Slashdot Mirror


XCor Receives Sub-Orbital Launch Permit

Marc Newman writes "MSNBC is reporting that XCor has received the second FAA suborbital launch permit. Xcor Aerospace is not competing in the X-Prize but rather is 'in it to make money'. They are still awaiting a launch permit for their Mojave desert launch site. It'd be interesting if XCor beat Scaled Composites with the first sub-orbital flight but couldn't claim the $10 million prize."

108 comments

  1. Oh, the SECOND one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Everyone knows only the first one is important. I mean, we all know who walked on the moon first... Louis Armstrong... but who cares about that second guy Buzz Lightyear?

    1. Re:Oh, the SECOND one by Anti_Climax · · Score: 1

      I thought Lance Armstrong was first...

      --
      Even people that believe in pre-destiny look both ways before crossing the street.
    2. Re:Oh, the SECOND one by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 4, Funny

      Actually, it was Neil Armstrong.

      IN the 70s, though, after that great feat was accomplished, Evil Knievel managed to jump from Pike's Peak and land on the moon. Nobody cares, of course, because he wasn't the first man on the moon.

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    3. Re:Oh, the SECOND one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      First person on the moon? It was the Backstreet Boy...I think he's one of the Kennedys.

    4. Re:Oh, the SECOND one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "Actually, it was ..."

      Ha! But you didn't catch the fact that Buzz's last name was Aldrin, and not lightyear.

      (clue... the parent actually knew that Neil Young wasn't actually the first guy on the moon.)

    5. Re:Oh, the SECOND one by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1

      (clue... the parent actually knew that Neil Young wasn't actually the first guy on the moon.)

      I already knew that Neil Young wasn't the first guy on the moon. He was the guy that sat around for years waiting for Zaphod to show up with his ship and take him to the headquarters of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Duh!

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    6. Re:Oh, the SECOND one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Don't be silly, Louis Armstrong was a musician. Everyone who's ever watched MTV knows Michael Stipe was the original man on the moon.

      Exhibit A: Michael Stipe admiring his flag, which seems to be perfectly suspended by an unknown force.

    7. Re:Oh, the SECOND one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "IN the 70s, though, after that great feat was accomplished, Evil Knievel managed to jump from Pike's Peak and land on the moon. Nobody cares, of course, because he wasn't the first man on the moon."

      Actually it's Evel, not Evil. He lives in my condo complex.

    8. Re:Oh, the SECOND one by hplasm · · Score: 1

      Does this make Michael Stipe not a musician?

      --
      ...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
  2. Hmm... by weiyuent · · Score: 4, Funny

    It'd be interesting if XCor beat Scaled Composites with the first sub-orbital flight but couldn't claim the $10 million prize."

    Yeah...I'll bet that if that happened, Burt Rutan would eXCORiate everyone who worked for him ;-)

    1. Re:Hmm... by Fiz+Ocelot · · Score: 4, Informative
      The Rules read: " 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."

      It didn't look like their vehicle has the capacity required, but I could be wrong. Sure didn't look like it to me.

    2. Re:Hmm... by fredistheking · · Score: 1

      http://www.xprize.org/teams/guidelines.html

      "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."

    3. Re:Hmm... by krumms · · Score: 1

      or am I off my rocker?

      you mean off your rocket?

    4. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It might be easier if he just SCOlded them instead.

    5. Re:Hmm... by modder · · Score: 1

      "Three people of this size or larger must be able to enter..."

      This sounds pretty ambiguous to me. So how much larger?

      Is this the 10 million dollar loophole?

    6. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OMG yes ... if you were allowed to put a 100 Km tall guy in there you'd win easy, why didnt everyone else think of that loophole? Quick go claim your 10 Million.

    7. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the idea is that you could be denied the 10 million because you were unable to transport three 800 pound men into orbit, you insensitive jackass.

  3. excellent by the+arbiter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We, the public, will benefit greatly in the long run with the increased competition. The more companies doing this, the better.

    And when the time comes, I'll be ready to take a flight.

    --
    Boycott everything - they're all trying to fuck you one way or another
    1. Re:excellent by aggiefalcon01 · · Score: 1
      And when the time comes, I'll be ready to take a flight.

      I would, too, though my wife says she'll never be ready to let me go up in space. Of course, by that time, maybe she'll have changed her mind ...

      --
      Global warming is neither science, nor politics. It is a religion.
    2. Re:excellent by ruprechtjones · · Score: 4, Insightful

      kudos to the FAA for allowing (non-government) companies to persue their dreams. I may be naive, but god damn I have some respect for this governing body right now. Fly, little man, fly!

      --
      Kip Hawley is an idiot.
  4. Requirements? by wmspringer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What are the requirements for winning the X-prize, again?

    I remember you have to send a manned shuttle up twice within two weeks, but is it limited to those teams that are registered?

    I know, I should RTFA...

    1. Re:Requirements? by twenty-exty-six · · Score: 5, Informative

      Privately finances, builds & launches a spaceship, able to carry three people to 100 kilometers (62.5 miles)

      Returns safely to Earth

      Repeats the launch with the same ship within 2 weeks

    2. Re:Requirements? by V00D00+NiggerDoll · · Score: 1, Informative

      A team must build a sub-orbital spaceplane that can carry three people to an altitude of 45 miles. Then, it must use the same vehcile to perform the same feat within three weeks.

      Do this, and you get a $10,000,000 prize.

    3. Re:Requirements? by BiggerBoat · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not quite. It need not be a "spaceplane"... a simple rocket will do. And it needs to fly to 62 miles, or 100 kilometers. It needs to be able to carry three 198lb, 6'2" people to that height, but two of the three people can be represented by ballast - only one live body needs fly. That person needs to return in good health. And the vehicle needs to do it twice in two weeks, not three, between which no more than 10% of the mass mass of the vehicle (not including propellant) can be replaced.

      Oh, and one other thing... the ten million dollars is only funded through the end of this year.

    4. Re:Requirements? by Jim+Starx · · Score: 1

      What do you mean by "10% of the mass (not including propellant) can be replaced"?? So they can't refuel it? What other mass would need to be replaced?

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    5. Re:Requirements? by AJC1973 · · Score: 1

      Propellant can be replaced (so you are allowed to refuel)
      Other mass: If anything is jettisoned it must be recovered if it would require replacement of >10% vehicle mass. So first stages if used, drop tanks if used, one-shot heatshields etc. must be carefully looked at to make sure that the vehicle (excluding propellant) is at least 90% reuseable.

  5. Mojave Desert.... by L0stb0Y · · Score: 4, Funny

    "They are still awaiting a launch permit for their Mojave desert launch site"

    Soon the 'kingdom of nye' will have new sightings to report...

    --
    "We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of dreams."
  6. Sounds like they are well on their way by Fiz+Ocelot · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Quote off the site:"The EZ-Rocket has flown 15 times to date. The first 13 flights were conducted at our base of operations at the Mojave Civilian Flight Test Center in Mojave, CA. Flights 14 and 15 were performed in front of a very large crowd of airshow attendees at the EAA AirVenture fly-in at Oshkosh, Wisconsin."

    Why exactly are they not in the x-prize competition? Looks like they may be some real competition.

    1. Re:Sounds like they are well on their way by DerekLyons · · Score: 3, Informative
      Why exactly are they not in the x-prize competition? Looks like they may be some real competition.
      Because Jeff & Co. are in the game for the long haul, not the short stunt. Don't get me wrong, the X-Prize is wonderful, but to date all of the vehicles proposed for it are stunt ships, not prototypes of commercial ships.
  7. Money, not money by Dorf+on+Perl · · Score: 5, Funny

    Xcor Aerospace is not competing in the X-Prize but rather is 'in it to make money'.

    Oh I see, they want to make money, not win the prize... which is... money...

    Uh..

    1. Re:Money, not money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful
      What they mean is that they want to get into the sub-orbital travel industry, but have no expectation of winning the X-Prize (i.e. doing it first.) Which is probably a reasonable expectation, given that AFAICT they don't even have a prototype vehicle built.

      There's no way they're going to beat Scaled, and no permit is going to help that.

    2. Re:Money, not money by LostCluster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh I see, they want to make money, not win the prize... which is... money...

      The X-Prize is a lot of money, but it's not likely to be enough to cover the costs of what it demands... not just one space flight, but two in one week's time. Not to mention, if you plan it all but get beat to the punch, there's no prize for coming in second.

      All of the ventures shooting for the X-Prize have to have a motive to keep going beyond the X-Prize, win or lose, to be viable.

    3. Re:Money, not money by D'Sphitz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I imagine any such venture would cost much more than $10 mil, so nobody is going to make money by winning the prize, only cut their losses by that much.

    4. Re:Money, not money by garroo · · Score: 0

      I know one of the Canadian X-Prize Entries, the DaVinci projetc, has had most of their $$ and equipment donated. Sponsorship! That means the cool $10 Mill (US! that's like 1.8Billion Canadian!) would be theirs to do with as they please.

      Now, that being said, they came out and announced a spring launch date. BUT they are being sufficiently vague so to keep others in the dark. They don't want anyone scrambling at last minute and catching up with them.

      I sure hope they win. It would rock for Canada (third country in space) to get BACK into the space race.

      Now, that being said, the X-Prize will be a REGULAR competition, so anyone who loses this year, can try, try again!

      Links:

      DaVinci Site - http://www.davinciproject.com/

      Launch Site - http://www.kindersley.ca/

      --
      Oh my gawd, they killed kenny's mod points!!!!
    5. Re:Money, not money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Think of it this way:

      The $10 mil is there to make it interesting, but it's not a gamble in the sense of winning at Vegas. The launch aircraft for Scaled's entry is essentially a custom-designed, custom-built 2-place bizjet. Priced any Lears lately?

      What they are competing for is the ability for their sponsors to be able to place this (with a picture) on every web site, in every brochure and corporate report, and many a press release:

      "Our [insert name of widget or technology or coffee and donut delivery service] was an essential ingredient in the success and....[Blah, corporate PR blah, blah] in the winning entry in the 2004 $10 million dollar X-Prize. If you would like our winning team to help your team be a winner, contact etc....

      The side benefit being all the engineering expertise that gets injected into upstart aerospace tech firms, losers and winners alike.

  8. In it for money? by twenty-exty-six · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Xcor is not competing for the $10 million prize...

    "To make money has always been our goal," he said.


    If they're in it for the money, wouldn't it make sense to compete for the X-Prize, while they're at it?

    It seems the publicity of winning would help their business, not to mention 10 million bucks in the pocket ain't bad.

    1. Re:In it for money? by Monty845 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think it is a matter of thier test schedule not being fast enough to meet the time conditions of the X-prize, they are saying they are in it for the long run and aren't going to sacrifice thier buisness model just for a prize. I'm sure if the x-prize deadline was extended they would change thier tone...

  9. Obligatory Question by platypibri · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I guess I am risking my karma that this might be modded of topic, but doesn't the requirement for a permit to engage in a sub-orbital flight set a bad precedent as far as the politicalization of space goes. I mean, who owns earth orbit? How far up does the United States go before you enter "International Space"? We have a flag on the moon, does that mean a private company couldn't fund and develop a moon base? Are we going to have to have another "Age of Conquest" to divy up the moon, or is globalization a necessity for space colinization? I just find the whole thing so facinating.

    --
    Yeah, I guess I'm funny like that.
    1. Re:Obligatory Question by Monty845 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It would seem the FAA has a legitimate interest in regulating whats flying in US airspace. If something represents a danger to public safety the FAA needs to be able to stop it from flying. It is true on the other hand that at some point (altitude) the FAA's jurisdiction must end, I would say that as long as it is being launched from the US they get a say... There are also probably some international treaties that would provide guidence.

    2. Re:Obligatory Question by Fortress · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think the permits only apply to launching and landing. An object moving as fast as these craft carries significant kinetic energy as well as explosive fuels so a crash is a public risk. The FAA probably has some minimum safety requirements about construction and laucnch zone.

    3. Re:Obligatory Question by platypibri · · Score: 1
      Monty & Fortress,

      Thanks, that is certainly something to think about, both the launch it's self and the supsequent ascension through US air space.

      Certainly no other country needs our approval to orbit satellites. I would be interested to know how far "up" our jurisdiction goes

      --
      Yeah, I guess I'm funny like that.
    4. Re:Obligatory Question by ron_ivi · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Anyone know what government regulations were in place when F. Magellan, F. Drake, L. Ericson, and guys like them sailed?

      Both a rhetorical question, and genuine curiosity.

    5. Re:Obligatory Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      It's not a permit to fly around in space. It's a permit to fly through US airspace on the way to space.

    6. Re:Obligatory Question by platypibri · · Score: 1

      I think at that time the collection of policies known as "Might Makes Right" was in place. If not, then certainly the "Nah nah nah, we found it first!" Accord was in place.

      --
      Yeah, I guess I'm funny like that.
    7. Re:Obligatory Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      In the general sense, I'm sure there were none whatsoever. Build a ship, go sailing. However, anyone whose expedition was funded likely did have conditions imposed upon their specific trip. Your point though is well made.

    8. Re:Obligatory Question by pla · · Score: 1, Insightful

      but doesn't the requirement for a permit to engage in a sub-orbital flight set a bad precedent as far as the politicalization of space goes.

      As long as you don't plan to come back down, you can safely ignore the FAA.

      Come back, though, and don't have the right permits? You'll wish you'd burned up on reentry.


      Basically, I agree with you. The idea of a US government agency having control over attempts at flights outside the Earth's atmosphere just annoys me to no end. But as I said, if you plan to come back, you'd better make damned sure you've dotten your Is and crossed your Ts.

    9. Re:Obligatory Question by appleLaserWriter · · Score: 1

      Anyone know what government regulations were in place when F. Magellan, F. Drake, L. Ericson, and guys like them sailed?

      There was a great deal of legal wrangling, piracy, and war as a consequence of the European nations independantly exploring the world. More information here. And more generally, here. Don't forget this.

    10. Re:Obligatory Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Thanks! If only I hadn't already participated in this thread, I'd have modded you up. That's a better answer than I would have expected for /.

      Reading your links, it sound like the guys after the first few had plenty of complicated law&politics to suffer. Your post actualy changed my perspective on the whole subject. Makes me think they should hvae UN approval rather than FAA approval.

    11. Re:Obligatory Question by appleLaserWriter · · Score: 1

      The papal bulls probabyl caused more conflict than they prevented, so I'm not sure that putting the UN in the grand-global-authority role which the pope wanted is the best approach. If we can confine the coming property battles to the space which they concern, we might end up with some sweet Macross-style giant fighting robots :)

    12. Re:Obligatory Question by tm2b · · Score: 1

      The FAA regulates all airspace from ground up to 60,000 ft. ("Flight Level 600").

      This airspace is broken up into different airspaces depending upon a number of details, including the presence and type of airports, common routes of air traffic, and terrain. At the upper end, "Class A" airspace is only used by aircraft flying IFR ("Instrument Flight Rules") under air traffic control.

      Rob Machado, a popular aviation educator and humorist, likes to relate a story (which I will paraphrase here). The ATC was contacted by an aircraft requesting clearance for FL 750. ATC replied thinking that it was a joke, "OK, if you can get that high." The aircraft responded, "Roger, descending to FL 750." The aircraft in question was a US military SR-71 Blackbird.

      I can't wait for formal rules for a new suborbital class of airspace - it'll mean that we're that much closes to casual space flight.

      --
      "It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
    13. Re:Obligatory Question by grozzie2 · · Score: 1
      Anyone know what government regulations were in place when F. Magellan, F. Drake, L. Ericson, and guys like them sailed?

      The Collision Regulations commonly known as ColRegs are adhered to at sea the world over. In areas where local jurasdictions may apply, local regulations are normally derived from the colregs. International courts uphold the ColRegs, and, in the case of contest, insurance companies will 'assign blame' based on them, irrelavent of jurasdiction or lack thereof at the point of incident.

      Colregs is very interesting, a set of regulations upheld internationally, and respected by mariners the world over. It hasn't changed much in the last 200 years except to accomodate new classes of vessels as they are invented.

      The preface to ColRegs is an interesting read, it basically acknowledges that there are 2 sets of laws in effect on the seas. When the two sets are in conflict, the laws of physics shall always prevail over the ColRegs.

      It really is hard to imagine a set of laws that actually makes sense, and is pretty much logical. ColRegs is the exception in this case though. For the most part it's based on logic, and a few arbitrary points just because there was a need for 'definition' in a circumstance where none of the available choices had any compelling reason to be 'right', so one was chosen arbitrarily.

  10. Why exactly would this be interesting? by modder · · Score: 1

    "It'd be interesting if XCor beat Scaled Composites with the first sub-orbital flight but couldn't claim the $10 million prize."

    Ironic, perhaps? But they publicly claim they aren't competing in this...

    Maybe I missed something.

  11. Family Affair by levram2 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    What is interesting is that XCOR's last rocket propelled plane was flown by Dick Rutan, Burt Rutan's brother.

    Burt Rutan's company Scaled Composites has the first license for their SpaceShipOne.

    http://www.dickrutan.com/rocket.html
    1. Re:Family Affair by ruprechtjones · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Dick Rutan also flew the Voyager with Yeager's daughter, very cool. I think the Rutan family will be a big part of our aeronautical history for the next 20 years.

      The best (rough, from memory) quote from Dick: "My brother told me the Voyager would fly within the specs he told me. After we landed, he mentioned that I, nor anyone else, questioned his specs or asked him to prove his formulas mathematically. I just trusted what he said."

      --
      Kip Hawley is an idiot.
    2. Re:Family Affair by Tyler+Eaves · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nitpick: Jenna Yeager (Voyager) is NO relation to Chuck.

      --
      TODO: Something witty here...
    3. Re:Family Affair by ruprechtjones · · Score: 1

      Nitpick: Jenna Yeager (Voyager) is NO relation to Chuck.

      You are correct. I wasn't sure, since my source was the History Channel. Here is more (corect) info.

      Yeager, who is no relation to the famous test pilot Chuck Yeager, first met Dick Rutan, and his brother Burt, at a California air show in 1980.

      --
      Kip Hawley is an idiot.
    4. Re:Family Affair by rijrunner · · Score: 0, Redundant

      It's more of a family affair than you think..

      XCOR'S test pilot is Dick Rutan, the brother of Burt Rutan, the guy behind Scaled Composites.

      Talk about interesting family dynamics..

      Everything related to RLV development is still very much in the cooperative phase, like homebrew computers in the early 1970's. Not enough money in it yet to really sharpen the competition.

    5. Re:Family Affair by rijrunner · · Score: 1

      talk about redundant. how do i delete this message?

  12. Hmm... by autopr0n · · Score: 1

    IIRC, dosn't Xprize require two people to go up? or am I off my rocker?

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  13. Financial Motive by Fortress · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Not very suprising that it doesn't matter to Xcor whether they win the prize or not. I don't think $10M will cover the development costs of most of the entries, so I think most of them are "in it for the money." They must be hoping for some sort of commercial success/government contract using their techniques. Think of it as a long term investment.

    The X-Prize itself serves more of a publicity role, keeping the developing entries in the media (including /.) and greasing the wheels of the FAA to give permits. The permits are interesting-They are a milestone showing which of the entries are serious and which are vaporware.

    Exciting stuff nonetheless.

    1. Re:Financial Motive by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      The X-Prize is nothing but a milestone towards the eventual goal of viable commercial-passenger space travel, such as setting up a space station as a hotel no mission other than allowing paying customers to enjoy the view. Why should the Russians be the only ones who can do that?

  14. $10 Mil? Peanuts by MrNonchalant · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Unless I miss my guess there is a heck of a lot more than $10 million for whoever wins this race. If the Bush space plan works, and it may, we could well see the commercialization of space in our lifetimes. And whoever has the best and cheapest commercial transport system at that point stands to make billions and billions.

    1. Re:$10 Mil? Peanuts by name773 · · Score: 0

      commercialization... make billions and billions... what a good little capitalist!
      lets hear it for motives!! woot

    2. Re:$10 Mil? Peanuts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      "Bush space plan works, and it may, we could well see the commercialization of space"

      You meant militarization, right?

    3. Re:$10 Mil? Peanuts by j-pimp · · Score: 1

      what a good little capitalist!
      Exactly! As Adam Smith beat to death in The Wealth of Nations, Man will do whats in his best interests. In a currency based economy that means try to make billions of dollars. People want to be in space for a variety of reasons. Being in space is hard. Hard translates to expensive in economical terms. People ave to spend alot of effort to do stuff in space. Hence why the space shuttle launches are expensive.

      Now, all you people that feel that we have to go into space for "non capitalistic" reasons, will pay money for a trip to space if someone sells it cheaper than you do it your self. In other words you the "altruistic space explorer" will benifit.
      Now what are your alleged reasons to colonize space? Raw materials, manufacturing, and colonization? These are the reasons that europe colonized the new world, and are quite central to Adams version of capitalism.

      --
      --- Justin Dearing http://www.justaprogrammer.net/ We're just programmers.
    4. Re:$10 Mil? Peanuts by SideshowBob · · Score: 1

      AFAIK Bush doesn't have anything to do with the X-Prize.

      The X-Prize Foundation was founded in 1996, according to their web site

      The commercialization of space has been ongoing for some time now. Maybe satellites aren't as glamorous as manned missions, but probably a lot more commercially lucrative.

      However, if this leads to more creative practical uses of space, then I am in full support. Solar satellites with microwave power transmission, anyone?

    5. Re:$10 Mil? Peanuts by MrNonchalant · · Score: 1

      Of course he doesn't. My point here was Bush's space plan could potentially open a large amount of opportunities for the further commercialization of space.

    6. Re:$10 Mil? Peanuts by name773 · · Score: 1

      i was hoping we would be going to space for the improvements it would bring to technology.

    7. Re:$10 Mil? Peanuts by j-pimp · · Score: 1

      So you want research and "pure science" to occur. Well plenty of hardcore private research comes out of large private corporations. UNIX came out of a privae lab in New Jersey. Sure alot of what makes it still useful today came from Berkley and Military research, but the basics that make it the fun interesting system that it is came from research by capitalists for capitalists. If capitalists see money in space, and determine that pure science needs to occur to gain the money, then they will pay scientists for pure science to occur. They will then take this research and apply it so Steve Jobs can bring you the "Space iPod", WalMart can sell you tv dinners that can withstand the vacuum of space, and Intel can use nanobots to bring us the Pentium 5 (Pentium^2?).

      Yes I am using really broad brush strokes to paint a very happy picture. But my argument is alot better then "damn those meddling capitalists bastards!" Their are going to be greedy evil people that will underpay and take advantage of poor people. However, thats a problem that is present in any real world economical ecosystem.
      Capitalism was the system of the Industrial Age. We are now in the Information Age. So things will have to change. Gates, Linus, McBride. RMS, ESR, Perens, Ashcrot and many other of the philisophers of today prove that as Dylan said, "The times they are a'changing." However, in terms of getting us up into space, were going to have to do a whole lot of manufacturing, transporting and exchanging of goods. Until some modern day philisopher produces a book the size of the wealth of nations that beats to death how we can apply Open Source ideas to the whole economy, as Adam Smith showed how capitalism could be applied to farming, capitalism is going to get us into space.

      --
      --- Justin Dearing http://www.justaprogrammer.net/ We're just programmers.
  15. Of course it is money, but think for a moment. by efuseekay · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The Xprize has conditions (like no government funding etc etc) that Xcor probably does not want to follow.

    Also, to win the Xprize, one has to do it with a reusable LV, with 3 passengers and a 2 week (?) turnaround between flights etc etc.

    So it's not so surprising. Of course all the Xprize people are in for the money. One can ask why subscribe to so many constraints, well the Xprize Consortium is backed by a lot of influential people. By subscribting to it, you can free publicity, and A LOT OF connections to people who probably will be your future customers (or your future customers' friends.)

    --
    Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
  16. nice bluff by bwy · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Nice bluff, XCor. In related news, I'm going to write some exotic foreign country tomorrow and ask for a tourist visa so I can show it off to chicks at the bar. Show them what a world traveler I am. No, my eyes aren't red from a 21" CRT. It's that I just got in from my last exotic trip. Sounds like kind of the same thing as requesting an FAA launch permit, no?

    Dick's brother Burt is going to beat him into space on this one. In SpaceShipOne no less! I'm sure that is going to burn a bit. Maybe Burt will offer Dick a ride. Honestly, compare a bunch of artist renderings and what looks like a prototype mock up vehicle vs. something that recently broke the sound barrier propelled by a firing rocket engine to over 100,000 feet.

    1. Re:nice bluff by aggiefalcon01 · · Score: 1, Interesting
      Subtle, but good point.

      XCor has basically designed a rocket engine, and slapped it into a modified kit plane to test it. Sure, they've got renderings of a larger, suborbital-worthy ship, but nothing else to show for it for a few years now.

      Scaled Composites, OTOH, has designed and built a rocket engine, a suborbital spaceship, and a carrier to get the ship up to launching altitude.

      They may both be competing for dollars (present or future), but it's easy to see who's farther along.

      --
      Global warming is neither science, nor politics. It is a religion.
    2. Re:nice bluff by rmayes100 · · Score: 1

      I was wondering about this myself as it says right on the XCOR website about the EZ-Rocket: "The maximum altitude that can be attained is 1.91 miles (10,000 ft)." That's a pretty big stretch to sub-orbital. The Xerus plane (XCOR's next project) looks years away at best. This was clearly a publicity stunt for XCOR. Though it's good to see more people working on making safe and cheap rocket propelled vehicles. The more companies competing in this market the cheaper space filight we'll be someday.

    3. Re:nice bluff by BlueEyes_Austin · · Score: 1

      Actually, Scaled has NOT built an engine...it is supplied by SpaceDev.

  17. They need a better name...it's all marketing by L0stb0Y · · Score: 3, Funny

    And I'm sorry, "EZ-Rocket" sounds like it needs a launch pad shaped like a Ritz cracker- and to get the crew out you tilt the nose and they eject out the tip of the cone...

    --
    "We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of dreams."
    1. Re:They need a better name...it's all marketing by aggiefalcon01 · · Score: 0

      Well, at least their logo has evolved. Before, the X of XCor was the back of a sideways rocket, forming the bottom of its verticle fins. I'd find the image on the Wayback Machine but it's down now. At least now, the text stands alone, with art around it. Much better than before.

      --
      Global warming is neither science, nor politics. It is a religion.
  18. Text of Permit by k4_pacific · · Score: 4, Funny

    This certifies that (name here) is hearby entitled to launch one (1) spacecraft into suborbital flight. Bearer assumes all responsibility for accidents. This permit is provided AS IS without warranty, including the implied warranties of airworthiness or suborbital flight capability. The liability of the FAA is limited to the cost of the permit fees. Some states do not allow limitations of liability, so the above may not apply to you. Void where prohibited. If you do not agree to the terms of this permit, please pack your spacecraft in the original carton and return it to the store where it was purchased for a refund. You should have received a copy of the FAA's Suborobital Flight Guidelines along with this permit. If not, please write to: Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Suborbital Flight, Box 5050, Washington, DC 31416

    --
    Unknown host pong.
  19. Actually... by BTWR · · Score: 2, Informative

    It'd be interesting if XCor beat Scaled Composites with the first sub-orbital flight but couldn't claim the $10 million prize.

    Beating Scaled Composites into sub-orbit is not enough to claim the X-prize. To claim the $10 million, you have to fly the same craft TWICE into sub-orbit within (I believe) 2 weeks.

    1. Re:Actually... by Daetrin · · Score: 1
      Hence the statement you quouted, "It'd be interesting if XCor beat Scaled Composites with the first sub-orbital flight but couldn't claim the $10 million prize."

      Normally in a sentence that begins "Actually..." you disagre with the statement you're responding to in some manner.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    2. Re:Actually... by BTWR · · Score: 1

      i AM disagreeing with their post, because I am assuming the parent post implied XCor couldn't beat SC simply because they didn't sign up for the competition, when in fact the reason they won't be eligable for it is because they aren't planning on doinf the X-Prize requirement (2 flights in 2 weeks)

  20. good link (xprize), X Prize Cup? by aggiefalcon01 · · Score: 5, Informative
    Since people keep asking about the requirements ... here ya go

    The site shows something else interesting ... that while Xcor isn't participating in the X Prize, they do plan on participating in the X Prize Cup (which will happen later).

    --
    Global warming is neither science, nor politics. It is a religion.
  21. EZ-Rocket by mykow · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm surprised nobody knew that Burt Rutan designed the Long-EZ, which the EZ rocket is based off of. Rutan helped kick off the homebuilt aircraft revolution with that plane, and its derivatives have always been nothing but tributes to his excellence as an engineer. I don't think he much cares about this competition.

  22. reusable shuttle craft? by NXprime · · Score: 1, Interesting

    God wouldn't it be nice if Xcors' plane could be used as a NASA shuttle replacement to and from the space station at least? Has about the right design to it for that purpose based on what we've seen with NASA's ideas for a small shullte replacement. Am I right here? Would save quite a bit of development costs if this is chosen for that purpose. I do believe the ISS is in a low orbit too so this should work out well. This + next gen huge cargo space freighter might be a nice little combo for future space missions/space development. Now attach that small shuttle on a frieghter and drive that thing to the moon. :)

    1. Re:reusable shuttle craft? by aggiefalcon01 · · Score: 1
      almost. Maybe a few generations on from their current plan. You see, their current plan is for a ship to go up to 62 miles, while the ISS files at a minimum altitude of 224 miles.

      So, while Xcor might send a ship to the space station sometime, it'll be some time after their current ideas ...

      --
      Global warming is neither science, nor politics. It is a religion.
    2. Re:reusable shuttle craft? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, don't forget the x velocity. Not only do you have to gain y velocity (altitude) but also you have to get enough x velocity (horizontal) to become orbital. That takes a lot more energy than going straight up and back down does, by severalfold, IIRC.

      That's why you see the space shuttle "tilt over" when it launches.

    3. Re:reusable shuttle craft? by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      But the tiolet only costs $100 on Xcor's plane!

  23. Huh? by dj245 · · Score: 3, Funny
    Xcor Aerospace is not competing in the X-Prize but rather is 'in it to make money'.

    1. Enter Xprise with the goal of not winning prize.
    2. Attain goal of not winning the prize.
    3. ???
    4. Profit!!!
    Well, so far, I think they have succeeded in not winning the prize. If they are really careful, they can perhaps pull a rabbit out of their hat and manage to not win the prize at the last minute, if they really have what it takes. I, for one, will be watching Xcor very closely to see if they do in fact manage to meet their goal of not winning a prize.

    --
    Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
  24. Bulk reply from XCOR employee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I cannot seem to retrieve my /. password using the email method, so I am going to post as AC and hope that somebody's moderating at 0 to bump this up. I am coming to you live from the Space Access Society Meeting in Phoenix, AZ.

    I just want to clear up some confusion generated by inaccuracies both in the MSNBC story and the slashdot post:

    The vehicle we have received a licence for, as stated in our press release is not a full suborbital vehicle and is not an X-Prize competitor. It is an intermediate technology research platform to continue development of engines and related systems that began flight testing on the EZ-Rocket, our currently flying manned rocket powered airplane. It is also noted that this new vehicle, the Sphinx, has not yet been built. Quoth the press release: "It is helpful that RLV companies can obtain their launch licenses during vehicle design, prior to committing capital to build a vehicle."

    A stated before, we are not an X-Prize competitor, due to among other things, a conflict in the time scale of the X-Prize and our business development plan, as well as the planned configuration of our current suborbital vehicle design. XCOR is focused on revenue generation. However, we fully support the X-Prize and offer technology and services to X-Prize entrants, as well as moral and legislative support.

    Mike Massee XCOR Aerospace www.xcor.com

  25. no by rebelcool · · Score: 3, Informative

    there is no regulation of orbit.

    There is, however, regulation of the air between the ground and orbit.

    Which is what the FAA regulates. Launching potentially dangerous vehicles through said air falls under their purvue of regulation.

    --

    -

  26. similarly... by rebelcool · · Score: 3, Interesting

    much like today, there were regulations in water extending out a set distance from shores. Just how far out depended on who you asked.

    But there were still international waters (like today) that nobody owns and have little in the way of law. Space is like that, and the air between orbit and ground is like the border waters.

    --

    -

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

      technically thats true, but in actuality, the water is under the control of who ever, exerts the control over it.

      12 miles is considered standard, but if a country says 50 and enforces it. its 50.

  27. Xcor - a cool company! by Alioth · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I actually went to CA to see the unveiling of their Rocket-Ez a couple of years ago, and we heard Jeff Greason speak on the visions for the company - the mission, to make a nontoxic, reusable (in the real sense) rocket motor. They are already selling small rocket engines for manoevering thrusters on spacecraft.

    I wrote about it at the time on my website and took plenty of photos. It was quite impressive the number of firsts that Xcor were achieving.

  28. FDP: Commercialization of Space by QuantumFTL · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As mentioned in previous posts, I'm an intern at NASA but I absolutely love to see commerical ventures working at launching into orbit.

    Commericialization of space is important in the sense that space will eventually no longer be monopolized by scientists and engineers, but be within the grasp of ordinary people of all kinds of backgrounds. I believe quite strongly that the only way to democratize space, and keep it accessible to the average person is to provide an economic incentive for businesses to exploit their various resources.

    I look forward to the day where a father and son might build a spaceship together and, at very least, head towards the stratosphere. Perhaps saftety systems will be developed to make this a reality.

    I wish XCor the best of luck. Perhaps they will develope things we have not yet imagined :)

  29. Bad Precident by Bob_Robertson · · Score: 1

    This sets a bad precedent by pretending that the FAA has authority to grant such licenses.

    "But everybody knows you have to bend over for authority figures!"

    Enough kow-towing to the bureaucrats. They've had space for more than 40 years and wasted it. Let's get off this rock!

    Bob-

    --
    The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
    1. Re:Bad Precident by Teancum · · Score: 1

      Spend some time looking at the FAA-AST (the specific agency granting the licenses). This group of bureaucrats has wandered from one department to another over the years.

      They really didn't get serious about even trying to come up with procedures for approving the licenses until well after the X-Prize was announced. Suddenly some people started to realize that this really was a serious effort for privately financed vehicles going into space and a real debate over who exactly was going to take charge of regulating this nacient industry really started to happen.

      Be grateful that it gives a legitimate reason for people to use high explosive compounds. Had the X-Prize been announced after 9/11 it is possible that it would never have been able to happen at all and we would have waited yet another 40 years before some more enlightened people elsewhere in the world would have finally come to their senses and allowed a private space launch.

      There are also treaty obligations to deal with what happens to stuff from space when it comes down, and who "owns" what in space... more along the lines of international shipping registy stuff, but it is still important in terms of determining what laws apply to people while they are in space. Regardless of what licenses have been issued, the U.S. government is still responsible in this respect for the conduct of its citizens and a license will allow the government to keep that under control, and force liability insurance, etc.

      Now that is an interesting thought... a Liberian Space Agency for a spaceship flag-of-convience (or even a Nigerian Space Agency... we gotta rescue that guy still trapped in space). Don't laugh (too hard)... I think it will eventually happen.

    2. Re:Bad Precident by Bob_Robertson · · Score: 1

      I fully expect that the Awdal Roads Project would love to have a space-bound affiliate.

      http://www.awdal.com/

      Somalia. Wide open, practically regulator-free.

      Bob-

      --
      The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
  30. Simple by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

    The EZ-Rocket is not the Xerus. (I believe that is what XCor is calling their planned suborbital craft.)

    Their suborbital craft has not even begun construction, I believe. They're still in the engine development and testing phase. The EZ-Rocket is by no means a suborbital craft and never will be. It's merely a good testbed for some of their engines. (It happens to use two of their 400-lb thrust engines.)

    So far, if you look at their site, they have only racked up 0.2 minutes of running time on their 1800lb engine design, which is likely what their suborbital craft will use.

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  31. You know what? by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

    I don't think Dick cares, at all.

    Dick has set enough world records in his brother's aircraft already.

    I would not be surprised if there is future cooperation between XCor and Scaled (maybe even an existing project that is under wraps.)

    XCor is primarily a rocket engine development company, which is working on solving many of the safety and reliability problems with liquid-fueled rockets that caused Burt to choose a hybrid rocket for SS1.

    Scaled is primarily an airframe company - It's not often that they become involved in propulsion development. (Which is why SS1's rocket is a relatively simple one, albeit one that is elegant in its simplicity.)

    Guess who developed the airframe for XCor's current testbed? Burt.

    Care to take any guesses who is going to be responsible for final design and construction of the Xerus airframe? My money is on Burt Rutan.

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  32. Seperate Tiers of Activity by Teancum · · Score: 1

    Doesn't Armadillo Aerospace also use XCor engines (at least some components from XCor?)

    The Private space industry is probabally going to specialize in some aspects like this anyway, and why not let that happen. There is currently a friendly rivalry between the different space companies, but I don't see it (yet) as a vicious cut-throat business. There are just too many issues right now, and they want to keep a united front to deal with bureaucratic issues being thrown up by the government.

    The real question is more like when is Wall Street going to go into the private space launch business? This will be able to soak up private capital like almost no other industry that I can think of. It will also create billionaires that will be able to laugh at the pitiful sums of money Mr. Wm. Gates III has to play with.... and a bunch of broken dreams from the next big stock market crash from the dot Bomb in the sky collapse.