Slashdot Mirror


SpaceShipOne 100 km Attempt Slated for June 21

apsmith writes "Scaled Composites has just announced their first attempt at breaking 100 km, scheduled for June 21. This would make it the first commercial manned vehicle to officially enter space. This is not quite an Ansari X prize attempt since it will carry only one person without the extra mass corresponding to the 3-person prize requirement; they have to give at least 30 days' notice for that. Past flight history is available from their site; the Discovery Channel is producing a documentary on the whole project, 'Rutan's Race For Space.'" Roger_Explosion adds "If successful, the craft - named Space Ship One - will become the world's first commercial manned space vehicle. Space Ship One will temporarily leave the earth's atmosphere, and the pilot (yet to be announced) will experience about three minutes of weightlessness."

345 comments

  1. Webcast? by Unoriginal+Nick · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Any chance there'll be a webcast of the launch? I'd really like to see it.

    1. Re:Webcast? by Thag · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'd look to the major news networks for live video coverage, and Scaled Composites will certainly put pictures of the burn up on their website.

      http://www.scaled.com/

      Jon Acheson

      --
      All opinions expressed herein are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled.
    2. Re:Webcast? by Jason+R · · Score: 5, Funny

      Maybe 'burn up' isn't a good phrase to use.

    3. Re:Webcast? by gstoddart · · Score: 1
      put pictures of the burn up on their website


      I had to read this several times before I realized it wasn't a cynical assessment of their chances. =)
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    4. Re:Webcast? by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      Now that you've mentioned it on slashdot, it'll never happen :-) Pre-emptive slashdotting.

      I don't know if you could lower the bandwidth enough.
      How easy would this be to track?
      It could be the case that in order to have a live webcast you would need to drop the resolution enough that the view that you get wouldn't show very much.
      I could be wrong though.

  2. I say... by MachineShedFred · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Good luck, SpaceShip One; and Godspeed.

    This could be the beginning of the next Space Age.

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    1. Re:I say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Jesus. Get teary and everything. Good Lord...

    2. Re:I say... by October_30th · · Score: 3, Insightful
      This could be the beginning of the next Space Age.

      Perhaps, although I'm not so sure we should be so happy about corporations owning the space.

      --
      The owls are not what they seem
    3. Re:I say... by hpulley · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Perhaps, although I'm not so sure we should be so happy about corporations owning the space.

      We've already seen how the gov't owned it. Just how would "the people" own it instead of the gov't or a corporation?

      --
      $#!^ happens, but why does it always have to happen to me???
    4. Re:I say... by It'sYerMam · · Score: 1
      They'll need it - they have no Launch Escape System, so if an engine blows up, or there's a fire or something, they're pretty much dead.
      As a brit, I'm hoping that StarChaser will win, but we're definitely behind Scaled.

      .. Not least because Scaled has bought the prize (they've spent more than 10m already) and StarChaser is waiting for funding!

      --
      im in ur .sig, writin ur memes.
    5. Re:I say... by HeghmoH · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're aware that "corporation" is just a legal code-word for "a bunch of people working together", aren't you? Slashdot's rabid, emotional anti-corporatism is as bad as the environmental movement's knee-jerk anti-nuclear stance.

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    6. Re:I say... by Rob+Carr · · Score: 1
      As a brit, I'm hoping that StarChaser will win

      Well, I just hope it goes better for you Brits than that launch at Dartmoor.

      --
      This sig seemed like a good idea at the time....
    7. Re:I say... by It'sYerMam · · Score: 1
      That was 1998!
      They successfully launched their Nova rocket in 2001: "2001: -
      Moved to our new vehicle assembly building in Hyde to become the only active aerospace company in the UK manufacturing space hardware for the space tourism industry.

      The first successful launch of Nova, the world's first privately built reusable rocket capable of carrying ordinary people. NOVA/Starchaser 4 is the largest rocket ever flown from mainland UK." -- www.starchaser.co.uk

      Which was rather larger! They're planning to launch the Thunderstar in Australia.

      --
      im in ur .sig, writin ur memes.
    8. Re:I say... by Johnathon_Dough · · Score: 1
      You're aware that "corporation" is just a legal code-word for "a bunch of people working together", aren't you?

      ummm, i think that should read:
      "a bunch of people working together to make a profit"

      but otherwise, spot on with the rest.

      --
      If you are one in a million, then there are six thousand people who are just like you.
    9. Re:I say... by leviathanap · · Score: 1

      Just how would "the people" own it instead of the gov't or a corporation?

      Ever hear of the Green Bay Packers?

      --
      "Leisure is the mother of philosophy" - Thomas Hobbes
    10. Re:I say... by October_30th · · Score: 1
      You're aware that "corporation" is just a legal code-word for "a bunch of people working together", aren't you?

      Enron, RIAA/MPAA, Exxon, Halliburton,...

      Just a bunch of people working together, yes, but what is the cause they are working for?

      --
      The owls are not what they seem
    11. Re:I say... by HeghmoH · · Score: 1

      That's funny...

      Copyright © 2004 Green Bay Packers, Inc.

      Seeing as how "Inc." stands for "Incorporated", it sure looks like the Green Bay Packers are a corporation to me.

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    12. Re:I say... by Monkey+Liar · · Score: 1

      'When space travel really takes off, it'll be the corporations that name everything. The microsoft galaxy. Planet Starbucks.' -Fight Club.

      --
      He who fights with Monkeys must take it upon himself not to become a Monkey.
    13. Re:I say... by PseudononymousCoward · · Score: 1

      You're aware that "corporation" is just a legal code-word for "a bunch of people working together", aren't you?

      ummm, i think that should read:
      "a bunch of people working together to make a profit"


      Uhhh, no, that would be a for profit corporation.

      There are also non-profit corporations--which, intentionally or not, I am sure that scaled composites currently is.

      Matt.

    14. Re:I say... by Johnathon_Dough · · Score: 1
      Uhhh, no, that would be a for profit corporation.

      There are also non-profit corporations--which, intentionally or not, I am sure that scaled composites currently is.

      Maybe I should have replaced the word money for the word profit. Even a "non-profit"corporation is looking to earn money so as to use it towards whatever it is they are not making money on.

      --
      If you are one in a million, then there are six thousand people who are just like you.
    15. Re:I say... by iocat · · Score: 1
      No, they're definitely for-profit, and profitable. Although, basically, who cares? Just trying to make a profit doesn't make you evil.

      Activision makes cool games, and lots of profit, and treats developers well, and the people who work there well (as far as I know). It's a good company. And profitable. Just to point out an example.

      --

      Dude, I think I can see my house from here.

    16. Re:I say... by shadow_slicer · · Score: 2, Insightful
      You're aware that "corporation" is just a legal code-word for "a bunch of people working together", aren't you?

      Actually that's cooperation.

      Google says:
      A legal entity, allowed by legislation, which permits a group of people, as shareholders (for-profit companies) or members (non-profit companies), to create an organization, which can then focus on pursuing set objectives, and empowered with legal rights which are usually only reserved for individuals, such as to sue and be sued, own property, hire employees or loan and borrow money. Also known as a "company." The primary advantage of for profit corporations is that it provides its shareholders with a right to participate in the profits (by dividends) without any personal liability because the company absorbs the entire liability of the organization.
      (emphasis mine)

      The blessing and curse of corporations is that the owner's are not responsible for the actions of the corporation.
      So who is responsible? No one. The lowly workers are responsible to their managers, the managers to the executives, and the executives to the stockholders, but the stockholders aren't responsible to anyone but themselves.

      I can think of another class of people that aren't responsible to anyone but themselves. (but of course that doesn't mean they can't sometimes be benevolent)

      I'm not saying corporations are evil, but just that you can't trust them as you would an individual or cooperative group.
    17. Re:I say... by Skynyrd · · Score: 1

      Good luck, SpaceShip One; and Godspeed.

      This could be the beginning of the next Space Age.


      This is such a huge step forward. I'm reminded of the old pictures of Lindburg (sp?) and other aviation pioneers.

      And I feel lucky to live a few hours away, and have a bunch of friends who are wanting to go there with me and camp out in the Mojave Airport, er... Spaceport.

      So damn lucky. I get to be there.
      -sniff

    18. Re:I say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The blessing and curse of corporations is that the owner's are not responsible for the actions of the corporation.
      So who is responsible? No one. The lowly workers are responsible to their managers, the managers to the executives, and the executives to the stockholders, but the stockholders aren't responsible to anyone but themselves.


      Wrong.

      The decision-makers and workers (i.e. the company) are responsible for their actions to any government under which the corporation was created and/or operates. They can be fully prosecuted under the law.

      The owners of a publicly held corporation (i.e. the shareholders) cannot be prosecuted, because they are not involved in the making of any decisions. Basically, all that they do is to elect a board of directors.

      So: Andrew Fastow is losing $29M and going to prison under a 10 year sentence due to criminal fraud that he committed on behalf of Enron. He is fully liable for anything he did while working for Enron. Enron was also fully liable in that most of its assets were taken from it.

      Whereas a mere shareholder in Enron (who made no direct decisions about the operations of the company) is insulated from Enron's criminal deeds, and cannot lose anything beyond the value of the stock held.

      It sure sounds to me like a reasonable way to run things. Or perhaps you think we ought to round up and try all of Worldcom's shareholders for whatever fraud Worldcom committed?

    19. Re:I say... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1
      Just remember:

      If you own stock in a corporation, and IF the "without personal liability" clause were not part of the definition, then YOU would be liable if the corproration you owned stock in did something actionable.

      Corporations were invented to make it possible for businesses to raise more money than they could otherwise - by selling stock. If the stock came with a legal liability, few, if any, outside the corporate headquarters would be tempted to buy stock. After all, buying into a liability you have no control over is a bad thing.

      Unforunately, the corporate maagement isn't immune to temptation. So, the personal immunity can be (ab)used to enrich the management at the expense of the owners (shareholders). Hence the SEC and government limitations on corporate behaviour, and civil suits against corporate officers (which are frequently paid for by insurance bought with the owners' money, interestingly enough).

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    20. Re:I say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because of most of the time those corporations also have a purpose which is nothing more than to earn profit for the owners. When you have lots of "people working together" who make money their priority over all else, they start stepping on other people's toes. I reserve my right to have an emotional response to that.

    21. Re:I say... by bob_herrick · · Score: 1

      Wait for the IPO, buy shares. People own corporations, you can, too.

    22. Re:I say... by lordjake · · Score: 1

      The beginning of the next Space Age? No offence, but 100 km does not really make a new Space Age. That's barely the height for a stable orbit. What would be more revolutionary is private corporations actually going to other bodies in the solar system, and preferably extracting resources or doing something useful.

    23. Re:I say... by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      When Alan B. Shepard did it, it was the beginning of the space age.

      Why would this be any different?

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    24. Re:I say... by lordjake · · Score: 1

      Alan Shepard did what? Copied what Yuri Gagarin had already done?

    25. Re:I say... by spiko-carpediem · · Score: 1

      You can't own space. You can only take care of it :D

  3. Space vs. Weightlessness by crow · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's important to remember that going into space and being weightless are separate things. Weightlessness is the effect of free fall; not some magic thing that happens once you reach space. You're only weightless in orbit because orbit, by definition, means that you're in a continuous free fall. Since this flight won't go into orbit (or anywhere close to far enough from Earth to ignore it's gravity), the weightlessness effect is simply a result of the flight trajectory including free-fall on re-entry.

    1. Re:Space vs. Weightlessness by jlcooke · · Score: 1, Informative

      To be 100% correct - it's not weightlessness, it's micro-gravity.

    2. Re:Space vs. Weightlessness by aardwolf204 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Sounds like the vomit comet. Your post interested me so I've been reading WikiPedia's article on weightlessness, Microgravity, the Vomit Comet and more. Check it out here

      Weightlessness is not due to an increased distance to the earth: the acceleration due to gravity at a height of, for example, 100 km is only 3% less than at the surface of the earth.

      Weightlessness means a zero g-force: acceleration is equal to gravity.

      --
      Im dreaming ofa big bndwdth, That can resist the /.crowd.May ur days b merry & bright & may al
    3. Re:Space vs. Weightlessness by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 3, Informative

      To be 100% correct, it is free-fall.

      Gravity at 100km is ~0.97g - hardly "microgravity"

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    4. Re:Space vs. Weightlessness by mirio · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's important to remember that going into space and being weightless are separate things. Weightlessness is the effect of free fall; not some magic thing that happens once you reach space. You're only weightless in orbit because orbit, by definition, means that you're in a continuous free fall. Since this flight won't go into orbit (or anywhere close to far enough from Earth to ignore it's gravity), the weightlessness effect is simply a result of the flight trajectory including free-fall on re-entry

      Actually, weightlessness is simply the result of your velocity being the same as that of your surroundings. If you and your surroundings (i.e. Space Ship) are traveling at approximately the same velocity (speed & direction), you experience weightlessness. Free fall is an example of this effect, not the rule. This is precisely how the NASA Vomit Comet works.

      If your comment were correct, the Apollo astronauts would not have experienced weightlessness on their way to / from the moon.

    5. Re:Space vs. Weightlessness by pr0t0 · · Score: 1
      You are correct, as long as you are in Earth's gravity well (orbiting). Then the weightlessness is simulated due to free fall. But in the absence of a gravity well, say in deep space, you are in fact weightless.

      I suppose it's just a semantic difference depending on whether your going into orbital space, or extra-orbital space. Then again, I'm not an astrophysicist, so I could be completely full of crap.

      --
      I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
    6. Re:Space vs. Weightlessness by Target+Practice · · Score: 1

      Weightlessness is not due to an increased distance to the earth

      Not to pick noses, but that's only partly true. Weightlessness IS due to an increased distance to the Earth, but apparent weightlessness is not.

      You can be apparently weightless as you, say, fall in an elevator. You will appear to be floating, while the system including the elevator will be accelerating to the ground. You can be weightless, at least to a large degree, by increasing the distance between your body and the earth.

      The formula for the gravitational force (I think) is F=G(mM)/(r^2), where m is your mass, M is the Earth's, G is the gravitational constant, and r is the distance between you two. As you can see, the distance you travel affects this greatly. Extend yourself out towards infinity, and you will feel no force from the earth (though you may from some other object we've extended out and left there :)

      Again, it's only approximately weightless, but it's still less of an acceleration than you experience on the Earth's surface. Now to go back to organizing my pocket protectors. Nyehey!

      --
      There's a 68.71% chance you're right.
    7. Re:Space vs. Weightlessness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Actually, weightlessness is simply the result of your velocity being the same as that of your surroundings. If you and your surroundings (i.e. Space Ship) are traveling at approximately the same velocity (speed & direction), you experience weightlessness.

      So when I'm sitting on a train, travelling the same velocity as my surroundings, I'm experiencing weightlessness? Same when sitting in my livingroom, huh?

      Then why bother with all the parabolic trajectory flights and swimming pools and such when training astronauts?
    8. Re:Space vs. Weightlessness by MadEE · · Score: 1
    9. Re:Space vs. Weightlessness by crow · · Score: 1

      Well, if you define free fall as zero resistance to the effects of gravity, then whether in deep space or orbit, it fits. On the other hand, if the definition of "fall" includes moving towards a large object, then my explanation is incomplete.

    10. Re:Space vs. Weightlessness by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      Not to nick pits, but weight is only the force of your body against whatever surface you're accelerating into. Weightlessness therefore is the lack of a uniform force of you against any surface.

      But if you're so sure of your position, go fix the Wikipedia entry!

    11. Re:Space vs. Weightlessness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who would have thought the trailing / would cause a problem. Thanks for the fix.

    12. Re:Space vs. Weightlessness by el-spectre · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, on the train you don't feel any acceleration once you've reached crusing speed, do you? It's kind of similar, but in a perpendicular sense.

      If there was no gravity (acceleration), you'd be "weightless", relative to the acceleration of the train. This is why it's harder to walk forward on an accelerating train than one that is moving steadily... you're not fighing the acceleration.

      --
      "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
    13. Re:Space vs. Weightlessness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Well, on the train you don't feel any acceleration once you've reached crusing speed, do you?

      No -- and you're claiming that's weightlessness?

      You said you're weightless if you're travelling the same velocity as your surroundings. That's true if you're sitting still (relative to the train) regardless of whether the train is accellerating or not. Therefore, you're claiming that you are weightless abord a train whether it's sitting in the station, accellerating, or moving at a constant velocity down the line.

      Your statement about weightlessness being caused by a velocity of 0 relative to your surroundings is pure fantasy and so clearly bogus that I suspect you're trolling.
    14. Re:Space vs. Weightlessness by MindStalker · · Score: 0

      He is close, velocity AND acceleration have to be the same, to feel weighless. When standing on earth you have a constent acceleration on 9.8m/(s^2).
      Also the earth your standing on has the same acceleration force being applied to it. BUT, the earth is being held up by all the earth under it stopping it from the acceleration that is being applied to it. And you are being stopped by the earth from accelerating at 9.8m/(s^2) into the center of the earth, and it is that pushing back by the earth vs the natural tendency to accelerate toward the center of mas of earth. That is the feeling of gravity. Thank you, thank you very much, I'll be here all night :)

    15. Re:Space vs. Weightlessness by Rei · · Score: 0

      Seing as this thing will only experience zero-Gs for 3 minutes, it isn't getting even remotely close to an orbital trajectory. Unfortunately, the X-prize doesn't require orbit. Only 100km, and no orbit, it's not a very useful craft. It's main bit of usefullness will be to get Scaled Composites investors for a real, useful, spacecraft.

      --
      "Who the hell is Nietzche? It's a question stupid people are asking." -- Newscaster, "Jesus Christ Supercop"
    16. Re:Space vs. Weightlessness by el-spectre · · Score: 1

      No, schmuck. Perhaps I didn't phrase it so that you could understand it, but I never troll. I was attempting to explain a phenomenon in terms that might make sense to the lay person. Setting up straw men doesn't help.

      --
      "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
    17. Re:Space vs. Weightlessness by el-spectre · · Score: 1

      Which is, effectively, traveling as far horizontally (if space is "up" that is. Actually you're moving in a circle) as the curvature of the earth make it fall away from you in a given period of time.

      --
      "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
    18. Re:Space vs. Weightlessness by ehiris · · Score: 1

      or anywhere close to far enough from Earth to ignore it's gravity

      It should be far enough but the challenge here seems to be that it isn't fast enough. You're in orbit when you are falling so fast that you keep missing the planet.

    19. Re:Space vs. Weightlessness by Rei · · Score: 1

      Velocity and acceleration have to be the same? What are you talking about - they're in different units!

      To feel weightless, you must be experiencing the same acceleration as your immediate surroundings.

      --
      "Who the hell is Nietzche? It's a question stupid people are asking." -- Newscaster, "Jesus Christ Supercop"
    20. Re:Space vs. Weightlessness by Penguinshit · · Score: 1


      you keep forgetting the vector called "Gravity" that is pointing down towards the ground. If you experience equal force in all vectors, that is "weightless". Meaning, if your vector up and your vector down and your vector to each side (we'll ignore diagonals for our little model here) are all the same, you are then weightless.

      I used to do this all the time in small aircraft. It was a hell of a dating move; much cooler than the old hard-right-turn-in-a-bench-seat-car trick. Once your passenger gets over the initial fright, she actually starts to enjoy it (or, sometimes, she pees her pants and is really.. well.. pissed off.)

    21. Re:Space vs. Weightlessness by Shimmer · · Score: 1

      Velocity AND acceleration have to be the same.

      Nope, that's not it either. I'm sitting here in a chair. Everything around me has a velocity of 0 and an acceleration of 0 -- i.e. we're not moving. And yet I am not weightless.

      --
      The most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same people whose policies are destroying it.
    22. Re:Space vs. Weightlessness by Target+Practice · · Score: 1

      You're absolutely right. Sorry, I got too focused on a technicality that wasn't errored in the original, and came up with that junk I posted first.

      --
      There's a 68.71% chance you're right.
    23. Re:Space vs. Weightlessness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, you're in orbit when your horizontal momentum equals or exceeds the gravitational (vertical) acceleration that pulls you downward such that the trajectory defined by the combined velocity misses the planet.

      Anyone who's thrown a baseball or shot an arrow at a target should have a feel for how this works even if they can't explain it. To go farther, you must either launch the object faster or aim higher (but not too high... it must have more horizontal than vertical velocity to carry it forward).

      Gravitational forces exist everywhere in the solar system, from the planets, from the moons, from the asteroids, from the sun. The velocity (speed + direction) of an object is determined by adding all of these competing accelerations to the momentum/acceleration of the object. The gravitational influence of the planet is the determining factor until you are far enough away that the gravitational influence of one or more of the other bodies cancels it out. An object can be said to be weightless at a point in space where the net combined forces acting on it equal zero.

    24. Re:Space vs. Weightlessness by Tokerat · · Score: 1

      You're in orbit when you are falling so fast that you keep missing the planet.
      No, you're in orbit if you're moving forward so fast that falling at normal speed makes you fall around the curve of the earth.
      --
      CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
    25. Re:Space vs. Weightlessness by joggle · · Score: 2, Informative

      You're both correct. It is free-fall and microgravity. If you are in free-fall (say at about 0.97g acceleration), you don't feel the 0.97g. The space station is still well within earth's gravity well but experience microgravity.

    26. Re:Space vs. Weightlessness by spiedrazer · · Score: 1
      OK... One more clarification

      The weightless effect isn't simply a 'result' of the free-fall, but is a perceived effect by the pilot because the space ship and the pilot are traveling at the same rate. Basically if there is no (or minimal) drag slowing the ship down, and no thrust speeding it up, the ship and the pilot will float along at the same trajectory which is basically only being signifigantly modified by gravity, which acts the same on both.

      This can be seen by the fact that the free-'fall' actually starts while the ship is still going up as soon as the thrusters are turned off. Once it starts to hit signifigant atmosphere on the way down the ship slows down faster than the pilot in it, and the pilot again feels weight on his seat.

      --
      Keep passing the open windows...
    27. Re:Space vs. Weightlessness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't matter that velocity and acceleration are measured in different units, because no-one said that your velocity has to be the same as your acceleration. In order to experience weightlessness:
      1. Your velocity must be the same as that of your surroundings.
      2.Your acceleration must be the same as that of your surroundings.

    28. Re:Space vs. Weightlessness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, sitting in my living room, with a velocity and accelleration the same as my surroundings, I'm weightless. Uh huh.

    29. Re:Space vs. Weightlessness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      When standing on earth you have a constent acceleration on 9.8m/(s^2).

      And you are being stopped by the earth from accelerating at 9.8m/(s^2) into the center of the earth


      Which is it? In one place you say I'm accellerating at 1G, and in another you say I'm not.

      I can't believe how many clueless posts there are in this thread.
    30. Re:Space vs. Weightlessness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What straw man is that? _You_ said you're weightless if you have 0 velocity relative to your surroundings.

      That condition is true when you're sitting in your living room. And yet you're not weightless. Therefore, your statement is wrong. You stated that A -> B. Where A is "velocity of 0 relative to surroundings" and B is "weightlessness". I showed you a situation where A is true but B is false. Yes, you phrased your statement in a way that's understandable to a lay person. That doesn't stop it from being false.

    31. Re:Space vs. Weightlessness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What straw man is that? _You_ said you're weightless if you have 0 velocity relative to your surroundings.


      Actually, I think the OP who made the claim which am refuting (zero relative velocity == weightlessness) was somebody else. My apologies for wrongly attributing that claim. I stand by my claim that it is false.
    32. Re:Space vs. Weightlessness by eraserewind · · Score: 1

      What will happen if you launch a ship to Mars from Earth? What is the gravity on the way from Earth to Mars? (I guess it varies). Would it be enough to keep you pressed against one side of the ship? Does it go to zero (or as close to zero as makes no difference to our primitive human senses)?

    33. Re:Space vs. Weightlessness by tcomeau · · Score: 1
      You will appear to be floating

      You might appear to be floating, but you're not.

      I'm trying to remember which astronaut it was - I think it was Dr. Musgrave - who said "You don't feel like you're floating, you feel like you're falling. Because you're falling."

      --

      tc>
      Most Americans don't understand science, and they wouldn't like it if they did.

    34. Re:Space vs. Weightlessness by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      So, if I become weightless by increasing my distance from Earth, what happens if I go to Jupiter. That's plenty far from Earth.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    35. Re:Space vs. Weightlessness by cavebear42 · · Score: 1

      or pissed on as the case may be.

      actually that's not quite right. a body at rest (like my fat ass in this chair) has balanced vectors. gravity down equals the "normal force" up and here I sit. if you were to remove this normal force (or at least greatly reduce it) due to some activity such as the plane plummeting towards earth at the approximate speed of gravity, you would have unbalanced vectors (hence the proclivity to plummet.)

      now for the task at hand. the feeling of "weightlessness" up for discussion is the feeling of being untouched and yet at the same speed as your extremely local surroundings, including the air. untouched because you are at the same speed of a rollercoaster while strapped you feel it. if you were to sky dive, you would feel the upward force of wind.

      point being, unbalance vectors cause movement, balanced vectors cause stillness, not weightlessness.

    36. Re:Space vs. Weightlessness by Penguinshit · · Score: 1


      except my aircraft was not plummeting. It was involved in a very sharp angle of climb, nosed over hard, then pointed toward the ground in a clumsy parabolic arc. At the top portions of this arc, the "up vector" equalled the "down" or "gravity vector", giving the brief simulation of weightlessness.

      This is, indeed, how the Vomit Comet works, and which is where I learned this trick (not, though, from having been aboard in flight, I'm sad to say).

      Skydiving isn't the same. All you sense there is the lack of a falling feeling (and a loud, cold, wind) after you reach terminal velocity. All that is is a lack of acceleration.

    37. Re:Space vs. Weightlessness by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      Well its both its all relative remember :)
      Basically you have to constantly accelerate upwards to keep you still, that acceleration is being provided by the earth. :)

    38. Re:Space vs. Weightlessness by crow · · Score: 1

      Two answers:

      First, you will feel weightless if your spaceship is coasting, as any gravitational effect on you is going to be the same for the ship, so you will have no significant sense of gravity. You can only sense gravity if you have something pushing against you (air, the ground, etc.). You can sense the illusion of gravity if something is applying a similar force against you (accelerating spaceship, etc.)

      Second, as you get farther away from Earth, the actual pull of gravity will reduce. At some point, the gravity of Earth will cease to be the dominant source of gravity, and the net gravitational force will be quite small. You still have to take it into account for navigation, though, as even a slight influence can cause a significant course change considering the distances. (You also have to take into account Mars' gravity and the Sun's gravity, and possibly that of other objects.)

  4. Flight Controller by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Interesting
    The flight controller display blanked out (blue-screened for all I know) during the last flight. It will be interesting to see what is in the cockpit for this attempt. I suspect at least a backup artificial horizon. There's already a commercial GPS there. What else would be necessary?

    Bruce

    1. Re:Flight Controller by mhore · · Score: 1
      The flight controller display blanked out (blue-screened for all I know

      That's interesting -- I'd never really thought about that before... has it been mentioned anywhere what kind of software this thing is running? I know the space shuttle has some custom, reliable, blah blah code and stuff, so... what do they use on this craft? Anyone?

      Mike.

      --

      Mmmm......sacrelicious.

    2. Re:Flight Controller by Long-EZ · · Score: 5, Interesting
      SpaceShipOne uses a custom developed avionics package and it is not based on Windows so it didn't "blue-screen" in that sense. The lift vehicle, White Knight uses an identical system. The design intent was to allow cross training, so time spent flying White Knight will train for SpaceShipOne flights.

      The test pilot when the SS1 avionics required rebooting, Mike Melvill, is a VERY capable pilot. In short, he don't need no steenking avionics. All the Scaled team consists of interesting and capable people. They're the cream of the aviation crop.

      I'm seriously thinking about flying my Long-EZ (another Rutan design) to Mojave to see the magic. This is going to be so cool.

      --
      >> My ultraviolent Linux switch video.
    3. Re:Flight Controller by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since the ship doesn't rely on anything computerized (it is all cables) they were able to continue the flight even without the computer. The pilot simply looked out the window and eyeballed the correct angle of re-entry and continued on. If you look at all the pictures, the plane is minimalist to the nth degree. Rutan's planes are all like this, and so is his approach to space flight... which is what NASA's should be too.

    4. Re:Flight Controller by RobertB-DC · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm seriously thinking about flying my Long-EZ (another Rutan design) to Mojave to see the magic. This is going to be so cool.

      Might better plan ahead. From the FAQ:

      Q: Can we fly our own airplanes in?
      A: Due to expected congestion, the airport will be closed to transient aircraft starting several days before the event.


      That said, though, I'd probably take a day off work to see it with the kids, if I lived within 300 miles. As it is, 1500 miles each way is a bit much for a long-weekend road trip. I'll have to wait for the Texas folks to try it.

      --
      Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
    5. Re:Flight Controller by hpulley · · Score: 1

      From this Space.com article about the data from the May 13th flight, "During a portion of SpaceShipOne's boost, the flight director display did not function properly. Pilot Mike Melvill, however, continued the planned trajectory referencing the external horizon through cockpit windows."

      Forget an artificial horizon, good thing SpaceshipOne had a window! If the cockpit had been purely computer generated (e.g. "viewscreen on"), the pilot wouldn't have had a clue where he was going.

      --
      $#!^ happens, but why does it always have to happen to me???
    6. Re:Flight Controller by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The flight controller display blanked out (blue-screened for all I know)

      Hopefuly they do not use Win-NT for the control, BSOD would be the last thing the passenger would see on/thru windows...

    7. Re:Flight Controller by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1
      I was at Wright Patterson AFB the other day, in the Presidential hangar (part of the Air Force Museum, so named because they have all of the old Air Force One aircraft). They have an X-15 there and some other astounding stuff. Don't miss if you get to Dayton. The X-15 there had a window cover on one side to protect the window from being abraded during "re-entry". They would open that side if the other side became too cloudy to look through. SS1 doesn't have any caps over its windows.

      Bruce

    8. Re:Flight Controller by TheSync · · Score: 1

      You only need an artificial horizon if you are below cloud level...otherwise, the real one works fine.

    9. Re:Flight Controller by BlitzPig_Sal · · Score: 1

      A really great pilot (which Melvill certainly is) is all you need as backup for the flight director display. I'm sure he could abort the burn if things got really out of control and in one of the earlier test flights the pilot was able to get SS1 properly oriented after some major instability. Besides, there are backup altimeter and airspeed gauges in the cockpit as required by the FAA.

    10. Re:Flight Controller by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      The flight controller display blanked out (blue-screened for all I know) during the last flight. It will be interesting to see what is in the cockpit for this attempt. I suspect at least a backup artificial horizon. There's already a commercial GPS there. What else would be necessary?


      They're gonna need some kind of paper for the pilot to clean himself up with before he exist the capsule.

    11. Re:Flight Controller by Long-EZ · · Score: 2, Informative
      I had already read the warning of the airport closure. That just goes to show what a big event this is. Mojave is a public use airport. They don't just close those for a few days to hold a bake sale or something.

      I was planning on arriving a few days early and maybe seeing if I could get involved, even in a tiny way. If not, I could always soak up the environment. If you're an airplane nut, there's a lot of neat stuff in Mojave. For a canard aircraft enthusiast, it's sort of like Mecca.

      I'd probably find someplace to camp in a tiny bivy sack in the desert, because I like doing that sort of thing. And even if Mojave is closed, I could always fly into Tehachapi, about 20 miles away.

      Not most folks cup of tea, but a pretty good geek vacation.

      --
      >> My ultraviolent Linux switch video.
    12. Re:Flight Controller by RobertB-DC · · Score: 1

      I was planning on arriving a few days early and maybe seeing if I could get involved, even in a tiny way. If not, I could always soak up the environment.

      I bet you have a better chance of volunteering for something than any of us non-flight-geeks could, if only because you speak the lingo. Hope you post a note in your journal [when you get back | from your laptop]. (and I hope I think to look...)

      --
      Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
    13. Re:Flight Controller by centuriman · · Score: 1

      In the FAQ http://www.scaled.com/projects/tierone/New_Index/n ews/062104.htm it says that the airport will be closed to transient aircraft days in advance. You'd want to get there early. However, showing up in a Long-EZE is probably a good way to get a good parking spot.

    14. Re:Flight Controller by gr8_phk · · Score: 1
      "if only because you speak the lingo"

      He speaks the lingo and also built his own plane. Stop by your local EAA chapter (www.eaa.org). These guys are very interesting. I stopped by some meetings of chapter13 and they were all very nice people - even hooked me up with a MCFI, but I had too much side work going on at the time.

    15. Re:Flight Controller by EABird · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I was at Wright Patterson AFB the other day, in the Presidential hangar (part of the Air Force Museum, so named because they have all of the old Air Force One aircraft). They have an X-15 there and some other astounding stuff. Don't miss if you get to Dayton. The X-15 there had a window cover on one side to protect the window from being abraded during "re-entry". They would open that side if the other side became too cloudy to look through. SS1 doesn't have any caps over its windows.

      The X-15 at WPAFB was the craft used to do the High speed testing. The cover was a special mod to provide a window to see out of after the high-speed part of the flight. To protect the craft during the 6.7 Mach flight, there was a coating sprayed on the body of the X-15. As it burnt off, it would cloud the view of the pilot, Air Force Major Robert White in this case. The high-speed flight actually made the craft unairworthy, due to the limited help the coating actually had, and therefore it was the last flight for that X-15. The SS1 will be traveling much slower and will not require such protection, eliminating any problem with the visibility.

    16. Re:Flight Controller by Long-EZ · · Score: 1

      showing up in a Long-EZE is probably a good way to get a good parking spot.

      Maybe. But it'll probably be a lot harder to convince anyone that I'm just a transient pilot passing through, and am not there as a geek tourist for the big event.

      I'm looking forward to the true commercialization of space, that is long overdue. I believe this is the event that starts it all. Kudos to Pete Diamandis for having the vision to dream up the Ansari X-Prize, and the fortitude to work hard to have it funded. These are indeed exciting times.

      --
      >> My ultraviolent Linux switch video.
    17. Re:Flight Controller by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could also try Rosamond (KL00, 3600 feet), or California City (KL71, 6000 feet), or for a longer drive, even William J Fox in Lancaster. I'll bet it is VMC around that time, so any strip that you feel comfortable putting your bird into would work.

  5. In the words of my 6th grade English teacher... by purduephotog · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ... as we watched the 1st launch since the Challenger disaster...

    "GO baby, GO!"

    I'll be counting down. Heck I might even break out the model rockets and find a big park to go 'celebrate' (course the biggest park is next to a gorge, we don't like strong winds...)

    1. Re:In the words of my 6th grade English teacher... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



      "Flamebait?"

      WTF, mod? You jealous because you flunked grade 5?

    2. Re:In the words of my 6th grade English teacher... by centuriman · · Score: 1

      Estes is coming out with an X-Prize insprired product line that will hopefully include a SS1 model. http://www.rocketshoppe.com/ Keep those model rockets flying!

  6. They are lying I guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The pilot (to be announced at a later date) of the up-coming June sub-orbital space flight will become the first person to earn astronaut wings in a non-government sponsored vehicle, and the first private civilian to fly a spaceship out of the atmosphere.

    SpaceShipOne then coasts up to its goal height of 100 km (62 miles) before falling back to earth. The pilot experiences a weightless environment for more than three minutes and, like orbital space travelers, sees the black sky and the thin blue atmospheric line on the horizon.

    1. Re:They are lying I guess... by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1

      They're not lying; nothing in that contradicts what the original poster said.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
  7. Chutes? by DanielMarkham · · Score: 1

    What else would be necessary?

    Good question.

    Besides an AI and GPS, some sort of pressure-suit/parachute combination makes sense to me.

    I wonder if parachutes would be required? If so, would they work? If you step out of the plane at the peak and pull the rip-cord, what happens?

    1. Re:Chutes? by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Interesting
      It has not been clear to me that there is a bail-out capability. There is no pressure suit, and the deisgn is that there would not be a pressure suit. They are really bulky and need a lot of support - cooling, etc. The ship is double-hulled and a rather small pressure vessel. If it loses pressure, the pilot is probably dead for other reasons.

      One person has done balloon jumps from 110K feet in preparation for early manned space flight. A famous astronaut commented that he would not have wanted to try this. From the SS1 this would be worse than bailing out from a jet under power - which generally only is accomplished with powered ejection systems. All of these things add the weight that SS1 is designed to avoid.

      Bruce

    2. Re:Chutes? by DanielMarkham · · Score: 1

      Makes sense to me.

      So what you're saying is that the flight will operate in a similar fashion to other high-altitude commercial flights, say like Patrick Stewart's ill-famed Lear excursion a few years ago.

      As I understand it, the dynamic pressure on the hull is never that great (somewhere around 200 mph perhaps?) so that aside from the pressue differential, a bail out would be survivable. But it would be a LONG ride down!

    3. Re:Chutes? by Tyler+Eaves · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, actually it would depend on the exact altitude and speed. Up above 100,000ft, there is so little air that the actual windblast would be fairly low, no worse than a conventional skydive. Being supersonic would make things interesting of course, but there's no reason that I can see why it wouldn't work. The biggest problem I would see is getting the parachute to deploy cleanly. Should be okay at 150k ft or below (round numbers), as there is still enough atmosphere for aerodynamic devices to function.

      --
      TODO: Something witty here...
    4. Re:Chutes? by worst_name_ever · · Score: 1
      say like Patrick Stewart's ill-famed Lear excursion a few years ago.

      I think you might mean Payne Stewart.

      Unless of course you were talking about this ill-fated Patrick Stewart excursion...

      --

      In Soviet Rush, today's Tom Sawyer gets high on you.
    5. Re:Chutes? by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1
      Can you go through the re-entry that they feather SS1 for without shredding the chute?

      It would be OK if you could, except for the fact that it is extremely cold and there is nothing to breathe. You'd at least need air, probably a thermal suit as well.

      Bruce

    6. Re:Chutes? by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      I think he was talking about Stewart's King Lear :-)

    7. Re:Chutes? by DanielMarkham · · Score: 1

      Oops.

      Ok. One guy golfs, the other guy has a head like a golf ball.

      Seriously. It's interesting that if I wanted to take Patrick Stewart (old baldy) up for a ride in an airplane and do 70-degree banks, we have to have a parachute. But to shoot up 100Km in suborbital flight, a Mickey-mouse T-shirt and Raybans seem to work just fine.

      The real question is: who would want to fly with Patrick Stewart anyway?!? Bowl, maybe. But not fly. The gleam would be distracting.

    8. Re:Chutes? by Tyler+Eaves · · Score: 1

      You'd definatly need a pressure suit. As for reentry....I'm not sure. It'd depend on the speed, which I don't know offhand. Probably not too horrible, since unlike the Space Shuttle most of the velocity is vertical, unlike the Space Shuttle which a huge horizontal factor.

      --
      TODO: Something witty here...
    9. Re:Chutes? by chadjg · · Score: 1

      You might want to check out these guys. The parachute systems aren't beefy enough to handle the whole craft but if you blow away everything but the cabin capsule, all some of the issues are avoidable. The system built for a Cessna 172 takes about 79 pounds of usable weight away. That's not a small amount when you're talking cutting edge space fun. That could be a stopper.

      --
      Why do I have this? I don't smoke.
    10. Re:Chutes? by Rei · · Score: 1

      Reentry is not an inherently violent, superheated process. It all depends on what sort of trajectory and velocity you have when you intersect the atmosphere.

      Basically, the key is how fast the atmosphere increases in density around you. If you're going really fast, straight toward earth, you'll get into a dense atmosphere before your chute has slowed you down much; you and your chute will be shredded. On the other hand, if you're not going very fast, it will take a relatively long time for the atmosphere to get more dense around you, and your chute will have plenty of time to slow you down.

      Without any orbital velocity, and only 100km of altitude, I doubt you'd reenter the atmosphere too fast to have major problems, so long as you have a big enough chute to slow you down effectively in the outer atmosphere. Possibly a sequence of chutes, such as having a very large chute that is shed when the atmosphere becomes more dense, with a smaller one taking its place, would work best.

      --
      "Who the hell is Nietzche? It's a question stupid people are asking." -- Newscaster, "Jesus Christ Supercop"
    11. Re:Chutes? by centuriman · · Score: 1

      There is no provision for a bail out. Burt contends that the double pressure hull is redundant enough. He had some exposure to pressure suits with the Proteus and I guess he didn't like them.

    12. Re:Chutes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "A famous astronaut commented that he would not have wanted to try this."

      You mean Alan Shepard.

      He said "Hell no. Absolutely not."

  8. Hey no fair! by Timesprout · · Score: 5, Funny

    Allen, founder and chairman of Vulcan Inc,

    The Vulcans are helping them out. I wont be at all surprised if SpaceShipOne looks like a Zephram Cochran design.

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
    1. Re:Hey no fair! by CSG_SurferDude · · Score: 1

      I always thought that it was the Vulcans that were holding us back???

  9. BOOOOOOOOM! by stratjakt · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Enough said.

    Does the Russian's new policy of sending up folks for big amounts of cash (the Japanese reporter, etc) not count as commercial flight?

    --
    I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    1. Re:BOOOOOOOOM! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      why is this insightful? it's obvious the troll didn't even pause to read the article.

      i dislike nonsense moderation.

    2. Re:BOOOOOOOOM! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's the article have to say about Soyuz-for-hire? Nothing.

      i dislike nonsense replies

    3. Re:BOOOOOOOOM! by Long-EZ · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I hope you were referring to the two small sonic books that SpaceShipOne makes on reentry. The SS1 rocket design is a very safe solid rocket system using rubber as the fuel and nitrous oxide as the oxidizer. It's been tested as well as it can be, both on the ground and in flight. So far, zero problems.

      Yes, the Russian tourist flights were commercial flights, but they were done by a government. This is the first private venture into space. In a year or so, when the technology is more established, it will be possible to go into space for A LOT less than the $20 million that the Russians have been charging. The goal is to provide space tourism for about the cost of a luxury ocean cruise.

      --
      >> My ultraviolent Linux switch video.
    4. Re:BOOOOOOOOM! by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      In a year or so, when the technology is more established, it will be possible to go into space for A LOT less than the $20 million that the Russians have been charging.
      That is if you consider being on an amusement park ride 'going into space'. The X-prize class ships will certainly be cheaper than the Russians, but they also will give you far, far less.
      The goal is to provide space tourism for about the cost of a luxury ocean cruise.
      The goal is to provide stunt rides into the upper atmosphere for about the cost of a luxury ocean cruise.
    5. Re:BOOOOOOOOM! by Long-EZ · · Score: 1

      The goal is to provide stunt rides into the upper atmosphere for about the cost of a luxury ocean cruise.

      Are you being deliberately obtuse for trolling purposes, or is your understanding of technological advancement really that lacking? Do you think the commercial air transportation system we have today sprang into being overnight? Here's how it happened. The Wright brothers developed powered flight. A few other intrepid entrepreneurs such as Glenn Curtis improved on the basic invention, but it was still not ready for prime time. The $25,000 Orteig prize was offered to the first person to fly across the Atlantic Ocean. The prize was offered by businessmen such as hotel owners, with the long term goal of making fast, long distance air travel a possibility. They understood that a technology must crawl before it can walk, and walk before it can run. Charles Lindbergh won that prize in 1927, just 24 years after the first short powered flight at Kitty Hawk. Soon, there were barnstormers selling "stunt rides" from county fairs and farmer's fields to those who were excited about the new technology and wanted to participate. The US Postal Service started using airplanes to deliver the mail. Then, and only then, was the technology mature enough to start an airline industry.

      Just as the internet was used for pr0n before it was stable enough and pervasive enough for e-commerce, the first citizens into space will be tourists. But the technology developed for safe and low cost space tourism will be the stepping stone that will develop into a burgeoning industry with companies launching satellites that most medium sized companies can afford, manufacturing in microgravity, etc.

      I don't have $20 million to spend for a few days in space, but I'd be willing to spend $10,000 for a few hours that I'll never forget. You still get a few minutes of microgravity and that wonderful view of the earth as a planet. Check out the images from the previous test flights at www.scaled.com.

      Luddites such as yourself are free to stay at home and fire off sarcastic messages to Slashdot while the rest of us take our fledgling first steps to the stars.

      --
      >> My ultraviolent Linux switch video.
    6. Re:BOOOOOOOOM! by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      Are you being deliberately obtuse for trolling purposes, or is your understanding of technological advancement really that lacking?
      I see. Anyone who doesn't drool and who insists on accurate accounting and actual standard is a luddite, a troll, and lacks understanding. (I also note that declined to reply to the comparisons of cost and capability between SS1 and Soyuz.)
      Do you think the commercial air transportation system we have today sprang into being overnight?
      No, I don't think so. But I will also note that nobody confused the Wright brothers accomplishments with Linberghs. On the other hand, by confusing the suborbital accomplishments of the X-prize craft with the Russian commercial flights, you are doing exactly that.
      But the technology developed for safe and low cost space tourism will be the stepping stone that will develop into a burgeoning industry with companies launching satellites that most medium sized companies can afford, manufacturing in microgravity, etc.
      To be a stepping stone, it must be on a reasonable path from where one is to where one wants to be. Insofar as SS1 is concerned, it's not. Suborbital flights have about as much to do with orbital launches as my mini-van does with as NASCAR racer. It's neat, it's cool, but the niether the SS1 nor her brethern demonstrate anything that resembles what is needed for orbital flights.
      Luddites such as yourself are free to stay at home and fire off sarcastic messages to Slashdot while the rest of us take our fledgling first steps to the stars.
      Were you credited with proposing a new spaceplane configuration at this years Space Acess? How many messages have you exchanged with John Carmak on jetavator design? How often have you provided background information for one of James Obergs columns or broadcasts? (I've done all these and more.)

      That I place a different value than you on SS1 does not make a Luddite. It simply means that I am a realist, not a fanboy, and have different goals and dreams.

    7. Re:BOOOOOOOOM! by Long-EZ · · Score: 1

      Anyone who doesn't drool and who insists on accurate accounting and actual standard is a luddite, a troll, and lacks understanding.

      No, anyone who eschews technology is a luddite, anyone who posts messages disparaging significant accomplishments to evoke a reaction is a troll (I took the troll bait and trolled right back atcha), and anyone who can't see OBVIOUS historical parallels in technology lacks understanding.

      As for the cost & capability comparison between SS1 and Soyuz - I don't know much about Soviet costs for their space program, but they are apparently making money leaving one of their usual cosmonauts on earth to drag Tito or Shuttleworth up for $20 million each, so that sort of puts some numbers on what it costs for a Russian orbital launch. No doubt they are MUCH more cost effective than NASA's SST which costs about a billion dollars per launch, and that doesn't include the massive development costs. The estimates are that Scaled spent about $30 million developing and flight testing their hardware to win the $10 million Ansari X-Prize, which is typical for a prize like this. That's why prizes are such a great way to spur technology. The distributed research will be extremely efficient, and will still spent 10-100 times the amount of the prize. It's a form of Darwinian evolution applied to technological development, where many ideas are tried and only the best survive. If NASA really cared about space exploration, they'd spend their budget on high profile prizes.

      In round numbers, I'd say Scaled has provided the best return on the dollar. Yeah, they're doing what was essentially done in the mid 1960s, but they're doing it for a lot less money, and in an environment that will build on the technology, reduce prices, improve safety, etc.

      I don't think a Soviet comparison to SpaceShipOne is a fair comparison. The Soyuz is an end of life technology. It's served the Russians well, but it's at a technological dead end. It's as efficient as it's going to get. To improve, newer technology is needed. That's where SS1 comes in. It's in the early development phase, so naturally it's more expensive than it will be, less proven, and less capable. But it has a lot of potential, as do other entrepreneurial ideas that the X-Prize has fostered. Early steamships were not as fast as sailing ships, and they cost more money to build and operate. But we're not doing a lot of commercial shipping with sailing ships these days. The newer technology eclipsed the older technology.

      Clearly SpaceShipOne is optimized for winning the Ansari X-Prize and creating a safe and low cost space tourism market. Burt Rutan has said the SS1 is not appropriate for achieving orbit and orbital reentry. But much of the guidance and propulsion are applicable in many different space vehicles. New technology builds on previous technology, and SS1 contributes a lot to the field of low cost access to space.

      There is also a huge perceptual issue at work here. Demonstrating a profitable commercial space venture and getting the FAA to grant the necessary permits (already done for Scaled and XCOR) is a big step. Mindshare is a very real phenomenon in the commercial world. Just knowing something can be done spurs the market toward greater goals.

      It's also possible to reconfigure Scaled's X-Prize hardware for a different low cost mission. Replace the SS1 with an unmanned single or two stage rocket, perhaps using the same elastomer and nitrous oxide rocket technology and launch small satellites into orbit. There is a huge market for low earth orbit (LEO) satellites for a number of uses that are well suited to small and low power devices. Entrepreneurs will find these niche markets and fill them.

      I still insist you're missing the signifificance of this effort. Governments are not efficient and it makes no sense to have governments control access to space. These first commercial efforts will put us on the path to much more ser

      --
      >> My ultraviolent Linux switch video.
    8. Re:BOOOOOOOOM! by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      It's fascinating that you snip the hard parts of my reply and insist on slander and dogma.
      anyone who posts messages disparaging significant accomplishments to evoke a reaction is a troll (I took the troll bait and trolled right back atcha)
      Placing something in context is not disparagement.
      In round numbers, I'd say Scaled has provided the best return on the dollar. Yeah, they're doing what was essentially done in the mid 1960s, but they're doing it for a lot less money,
      Yes, and what they are essentially doing is being a commercial/private X-15, not a Mercury. (And I must ask, the best return on the dollar spent on what? Certainly not useful acess to space, because not only does the SS1 not provide that, no reasonable derivative can do so.)
      It's also possible to reconfigure Scaled's X-Prize hardware for a different low cost mission. Replace the SS1 with an unmanned single or two stage rocket, perhaps using the same elastomer and nitrous oxide rocket technology and launch small satellites into orbit. There is a huge market for low earth orbit (LEO) satellites for a number of uses that are well suited to small and low power devices. Entrepreneurs will find these niche markets and fill them.
      That's a *huge* assumption, and not justified by any facts. You confuse projections and possibilities with objective reality.
      As for being a realist, I've already shown you the direct historical comparison between commercial aviation in 1927 and commercial access to space in 2004. They're following almost exactly the same paths, including a high profile prize, entrepreneurial development, tourism and barnstorming, and a logical path to more conventional commercial applications when the technology matures in a decade. How much more realistic do you want?
      What you've shown me isn't realistic at all. There were multiple high profile prizes, and considerable military and goverment money. There was also a significant and proveable market that is not currently present. Nor is their any significant tourism (at least not yet). Nor is their any barnstorming (at least not yet). (Their role is overemphasised considerably anyhow.) There had also been a considerable period pre-WWI when aviation had been a rich man's hobby.

      In short, you've mapped one prize, a bunch of paper designs, and a few test flights of a single craft onto twenty complex years of aviation history. It's a poor fit.

      You should feel free to continue to propose configurations, exchange messages, and provide background information. Meanwhile, the folks at Scaled Composites are busy designing, building hardware and flying it into space.
      You seemed to have missed the significance, so I'll spell it out for you: Even though I am a pessimist (not a luddite, there is a difference), I am contributing to the best of my modest means. While you are posting to Slashdot, I'm actually involved (at least on the periphery) with the folks involved in Cheap- and Alternate- acess to space. (Involved enough that I got a personal invite to Scaleds open house/press briefing last year from Burt Rutan. Sadly my health prevented my attendance.)

      You seem to (mistakenly) believe that anyone who is not a True Believer must be perforce a heathen. There are more shades in the world than black and white.

    9. Re:BOOOOOOOOM! by Long-EZ · · Score: 1
      I think it's fairly obvious by now that you are not going to accept any evidence that demonstrates the value of the Ansari X-Prize, and the efforts of Scaled Composites. Apparently, the only evidence you will accept is looking back on what has already been done, which is a reliable method of documentation, but not very useful as a predictive tool.

      I'll continue to look forward to taking my ride into space in the near future, which is something that was never going to happen if governments continued to control access to space.

      Bye bye, troll.

      --
      >> My ultraviolent Linux switch video.
    10. Re:BOOOOOOOOM! by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      I think it's fairly obvious by now that you are not going to accept any evidence that demonstrates the value of the Ansari X-Prize, and the efforts of Scaled Composites.
      When you provide evidence, I'll be more than glad to examine it. To date, all you have provided is speculation, and speculation (no matter how informed) isn't evidence.
      Apparently, the only evidence you will accept is looking back on what has already been done, which is a reliable method of documentation, but not very useful as a predictive tool.
      An odd statement, since my 'looking back' has been nothing but analyzing the material *you* have introduced into the discussion. (Which analysis you have repeatedly discarded and failed to adress the issues it raises.)
      I'll continue to look forward to taking my ride into space in the near future, which is something that was never going to happen if governments continued to control access to space.
      A point I have never debated. Indeed that's why I am working with and for the folks doing the real heavy lifting.

      Scaled, barring an accident, is a shoo-in to win the X-Prize, but they are far from the only folks in the race, and they are far from the only folks bending metal. However, I don't think it likely that they'll remain the leaders when it comes to next step, orbit, as that requires competencies well outside what Rutan has demonstrated to date. (I wouldn't put it past him to be working on something in the back though. He's been working on the WK/SS1 combo for years, but was awaiting a backer rather than investing his own money.) My money is on Jeff and Doug over at XCOR, or maybe Elon Musk if he can get the Falcon flying as cheap as he claims.

      I will note in closing that you continue your habit of avoiding discussing the hard parts.

  10. more adds by millahtime · · Score: 1, Funny

    so, what's next. satelites with giant adds that change language over different countries. Instead of stars i the nights sky we will see lots of adds. It a possibiblty with corperations going to space.

    1. Re:more adds by Chairboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Corporations have been going into space since the 1960s. Did you think that your DirecTV dish is picking up signals from NASA?

      The reason this is big is that this is private manned spaceflight. As long as the government has a stranglehold on who does and doesn't qualify for space, then there can be no real human expansion. The sooner private interests are getting into space (eventually it'll be orbit, then beyond) the sooner we'll have meaningful colonization of places like the moon and Mars. This is vital to the survival of the species, as long as we're all stuck on this rock, the next comet or solar flare can wipe us all out.

    2. Re:more adds by Welsh+Dwarf · · Score: 2, Funny

      A poem that I heard on the BBC once (think it was on 'Tomorrow's World'):

      Twinkle Twinkle little star
      How I wonder what you are
      A red giant, or a shooting star?
      No, just an advert for a little blue car...

      --
      Ask 8 slackers a question, get 10 awnsers (a citation, but I can't remember from who)
    3. Re:more adds by FrostedWheat · · Score: 1

      we will see lots of adds

      Yep, that's all we need! Even more mathematics!

  11. First pre-announced flight? by peacefinder · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think this is the first Space Ship One flight that Scaled has announced in advance. I'm more than a bit surprised. I thought that they would do their first X-Prize-class flight quietly, then announce the next day that they were going for the prize officially.

    Good luck to them in any case... I'm sure it'll be a heck of a ride!

    --
    With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
    1. Re:First pre-announced flight? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      I doubt this will be their first X-Prize flight. This is just their first suborbital.

      X-Prize requires two flights quite close together. I expect that after this flight is analyzed, they'll schedule a pair of flights for the X-Prize. Possibly in August or September.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    2. Re:First pre-announced flight? by GoPlayGo · · Score: 1

      Actually, this is not an X-Prise flight. It will have only the pilot (soon to be astronaut) on board. Later flights will have additionally two passengers as mandated by the prize rules.

      --
      The game of Go (Igo, Weiqi, Baduk) has the simplest concept and the deepest play.
    3. Re:First pre-announced flight? by chaidawg · · Score: 1

      Actually, most of the teams will do it with one passenger and weights representing the other two. This way it proves they can lift three people while only putting one in danger.

    4. Re:First pre-announced flight? by kzinti · · Score: 1

      My understanding was that you had to have one pilot, dead weight equivalent to two passengers, and three seats. In other words, you couldn't just add weight somewhere a passenger wouldn't really ride, like strapped to the hull.

    5. Re:First pre-announced flight? by peacefinder · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I should have said 100km flight, not X-prize-class. I knew better, just got carried away. :-/

      My point was that I'm surprised they're pre-announcing this flight... they must be supremely confident in their vehicle to go for 100km so publicly, after being secretive all the way up until this announcement.

      --
      With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
    6. Re:First pre-announced flight? by gsfprez · · Score: 1

      >I thought that they would do their first X-Prize-class flight quietly, then announce the next day that they were going for the prize officially.

      This is not an X-Prize flight. That would require 3 people and the approriate mass-simulating-cargo aboard.

      I'm assuming this is a 1-man flight in order to reduce the number of charred human remains should something go horribly wrong.

      That's very prudent. I am a complete fan of the methods they've used on this project. They have a very good balance of safety and huevos.

      They make smart decisions, but they are not petrified little girls like NASA and the Republican Party to go out on a limb and do the deed.

      --
      guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
    7. Re:First pre-announced flight? by ArsSineArtificio · · Score: 1
      They make smart decisions, but they are not petrified little girls like NASA and the Republican Party to go out on a limb and do the deed.

      This troll seems a little odd. NASA spent eight years under President Clinton, a Democrat, floating in circles and building the increasingly silly ISS. President Bush, a Republican, has directed NASA to begin plans to resume manned flights to the Moon, and to develop the capability for manned spaceflight to Mars. From where comes this idea that "the Republican Party" is terrified of spaceflight? Can you quote the section of the party platform which is opposed to the idea?

      --
      All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
  12. X Prize Claimed on July 4th, 2004? by 1ione1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    To win the X Prize requires that two sub-orbital flights be completed within two weeks. The June 21st first attempt is just less than two weeks before the Fourth of July, America's Independence Day. While I don't expect to hear a public commitment (or even comment) from the Spaceship One team, it looks suspiciously like they're hoping to wrap it up on Independence Day.

    1. Re:X Prize Claimed on July 4th, 2004? by twostar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Except that they are not carrying the required three passengers on this flight. Depending on the outcome of this flight they will then plan for the Xprize.

      This is still experimental flight and they're minimizing personel risks.

    2. Re:X Prize Claimed on July 4th, 2004? by dgrgich · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Remember though - this story announces that the June 21st flight doesn't qualify them for the X Prize. They'll need to have two trips within two weeks that meet the mass requirements. This trip will not count. I highly doubt that they'll be able to get two more flights that do meet mass requirements within the two weeks prior to 7/4/2004.

    3. Re:X Prize Claimed on July 4th, 2004? by lommer · · Score: 4, Informative

      They don't actually have to carry three passengers, they just have to carry the bulk, the weight, and the life support for two simulation passengers and then actually carry one pilot. The X-prize rules are pretty clear about this. I think they did it so that if something does fuck up, at least only one guy bites the dust rather than three. It also allows for a few flights to be made with one passenger to thoroughly test the system before flying with three.

    4. Re:X Prize Claimed on July 4th, 2004? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except for the fact that the Ansari X Prize competition rules require 60 days official prior notification to beginning an attempt. July 4 is about 60 days from now and the rules also state that a 3-person crew (or ballast to simulate) must be involved as well as turnaround within 2 weeks.

      Time-wise, it just doesn't seem possible to do what you are proposing within the rules of the competition. A little too patriotic if you ask me.

    5. Re:X Prize Claimed on July 4th, 2004? by gr8_phk · · Score: 1

      I bet they do both X-prize flights the same day, or perhaps 1 day apart. Remember, they want to commercialize this, you can't require 2 weeks between flights. I bet they can reload the rocket in hours if they prepare a bit.

    6. Re:X Prize Claimed on July 4th, 2004? by twostar · · Score: 1

      Why can't you have flights two weeks apart? They can only fly as often as they have passengers and I doubt they will have enough customers at first to fly more then once a month. It'll depend on the price of course.

      That said, I think we'll see the two flights a week apart. That gives them plenty of time to check all the systems, go through the data collected and prepare for another flight, while giving enough time to delay if weather or other conditions exist.

  13. ...and the Q&A by xSquaredAdmin · · Score: 4, Informative

    Q: What date and time will the launch take place?
    A: The launch is planned for June 21, 2004. We plan for very early in the morning. Currently we are planning to taxi out for takeoff at 6:30 a.m.

    Q: Why so early?
    A: Mojave is a windy place. It is less likely to be windy very early in the morning. That makes for better flying and launch conditions, and the low sun angle allows better spectator viewing of the high-altitude boost to space.

    Q: Is there any chance that the flight would launch later in the day or be delayed a day or more?
    A: Yes. As with any flight test activity, weather is a very important factor. High winds or very cloudy conditions could change our flight plans. In addition, flights can be delayed for technical reasons.

    Q: What can we expect to see?
    A: White Knight with SpaceShipOne slung underneath will taxi by right in front of the public viewing area. A few minutes later, you will see it take off. For a few minutes early in the flight, you can see them circling overhead as they climb. It takes the pair of mated vehicles roughly one hour to reach 47,000 feet a few miles to the northeast. That is where White Knight releases SpaceShipOne. They are generally easy to follow visually since the White Knight and its chase planes usually make contrails. SpaceShipOne glides for a few seconds, then the pilot lights the rocket and you'll be able to see flames and a rocket exhaust trail for about 80 seconds. There will be a public address system in the viewing areas which will carry the radio transmissions between Mission Control, the White Knight pilot and the SpaceShipOne pilot, so you'll know what is happening.

    SpaceShipOne's flight lasts roughly 25 minutes. It will rocket to space, spend about three minutes weightless outside the atmosphere, then enter the earth's atmosphere in a high-drag configuration. It will glide back toward Mojave, circle overhead, then land directly in front of the public viewing area on the same runway on which it took off about 1 hour and 25 minutes earlier. SpaceShipOne's rocket is very loud but it can only be faintly heard on the ground in the best of conditions. If its reentry direction is aimed away from the airport, two soft sonic booms will be heard. After landing, SpaceShipOne will be towed by a truck to the media area for a brief photo opportunity, then moved to the adjacent public viewing area, then towed back to Scaled's facility. Thus, the media and the public will get to take their own close-up photos. White Knight takes longer to return. It usually lands a few minutes after SpaceShipOne.

    Other aircraft which you may see during the flight include:

    Robert Scherer's Starship (a Burt Rutan design). This plane flies high-altitude chase and carries our company photographer. This is a twin-engine turboprop airplane painted white with a canard near the nose.
    An Extra that belongs to Chuck Coleman, one of Scaled's Design Engineers. This aircraft has been used to train our pilots/astronauts. It is a single engine aerobatic plane painted red and black. It flies very close chase toward the end of the flight to assist the SpaceShipOne pilot in landing.
    The Alpha-Jet, a military-looking fighter aircraft painted olive green. The person in the back seat of this aircraft will have a video camera and will photograph the launch from a better position than we have on the ground. Some of this video footage will be used in preparing a documentary for the Discovery Channel.
    Q: What services are available in Mojave?
    A: Mojave is a small town with limited resources. Mojave's motels are listed below:

    Bel Air Motel - 661-824-2350
    Best Western Desert Winds - 661-824-3601
    City Center Motel - 661-824-4268
    Economy Motel - 661-824-2347
    Econo Lodge - 661-824-2463
    Friendship Inn - 661-824-4523
    Mariah Country Inn and Suites - 661-824-4980
    Mojave Travel Inn - 661-824-2441
    Motel 6 - 661-824-4571
    Twenty Mule Motel - 661-824-2214
    White's Motel - 661-824-2421
    Mojave also has several service stations, se

    --
    Crushing dreams at the speed of sarcasm
  14. Seems like we'll have a winner soon... by WegianWarrior · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think they'll manage to get over 100 km in their vessel. Then I assume we'll see them attemt the quick turnaround needed to win the prize and a new launch within two weeks. Then first, having proven their system, will they announce their officall attempt for the prize.

    At least that makes sence to me - test that it work first, before they go for the big one. Just the same as NASA did with their first spacecapsules; unmanned ballistic flights first, then a ballistic flight with a monkey, then an unmanned orbital flight and a monkeyed orbital flight - and once they knew their craft would behave as expected under all phases of the mission, they did a couple of manned suborbital flights to prove that humans would behave as expected (they did better than expected AFAIK) before they launced a man into orbit. In fact, it's just the same these guys do; prove that the spacecraft can handle all aspects of the mission before they put three people into it and light the fuse ;)

    --
    Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
  15. Magic Carpet Ride by ol2o · · Score: 3, Funny

    Will they be playing it?

    1. Re:Magic Carpet Ride by MrBlackBand · · Score: 1
      They were going to be playing "Major Tom" but decided against it what with that whole "circuit's dead, somethings wrong" bit.

      Also rejected was "Fire and Rain" by James Taylor.

      --
      "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
    2. Re:Magic Carpet Ride by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1

      how about John Denver's:

      Leaving on a jet plane... don't know [if] I'll be back again

    3. Re:Magic Carpet Ride by identity0 · · Score: 1

      Geez, hasn't anyone here seen 'Apollo 13'? They'll be playing "Spirit in the sky" by Norman Greenbaum, of course. Screw the fear of lyrics about death, you'd have to be crazy to fly that thing anyways.

      Goin' up to the spirit in the sky
      That's where I'm gonna go when I die
      When I die and they lay me to rest
      Gonna go to the place that's the best

  16. But can it go to plaid? by Gldm · · Score: 3, Funny

    Sorry, couldn't resist the gratuitous movie quote reference, the names are too similar. :P

    --

    Introducing the new Occam Fusion! Now with sqrt(-1) fewer blades!

    1. Re:But can it go to plaid? by dcphoenix · · Score: 1

      What kind of ludicrous question is that? Of course it won't. You'll only go plaid if you're trying to reach orbit.

  17. That's one small step for Man... by !Freeky2BGeeky · · Score: 1

    One giant leap for ... well for some commercial enterprise at least.

    --

    Visualize Whirled Peas

  18. First Unofficial Commercial Vehicle in Space? by MooseByte · · Score: 3, Funny

    "This would make it the first commercial manned vehicle to officially enter space."

    Which immediately makes me wonder which was the first commerical manned vehicle to unofficially enter space. Did this guy finally get some larger balloons?

    Best of luck, Space Ship One! May your design be sound and your crew be safe.

    1. Re:First Unofficial Commercial Vehicle in Space? by e+r+i+k+0 · · Score: 1

      Actually, Lawnchair Larry shot himself in the mid-90's.

  19. My favorite FAQ by daves · · Score: 3, Funny

    Q: Who is invited?
    A: Everyone, especially children. They will want to tell their children that they were there to see the event that triggered the industry of private space tourism.

    --
    People who disagree with you are not automatically evil, greedy, or stupid.
    1. Re:My favorite FAQ by cmowire · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't view it as that.

      I'd view it as being present for something like the launch of the origional Mac or the Model T or the HMS Dreadnaught or other such things.

      One of those cases where history changed but it wasn't entirely evident at the time.

    2. Re:My favorite FAQ by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      Q: Who is invited?
      A: Everyone, especially children. They will want to tell their children that they were there to see the event that triggered the industry of private space tourism.
      Either you or they snipped the remainder of the answer: "For those who consider an amusement park ride that does not enter orbit a space ship."

      Seriously. SpaceShipOne is cool, it's neat... But so far as actual acess to space it's essentially irrelevant. No nation that possessed only suborbital craft would be considered as being a spacefaring nation, why should we hold civilian craft to a lesser standard? SS1 reaches 'space' because 100 klicks was chosen as an arbitrary line dividing 'atmosphere' from 'space. Now that we are on the verge of a space acess revolution (not just Rutan, but Falcon and Blue Horizon as well), it's time to consider judging their accomplishments by a more realistic standard - orbit.

  20. RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    This flight doesn't qualify for the X-Prize, because they are only carrying one pilot and no extra weight in place of the other two people.

    They will have to make 2 more flights later to win the X-Prize.

  21. Pilot? by CyKo · · Score: 1

    "...and the pilot (yet to be announced) will experience about three minutes of weightlessness..." ...or die trying.

    Why aren't they sending up a monkey or a peice of meatloaf first? What will it do to the project if the pilot dies or is seriously injured during the flight or the landing?

    1. Re:Pilot? by twostar · · Score: 1

      Because an experience pilot can bring the craft down even with a computer failure.

      Believe it or not, but there are people out there willing to risk their lives to further space exploration and I don't think you or anyone else has the right to say they can't pursue their dreams.

      Sorry if this sounds harsh or directed at you, I'm just tired of people saying people can't risk their own lives for something great. We let you drive to work in the morning and that's alot more risky then flying an experimental aircraft/spacecraft.

    2. Re:Pilot? by Tyler+Eaves · · Score: 1

      Because to fly it unmanned you need either A: Advanced computerized flight systems or B: A reliable remote control setup. Either A or B is far more likely to cause problems than it's worth.

      --
      TODO: Something witty here...
    3. Re:Pilot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Why aren't they sending up... a piece of meatloaf first?
      Have you seen a picture of Meat Loaf lately? The guy ain't skinny, and the whole point is to keep weight down.
    4. Re:Pilot? by MarkGriz · · Score: 1

      Why aren't they sending up a monkey or a peice of meatloaf first?

      Because I don't think monkeys or meatloaf can actually *fly* a spacecraft.

      --
      Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
    5. Re:Pilot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      This is essentially an airplane. It ain't no capsule on top of a big rocket that just follows its course and goes up. This thing needs to be flown up into space.

      With that said, it's also a lot safer than sitting on top of a giant uncontrollable bomb. If I were a test pilot then this really wouldn't be that much more dangerous than what I would be doing anyway.

    6. Re:Pilot? by im+a+fucking+coward · · Score: 1

      It'll turn him into a monkey meatloaf crater I guess. But really, who gives a shit? How many astronauts paid for Russian and US rocketry development with their lives? Certainly not enough to stop development.

      Though totally unqualified, I'd do it if I only had a one in 10k chance of ever returning safely. The potential gains are too great for anything less than guaranteed annihilation to slow development down, so be of good cheer. Also, if you RTFA, you'll see the pilot isn't just scratching his nuts in there. Monkey meatloaf wouldn't be able to contribute to deployment or landing, so you've gotta figure they're saving a ton in development cost by not having to fully automate every (sub)system. The lucky pilot's name will also be in the history books, so depending on your outlook, there's no risk that's not worth taking if there's even the narrowest chance of success.

    7. Re:Pilot? by centuriman · · Score: 1

      Burt's tactic with this vehicle is more like aircraft development that rocket development. With aircraft development, you pretty much always have a pilot. Flight after flight, the aircraft slowly goes a bit faster, higher or heavier until finally it's been into every part of it's envelope the designers intended. In the 50's, nobody was certain that a man could survice in the space environment, so there was much more experimentation with the biological issues of space flight rather than the systems operations side of it. That's all behind us now. X-Prize is all about risk. Rutan doesn't mind taking the risks. I've heard him advocate one way missions to Mars. If a pilot dies, I'm sure his program will be re-evaluated. But that's the choice of all those involved, including the pilot.

    8. Re:Pilot? by d474 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Funny you should ask. Along with the pilot, the other two seats will just so happen to be occupied by a monkey and a meatloaf! That way, if the space craft blows up, hey, it's only 1 pilot, a monkey and his meatloaf. They just saved 2 pilots!

      --
      Authority questions you. Return the favor.
    9. Re:Pilot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, Meatloaf would do ANYTHING for love.

      But he won't do that.

    10. Re:Pilot? by ladylun · · Score: 1

      What will it do to the project if the pilot dies or is seriously injured during the flight or the landing? It will obviously slow the schedule considerably as they evaluate what went wrong, but I doubt that it will stop the project. Why aren't they sending up a monkey or a peice of meatloaf first? Too late for that. This bird has already had three piloted burns... two to black sky height. I fail to see how this flight is significantly more risky... or more important for that matter, other than achieving an arbitrarily selected milestone. Mike Melville and maybe even Shane Siebold are already astronauts as far as I'm concerned.

  22. Within two weeks... by nuclear305 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Everyone knows the REAL reason a followup flight is required within two weeks. It's so that the Vulcans can detect the flight, as they will only be surveying on our system for two weeks.

  23. They can't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As the summary points out. They need to notify The Ansari X-Prize foundation at least 30 days prior to any attempt, and both attempts must carry 2 passengers, or deadweight to represent 2 passengers. And this flight isn't carrying the additional weight, nor have they notified the Foundation that this is an official attempt.

  24. First commercial or private? by kzinti · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If successful, the craft - named Space Ship One - will become the world's first commercial manned space vehicle.

    I believe that distinction goes to the Russians, who are the first to fly a paying customer in the flesh. It would be more correct to say that Space Ship One is the first privately developed manned craft to reach space. Until they fly a paying customer, I don't count Space Ship One as a vehicle of commerce. Just splitting hairs...

    1. Re:First commercial or private? by Quarters · · Score: 1

      "commercial manned space vehicle" could mean a Shuttle taking a private company's satellite into orbit...something that was done on a fairly regular basis until the Challenger incident.

    2. Re:First commercial or private? by TopShelf · · Score: 1

      There go them dang Russkies again, commercializing everything first!

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    3. Re:First commercial or private? by kzinti · · Score: 1

      "commercial manned space vehicle" could mean a Shuttle taking a private company's satellite into orbit...

      Which is why I said "in the flesh". Most Shuttle payloads were military or government, and all payloads were so heavily subsidized that they were essentially free... no nongovernment customer could have paid the true cost of getting their payload to orbit.

    4. Re:First commercial or private? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      If successful, the craft - named Space Ship One - will become the world's first commercial manned space vehicle.

      I believe that distinction goes to the Russians, who are the first to fly a paying customer in the flesh. It would be more correct to say that Space Ship One is the first privately developed manned craft to reach space. Until they fly a paying customer, I don't count Space Ship One as a vehicle of commerce. Just splitting hairs...

      It's not splitting hairs. It's cutting through the marketdroid and fanboy speak that has begun to replace common sense and realism when talking about SS1 and the progress of civilian space in general.

      If Lower Moldavia launched a man on a suborbital trajectory they would, rightly, not be considered a spacefaring nation. That designation is reserved for nations that have demonstrated manned orbital flight, and the same standards should be applied to civilian flight.

      SS1 is an important step, I don't debate that, but I don't confuse going above an arbitrary line to be 'space acess'.

  25. Re:Informative? This is a TROLL! by The+Ultimate+Fartkno · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I think I'm going to spend the rest of my day watching the mods pounce on this comment.

    "That's a troll! -1! No, wait, it's a quote! +1 But is it still a troll? Waitaminnit, am I saying all minorities are dumb? DAMMIT! Troll it is! Wait, it's a quote! +1 Informative! Does that mean I agree with it, then? -1 Informative? But I'm agreeing with him now! AAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!"

    [mod explodes in a spray of blood, giblets, and fuzzy logic]

  26. Just booked a room in Mojave ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... the lady handling reservations at the motel didn't even need to ask what night I wanted (the 20th) -- their phone is apparently being slashdotted, and she said that everyone calling for that night "sounds the same".

    Is there some kind of geek accent I wasn't aware of?

    1. Re:Just booked a room in Mojave ... by pragma_x · · Score: 4, Funny

      ComicBookGuy: Pfft.. I cannot believe that one of my bretheren speaks as if he is one of the unwashed masses. Allow me to enighten you. When not speaking Klingon, Esperanto, or Latin, the a-typical "geek" sounds much like yours truely in what may also be referred to as the "best accent ever".
      Now if you'll excuse me, I must get back to composing my internet rant about how funds for producing Doom 3 have been syphoned off and used to buy new A/D boards for Armadillo Aerospace.

    2. Re:Just booked a room in Mojave ... by MarkGriz · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Is there some kind of geek accent I wasn't aware of?"

      Perhaps you used the words "whoa-hai" or "glayven". That's usually a dead giveaway.

      --
      Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
    3. Re:Just booked a room in Mojave ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Perhaps you used the words "whoa-hai" or "glayven". That's usually a dead giveaway.

      No, I only got as far as "I'm calling to see if you have any rooms available for ..."

      I did not inject any Monty Python references (even though the situation clearly called for it[1]), rant about SCO vs. All Right Thinking People, talk trash about Emacs, brag about my fat pipe (even though the situation clearly called for it[2]), or anything else remotely geeky.

      The only conclusion is that I must have an accent other than my native SoCal facility with the word "dude".

      ----
      [1] Monty Python references are always called for, so it's redundant to mention it.
      [2] No one will know if you have a fat pipe unless you either tell them about it or show it to them, so you just have to work it into a conversation wherever you can.

    4. Re:Just booked a room in Mojave ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me, too. I had the same experience, except one of the people I talked to at one of the motels sounded stoned and recently awakened. Yup, that made me want to stay there - even if they had a room, which they said they didn't. So, it's Motel 6 for me. See you on the 21st!

  27. Retro by GoPlayGo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    One of the sweetest things is that the SpaceShipOne looks like rocketships were supposed to look like many years ago. Curvacious.

    --
    The game of Go (Igo, Weiqi, Baduk) has the simplest concept and the deepest play.
    1. Re:Retro by javcrapa · · Score: 1

      hey thats sweet!! hmmm, wonder if aliens also look like we imagined <a href="http://www.lunaticfringe.org/%7Eadam/wge/al<nobr>i<wbr></wbr></nobr> en-lineup.jpg">them </a>

  28. Yeesh by Erwos · · Score: 2, Funny

    I gotta hope the guy they find to pilot the thing has his life insurance paid up.

    -Erwos

    --
    Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
    1. Re:Yeesh by Long-EZ · · Score: 1
      The test pilot will probably be Mike Melvill or Brian Binnie. There are not many test pilots in their 60s. Mike Melvill is a dude and a half. Both he and Brian Binnie are very capable test pilots.

      The SpaceShipOne uses a safe design for the solid rocket engine. Burt Rutan has has designed more aircraft than probably anyone alive, and to date, nobody has ever been hurt in any of his many flight test programs. This isn't as safe as driving a car, but this is not some wacky stunt by someone with half an idea. If Burt is willing to risk the life of his very good long time friend Mike Melvill, you can be sure every i is dotted and every t is crossed.

      --
      >> My ultraviolent Linux switch video.
    2. Re:Yeesh by hopemafia · · Score: 1

      "This isn't as safe as driving a car"

      Actually, it's probably safer. Driving a car is damned dangerous.

      And from a statistical standpoint it is definitely safer, based on fatalites per man-hour of operation.

      --
      If God had had a computer it would have taken him 7 months to create the earth...if he even bothered to do it at all.
  29. Re:Troll alert! by rolocroz · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Wrong! Nowhere does it say that in the article.

    Still a karma whore though.

    --

    I meta-mod all positive moderation Unfair, because it's abuse of the system.

  30. Now that's what being a billionaire is all about! by mbessey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You've got to hand it to Paul Allen - here's a guy who knows what to do with more money than he could ever spend in his lifetime. Making it possible for other people to pursue their dreams and possibly improve the world for everyone is just about the best possible use for all that wealth.

    -Mark

  31. MOD PARENT UNDERRATED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Come on mods, what the hell? I wish I had points to burn, cause I'd fix this obvious abuse. As it stands, I think it's time for an editor smackdown... Come on people, mod this poor fellow back up. It wasn't even Karma whoring, just good taste. I was thinking the same damn thing.

  32. Are not! by WegianWarrior · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The pilot (to be announced at a later date) of the up-coming June sub-orbital space flight will become the first person to earn astronaut wings in a non-government sponsored vehicle, and the first private civilian to fly a spaceship out of the atmosphere. SpaceShipOne then coasts up to its goal height of 100 km (62 miles) before falling back to earth.
    Seeing as a) most people in the aerospace industry defines space as 'anything above 100km over SL (sealevel), and b) they havn't gotten any money from the big, evil goverment to build their vessel, this is correct. Off course, he won't be completly out of out atmosphere, but then the edge of that isn't a sharply defined line.

    The pilot experiences a weightless environment for more than three minutes and, like orbital space travelers, sees the black sky and the thin blue atmospheric line on the horizon.
    According to This New Ocean: A History of Project Mercury (freely avilable from NASA's website), this is a very good description of what Alan Shepard experienced on his suborbital flight on the 5th of May 1961 (see chapter 11-4 of the aforementioned bood, or see what Wikipedia has to say on that flight).

    Interestingly enought, when I first heard of the X-prize, I assumed it would be won by a reusable capsule modeled on the early american designs (Mercury, Gemeni or Apollo) launced by reusable solidfueled rockets. I'm happy a more inovative, less 'brute force' approach seems to be winning.

    --
    Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
    1. Re:Are not! by justanyone · · Score: 3, Interesting


      assumed it would be won by a reusable capsule...solidfueled rockets

      The X Prize requires a certain percentage of liftoff mass be re-used in the two flights. I would presume that liftoff mass means the mass at the time the craft touched the earth the last time before ascending (thus would count both SpaceShipOne and WhiteKnight (although WhiteKnight is an aircraft and is completely reused).

      Technically, refilling a SRB (Solid Rocket Booster) with new fuel could be done and comply with ther requirements. However, I would presume there is a limit to the number of times this can occur due to dynamic airframe stress fractures and heat-induced stresses in the SRB structure. Anyone know of such limits? How often are the SRBs for the Space Shuttle reused? Is the SRB's exhaust nozzle replaced or is it reused as well? Is it complex or is it an open tube?

      NOTE: Scaled has not released the reuse percentage for its flights. I would presume due to the design that their percentage is going to be very, very high, with only fuel / consumables being replaced and probably a couple of spare parts here and there.

      NOTE: I am also presuming there is only one WhiteKnight aircraft; if they had to use two WhiteKnight aircraft then they would not comply with X-Prize requirements (methinks, IMHO), since it is part of the 'launch system'.

      --Kevin at justanyone daaaaahhht cahhhhmm

    2. Re:Are not! by TheSync · · Score: 1

      I'm happy a more inovative, less 'brute force' approach seems to be winning

      Yes, and let's not forget airship-to-orbit!

    3. Re:Are not! by goates · · Score: 1

      "Technically, refilling a SRB (Solid Rocket Booster) with new fuel could be done and comply with ther requirements. However, I would presume there is a limit to the number of times this can occur due to dynamic airframe stress fractures and heat-induced stresses in the SRB structure. Anyone know of such limits? How often are the SRBs for the Space Shuttle reused? Is the SRB's exhaust nozzle replaced or is it reused as well? Is it complex or is it an open tube?"

      From all the stories and reports that I've read about the SRBs, a more appropriate term than re-used would be "salvaged." Between the stress of launch and coming in the ocean they basically get rebuilt after each launch, so it isn't just a case of refuel and you're ready to go.

    4. Re:Are not! by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Note that SS1 does not use solid a fuel rocket - it uses a hybrid rocket, with both solid and liquid fuel.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    5. Re:Are not! by cazzazullu · · Score: 1
      "However, I would presume there is a limit to the number of times this can occur due to dynamic airframe stress fractures and heat-induced stresses in the SRB structure. Anyone know of such limits?"

      Some statistical data may help: I think the solid rocket boosters may on average be used 0.97 times ;)

      --
      int main(void) {while(1) fork(); return 0;}
  33. Yes, It's Impressive by Paulrothrock · · Score: 4, Interesting
    But does putting the mass of 3 humans in suborbital flight really make a difference? This is akin to the Space Shuttle in the 1970s: It's designed to go somewhere, but there's nothing up there to go to. Are we going to continue launch satellites, or are we going storm heaven?

    This would make an excellent crew transfer vehicle, but a poor 'space truck'. What's needed is a commercially produced heavy lift launch vehicle. 100 tons to LEO would provide the ability to send modular lab or manufacturing stations into orbit, with crews sent up by craft like SpaceShip One. It doesn't have to be totally reusable, just cheap enough that it won't cost ~$1 billion plus the cost of the material being launched. Lower this by half, and maybe large companies could use it as research or manufacturing stations, with the benefit of NASA being able to use them to mount high-quality manned missions to the Moon and Mars, and unmanned missions to deep space, powered by nuclear reactors that would increase the amount of data by increasing both bandwidth and mission length.

    --
    I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
    1. Re:Yes, It's Impressive by Kiryat+Malachi · · Score: 1

      The whole point of this is that it allows work to be done on cheaper reusable launchers.

      100t to LEO would be great, but odds are that if it got built, it still wouldn't see much use outside of government launch contracts at 500 mil per launch. On the other hand, if we can get 1 ton launches to LEO down to $50,000 incremental cost, odds are pretty good that a lot of people would start putting things into space.

      It's like computers; we get a lot more done with lots of small PCs than with small numbers of huge mainframes.

      --

      ---
      Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
      (I read with sigs off.)
    2. Re:Yes, It's Impressive by WegianWarrior · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is a start. Once you have something like this, hopefully flying paying passangers on suborbital flights, you have proven that there is a marked for commercal, manned access to space (there allready exists commercal launcers for unmanned sattelites and probes - Sea Launch is one). Once you proven that, companies will start sinking real cash into it - perhaps taking the logical next step and build a 'space hotel' and a shuttle able to ferry more than three people up and down at a time.

      One has to prove that a marked exist before the big corps are willing to put money on the table; to suggest that they should go ahead and build a launcer able to put 100 metric tons in LEO is like saying NASA shouldn't have wasted time on Mercury and Gemini, but gone straight to the moon. You must learn to walk before you can run.

      --
      Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
    3. Re:Yes, It's Impressive by at_kernel_99 · · Score: 1
      But does putting the mass of 3 humans in suborbital flight really make a difference? This is akin to the Space Shuttle in the 1970s: It's designed to go somewhere, but there's nothing up there to go to. Are we going to continue launch satellites, or are we going storm heaven?

      But does your comment really make a difference? I am certainly not knowledgeable enough to guess what the Rutan/Allen team's long-term goals are, but their efforts thus far seem to be more than adequately meeting their short term goals. As I understand them - based on Scaled press releases & seeing Rutan speak a couple times - they are to 1) reinvigorate the public's level of excitement in technology / space; 2) prove the technology necessary to get to space; 3) develop a source of revenue to fund further experimentation / R&D. So maybe a vehicle capable of a thrill-ride that 'goes nowhere' doesn't accomplish much of import. But in the big picture, its accomplishing quite a lot.

    4. Re:Yes, It's Impressive by Paulrothrock · · Score: 1
      Mercury and Gemini were developing the concepts necessary to go to the moon. Things like living and flying in space that we had never done before. They were an integral parts of the Apollo program.

      I'm just afraid that the X Prize is making the same mistake the Shuttle made. Yes, suborbital flights may be commercially viable, but there's nowhere else to go. The shuttle was developed to go to a space station, and to facilitate its construction. But they scrapped their only heavy lift booster before the space station was built! So once the shuttle was operational, there was nowhere for it to go except up and down, at $1 billion a pop. I seem them making the same mistake; making something to go somewhere that doesn't exist yet.

      Once you proven that, companies will start sinking real cash into it - perhaps taking the logical next step and build a 'space hotel' and a shuttle able to ferry more than three people up and down at a time.

      And how will we build this "space hotel?" Using a heavy-lift vehicle. But from where? So we sink money into developing it and the hotel. Then the space shuttle gets decommissioned, and we have to spend MORE money developing a shuttle.

      There is no logical progression here. Figure out how to create a destination for this craft before you develop something that just goes up and down.

      Maybe I'm just too obsessed with getting off of this bug-infested mudball...

      --
      I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
    5. Re:Yes, It's Impressive by zentinal · · Score: 1

      Well, that's 1/2 the point. The other half being that the effort (and all Ascari X-Prize entries) has received no direct government subsidies.

    6. Re:Yes, It's Impressive by hypnagogue · · Score: 4, Interesting
      But does putting the mass of 3 humans in suborbital flight really make a difference?
      Yes. Commericial engineering is only accomplished in small, achievable, individually profitable steps. Only governments can afford to waste money on decades-long boondoggles. Space tourism is seen as a potentially profitable industry... orbital heavy-lifting already has big market players (the governments) and entry into this market is not likely to be overwhelmingly profitable. That is, until you have technology that can significantly lower the price point.
      --
      Liberty you never use is liberty you lose.
    7. Re:Yes, It's Impressive by Kiryat+Malachi · · Score: 1

      Eh, I don't care who pays for it, to tell the truth; if the end result is a cheap reusable launcher, the effect will be the same.

      --

      ---
      Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
      (I read with sigs off.)
    8. Re:Yes, It's Impressive by Paulrothrock · · Score: 1
      It's not at all like computers.

      With computers, jobs can be segmented a la SETI@Home. You're not going to lash a bunch of SpaceShip Ones together and launch a Mars mission or a space station habitat. You need heavy launch vehicles to lift heavy things. Period. You're not going to ship a nuclear reactor in pieces and assemble it in space where the construction costs are very high. Build it on earth and launch it fully assembled.

      --
      I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
    9. Re:Yes, It's Impressive by Paulrothrock · · Score: 3, Interesting
      1) People will not be invigorated by watching three people, two billionaires and a pilot, take a joy ride. They will be invigorated by watching man walk on Mars, or at least having a leader who says we're going to go there.

      2) We've had the technology to go to space for forty years. We've had the technology to do suborbital flight for longer. Hell, we could have landed on Mars before I was born, but we didn't have the economic or political balls to do so.

      3) I don't think tourism is really helping the economic situation in Africa. I'm sure they would rather have people invest in their infrastructure. Same thing with space: We need an infrastructure to make space more than an alternative to the safari. We can't do that launching ~500 kg at a time.

      --
      I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
    10. Re:Yes, It's Impressive by Kiryat+Malachi · · Score: 1

      A heavy lift vehicle that costs $500 million per launch is still useless.

      Now, if the techniques used in SS1 can be eventually scaled up to do 10t launches, or even 100t launches, at low cost, we'd have a worthwhile commercial booster.

      Commercial ventures will *always* be heavily cost focused. Only the government can afford half-billion dollar launches, and while benefits of heavy lift are many, benefits of expensive heavy lift are next to none.

      --

      ---
      Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
      (I read with sigs off.)
    11. Re:Yes, It's Impressive by cmowire · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, what SS1 brings to the table over the the shuttle is that it's far far cheaper to build and fly than *anything* else. Millions instead of billions.

      The big thing is not the winner of the prize. It's what happens *after* the prize. Most of the other plans for reusable boosters (Roton, Phoenix, etc) never got to suborbit.

      The big potential here is that most of the big issues to make a pretty cheap booster for at least microsats have been solved and there's signifigant *new* engineering expertise in a bunch of people who are used to building stuff in new ways. Even if some of the leading contenders don't make the X-prize in time but does manage to get some flying in, it's much more likely that they will be able to attract investers and/or throw some more money at the problem, and start making products.

    12. Re:Yes, It's Impressive by at_kernel_99 · · Score: 1

      1) People will not be invigorated by watching three people, two billionaires and a pilot, take a joy ride. They will be invigorated by watching man walk on Mars, or at least having a leader who says we're going to go there.

      Part true, part false. The cynical side of me says yes, you are right; Julia Roberts being pregnant with twins is more interesting to the public than the technical feat of affortable space flight. Where you're wrong is that we, at least 'we' in terms of US citizens, do have a leader who says we're going to Mars. An announcement also greeted, I might add, with less enthusiasm than that of Julia Roberts' twins.

      2) We've had the technology to go to space for forty years. We've had the technology to do suborbital flight for longer. Hell, we could have landed on Mars before I was born, but we didn't have the economic or political balls to do so.

      We have landed on mars, presumably before your birth (1976). Oh, did you mean land humans on mars? I'd argue we don't have the technology now, much less 15 years ago. From where does your statement come? I'd like to see how you're going to keep humans alive for the trip to mars (and back). How you're going to launch this project. How you're going to launch on Mars to get humans back into space from that planet before returning to this planet. Maybe this project needs a cheap way to get to space on this planet, and improved technology developed on this planet before we just toss a couple astronauts toward mars.

      3) I don't think tourism is really helping the economic situation in Africa. I'm sure they would rather have people invest in their infrastructure. Same thing with space: We need an infrastructure to make space more than an alternative to the safari. We can't do that launching ~500 kg at a time.

      I think tourism is helping the economic situation in Africa. Tourists demand things like food, running water, sanitary waste facilities, roads, airports, internet cafes & other things that will eventually improve locals' lives. In terms of needing an infrastructure to get to space, what do you think Scaled is doing? They're (im)proving the technology necessary to get there. While the gemini, mercury & apollo programs rapidly put the US ahead of the soviets in the space race, they did not leave us with affordable access to space. The people at Scaled Composites seem to be focusing on this goal. So what if they haul tourists with the proof-of concept craft? Its a way to fund future developments.

      New advances in space access are not going to come from governments. They are going to come from private sector innovators who develop ways to drive costs down & efficiencies up. You're totally correct that we need an infrastructure to make space more accessable from earth & thus make travel away from earth & earth orbit possible. Developing that technology in one shot is inefficient and expensive. Given the other costs that governments face I don't see them being able to dedicate the necessary resources to such a goal. However, the private sector may be able to create new markets that will provide the funding that will get payloads out of earth orbit sooner & cheaper.

    13. Re:Yes, It's Impressive by cmowire · · Score: 1

      But, ask yourself, why are construction costs in space so high? Because it costs so damn much to get *anything* up there at all.

      Most of the major parts of a mars expedition are not especially big, especially when you start using developed-but-never-tested-in-space technologies (Of course, the Ion drive did pretty well after 30 years of moldering on the shelves) like inflatables. Really, you need tanks of fuel (can be segmented easily), engines (can use a bunch of smaller ones, which also gives you redundancy. You also don't need that much thrust to go places anyway), solar panels (Mars is still close enough for that, and they can be easily segmented), repair parts, supplies (mostly preserved food), and some structural girders (assembled in space like tinker toys) and an inflatable habitat.

      None of these things are especially heavy or large and, if it was suddenly possible to get a few thousand pounds per flight up with an excellent $/lb rate, people would change how they design things with that in mind.

      Remember, with inflatables, you don't even need spacesuits, you can just assemble your major components or perhaps the entire vehicle inside of a large inflatable bay.

    14. Re:Yes, It's Impressive by tekrat · · Score: 1

      Oh, did you mean land humans on mars? I'd argue we don't have the technology now, much less 15 years ago. From where does your statement come? I'd like to see how you're going to keep humans alive for the trip to mars (and back). How you're going to launch this project. How you're going to launch on Mars to get humans back into space from that planet before returning to this planet.

      Now now, give the poster a break. Consider that in a mere 9 year time during the 60's, we went from not being able to launch *anything* (the rockets all blew up on the pad), to landing 2 men on the moon and returning them safely to the Earth.

      It's a given, that, with the same effort and financial expendature, would could have continued that explosive progress and have gone to Mars before the next decade had finished (essentially 1979).

      However, by the time the 1970's rolled around, public intrested in the space program had waned, consider that Apollo 13 was hardly mentioned in the news until "Houston, we have a problem".

      Von Braun *clearly* intended to go to Mars, he had the plans drawn up and he fully expected the US government to fund it, and that he would see it happen in his lifetime. Sadly, this did not happen.

      Instead, we're the only economic superpower without a manned space program. Even China has (successfully) put more people in space in the last 2 years than we have.

      --
      If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
    15. Re:Yes, It's Impressive by Blackjax · · Score: 1

      But does putting the mass of 3 humans in suborbital flight really make a difference? This is akin to the Space Shuttle in the 1970s: It's designed to go somewhere, but there's nothing up there to go to.

      There may not be today, but there will be

    16. Re:Yes, It's Impressive by rv8 · · Score: 1

      But does putting the mass of 3 humans in suborbital flight really make a difference? This is akin to the Space Shuttle in the 1970s: It's designed to go somewhere, but there's nothing up there to go to.

      If we had waited until Boeing developed the 747 before flying the Atlantic the 747 would never have been developed. Be patient, one step at a time.

      --
      Kevin Horton
    17. Re:Yes, It's Impressive by ladylun · · Score: 1

      Commercial space will need both trucks and tour buses. While follow-ons to SS1 must be scaled up to reach true orbit with paying passengers, I think it's a mistake to even begin to think of them in terms of heavy lifting. It was this kind of thinking that created the space shuttle... overkill for the majority of missions. Passenger craft should concentrate on ferrying people to orbit as comfortably and safely as possible. Meanwhile, new lower cost launchers like the SpaceX Falcon series will be the key to bringing down the cost of freight transport. And FYI... Bigelow Aerospace has already paid the down payment on the maiden flight of the Falcon V to put one of their inflatable modules in orbit. This is a hotelier forseeing a near term potential for habitable property in orbit. When the "ready to assemble" spacecraft begin arriving on orbit, there's a good chance the construction crew quarters will already be there with the sheets turned down. These are exciting times for space nuts like me!

    18. Re:Yes, It's Impressive by Kiryat+Malachi · · Score: 1

      I didn't mean directly scaling SS1 for heavy lift; however, some of the techniques used can probably be adapted to a heavy lift vehicle to allow it to fly more cheaply. I'm with you that we should absolutely seperate lift and crew vehicles; the major problems with the space shuttle stem from two sources - the fact that we combined lift and crew on one vehicle, and the Air Force requirements that have become totally meaningless.

      We'll see how SpaceX does. I'm hopeful, but not holding my breath, you know?

      --

      ---
      Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
      (I read with sigs off.)
  34. MOD PARENT DOWN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mods, please moderate this idiot down. He's a known troll who impersonates Seth Finkelstein and berates others at any chance possible. He is NOT an HA Linux expert, but rather a charlatan attempting to see how many fools he can snare on the end of his fishing pole.

    1. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Looks like I got one.

      I believe is where you insert your tiresome, "So we meet again" routine. Yawn. Get some new material, will you? You're absolutely failing as a troll.

  35. Re:Now that's what being a billionaire is all abou by polecat_redux · · Score: 0

    Are you sure it's not just another elitest distraction for him? Or perhaps it's yet another business venture - one that takes rich people into space for no other reason than to say they did it, while making wealthier people even more wealthy.

  36. They could by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1

    They have until this Friday to tell the foundation that, if this announced flight is successful, a 3-person flight will be attempted on July 4th.

  37. Re:Space vs. Weightlessness (clarification) by Goldenhawk · · Score: 5, Informative
    Since this flight won't go into orbit (or anywhere close to far enough from Earth to ignore it's gravity), the weightlessness effect is simply a result of the flight trajectory including free-fall on re-entry.

    Yep, this is more or less correct, but let's clarify one point. The only significant difference between this attempt (or any similar 100km up-then-down mission) and an orbit mission is how far you fall.

    You can go a thousand kilometers straight up, and fall straight back down, and never go into orbit. You never can "ignore" gravity - even out at the lunar orbit distance, at hundreds of thousands of kilometers, gravity is still a factor. Fact is, that's what keeps the moon nearby.

    An orbit is, essentially, simply falling in an arc that never intersects the ground (or atmosphere). You have to get a whole lot more energy into the vehicle so that the trajectory falls past the planet's "edge" - at which point you end up "falling" forever around the earth. (And yes, for you rocket science purists, you also have to expend some additional energy to reshape the path through which you fall, usually at the highest point of your trajectory, to make the orbit more circular - that's called an "orbit injection maneuver".) So it's not a matter of HEIGHT, it's a matter of which DIRECTION you expend the energy.

    As a matter of fact, if the atmosphere and terrain were not an issue, you COULD do an orbit a hundred feet off the ground. And you could enter this orbit by going straight sideways. It just requires moving a lot faster than a higher orbit. Our current launch profiles are designed to minimize the fuel (and therefore change in energy, a.k.a. "delta-V") required.

    So to wrap up the thought here, weightless is BECAUSE the vehicle trajectory is a free fall (one that's not being modified by expending energy or using winged lift or drag). Doesn't matter whether it's a complete orbit or one that will hit the ground before going around one complete time.

    And here's the most relevant point to SpaceShip One - to achieve true orbit (a true free fall all the way around the earth), quite a bit more delta-V is required - which requires more fuel, which requires more vehicle structure, which increases vehicle weight, which requires more fuel to lift, which requires more structure... etc. (And let's not even THINK about reentry heating yet...) So as neat as this trick is, SpaceShip One and any other X-Prize vehicles are a LONG way from a viable orbital launch vehicle.

    --
    --Brandon / Split Infinity Music

  38. Commercial space craft? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is not correct - the ship carries no cargo nor paying passengers so it's not "commercial".

    "Private space craft" would be a more correct term.

    1. Re:Commercial space craft? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful


      This is not correct - the ship carries no cargo nor paying passengers so it's not "commercial".


      Just because the cargo gives a thumbs up before the flight doesn't mean it isn't cargo.

      The company is attempting to haul 3 people (cargo) into suborbital flight twice in two weeks to collect a pile of money.

      Sounds like a commercial enterprise to me.

    2. Re:Commercial space craft? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But - are the 3 people *paying* for the privenedge? Did they purchase tickets, or are they employees of the company that built the thing? There's a huge difference. If they're employees, then it's a private flight. They would have to be ticketed memebers of the public for it to be "commercial".

      Either way, it's a step in the right direction even if we still have no warp drive or artifical wormhole generators.

      If I were in charge of the X-Prize organization, no chemical rocket type of craft would qualify. Not would any craft that leaves even a paint-speck of space debris, as chemical rockets are far too slow to be usefull in space travel, and every launch of conventional rockets only serves to build a prison wall around this planet, slowly but surely.

    3. Re:Commercial space craft? by Gryphn · · Score: 1

      waddaya want - space truckers! http://imdb.com/title/tt0120199/

      --
      Fantasy and superstition should be used for entertainment purposes only.
  39. Re:Now that's what being a billionaire is all abou by Sylink · · Score: 2, Insightful

    cause you know, world hunger, poverty, and the uneducated masses dont mean shit.....

  40. You know what "White Knight" is code for!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does Rutan really believe that superior Aryan space aliens built the pyramids?

  41. It's the commercial version of Mercury by Teahouse · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Remember, we are talking about commercial space travel starting from the same point as NASA's Mercury program. They are taking evolutionery steps just like NASA did. Currently, the X-Prize is for a sub-orbital system. Once that has been accomplished, I have heard that they plan on offering a $20 mill prize for the first orbital flight.

    Just like the beginning fo powered flight, governments have held all the cards and technology till now. What you are seeing is the highly efficent start of commercial space ventures. They will evolve through vehicles much faster than NASA did because they already have more knowledge to build on, and they also have the ability to make changes and adjustments faster and cheaper than a bureauracy like NASA. NASA isn't projected to have a new man-rated vehicle for another decade, and at the cost of BILLIONS. It is likely that before they accomplish that, the commercial industry will catch up and have a 4-man orbital vehicle by the end of this decade.

    Finally, the dollars will be there. Right now, if you asked NASA to get you into a sub-orbital launch, it would probably cost them $100 million minimum in development to get you there. Your price tag might be as high as 10-15 million. Rutan is doing it for less than 5 million (that's including vehicle development) and your price (once operable) will be about $80-100K per launch. Once these cheap methods are solidified, I could see an orbital flight dropping down to a $10-12K price tag for 4-5 orbits. If they get it that low, then space tourism will be the economic demand this industry is hoping. Hell, I would pay $20k to go into orbit!

    What I am saying is that you need to be a little patient. These companies will get you there far cheaper than NASA, and in a much shorter amount of time. This is just the beginning, but all things will come.

    An old NASA saying is "space is difficult", it should really be "space is easy, bureauracy is difficult".

    --
    "Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
    1. Re:It's the commercial version of Mercury by khendron · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Rutan is doing it for less than 5 million (that's including vehicle development)...

      I'm curious. Where did this number come from? I looked up and down their web site but couldn't find any numbers as to the cost.

      To be honest, I have some trouble believing that this can be done for $5M. Why? Because it seems to me that the manpower cost alone should be more than that. However, I am very willing to be proven wrong :-)

      --
      Life is like a web application. Sometime you need cookies just to get by.
    2. Re:It's the commercial version of Mercury by Paulrothrock · · Score: 1
      What I am saying is that you need to be a little patient. These companies will get you there far cheaper than NASA, and in a much shorter amount of time. This is just the beginning, but all things will come.

      So, in the long run, we'll be in space. But in the long run, we're all, dead, too.

      I see no point in being patient when we waste billions of dollars on launch bricks and wings in circles when we could actually go somewhere if they would stop their idiocy. The time for patience passed with the Saturn V. Now we should be angry.

      And I wouldn't pay $20,000 to go to orbit. In the end, I'd be left with some very expensive pictures and an idea of what it would be like if we didn't have gravity. I would pay $200,000 to go somewhere new and leave the Earth permanently. But that's "impossible" or "not feasible." Bullshit. When we spend $4 billion a month on blowing other people up, we can find the money to get people off of this planet.

      --
      I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
    3. Re:It's the commercial version of Mercury by Teahouse · · Score: 4, Informative

      I was at a JPL happy hour about a month ago. One of the engineers I talked to was a friend of Rutan's. The cost to build White Knoght was about 2.2 mill. The cost of SS1 (not counting engine) was 2,1 mill. Throw in another mill for the cost of the engine and that's the figure I gave. I have no idea what the continuing operations cost on a monthly basis, but the fact that they got the bulk of this done for less than 6 mill is pretty impressive.

      --
      "Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
    4. Re:It's the commercial version of Mercury by Teahouse · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Were all dead too

      How exactly does that fit into the topic of discussion? We are all going to die anyway. The amount we spend globally on space exploration is not even 1% of what we spend on medical research.
      I agree with you that we definitely should be spending more, but please don't dredge up that old argument that we should never leave the planet to help more starving people. People were starving before we had a space program, and they continue to starve and die from disease. I agree that we should be trying to get to places, but orbit is also just a forst step. My point is that you have a better chance of living or vacationing at a lagrange point with commercial development than you do with a government program. Consumer demand drives commercial endeavors. If I have to spend 20K to keep it running and then spend another 200K 20 years from now to retire on the L5 colony, I'll do that. If you wait around for them to get you where you want to go, they might never get there. You have to be committed now, and later. Spend the 20K as soon as you can, and then put the 180K in a muni find. You'll have your 20K back and more by the time they build L5 Hilton or Moonbase Hilton.

      --
      "Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
    5. Re:It's the commercial version of Mercury by Paulrothrock · · Score: 1
      I'm not the type to bring that sort of thing up. I'm just saying that if we're too patient, we will die before anything is accomplished. I want to go now. Not because I'm impatient, but because we can and we're wasting our time. I can see the other shore, but everyone seems content to play in the shallows. It didn't make economic sense for Columbus to try to sail west to Asia, but someone financed it.

      At any rate, I am not going to provide charity in the form of a $20K flight I don't want to take. If it's a commercial endeavor, they'll have to provide a service I'm willing to pay for. Until then, good job on shooting a billionaire around the world. Next time do it without the spacecraft.

      --
      I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
    6. Re:It's the commercial version of Mercury by eutychus_awakes · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually, if you asked NASA to get you into a sub-orbital launch, they would point you to the National Scientific Balloon Facility located at Wallops Island. $500K will get you a two day flight above 120,000 feet - close enough for most science. If you need weightlessness, a sounding rocket can also get you there, but not for as long, of course. Not everything NASA does is an overpriced iron pig.

      --
      This sig is a test. If this had been an actual sig, you would be reading something quite a bit wittier than this now.
    7. Re:It's the commercial version of Mercury by Teahouse · · Score: 1

      So let me see if I understand your logic...

      I want to go now.

      But

      I am not going to provide charity in the form of a $20K flight I don't want to take.

      But you seem to hate the guy who is going to pay for the development and industry that will get you there (which you are unwilling to pay)

      good job on shooting a billionaire around the world. Next time do it without the spacecraft

      Not sure what that says, but I am sure there is some contradiction going on. Frankly, I have always been of the mind that If you want something, you need to sacrifice/invest in it. I'm not going to count on the billionaires to get me there, because they might not show up. As soon as I can afford a ticket, I'm going. You can thank me 20 years from now when you check in to the Lagrange Hilton. :)

      --
      "Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
    8. Re:It's the commercial version of Mercury by Paulrothrock · · Score: 1
      Let me clarify: I want to leave Earth now. Permanently. I don't want to circle it a couple times. I don't want to wait twenty years to get there when we have the technology now. I can leave now. Nobody else seems to want to go.

      I will pay to go somewhere. I will not pay to take a joyride. If I want a thrill, roller coasters are cheaper and safer. If they send me, I will work for them for the rest of my life. How's that for an investment? Just get me off this disgusting, bug-infested, humid, crowded mudball you people call a planet.

      --
      I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
    9. Re:It's the commercial version of Mercury by peacefinder · · Score: 2, Informative

      It is likely that before they accomplish that, the commercial industry will catch up and have a 4-man orbital vehicle by the end of this decade.

      That's great if so, I'm all for it. But I think you're underestimating the engineering difficulties involved.

      SS1 is a great little craft and a tremendous technical achievement, but it is not even close to being an orbital vehicle. They are achieving a great part of the height necessary, but very little of the horizontal velocity. Orbital velocity is "[...] approximately 17,000 mph (27,359 kph) at an altitude of 150 miles (242 km)." What's more, the lower you are, the the faster you have to go.

      The added power and heat dissipation involved are not exactly trivial problems. Space really is hard.

      (On the bright side, it seems to me that people stopped laughing about the idea of a space elevator about two or three years ago. So maybe in 48 years, we'll be able to ride up the slow and easy way.)

      --
      With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
    10. Re:It's the commercial version of Mercury by Teahouse · · Score: 4, Funny

      Neither of these launch options is man-rated, but you make a good point. I don't think NASA is evil, I think congress is evil. Unfortunately, NASA must design their manned space program to please these mindless congressional masters....

      CONGRESSPERSON SKYPACK: My district has a company that makes winglets for aircraft, contributed $5000 to my campaign last election. I want winglets on the new orbital spaceplane.

      NASA ADMIN: But congressman, we are currently looking at a more cost effective capsule design, there are no wings.

      CONGRESSPERSON SKYPACK: Well you had better rethink your short-sighted design. My constituent told me winglets are the latest thing on my last junket to Barbados with them. You NASA people should know that winglets add efficency to wingtips! You should at least be looking at them.

      CONGRESSPERSON SMOOT: Yes, winglets are a good idea REP SKYPACK, they sound sexy. I would also like to see them use landing gear from manufacturer X.

      CP SKYPACK: Yes, Manufactuirer X is in your district right SMOOT? They make tires for cars. Why, they would need at least 15 million to develop an aircraft grade landing system don't you think? Good idea...if you'll vote for my winglets I'll....

      SMOOT: Sounds great! OK!

      NASA Administrator: Gentlemen, we will require neither winglets or landing gear for our capsule. We can make it safer and cheaper without them. Don't you understand?

      SKYPACK: I understand that your system better have wings and tires ADMIN, or you'll get no approval from THIS committee. In addition, I am going to cut your development budget while adding these two features to your design to make me look fiscally responsible, and don't you dare go over budget!

      NASA ADMIN: Where is a gun, I need to shoot myself immediately.

      SMOOT: Theres a firearm manufacturer in my district ADMIN, if you could purchase....

      And the stupidity continues.

      --
      "Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
    11. Re:It's the commercial version of Mercury by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      It's a commercial version of Mercury? ROTFL.

      Mercury was a manned *orbital* craft that was tested initally at the lower bound of it's performance envelope - Suborbital. SS1 is a *suborbital* craft fixing to go the outer bound of it's performance envelope - Suborbital.

    12. Re:It's the commercial version of Mercury by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hrm, funny you should say that since the first four flights of the mercury with and occupant, including the first two 'manned' flights were actually suborbital.

      Suborbital
      Mercury 3 (Freedom 7) - 5 May 1961
      Mercury 4 (Liberty Bell 7) - 21 July 1961

      Its arguing semantics, but they are on a 'Mercury' level right now. In fact early on in the space program, every astronaut was going to initially go up on a suborbital flight before going completely orbital. Guess they got rid of that because of cost, and the fact they lost so many of the original unmanned suborbital mercury launches.

      I'd love to see someone come up with a Gemini Capsule (just made a little lighter weight), and then buy a flight on the Falcon V (www.spacex.com under development), and knock on the ISS door. Wouldn't that be funny? "Hey man you guys order Pizza? It'll be $13,500,000 plus tax."

    13. Re:It's the commercial version of Mercury by ArsSineArtificio · · Score: 1
      Just get me off this disgusting, bug-infested, humid, crowded mudball you people call a planet.

      There's no pleasing some people.

      --
      All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
    14. Re:It's the commercial version of Mercury by Teancum · · Score: 1

      While I would agree that the capsule itself was always intended to be an orbital craft, the launch of the original Mercury missions were done on a Redstone rocket, and there was never any doubt that it would never make it into space. It took further development of the Atlas rocket before it was man-rated and allowed to launch people into space.

      Alan Shepard was clearly honored for the first American into space, even if he didn't achieve orbit until a much later flight.

    15. Re:It's the commercial version of Mercury by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      While I would agree that the capsule itself was always intended to be an orbital craft, the launch of the original Mercury missions were done on a Redstone rocket, and there was never any doubt that it would never make it into space.
      Those weren't the 'original' missions, but test flights of the basic spacecraft at the bottom of it's flight envelope. It was always intended and understood that the real goal of the Mercury program was orbital flight. (Unlike SS1 whose next test will be at the outbound of the envelope and isn't intended to be either and operational craft or an orbital craft.)
      It took further development of the Atlas rocket before it was man-rated and allowed to launch people into space.
      That man rating was well underway even before Sheppard's flight. The Atlas flights were not follow ons, but the actual and intended mission of the capsule and the ultimate goal of the program.
      Alan Shepard was clearly honored for the first American into space, even if he didn't achieve orbit until a much later flight.
      Sure, he was so honored... Because we needed someone to honor and he was available. Don't mistake propaganda for reality. Had suborbital flight been enough to be accounted as 'space travel', we would have stopped there, and Gagarin's mission would have been ballistic as well.
    16. Re:It's the commercial version of Mercury by Teancum · · Score: 1

      Let me see if I understand the nature of your argument. Are you suggesting that the SS1 from Scaled Composites is a dead-end technology? That variants of Rutan's spacecraft (it is clearly more than a mere aircraft like a Cessna) could never achieve orbit, even with additional boosters and/or substantially improved reentry shielding?

      While I'm not totally familiar with all of the subtle factors that Rutan is using on his craft, and I'll certainly conceed that SS1 will never be able to achieve orbit, it is an excellent demonstration technology that could be used to start low-cost commercial manned spaceflight. What is stopping the development of something similar to SS1 as the 2nd stage of a truly orbital craft? Sure, it would take more R&D to make that work, but you have a proven technology here (assuming that SS1 works as planned, and I see no reason why it won't succeed for at least the X-Prize requirements).

      The whole point of the X-Prize was to put a rather high goal, but get something realisticaly achievable rather than making it litterally impossible on the first try, such as if they set human colonization of Mars as the first stage of the competition. Or IMHO harder yet, the first manned spaceflight to Alpha Centari. While those are noble goals, lets start with something small and can be proven with several legitimate studies will be a commercial success.

      I, for one, would love the opportunity to be able to fly in Rutan's ship, even if the cost was $50,000. I am not somebody who is particularly wealthy, but I see this as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity that was never an option for my father or grandfather (both of whom would also have jumped at the chance to do something like this... and gladly spent that kind of money).

      With it already proven that wealthier people will pay the $20 million fee the Russians are asking for to make orbit, it can be shown that orbital craft will be even more commercially successful than even sub-orbital craft. And that is just for trill-rides, not to mention more legitimate uses that can only be done in space.

      This is why SS1 and the X-Prize are so impressive, not because they may never achieve orbit, but because it opens up a whole new industrial sector that can be tapped that until now has only been in the realms of dreams, and somebody with a will to go to space had to follow the really bizzare restrictions NASA and other government agencies put on people that wanted to go into space.

      I also think it is a legitimate concern of NASA that the ISS is going to be overrun with tourists real soon, and all that implies.

    17. Re:It's the commercial version of Mercury by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      What is stopping the development of something similar to SS1 as the 2nd stage of a truly orbital craft?
      There are no individual technological showstoppers, but fiscal ones abound aplenty.

      The big issue is that air launch doesn't truly save you much on your orbital stage when you get to orbital sized craft. You could, in theory, build an aircraft that would heft an orbital version of the SS1 into the air. The problem is, you are talking an aircraft in the C-5/AN-225 size range to save a mere 8-10% of your fuel costs. Fuel is cheap, as is the steel to build the structure the hold that extra fuel, oversize exotic aircraft are expensive, horrendously so. Air launch is a big win for suborbital craft because a fairly modest launch aircraft will save you 50-80% of your fuel and structural weight, but that percentage goes down fast as your (air) launch height and speed becomes a smaller fraction of your final height and speed.

      With it already proven that wealthier people will pay the $20 million fee the Russians are asking for to make orbit, it can be shown that orbital craft will be even more commercially successful than even sub-orbital craft.
      Extrapolating a large market (one large enough to support operations, let alone R&D prior to operations), from a miniscule sample is a dangerous business indeed.
      This is why SS1 and the X-Prize are so impressive, not because they may never achieve orbit, but because it opens up a whole new industrial sector that can be tapped that until now has only been in the realms of dreams, and somebody with a will to go to space had to follow the really bizzare restrictions NASA and other government agencies put on people that wanted to go into space.
      The problem is, it does no such thing. There's an assumed tourist market to sub orbital, and thats about it. Science payloads already go up on ballons pretty cheap, and can stay at useful altitudes for days. The interest for commercial operators is in orbit, not just above the arbitrary line that defines space. The problem is, orbit is a vastly harder nut to crack than suborbital.
  42. Sontarans next by jd142 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Ok, am I the only one who thinks that we should not be encouraging the Rutans? Sure, they were enemies of the Sontarans, but that doesn't make them our friends. Just ask Leela.

    1. Re:Sontarans next by KnightStalker · · Score: 1

      What do we have to worry about? Rutans, hah. Great big jellyfish sort of things... they're even less dangerous than those ridiculous pepper pots armed with sink plungers. The Sontarans at least were a credible threat. Effective, ruthless, scientific *and* they can even go up stairs.

      --
      * And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
  43. Re:Now that's what being a billionaire is all abou by Long-EZ · · Score: 2, Interesting
    People are like tribbles. If you feed people, you get more people. Harsh, but I think true. That's not to say that feeding people isn't a noble venture, especially if there is an effort to control overpopulation in deserts that can't support human life. But the goal isn't to see how many people we can put on the earth.

    On the other hand, taking the first real steps into space will pay long term benefits to all humanity. And by "real", I mean economically viable, commercial ventures. Not some "what's the most dangerous and expensive path to space" government pork project. I intend to offense to NASA engineers or their Russian counterparts, but governments just aren't very good at this sort of thing.

    --
    >> My ultraviolent Linux switch video.
  44. RTFP by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    They noted that in the Slashdot post.

  45. Re:RTFA (Informative???!) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How the hell did this get moderated Informative?! Mods must be on crack. It's a joke, laugh!

  46. Re:Now that's what being a billionaire is all abou by LWATCDR · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Worried about world hunger, poverty, and the uneducated masses. Sell your computer and give the money to them. Really the problems of world hunger, poverty, and the uneducated masses will not be solved by throwing money at them. Most hunger is not caused by lack of money to feed people. It is caused by politics, poverty? There will always be poor but the crushing poverty that you often see is not going to be solved by throwing money at the problem. The uneducated masses? Truth is books are pretty cheap these days and you do not have broadband and P4s to be educated. The old "we can put a man on the moon but we can't...feed the poor, cure the common cold, or take your pick" statment is old and tired. How about this on. "We can't put a man on the moon any more! Are you happy!"

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  47. Re:Now that's what being a billionaire is all abou by Long-EZ · · Score: 1

    By my uninformed way of thinking, Paul Allen helped found Microsoft and was therefore analogous to the guy who opened the gates of Hell for the coming apocalypse. But my opinion of Allen has changed radically. Even if he has an ultimate profit motive for commercializing space, his investment in the Scaled Composites Ansari X-Prize hardware is a very good thing. He also gets a major boost in the ratings for handing SETI a big pile of cash for the Allen Telescope Array. Soon, SETI won't need to beg for time on the Arecibo dish, and they can look where they want with the new steerable dishes, instead of where ever Arecibo is pointed.

    --
    >> My ultraviolent Linux switch video.
  48. It will be interesting to see... by (Maly) · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...if this project makes the 2-week turnaround for re-launch required by the X-prize rules. Their launches to date have not been even close to the required frequency.

    This launch, as I understand it, is just the first try. If it goes well they will prepare to do the 2 launches in 2 weeks. Still, the first manned commercial space flight is a momentous event. Go Scaled go!

  49. Disagree by Teahouse · · Score: 1

    If the 1-ton commercial launcher becomes a 10 ton commercial launcher, you can lift segments into orbit for 10 mill a piece and lift 100 tons for 100 mill. If you do it with a BDB (Big Dumb Booster) developed by NASA, the cost for the same 1-launch 100 ton spaceshot will be $500 mill.

    You can multi-thread spaceships just like computers. 10 launches at 10 mill a piece will always be cheaper than 1 launch at 500 mill, unless there is some new math I am forgetting. :)
    On-orbit assembly has been around too long to assume you have to lift it all at once.

    --
    "Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
    1. Re:Disagree by Paulrothrock · · Score: 1
      You're forgetting the costs of on-orbit assembly. You need people there (at least one more launch, not counting resupplies), you also have the development cost of the habitat for on-orbit assembly, the space suits, and all related items.

      On-orbit assembly turned a $50 billion mars mission into a $450 billion mars mission.

      --
      I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
    2. Re:Disagree by Kiryat+Malachi · · Score: 1

      Politics and NASA turned a $50 billion Mars mission into a $450 billion Mars mission.

      If I can launch at 1/10 the cost, but only in segments, the cost advantage remains with the segmented launch.

      --

      ---
      Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
      (I read with sigs off.)
    3. Re:Disagree by Teahouse · · Score: 1

      The first sections of the Space Station assembled themselves (automatic docking). Also, I guarantee you that a commercial company would be able to build you on-orbit housing for a human assembly crew for the remaining 400 million saved by not using a BDB (Big dumb booster).

      --
      "Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
  50. Re:Space vs. Weightlessness (clarification) by MindStalker · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Thought project! If I were to build a vaccum sealed tube and wrap it around the earth in a perfect sphere (obviously that would be hard to do with mountains and whatnot so you'd have to build it a bit off the ground to accomidate, or maybe someone can find a path... srhrugs). Could you orbit the earth inside it, and would there be any practical uses for such a thing.

  51. err .... I think they already known ... by taniwha · · Score: 1

    given that they are footing the bill ....

  52. BumperCam? by SEWilco · · Score: 3, Funny

    Any chance there will be a camera on the nose?
    Maybe with the video slowed down so the flight will take as long as a drive to Oregon?

    1. Re:BumperCam? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL, man... LOL

  53. Cool. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    We are almost to the age of wacky hijinx ala Airplane 2

    Now if I can just get over Rio Grande

  54. Yay! by vjmurphy · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Space Ship One will temporarily leave the earth's atmosphere, and the pilot (yet to be announced) will experience about three minutes of weightlessness."

    "Yet to be announced" eh? Cool, that means I'm still in the running. :)

    --
    Vincent J. Murphy
    Spandex Justice
  55. Re:Now that's what being a billionaire is all abou by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    You've got to hand it to Paul Allen - here's a guy who knows what to do with more money than he could ever spend in his lifetime. Making it possible for other people to pursue their dreams and possibly improve the world for everyone is just about the best possible use for all that wealth.
    You haven't been paying attention then. Paul Allen is a business man with a steady history of investing where he can make a profit. (Generally these are also places where he can contribute to a community or a cause, but there is always profit.)
  56. FAA approval required by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Though several teams have general approval to try space flights, they still have to file flight plans in advance for specific flights. Fat chance keepping that secret.

  57. Re:Space vs. Weightlessness (clarification) by Rei · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yes. And No. :)

    --
    "Who the hell is Nietzche? It's a question stupid people are asking." -- Newscaster, "Jesus Christ Supercop"
  58. Real purpose of the XPrize by jmorris42 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    > It's main bit of usefullness will be to get Scaled Composites investors
    > for a real, useful, spacecraft.

    Which is useful indeed. To put it in language understandable to the slashdot crowd, what it demonstrates is the potential of the effort in exactly the way that ESR postulates that a successful Open Source project generally requires one or a small group of developers to produce enough of a new project to demonstrate to potential contributers that the project has potential to succeed.

    A winning XPrize craft isn't useful for any other purpose than to demonstrate to investors that a) you are serious b) you have already put in the effort to develop the skills needed to attempt actual spaceflight.
    Because the only major thing seperating an X-prize craft from an actual spaceship is budget. The idea was to set the bar low enough that a small group could attain it but high enough that only a serious effort, one able to springboard from XPrize to real commercial spaceflight, would succeed.

    --
    Democrat delenda est
    1. Re:Real purpose of the XPrize by Rei · · Score: 1

      The only thing is budget.... ....and a huge series of major technical problems not addressed by a suborbital flight such as this, namely how to dissipate all of the energy that you gain when entering orbit without melting your craft to a falling ball of slag, and how not to go hugely over-budget when your brilliant solutions to the problem go way over budget due to technical issues beyond your control.

      Rutan's device has achieved roughly what the V2 did. It was 20 years from the V2 before, despite preposterously huge quantities of money being spent, the single passenger Friendship 7 flew. This was not for no good reason.

      Even with being able to stand on the shoulders of giants, Rutan has proved relatively little, apart from dedication. He's proved he can make an aircraft that is powered by a rocket engine and can handle a near-vaccuum (a slight understatement - they've actually had to overcome more than that, but still...). He's hardly done the real challenges in getting people to and from orbit cheaply, especially the one of surviving a high velocity reentry without a high turnaround cost.

      --
      "Who the hell is Nietzche? It's a question stupid people are asking." -- Newscaster, "Jesus Christ Supercop"
  59. Re:Now that's what being a billionaire is all abou by kevlar · · Score: 1

    Exactly... the sooner I can get off this crazy fucking planet, the better!

  60. Not only that... by Rei · · Score: 1

    Not only that, but has anyone ever actually looked at the economics of this rocket? Everyone here keeps raving about it, but I've never seen a *single* cost-of-launch estimate for it that's not purely speculative. It's cargo is quite minimal, so is it *really* that cheap? Not to mention that it *doesn't* get to orbit, and that most of the challenges concerning taking people to/from space have to do with the orbital velocity.

    --
    "Who the hell is Nietzche? It's a question stupid people are asking." -- Newscaster, "Jesus Christ Supercop"
    1. Re:Not only that... by October_30th · · Score: 1
      It's cargo is quite minimal, so is it *really* that cheap? Not to mention that it *doesn't* get to orbit, and that most of the challenges concerning taking people to/from space have to do with the orbital velocity.

      I'd be inclined to forgive these as inevitable baby-steps in a process towards a platform that can truly provide a cost-effective private launch vehicle.

      I am, however, more worried about certain aspects of commercializing space flight such as who owns what? I can see a future when orbits, launch profiles and access to space in general become proprietary IP of a few metanational megacorps who, by definition, are only interested in short-term profit.

      --
      The owls are not what they seem
    2. Re:Not only that... by Rei · · Score: 1

      But that ignores my point: *Is It* cost effective? I haven't seen anyone demonstrate that.

      Lets be blunt: Rutan has developed a man-capable SRBM. These things are cheap; you can carry something the size of SpaceShipOne up to its peak altitude with an SS1 for 300-500k$ - and that's using very old tech. If he can't break that sort of cost, he's done nothing special thusfar.

      --
      "Who the hell is Nietzche? It's a question stupid people are asking." -- Newscaster, "Jesus Christ Supercop"
  61. Re:Space vs. Weightlessness (clarification) by Enigma_Man · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Very interesting thought there :) I can't really think of a practical use for it... Maybe a really quick light-mail delivery service, for important hard-copies of documents? Hmm.

    -Jesse

    --
    Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
  62. Re: :X Prize Claimed on July 4th, 2004? by jmichaelg · · Score: 2, Insightful
    You're right that they don't have to carry 3 people for the Ansari X Prize flights - ballast will do. Nonetheless, they're not even doing that on June 21. From the faq:
    Based on the success of the June space flight attempt, SpaceShipOne will later compete for the Ansari X Prize, an international competition to create a reusable aircraft that can launch three passengers into sub-orbital space, return them safely home, then repeat the launch within two weeks with the same vehicle.
    If you look at the project's test history, it's been incremental, usually testing just one change at a time. Going for 100K and 3 passengers in the same flight would be uncharacteristic given the pattern Rutan has laid down so far.

    I just booked the last 5 rooms in one of the motels in Mojave. I'm taking a lot of kids to see this one.

  63. Re:Article Text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This isn't redundant. The first article stated clearly that it was a "sub-rectal" flight not a "sub-orbital" flight

  64. Star Trek / Zephram Cockram moment by InsomniaCity · · Score: 4, Funny

    Who cares about the avionics crashing (which they did on the last flight IIRC)?

    What I care about, or would if I was the pilot, is whether it has a slot loading CD player into which I can slap a CD in the last few seconds before launch!

    --
    You cant make anything foolproof, they'll only invent better fools.
  65. Good Luck, But I Don't Think It Leads Anywhere by reallocate · · Score: 4, Interesting

    All good luck to the crew. I certainly hope this leads to something, but let's don't forget that it is a very long way from coasting up to 100k to entering orbit.

    First of all, this craft is at least 6 times to slow to achieve orbit. You can coast as high as you want, but without achieving orbital velocity, you'll fall right back.

    Second, the craft's unorthodox reentry technique isn't amenable for use coming back from orbit. That means that this particular design probably doesn't lead anyplace useful.

    Third,leaving the atmosphere isn't strictly necessary to achieve orbit. It's just a whole lot less messy. You could achieve orbit at one kilometer if you dealt with atmosphereic heating.

    We should also remember that the private sector has had the capability of achieving orbit for decades. They built/build/launch the rockets that have been enterng orbit for more than 40 years. Two things have kept them from actually doing it: 1) A clear business case: Can you really make a profit selling tickets to orbit? 2) The fact that any rocket capable of putting a person in orbit is also quite capable of carrying a warhead to the next hemisphere. Governments tend to worry about, and regulate, those sorts of things.

    --
    -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    1. Re:Good Luck, But I Don't Think It Leads Anywhere by Alphi1 · · Score: 1
      Third,leaving the atmosphere isn't strictly necessary to achieve orbit. It's just a whole lot less messy. You could achieve orbit at one kilometer if you dealt with atmosphereic heating.

      You also have to account for one other thing - that heating is caused by friction, and that friction would be continually slowing the craft down. So you'd need a constant acceleration to maintain an in-atmosphere orbit.

    2. Re:Good Luck, But I Don't Think It Leads Anywhere by Titanium+Orc · · Score: 1

      Yet another issue you forgot. In most cases, when the private sector puts something in orbit, it isn't meant for surviving re-entry. Kind of puts a damper on the whole "living to tell about it" thing...

    3. Re:Good Luck, But I Don't Think It Leads Anywhere by reallocate · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's because they aren't being paid to launch people into space (discounting management of Shuttle launches).

      The pertinent point of the X-Prize efforts isn't putting people into space. We know how to do that. It's putting people into space at an affordable and profitable price, not for the tens of billions NASA spends to do it.

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    4. Re:Good Luck, But I Don't Think It Leads Anywhere by Libor+Vanek · · Score: 1

      I think if you use some "rocket-type-vehicle" instead of 3 passangers (autopilot rulez), it'll take MUCH LESS fuel to go to space from 100 km in comparison to 0 km.

      Bussiness case - hell, even only the X-price will make them earn 2-3 M$. And there are ppl spending 20 M$ to go to orbit!

    5. Re:Good Luck, But I Don't Think It Leads Anywhere by reallocate · · Score: 1

      >> ...if you use some "rocket-type-vehicle" instead of 3 passangers (autopilot rulez), it'll take MUCH LESS fuel to go to space from 100 km in comparison to 0 km..

      The vehicle in question is rocket powered. It is carried aloft by a more conventional aircraft for an airdrop launch. This means the craft doesn't need to be poweful enough to launch itself from the surface. If an aircraft could take it to 100km, then, yes, it would save even more fuel. But, the basic requirement applies: if you don't achieve orbital velocity, you won't be in orbit, regardless of your altitude.

      >> ...even only the X-price will make them earn 2-3 M$. And there are ppl spending 20 M$ to go to orbit!

      Aren't you discounting the costs entailed in winning the prize? I suspect they are considerably more than the amount of the prize. And, there is a rather limited supply of people willing to pay $20 million for a few days in space . In any case, such a company would still need to make a profit. No matter what the tickets cost, they'd need to sell enough to cover costs and allow for profit.

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    6. Re:Good Luck, But I Don't Think It Leads Anywhere by Libor+Vanek · · Score: 1

      About costs and market - as somebody else mentioned here, development costs (design, production, testing) is bellow 6 M$. Amount of ppl wanting to pay 20 M$ is limited - let's say 20-30 ppl. But if go to 10 M$ or 5 M$ or even 1 M$ for single launch, the market size goes somelike probably exponencially. And 20 M$ is launch cost using 20-30 years old technology!

    7. Re:Good Luck, But I Don't Think It Leads Anywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Magic words: 3rd stage. If they can get a ship to 100Km for the sort of money that Nasa loses down the back of the couch, then that is good enough for now. Even without scaling the design any, the two passengers could be replaced with a small rocket payload (something like a HARM missile) that could lob a 10Kg micro-sat into LEO.
      Remember a 10Kg micro-sats can squeeze more computer power than a 1000kg sat design that the shuttle was supposed to launch. The micro-sats can even be disposable - ie launch a battery powered microsat to observe say a forest fire or flooded area for a couple of days & then let it burn up - the cost may be less than the cost of a recon aircraft flight.

  66. Missed chance in the department name by captainClassLoader · · Score: 1

    "Good-luck-to-the-crew-dept?" Not much imagination there - How 'bout the "Zephraim-Cochran-your-ride's-here-dept"?

    --
    "The plural of anecdote is not data" -- Bruce Schneier
  67. Re:Space vs. Weightlessness (clarification) by Hektor_Troy · · Score: 2, Funny

    So, in effect, orbit is achieved by falling and missing the ground? I thought that was called flying?!?

    --
    We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
  68. Re:Space vs. Weightlessness (clarification) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    w00t! h2g2 reference!

  69. They can't by RedWizzard · · Score: 1

    Which would still only be the first of the two flights required. They can't claim the prize on July 4.

  70. Nah, Flash Gordon by xarak · · Score: 1


    Seen the shape of that thing? I'm hoping the rocket blast also looks like the cheap-o fireworks in the Flash Gordon series.

    They might want to use modern video technology to rub out the strings though, don't look professional.

    --
    Atheism is a non-prophet organisation
  71. Who wants weightlessness when you can ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, masslessness is teh real deal. Weightlessness is so last year.

  72. Tier Two by GlobalCombatDotCom · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Since Rutan and Co called the Space Ship One project Tier One, it makes sense that they are planning a tier two. Probably an orbital flight.

    Knowing Rutan he's probably already got the design figured out for an orbital vehicle and has been running simulations of it.

    Who knows, maybe there is even a tier three... the moon.

    --
    Bryan

    CT

  73. Trade press pass for photos? by Fritz+Benwalla · · Score: 1

    Hi everybody --

    I'll be attending the launch on my own dime as an unaffiliated photographer, and I'd like very much to get into the post-flight press photo sessions.

    If anyone can arrange a press pass for me I'd be happy to provide some exclusive pictures in exchange.

    If this makes sense to anybody feel free to e-mail me at dave@dma.net.

    Thanks!

    --

    Believe me, I'm as surprised by my comment as you are.
  74. Is there a next step? by billtom · · Score: 2, Informative


    One thing I've always wondered about SS1, the other X-prize entries, and the X-prize itself is whether there is a clear series of steps which lead to some goal like regular space travel.

    By this I mean questions like: can the design used for SS1 (and the other X-prize teams) be scaled to orbital operations, more people/cargo, etc; or is it just a special purpose vehicle designed to win the X-prize?

    Sure, it's inevitable that we'll learn something when doing a complicated engineering project like this. But at times it feels like the X-prize is being treated like an end goal instead of an early step on a journey.

    1. Re:Is there a next step? by tekrat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      People who ask this probably have a poor understanding of aviation history.

      Let me ask you:
      Was the Wright brothers' plane a special purpose vehicle or a general lift vehicle?

      Was the 'Spirit of St. Louis' scalable to larger flights with more people/cargo, or once it was proven that you could fly to France, did other people build craft that would do the job?

      Was the Bell X-1 scaled up to accomodate more than just the test pilot?

      Consider that breaking the sound barrier was first done in a rocket-plane, something that has NEVER been used for large passenger carrying craft. The Concorde flew Mach2 on jet engines, not rockets.

      The purpose, as I see it, of SS1 and the X-Prize in general, is to spurr activity in this sector of engineering, which will hopefully lead to revolutionary new craft and even perhaps some new and exciting propulsion systems, advanced materials for absorbing and disappating heat, rapid prototyping, and more rugged avionics.

      Once it's been proven that space can be reached relatively cheaply, it's only a matter of time before companies spring up to take advantage of this opportunity.

      This vehicle is a test-craft, much like the original Wright-flyer. It's a proof of concept. It's the next step in aviation.

      And if nothing else, imagine if Rutan offered a kit version, like the Long EZ, that you could purchase for ... say... 20 million.

      I'd start saving my pennies if I were you.

      Also please remember that once upon a time, flying by jet was horribly expensive compared to prop-aircraft, hence the term "jet set" to describe rich people.

      Eventually, development in this area reduced the cost of flying by jet, and now, you can hop a plane to just about anywhere in the world for a reasonable amount.

      Space travel or Suborbital travel will start out expensive, but over time, as there is more development, it will eventually get cheaper.

      I think FEDEX will invest in such a system before airlines do, but if you can get a package from NYC to Hong Kong in 3 hours, it's only a matter of time before companies start trying to get their executives from NYC to Hong Kong in 3 hours.

      SS1 is the start of all this. It's not meant to be the final design of a larger craft any more than the X-1 was the final design for some larger supersonic craft.

      Instead, SS1 is the stepping stone for design work to bring us that larger suborbital craft, that may be based on entirely different technology.

      I hope this answers your question.

      --
      If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
    2. Re:Is there a next step? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      Space travel or Suborbital travel will start out expensive, but over time, as there is more development, it will eventually get cheaper.
      Only if the same two factors are present that make everything else cheaper; Demand and Competition. Space travel isn't going to get cheaper magically, and air travel didn't either.
  75. SpaceShip One's only possible response... by TheDukePatio · · Score: 0

    Dear Lord, Please don't let me fuck up.

    --
    To Alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems.
  76. Or to be blunt: by bazmonkey · · Score: 1

    I think the correct answer to "Why don't they send up a monkey or a meatloaf?" is "They tried calling, you said your schedule was full."

  77. Mercury, 'Man in a can' & 'Spy-in-the-sky' tes by crovira · · Score: 1

    Actually Mercury was a ,'Man in a can' & 'Spy-in-the-sky' tester.

    Look at the book "Deep Black" for more info.

    It was basically a photo-op for everybody on earth (why do you think the pilots were all military, [they certainly don't have a monopoly on bravery.])

    The ejected camera capsules until much improved avionic systems created the KeyHole 4-13 satelites. (Think Hubble ... aimed at you.)

    Have fun people. And don't sun-bathe 'nekkid on your rooves.' You're distracting the spooks.

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
  78. Re:Space vs. Weightlessness (clarification) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In flight you have a force pushing up on you (lift), but when you orbit you move at roughly 8 km/s (at the lowest), so when you drop the 5 meters due to gravity, the Earth's curvature has also caused it (the surface) to drop 5 meters (The Earth's surface drops roughly 5 meters for every 8000 meters you travel).

    As it has already been stated, you can orbit the earth at 100 meters up, just that the friction and air resistance makes it impractical to do so.

  79. the pilot by smatt-man · · Score: 1

    ...and the pilot (yet to be announced)...

    Do you think it will be Lance Bass?

    --

    ---
    Lousy rotten karmic retribution.
  80. For pilot I nominate... by oasis3582 · · Score: 1

    Lance Bass of 'N Sync

  81. Turnaround by Teahouse · · Score: 1

    I think they need to make an announcement for the X-Prize 30 days in advance to the prize committee so they can have personnell on hand to witness the flight. I think this is just a very ambitious "test-flight".

    --
    "Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
  82. Good points all by Teahouse · · Score: 1

    Taking SS1 and scaling it up to an orbital vehicle certainly is not an easy task, but it also isn't impossible, nor must it be expensive.

    A scaled-up SS1 with a two-stage system could accomplish this goal in due time. It would be about 5-10 times as heavy as SS1, but it could definitely make the trip up.

    The real difficulty is in getting back down, but there have been some very interesting theories on this topic as of late. Currently, orbital velicoty is shed by aerobraking on the way down, and turning that speed into heat. A few of the x-prize types have talked about carrying more fuel up, and slowing down more before you decend. The slower you enter the atmosphere, the less heat you generate. The only problem with this concept is carrying up extra fuel just to slow yourself down. (a payload reduction). That is the only topic I am aware of....how much more cost effective is the benefit of designing for a slower reentry (thus less heat ablation, structural tension, etc.) verses having to build large enough to carry braking fuel.

    --
    "Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
    1. Re:Good points all by peacefinder · · Score: 1

      A scaled-up SS1 with a two-stage system could accomplish this goal in due time.

      Space Ship One is already part of a two-stage system. The first stage is the White Knight. What you're talking about is adding a third stage.

      It would be about 5-10 times as heavy as SS1, but it could definitely make the trip up.

      Wow. You know, 5-10 times more mass is kind of a lot. That sort of difference is significant in engineering on the ground, let alone in aeronautics. I don't think you're being realistic, here. White Knight is highly unlikely to be capable of lifting that much additional mass off the ground, let alone to launch altitude.

      The slower you enter the atmosphere, the less heat you generate. The only problem with this concept is carrying up extra fuel just to slow yourself down.

      I may be going out on a limb here, but I expect that the thought has occured to the folks over at NASA. Why do you suppose they haven't done it?

      --
      With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
    2. Re:Good points all by Teahouse · · Score: 1

      Space Ship One is already part of a two-stage system. The first stage is the White Knight. What you're talking about is adding a third stage

      I never mentioned White Knight in my description of a 2-stage system because White Knight is a launch PLATFORM, not a booster or a stage. I was referring specifically to SS1, which could be scaled up and have a second stage added.

      Wow. You know, 5-10 times more mass is kind of a lot. That sort of difference is significant in engineering on the ground, let alone in aeronautics. I don't think you're being realistic, here. White Knight is highly unlikely to be capable of lifting that much additional mass off the ground, let alone to launch altitude.

      How, exactly am I not being realistic? The vehicle weight would definitely end up about 7x the weight of the current system (assuming they use a larger rocket engine of the same efficency). When did I say White Knight would lift this system? One could just as easily use a 747 or any other large aircraft to act as a launch platform. I am being quite realistic.

      I may be going out on a limb here, but I expect that the thought has occured to the folks over at NASA. Why do you suppose they haven't done it?

      Because NASA has always been a bureauracy and bureauraies don't necessarily make good decisions. Early on, they barely had the rocket power to get their tiny capsules into orbit. The culture evolved out of that. It was all about payload and lift

      --
      "Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
    3. Re:Good points all by peacefinder · · Score: 1

      I never mentioned White Knight in my description of a 2-stage system because White Knight is a launch PLATFORM, not a booster or a stage. I was referring specifically to SS1, which could be scaled up and have a second stage added.

      If it helps the vehicle gain altitude, it amounts to a stage. Feel free to brush it off as semantics if you like, reality will take care of itself. :)

      Besides, I don't think that Scaled sees WK as just a launch platform. They've always referred to this whole thing as an integrated system. Remember that WK and SS1 have all their avionics in common, and it looks as if their crew cabins are all but identical. I know they can flight-qualify components and pilots for SS1 on WK, and that's a Big Deal in terms of safety and operational costs.

      It looks to me that Scaled's goal is to sell what amounts to a turnkey suborbital space tourism operation, with everything you'd need but a business plan. Simulator, fueling truck, test stand, vehicles... the works. Check out this photo, and especially its title: Space Program Elements. That's all there is, that's the whole program in five neat packages. I think they hope to make a small production run of these systems for companies that want to do suborbital space tourism on the barnstorming model.

      Now, I might be wrong about that... but if I'm not, then Rutan optimized this design for that very purpose. He surely optimized it heavily for some purpose; he always does with his designs. (That's his real genius as an engineer, I think... he is the world's greatest aeronautical optimizer.)

      Any other use of the vehicle is likely to be very sub-optimal. Sure, maybe you could strap a huge rocket on the ass of SS1, launch it from a bigger aircraft, and get it into orbit. But since, in the process, you'd replace about 90% of the equipment involved (by mass), why not design a whole new aircraft instead of modifying SS1 to handle re-entry from orbit?

      It was all about payload and lift

      If you want to colonize up the gravity well, that's what you need most.

      I am being quite realistic.

      Excellent! I look forward to reading about your entry into the X-Prize 2 contest.

      --
      With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
  83. Space Activity Suit? by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 1

    Why would anybody even use fully pressurized suits instead of space activity suits? This puzzles me to no end. Oh, the point is quite valid that if lose pressure at that altitude, you're almost certainly fuced, but even for other applications, a fully pressurized suit isn't required.

    Any insight?

    --grendel drago

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
  84. Go, Rutan, Go! by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

    I think it was very obvious that as soon as Burt Rutan's company unveiled the White Knight/SpaceShipOne combination it was obvious that the Scaled Composites company was going to be the first to win the X-Prize. This especially borne out in the fact SpaceShipOne is the ONLY spacecraft that have flown anything resembling the X-Prize flight profile.

    But what next after winning the X-Prize? Given Scaled Composites' extensive experience in building very sophisticated aerospace hardware with a very low budget (shades of Lockheed Skunk Works!), I wouldn't be surprised that Burt Rutan may be looking at the ultimate goal: access to Low Earth Orbit (LEO) at very cheap rates. Imagine a space vehicle being launched on top of a modified Boeing 747-200 similar to the Trans-Atmospheric Vehicle studies done during the 1980's; if there is any company that can now pull it off, it's Scale Composites.

  85. Strange similarity by tftp · · Score: 1

    Does anyone wonder why names Rutan and Rhodan are so similar?

    1. Re:Strange similarity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, ya see, it has to do with the letters in each name. Both words begin with the same letter, and end with the same two-letter combination. Since 'd' and 't' are very similar, and the 'rh' combination isn't a large modification from a plain 'r', the main difference between the two are the 'o' and 'u' vowel sounds....

    2. Re:Strange similarity by tftp · · Score: 1

      I guess my reference to Perry Rhodan was not very obvious :-)

  86. Macho Grande? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Over Macho Grande?

    1. Re:Macho Grande? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since it is a nearly vertical flight, I don't think they'll ever be over Macho Grande.

  87. You're absolutely right. by MtViewGuy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If there is ANYONE that could build the world's first privately funded reusable spacecraft that can achieve low Earth orbit (LEO), it's Burt Rutan's company.

    Scaled Composites could work with Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works division and come up with a low cost vehicle that could be launched on top of a modified 747-200 to carry up to six astronauts and/or its equivalent in cargo to LEO. Unlike the unfortunate X-33 project, this project is probably going to be much cheaper to pull off since the vehicle that actually flies into space will not need to carry so much fuel during its boost phase.

  88. I'm in Motel 6 too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... I didn't bother with one of the nicer places since I figured they would all be booked up.

    Look for a green Triumph touring bike (motorcycle, that is) in the parking lot some time on the 20th -- that'll be me & my fiancé.

    -Original AC on this thread, AKA John

  89. Re:Space vs. Weightlessness (clarification) by ghost_world · · Score: 2, Interesting

    To be even more pedantic-
    If you were to orbit the earth at ground level, you could go a little bit slower than orbiting at 100km (ignoring problems like friction and the fact the the earth is not a perfect sphere). Orbital physics are a little counter-intuitive, but you must expend energy - and speed up - to rise into a higher orbit. Yet your angular velocity (the rate at which you circle the center point of orbit) decreases.

  90. Re:Now that's what being a billionaire is all abou by d474 · · Score: 1

    Exactly... the sooner I can get off this crazy fucking planet, the better!

    For me it's not so much that, it's more:

    The sooner I can get out into crazy fucking space, the better!

    --
    Authority questions you. Return the favor.
  91. Re:Space vs. Weightlessness (clarification) by ari_j · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Time for my standard response that makes people hate me for getting them hooked:

    First off, the reason we fly straight up and then sideways is that it's a lot easier to accelerate sideways at 70km than it is at 0km altitude, because of the thinner atmosphere. Since the only significant delta-V in an orbital launch is the tangential component, you can tune your ascent to minimize fuel requirements and save up for the big sideways burn.

    Now, for the fun part: Orbiter is a free (as in beer + SDK for making your own ships) space-flight simulator that is both mathematically accurate and visually stunning. It includes the space shuttle Atlantis (don't even bother starting out with that one, as it takes practice to get to orbit) and some fictitious spacecraft capable of getting you to Mars or even beyond.

    You can even look around online and find add-ons such as my latest favorite, an Apollo mission including a pretty realistic cockpit complete with the Apollo computer system. You even have to do your own LEM extraction and so forth.

  92. Re:Now that's what being a billionaire is all abou by ArsSineArtificio · · Score: 1
    As Buzz Aldrin pointed out, we have no idea how to end world hunger. We do, however, know how to go to the Moon. Going to the Moon is therefore more likely to be a productive endeavor.

    --
    All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
  93. Claiming to be a "Slashdot" correspondant? by Teancum · · Score: 1

    You know, I've thought a little about this myself. Could I (or you in this case) be a certified "correspondant" for Slashdot? I've had news stories published on the front page, and am a regular contributor to the "body" of Slashdot. Is that sufficient for a press pass?

    I'm certain that if you were able to publish the photos of this on a (hopfully high bandwidth) server, it would make the front page of /.

    The trick is to find out who does the issuance of credentials (this is who at Scaled Composites does the issuance, not /., although if you are "officially" representing /. you should ask one of the powers that be first before you claim that title as well).

    For example, I live fairly close to the Federal court house where the SCO stuff is going on, and if it ever goes to trial, it would be fun for me to be a "press representative" of /. there. This has been done by other /. regulars in the past in a quasi-relationship, although I don't know of any that used /. to gain the credentials in the first place.

  94. Re:Now that's what being a billionaire is all abou by shadowbearer · · Score: 2, Interesting


    and that says a hell of a lot of interesting things about what Allen thinks is the risk vs. reward ratio in this investment, doesn't it :)

    SB

    --
    It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
  95. Actually, it was Pete Knight, and not Bob White by rv8 · · Score: 1

    To protect the craft during the 6.7 Mach flight, there was a coating sprayed on the body of the X-15. As it burnt off, it would cloud the view of the pilot, Air Force Major Robert White in this case.

    One small correction - the pilot for the M6.7 flight was Major Pete Knight. The highest mach that Major White got to was M6.04. See:

    http://www.edwards.af.mil/history/docs_html/aircra ft/x-15_mach6.7.html
    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/x15conf/ log.html

    --
    Kevin Horton
    1. Re:Actually, it was Pete Knight, and not Bob White by EABird · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected. Damn if my memmory has gone in my old age.

  96. A couple of other suggestions by Goonie · · Score: 1
    Movie buffs might be tempted by Also sprach Zarathrustra . Another possibility might be Elton John's Rocket Man, though I'd prefer the Kate Bush cover version.

    At the tackier end of the scale, what about Jamiroquai's Cosmic Girl, because we know why men really want to go into space :)

    --

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
    --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
  97. Smartass and wrong by Teahouse · · Score: 1

    If you're going to be a smartass, at least be so with correct information. Mercury was just the CAPSULE. It had a re-entry rocket and cotrol thrusters. It was a can to hold humans.

    When mercury was first launched, it was atop a Redstone booster. The Redstone never had the power or guidance systems for orbital insertion.

    It wasn't till the 3rd, or 4th Mercury flight that they began using the Atlas booster, which COULD push the same exact Mercury can/capsule into orbit. Yes, an argument could be made that Redstone was only used to keep up with the Soviets, but then again an argument could be made that SS1 could be put into orbit if only it had a White Knight that took it to 180k feet. In other words, shit in one hand and wish in the other and see which gets filled first.The Atlas was as far away as an improved White Knight is today.

    ROFLMAO...smugly

    --
    "Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
    1. Re:Smartass and wrong by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      If one is going to claim someone is wrong, one should at least get one's facts straight.
      If you're going to be a smartass, at least be so with correct information. Mercury was just the CAPSULE. It had a re-entry rocket and cotrol thrusters. It was a can to hold humans.
      Yep. Just like Mercury, SS1 requires a booster to get to it's goal. However, Mercury flew into two flight regimes, suborbital tests (at the bottom end) and orbital flights (at the top end). SS1 however flies in only one regime, suborbital (top end). So, already the SS1 isn't a 'commercial Mercury', but more of a 'commercial X-15'.
      When mercury was first launched, it was atop a Redstone booster. The Redstone never had the power or guidance systems for orbital insertion.

      It wasn't till the 3rd, or 4th Mercury flight that they began using the Atlas booster, which COULD push the same exact Mercury can/capsule into orbit.

      Here we again see where the SS1 falls short of being a 'commercial Mercury'. The Atlas flights were not follow ons, or after thoughts, but the actual intended flights of the capsule. Once SS1 hits 100 klicks, there is no follow on. It simply cannot go higher or faster without considerable redesign.
      Yes, an argument could be made that Redstone was only used to keep up with the Soviets,
      That arguement would only be made of someone utterly ignorant of space history. The suborbital flights were planned early on, well before we knew we were going to be in a race. (Though IIRC Redstone was substituted because the Atlas was viewed as not being ready.) Had we been worried about 'keeping up', we would have jumped straight to Atlas flights after Gagarin's launch. We didn't, but stuck with the program even though the Atlas was arguably ready. (Risky, pherhaps too much so, but ready.)
      then again an argument could be made that SS1 could be put into orbit if only it had a White Knight that took it to 180k feet.
      That argument could only be made by someone utterly ignorant of 'rocket science', as it's not height that matters, but velocity and delta-V, both of which SS1 lacks. You could drop SS1 from five hundred miles up (assuming you could find a way to stand still at that altitude), and it still would not be able to reach orbit. Even if SS1 *could* be put into orbit, it's not coming down as it lacks the thermal protection system, and it's aerodynamics are utterly unsuited for hypersonic flight.
    2. Re:Smartass and wrong by Teahouse · · Score: 1

      Yep. Just like Mercury, SS1 requires a booster to get to it's goal. However, Mercury flew into two flight regimes, suborbital tests (at the bottom end) and orbital flights (at the top end). SS1 however flies in only one regime, suborbital (top end). So, already the SS1 isn't a 'commercial Mercury', but more of a 'commercial X-15'.

      So by repeating your original argument with more verbage it's supposed to make it more valid? I was not talking intended design, I made it perfectly clear I was talking about significance. By your logic, Mercury was more capable simply because it had orbital capability after three launches. Of course, Mercury was a one-use tin-can, while SS1 is reusable and can be turned around in 12 days. Which is more capable? Let's not forget that both are designed to meet different, long-term, design criteria. We have no idea what the next intended iteration of SS1(SS2?) will be at Scaled Composites, but I am betting SS1 is just a first step in manned spaceflight for Rutan, just like Mercury was for NASA. If you wish to mince words, be obtuse, or smugly ignore the similarities between the two programs, be my guess.

      Yep. Just like Mercury, SS1 requires a booster to get to it's goal. However, Mercury flew into two flight regimes, suborbital tests (at the bottom end) and orbital flights (at the top end). SS1 however flies in only one regime, suborbital (top end). So, already the SS1 isn't a 'commercial Mercury', but more of a 'commercial X-15'.

      If it pleases you to compare it to the X-15 instead of Mercury, knock yourself out. Both are accurate, but the symbolism and significance favor a comparison to Mercury, not the X-15. You seem to care more about the nomenclature. So be it.

      Here we again see where the SS1 falls short of being a 'commercial Mercury'. The Atlas flights were not follow ons, or after thoughts, but the actual intended flights of the capsule. Once SS1 hits 100 klicks, there is no follow on. It simply cannot go higher or faster without considerable redesign.

      Actually, the Atlas was the ONLY vehicle originally intended to lift Mercury. Unfortunately, Atlas had a nasty habit of blowing up on the pads, and was nowhere near being a man-rated booster as it'a development went over schedule. The Redstone option was introduced almost halfway through Mercury's development due to political pressure, the failures of Atlas, and the evolving idea that sub-orbital would be a good "first-step". The design of Mercury's bottom end was even modified to fit the Redstone. We can argue history ad infinitum if you please, but it really has nothing to do with my original point, which is still valid. This launch is at least as significant as Mercury's first sub-orbital launch.

      That arguement would only be made of someone utterly ignorant of space history. The suborbital flights were planned early on, well before we knew we were going to be in a race. (Though IIRC Redstone was substituted because the Atlas was viewed as not being ready.) Had we been worried about 'keeping up', we would have jumped straight to Atlas flights after Gagarin's launch. We didn't, but stuck with the program even though the Atlas was arguably ready. (Risky, pherhaps too much so, but ready.)

      I'll ignore the ignorance comment for now. The pressure to launch with Redstone was based on the factors I named above. There was a political component, AND a developmental component. And no, we would have NEVER jumped straight to Atlas at the time of Gagarin's launch. What's more embarassing during a space race?; 1) getting into space in a sub-orbital launch OR 2) watching an astronaut burn-up and die on the pad? Even when they launched Glenn, many at NASA thought it would end badly. Many didn't think Atlas was ready. Political pressure is what forced Atlas into service prematurely. If you want to argue this point, read Glenn's bio first. Atlas was still a risk.

      That argument could only be made by someone utterly ignorant of 'rocket science', as it's not

      --
      "Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
  98. You'd have to ask him, but... by mbessey · · Score: 1

    I seriously doubt that this project, or the Experience Music project, or the Science Fiction Museum, or the Human Cognome Project, are ever going to earn him any money.

    As to whether it's an "elitist distraction", that's entirely a function of where your priorities are. And it *is* his money, after all. At least he's not devoting all his effort to just making a bigger pile.

    -Mark

  99. Re:Space vs. Weightlessness (clarification) by rew · · Score: 1

    As a matter of fact, if the atmosphere and terrain were not an issue, you COULD do an orbit a hundred feet off the ground. And you could enter this orbit by going straight sideways. It just requires moving a lot faster than a higher orbit.

    A lot faster? Why?

    The speed of an orbit depends on the distance from the center of the object and the mass of the object you orbit. At the distance the moon it it takes about a month (duh!). At 36000 km it takes about a day (geosynchronous) for a full orbit. At 200km from the surface (or 6578 from the center) the time is about 90 minutes. At 0km from the surface, or 6378 from the center, the time or speed for an orbit will not be significantly different.

    There are however other significant objections to an orbit at surface level.

    The reason for the 100km limit is that the atmosphere becomes significantly thin around that point.

  100. Re:Space vs. Weightlessness (clarification) by cazzazullu · · Score: 1
    Hehe your explanation of orbit reminds me of something i read a while ago about the moons of mars. Mars has two moons, phobos and deimos, and these moons are so light a strong person could trow a hockeyball into orbit. Since there is no atmosphere on these moons you could indeed go into orbit one meter above the surface (which is VERY irregular, which will cause problems...). Imagine an astronaut trowing a piece of equipment away and hitting himself in the back of the head 13 minutes later ;)

    --
    int main(void) {while(1) fork(); return 0;}
  101. Not Me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Imonna Live Forever!

  102. Oh, that's all right then.... by Rob+Carr · · Score: 1
    They're planning to launch the Thunderstar in Australia

    So then we don't have to worry about England being burned down!

    --
    This sig seemed like a good idea at the time....
  103. What commercial companies to what standard? by Teancum · · Score: 1

    This is a comment that is just digging at me, and I need to respond.

    Let's talk about the total number of private companies who have any manned spaceflight capability at the moment: 0

    Yeah, some of the older aerospace companies (Boeing, Thiokol, or Energia) certainly are capable of manned spaceflight, but only Energia is taking on passengers, and even that is meeting strong resistance from their respective government (in addition to strong pressure from NASA to never again accept another commercial spaceflight.)

    Basically, any privately funded venture that even gets to the edge of space gets a huge thumbs up in my book. This is certainly the stuff of dreams, and will inspire other people, a whole new generation of kids, to persue space as a frontier. Indeed, that is the problem. Space really is a frontier and any effort at all going into space will be difficult at best.

    In most of your posts, DerekLyons, you have been pessimistic and a nay-sayer. I'm not discounting the huge energies that are required to get into orbit (and more to think about going to Mars, the Moon, or NEO asteroids), but you need to start from somewhere. With your logic why bother even getting out of bed?

    Seriously, I don't see the obsticles of getting into orbit nearly as huge as you are putting them at. The raw technologies of getting to orbit have already been proven, and experience at getting up there into space can be drawn from almost 50 years of rocketry and spaceflight.

    What is killing me inside when I think about it is that we are losing a whole generation of rocket scientists that gave us the Apollo program, and that knowledge is not being handed to the next generation before Von Braun's "apprentices" simply die of old age. While this is not necessarily the best way to have done space flight, it now appears as though the D. Delos Harriman approach to space is more likely than the J.F.K. approach in terms of long term human occupation of extra-terrestial habitats.

    This is but one of many steps that must be taken, and Scaled Composites won't be the last company to send somebody into a sub-orbital flight. In terms of scalability, I think Armadillo Aerospace might have an easier time getting to orbit, but even then there is some significant issues they need to go through before it happens.

    By far and away right now the only thing holding back more companies from getting into space is the raw bueraucratic red tape that must be process in order to deal with "explosive munitions" that might potentially be used by a "terrorist". If only the Wright Brothers had to deal with this level of legal B.S., they might never have even left the ground. Even getting which agency, or even what governmental department has juristiction over the regulation of space vehicles is still up in the air, but it appears as though the FAA is going to have a strong voice in the matter (Yes, I have heard of the AST, although this agency has switched back and forth across multiple federal departments already, and I think it may move again, although the FAA does seem to be a more logical place to keep it).

  104. Sharing Flight Expenses from DC to Mojave by hvytrnsprt · · Score: 1

    Hi all, Are any pilots flying to the event from the Washington DC area? I was wondering if somebody might want a rider or 2 to share expenses as opposed to going out on a commercial flight. Preparing for Chapter 1 of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, HVY

  105. CNN to cover launch live by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to the scaled composites website, CNN will be covering the launch live.