Slashdot Mirror


SpaceShipOne Completes Second Test Flight

waynegoode writes "According to an article at Space.com, Scaled Composites' SpaceShipOne suborbital rocket plane made its second powered flight today. The piloted vehicle was powered by a hybrid rocket motor to over 105,000 feet. The engine burned for 40 seconds, zipping to Mach 2. SpaceShipOne is one of several projects competing for the $10 million X Prize. Slashdot mentioned yesterday that it received a license from the FAA, the first license for a suborbital rocket."

26 of 194 comments (clear)

  1. Good luck to them! by erick99 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    This is a very exciting project to watch. Clearly Rutan and company are not entirely doing this for the money as they have easily spent more than the $10M prize already. They must be pretty serious as they have applied for DOT/FAA permits, according to the article:

    Just yesterday, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) announced it had issued the world's first license for a sub-orbital manned rocket flight.

    The license was issued April 1 by the DOT's Federal Aviation Administration's Office of Commercial Space Transportation to Scaled Composites. This federal paperwork green-lighted a sequence of sub-orbital flights by Scaled Composites for a one-year period.

    The license to Scaled Composites is the first to authorize piloted flight on a sub-orbital trajectory, the DOT statement noted.

    I hope we are able to witness this "...piloted flight on a sub-orbital trajector.."this year!

    Happy Trails!

    Erick

    --
    http://www.busyweather.com/
    1. Re:Good luck to them! by Bobdoer · · Score: 4, Funny

      Personally, I hope that SpaceShipOne does much better than RealPlayerOne.

  2. Anybody else still in the running? by LostCluster · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As only a casual X-Prize follower, SpaceShipOne is the only X-Prize contestant team name I can come up with off the top of my head now.

    Is there any other team that's anywhere close to keeping SpaceShipOne's pace, or are they now the presumed winner of the X-Prize unless they really stumble?

    1. Re:Anybody else still in the running? by SpyPlane · · Score: 5, Informative

      How about our favorite FPS gaming programmer turned rocketman John Carmack's Armadillo Aerospace?

      http://www.armadilloaerospace.com

      Wow, that was a big possesive noun.

      --
      "We need a fourth law of Robotics: Stop Fingering My Wife"
    2. Re:Anybody else still in the running? by Carnildo · · Score: 4, Informative

      SpaceShipOne is the most likely winner, but Armadillo Aerospace is also trying for a launch this year, and could potentially beat SpaceShipOne.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    3. Re:Anybody else still in the running? by MrBlue+VT · · Score: 5, Informative

      I've been following Armadillo about every week on their news page for the past year. I like their dedication and method of building a ship.

      They have however spent a lot of time dealing with engine issues. They've already had to go from a 90% peroxide monopropellent design to a 50% peroxide/methanol mixed-monoprop because FNC (one of the few companies that make 90% peroxide) wasn't willing to sell it to them. They've spent a lot more time dealing with designing the engines than they anticipated. Just goes to show, rocket engine design is not simple!

      Other issues include how to get the thing back on the ground safely. They initally planned to use a big ass parachute to land it, but they found out that this really restricts them in terms of getting a launch license. Because there is a possiblity for such huge range drift with the parachute design (thus endangering public safety since it can land in a huge footprint) that they've now had to think about doing a powered landing using the engines. This of course, leaves much less room for error on landing. An alternative would be to have the pilot bail out and parachute down while the ship lands by itself, but again this adds complexity.

      Although I'd love to see them win, the fact is, Rutan is way ahead of them in terms of testing and having a working prototype ship. Basically SS1 is the favorite by quite a bit as of now.

    4. Re:Anybody else still in the running? by Mark_Uplanguage · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The real trick to the X prize, if you read the whole article, is that everyone has to get the FAA approval. So if there are any thoughts to other teams forgoing safety to try and beat the clock, think again. Indeed as a long time fan of Rutan, he's been the only real contender in my mind, due to his ability to solve any challenge presented because he thinks completely out of the box. That tail fin which flips up to control descent is a mark of true genius.

      --
      "The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." -- Albert Einstein
  3. 1/3 of the way there... by MBAFK · · Score: 5, Informative

    They have to get to 328,000 feet, seems like they are looking pretty good.

  4. Curses, foiled again! by SB9876 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Drat, someone beat me on the article submission. At least this time, the editors will finally have a decent reason to reject my submission, though.

    Unless something goes seriously wrong with Scaled's program, it looks they've got the thing pretty much sewn up. The only serious competitors to Scaled right now are Carmack's Armadillo and those craaazy Canucks on the Da Vinci project. Given that this is almost exactly 1/3 of the way to the X Prize and that they already have broken the red tape barrier, I have trouble seeing anyone catching up to Rutan and crew at this point.

  5. I hope they get there, but what next? by skywolf · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Although this team have spent more than the prize money, it seems incredible that they have designed, built and flight tested a prototype for less than the cost of any off-the-shelf space-launch I have ever heard of.

    Is this 'cos they're good, or is it the case that the two tasks (suborbital flight, orbital flight) really don't bear any comparison? Five years from now, will Slashdot be covering the Y prize (orbital flight) or ultimately even the Z-prize (presumably an amateur moonshot)

    1. Re:I hope they get there, but what next? by mrright · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There is a very logical upgrade path from a suborbital to an orbital vehicle.

      A manned suborbital vehicle going to 100km altitude needs a reaction control system to orient itself in a vacuum. It needs to be pressurized. And it needs a (small) heat shield.

      So it really is a space craft that just does not have enough delta-v to make orbit.

      By increasing the available delta-v incrementally you can work out the bugs much easier than if you had to do it all in one big step like they did with the shuttle.

      A suborbital craft is also very interesting as a reusable first stage for a microsattelite launch vehicle. For example with the payload of the spaceship one and an expendable upper stage it should be possible to get about 10kg into low earth orbit. This would be very interesting for universities and radio amateurs that can not affor d a large launch vehicle.

      The DOD has also shown some interest in microsattelites. This is a nice way to make some money while developing a real reusable orbital space craft.

      --
      Private property is the central institution of a free society (David Friedman)
  6. Okay, you guys... by Faust7 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Enough with the "I'll believe it when I see them fly at xxxx feet" or "Rutan's an aviator, not an aerospace engineer" or "Only 15 seconds? Bah!' comments. Just suppress the generalizations and childishness for a little while... and watch Burt Rutan, Scaled Composites, and SpaceShipOne. Watch them as if you were waiting for the curtain to be raised for an opening act, because that's exactly what this is. This is rocket plane history unfolding.

    Rutan and his company aren't doing this for the prize. They're doing it to make a point about certain types of aviation and engineering that have been long derided by NASA and other naysayers as being unrealistic, impossible, et cetera.

    Look at Rutan's track record, which includes the development of composites--an absolute breakthrough that the FAA is just now getting around to accepting--and the Long-EZ craft. Look at everything the guy has done, and the company he has, and tell me he doesn't have one hell of a chance at making this thing work.

  7. Bet this one only went 1/3 of the way because... by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 5, Informative

    They have to get to 328,000 feet, seems like they are looking pretty good.

    I bet this one only went a third of the way because that's about as far up as they can go while still controlling the craft's attitude with control surfaces.

    Power for the rest of the altitude should be no problem, since their engine seems to be working just fine. But they'll need also need their attitude control and reentry heat shielding working to go extra-atmospheric - where they can't just glide down the whole way.

    So first some tests where the limits of the aircraft mode are demonstrated and debugged, followed by tests where the additonal functions are also used.

    One step at a time wins the race. B-)

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  8. how long now? by bwy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Something is getting ready to happen real soon. Days after an FAA launch permit, a second powered test all the way to over 100K feet. The burning question is, how many more test launches before they go the distance? Surely, the history of test piloting experimental aircraft can yield a little input? What are the things left to verify and confirm before going the full 300K+ feet? I'm guessing not a whole lot if performance was good on the spacecraft and the engine burn went well. Is the cabin of SpaceShipOne fully pressurized, or do they depend exclusively on the pilot wearing a pressure suit?

    This is very exciting to watch. I wish these guys all the luck and safety in the world.

    1. Re:how long now? by Thagg · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, SpaceShip One is a shirtsleeve environment. The pilots don't wear pressure suits. I believe all the windows are double-paned, each of which would hold pressure by themselves. The environmental controls on the ship are pretty simple, there are scrubbers to remove CO2 and water vapor, and they have an oxygen bottle to bleed some oxygen into the cabin.

      Pressure suits are a real pain, and they restrict the pilot's vision, hearing, and motion so much that it's really good if you can avoid them. SpaceShip One is no walk in the park to fly, the pilot really needs all the help he can get to fly it.

      Godspeed, Burt.

      thad

      --
      I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
  9. Re:Um by lostchicken · · Score: 5, Informative

    Scaled has a huge reputation in the industry. They're sort of the outsource Skunk Works. Companies like Boeing and Lockheed go to Scaled when they need something bizarre built and tested. Scaled isn't ever going to have a spot next to Boeing and Lockheed because Boeing and Lockheed are their customers.

    --
    -twb
  10. Re:Um by pokeyburro · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Pretty much bragging rights, yes.

    Or you could look at it this way: sub-orbital flight can potentially yield returns far beyond the investment. And I don't mean just the ability to fly at sub-orbital altitudes; getting this far proves you've got the brains and cojones to achieve this feat, which attracts other investors, which can fund bigger projects.

    But if you can't bear the investment, the X-Prize may soften that blow to the point that a company may give it a try. Think of it as a carrot that will feed you long enough to get to the BIG carrot farther on.

    --
    Lately democracy seems to be based on the skybox, the Happy Meal box, the X-box, and the idiot box.
  11. Lindbergh wasn't trying to be a transatlantic taxi by TigerNut · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A lot of the aviation 'firsts' had nothing to do with commercial interests on the part of the participants. They just wanted to DO it, because they thought they could. On that note, Carmack's efforts are closer in spirit to those of the Wrights, Lindbergh, et al, than Rutan (since Burt and Dick are well known in the experimental aircraft business) but it looks like that within a couple of years there will be a number of private organizations capable of doing Low-Earth-Orbit vehicle insertion. What that is going to do for society? I dunno. The suborbital capability alone basically gives Rutan etc. the ability to deliver people or cargo partway around the world in half an hour. That would be one hell of a courier service.

    --

    Less is more.

  12. sub-orbital != orbital by close_wait · · Score: 5, Informative
    I'd just like to remind everyone that putting an object into a low-earth orbit requires about 25 times the energy of just raising it vertically to that height and letting it fall back to earth. That's why the commercial rockets that put satellites into orbit will continue to be big expensive beasts, X-prize or no X-Prize.

    1. Re:sub-orbital != orbital by mrright · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The X-Price vehicles itself will not compete with orbital launch vehicles. But they are a good way to learn how to build a real reusable space vehicle instead of just converted ICBMs like we have been doing for the last 50 years.

      And there is a commercial rocket in production that is small compared to its competitors and has a reusable first stage. It will be used to launch satellites for the DOD, among others.

      There are already plans to scale this vehicle up to a much larger size. And the first stage will still be reusable.

      --
      Private property is the central institution of a free society (David Friedman)
    2. Re:sub-orbital != orbital by SB9876 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'd seen figures closer to 12 times as much energy but the difference is largely academic. Either way, geting to LEO is expensive. However, I'd expect to see an X2 prize being offered to get to LEO after this. Remember that a lot of the high costs of LEO launchers are artificial. The fuel is usually about 2% of the total launch cost. The rest is all those launch technicians and the cost of all those non-reusable rocket parts.

      Boeing has managed to capitalize on reducing the launch technician side of things along with using cheaper Ukranian parts to get launch costs down to about $5000/kg to LEO with Sea Launch. That's half the cost of their own Delta launchers. The DC-X several years ago had real promise of beinga practical SSTO, massively cutting launch costs. Unfortunately, NASA axed it, seeing it as a competitor. The hope is that the rise of private companies that aren't tied to NASA politics will be able to eventually replicate the work done on the DC-X and actually get some real progress on cheap orbital launches rather than the technology of the month approach NASA's been dumping money down the last 20 years.

  13. Re:Lindbergh wasn't trying to be a transatlantic t by corngrower · · Score: 4, Informative

    You realize that the first nonstop transatlantic flight was made by a couple of Brits, not Lindbergh. He was first to solo. I think the flight by the British really was more important historically, but you won't find it in any American textbooks.

  14. IS This Design A Dead End? by reallocate · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My understanding is that the Rutan craft will accelerate to a few times the speed of sound and then coast to 60 kilometers.

    Remembering that achieving orbit is a matter of velocity, not altitude, is the Rutan design a dead end? I.e., could this design achieve orbit with the addition of a more powerful engine? (I know the easy answer is "Yes", but I'm asking if this particular design is capable of orbital flight.) If so, would the Rutan's rather unusual reentry approach work in a return from orbit?

    --
    -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    1. Re:IS This Design A Dead End? by mrright · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It will coast to 100km, which is the official edge of space. And the design is not a dead end. It does exactly what it is designed to do: fly to 100km.

      The overall concept which rutan is using is staging at high altitude and low speed with a more or less conventional aircraft as a first stage.

      This is most definitely not a dead end. There are existing launchers such as pegasus that do it that way, and there are also some very serious proposals for orbital two stage space transports with a large, rocket assisted transport aircraft as a first stage.

      Give rutan a price of 100 million $ and he will come up with a concept for an orbital two stage space transport. It will probably look completely different (no two rutan aircraft look alike), but I would bet that it will use subsonic staging at high altitude.

      --
      Private property is the central institution of a free society (David Friedman)
  15. Re:turns out that they can glide down the whole wa by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 4, Informative

    Because it doesn't reach orbital velocity, the shuttlecock system keeps the speeds down to a reasonable level and heat shielding is minimal.

    Right. Falling into the atmosphere from just above it at a moderate speed is much less heating than hitting it sideways at nearly orbital velocity.

    But while you're still doing atmospheric flight you only have to deal with the friction from the airspeed you need to get your lift - and you have an atmosphere around you to dump it into continuously.

    Once you "pop out" you have the additional energy of your fall back from your peak altitude to flight altitude to deal with. That's a LOT. Any excess of that over the kinetic energy of your flight speed shows up as heat in your skin, mostly in the very short time near the end of the transition from "air might as well not be there" to "thick enough to fly in". This is in ADDITION to the continuous heating of the skin by flight friction - which didn't get much chance to cool by conduction in the near-vacuum of the hump flight.

    If you weren't firing your engines while up in the near-vacuum it's close to a wash - you converted flight kinetic energy to altitude, then back. So it's similar to just the air friction from cruising at the high altitude and speed. If you fired your engines in the near vacuum, the portion of that energy that went into accellerating you comes back as extra heat.

    So it's not as big a problem as with a shuttle (which dumps most of its orbital energy as a couple thousand mile streak of purple ionized ceramic vapor). But it's not trivial either. (Especially since you'll be flying pretty darned fast just before you leave the effective atmosphere if you want to get very far above it.) Thus the recently added heat shielding.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  16. First FAA license by Eric+Smith · · Score: 4, Informative
    received a license from the FAA, the first license for a suborbital rocket."
    No, it's the first commercial license issued for a MANNED suborbital rocket, which is much more significant.