks were the ones to watch. Even if they do win the X prize, however, what will the impact on manned space flight be? imho, manned space flight is never going to get anywhere until private companies discover a way to make a profit by putting people into space. Sattelites were pretty much a scientific curiousity, or for research, until the profit making possibilities with communications sat's became known. Once there was a way to make a profit, you started seeing all kinds of stuff going up, and a variety of launch systems to get it there. What will be the big money maker that will make human space flight profitable? Is space tourism a sufficient driving force? I think the cost will have to come down to well below 20 million a ticket before that's the case.

Re:Future of manned space flight by putaro · 2003-12-17 13:33 · Score: 1

How about fixing sattelites? It doesn't make sense when you have to spend billions to go retrieve a sattelite costing millions, but if you can get your cost down to $1 million per launch, it might start making sense to go out and repair sattelites or assemble bigger ones in orbit.
Re:Future of manned space flight by ckaminski · 2003-12-17 14:33 · Score: 1

Right, but you didn't see ANY commercial satellites until there were proven, relatively reliable launchers already available, thanks to the government subsidies given to the aerospace primes... Tourism to start, rich, affluent travellers looking for something 'separate from the ordinary', like the original flyers of yesteryear.
Re:Future of manned space flight by fucksl4shd0t · 2003-12-17 22:34 · Score: 1

Is space tourism a sufficient driving force?
No.
I'll tell you why. :) Space tourism based on X-prize technology will get you on a pretty neat craft and then take you 100km up, and then bring you back. If you're lucky, the other tourist on the plane will cancel and you'll have a place to carry your camera.
Roller-coaster rides sell because they're cheap. Even then, many coasters still have to have at least 1/4th attendance to make money on a specific run. The only immediate result of the X-prize in this ambiguous "Space Tourism" industry amounts to a very expensive roller-coaster ride with a nice view of the earth at the top. Bragging rights are about all you get out of it, until lots of people have taken the same ride. Then your bragging rights aren't anything special.
Space tourism is not a self-sustainable industry. In fact, tourism is not self-sustainable and rides on the backs of other industries. Whoever heard of going to Alamogordo, NM just to look at the International Space Hall of Fame and take a gander at the Clyde W. Tombaugh Planetarium while you're there? No-fucking-body. You go there to visit your family, or ski, or something, and the other tourist traps in the other are just part of the package. In Space Tourism that results from the X-prize contest, you don't have a complete package. You have a thrill-ride.
To my thinking, there is no single industry that will sustain commercial space flight. Several industries will be required, depending on a few factors. First, we need to have a reason to get there. The moon is the most obvious place to go next and put people, living and breathing. To do that, we need agriculture on the moon, as well as power. Assume that atmosphere will be taken care of by either/both of those two. But those are just industries that would be local to the moon. If we could beam power back from the moon, there's one possible industry. Fission reactors on the moon where a melt-down won't mutate an entire generation of kids.
Other possibilites are industries that pollute. If managed well, they could do their polluting on the moon. I'm not saying I favor that idea, because pollution is generally something to avoid. But if Heinlein had his catapult figured out right (an idea that has been presented in other places besides sci-fi), shipping from the Moon would be pretty cheap. The only issue is whether or not the materials to sustain the industry can otherwise be found on the moon, because shipping them up from Earth would make it prohibitively expensive.
Other manufacturing possibilities exist, and all revolve around what minerals and metals and stuff are to be found on the moon. Perhaps some lunar geologist can chime in with more information here.
Communication is a possibility, I think. Although it may not be a huge possibility, considering the monthly cycles of the moon and even the daily cycle.
The obvious industry for the moon is ship-building, but that implies that we have other places in the solar system to go that require mass production of ships on the moon.
Militarily, the moon holds more possibility. But as a world we have a certain common interest in preventing any single military from monopolizing the moon. If we could build military air-craft that didn't depend on atmosphere or gravity, then the moon would offer itself for R&D. For that matter, the moon is a vast resource for R&D of most kinds, so long as it isn't atmosphere or gravity dependent.
Personally, I think that all the space-faring nations of the world have screwed up as far as the moon is concerned, the US more than the rest (since we've already been there). There should already be at least one observatory and a lab & research complex that requires thousands of workers already in place on the moon. That would require a shipping infrastructure, mostly earth->moon, post mail, communication, and other stuff. It would also require the standard set of professions for maintaining a research facility, as well as a few moon-specific professions. With such a facility already in place it would be a lot easier to comb through everything that is known about the moon to find commercially feasible businesses to pursue on the moon.

--
Like what I said? You might like my music
Re:Future of manned space flight by fucksl4shd0t · 2003-12-17 22:40 · Score: 1

Hm, I forgot to mention that I think the single most useful technology that might come out of the X-prize will be semi-ballistic travel. If the Doom guy manages to make his spaceship into something that can carry 100+ people from NY to Auckland, then there's a real possibility of making intercontinental travel fast enough and cheap enough that it will be worth doing more, and it's already fast and cheap enough that a new technology here will have to be damn competitive.

--
Like what I said? You might like my music
Re:Future of manned space flight by Vulch · 2003-12-17 23:00 · Score: 1

If you can get your launch costs way down low, and can put together a launch at short notice, it doesn't make sense to to repair or retrieve satellites at all.

Instead of spending 250 million for an ultra reliable satellite and 50 million for a launch, you spend 5 million on a fairly reliable satellite and one million on the launch and build a couple of spares. First one breaks, so what? A quick check that whatever went is OK on your spare and up it goes.

Re:For those that haven't used imperial for ages.. by morcheeba · 2003-12-17 11:57 · Score: 3, Informative

And in this case, kilometers makes extra sense, since the informal "edge of space" definition is 100km. (Otherwise, 330,000 feet seems like a totally arbitrary number)

km is also good for the circumference of the earth... it's 40,000km because an original definition of a km was that 10,000 of them was the average distance from the earth's pole to the equator.

--
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets

Aerospace progress by wrmrxxx · 2003-12-17 11:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

How about this for an impressive indicator of technological progress? In the earlier story about the 100 year anniversary of powered flight there were comments suggesting that progress in aerospace seemed slow lately. Maybe we're on the verge of another surge forward?

It wasn't that long ago that the sound barrier was really considered a barrier - people involved in breaking the sound barrier are still around. Back then, it was a major effort that was incredibly risky and took the resources of a government to achieve. At the time, plenty of people wondered if it was really even possible.

Now, however, we see a small private company break the sound barrier on their first major rocket powered test flight, as if it's no big deal. We've come a long way. Nice one, Scaled Composites!

Further Link @ SpaceRef by anzha · 2003-12-17 11:58 · Score: 4, Informative

Here's another one.

With any luck we'll see regular manned access to space within the next ten years without a government involved. The X Prize and its follow-ons will be the equivalent of the barnstorming acts of yesteryear.

With any luck at least...

--
Do you know why the road less traveled by is littered with the bones of the unwary?

Re:For those that haven't used imperial for ages.. by red+floyd · 2003-12-17 12:01 · Score: 1

ecause an original definition of a km was that 10,000 of them was the average distance from the earth's pole to the equator.

I thought the original km wasn't defined as an average, but specifically as 1/10000th of the distance from the North Pole to the Equator, along the line of longitude passing through Paris.

--
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy

Re:space race by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 12:01 · Score: 0

If you want NASA to do it, it'll cost well over $50 billion.

If you don't want NASA to do it ... well, enjoy your pipe dream.

The fact remains that the x-prize contenders are not even getting particularly close to the x-prize. If you think a garage spaceship will make it to the moon in your (or your grandchildren's) lifetime, you need to scale back on the sci-fi reading and walk around in the real world sometime.

Frequent Flyer Miles by LeiGong · 2003-12-17 12:02 · Score: 3, Funny

It's great that we're gonna finally be able eventually travel to the moon and all... but all of my frequent flyer miles are now freakin' useless... It took me forever save up these thousands of miles with Delta too. I'm still 230,000 miles sort. Dang.

Not That Amazing, But Important by reallocate · 2003-12-17 12:04 · Score: 1

Getting people into space -- no matter how you get there or who pays for it -- is of transcendent importance, so I'm not inclined to quibble about the efforts of the X-Prize competitors.

But, let's not get carried away. Using a small rocket to power a small aircraft to a tad over Mach 1 and then coasting up to 68,000 feet is not amazing. That's been going on for 50 years or so.

What happened today is important because it was the first time SpaceShipOne was powered up, if only for 15 seconds.

I'm waiting for privately funded manned orbital flight. That'll be the real deal.

--
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"

Re:Not That Amazing, But Important by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 12:59 · Score: 0

let me guess...you're some arrogant phd type..right?

i'd give $500 to see john carmack listen to your little speech, then kick you in the balls and crack your fucking head wide open.

>>That's been going on for 50 years or so.

by governments.
Re:Not That Amazing, But Important by reallocate · 2003-12-18 02:02 · Score: 1

let me guess...you're some arrogant phd type..right?

Nope. Did I use too many syllables for you?

i'd give $500 to see john carmack listen to your little speech, then kick you in the balls and crack your fucking head wide open.

John Carmack? John Carmack?

>>That's been going on for 50 years or so.

by governments

True, but so what? Technology is technology.

--
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"

Re:space race by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 12:04 · Score: 0

NASA does outsource the space program. That's a big reason why the shuttle exploded earlier this year. The private sector was too cheap to do maitenence.

Grump grump . . . by Java+Ape · 2003-12-17 12:05 · Score: 2, Funny

First, I really want to cheer these guys on, this is a great achievement, and I hope the champagne corks are popping all over Scaled Composite's.
On the other hand, I visited their site from a server running 800x600, and I really hope they hire a web-site designer someday. Ack! There's a huge static graphic in the top frame, and a tiny window for THE REST OF THE SITE. I mean, I can read like 3 lines of text! This graphic may be fine for a splash screen, but it makes it impossible to read the content! The only thing they could do to improve it is jam it full of flash and add a few blink tags, then it would be PERFECT!

Burt Rutan by miracle69 · 2003-12-17 12:06 · Score: 3, Insightful

This dude is the M-A-N.

He's the one that built the Voyager - the round-the-world-on-one-tank-of-gas turboprop plane. He used an Apple IIe to help make the plane as efficient as possible.

Not only is he working on this, but his building a plane to try a round-the-world-on-one-tank-of-gas solo jet plane.

This guy will get it done.

--
Linux - Because Mommy taught me to Share.

Spacecraft and aircraft are not the same! by fruitbatUK · 2003-12-17 12:07 · Score: 1

According to Space.com, Scaled Composite's SpaceShipOne flew its first rocket-powered flight today, the 100th anniversary of the Wright Brothers' 12-second first flight.

Lots of commentators on the news and slashdot have been linking spacecraft and aircraft. Why? What's the connection? Rockets (at least in the form of fireworks) preceeded manned aeroplanes, though stories I've read today would have you believe that spaceflight is a development of aeroplanes. True, they often share the same technology but the physics are different - one uses smart aerodynamics and the other brute force!

Re:Spacecraft and aircraft are not the same! by Dolphinzilla · 2003-12-17 12:22 · Score: 2, Informative

In this case they are - Spaceship One is a glider with a rocket engine. I was fortunate enough to personally see Mike Melville pilot the Spaceship One back in November during a test of the feathering feature - I saw him dive the aircraft and then pull it up until it stalled (planned) and then effortlessly recover and glide into a perfect landing in Mojave - Spacehip One is one heck of an "aircraft" but its also tight and strong enough to survive the vacuum of space.

Congratulations Scaled Composite's and Burt Rutan you guy's are truly making history !!
Re:Spacecraft and aircraft are not the same! by physicsnerd · 2003-12-17 12:54 · Score: 2, Informative

Space craft and aircraft are extremely closely related through aerodynamics. Basically with a plane you have a fluid flowing over a wing, this produces lift. With a rocket engine you have a fluid moving through a nozzle which produces thrust. While on the surface they sound like two totally different problems, the much of the underlying aerodynamics / physics is the same. Both problems deal with a compressible fluid flowing around different surfaces. The two are so closely related that aerodynamics is almost always a prerequisite for any rocket propulsion course.
It's true that rockets predate the airplane by at least several hundred years. But early rockets were just a bunch of gun powder in a tube with a fuse. Yes, there was a lot of experimentation to figure out how to make a rocket fly and to predict where it went. But frankly early rockets never had much control or accuracy. It wasn't until the field of aerodynamics that we really started to understand how the internals of a chemical rocket worked. While rocket's my use a "brute force" method to accomplish their goals, the design of the rockets themselves relies heavily upon aerodynamics.
Re:Spacecraft and aircraft are not the same! by twiddlingbits · 2003-12-17 13:43 · Score: 1

So are the Space Shuttles :) They glide like a brick though and are not really maneurverable like the SS1. Rutan has one hell of a shot at the prize.
Re:Spacecraft and aircraft are not the same! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 13:59 · Score: 0

Yeah and paper airplanes preceded firworks. They're linked because they both involve human transportation at great speed, something very important to us.
Re:Spacecraft and aircraft are not the same! by ckaminski · 2003-12-17 14:37 · Score: 1

That and some guidance control technology. :-)
Re:Spacecraft and aircraft are not the same! by physicsnerd · 2003-12-17 15:15 · Score: 1

Minor details...
Re:Spacecraft and aircraft are not the same! by grozzie2 · 2003-12-17 16:42 · Score: 3, Informative

Lots of commentators on the news and slashdot have been linking spacecraft and aircraft. Why?
Actually, if you look at the development process, you'll see why the link. Early spacecraft were totally unrelated to aircraft. Capsules designed specifically to support life in the vaccuum of space. The only aerodymanics involved were those required for re-entry. A 3 dimensional shape profile was developed that met 2 requirements. The vehicle would have high drag on re-entry, required for deceleration, and the vehicle would fly stable, thru a stable trajectory, required to make the whole process surviveable.
As technology develped (and is still developing) it was determined, that transition thru the atmosphere is actually a major phase of flight for any spacegoing vehicle, so, the process of merging spacecraft and aircraft began. The space shuttle was the first such hybrid. A space mission profile was developed, and a craft for that profile was designed. The whole craft was then wrapped inside an aerodymanic package that turned it into a flyable aircraft. Finally, a boost system was strapped on that could actually boost the whole package into orbit. This was basically an engineering approach of 'take a spacecraft and wrap it up to be an airplane'.
The Spaceship one project took the other tack on the problem. Start with an airplane, and harden it up enough to withstand exposure to space. That brought along some interesting aerodymanic problems on the re-entry phase, where the fluids are so thin, that 'normal' aerodymanics dont really apply till it gets considerably lower. Propulsion is also different in this case, the aircraft propulsion system cannot rely on parasitic oxidizers enroute, since it's not in the part of the atmosphere where O2 is a readily available commodity in the quantities required. Typical engines (piston and jet) rely on being able to use oxidizers parasitically from local atmosphere where they are travelling.
There was a time we had an aeronautical industry, and we had a space industry. There is convergence happening, and thats why today, it's referred to as simply the aerospace industry. Aerodymanics is all about efficiency, and there is no more efficient medium for an 'airplane' to operate in than the zero drag realms of inner space. The problem so far is, the cost of propulsion to reach that realm is prohibitive, so building jets that fly in the 35 to 50 thousand foot altitude range is the best compromise economically. The drag is reduced, thereby reducing the cost of propulsion, yet there's still enough O2 available to run those jets, so the vehicle doesn't have to carry oxidizer, just fuel.
Everyone seems to think the race is about 'get to space', and the X-prize is the goal. Its not. X-prize sets a performance point that is an arbitrary milestone on the development path, and is some inspiration, but not a lot, to this type of development. The cost of achieving the altitude in question twice, in two weeks, far exceeds the value of the prize. This is why the Rutan project is going to win, and there is no way it can be stopped. Even if they dont win the X-Prize itself, they are on the right track, and here's the math as to why.
Transportation costs are measured in terms of fixed cost, and consumeables cost. To buy an airplane costs xx dollars, and it's amortized over the life of the plane. Using a medium sized commercial jet, you further amortize that over the cost per seat, per trip, and that number really does become insignificant. The other major cost (ignoring for the moment things like infrastructure for ticketing etc, cuz that'll be in the equation in all cases) is the per mile operating cost of the vehicle, divided by the number of seats, to achieve the cost per seat mile. Therein becomes the ticket price. The single largest factor in cost per seat mile on a commercial jet is fuel. A typical aircraft in commercial service today burns more than it's own value in fuel annually.
Fuel costs break down further into
Re:Spacecraft and aircraft are not the same! by WhiplashII · 2003-12-18 06:21 · Score: 1

You make good points. The most common objection to SpaceShipOne is that it is not a step on the way to orbit, but you do not need orbit for a quick hop. And an airplane going into space would probably be accepted by the general public long before a rocket would.

(The reason SpaceShipOne cannot go to orbit has to do with re-entry. A sleek aerodynamic shape on re-entry will be at 20,000 degrees. Nothing is solid at 20,000 degrees. What re-entry vehicles do is that they have a large flat area that shoves the atmosphere out in front of the vehicle, the that the atmosphere is at 20,000 degrees instead of the vehicle. That doesn't work if your vehicle is designed to "punch through" the air instead of shove it in front of you)

--
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;

Re:space race by Spoons · 2003-12-17 12:07 · Score: 3, Interesting

If you want NASA to do it, it'll cost well over $50 billion.

Hmmmm... Iraq war $87 billion or going to the moon 50 billion..... Hmmmmm.... Tough choice.....

SpacehipOne? by glwtta · 2003-12-17 12:10 · Score: 1

Better stay away from those wormholes...

--
sic transit gloria mundi

Re:Grump grump . . . by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 12:10 · Score: 0

yes that was annoying but whats more annoying to me is that your running at 800x600.. what are you on PDA or a 14incher GRAMPS....

right click desktop go to properties
adjust slider to 1024x768

hope this helps!!!!

Re:Big deal by savuporo · 2003-12-17 12:10 · Score: 1, Flamebait

Yeah, they tested a 99% completed and tested vehicle with a 10% of fuel in its tank, powering up the engine for the very first time.
Nothing to see here, move on folks.

AWW.
This report basically means that
A) they have to fix a glitch with the landing system
B) they could probably fuel up 100% tomorrow and fly up to space

Claiming the X-prize, as of now, cant happen before the end of Jan 2004, though, as the announcement for official flight has to announced 2 months in advance.

--
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!

I'm tracking press coverage.... by mhmealling · 2003-12-17 12:11 · Score: 2, Informative

I'm keeping track of press coverage here.

Re:I'm tracking press coverage.... by foniksonik · 2003-12-17 19:36 · Score: 1

I just use Googles new service, Google News Alerts... it lt lets you put in any keywords and all news items with that keyword in it get sent to you in an email. It's still beta so it doesn't have any scheduling or fine tuning available but still nice.

http://www.google.com/newsalerts

--
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.

Re:For those that haven't used imperial for ages.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 12:11 · Score: 0

cool - thanks! I had heard average, but I don't remember the source.

-m

Trainspotting...Or, Resting On Our Laurels by reallocate · 2003-12-17 12:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

Progess in aviation and space has been slow. Humans flew in 1903. They broke the sound barrier in a small rocket plane in 1947, 44 years later. They landed on the moon in 1969, 66 years later.

And....it's 2003, 31 years since the last lunar landing, people are getting excited about another small rocket plane that fired its engine for 15 seconds and coasted to 68,000 feet. What's different here is the funding mechanism, not the aviation technology.

Progress in aviation and space travel has been stuck in the muck and mire for 30 years.

--
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"

Re:Trainspotting...Or, Resting On Our Laurels by Moofie · 2003-12-17 12:44 · Score: 1

I happen to believe it's stuck in black projects we don't know about yet.

But, it amounts to the same thing.

--
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Re:Trainspotting...Or, Resting On Our Laurels by docbombay · 2003-12-17 13:56 · Score: 1

Privatization is a huge step in the evolution of any technology. Commercialization of the web is an obvious example of this: the growth of the Internet and Internet-related technologies after it was accessible by the common citizen is orders of magnitude greater than it was before. People are excited here 1) the same type of growth should soon be evidenced in the field of aerospace, and 2) the technology will soon be accessible to the common person. Oh, and I dispute the claim that the aviation technology is not that different. The craft's "feathered" mode of gliding will provide a much safer means of atmospheric re-entry than any previous reusable spacecraft has had, and its on-board avionics are exceptionally advanced.
Re:Trainspotting...Or, Resting On Our Laurels by JimPooley · 2003-12-17 21:19 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Privatization is a huge step in the evolution of any technology

Yes. The railway system in the UK has improved massively since it was privatised.

By the way. I'm being sarcastic....

--

"Information wants to be paid"
Re:Trainspotting...Or, Resting On Our Laurels by fucksl4shd0t · 2003-12-17 22:37 · Score: 1

Hey, Mr. Rocket Science Guy. So an ion drive works by using some sort of electrical device to lob ions out of the fuel supply and then sucks the ions out with a magnet. The sucking part is what makes the thrust, right?
So how do you get the ions off the fuel supply in the first place? I mean, the actual "how", if you know, not some theoretical "Well, it works like this". Specs, if you got 'em. I've scoured the internet looking, and haven't found anything more than cursory descriptions of the technology.

--
Like what I said? You might like my music
Re:Trainspotting...Or, Resting On Our Laurels by reallocate · 2003-12-18 01:58 · Score: 1

SpaceShipOne is not a spaceship. It is an airplane designed to coast to an altitude of 100 km following a brief engine burn to get it to Mach 5. This is a very long way from reaching orbit and an especially long way from returning from orbit. (The "feathered" rentry mode won't work in a return from orbit.)

--
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Re:Trainspotting...Or, Resting On Our Laurels by jelson · 2003-12-18 02:52 · Score: 1

Why do you say that a new funding mechanism isn't progress?

Surely you see a difference between, say, a 900 foot flight in 1903, vs. technology so economically viable, and efficient, that today you can travel from one end of the country to the other in less than 5 hours for $200. And you even get free pretzels.

Doing something once doesn't make it a solved problem, as you seem to be implying. The real reason I think the Wrights deserve credit for the first "real" flight --- despite the hoardes of Slashdotters who always bring up various examples of someone who flew a feet 6 months earlier -- is that the Wrights made the technology viable. The others all did it once as basically a stunt, and never returned to it. The Wrights' continuous innovation and deep understanding of aerodynamics actually led, directly, to the subsequent ubiquity of airplanes. You can't say that about anyone else.
Re:Trainspotting...Or, Resting On Our Laurels by reallocate · 2003-12-18 04:47 · Score: 1

I'm not saying a new funding mechanism isn't progress. Government funds things for its purposes, and the private sector funds things for its purposes. If the private sector can produce and sell cheap human space flight, it will be great and I'll buy tickets.

I hope the private sector can, first, develop innovative and inexpensive human spaceflight technology, and, two, manage to sell it. But, that remains an open question.

As for the Wrights: most people who deny their achievement don't know much about flying. Flying isn't building some contraption with wings and jumping off a cliff. Sure, with a bit of luck, the wings will generate some lift and you might survice the "flight". But, you won't have a controlled landing, you didn't get into the air under your own power, and you didn't control the pitch, yaw and roll of your aircraft. The Wrights did all that and more. (Especially designing the first true aircraft propellor.) That's what flying really is, and no one did it before the Wrights.

Many Slashdotters seem to have the attention span and the reasoning capacity of small moths, and consequently flock to the nearest shiny and cool object. This business about denying the Wright's achievement is just the latest.

--
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Re:Trainspotting...Or, Resting On Our Laurels by Moofie · 2003-12-18 04:56 · Score: 1

First, let me say that I'm a "Kick the tires, light the fires, let's go fly!" sort of guy. I don't know a hell of a lot about the weirdo drive ideas that are being developed right now.

However, I'm given to understand that the ionized fuel is accelerated by a magnetic field, and thrown out the back of the space ship. The premise is exactly the same as a rocket engine: By throwing mass out the back end, you are accelerated forward. Conservation of momentum is at work, yo.

As far as how the ions are extracted, I'm not sure. Electricity is involved. I'll hunt around and see if I can find anything, and I'll post it here.

--
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Re:Trainspotting...Or, Resting On Our Laurels by WhiplashII · 2003-12-18 05:45 · Score: 1

Well, how an Ion drive works is:
1) Fuel (typically Xenon) is slowly leaked into a bottle
2) An electron emitter (like in your television) is continuously going into the bottle (this is where the magnet is, it makes the electrons go in curves so they travel further and have more chance of step 3)
3) The electrons hit a Xenon atom, which makes the Xenon atom into a Xenon ion
4) the Xenon ion is pulled/pushed towards the exit ofthe bottle by the extremely high voltage difference between interior of the bottle and the exit of the bottle
5) At the exit of the bottle, something is done about the charge of the ions to make them into normal Xenon atoms again. (Could be done with a screen, typically done with an electron emitter)

If you want to know how you could build one on the cheep - rip apart an old tv set, and put a slow Xenon gas feed into the area right after the electron gun. It will be very inefficient, I'd imagine, but it should work.

But be careful when ripping out that TV. There's stuff in there that can/will kill you.

--
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
Re:Trainspotting...Or, Resting On Our Laurels by plusser · 2003-12-29 05:09 · Score: 1

Concorde, the Boeing 747, the Hawker Harrier (AV8) and the Apollo misions are all from the same era, and to date none of these projects have really been bettered (OK, the Airbus A380 and JSF are in development).

Only the Space Shuttle has come later, and we all know too much about that.

As someone who works in the Aerospace industry I would love to work on a project that breaks these standards and come up with something that really will redefine engineering progress in the 21st Century.

The Plusser

Need some additional benchmarks by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 12:12 · Score: 0

330,000 feet seems very far away and awfully round to be reached by a private concern anytime soon. I propose we establish some booby-prize benchmarks at 68,060 feet, followed by 80,386, 80,468, and 80,586 feet respectively. Gives us all something to talk about until the endgame.

Re:Grump grump . . . by mysterious_mark · 2003-12-17 12:13 · Score: 1

Damnit Jim we're rocket scientist, not web engineers!

Re:space race by wrmrxxx · 2003-12-17 12:14 · Score: 1

There were rumours that George Bush would make an announcement at the Wright brother's flight re-enactment yesterday. When I read that the flight ended in the mud, I couldn't help wondering if there had been a last moment decision not to make an announcement as a result.

Imagine what would happen if a new moon program had been kicked off at the flight re-enactment. If any little thing went wrong later, the media would have a field day replaying footage of the plane dumping into the mud in association with Bush's speech.

But what does it *mean*? by Spamalamadingdong · 2003-12-17 12:15 · Score: 4, Informative

Commercial supersonic flight (at least at Mach 2) does not make economic sense. This was known many years ago; Concorde broke even on operating costs, but never paid for its development. Shutting down the aging, deteriorating fleet makes sense.

SpaceShipOne did more than break the sound barrier, it aimed toward altitudes and conditions unseen by private aviation. With those altitudes and conditions come possible markets, such as small-scale microgavity research on the cheap and even the mother of all roller-coaster rides. Here's hoping that it marks a realization that there are some things which don't work, and some things which do.

--
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist

Re:But what does it *mean*? by Eight+01 · 2003-12-17 12:48 · Score: 2, Informative

You make a good point about Concorde. It is also sobering to note that the development costs of Concorde ran to well over a billion 1973 dollars. The small number of scheduled flights could never hope to pay off these development cost.
Re:But what does it *mean*? by ckaminski · 2003-12-17 14:02 · Score: 1

Which has more to do with the number of planes built, and the number of flights flown than it does with the development cost. Same argument with the shuttle really. Had they been allowed to "Do It Right", Concorde might have taken off (literally).

But the sonic booms... the world doesn't want sonic booms. So death to the Concorde. :-/
Re:But what does it *mean*? by kikai+suki · 2003-12-17 20:29 · Score: 0

How about technological offshoots?
Re:But what does it *mean*? by Yanray · 2003-12-18 02:08 · Score: 1

While I agree wholeheartedly that the Concorde was not an economically viable aircraft that does not mean that modern more refined and efficient aircraft (Mach 2 or more) could not be economically effective in today's economy. All that is required is more engine and airframe design. Without the Concorde we had very little knowledge of what was required to run a super-sonic airliner. Years of operation has provided the aircraft industry with that information.
A modern redesign of the aircraft could produce a lighter aircraft, with a more efficient design, built to fly routes like NY-London, LA-Tokyo, Tokyo-Singapore, Singapore-Sydney and other cross ocean business routes where the Concorde found it's exploitable niche market.
The other upcoming exploitable market is in the private jet market. The Lear jet design is continuing to increase speed of thier aircraft. Eventually they will hit the sound barrier. This will make for quick transport around the world, at great cost, a possibility and most likely a profitable market.

--
--"Sorry for the inconvience." Gods Last Words to his Creation
DNA, So Long and Thanks for all the Fish
Re:But what does it *mean*? by slash.dt · 2003-12-18 14:29 · Score: 1

"But the sonic booms... the world doesn't want sonic booms. So death to the Concorde."

That means death to Concorde on cross-country routes like NY-LA or London-LA but on routes that are mostly over ocean (London-NY, Tok-Singapore, Tok-Hong Kong, Tok-San Franciso, Tok-LA, LA-Sydney) it is still acceptable. Not all of those routes would be profitable though.

Re:Way Cool by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 12:15 · Score: 0

Is that you, Larry Grover?

Supersonic Homebuilt by CmdrTostado · 2003-12-17 12:17 · Score: 5, Interesting

Bede Jet Corp.BD-10 may have been the first manned supersonic flight onboard a plane designed by a small private company It was a deadly, short lived, supersonic HOMEBUILT. Go supersonic, from your garage.
a fan's page
Results so far
The first one crashed, and the second one crashed as well. Each crash killed the then-president of the company developing the BD-10 for the market. Rights to the design were bounced around for a while, and I believe it's pretty much in limbo, now. At one point, a Canadian outfit was trying to develop it as a low-cost military trainer, but nothing came of it. I think there were four originally built... the Bede prototype, two crashed as noted above, and one constructed by a customer. There are two listed in the 2001 registration database. The prototype is still listed as being owned by Bede Jet Corporation, and the other one is registered to a man in California.(text from http://www.ipilot.com/learn/expert-view.asp?cur=0& cid=3)

Re:Supersonic Homebuilt by jdray · 2003-12-17 12:53 · Score: 1

Thanks. As I was reading down comments, I thought of the BD-10 and wondered what had ever happened to it. I was going to google after it, then saw your post.

--
The Spoon
Updated 6/28/2011
Re:Supersonic Homebuilt by netringer · 2003-12-17 14:13 · Score: 2, Interesting

Guess who was a lead enginneer for Jim Bede?
The very same Burt Rutan.

--
Ever dream you could fly? Get up from the Flight Sim. I Fly
Re:Supersonic Homebuilt by LWATCDR · 2003-12-18 03:10 · Score: 1

But not for the BD-10. Rutan did the BD-5. If you ever read any of the reviews of the BD-5 they all say that it was a great plane to fly but the engine sucked. Rutan was in charge of the airframe not the motot. There was no practical motor for it at the time and it failed. Now you can put a Rotax in them.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.

Re:space race by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 12:17 · Score: 0

Bzzt! Wrong. The shuttle exploded because a bunch of environmental wackos forced NASA to change the supposedly-environmental destroying engine insulation to a fluffy-bunny friendly version that, just coincidentally, sucked (as in, it fell off and hit the shuttle wing).

Thanks for playing the Talk Out of Your Ass game. As your reward for trying: one swift kick in said ass.

Re:space race by mhmealling · 2003-12-17 12:18 · Score: 3, Informative

The Artemis Society figured that it could do a minimal but sustainable lunar base mission for $1.42 billion. $800 million of that being launch costs.

You don't mean huevos... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 12:20 · Score: 0

you mean cojones. Unless you're a chicken and you're betting your first bo... er, laid.

Re:You don't mean huevos... by dnaboy · 2003-12-17 12:29 · Score: 1

If you're willing to get on one of those things, they must be the size of huevos...

What's the big deal about rocket science? by Mirk · 2003-12-17 12:20 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'm serious. What's the big deal about rocket science? How hard can it be? You point your rocket the way you want it to go and have a reaction push it in that direction, with stabilising fins keeping it on course. End of story, one might think. So to this naive observer, rocket science basically looks like ballistics+chemistry, neither of which is exactly rocket-science. Er ... you know what I mean.

So: why is it so hard to make rockets work?

--

--
What short sigs we have -
One hundred and twenty chars!
Too short for haiku.

Re:What's the big deal about rocket science? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 12:32 · Score: 0

Read the friggin book *Interplanetary Flight*, then come back at us with that question.
Re:What's the big deal about rocket science? by geekoid · 2003-12-17 12:41 · Score: 1

yeah, except if you point it at a apot you want to go, it won't be there when you get there.
You don't aim at the moon, you aim at where the moon is going to be.

then there is the whole, not wanting it to explaode on the way there thing.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:What's the big deal about rocket science? by Dr.+Zowie · 2003-12-17 12:56 · Score: 5, Informative

It's not hard in principle. As they say, ``the Devil's in the details''. You've got a very hot, combusting mixture under high pressure, right next to large tanks of explosive rocket fuel, and everything has to be light, light, light to fly well -- so you use the lightest, thinnest metal you think you can get away with. And, of course, the metal has to operate at much higher temperatures than you normally encounter, and still have enough strength to avoid blowing up during thrust.

If the rocket didn't have to fly, you could just put loads of engineering margin into every part, and end up with something big and heavy but reliable. But you can't, because "big and heavy" won't get off the ground.

The sheer amount of power that has to converted from chemical to mechanical energy is staggering. In a liquid-fueled rocket engine, you have to push fuel into the chamber against the pressure of combustion. That turns out to be very hard, since you have to move a LOT of fuel and the pressure has to be HIGH for good efficiency. Just the pumping requires a major engineering effort to handle the power required to drive the pumps.

If you have cryogenic liquid propellants (the most efficient for tankage), you have all kinds of material-science problems from the temperature extremes. If you fly less exotic materials, like nitrous oxide, you have less mass margin because the tank is heavier.

Then there are all kinds of weird pitfalls like uneven distribution within the combustion chamber; uneven fuel/oxidiser mixing; choked fuel flow; accumulation of large volumes of fuel mix (which have an alarming tendency to explode later if they don't burn instantly); quenching of the burn by the amazing volume of stuff flowing into the chamber; eddies and cavitation in the turbulent flow out the throat of the engine; detonation (makes your car engine knock, makes your rocket explode); things shaking loose because of the engine's vibration; the nozzle itself starting to combust, ablate, or burn-through; and making a poorly designed nozzle that limits your thrust.

None of those things is unsurmountable -- it's having to get everything more or less right the first time that is the real kicker.
Re:What's the big deal about rocket science? by index72 · 2003-12-17 13:12 · Score: 1

Asps! Very dangerous. You go first Indie.
Re:What's the big deal about rocket science? by EvilTwinSkippy · 2003-12-17 13:40 · Score: 1

The Jury is still out on cryogenic fuels. For all the performance improvement of Liquid hydrogen and oxygen, you make up for it in insulation to prevent icing.
A lot of expendible vehicles are going back Kerosene and Liquid Oxygen, at least for the first stage. In space, well that's another story.

--
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Re:What's the big deal about rocket science? by bigjnsa500 · 2003-12-17 14:30 · Score: 1

Apu in space!!!
His first communication from orbit:
"Hello, how are you doing? Can you hear me now?"

--
This is a test. This is a test of the emergency sig system. This has been only a test.
Re:What's the big deal about rocket science? by StatFiend · 2003-12-17 14:56 · Score: 2, Informative

Another problem is the difficulty in keeping the rocket flying straight. Think about it: all of the propulsion is coming from the very end of the rocket. If the nose gets even a little bit out of alignment, the thing will flip and crash...
Re:What's the big deal about rocket science? by physicsnerd · 2003-12-17 14:58 · Score: 2, Informative

The Jury is still out on cryogenic fuels. For all the performance improvement of Liquid hydrogen and oxygen, you make up for it in insulation to prevent icing.
Often you don't bother to insulate the LOx tanks because you can just keep pumping it in the tanks as it boils off (shuttle and Atlas are exceptions). The ice just falls a way as the rocket lifts off. Look at a video of a rocket launching, you'll see ice all over the place. To insulate the hydrogen you put it inside of the LOx tank, and separate them with a vacuum. Vacuums weigh nothing, so there's no insulation mass to make any difference. The insulation isn't why people are looking at kerosene
The reason people are looking at LOx / kerosene (really RP-1 is more common) is because performance isn't always the driving factor. Kerosene / RP-1 engines are cheaper to work with, and cost is always a factor. Sometimes it's cheaper to build a bigger rocket that's powered by Kerosene then to use H2 and build a smaller rocket.
Re:What's the big deal about rocket science? by oPless · 2003-12-17 16:09 · Score: 1

But you can't, because "big and heavy" won't get off the ground

The Russians appear to have to have done very well with their "big and heavy" well engineered rockets, planes etc.

They didn't have access to the more exotic materials of the west in the cold war, so had to make do with conventional metals, etc.

Instead they (or at least my understanding of various documentries+articles I've seen/read) concentrated in getting the science right, and maximising the important things that'll get the craft moving, like uber-efficient engines.
Apparently theres is a warehouse holding some very efficient rocket motors... I forget the technical details (hey its 4am ffs) but isn't that what the x-prize is supposedly all about?

Thinking out of the box.
Re:What's the big deal about rocket science? by Mirk · 2003-12-17 20:47 · Score: 1

Thanks, Dr. Zowie. It's the occasional helpful, informative posting like this that keep Slashdot (just) worthwhile. Having read your explanation, I now don't understand how anyone has ever got a rocket to work! :-)
If I could mod and post in the same discussion, your comment would be +6.

--

--
What short sigs we have -
One hundred and twenty chars!
Too short for haiku.
Re:What's the big deal about rocket science? by maroberts · 2003-12-18 00:49 · Score: 2, Informative

Actually, getting the rocket to fly in the right direction is easy. See NASA's model rocket section here for a simple guide.

--
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
Re:What's the big deal about rocket science? by CrazyTalk · 2003-12-18 02:07 · Score: 1

Well, rocket science ain't brain surgery.
Re:What's the big deal about rocket science? by EvilTwinSkippy · 2003-12-18 23:52 · Score: 1

That is a much better way of expressing it. Thank you!

--
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Re:What's the big deal about rocket science? by anthonyrcalgary · 2003-12-19 11:44 · Score: 1

If you fly less exotic materials, like nitrous oxide, you have less mass margin because the tank is heavier.
Not necessarily... kerosene is much denser than cryogenic fuels. The tank can be smaller even if the specific impulse sucks.

--
When someone might yell at me, it has to be OpenBSD.

Re:For those that haven't used imperial for ages.. by red+floyd · 2003-12-17 12:22 · Score: 2, Informative

Found a source for my claim.

It refers to the meter as 1/10,000,000 the distance from the pole to the equator through Paris, which is the same definition I had. Not a flame though, I'm glad we weren't sure, and I was able to find a (semi-) definitive answer!

--
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy

Does the X-prize achievement scale to usefulness? by rufusdufus · 2003-12-17 12:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

Its great that this plane managed 920mph. It certainly possible that the spaceshipone team will win the X-Prize by achieveing 330,000 feet.

But is this goal really a stepping stone to space?

Altitude alone is not especially useful since the pull of gravity will still exert its force upon the craft. The hard part about space travel is achieving orbit, a state where the craft has effectively escaped the earth's gravity well.
Escape velocity is 25,000 miles per hour. Geosynchronous orbit, the distance an object must reach to be in a stationary orbit above the ground is 117,427,200 feet.
These numbers are better than order of magnitude higher than the X-prize requirements.

So I wonder if the X-prize is really meaningful in the scale of realistic space flight?

On the landing gear failure by Woutepout · 2003-12-17 12:24 · Score: 5, Informative

It appears that White Knight had a landing gear problem on the previous flight as well. Knowing that most systems on the two craft are identical, this could mean that there is a (serious?) problem with the landing gear design. So they're probably in for a very thorough re-examination of the relevant systems. But they're probably on top of things and it's hard to say anything sensible about it without inside-information.

--
"Some people have got a mental horizon of radius zero and call it their point of view." - David Hilbert

Re:On the landing gear failure by beauzo · 2003-12-17 15:25 · Score: 1

The landing gear system on both aircraft are actually different. One uses pneumatics and the other is simply spring loaded.
Re:On the landing gear failure by Woutepout · 2003-12-18 03:12 · Score: 1

Thanks, didn't know that. Alan's Mojave weblog has been updated as well and contains further details and photos. It might be that the retraction was caused by a too steep approach, in which case it would have nothing to do with the White Knight problem.

--
"Some people have got a mental horizon of radius zero and call it their point of view." - David Hilbert

What altitude? by zipwow · 2003-12-17 12:25 · Score: 3, Interesting

Just to be snarky, I wonder if there's a ceiling to how high you can go for the round-the-world attempt. If you've got a working suborbital spaceship, it would be amusing to make an orbital spaceship* and say, "Yeah, we went around ten or fifteen times on one tank of gas. It was a big tank, tho."

-Zipwow

* I know, I know, orbit is waaay different than straight up, straight back. Its just an amusing thought...

--
I don't know which is more depressing, that 2/3 didn't care enough to vote, or that 1/2 of those that did are crazy.

Re:What altitude? by WolfWithoutAClause · 2003-12-17 12:54 · Score: 4, Interesting

There's a semi-official definition of space. Anything below 100km is atmospheric, and the FAA takes jurisdiction. Above 100km, it's space, and nobody much does; until reentry.

--
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
Re:What altitude? by netringer · 2003-12-17 14:43 · Score: 1

There's a semi-official definition of space. Anything below 100km is atmospheric, and the FAA takes jurisdiction. Above 100km, it's space, and nobody much does; until reentry.
Actually I think the governments of the world only officially have regulatory jurisdiction to 60,000 feet. Class A Airspace starts at 18,000 feet and ends at FL600 - 60,000 feet. Above that it's uncontrolled as far as the FAA in concerned.
I'm sure there are international sovierenty laws that kick in when say, one country's fast black recon plane flies over a another at 87,000 feet at Mach 3.
In spite of that Burt Rutan did have to comply with a slew of rules regarding rockets luanched from the US. He says the laws said that the company would have to prove that that the craft would not fail in some high number of launches (200,000?) that NASA has never achieved. He managed to comply somehow.

--
Ever dream you could fly? Get up from the Flight Sim. I Fly
Re:What altitude? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 16:21 · Score: 0

...would not fail in some high number of launches (200,000?) that NASA has never achieved. He managed to comply somehow.
Maybe he used the same method NASA uses.
Re:What altitude? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 18:09 · Score: 0

They dont need an exact limit....if there is enough air to run an engine, then you are in the atmosphere. If you are using a rocket, then your in a different class.
Re:What altitude? by WolfWithoutAClause · 2003-12-18 02:28 · Score: 1

Actually I think the governments of the world only officially have regulatory jurisdiction to 60,000 feet.
Nope.
Governments have regulatory jurisdiction wherever they damn well please; it doesn't mean they can enforce it of course. When you have things zooming above your head in orbit, concepts like 'airspace' clearly don't apply, and governments usually draw the line somewhere.
Class A Airspace starts at 18,000 feet and ends at FL600 - 60,000 feet. Above that it's uncontrolled as far as the FAA in concerned.
It's uncontrolled, but that doesn't mean that you don't have to have permission from the FAA to fly up there- it says that air traffic control and stuff like that don't apply. Anyway, I'm not an expert, but I've been to presentations by people who are experts (e.g. the AST, who are the arm of the FAA who are (probably) dealing with rocketry launch authorisations), and 100km is the defacto standard (but not every regulation follows the standard...)

--
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
Re:What altitude? by WolfWithoutAClause · 2003-12-18 02:55 · Score: 1

..would not fail in some high number of launches (200,000?) that NASA has never achieved. He managed to comply somehow.
Maybe he used the same method NASA uses.
Oi! Who the heck are you to call Rutan a liar?!

--
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"

OK, Here's What by reallocate · 2003-12-17 12:25 · Score: 1

President Bush has said nothing -- nothing -- about returning to the moon. The White House ordered a reexamination of American space efforts following the Columbia disaster, and that effort has concluded.

There is no political support for a crash program such as Apollo, but there is support for methodically building the infratructure that will allow the U.S. to operate in trans-lunar space, to include manned Lunar missions and a small lunar base (although not necessarily permanently staffed.) The Pentagon's open involvement in this effort will increase, and the funding it brings with it will increase total spending on space travel by 2-3 percent annually. Much attention, and perhaps some real money, will be paid to boosting the private sector's ability to enter space, but the real story is that the procurement and contracting model will be the same as the Pentagon has used for years to bring weapon systems into the inventory.

NASA will be pointed in the direction of R&D, but without making a lot of noise about it. The Shuttle will be phased out sooner, rather than later, and NASA will stop pouring billions into the false dream of building spacecraft with wings.

The U.S. will continue to support the space station, but everyone will secretly wish we hadn't got into the mess in the first place.

--
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"

PRIVATE commercial supersonic flight yet to happen by Julian+Morrison · 2003-12-17 12:27 · Score: 5, Informative

Concorde was a state funded project, almost exclusively flown by state subsidised airlines bearing national badges (Air France and British Airways).

Re:space race by SuperDuperMan · 2003-12-17 12:28 · Score: 1

I thought the news artical was concerning what he will speak about in his state of the union address not a speech he already gave.

Re:Grump grump . . . by adrianbaugh · 2003-12-17 12:28 · Score: 1

I think they let their web designer name their craft too, that's why it's in SuckyStudlyCaps. Let's just hope he wasn't allowed anywhere near the real design :-)

--
"'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
- JRR Tolkien.

Re:space race by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 12:28 · Score: 0, Flamebait

There's no oil on the moon.

Voyager... by Spamalamadingdong · 2003-12-17 12:29 · Score: 4, Informative

... was not a turboprop. Both the front and rear engines were rather conventional opposed piston types, though the rear one was liquid cooled. The IOL-200 (Injected, Opposed, Liquid-cooled, 200 cubic inch) engine from Voyager is in a display case at the Smithsonian; I have a picture of it.

I think Rutan's experience with the Predator, the Global Hawk and the aeroshell of the DC-X are far more indicative of his talents than Voyager; a very slow unpressurized aircraft is not much experience for a space-skimming vehicle which has to endure substantial heat loads on return to earth, but the others are much closer.

--
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist

Earth Centric actually by Gonoff · 2003-12-17 12:29 · Score: 1

I am not from the US and certainly beef about some things to do with them.

I think this is brilliant and is not just of interest to the US. It is of interest to the entire human race. If this eventually leads to the opening up of space to more than just big governments and huge corporations, it is relevant to me and I doubt I'll ever even see it.

And what's wrong with childish enthusiasm? It seems to be working for them...

--
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.

Re:Earth Centric actually by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 12:34 · Score: 0

He's talking about the SpaceShip One / AirForce One gag, you muppet.

who makes this component at armadillo ... by polished+look+2 · 2003-12-17 12:31 · Score: 1

Aerospace. There is a photograph over at Armadillo Aerospace of the electronics inside of their vehicle. Does anyone know the name of the manufacturer of the black box in the back - it begins with ESTE????

Re:who makes this component at armadillo ... by codewritinfool · 2003-12-17 12:58 · Score: 2, Informative

Electronic Systems Technology. It is an "Esteem" Wireless Modem.
Re:who makes this component at armadillo ... by mrjah · 2003-12-17 13:18 · Score: 5, Funny

"ESTES"

They use D motors.

First Contact by frohike · 2003-12-17 12:31 · Score: 2, Funny

Am I the only one that had Magic Carpet Ride going through my head while reading this article? :D

I kept reading "hybrid rocket motor" as "hyperspace motor"... ack... too much Asimov :)

--
Cryptic Allusion - New Mac and Dreamcast Games!

Re:First Contact by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-20 16:23 · Score: 0

Dr. Zevrin Cockrin

Drunk
and Playing Magic Carpet on the Juke Box

and if you don't know who he is what kind of a geek are you... (He's only the inventer of warp drive)

We'll do BOTH and cut taxes. by Idou · 2003-12-17 12:36 · Score: 1

Screw the national debt, I've got to get re-elected!

Sorry, I was having an identity crisis there for a second . . .

--
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!

Re:space race by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 12:37 · Score: 0

Not really. One increases national security and is a legitimate function of the federal govt. The other is not.

Re:For those that haven't used imperial for ages.. by RobertB-DC · 2003-12-17 12:37 · Score: 1

It refers to the meter as 1/10,000,000 the distance from the pole to the equator through Paris

I wonder, though... in those days, did they think that there was something special about the line through Paris as opposed to, say, a line through the Atlantic ocean? Or was mentioning Paris just a political gimme?

I wonder if they originally intended to attempt to measure the effect of mountains and hills in the original definition of a kilometer, too... though at the scales involved, I don't suppose it would add up to much (especially with 1700s measurement accuracy).

Of course, now the meter is defined in terms of wavelengths of light of a certain radioactive element in a microfortnight, right?

--
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.

Re:For those that haven't used imperial for ages.. by red+floyd · 2003-12-17 12:40 · Score: 1

I wonder, though... in those days, did they think that there was something special about the line through Paris as opposed to, say, a line through the Atlantic ocean? Or was mentioning Paris just a political gimme?

I believe it was defined by a Frenchman... Sort of the way the Brits got to define the Prime Meridian as going through Greenwich.

--
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy

SpaceShipOne versus the X-37 by spikeham · 2003-12-17 12:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

It won't be long before Scaled Composites is flying to 100km and the X-Prize is theirs.

Meanwhile, NASA/Boeing have just announced that the X-37, part of the Orbital Space Plane program, will "deemphasize" actual space operations. Story at www.aviationnow.com. Great timing! Really highlights the differences between the good ol' government contractor way of doing things. Get the billions of dollars, build something that looks good for propaganda purposes, forget about flying into space.

I hope civilian space efforts wake everyone up to the pathetic reality of NASA before they have a chance to kill another batch of astronauts.

Re:SpaceShipOne versus the X-37 by enforcer999 · 2003-12-17 13:25 · Score: 1

I do not completely agree with you. I do agree that Scaled Composites is the best bet for the X-prize. Anyone taking bets? However, I know people and Kennedy Space Center and at NASA and doing research for Navair. They do not want to ever see any astronaut die and they are far from pathetic. The program needs work but the people should be respected. I am still mad that someone posted this article before me. :P I was getting ready to post it and there it was.

Re:space race by BTWR · 2003-12-17 12:41 · Score: 1

If you want NASA to do it, it'll cost well over $50 billion.

It wouldn't cost nearly that much if people assumed a significant chance of failure. Remember, not a single astronaut died during a missing during the mercury/gemini/apollo years ("Failure is not an option" was coined by NASA back then), except for the tragedy during a testing of equipment in Apollo 1. Many people would be VERY willing to risk bodily injury/death for a great thrill. I mean hell, people ride motorcycles, don't they? (or as we call them in the ER... organcycles)

Re:For those that haven't used imperial for ages.. by geekoid · 2003-12-17 12:44 · Score: 1

proof that the metric system was crated as a devious French plot.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Physics primer follows by Spamalamadingdong · 2003-12-17 12:44 · Score: 4, Informative

Altitude alone is not especially useful since the pull of gravity will still exert its force upon the craft.

Wrong. At a not-atypical 200 mile orbital altitude, Earth pulls with roughly 90% as much acceleration as at the surface. The difference between an orbital flight and a sub-orbital one is that an orbiting craft moves fast enough that the curve of the earth falls away below it as fast as it falls toward the earth.

The hard part about space travel is achieving orbit, a state where the craft has effectively escaped the earth's gravity well.

Wrong again. The gravitational binding energy per kilogram is given by the simple equation -GMe/r, where G is the gravitational constant, Me is the mass of the earth and r is the distance from the center of the earth (taking Earth as a uniform sphere, which is good to a first approximation). You can trivially compare this to the kinetic energy of a craft in a uniform circular orbit (v^2=GMe/r^2, ke = 0.5 m v^2 -> ke = .5 GMe/r^2) and prove that orbit is only halfway, energetically, to actually escaping Earth.

Geosynchronous orbit...

has what to do with this, exactly?

These numbers are better than order of magnitude higher than the X-prize requirements.
So I wonder if the X-prize is really meaningful in the scale of realistic space flight?

Google for "Black Colt" or consider what the White Knight could do with a sub-vehicle like a Pegasus. That will let you ask better questions.

--
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist

Re:Physics primer follows by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 13:58 · Score: 0

You are an egotistical dork and need to read into the real point of his post instead of mindlessly (or mindfully) spewing physics crap.
Re:Physics primer follows by fucksl4shd0t · 2003-12-17 23:04 · Score: 1

Q was right! Just change the gravitation constant of the universe! Wow! Trek science at work, here.

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

Anyone know. . . by jafac · 2003-12-17 12:46 · Score: 3, Interesting

what they're doing in terms of ground-tracking, telemetry, airspace and frequency reservation, etc.
This is a not insignificant portion of costs conventional spacelaunch - for the Russians, and the Americans. - you can't just light a fuse, stand back and cheer. Not safely, anyway. And at some point, it's not just the pilot's life and property at stake. Public infrastructure, or even private property (in the case of the crashes on 9/11) can be a significant liability as well.

I mean, sure, it's probably a trivial thing to file a flight path with the FAA to reserve airspace and sit on a radio frequency below 50,000 feet.

But what happens when they get into space? How are they going to tie in with existing safety and space infrastructure? Will their cost savings be the same with that integration? And if they don't how are they going to avoid collisions with existing satellites, etc once regular commercial access is established?

--

These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.

Re:Anyone know. . . by delcielo · 2003-12-17 13:50 · Score: 2, Informative

As for ground tracking, I'm not sure how big a deal it has to be. A gps unit inside the craft could do the job for post-flight work, and the FAA's ARTCC radar tapes could show a ground track if there were an in-flight failure.

They must have the airspace thing sorted out, as Class A airspace goes from 18,000ft to 60,000ft, where the airspace reverts to class E. Class A airspace requires an IFR (instrument flight rules) flight plan. I can't imagine them actually giving him an IFR clearance, though. They must have done some kind of waiver for the flight and simply blocked out some space. Class E has no prohibitive requirements. I'm not familiar with the Mojave area; but there may even be some special use airspace already designated. I could imagine "borrowing" it from the government in some manner. In any event, once you got above 60, your airspace concerns wouldn't really change. The sub-orbital altitudes wouldn't be very crowded, with satellites, etc. being much higher.

As for frequency reservation, there really isn't a need. There are a few frequencies in the aviation band that they could use without prior arrangement. Most aircraft have more than one radio, so that they could talk to the ground team and still be able to hear Air Traffic Control.

Telemetry is the thing I'm curious about. You probably wouldn't need it if you put some kind of "black box" on board; but I would imagine Rutan would like to have a downlink.

--
Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!
Re:Anyone know. . . by Timbotronic · 2003-12-17 14:53 · Score: 1

Public infrastructure, or even private property (in the case of the crashes on 9/11) can be a significant liability as well.
You'd have to be pretty unlucky to hit anything of value in the Mojave Desert. They just need to stay away from Erin Brokovich's house ;-)

--
One of these days I'm moving to Theory - everything works there
Re:Anyone know. . . by transient · 2003-12-17 16:57 · Score: 2, Informative

I'm almost positive there are more specific exceptions for these sorts of operations, but this is the best I could find. 14 CFR Sec. 91.135 covers operations in Class A airspace, and paragraph (d) reads:
ATC authorizations. An operator may deviate from any provision of this section under the provisions of an ATC authorization issued by the ATC facility having jurisdiction of the airspace concerned. [emphasis added] In the case of an inoperative transponder, ATC may immediately approve an operation within a Class A airspace area allowing flight to continue, if desired, to the airport of ultimate destination, including any intermediate stops, or to proceed to a place where suitable repairs can be made, or both. Requests for deviation from any provision of this section must be submitted in writing, at least 4 days before the proposed operation. ATC may authorize a deviation on a continuing basis or for an individual flight.

So it seems you can just write a letter and get an authorization to operate without a clearance.

--

irb(main):001:0>

Re:Does the X-prize achievement scale to usefulnes by red+floyd · 2003-12-17 12:46 · Score: 1

You've got to walk before you can run.

LEO is on the order of 120 miles (or roughly 600,000) feet.

Remember, the first two manned US spaceflights were sub-orbital (Shepard and Grissom).

--
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy

Sad news, ActionPlant dead at 17 by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 12:47 · Score: 0

I just heard some sad news on talk radio - slashdot contributor ActionPlant (user # 721843) was found dead in his mother's basement this morning. There weren't any more details yet. I'm sure we'll all miss him, even if you weren't a fan of his inane comments, there's no denying his contribution to popular culture with his actionplant website. Truly a slashdot user.

Re:Sad news, ActionPlant dead at 17 by ActionPlant · 2003-12-17 19:00 · Score: 1

I get the feeling someone doesn't like me. Oh well. They're anonymous, no need for heed.

Funny though...I don't remember dying almost ten years ago. Oh well. I've heard everything on the internet is TRUE! I must be dead.

--
http://actionPlant.com

Re:Does the X-prize achievement scale to usefulnes by peacefinder · 2003-12-17 12:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

Nitpicks: Reaching orbit does not mean escaping the gravity well, nor does it require escape velocity. Many useful orbits exist well below geosynchronous; note that the space shuttle never gets above a couple hundred kilometers. Now that's out of the way, to your point:

The X-prize is not about reaching space, so much as it is about spurring development. The prize for a solo nonstop flight over the Atlantic drove development of methods to reach the rather artificial goal, and those methods were useful in achieving other goals later. Some may have been useful directly, and some as examples of methods to be avoided. The same should hold true of developments for the X-prize... that's the point.

I am not a rocket scientist, and I have no idea if the Scaled, Armadillo, or other teams' efforts will really scale up to true orbital capability. Probably not, I think. But with each entry achieving its own innovations, it is likely that some combination of the lessons learned will contribute to the success of the next goal... whatever that is. It's all progress, and pretty darn cool besides. We can worry about scaling up later.

--
With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd

Re:Does the X-prize achievement scale to usefulnes by WolfWithoutAClause · 2003-12-17 12:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

It's mainly a mindset thing. Right now there is an illusion that it costs billions of dollars and huge corporations to do anything in space.

That's probably not true. Check out Space X for example. Or Armadillo. The illusion needs shattering.

There's nothing inherently expensive about space (the fuel costs for putting something into space are under $50 per kg of payload for example)- it's just that right now there are so few launches that it's cheapest to throw the whole rocket away after each launch. Because it's so expensive, practically nobody goes. Catch 22.

--

-WolfWithoutAClause

"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"

Re:space race by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 12:51 · Score: 1, Funny

Hmmmm... Iraq war $87 billion or going to the moon 50 billion..... Hmmmmm.... Tough choice.....

I say save up the extra $37 billion and buy yourself a war. The videos will be a lot more exciting, it's a lot safer (for you, anyway), you'll gain quite a bit more fame (or notoreity), and you can get the whole world involved instead of just the one or two friends who will fit in the spaceship with you. It costs a bit more, but with a war, you're definitely going to get your money's worth.

Re:Does the X-prize achievement scale to usefulnes by Moofie · 2003-12-17 12:51 · Score: 1

It's the first step. See the Mercury Redstone rocket launches.

--
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!

Re:space race by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 12:58 · Score: 0

That's why the French didn't try to shoot down the Apollo program.

Nah, it had something better by Julian+Morrison · 2003-12-17 12:58 · Score: 1

NO GOVERNMENT aboard. At all.

Re:For those that haven't used imperial for ages.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 13:01 · Score: 0

I believe that the survey was screwed up before it was completed. Everyone knew the data wasn't quite right but they decided to go with a number anyway.

So while the kilometer is supposed to be a specific distance with relation to the earth, even it's original measurers knew they got it wrong.

Re:space race by Bruce+Perens · 2003-12-17 13:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

You have it sort of backwards. There is one big challenge: getting into earth orbit. Consider the relative sizes of the Apollo program modules. Big Saturn 5 rocket to achieve orbit. Much, much smaller Apollo service module with enough delta-V for both earth and lunar escape velocity. Little lunar module achieves orbit from the moon using fuel tanks that would sit in the back of a pickup truck.

Bruce

--
Bruce Perens.

Pictures by dsouth · 2003-12-17 13:02 · Score: 1

You wanted photos, here ya go:

photos of KW and SS1

The real hard part by Uncle+Barnard's+Star · 2003-12-17 13:02 · Score: 1

Achieving orbit isn't the most difficult part. It's getting back in one piece. If all you want is to go to orbit and never come back (or at least don't mind burning up on reentry), just strap yourself onto any modest satellite launcher.

Missing the point.. by rufusdufus · 2003-12-17 13:03 · Score: 1

The point is that there are already commercial operations that do achieve these numbers. They do so in order to provide a valuable service: placing satellites in orbit.
Surely you recognize the spurious nature of your argument; the two numbers I list are reflections of the scale of the energy requirements needed for useful space travel in terms of the numbers given in the article; they are a way to do a comparison. Thus your comments on 200 mile orbit and acceleration are not relevant.

Re:Missing the point.. by joggle · 2003-12-17 14:52 · Score: 1

You wanted to know whether "the X-Prize is really meaningful in the scale of realistic space flight" no? If this is the point, then the parent poster was mostly on the money. Satellites are designed to be permenantly in orbit, never to (operationally) return to earth. People, on the other hand, do need to come back to earth. This is a huge difference (trying no to be too facetious :). The goal of the X-Prize is meant to be a stepping stone to getting people from point A to point B very quickly, cheaply and reliably. This certainly does not require one to enter orbit. However, by getting above nearly all of the earth's atmoshpere, there is next to no drag, making it possible to travel supersonically without the tremendous drag that is usually associated with it.
A better example on your part would have been the Minuteman intercontinental missle, as it is designed more closely to the goal of the X-Prize (not blowing people to bits, but getting from one end of the earth to the other in a hurry). The difference is that the vehicle needs to be reusable and have life support for 3 people. So, in response to your original question, yes this would be a significant achievement (and to your implied statement, no this has never been done before, even by national governments much less private companies). The hope is that by achieving the goal of this competition, there will consequentally be an immediate commercial application that will be profitable enough to sustain growth for this type of transportation, leading to more improvements. In time, this would hopefully lower the costs to getting to suborbital speeds, leading to lower costs of getting people to orbit.

Re:Does the X-prize achievement scale to usefulnes by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 13:03 · Score: 1, Informative

Actually there is still plenty of gravity at altitudes we think of as 'space'. How do you think satellites and other craft stay in orbit instead of escaping to outer space? The craft experience apparent zero gravity because Earth's gravity and the centrifugal force of their orbit are balanced.
Where space begins is a human idea, not a gravitational one.

What is that in metric by xutopia · 2003-12-17 13:12 · Score: 1

I'm just wondering...

Re:For those that haven't used imperial for ages.. by STrinity · 2003-12-17 13:18 · Score: 1

I wonder, though... in those days, did they think that there was something special about the line through Paris as opposed to, say, a line through the Atlantic ocean? Or was mentioning Paris just a political gimme?

The French sponsored the effort to measure the distance from the pole to equator, so they got to decide where the line went.

Incidentally, many people of the time advocated defining the meter as the length of a pendulum with a half-period of one second, however scientists realized that'd only take a couple days to figure out, whereas measuring a quarter of the Earth's circumference would keep them employed for years.

--
Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of

Well, its doesn't go (far) downrange. by reality-bytes · 2003-12-17 13:18 · Score: 2, Interesting

This craft doesn't really fly 'downrange' very far as an orbital flight would, the only 'downrange' stages are when It's attached to their carrier plane and when It's pulling up.

If the worst was to happen (Im not sure if their rocket gimballs) and the craft went off course, the chances are that the out-of-envelope stresses would do a better job of self-destruction than any range safety officer.

Question: Does anyone know (I've searched scaled.com) whether the rocket nozzle is gimballed or whether they use dynamic control followed by 'balance'?

The only info on the motor control states the 2 button operation 1) Arm 2) Fire :)

--
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.

Re:space race by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 13:18 · Score: 0

Time to update your numbers - it's $80 billion, twice, and growing.

Re:Does the X-prize achievement scale to usefulnes by EvilTwinSkippy · 2003-12-17 13:33 · Score: 1

Escape velocity has nothing to do with orbital mechanics. That is the point at which you peel away from the Earth and out into space.

--
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming

Biggest difficulty of rocket science by Julian+Morrison · 2003-12-17 13:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

You need fuel. You need fuel to push the fuel. You need fuel to push the tank that holds the fuel. And chemical fuels only give so much push-per-quantity. For a given fuel, the ratio of fuel-mass to rocket-mass is a constant, and the vast majority of it is fuel.

That's why rockets drop pieces. Less tank to push. But dropped pieces are expensive and wasteful, meaning rockets are too expensive to be much use.

The best chemical fuel, liquid hydrogen and oxygen, just barely scrapes the threshold at which it can launch a sensibly sized single staged rocket into orbit, maybe. It's so close that the difference between "will" and "won't" is lost inside the calculation's margin of error.

That's the main reason rocket science is hard.

Re:Biggest difficulty of rocket science by twiddlingbits · 2003-12-17 14:03 · Score: 3, Informative

Actually the "best" all-around fuel is LOX/Kerosense (RP-1), it's very high energy density, only 1 component is cryogenic, and the other is easily stored but is flammable. See http://www.astronautix.com/props/loxosene.htm The F1 Engines on the Saturn V are LOX/Kerosene. LOX/LH2 is the ideal fuel for sure but it is very expensive to make LH2 (cost is over 10X that of Kerosene) and you need two cyrogenic tanks which adds weight. The SSME's are LOX/LH2. I don't know which technology SpaceShip 1 uses.
Re:Biggest difficulty of rocket science by DoraLives · 2003-12-17 15:15 · Score: 1

Just came back in from watching good old lox/RP1 send that Atlas 3 three up from the Cape. Gotta love the look of that flame, especially on a cold (for Florida anyway) clear night like tonight. Been watching the stuff since the 50's and I never seem to get over it. I don't care who's paying, how they do it, or much of anything (excepting pretty please don't go launching stuff with weapons on top) else just as long as they keep doing it. Bravo Rutan and the whole crew, and every last other soul who's slogging away at it, keeping the birds flying!

--
Is it fascism yet?
Re:Biggest difficulty of rocket science by physicsnerd · 2003-12-17 15:30 · Score: 3, Informative

SpaceShipOne uses a N2O/HTPB hybrid rocket motor. See http://www.spacedev.com/newsite/templates/subpage3 _article.php?pid=411&subNav=11&subSel=3

Re:space race by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 13:42 · Score: 0

None of Dick Cheney's companies to aerospace contracting.

Oh no, Carmack! by l00sr · 2003-12-17 13:46 · Score: 2, Funny

Time to put Doom III on the back burner.

Kneel before Google! by Cid+Highwind · 2003-12-17 13:47 · Score: 1

2 seconds on Google could have given you the answer

--
0 1 - just my two bits

Re:Does the X-prize achievement scale to usefulnes by donscarletti · 2003-12-17 13:56 · Score: 1

Remember, the fist manned spaceflights was orbital (Gagarin made a whole lap).

The legitimacy of the American efforts is questionable. I think the Americans were planning on waiting until they had the technology to blast a man into orbit before doing anything but were forced to carry out their plans early to avoid totally loosing face.

The question is that is there any point having a sub -orbital flight? Gravity is still strong for all but the crest of the flight making it pointless for space tourism and research, and objects dropped out will not stay up making it pointless for satilite deployment.

--
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem

Re:Does the X-prize achievement scale to usefulnes by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 14:08 · Score: 0

Escape velocity has everything to do with orbital mechanics.

Escape velocity is the speed at which you can coast (using no thrust) for an infinite distance away from the Earth. Since a gravitional field is actually infinte in extent, the name "escape" is something of a misnomer. For that matter, the actual direction doesn't matter as long as you have enough (scalar) speed, so the phrase shouldn't use the word "velocity", either. A phrase like "speed of no return" would be more accurate, if more awkward.

Another way to look at it is that escape velocity is the speed at which your orbit becomes an open parabola instead of an ellipse. At this point, some people like to stop calling the path an "orbit", even though it may still be curved under the gravitational influence of the Earth.

You can "peel away" from the Earth at less than escape velocity. In fact, you can "peel away" for any arbitrary distance less than infinity; it just means that your closed orbit has a really high apogee.

Looks worse for NASA by STrinity · 2003-12-17 14:16 · Score: 1

Imagine how bad it'll look for them if someone wins the X-Prize before the shuttles goes back into service.

--
Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of

go by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 14:16 · Score: 0

carmack go :)

---------
Beers and Boobies in a Game?

Dont Forget the Deficit. by Brigadier · 2003-12-17 14:21 · Score: 1

Dont forget the huuuuuuuuuge deficit due to war time spending. War time spending which is not generating jobs, but in fact reducing them. Public agencies accross the country are actually laynig people of. Social Service programs being cut. Just so Bush can say saddam is hiding in a Rat hole. When Benladen(sp) is still sending out tapes on a monthly basis.

Re:Does the X-prize achievement scale to usefulnes by ckaminski · 2003-12-17 14:47 · Score: 1

No, but it's great for "get anywhere on earth in 90 minutes". That alone is reason to pursue the technology.

Re:space race by ckaminski · 2003-12-17 14:53 · Score: 1

The shuttle disintegrated because NASA management decided (and engineers failed to think outside the box) that foam strikes, while an off-nominal event, were harmless.

As anyone who's drive a car knows, you catch a pebble in the windshield, it doesn't take much for that tiny chip to turn into a giant windshield destroying spiderweb of fatal cracks.

Management killed Columbia, not technology or some misguided environmentalism.

X-Prize...Paul G. Allen Confirmed by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 15:08 · Score: 0

This just in...

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 17, 2003

PAUL G. ALLEN CONFIRMED AS LONG-RUMORED SPONSOR OF SPACESHIPONE

Allen Sponsors Scaled Composites' Cutting-Edge X-Prize Entry, Attends Today's Successful Test Flight of the First Manned Privately Funded Supersonic Aircraft

MOJAVE, CA and SEATTLE - Dec. 17, 2003 - Investor Paul G. Allen today confirmed international speculation that he is the long-rumored sponsor behind the innovative SpaceShipOne project, which broke the sound barrier today during its first manned test flight. SpaceShipOne and its White Knight turbojet launch aircraft represent the first private non-government effort to demonstrate a low-cost manned space effort. SpaceShipOne is a contender for the coveted X-prize.

"Being able to watch today's successful test flight in person was really an overwhelming and awe-inspiring experience. I'm so proud to be able to support the work of Burt Rutan and his pioneering team at Scaled Composites," said Paul G. Allen, who has funded the effort since he and Rutan joined forces in March of 2001. "As we celebrate the centennial of flight, it's wonderful to be able to capture the spirit of innovation and exploration in aviation. SpaceShipOne is a tangible example of continuing humankind's efforts to travel into space, and effectively demonstrating that private, non-government resources can make a big difference in this field of discovery and invention."

"Today's milestone and the SpaceShipOne project would never have been possible without Paul's tremendous support," said Burt Rutan, the acclaimed inventor and aerospace engineer who leads the project along with his research and development team at Scaled Composites, which Rutan founded. "Paul shares our energy and passion for not only supporting one-of-a-kind research, but also a vision of how this kind of space program can shape the future and inspire people around the world."

For details about today's test flight, including specifications on speed, altitude, etc., visit www.scaled.com

For details about the X-prize visit www.xprize.com.

ABOUT PAUL G. ALLEN

Paul G. Allen owns and invests in a suite of companies exploring the potential of digital communications. Allen's business strategy includes encouraging communication and synergy between his portfolio companies for mutual benefit in the areas of technology, new media, biotechnology, entertainment, telecommunications and entertainment. His primary companies include Vulcan Inc. of Seattle and Charter Communications of St. Louis, the nation's fourth-largest cable provider. Allen is owner of the Portland Trail Blazers NBA team and the Seattle Seahawks NFL franchise, and a partner in the entertainment studio DreamWorks SKG. Allen co-founded Microsoft Corporation with Bill Gates in 1975 and served as the company's executive vice president of research and new product development, the company's senior technology post, until 1983. Allen gives back to the community through the six Paul G. Allen Charitable Foundations, which support arts, health and human services, medical research, and forest protection in the Pacific Northwest. He is also the founder of Experience Music Project, Seattle's critically-acclaimed interactive music museum, the forthcoming Experience Science Fiction Museum and Vulcan Productions, the independent film production company. For more information about Paul G. Allen visit www.vulcan.com

Paul G. Allen and the X-Prize! by Spacemannn · 2003-12-17 15:21 · Score: 4, Informative

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 17, 2003

PAUL G. ALLEN CONFIRMED AS LONG-RUMORED SPONSOR OF SPACESHIPONE

Allen Sponsors Scaled Composites' Cutting-Edge X-Prize Entry, Attends Today's Successful Test Flight of the First Manned Privately Funded Supersonic Aircraft

MOJAVE, CA and SEATTLE - Dec. 17, 2003 - Investor Paul G. Allen today confirmed international speculation that he is the long-rumored sponsor behind the innovative SpaceShipOne project, which broke the sound barrier today during its first manned test flight. SpaceShipOne and its White Knight turbojet launch aircraft represent the first private non-government effort to demonstrate a low-cost manned space effort. SpaceShipOne is a contender for the coveted X-prize.

"Being able to watch today's successful test flight in person was really an overwhelming and awe-inspiring experience. I'm so proud to be able to support the work of Burt Rutan and his pioneering team at Scaled Composites," said Paul G. Allen, who has funded the effort since he and Rutan joined forces in March of 2001. "As we celebrate the centennial of flight, it's wonderful to be able to capture the spirit of innovation and exploration in aviation. SpaceShipOne is a tangible example of continuing humankind's efforts to travel into space, and effectively demonstrating that private, non-government resources can make a big difference in this field of discovery and invention."

"Today's milestone and the SpaceShipOne project would never have been possible without Paul's tremendous support," said Burt Rutan, the acclaimed inventor and aerospace engineer who leads the project along with his research and development team at Scaled Composites, which Rutan founded. "Paul shares our energy and passion for not only supporting one-of-a-kind research, but also a vision of how this kind of space program can shape the future and inspire people around the world."

For details about today's test flight, including specifications on speed, altitude, etc., visit www.scaled.com

For details about the X-prize visit www.xprize.com.

ABOUT PAUL G. ALLEN

Paul G. Allen owns and invests in a suite of companies exploring the potential of digital communications. Allen's business strategy includes encouraging communication and synergy between his portfolio companies for mutual benefit in the areas of technology, new media, biotechnology, entertainment, telecommunications and entertainment. His primary companies include Vulcan Inc. of Seattle and Charter Communications of St. Louis, the nation's fourth-largest cable provider. Allen is owner of the Portland Trail Blazers NBA team and the Seattle Seahawks NFL franchise, and a partner in the entertainment studio DreamWorks SKG. Allen co-founded Microsoft Corporation with Bill Gates in 1975 and served as the company's executive vice president of research and new product development, the company's senior technology post, until 1983. Allen gives back to the community through the six Paul G. Allen Charitable Foundations, which support arts, health and human services, medical research, and forest protection in the Pacific Northwest. He is also the founder of Experience Music Project, Seattle's critically-acclaimed interactive music museum, the forthcoming Experience Science Fiction Museum and Vulcan Productions, the independent film production company. For more information about Paul G. Allen visit www.vulcan.com

Re:Paul G. Allen and the X-Prize! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-18 00:00 · Score: 0

"As we celebrate the centennial of flight, it's wonderful to be able to capture the spirit of innovation and exploration in aviation. SpaceShipOne is a tangible example of continuing humankind's efforts to travel into space, and effectively demonstrating that private, non-government resources can make a big difference in this field of discovery and inventio...."

Arg, my brain overloaded from the use of so many complicated wors, some of them I didn't hear before. Might be easy for a native speaker, but why can't they use simple words? cenntenial, tangible example...bah!

errr... by tempny · 2003-12-17 15:27 · Score: 0, Troll

I really hope there's nothing to this, but doesn't "white knight" sound a tad politically incorrect?

Re:errr... by Robot+Messiah · 2003-12-17 15:48 · Score: 1

No. It's genuinely white.
Re:errr... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 17:56 · Score: 0

its also a member of the kkk

Re:Does the X-prize achievement scale to usefulnes by s20451 · 2003-12-17 15:38 · Score: 2, Funny

So I wonder if the X-prize is really meaningful in the scale of realistic space flight?

Well, what about other applications, like suborbital rocket courier from the West Coast to Japan?

USPS Rocket Priority: When it absolutely, positively, has to be there in an hour. Only $100/lb.

--
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.

You want to know you can get back down by johnjay · 2003-12-17 15:39 · Score: 4, Interesting

Building a vehicle that's guaranteed to come back to Earth is a good first goal. Carmack's team is basically building a huge rocket to go up, and a parachute to make the coming down part survivable. Consider the extra math, physics, and computer processing that would have to go into getting back to Earth once you are in orbit. Sure it can be done, but wouldn't you want to test the other parts of the process first?

As far as I can understand, this contests involves building larger than commercially available rocket engines, managing small-scale life support, dealing with simple launch paths, and surviving re-entry stress that doesn't involve serious heat. (I might be wrong on some of these, and I might not have realized other essential things involved) You can see how all of those pieces are simpler aspects of a full-blown orbital launch.

whats the feathering do, anyway? by rebelcool · 2003-12-17 16:21 · Score: 1

I was reading it and seeing the pictures on scaled but couldnt quite follow, other than it seems to allow them to adjust the angle the rocket nozzle points in relation to the wings.

--

-

Re:whats the feathering do, anyway? by Dolphinzilla · 2003-12-18 12:50 · Score: 1

"Feathering" as in the feathers on a badmitton shuttlecock - basically it makes the whole aircraft very very draggy (which obviates the need for ablative coatings or heat tiles) and also stable by moving the CG of the aircraft in a predictable manner (again just like a shuttlecock will always eventually end up with the feathers up and nose down)- the feathering feature is not used during powered flight as far as I know.

Re:Big deal by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 16:30 · Score: 0

Exactly---Scaled Composites is all but there...

Way to go Burt Rutan!

20 kilometers. by porkchop_d_clown · 2003-12-17 16:42 · Score: 1

give or take.

--
Clear, Dark Skies

eh? by porkchop_d_clown · 2003-12-17 16:45 · Score: 1

Do you realize that, even when they achieve their goals and win the prize they'll still end up landing back where they started?

What "ground tracking" resources do you think they'll need?

--
Clear, Dark Skies

I don't think it's gimballed. by porkchop_d_clown · 2003-12-17 16:49 · Score: 1

At least, not much. The craft isn't really designed for exo-atmospheric manuvering. Just straight up, flutter down.

--
Clear, Dark Skies

feathered reentry by freshfromthevat · 2003-12-17 17:36 · Score: 1

Feathered wouldn't work for an orbital re-entry. It works here because SpaceShip One will not be going as fast. The NASA Space Shuttle is flying at 17000mph when it starts it's reentry run. SpaceShip One will be doing under 2000mph.

--
.. Blub falls right in the middle of the abstractness continuum. -- Paul Graham

Re:feathered reentry by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 18:03 · Score: 0

The confusion often arises here because 're-entry gets used as a synonym for 'aerobraking'. Shuttles, Apollos et al. use aerobraking because it saves fuel. If fuel was not a problem, the vehicle could rocket brake to 2000 mph before doing re-entry. Much safer.

Tethers may be the answer, but that's another story.

Re:For those that haven't used imperial for ages.. by morcheeba · 2003-12-17 17:41 · Score: 1

ha ha!

the period is related to gravity... and gravity changes depending where you are. Of course, you could specify a standard gravity, but then that's in meters per second per second... oh well, I guess just picking a long fixed distance that's impossible to measure starts to make sense.

--
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets

MOD PARENT UP! by I,+Trevor · 2003-12-17 18:08 · Score: 1

Right on. That's one of the most level-headed and reasonable approaches to this issue that I've seen yet.

You go, Shihar.

-T.

Mojave Airport. by Simple-Simmian · 2003-12-17 18:10 · Score: 1

The area they are in is next to Edwards AFB, and the China Lake NWC. I don't think they have a problem with getting wavers on any flight rules. The Airport they are based out of has military aircraft flying out of it at times. (I have see it in the past.)

--
If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?

Re:Way Cool by Simple-Simmian · 2003-12-17 18:12 · Score: 1

Some one point out his this is redundant to me? I was an early poster. No post was made about my county. How was this redundant? Mods are on crack (or was it an editor you never would know.)

--
If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?

Reaction Control System? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 18:27 · Score: 0

I havent seen any mention of a reaction control system in any of their tests or photos. Does anyone know if they have one? If not how will they be able to control the attitude in the low pressure, especially at the very top when they have to turn around somehow but are supposedly in space

Re:Reaction Control System? by maroberts · 2003-12-18 00:01 · Score: 1

AFAIK, they don't techically have to turn round. Unlike an orbital craft, they do not have to worry about reentry heat as they are going straight up and straight down (more or less). So they can come down ass-backwards if they want.

Of course, I would suspect that in reality, the crafts center of gravity will point it the right way round when it starts to fall, and the minimal atmosphere will certainly do the rest once they get to 100,000 feet or so.

Another idea would be for the rocket to have some sort of vector control and use the last few grammes of fuel to point the craft in the right direction.

--
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon

here's the url by polished+look+2 · 2003-12-17 18:51 · Score: 1

Paul G. Allen Confirmed as Long-Rumored Sponsor of SpaceShipOne

Re:Does the X-prize achievement scale to usefulnes by the+pickle · 2003-12-17 19:16 · Score: 1

Right now there is an illusion that it costs billions of dollars and huge corporations to do anything in space.

Bingo. Now it just costs billions of dollars, but you can do it with a team of 50 people and some creative outsourcing.

And one really really really rich geek.

Well, at least we got the "mega-corporation" bit out of the way. :-\

p

--
In Korea, long hair is for old people!

Succesor of AirForceOne? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 19:56 · Score: 0

The name SpaceShipOne sounds to me like the next presidential plane/ship.

Why progress in space has stalled by king-manic · 2003-12-17 20:04 · Score: 1

Basically, we don't have the research of a scientifically greater nationg like pre-WW II Germany to rip the technology off of. The great surge forward in Aerospace research int he 50's and 60's were a direct consequence of the americans defeating the germans and stealing all the rocket technology and most of the scientists. Also we lack the pressure to do anything.
IT's sort of like evolution without some sort of selection pressure, nothing changes much. Well for selective pressure we need a huge war with the real possibility that ourside could lose. Thats would spur lots of innovation.

--
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

The problem with NASA by Julian+Morrison · 2003-12-17 20:09 · Score: 1

...is not that they want to kill astronauts, but rather that the origin, intent, structure and funding of the organization are inimical to sensible space travel.

NASA has many skilled and motivated people, but they're doing the wrong things for the wrong reasons, even when they aren't sidetracked into congressional pork.

NASA's guiding vision ("mankind's conquest of space") is abstract, effectively infinite in scope, and impersonal. It does not have a "bottom line". Hence they are blind to weigh up and choose concrete goals. They're aiming so high they want to get there immediately, and not stop to ask "why?". But, it's the "why" that tells you "how", and "ought I?".

They're underfunded to attack an infinity, by definition - and OVERfunded to develop sensible space travel. Their successes have all been of a "brute force and megabucks" sort. Rather than having to build slowly towards a true technology of space travel, each step justified by measurable, personal utility, they've operated on the principle that enough money will punt anything into orbit, and they'll learn on the job and find a justification for it later. All such vehicles are prototypes, and unsafe.

Need another shuttle, again.

Re:For those that haven't used imperial for ages.. by Wirr · 2003-12-17 21:48 · Score: 1

I wonder, though... in those days, did they think that there was something special about the line through Paris as opposed to, say, a line through the Atlantic ocean? Or was mentioning Paris just a political gimme?

No they weren't. The definition of the meter was an international effort. With Spain, Great Britain, France and even the USA involved.
The line which they measured needed to fullfill some requirements e.g. it needed two coasts two measure sealevel and some others.
As it happens there is only one line that fullfills all requirements and that is the line through Paris.
(especially with 1700s measurement accuracy)

Measurments where accurate to within 1.5 arcseconds.

There is a very interesting book about the subject if your interested:
The Measure of All Things : The Seven-Year Odyssey and Hidden Error That Transformed the World

Re:PRIVATE commercial supersonic flight yet to hap by mykdavies · 2003-12-17 22:12 · Score: 2, Informative

Although it was state-owned at the time of Concorde's development, British Airways isn't State-funded now, and hasn't been since it was privatised in 1983. At the time of privitisation, the government sold Concorde to BA for 1, writing off all the development costs. This meant that Concorde has always operated as a profit for BA.

Now, Air France is a different matter!

--
The world has changed and we all have become metal men.

Tipical of Americans!!!! by T_Tobagous · 2003-12-17 22:38 · Score: 0, Flamebait

About the entire world knows that a brasilian, livinf on France, was the fisrt man to fly...
Only the americans says that the Wright brothers made this first (in a "secret" test , and with a CATAPULT!!!! This way even ROCKS fly!), against all the rest of the planet.
Sheesh, and I thogught that a bunch of well- informed uber-geeks like these here could even NOTE something about Alberto Santos-Dumount
Only to link...
http://taipeitimes.com/News/feat/archives/2003/12/ 11/2003079196
http://www.firstflight.org/shrine/santos_dumont.cf m
http://www.rudnei.cunha.nom.br/FAB/eng/santos-dumo nt.html
http://www.thefirsttofly.hpg.ig.com.br/pioneer2.ht m
Worst, Alberto killed himself when seeing the airplanes using at war to kill people, not for personal joy, with the help of the Whright...

Re:Tipical of Americans!!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-18 04:01 · Score: 0

So, on October 23, 1906, Santos-Dumont made the first flight, right? Bullshit. By 1905 the Wrights were flying for 2 hours at a time. The Wrights most productive work went on in 1904-08 in Dayton Ohio at a place called Huffman Prairie. They made hundreds of flights as they refined the flight control system they originally developed for the 1902 glider. The 1903 craft could just barely fly, but the Model B Flyer was/is a real airplane.

Short Term Weightless Conditions by The+Grassy+Knoll · 2003-12-17 23:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

At apogee, SpaceShipOne was in near-weightless conditions, emulating the characteristics it will later encounter during the planned space flights in which it will be at zero-g for more than three minutes

I can get the same effect by jumping in the air, can't I?. Just for a shorter time?

Well, I'm off to emulate the characteristics I will later encounter during the planned space flights now.

Boing

--
They will never know the simple pleasure of a monkey knife fight

Stupid Masses by Shihar · 2003-12-17 23:27 · Score: 1

With regards to your complaint that the American public needs to have things sugar coated, I completely agree with you. It irks me when I hear people breathing a sigh of relief because Saddam can no longer nuke the US. It is kind of sad that most people can't see through the thinly veiled excuse the US used to make the war 'legal' (or at least more legal). Iraq was invaded because the US wanted a free market democracy in the Middle East to influence the nations around it, pure and simple, right or wrong. WMDs was like nailing a mobster on tax evasion charges - it was an excuse. I wish people would judge the validity of the war based on what it was really about. That isn't to say you can't still support the war, just understand the real reason behind it instead of chanting mantra.

Of course, both sides are guilty of chanting stupid mantra. "No more blood for oil" was chanted as much as "don't let Saddam nuke the US". Both were stupid arguments dumbed down for the masses.

Perhaps that is the reason why the Bush administration continues on with its charade about WMDs - people are stupid. Anti-war people rally their stupid supports with dumb no blood for oil mantra and boil the entire conflict down to just evil corporations looking to make a quick buck. Pro-war people rally their stupid supports with fear of WMDs and terrorist about to turn American cities into dust. Both are infinitely stupid arguments and don't even begin to scratch the truth what really happened and why. If you think Bush attacked Iraq to make a quick buck or if you think he did it to keep US cities from feeling WMDs, you are ignoring the fact that the world is not as black and white and as complicated as it is.

Any time you receive and argument where there is an obvious good guy and bag guy, then that should set off a dozen warnings in your head that you are being fed bullshit. If you can't see both sides of the argument and understand how someone on both sides feels, then you are better off keeping your mouth shut because you clearly don't understand the totality of the situation.

Perhaps people deserve to be treated like idiots. Stupid mantra seems to have done well enough to mobilize both sides. If people are shut stupid sheep that they will believe such simple and inane explanations of the world around them, then perhaps we are getting what we deserve. It is a sad commentary.

Re:space race by jcupitt65 · 2003-12-17 23:41 · Score: 1

The last moon/mars thing that Bush Sr started (and was rejected by congress) in '92 was budgeted at $400 bn.

Very appropriate by confused+one · 2003-12-18 00:44 · Score: 1

'nuff said

Re:Does the X-prize achievement scale to usefulnes by Queuetue · 2003-12-18 01:36 · Score: 1

If my calculations are correct, it appears that 330,000 does lie between 0 and 117,427,200. This would imply that building a craft that can achieve the goals of X-Prize 1 would indeed be a stepping stone on the way to actual manned spaceflight.

This does not indicate that the winner of this prize can just "scale up" the winning craft and achieve orbit - no one involved thinks so.

The X-Prize is an attempt to spur private interest in building spaceships, and to provide cash incentives (or, more realistically, minimize the losses associated) for those who achieve specific goals, and provide heat to a smouldering private space market.

Re:For those that haven't used imperial for ages.. by ehartwell · 2003-12-18 01:39 · Score: 1

Actually, I converted the X-Prize height to feet to match the numbers from the press release. Sure, metric makes more sense, but let's not forget the US is still unaccountably anti-metric (see: Mars Orbiter Lost Over Metric Conversion Error)

Space doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-18 02:05 · Score: 0

Honestly, it's what's in space that's interesting, and the X-Prize (and similar) are burning money reinventing the wheel as an oval.

The Russian Space Agency will accomplish more to move the world towards privatized space flight in this year, than the X-Prize ever will.

I'd be much more interested in an independent sustainable habitat contest, eg X-Biodome. That would actually prove useful to those genuinely interested in seeing exploration and colonization of the solar system and beyond become commonplace.

As it stands, X-Prize reminds me more of "Pioneer Quest" than "Galaxy Quest".

Not in your lifetime by peter303 · 2003-12-18 02:40 · Score: 1

Too costly.

Specific Impulse by krysith · 2003-12-18 02:42 · Score: 2, Informative

Actually, I believe when the grandparent post was referring to LH2/LOX as being "best", "best" was defined as "having the highest specific impulse of any chemical fuel currently used". It is the specific impulse of the fuel which determines the fuel mass to rocket mass ratio. In this case, JM is right, as LH2/LOX has the highest specific impulse of any chemical fuel (550 seconds IIRC). However, you are correct that LOX/Kerosene is a much, much easier fuel to work with, which still has a decent specific impulse (350 seconds IIRC). Of course, the choice of fuel only puts a limit on how high your specific impulse can be - no engine is 100% efficient, and engine efficiency will reduce those numbers below their ideal values. Frankly, I agree with you - I'd rather work with Kerosene than LH2 any day.

BTW, for those readers who don't know what specific impulse is (or why it is measured in seconds of all things): specific impulse is a measure of the amount of impulse (=force * time) which a specific amount of fuel produces. A pound of fuel will produce a pound of thrust for X seconds, where X is the specific impulse. Ion and plasma engines can have specific impulses in the 1000's of seconds, but have a very low thrust.

BTW, Burt Rutan was a childhood hero of mine. I've heard of him crashing, but I've never heard of him failing. I've always thought that his team will be the one to win the X prize.

Bezos and Muck (PayPal) too by peter303 · 2003-12-18 02:43 · Score: 1

Both thtese guys are sponsoring other x-prize contestants according to a popular science article.

Re:For those that haven't used imperial for ages.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-18 03:17 · Score: 0

I wonder, though... in those days, did they think that there was something special about the line through Paris as opposed to, say, a line through the Atlantic ocean? Or was mentioning Paris just a political gimme?

1) It was devised by a Frenchman.
2) At the time, the Paris meridian was the "standard" instead of the Greenwich meridian.

Re:space race by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-18 03:35 · Score: 0

WOW. Did you escape from the loney bin or the white house?
It failed due to a number of reasons. Ultimatly, the current head of NASA is responsible. He had a responsibility to furthor examine the craft, and he and his hand picked group of managers chose to not examine. A number of the engineers asked for pix, but higher up it was refused. That was a part of what was implied in the safety review.

Re:space race by WindBourne · 2003-12-18 03:40 · Score: 1

Actually, it is most likely that a private spaceship will reach the moon in our lifetime. Plain and simple, that is where the money. Minerals, Low-gravity manufactuering, power, etc. is all about money. NASA has done the real work, but it will not be able of commercializing this. Nor should it; NASA is about research and doing the work that companies or individuals can not do.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

Not JUST Supersonic by Eadwacer · 2003-12-18 04:30 · Score: 1

Has anyone noted that Space Ship 1 was essentially GOING STRAIGHT UP when it cracked the sound barrier?

uh, no by rebelcool · 2003-12-18 04:30 · Score: 1

Dumont's aircraft couldn't even steer or turn and its "flight" was a tiny hop. Wright's 1903 flyer could do that. And as mentioned, the Wright's were flying for several hours in the air prior to Dumont. And if you saw dumont's design, it was more like a box kite with a steam engine attached to it and no control surfaces.

The catapult you speak of was for light-wind conditions. The 1903 flyer made no use of it, it was a later development so they could work in Dayton. And as far as catapults go...how do you think planes get launched off of an aircraft carrier?

The wright's were secretive as a consequence of patent law at the time which prohibited public demonstrations while patents were pending. The patent office was very slow during this period of time as there many technological innovations during the 1900-1910 period.

--

-

Missing the point.. (irony) by Spamalamadingdong · 2003-12-18 04:47 · Score: 1

The point is that there are already commercial operations that do achieve these numbers. They do so in order to provide a valuable service: placing satellites in orbit.

Is there any commercial operation which offers manned suborbital flights at all, let alone inexpensively and flying a fully-reusable vehicle which can be re-flown in two weeks or less?

I have not heard of a commercial (or government, for that matter) effort to fill any one of those niches, let alone all of them.

Thus your comments on 200 mile orbit and acceleration are not relevant.

Nice attempt to back-pedal and change the subject after being proved wrong, but given that you now say the corrections are irrelevant you beg the question of why you made such blatantly wrong assertions in the first place.

--
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist

Exactly by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-18 05:02 · Score: 0

"You may want to take a look at the human rights records of some of America's closest allies"

Yes...did you know in France, you can't auction off German 3rd Reich artifacts? You're not allowed to bring up France's cooperation with the Nazis? Or to mention the myth of french resistance? That you can be arrested for wearing muslim headdresses to school?

And we're still friends with these Yahoos?

Re:Exactly by RobertB-DC · 2003-12-19 06:54 · Score: 1

And we're still friends with these Yahoos?

No, I haven't been friends with Yahoo! in quite a while. I much prefer Google.

--
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.

That reminds me of a story... by ttsalo · 2003-12-18 08:18 · Score: 0

They didn't have access to the more exotic materials of the west in the cold war, so had to make do with conventional metals, etc.

An US admiral and a Russian admiral went to shipyards in their respective countries and said: "Hey, how about we make a submarine out of titanium?"
The US shipyard manager said: "Are you crazy? Where the hell are we going to get that much titanium?"
The Russian shipyard manager said: "How many do you want?"

--
If the road to hell is paved with good intentions, where does the road paved with evil intentions lead to?

No Child Left Behind Act. by Behrooz · 2003-12-18 11:56 · Score: 1

Try the "No Child Left Behind" act on for size, dearie. There's even more emphasis on fact regurgitation now... go standardized testing and block grants based on testing performance, go!

--
"We have to go forth and crush every world view that doesn't believe in tolerance and free speech." - David Brin

Re:Does the X-prize achievement scale to usefulnes by mpthompson · 2003-12-19 08:15 · Score: 1

Agreed. We all must learn to walk before we can run.

It should also be pointed out that although the Redstone rocket used to launch Alan Shepard into space was not capable of putting the Mercury capsule into orbit, it set the stage for later orbital Mercury missions using the larger Atlas rocket. Even NASA in the 60's took a methodical and evolutionary approach to space flight -- although on a hastened and expensive timetable that small private enterprise cannot hope to match.

Also note that the Redstone rocket used to launch the first US satellite Explorer I was a direct descendant of the German V2 which began development some 20 years or so earlier.

I for one can't wait to see where the descendants of the X-Prize efforts will be in 20 years.

Slashdot Mirror

SpaceShipOne Rockets To 68,000 Feet

390 comments