Slashdot Mirror


SpaceShipOne Rockets To 68,000 Feet

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 (930 mph) and a peak altitude of 68,000 feet. To win the X-Prize they need to reach 330,000 feet twice within 2 weeks."

13 of 390 comments (clear)

  1. John Carmack ? by EmCeeHawking · · 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.

  2. No kidding by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  3. Re:50 years from now... by tc · · 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.

  4. Aerospace progress by wrmrxxx · · 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!

  5. Re:Looks bad for Carmack by savuporo · · 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!
  6. Re:50 years from now... by JT27278 · · 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.

  7. Supersonic Homebuilt by CmdrTostado · · 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)

  8. On the landing gear failure by Woutepout · · 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
  9. Re:50 years from now... by fiftyLou · · 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.

  10. PRIVATE commercial supersonic flight yet to happen by Julian+Morrison · · Score: 5, Informative

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

  11. Re:What's the big deal about rocket science? by Dr.+Zowie · · 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.

  12. Re:who makes this component at armadillo ... by mrjah · · Score: 5, Funny

    "ESTES"

    They use D motors.

  13. Re:50 years from now... by orn · · 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.