SpaceShipOne to Try for Space on Monday

CommanderData writes "The first piloted private space flight will occur Monday at 9:30AM ET. SpaceShipOne is planning to ascend to the 62 mile (100 Km) mark and return to land at its takeoff point over the course of 90 minutes. With only a pilot (unnamed at this time) on board this does not qualify as a run for the Ansari X-Prize. If the flight is successful they will likely try for the prize soon afterward..." An anonymous reader adds: "Scaled Composites also has this page about the event."

Comments

Sign me up!

[Pheonix5000]

Put me down for a window seat ;)

Re:Sign me up!

[l810c]

Not much room on this thing, only 3 people.

I wonder how much this design will scale considering it has to piggyback on an airplane before it takes off. Sure getting to space will be a nice feat, but how far along really does this propel the goal of commercial access to space. Will this thing be able to carry large payloads in the future? Dozens of people?

I'm more interested in the teams that are going from the ground up utilizing new technologies and more innovative ideas.

SpaceShipOne just seems like a bit of a hack to me.

Re:Sign me up!

[IllForgetMyNickSoonA]

Oh, come on - that's not fair! The only vehicle capable of carrying more than 3 people into space is the Space Shuttle. No vehicle so far was ever capable of carrying more than 7. What did you expect? These people are designing and building a first-of-a kind vehicle by only using their own money (as in "not tax-payer's money"). If they succeed, the funding for a larger scale vehicle will come along. It'll take quite some time before you can buy a ticket on a "USS Voyager" class ship.

Give credit where credit is due, instead of whining.

I wonder when...

[phaetonic]

what sort of snacks could they serve once this stuff becomes mainstream

Re:I wonder when...

[cmowire]

Astronaut ice cream, of course.

(which, incidentally, I've never heard of anybody in space actually eating. ;) )

The pilot

[Timesprout]

was last seen striding towards SpaceShipOne saying "Smoke Me A Kipper, I'll Be Back For Breakfast"

Is this the Paul Allen one?

[Eberlin]

If this is the case, I wouldn't go until about version 6. Good luck nonetheless -- as this has to be one of the coolest frontiers (private spaceflight) in space travel lately.

Re:Hrm?

[gradedcheese]

they have room but this flight will be just the pilot. later thay will carry the 3 people needed for a prize attempt.

Score one for mankind

[eadint]

As long as nasa is in charge of americas space program we will never get anywhere.
now at least there is another way for americans to get into space.
think back to the gouy that paied russia a couple mil to go into space, most of the experiments performed in space could be done by the lab rats themselves, why not charge people to go into space and make them work while there up to .
the private industry would be quick to adopt this method, wheras the bubling morons at nasa would say noooo you cant do that.

Re:Score one for mankind

[Rei]

The "bubbling morons at NASA" who sent people to the moon on the back of one of these?

With all of the money that private space launch groups have wasted with so little to show for it despite standing on the shoulders of giants, it amazes me that people can continually insult the space agencies that have overcome such incredible problems to achieve amazing feats.

And now some people go for a joy ride on a rocket that hardly has to suffer reentry stresses (one of the biggest challenges for cheap space flight) after spending who knows how much money, and people act like it's manna from heaven.

I'm excited to see what happens, too. I hope they make it - it will be an amazing triumph. But, honestly, all I can say is (with no disregard to Rutan himself): It's about time. What more do all of the private space companies that were granted all of that dotcom money need to get a non-orbital spaceflight in the footsteps of NASA - explicit blueprints?

Re:Score one for mankind

[nasor]

"The "bubbling morons at NASA" who sent people to the moon on the back of one of these? [neatherd.org]

With all of the money that private space launch groups have wasted with so little to show for it despite standing on the shoulders of giants, it amazes me that people can continually insult the space agencies that have overcome such incredible problems to achieve amazing feats."

Yes, NASA accomplished great things back in the 1960s, but that doesn't excuse them from the horrific behavior that they've demonstrated since then. Most Americans would be horrified if they knew how much money NASA really wastes, and how much harm it does to the commercial space industry. Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-NASA because I'm against space exploration; quite the opposite. I dislike NASA precisely because I care about space exploration, and they've done a criminally poor job of it since the 1970s.

Consider the space shuttle, which is an especially low point even for NASA: The shuttle was built to replace the Saturn family of launch vehicles. The Shuttle can launch about 60,000 lbs into orbit for a price of around $8,000/lb. The Saturn, on the other hand, could launch about 212,000 lbs into orbit or 100,000 lbs to the moon for a cost of only about $5,000/lb after adjusting for inflation to 2004 dollar. Yes, NASA spent a colossal amount of time and money to build a launch vehicle that was ¼ as powerful and much more expensive.

Even today, there are commercial disposable rockets (like the newest Titan and Delta classes) that can launch virtually any commercial satellite payloads for 'only' $170 million, vs. the average $500 million cost of a shuttle launch. But why, you probably wonder, would anyone use the shuttle if such inexpensive alternatives exist? The answer is the NASA has spent years subsidizing the shuttle costs, only charging around $80 million to launch satellites for people. This has been absolutely devastating to the companies that manufacture commercial spacecraft (Boeing, Lockheed, and Orbital Sciences) since even though they have far superior products, they can't compete with a NASA that is willing to launch payloads at enormous loss. NASA has basically been using taxpayer money to kill a vital U.S. industry.

By far the most horrific part of the whole thing is that NASA has spent years using 'science' to justify their $500 million shuttle launches. Sorry, but with a very few exceptions there aren't any science experiments conducted on the shuttle that justify that kind of expense. While things are undoubtedly learned, it's small potatoes compared to the sort of scientific research that you could conduct here on earth with a comparable amount of money. If you submitted a grant request to the National Science Foundation for $500 million to perform the sorts of experiments that they do on the shuttle, they would laugh their heads off at you.

Re:Score one for mankind

[Rei]

Most people think NASA spends a lot more than it actually does. So, no, they would be pleasantly surprised. Back in the 60s, they had about twice the funding, too, when you adjust for inflation.

NASA has accomplished amazing things in the present, too. I am amazed by the stuff coming back from Cassini and the rovers. They're doing a lot more pure science nowadays than they used to be when running their (in modern dollar equivalent, multibillion) dollar moon excursions. Science is not as glitzy, but it's a good thing.

Criminally poor? Ok, YOU design a cheaper space vehicle. How dare you call it "criminally poor"? Are you aware of how difficult of a task developing a reusable man-capable orbital launch vehicle is? Name someone else who has done it better and cheaper. How would YOU have predicted the specific problems that would occur in a spacecraft with millions of parts reentering the atmosphere? How would YOU decide which ones would be troublemakers? And lets not forget that Nixon cut the shuttle project's budget in the middle of development....

Saturn benefitted greatly from scale; as Truax loved to point out when promoting Sea Dragon, most rockets get cheaper per kg the larger you make them, because the number of parts doesn't tend to increase, only their size.

NASA has subsidized the shuttle because they'll lose funding if they don't. Your complaint isn't with NASA - it's with the stupid American public who wants to see a fully crewed shuttle with every mission.

Want to look at other nation's space agencies? What do you think of the lovely Ariane? Not only has the Ariane 5 blown up on 3 out of 18 launches, the whole project had to have a big bailout and they cancelled their Hermes vehicle to carry people up. India and China are doing better thanks to cheap labor, but they're still newcomers to the field.

So, please keep your criticisms to yourself. Unless you can point to how NASA should have known what technical problems, of the millions of possibilities, would actually occur on the shuttle beforehand, you have no ground to stand on. Likewise, if you can point to how NASA can afford the political capital to stop sending people into space with every mission and stop using the shuttle...

Re:Score one for mankind

[nasor]

"NASA has accomplished amazing things in the present, too. I am amazed by the stuff coming back from Cassini and the rovers."

Contrary to popular belief, the Cassini missions are run by JPL, which is a federally funded research facility that has close ties to NASA, but isn't actually a part of NASA.

"Criminally poor? Ok, YOU design a cheaper space vehicle. How dare you call it "criminally poor"? Are you aware of how difficult of a task developing a reusable man-capable orbital launch vehicle is? Name someone else who has done it better and cheaper. How would YOU have predicted the specific problems that would occur in a spacecraft with millions of parts reentering the atmosphere?"

I don't need to develop better launch vehicles - many aerospace corporations have already done that. There were better launch vehicles around when they built the shuttle. The availability of better launch vehicles isn't the problem; the problem is getting NASA to swallow their pride and actually use the better launch vehicles. And in answer to your other questions, there were many engineers who pointed out the egregious flaws in the shuttle all through its development process. NASA just didn't listen to them. You seem to be under the impression that no one could have anticipated the problems, that NASA has run into with the shuttle, but virtually all of them were foreseeable. Check out http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-03l.html for an extensive list of the shuttle flaws that NASA knew about when they approved the construction.

"NASA has subsidized the shuttle because they'll lose funding if they don't. Your complaint isn't with NASA - it's with the stupid American public who wants to see a fully crewed shuttle with every mission."

Actually NASA has to subsidize the shuttle because they can't afford to let the vehicle that they spend billions developing and years hyping sit around on the launch pad without being used. While it hurts NASA to spend such a huge amount on shuttle subsidies, it would hurt them even more to admit that the shuttle is such a dismal failure.

Re:Score one for mankind

[GileadGreene]

NASA has accomplished amazing things in the present, too. I am amazed by the stuff coming back from Cassini and the rovers.

Which is all well and good, but has very little to do with the manned spaceflight or launch issues that the parent post was concerned with. I'll note here that MER launched on a Delta II rocket, while Cassini launched on a Titan IV - neither of which, you will notice, is the much vaunted "reusable" shuttle.

Ok, YOU design a cheaper space vehicle. How dare you call it "criminally poor"? Are you aware of how difficult of a task developing a reusable man-capable orbital launch vehicle is? Name someone else who has done it better and cheaper.

Why make it reusable? The Russian Space Agency still uses expendable Soyuz capsules, and has a per-launch cost significantly below anything in the West. Reusability only makes sense if you have a high enough flight rate to make it cost-effective, and the sad fact is that right now we simply don't have anywhere near those kind of flight rates for manned launches.

How would YOU have predicted the specific problems that would occur in a spacecraft with millions of parts reentering the atmosphere? How would YOU decide which ones would be troublemakers?

Part of the problem is that NASA did predict the specific problems, but adopted a "well it's worked so far" policy, and did not bother to address what might happen if it didn't work. Given the cost of a shuttle (not to mention the lives of the crew) it seems silly to not have at least considered the possible failure scenarios, and what might be done about them (in contrast to the Apollo 13 mishap, in which the crew was saved due to recovery procedures that had been developed in the years preceding the actual lunar landings).

Want to look at other nation's space agencies?

Not really. The point is not to be "better than the other guy", the point is to do things right.

So, please keep your criticisms to yourself.

Criticism is part of good engineering. There's a reason that things like design reviews are held. If you can't objectively evaluate a system (be it a launch vehicle, or an organization), or take the time to consider alternative approaches, you will never improve. You will also be that much more likely to kill people.

Re:Score one for mankind

[Rei]

> There were better launch vehicles around when they build the shuttle.

And the shuttle was supposed to be even better cheaper. That is the goal of technological advancement, right? Unfortunately, they failed. Failure is incredibly common in the space industry; the Soviets had an even worse failure rate than us. It's even more common, by the way, in the private space industry ;) Many of them don't even get off the ground.

Your article shows that they *should* have chosen a different engine in afterthought, but that they *could* have chosen that engine and decided not to, due to lack of experience with it. That is a perfectly logical decision. In *retrospect*, they should have gone with a different engine; not so at the time.

One thing the author doesn't mention is that SRBs were chosen because of budget cuts in the development phase. NASA originally planned to use LOX/LH2 boosters as well, (and planned for the boosters to be reusable).

The author does *not* state that virtually all of the problems were forseable. The author's point is about as different as you can get: that NASA should have, in retrospect, chosen LOX/Kerosene, which I'd agree with. I'll also ask you again: of the millions of potential problems in the millions of parts, how would you decide which were to cause problems and which weren't?

> Actually NASA has to subsidize the shuttle because they can't afford to let the vehicle that they spend billions developing and years hyping sit around on the launch pad without being used

And... how exactly would they get people into space? They would have to either take another nation's manned spacecraft, or stop the PR-gaining manned space missions. Both are political suicide. I'm sure NASA would gladly wipe their hands of it if they could. NASA has been working on replacements for quite a while ;) Unfortunately, in the goal of trying to make reusable spaceflight cheaper, the new designs have hit their *own* technological challenges. Why? Because space flight is *very difficult*.

It's for a different award altogether

[bennomatic]

> How is this not a candidate for the X-Prize?

Because it's a candidate for the Darwin Awards instead.

Really. I mean, I think I've got a good set of cojones, but this is over the top...

Re:I thought for X-Prize it was pilot + 2 sandbags

[cmowire]

They are not even trying for an X-prize run this time around. They haven't notified the judges that they are going to make an attempt.

Which, given that they are in the lead, I iamgine that they are going to draw things out a little bit.

I mean, if they are confident in the design, they may fly it crewed and allow a few honored folks to ride passenger (Burt Rutan, Paul Allen, etc) for the actual prize flights.

Re:Hrm?

[Mr. Bad Example]

> Launches a piloted, privately-funded spaceship, capable of carrying 3 people to 100 kilometers

Hell, I've got a vehicle that can do that now.

It just does it horizontally over paved surfaces. Details.

I'll be there

[Thagg]

I loved the fact that the Scaled Composite site says that "especially kids" are welcome, they want to introduce the next generation to private space flight. I'm taking my 14 year old daughter and two of her friends.

We're currently planning on camping at the Tehachapi glider park Sunday night, then driving to Mojave at 4:00 Monday morning. We'll see if that works -- there is so much publicity here and at other sites that it may be insanely crowded.

I've been a fan of Rutan since the '79 Popular Science cover of the VariEze, and I've got a copy of the plans for his LongEZ (too big a job for me to complete, though...) I have been looking forward to this event for a long time, I can't wait!

Thad

Don't get your hopes up too far.

[techno-vampire]

As I understand it, this ship can't make orbit, couldn't come back from one if it did, and has no clear path to an orbital vehicle. It's designed to win the prize and nothing else. Not that it's not an important milestone, mind you, but it's just a dead-end.

The real import of this is that people are trying to get to space without the government getting in their way, and willing to risk failure. They're doing things themselves instead of sitting on their hands waiting for somebody else to do something. It's this pioneering attitude that will take us into space to stay, not the NASA mindset of "risk nothing, even if it means nothing gets done."

Re:Fun ride

[cmowire]

Last time he hit 3.5Gs. I doubt that they will want it to go too much more than that operationally, because it's not good for the pilot.

I love it

[TheAdventurer]

It is great to see private individuals reach for achievements such as this. I hope it goes well for them. Personally, I find the private space race to be quite compelling and inspiring. It is a testament to ingenuity and individualism (i.e. we don't need a big collective or nebulous government agency to achieve somethign great. Rather, just the vision of an intelligent individual and his or her ability to organize and lead a talented team).

SpaceDev, the engine designer will reuse the tech

[Anonymous Coward]

The technology used in this launch is going to be reused by SpaceDev to put satellites up for only $5 million a piece. This illustrates the direct effect of the X-prize.

Currently, satellite launches can cost in the hundreds of millions.

Now if only their were more prizes.

Planet Express

[deathcloset]

I wonder; what kind of approval do you need in order to fly into space? Is there some governmental green light?

I ask because it seems to me that a private, reusable, unmanned delivery spacecraft could be a valuable commodity in certain instances. It could certainly get to space and back much faster than something requiring full-fledged life support.

Let's take delivery of donor organs. Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm used to it), certain organs must be transplanted very soon after the host dies. So if someone in Japan needs said organ and someone in New York is killed in a motorcycle accident, a private company could ultra-priority ship this organ overseas via a 90 minute sub-orbital flight.

Or would such a market just be too niche to be viable?

What other kinds of things would someone be willing to pay any price (exorbitant to be sure) to get something somewhere ASAsoP (As Soon As Sub-Orbitally Possible)?

Re:Planet Express

[spurious cowherd]

http://ast.faa.gov/aboutast/701complete.htm

more detailed PDFs also at

http://ast.faa.gov/lrra/stats_notices.htm

Re:Don't get your hopes up too far.

[noahbagels]

Dude - this is a pretty darn lame comment.

Do you ever watch the discovery channel? Ever heard of the X-Planes? There were what, 15+ of them, and none of them could carry 3 people nor carry out a useful 'mission'. It's called research.

The X-Prize is not about building a hypersonic airliner, nor about going to the moon. It's a prize that at this appropriate time in man-machine innovation encouraged some awesome engineers and pioneers to break the old mold of waiting for the government to 'do the big things'.

Don't know about you, but I think 3 minutes of weightlessness in a super-efficient aircraft making sub-orbital flight, done by private individuals is not dead-end. The first (few) that accomplish this feat will likely prove to NASA and the ESA that single gigantic booster rockets are neither efficient nor as re-usable as we were all lead to believe.

Rock on Scaled Composits!

Re:Don't get your hopes up too far.

[TrevorB]

More susinctly: SpaceShipOne is as much of a dead end as Mercury-Redstone was.

Let me bounce this off you....

[corngrower]

Did anyone else read the article about the type of
rocket fuel that Space Ship One uses? It's a solid fueled rocket with a gas oxidizer. I'm sure you'll get a laugh out of it.
Here's the link

On TV Live?

[TrevorB]

Does anyone know if this will be aired live? CNN? BBC News? Local Cable Access 4?

How about streamed on the net?

yawn-inducing conventional engine

[bani]

...there is nothing radical or unusual about their engine. it is tried and tested technology. fwiw so is just about everything else about their vehicle. they're just the first to put it all together in one package and actually do it.

Re:yawn-inducing conventional engine

[corngrower]

So you've looked at the article and know its not the powdered aluminum and amonium perchlorate used in the SRBs for the shuttle. You seem to be a bit sleepy, maybe a whiff of that rocket fuel will make you feel better.

Well its off to the dentist. Then I'll be stopping by the local junkyard to pick up some old tires. Gonna build me a rocket.....

Re:Don't get your hopes up too far.

[techno-vampire]

You make an important point, but misunderstand mine. I'm not knocking the achievement, just pointing out its limits. This ship was designed to win the prize and nothing else. It wasn't designed to reach orbit because the terms on the prize didn't specify that. All I'm asking is that you be realistic about this, and not expect it to do things it was never intended for.

As far as the X projects, I probably know more about them than most people, because I know people who worked on them. This prize is very much in their tradition, and I hope the tradition continues.

Once this prize is won, we need another, specifying that the same vehicle reaches orbit, returns to Earth and then does it again within a limited time frame. I hope somebody will have the vision to offer one.

Check out the updated info page, includes posters!

[Anonymous Coward]

http://scaled.com/projects/tierone/info.htm

6:30 AM Pacific

[richmaine]

If you do intend to go, you might note that, while the cited 9:30 ET time is corect, the launch site is not on Eastern time. Might be easy to miss that
and assume that the cited time is launch site local. If you arrive at 9:30 local time, it will be long over. :-(

That's 6:30 AM Pacific (local) time.

Yes ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes ...

You gotta learn to walk before you learn to run.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

You make an important point, but misunderstand mine. I'm not knocking the achievement, just pointing out its limits.

You gotta learn to walk before you learn run. You gotta learn to take the first step when learning to walk.

This is "One small step for a civilian, a giant leap for mankind."

This ship was designed to win the prize and nothing else. It wasn't designed to reach orbit because the terms on the prize didn't specify that. All I'm asking is that you be realistic about this, and not expect it to do things it was never intended for.

The sub-orbital, super-atmospheric shot is the logical first step for any family of spacecraft designs - including those for inexpensive reusable craft. There are three steps:

1) Getting out of the atmosphere.
2) Getting to low orbit.
3) Getting anywhere else.

2) gets you halfway to anywhere (in terms of delta-v), and gets you over the really hard part. The second half of the trip can be taken at your leisure, while the first half involves getting through an atmosphere before the one-G field sucks you back.

1) is most of the work of 2) It gets you out of the atmosphere - now all you have to do is get going FAST while you're out there.

Yes, you have to combine 2) with a modification of 1) to get to LEO (unless you went FAR out of the atmosphere with LOTS of fuel and reaction mass to spend). But once you've got a device capable of 1) it's a LOT less than doubling the engineering to upgrade it for 2).

Meanwhile: If the private space race stalls after the X prize is won, look for a Y prize. B-)

Re:Don't get your hopes up too far.

[Tackhead]

> As I understand it, this ship can't make orbit, couldn't come back from one if it did, and has no clear path to an orbital vehicle. It's designed to win the prize and nothing else. Not that it's not an important milestone, mind you, but it's just a dead-end.

As I understand it, this ship is so laden down with fuel that it can barely make it off the runway, and with only a single engine and single pilot, has no clear path to being able to carry passengers or transatlantic mail. It's designed to win the $25,000 Orteig Prize and nothing else. Not that it's not an important milestone, mind you, but it's just a dead-end.

hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Now correct me if I am wrong... but isn't spaceship one funded by Paul Allen? And if so... ack... where is the open source contingent that will make an attempt!

It seems that Open source ideology should be applied to space.

I dunnknow...the idea of Allen Spaceport scares the hell outa me....

I will be there

[Teahouse]

I am leaving tonight to get a campsite. I will take lots of pics on Monday. I plan on posting them for those of you unable to attend.

The Long and Short of It

[HopeOS]

You need to convince AST, the department of the FAA that is tasked with granting your launch license, that you are safe enough for the general civilian population. They do not care if you kill yourself or even members of your own team, just so long as the public at large is safe from your launch vehicle, its exhaust, re-entering expendable components, toxic propellent, etc. There's the additional burden of not landing on an endangered mouse or historical monument.

As you might guess, launching from a scorching empty desert with non-toxic propellents and nothing that separates and falls back to earth is going to be easier to license.

As an aside, most of the convincing AST needs is hand-waving and postering, but a good bit of it is also mathematical. "If the craft does not explode and creates an impact zone of this size with a maximum flight radius of this size, there are is 1 in 5 million chance of hitting Bob who has a trailer sitting out in the middle of desert. Since that's less likely than the established 30 x 10 ^ -6 expected causalties, we should be able to fly." Response: "OK, you're on; try not to hit Bob."

-Hope

Advice if you plan to attend the launch...

[ikluft]

Stratofox has put together a page with advice for SS1 launch attendees...

http://www.stratofox.org/notes/ss1-20040621.html

Quick summary:

• Bring extra bottled water to share with others.
• Bring an ice chest for yourself or your group.
• Get all your supplies before entering the Antelope Valley.
• Have patience - don't expect to get on the airport grounds.
• Cell phone service may be strained.
• Bring a radio scanner.
• Bring binoculars.
• Wear a hat.

Read the orginial Link before commenting please.

[corngrower]

Okay, you've read this line of post's clear down to this level, but you haven't looked a the link. I guess I can let you in on the joke. The solid portion of the rocket fuel is a rubber compound. The oxidizing gas is nitrous oxide (laughing gas). Hence the subject of the main thread
Let me bounce this off of you...
And the line
You'll get a laugh out of this.

Re:You gotta learn to walk before you learn to run

[RayBender]

1) is most of the work of 2) It gets you out of the atmosphere - now all you have to do is get going FAST while you're out there.[...]But once you've got a device capable of 1) it's a LOT less than doubling the engineering to upgrade it for 2).

No. Most of the work is getting to a velocity of 8 km/sec. That's 90% of the required total energy. Getting to altitude is 10%. So SpaceShipOne is 10% of the way to orbit (in terms of energy). The additional difficulty of going into orbit is considerably greater than twice the effort: you have to carry 10 times the fuel fraction, and you have to be capable of re-entry, on-orbit maneuvering, etc etc.. It's a lot harder than just going up in a big arc for 5 minutes.

SpaceShipOne is a lot closer to a Cessna than it is to a Space Shuttle. Seriously.

The obligatory: "Mod parent up"

[It'sYerMam]

The StarChaser crew are all thinking this, as SpaceShipOne has no launch escape system, to pull the crew clear if there's a launchpad explosion, a fire mid flight, or whatever. In other words, if something goes wrong then it's bye-bye.
I for one would not want to fly in a SpaceShip where any fault would probably be fatal.

Then we get onto my regular complaint about how SpaceShipOne has bought the prize, etc, etc, while StarChaser waits for funding.

Re:You gotta learn to walk before you learn to run

[RayBender]

No. Most of the work is getting to a velocity of 8 km/sec.

No!? So sure, are you?

Yes, actually. The physics of that calculation is trivial. Also, "work" has a well-defined meaning in physics, so strictly speaking that sentence is perfectly true.

Clue alert - he wasn't talking about energy. Try actually reading his post to discover he was talking about work to solve engineering problems, not how much fucking energy it takes to attain oribital velocity.

Clue alert - engineering difficulty is closely related to energy in situations like these. With orbital velocities comes a whole range of new problems related to hypersonic aerodynamics, heating, flight control, structural design, etc etc. Look, SpaceShipOne uses hydraulic-boosted (if even that)manual flight controls, and relies of passive stability to maintain the correct flight attittude. You couldn't get away with that for a Shuttle. It also doesn't have a heatshield the way the Shuttle does (it has some re--inforcement, but not even within an order of magnitude). The rocket on SpaceShipOne has a total impulse of maybe 1 km/sec, and the corresponding mass fraction of the vehicle devoted to fuel is maybe 20%. The rest can go to building a robust vehicle; on the Shuttle the mass fraction of fuel has to be closer to 90%. SpaceShipOne doesn't have cryogenic fuels, and the associated issues. I can go on and on, but hopefully by now you've grokked that these are two very different machines, and SpaceShipOne is as close to orbit as climbing Mt. Greylock is to climbing Mt. Everest.