Slashdot Mirror


SpaceShipOne Back in Action

JoeSilva writes "After a 3 month wait, Scaled Composites' SpaceShipOne is back in the skies above Mojave! Not only is it patched up from a failed landing gear, it's got a 'thermal protection system' installed. Looks like high temp insulation on the leading edges. Also they have a picture of it with 'the rocket motor for the flight 13p'. This was the 12th SpaceShipOne flight."

34 of 200 comments (clear)

  1. I like that... by Phillup · · Score: 5, Funny

    They have a "falling bathtub mode".

    Wonder how much they could make selling rides on that thing.

    --

    --Phillip

    Can you say BIRTH TAX
  2. For those who don't know by ferralis · · Score: 5, Informative
    the "P" stands for Powered... looks like they're tipping their hand and the next flight will be with boost!

    WOOHOO!!!

    Check out the test updates here.

    AFAIK, these guys are the closest to winning the X-Prize- go team!!!

    --
    Any generalization is a stupid one.
  3. Photos by bobthemuse · · Score: 5, Informative

    A great set of photos (hopefully soon to be mirrored) is available here.

  4. Minimal info by apsmith · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Looks like the flight was a few days ago (March 11) - why is this the first report? They're being very quiet about this. And how did Joe Silva track this down?

    --

    Energy: time to change the picture.

    1. Re:Minimal info by SeaDour · · Score: 5, Insightful

      To say they're "being very quiet about this" is an understatement. They didn't even announce the project until well after it had gone through the design and prototype phases. Additionally, the test flights have usually been announced and discussed at least a week after their occurance. Also, we're still not even sure who all the investors in the project are. I would guess that the main reason they're keeping it so secretive is to prevent other teams from gaining the upperhand.

    2. Re:Minimal info by Ed_Moyse · · Score: 5, Insightful

      i doubt microsoft has a whole lot to do with it, i think its just probably him trying to get some fame by getting them into space.

      Or maybe he's just unbelievably rich, thinks that this is a cool project and wants to support it? Lets go easy on the cynicism folks!

    3. Re:Minimal info by Buran · · Score: 4, Insightful

      On the other hand, civilian access to space finally becoming a reality is an incredible thing. It gives me hope, as a nearly lifelong enthusiast, that I may see space firsthand before I die, not via Celestis. This should be laid bare for the public, but it is not... we only find out about any progress weeks or months later when I'd rather the info go up within hours, which is certainly possible these days.

      There is no longer any need to keep secret the fact that people and objects can get to space - Wernher von Braun wanted to try it way back in 1945, but his A-9/A-10 project got killed and it took him almost 20 more years before he accomplished that goal. If there was ever any time for secrecy, it was way back then when all this was still a surprise to spring on the bad guys. Not when there's about to be a change as big as the one we went through when Gagarin and Shepard went up.

  5. Re:X Prize is impossible by kclittle · · Score: 4, Informative

    The X Prize is NOT ABOUT LEO! It's about reaching 100KM, with at least 1 person, in a vehicle capable of carring 3, twice in 2 weeks.

    --
    Generally, bash is superior to python in those environments where python is not installed.
  6. Global Flyer by stoolpigeon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    While you are there check out the Global Flyer It is just as cool in my book. The similarity in the designs of the craft are interesting. The idea of flying around the world on one tank of gas is pretty wild.

    --
    It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    1. Re:Global Flyer by CXI · · Score: 4, Informative

      Dick Rutan did a similar flight with two pilots back in 1986 with Voyager.

      Talk about similar designs... Burt Rutan designed Voyager. :)

  7. Armadillo Aerospace by Sparky77 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've been following the X-Prize work at Armadillo for the last year or so. If nothing else than for the John Carmack factor. They seem to have stalled lately, always reengineering their rocket motors and such. I'm still cheering them on anyway though I can't see them surpassing Scaled Composites at this point.

    --
    One bad monkey spoils the whole barrel.
    1. Re:Armadillo Aerospace by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I wouldn't worry too much. Rutan seems to be putting on a show more than actually at a "space capable" stage. IIRC, the X-Prize requires that the craft reach 100KM. Rutan's craft has only reached ~14Km, about where a 747 flies. Actual LEO is really 200km - 1500km.

      FWIW, it looks like Carmack is taking the time to understand his engines before shooting them off and hoping they fly. This is particularly important since his Monoprop fuel has an Isp of a mere 160. (Shuttle SRBs get 250, and LHOx like the Shuttle main engines get 450.)

    2. Re:Armadillo Aerospace by Ephboy · · Score: 4, Informative

      According to their flight log: Motor light off was achieved at 44,400 feet and 0.55M. Burnout occurred at 1.2M and apogee was 67,800 feet. The max specs for a 747 are ~45,000 ft. Yes, they've got a bit more to go, but the 67,800 ft was on their first test of the engine. I'm sure they could have let it go longer and easily gotten higher.

    3. Re:Armadillo Aerospace by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you asked me a month ago, I would have said Rutan has it. With all the understanding I've gained of rockets in the past month or so, I'd say its a toss up. Each design presents its own design challenges. Rutan can make test flights because of his decision to use a winged craft. OTOH, Carmack is already getting far more power out of his engines. We'll see which one takes the cake.

  8. Looks good by Skyshadow · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Ship looks pretty tight, IMO.

    Of course, the project we have to compare it to is John Carmack's Armadillo Aerospace venture (since they have the decency to provide week-by-week status reports, which I consider manditory Monday reading). The folks at Armadillo are still working on getting their engines to light reliably (extra important since they're using five of them) and still haven't had anything like a successful test flight.

    I dunno, man -- If I'm Carmack, I'm thinking it's time to really get at it if you're still serious about winning the X-prize. The SpaceShipOne folks seem to be putting them further and further into the rear-view. Which isn't to say they *can't* catch up; if the Armadillo team can get their engines lighting reliably, they should be about ready to bolt the thing together and start flying.

    Man, this beats the heck out of money pits like the ISS, eh? Nothing like a little old fashioned get-the-prize competition to turn up some interesting stuff. Maybe a $100 billion prize for the first company to land people on Mars and bring them back ought to be next -- get the government to cooperate with permits and NASA to share their tech. I'd bet you'd see people there inside a decade.

    --
    Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
    1. Re:Looks good by Skyshadow · · Score: 4, Funny
      Giving them mars kind of defeats the purpose, doesn't it?

      Wait until you see the property tax bill...

      --
      Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
  9. Re:mirror / karma whoring by el_salvador · · Score: 4, Informative

    now with link and without the added space
    i know, i suck at slashdot

  10. heat shielding by black+ninja · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I'm just a lowly undergrad of physics, but won't they need more than just a heat shield on leading edges? Any aero-eng guys out there? I slow to landing speed as you come out of orbit I think you have to come in at a fairly high angle of attack so that you present a large cross-section to the air, and let the drag slow you down. That is why the space shuttles underbelly is all thermo-shield.

    Also, IMHO the ship looks like some high-school science project with way to much duct-tape with the leading edges done the way they have it.

    1. Re:heat shielding by RichMan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is a sub-orbital flight. A parabolic up-down with "comparativly little" speed WRT the ground. A true orbital flight needs momentum to balance out gravity. This means a lot higher ground speed for an orbital flight.

      As this is not an orbital flight there is no excessive velocity to burn off. Hence, the bathtub mode of recovery from altitude.

  11. Re:Lucky 13? by jwriney · · Score: 5, Informative

    Any team wanting to make an attempt must notify the X-Prize officials at least a month in advance with the launch date and location. I would assume that this information would be released with some fanfare. Since no notification has been made yet, no official flight.

    That's not to say they couldn't go to space unofficially, before going for the big money; in fact they probably will, as part of their test series.

    --riney

  12. Armadillo Dreamin' by Ephboy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Apparently, Scaled Composites is one of two teams to have applied for a permit from the FAA to launch a spaceflight. The other is Armadillo Aerospace, run by John Carmack of Doom fame. It's interesting to compare and contrast the two companies. Rutan has a sleek ship with lots of cool round windows that launches from a funky big plane, and they have some good solid live testing. The Armadillo team's site really shows you the nitty-gritty of building something that flies in your spare time, with pictures of them welding engines together, making a crew capsule out of whatever they could find, and building a landing gear with some thick cable springs. I'm guessing that Rutan will win, but I'll hold out hope that the garage engineer can pull off at least some type of flight to give courage to that old entrepreneurial spirit....

    1. Re:Armadillo Dreamin' by Skyshadow · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I'm not sure it's fair to characterize Rutan and Carmack this way.

      Neither of these guys are professional rocket builders. They're both private individuals spending their (ample) money to compete for the X-prize. Rutan has previous experience building aircraft and has worked more at putting together a team and securing infrastructure to help with the build, but it's not as if Rutan is leading a billion-dollar team of button-down 1950's engineers at Boeing or something while Carmack is competing out of his back yard shed.

      Just because Carmack posts his day-to-day struggles on the web for us all to enjoy (and I *do* enjoy it, BTW) doesn't imply that the SpaceShipOne team isn't encountering the exact same sorts of technical hurdles, supply problems, permit bullshit and etc. In other words, whichever wins will be a victory for the little guy because they're *both* the little guy.

      --
      Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
    2. Re:Armadillo Dreamin' by RedWizzard · · Score: 4, Informative
      They're both private individuals spending their (ample) money to compete for the X-prize.
      Please note that neither of these teams got into this for the X-prize. Carmack wanted to put someone in space for the hell of it, and Rutan is trying to develop a commercial space tourism platform. For Carmack the advent of the X-prize meant aiming for an X-prize sized vehicle earlier than otherwise. In Rutan's case the X-prize will nowhere near cover the cost of development (which I've heard is around $30M, IIRC), but will certainly reduce it.
  13. I'm waiting... by Seoulstriker · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm waiting for Carmack to respond to the space race. I'm also waiting for a release date for DooM3! :)

    --
    I am defenseless. Use your button. Mod me down with all of your hatred.
  14. A good thing too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They better not have any more delays like that last one, if they want to win the X-Prize. The $10 million dollar prize expires at the end of this year, and a lot of other groups are competing for it.

    I think we'll see some exciting new developments in space technology over the next few years. I'm confident someone will win the X-Prize,(which is more a PR bonus for starting a space tourism company than anything else) the Bush Admin wants to send folks to the moon or Mars (probably using nuclear propulsion), and it's all but a foregone conclusion that someone will try to build a Space Elevator soon.

  15. Heat shielding is minor compared to orbital craft by Dr.+Zowie · · Score: 5, Informative
    Remember (nobody ever seems to) that getting into space is not nearly has hard as getting into orbit. We're used to descriptions of the amazing technology that is used to protect astronauts and such on re-entry -- but that amazing technology is only needed because of the enormous speeds that orbital vehicles have to attain.

    The kinetic energy required to accelerate a gallon of gasoline to orbital speed is more than the chemical energy contained in the gasoline.

    By contrast, "merely" lifting something up 100km doesn't require much energy at all.

    So, er, no, leading-edge heat shields ought to be just fine. Fiberglass or carbon-fiber composites might even survive a flight or two without any shielding at all.

  16. Despite what it looks like... by CBob · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Rutan and Scaled are prob the Ultimate Gargage Engineers. He's done stuff that "experts" called impossible for years.

    The "early" kit planes he designed are still works of "art".

    (bad news, the site is /.ed)

    1. Re:Despite what it looks like... by captainClassLoader · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yeah, no kidding. Bert Rutan has not one, but 3 aircraft designs displayed at the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum. These are the around-the-world Voyager,, and the experimental homebuilts VariEze, and Quickie.

      --
      "The plural of anecdote is not data" -- Bruce Schneier
  17. Re:Lucky 13? by ericspinder · · Score: 5, Informative

    Most likely they'll hit space with a lone pilot a couple of times first. Ever flight so far only has 2 in the WK and 1 in the SSO. To win the X-Prize they would need 3 people in the SSO. So far they have been playing it safe by only having just as many people as needed(as they should), I don't see any reason they'll change the play. All the test runs they are making is showing the strength of their system, if this were NASA the runs would be 6 months apart. Besides, it's not like there is any other group so close to winning the prize. Maybe some other team might just pop outta nowhere and grab that brass ring, but they would have to be awefully sneaky to do that.

    --
    The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.
  18. Re:Needed: Improved Fuels by Rorschach1 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Where do you get that information from? I'm not a physical chemist, but the rocketry books I've read say that chemical fuels aren't going to get much past 450 to 500 seconds Isp. The SSMEs get about 450, I think. Isp (specific impulse) is directly proportional to exhaust temperature, which is always going to be an issue in practical rocket design.

    The 1970's NERVA nuclear rocket program managed to get about twice the Isp of our best chemical rockets with a decent amount of thrust. Ion drives might give you an order of magnitude improvement over chemical rockets, but they don't have the thrust to be used in launch vehicles.

    The only propulsion system I've seen proposed that could realistically produce 2 to 3 orders of magnitude increase in efficiency is the Orion drive. The government doesn't like the idea of building hundreds of small, clean nukes, though. Greenpeace gets a bit riled up about it, too.

    Of course, if I had my way, they'd be welcome to protest right at the launch site.

  19. Re:Heat shielding is minor compared to orbital cra by ThosLives · · Score: 5, Informative
    I can't resist:

    The energy content of gasoline is about 42e6 J/kg.

    Orbital velocity (at the surface of the earth) is about 8000 m/s. Kinetic energy of 1 kg at 8000 m/s is 32e6 J. (That is, you need about 32 MJ/kg)

    However for those who want the whole story, the parent to this is correct: to get all that energy out of the kg of gasoline, you *also* need about 2.8 kg oxygen. Gasoline-oxygen gets you about 11 MJ/kg, which is about a third of what you need to hit orbital velocity.

    To get to 100 km altitude, you need only 0.96 MJ/kg, which is no problem for gasoline-oxygen.

    --
    "There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
  20. The why (and some of the difficulties) of NERVA by Dr.+Zowie · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Yup, chemical rockets can't get much past about 500 seconds because there just isn't any more energy in chemical bonds. The game in rocketry is to dump as much momentum as possible into as little propellant as possible. The rub: putting momentum into mass requires energy. Momentum scales linearly with your rocket's exhaust speed; but the kinetic energy of the exhaust scales like the square of the exhaust speed! Hence, the more propellant efficient you are, the more energy you need per unit mass. If I recall right, the most energetic-per-unit-mass reaction is atomic hydrogen bonding with atomic fluorine, yielding 0.1 eV/amu of fuel -- that translates to 9.6 megajoules per kg of fuel, or (with perfect conversion) about 4500 meters/second exhaust speed. Divide by 10 m/sec^2 to get Isp, and you find that 450 seconds is the limit for chemical rockets.

    Nuclear reactions yield about a million times more energy per unit mass than do chemical reactions, so it's natural to try to get the energy that way.

    NERVA got OK Isp (about a factor of 2 better than chemical rockets, something like 1000 seconds), but its thrust-to-weight ratio was pretty low, about 4 if I remember right. That's because it included a critical, operating nuclear reactor with an actively controlled chain reaction, and them thar things are heavy.

    Thrust-to-weight is just as important as Isp to a rocket: higher thrust-to-weight means you can tote more fuel, payload, and structure for the same Isp, since you always have to have the mass of the engine itself around. By contrast to the NERVA's thrust-to-weight of about 4, the Space Shuttle main engines have a thrust-to-weight ratio of around 75. Since solid rockets are technically made out of their own fuel, their effective weight is much lower for this calculation (pretty much just the bell nozzle) and you might see numbers in the several-hundreds range.

    Of course, one could always work on making the NERVA more lightweight -- but do you really want to optimize a nuclear reactor for mass, rather than safety? I didn't think so.

    Now, for use in space, thrust-to-weight isn't so important. The rocket doesn't have to support itself against gravity, so low-mass engines that also produce low thrust are perfectly OK.

    Of course, international treaty bans the use of critical nuclear reactors in space, but that alone wouldn't slow down our current administration very much.

    [Nuclear reactors get flown into space all the time, but they always have much less than critical mass, relying on spontaneous decay to keep the chain reaction limping along at a constant rate. NERVA would require controlled reaction rates, hence a critical-mass reactor.]

  21. Three people not necessary by jmichaelg · · Score: 5, Informative
    To win the X-Prize they would need 3 people in the SSO.

    The ship only has to have accomodations for three people. The rules allow for substituting ballast for the passenger's weight and letting the single pilot go up alone. The relevant rule is

    3. The flight vehicle must be flown twice within a 14-day period. Each flight must carry at least one person, to minimum altitude of 100 km (62 miles). The flight vehicle must be built with the capacity (weight and volume) to carry a minimum of 3 adults of height 188 cm (6 feet 2 inches) and weight 90 kg (198 pounds) each. Three people of this size or larger must be able to enter, occupy, and be fastened into the flight vehicle on Earth's surface prior to take-off, and equivalent ballast must be carried in-flight if the number of persons on-board during flight is less than 3 persons.
  22. Re:In Canada... by zero_offset · · Score: 4, Funny

    That's a strange thing to call Death Valley.

    --

    Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005