SpaceShipOne Flight Completed Successfully

knothead99 writes "CNN is reporting the successful liftoff of SpaceShipOne from a runway in the Mojave desert. Around 10:30 EDT the craft will reach an altitude of 50,000 feet and they'll separate from White Knight and ignite the rocket for space entry. More information can also be found at the Mojave Airport website" Update: 06/21 15:36 GMT by S : An MSNBC story confirms that SpaceShipOne 'glided safely back to Earth, landing back at the Mojave Airport' around 8.15AM PST.

Comments

Question

[PrvtBurrito]

So they made it. Congrats. Now how high would they have to go to enter orbit?

Re:Question

[geordi177]

They would have to reach Mach 25, over 8 times the speed they reached (a bit over Mach 3) in order to reach LEO (low-earth orbit). Burt Rutan, builder of the craft, says that his goal is to reach not only LEO, but make it to other planets

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not how high, but how fast. They'd need to get a little higher, but a lot faster horizontally in order to maintain an orbit.

Re:Question

[Dr. GeneMachine]

It's more a question of speed than of height - with the current design, Spaceship One won't be capable of reaching orbital speeds, which far exceed Mach 3.

Re:Question

[Paulrothrock]

38 miles higher, and 18,000 mph downrange velocity. Roughly. Baby steps, man, baby steps.

Best part, Rutan has admitted that SS1 is scalable, meaning it could become an orbital launch vehicle. Sweet.

Re:Question

[PrvtBurrito]

Yes, but couldn't they just go higher and fall into orbit?

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

CNN said that you had to reach like Mach 25 to get orbital - SpaceShipOne could never do that in its current design.

Re:Question

[Yarn]

it's not a matter of height, it's a matter of speed.

Here is a nice orbital velocity calculator.

Getting up to that speed is not the only problem, you have to loose all that kinetic energy before you land, unless you fancy spreading yourself thinly across a continent.

Re:Question

[StupidHelpDeskGuy]

Generally somewhere between 250-300 km (where air drag starts to become important) and 1000 km (where the inner van allen radiation belt starts to get serious). Low earth orbit usually implies a modest inclination to the equator, (i.e., the lowest achievable from the launch site). The Space Shuttle flies in low Earth orbit.

For more information see this article from ScienceWorld

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

that really depends on how long they want to stay up there.
at heights of less than 200 miles, the drag from the atmosphere will pull them back down and, probably, burn them to a crisp.
so, probably a little more than 200 miles, depending on how long they're staying.

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

First they have to achieve escape velocity. From the surface of the Earth, escape velocity (ignoring air friction) is about 7 miles per second, or 25,000 miles per hour. Given that initial speed, an object needs no additional force applied to completely escape Earth's gravity. Not sure what escape velocity is if your somewhat above the surface of the earth (i.e.-flying) I imagine it would still require a significant amount of energy.

Re:Question

[AKAImBatman]

Yes, but couldn't they just go higher and fall into orbit?

Attaining orbit is not a matter of height. It's a matter of going so fast that you continuously miss the Earth. The only reason why a space craft has to fly so high is that the thick atmosphere will slow it down.

Re:Question

[LDoggg_]

Couldn't you orbit the earth at any altitude greater than the highest peak? Say 29,029 feet?

Maybe a better question would be at what altitude do they leave the atmosphere. Or at what altitude and velocity do they need to reach where they can orbit without having to keep accelerating forward using the earth's gravitational pull.

Re:Question

[Ford Prefect]

Best part, Rutan has admitted that SS1 is scalable, meaning it could become an orbital launch vehicle. Sweet.

Maybe there's something in all the naming - the project's called Tier One, the spacecraft module is called SpaceShipTwo...

What's Tier Two going to be?

Re:Question

[pyrrhonist]

So they made it. Congrats. Now how high would they have to go to enter orbit?

Low Earth Orbit is 350 km (217 mi). Obits lower than this are not stable.

In addition, they would have to be going about 8 times faster to reach orbit.

Re:Question

[Ford Prefect]

SpaceShipTwo? Where the hell did I pull that from?

Agh. Need coffee!

Unless, of course, my caffeine deficiency means I can now see into the future... Woah!

Re:Question

[dmaxwell]

I don't see how. You would have to expend about as much energy to reach a height that corresponds with the desired end velocity. Then you have the problem of turning the downward velocity into the required lateral velocity. You have no atmosphere worth talking about at that height so you would have to use a rocket to get the lateral component required. By the time all is said and done, you were better off getting the required speed from launch.

Re:Question

[Paulrothrock]

Burt Rutan, builder of the craft, says that his goal is to reach not only LEO, but make it to other planets

Hey! That's my goal too!

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean "noted physics expert, CNN".

To reach orbit:

v = velocity = sqrt(g/R)
R = radius of Earth + height of orbit above surface

and

T = 2*pi*R/v (period)

Re:Question

[0123456]

"it's not a matter of height, it's a matter of speed."

It's both: you won't stay in orbit long at 100km, there's too much drag when you're travelling at 7+ km/s.

Re:Question

[Ignorant Aardvark]

Your post is kind of misleading. May I remind you that escape velocity is defined as the initial velocity necessary to leave the Earth's gravity well provided that there is no additional acceleration. As long as your acceleration away from Earth is greater than than the Earth's gravitational acceleration at your distance from it, you will eventually escape Earth's gravity well, and at a speed of much less than Mach 25 to boot. Think of a balloon: they certainly never travel very quickly, but they get very far towards escaping on very small velocity.

A spaceship is not launched like a cannon, but rather, it has engines on it that provide thrust. In this way it is possible to escape Earth's gravity with continual acceleration and never actually experiencing speeds of Mach 25. You are right, to get into a low-Earth orbit one would need to be travelling at Mach 25, but that is simply a result of the Newtonian mechanics of an orbit plotted at that arbitrary altitude. Any number of different orbits - such as a parabolic orbit arcing away from the Earth - could have any number of different (higher or lower) necessary velocities.

And besides, once you are in space, without having to worry about air resistance, it's trivially easy to build up that extra velocity. Your post makes it sound like getting to Mach 3 is trivial and they need to put in eight times the work to reach LEO. This is simply not true. Getting to 100km through most of the atmosphere has already accomplished most of the work. The rest is easy. It's not as simple as looking at the difference between the numbers 3 and 25 and saying, "Oh, they have eight times more speed they need to get!"

Re:Question

[Yarn]

It's still a matter of speed. Sure, at 100km maintaining that speed isn't (currently?) practical, but if you could, you could orbit.

Re:Question

[JabberWokky]

Considering he has a reputation for breaking aeronautical records, and now aerospace records, it's plausable. I'd seen loads of pictures, but I never realized how *small* Spaceship One is... roughly (very roughly) comparable to the large white passenger van parked near the two ships during the taxi to the runway. This is certainly his "proof of concept", possibly simply aimed at getting investors toward a much more practical (read: Profit!!!) craft.

If NASA has been putting out steam rail engines, this is the first car, a precursor to the Model T of space. When the design is a couple iterations down the line, it will be ready for mass production.

Freeways in the sky and weekend jaunts to the Moon are a matter of time, technology and will. The simple act of just *showing* that it can be done provides the critical and hard to get last part of that triad.

--
Evan

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

~190 is the lowest possible stable orbit. But it's not a favorable place to be. There's too much radiation from the ionosphere--interferes with communications and what not.

Re:Question

[Xilman]

Couldn't you orbit the earth at any altitude greater than the highest peak? Say 29,029 feet?

Sure you can. You can orbit below that altitude too, as long as you choose an orbit which never intersects anything too hard. A near equatorial orbit lets you go round at a height just a bit higher than Kilimanjaro (you gotta have a safety margin, after all).

The big problem is that the air is rather thick down there. This has two consequences. First the drag means you slow down so fast that you either hit something pretty hard pretty quickly unless your engines are working hard enough to counteract the drag. Second, the drag dissipates so much energy in such a small volume that it gets pretty damned hot very close to your vehicle. The shuttle was much higher when it burned up, and travelling significantly slower than orbital speed at 10km to boot.

Paul

Re:Question

[Short Circuit]

You mean you didn't include caffeine in the nutritional corner of your towel?

Re:Question

[An Onerous Coward]

Hmm, that does bring up an interesting question. Has anyone considered using balloons to get up past most of the atmosphere? Strapping a couple of balloons onto the ship and letting them do most of the lifting, then let them go and continue upward using regular rockets. The balloons would then deflate and fall to Earth where they could be retrieved and reused.

It would add a lot of time to the flight, but you would save all the fuel needed to get up through the first 50K or so, without having to piggyback off a 747.

I'm sure somebody else has come up with the idea, but is anybody pursuing it?

Re:Question

[robbymet]

It's actually a combination of speed and height, kinetic and potential energy - you can trade the two against each other. The Space Shuttle has everyone caught up in this idea that the vehicle itself has to make it to LEO, but why? If LEO is the target because that's the orbit you want for your satellite, then you only have to worry about getting the small weight (relative to the launch vehicle) of the satellite up to LEO.
If you can carry a rocket up to the edge of space with a craft like SpaceShipOne, and launch it from there, it's a lot easier to get your satellite up to LEO. There's no reason to accelerate the whole plane up to that altitude/velocity! By taking advantage of this, the reusable part of the launch vehicle doesn't experience ridiculous temperatures on re-entry like the Shuttle and the vehicle has a significantly higher chance of repeated survival.

I'm proud of Scaled! I've worked on designs like this and I didn't think the primes/politicians would ever let something like this be built! Good luck with Tier Two!

Re:Question

[Rei]

Not true. It is not trivially easy to build up that extra velocity, because you have to lug all of the extra propellant through the atmosphere. The amount of propellant doesn't rise linearly, either: it rises exponentially. If they want to keep their current launch design, they're going to need the world's largest carrier plane to take them to altitude.

It gets worse: currently they're hardly addressing *the* most difficult concept for cheap reusable spacecraft: reentry. This single problem has contributed to the majority of the space shuttle's turnaround cost. Standing on the shoulders of giants (as the vast majority of their work thusfar has been), they can at least avoid the ceramic tile mistake; however, they still need to solve the problem somehow.

They're not 3/25ths done - they're *less* than that.

Re:Question

[hedgehogbrains]

Check these out:

• Rocket Equation Calculator
• Specific Impulse

For a 400 s specific impulse, getting to mach 3 requires a 1.276 takeoff to payload ration. On the other, making Mach 25 requires 7.66 takeoff to payload ration. That's why Spaceship One is self contained, whilst the Shuttle requires vast external fuel tanks and external boosters. It's hardly trivially easy.

Re:Question

[randall_burns]

The folks at JP Aerospace are using baloons for assist--in fact they are taking this even further and claim they can take a lighter than air craft to orbit using ion drives or something similar.

Re:Question

[cosmo7]

Sorry but your knowledge of basic high school physics (first semester) is appalling (leads me to believe that you're a little young ).

Also space rockets only work inside the atmosphere, where there is air to push against. There was a special on Fox all about it.

Re:Question

[Smidge204]

It's about both height and speed. Speed required for a stable orbit is inversely proportional to altitude. All you have to do is balance the centripetal (F = (m*v^2)/r) with the gravitational force (F = G*m1*m2/(r^2)). The only special case is geo-synchronous orbit, in which case you must be at a specific altitude in order for the period of your orbit to match that of the earth's rotation. Other than that you can "orbit" at any speed (v) you want as long as your altitude (r) makes the above equations balance.

So as long as the ship has the guts to get far enough from the earth, it can certainly go fast enough to be in orbit.
=Smidge=

Re:Question

[neirboj]

I was watching the CNN coverage this morning and would like to point out that their space correspondant (another O'Brien) did in fact point out that Mach 25 represents eight times the energy. For a rocket-propelled craft the need to store and release more energy generally translates into the need to carry more fuel.

Re:Question

[Greyfox]

Takes 3 days to get to the moon IIRC. Besides, there's nothing worth seeing there except the theme park.

Re:Question

[KDan]

It's not a matter of speed, it's a matter of velocity! If your speed is directed towards the earth, it won't help you much.

Daniel

Re:Question

[delibes]

And besides, once you are in space, without having to worry about air resistance, it's trivially easy to build up that extra velocity. Your post makes it sound like getting to Mach 3 is trivial and they need to put in eight times the work to reach LEO. This is simply not true. Getting to 100km through most of the atmosphere has already accomplished most of the work. The rest is easy.

I disagree that it's easy. Although accelerating at a height of 100km isn't too hard, you need to get the fuel and oxidizer up to that height and keep burning it. Carrying enough propellants up through the atmosphere in order to burn your way up to about 7,500 m/s velocity is pretty difficult.

Another way to look at it is to use the equation for kinetic energy (1/2*m*v^2). Since it's proportional to v-squared, if you need 8 times more velocity, that's 64 times more energy. As you say, "The rest is easy." :)

Re:Question

[EvilTwinSkippy]

I was working out the napkin notes on this idea and concluded that the mass "savings" are eaten up by the mass of the gass required to pull it off. You have to displace the same "weight" of air as that you are trying to lift. Sure, hydrogen has a fraction of the mass of air at STP, but you are still talking about tons of it. The rules of the contest stated that something like 90% of the craft (by mass) must be re-used. The ballon would be a significant mass.

The second problem is that as you ascend, the pressure drops, and the less boost you get. Sure, for the first few thousand feet you rise like a bat out of hell. But from there on out it's slow, slow, slow, and all the while you are going to be shot off target by the jet stream.

Finally, once you are up in the air, your velocity is still zero. Most of the fuel you are expending is to build up speed. (At least for orbital flight. For the x-prize this isn't so important.)

My back of the envelope (pun not intended) calculations showed that the mass that would have been used for a ballon would be better spent on a bigger booster.

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

That's exactly what the Da Vinci team are using in their X prize attempt

Re:Question

[corngrower]

, once you are in space, without having to worry about air resistance, it's trivially easy to build up that extra velocity. Your post makes it sound like getting to Mach 3 is trivial and they need to put in eight times the work to reach LEO. This is simply not true.

No grandparent is probably closer to being correct.
At the top of the flight, SSO was about 100km above the earth with no radial velocity and essentially no tangential velocity. The escape velocity needed from this state is still more than the orbital velocty at 100 km. That is the additional energy needed to escape the gravitaional pull of the earth is still more than the additional energy to needed to get it into a circular orbit. Now maybe you could start from the top of that orbit, with an amout of fuel 4 to 8 times the amount required for this flight and get enough speed for orbiting. But wait a minuite, you've increased the mass that needs to be lofted to this heght by a factor of say 3 -6. That means you'ld need to have initially double that amount when you lauch from White Knight to get SS one up to that 100km height. In other words you're talking at least 7 or 8 times the fuel to begin with. The amount of fuel required to reach a given velocity grows exponentially (not linearly) with the velocity. (kind of sucks, doesn't it).

Re:Question

[khallow]

Escape velocity from the surface of Earth is roughly 11 km/s. I figure that achieving a height of 100 km takes less than 1.4 km/s (assuming constant gravity). Counting that the craft was in motion at that altitude (though probably not Mach 3 which would make a ceiling of another 1km/s), then I think we have more than 1.4 km/s and less than 2.4 km/s of effectively velocity.

For me, the big problem isn't getting into space (though there's no way the current setup can handle the much larger rocket required to get into orbit), but rather reentering the Earth's atmosphere. The craft has to dissipate a considerable quantity of energy coming from orbit (though not quite 11 km/s worth). In theory, one could do it with the current Spaceship One, if they had rockets that could kill off enough of the velocity (ie, most of the energy must be dissipated this way) so that the craft could reenter the Earth's atmosphere slowly enough that it wouldn't burn up.

Re:Question

[AKAImBatman]

It gets worse: currently they're hardly addressing *the* most difficult concept for cheap reusable spacecraft: reentry. This single problem has contributed to the majority of the space shuttle's turnaround cost.

Arguably, the Space Shuttle's design is so poor because the Air Force wanted a relatively low altitude fly-by over Russian soil. Had the Space Shuttle been designed to Aero-brake much slower, it could have forgone the disposable heat shields. However, there is some question as to the difficulty in obtaining a proper flight envelope when entering the atmosphere at that shallow of an AOA.

Re:Question

[GileadGreene]

Low earth orbit usually implies a modest inclination to the equator

Not really. The ISS is up around 51 degrees inclination or so. And there are plenty of LEO sats in polar or sun-synchronous with inclinations up around 90 deg (greater in the case of the sun-synch orbits). In fact, higher inclinations are favored for LEO satellites because it allows them to cover a greater portion of the globe with their limited footprint (versus just covering the same 100km wide stretch over and over again).

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

it was modded funny so im hoping they were right in that he was joking :)

Re:Question

[icejai]

So true.

It doesn't matter how they get up there, the fact is they'd better be travelling at mach 25 before they start falling back towards earth. Accelerating to mach 25 even from 100km up in the sky is no easy task. They'd have to carry along a HELLUVA lot more propellant. So far, their craft uses ~600lbs of that rubber compound and 3000lbs of N02 to get up to mach 3. They'd need 64 times more energy to get to 8 times the speed of mach 3!

It's gonna be quite a challenge for privately-sponsered spacecraft to reach orbital flights.

Re:Question

[Ford Prefect]

You mean you didn't include caffeine in the nutritional corner of your towel?

It would appear the towel got rotated around by 180 degrees.

I seem to have been attempting to extract caffeine from the 'second-hand curry' corner of the towel, which may explain the hallucinations.

Oooh... Vogons!

Re:Question

[tony_gardner]

And you can calculate the extra energy that spaceshipone would have to expend to get to that orbit, as opposed to an altitude of 100km with no sidewards movement. It's 62 times the energy. So LEO is still a few stepa away.

Re:Question

[pclminion]

Sorry but your knowledge of basic high school physics (first semester) is appalling (leads me to believe that you're a little young ).

You MUST be trolling.

YOu are simply incoprrect when you say that you do NOT have to reach 25,000 (or Mach 25 as you out it) to escape Earth's gravity because of the *engines* on a craft sigh). In point of fact you simply DO.

Out and out wrong. The escape velocity is merely the speed at which the craft would be traveling if it had fallen toward the Earth from infinity. You do not have to travel at the escape velocity to move away from the Earth. If you have a source of thrust, you may move at whatever velocity you please.

The rest of your post is (unfortunately) just a layperson's opinion about physics and I'm sorry but a rather poor opinion at that.

And you're what, a professional physicist? Certainly not, since your error is a grievous one.

At any rate, your post should be marked "troll," not "informative."

Re:Question

[EvilTwinSkippy]

The re-entry problem is pretty easy: a spray on heat shield that evaporates off during re-entry. It's cheap. It's reasonably light weight. It's a proven design.

Spacecraft before the space shuttle used that to great effect. The space shuttle has more or less become a prime example of how NOT to do it. The ceramic shields were expensive, brittle, and (as it seems) prone to failure at the worst possible time.

I think they were trying too too hard on the space shuttle to make it re-usable. Certainly the avionics computers and the seats were prime candidates to be re-used between flights. But I think if they had to do it again they'd make the engines and the heat shields disposable. Those two systems were responsible for more groundings, failures, and overall expense than anything else.

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

#1. YOu are simply incoprrect when you say that you do NOT have to reach 25,000 (or Mach 25 as you out it) to escape Earth's gravity because of the *engines* on a craft sigh). In point of fact you simply DO.

So, you are saying that if you are providing acceleration upward (from the engines) greater than gravity is providing downward, you won't go up? And that if you continue doing this, you can't get out of earth's gravity, no matter how slow??

I mean, sure, there would be technical difficulties, but I think I'm missing the basic physics as you describe them...

Re:Question

[delibes]

The "rockets won't work outside the atmosphere" arguement was used as a critcism as Goddard in 1920. See this wiki.

Re:Question

[myc_lykaon]

Why, oh why isn't there a Moderate: Missed the Point -1 available?

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

That was a joke you pompous twit

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

So they made it. Congrats. Now how high would they have to go to enter orbit?

It depends how fast you want to be orbiting. Higher orbits are slower than closer ones. There is a limited band of possible altitudes, because below a certain point the atmosphere produces too much drag, causing the craft to lose altitude, and above a certain point the gravity of the moon becomes signficant enough to destabilize the orbit.

Re:Question

[grahamlee]

My karma's probably blown now for this post but I have a thing for truth....

The truth has a tendency to be true, unlike your post. Let me just give my background for disclosure - I'm a rocket scientist.

#1. YOu are simply incoprrect when you say that you do NOT have to reach 25,000 (or Mach 25 as you out it) to escape Earth's gravity because of the *engines* on a craft sigh). In point of fact you simply DO.

No, you don't. If you were blasted off from the surface of the Earth at Mach 25 and the atmosphere didn't exist, then (to use the kind of lax definition of infinity that us physicists are proud of) you'd come to rest at infinity and wouldn't fall back into the Earth. However, if you provide a continual thrust that everywhere is greater than the local acceleration due to Earth's gravity, you will never fall back down. You could achieve this at a constant velocity of 1m/s if you liked, by suitable modification of the thrust.

#2. You are incorrect when you say it's "trivially easy" to build up speed outside the atmosphere. Newton's laws still hold whether inside or outside the atmosphere...and you STILL have to carry the reaction mass up there somehow.

To go forward in space, throw something backward. To go forward in the atmosphere, throw enough stuff backward to push enough air out of the way. It's easier in space - as you don't have to overcome resistive drag (unless the solar wind is non-negligible) then the same acceleration can be had for less driving force - the net force is the same yes. This means you can take it easy, and do something like throwing photons or ions out of the back of your spaceship.

The rest of your post is (unfortunately) just a layperson's opinion about physics and I'm sorry but a rather poor opinion at that.

As opinions go, it was just as valid as anyone else's. As statements of physical understanding go, it was superior to yours.

Re:Question

[rudeboy1]

I think I understand what he's getting at. Is it possible to slowly obtain a higher than necessary altitude, then use that height and the pull of gravity to accelerate to the appopriate speed, or would you run out of gravity when achieving the necessary height?

Re:Question

[Charvak]

He is right you know. The escape velocity is calculated as

Energy at t=0 = energy at infinite distnce from earth

1/2mv^2 - GMm/R = 0
where M = mass of the planet m = mass of the rocket R = distance from the rocket to center of the planet
ie v = sqrt(2GM/R)

Re:Question

[CrimsonAvenger]

One of the teams competing for the X-Prize is planning on balloon lift for that purpose. The da Vinci Project, as I recall.

Re:Question

[HeghmoH]

Escape velocity has nothing to do with orbit. Escape velocity is what you need to attain to leave Earth completely, for example if you wanted to go into Solar orbit. Balloons never do anything remotely approaching "escape" in this context.

Getting into orbit is way, way, way harder than getting to 100km. It takes 24 times the energy to get to orbit, and you therefore need massively larger fuel tanks and engines to do so. You are correct that "eight times more speed" is misleading, but you got it backwards; since kinetic energy goes up as the square of the speed, you need more than eight times the energy to reach orbit.

Re:Question

[Pig Hogger]

So they made it. Congrats. Now how high would they have to go to enter orbit?

Orbit is not a matter of "how high" but of "how fast".

In theory, you could be in orbit WITHIN a planet, if you run through an evacuated tunnel below the surface (someone even wrote a story about a black hole in a perfect circular orbit, skimming the surface of it's primary).

Apollo used transfer orbits that nearly skimmed the moon surface to get the lunar module down and up. Apollo 10's lunar module got in orbit to within thousands of feet from the lunar surface.

In order to reach orbit, you need to attain a velocity a few order of magnitude greater than Spaceship One; this is why the space Shuttle and the COHO3 go up with big kick-ass rocket engines, tanks and boosters...

Re:Question

[DynaSoar]

Ignorant Aardvark (632408) sez: "May I remind you that escape velocity is defined as the initial velocity necessary to leave the Earth's gravity well provided that there is no additional acceleration. As long as your acceleration away from Earth is greater than than the Earth's gravitational acceleration at your distance from it, you will eventually escape Earth's gravity well, and at a speed of much less than Mach 25 to boot."

Your numbers are correct, but there's a difference between factual and practical. In order to lift a craft at constant thrust at say, Mach 3, out of Earth's gravity well would require so much fuel that it would weigh too much to get off the ground. And the well stretches out quite far. The Apollo shots were 200,000 miles out before the moon's gravity well became stronger than Earth's for them, which means Earth's hadn't really disappeared yet. The 25 kmph escape velocity represents the minimum energy escape.

The same thing applies to the "trivally easy" comment with respect to getting from Mach 3 to mach 25/orbit. There may be no air and so no max Q to overcome, but the fuel needed has to be carried up there in order to be used there, and that increases the takeoff weight, and that requires more takeoff fuel, and that means a bigger craft with more drag and so even more takeoff fuel and weight....

Besides, SS1 had little concern with aerodynamic drag. It launched from 50,000 feet. That's how it could be so small.

A French paper in 1913, reprinted in a 1958 book by Andrew Halley, the then president of the International Aeronautic Federation, calculated the minimum energy needed for a constant thrust trip to the moon (and Mars and Venus). The moon is 48 hours and 59 minutes away, the last 28 minutes of that being retro-thrust. Unfortunately the then greatest conceivable energy source, hydrogen/oxygen burning, such as the Saturn or the shuttle, has less than one percent of the energy needed to do the job (actually, 116 times too weak).

Until we get a light weight zero point energy source or some other exotic widget for energy without weight, punching holes in the sky is the only reasonable way to get past it.

Re:Question

[raygundan]

Your #1 is misleading again, which is what the original poster was trying to point out. Escape velocity is the speed you'd have to be going at the earth's surface if you were going to reach orbit if you weren't going to be accelerating en route. This is akin to throwing a baseball into orbit-- it has to be going as fast as it needs to when it leaves your hand if it's going to reach orbit.

It is also true that escape velocity must be reached at some point or the object will fall back to earth *if it is not being acted on by another force*. It would be possible to operate under thrust for the entire duration of your trip-- and as long as your thrust is just a hair above g, you'll gradually rise. You could thrust your way into space at 1mph, if you had the fuel for it. This isn't practical currently, and of course, you fall right back when you turn your engine off.

All I'm (and the original poster) are trying to point out is that telling "laypeople" that you have to reach escape velocity to leave earth is not the whole truth. You can leave as slow as you want and pick up the orbital velocity later, or just hover on your engines and never pick up any speed at all. Not that you'd want to.

Re:Question

[JabberWokky]

Off the top of my head I seem to recall that at a .1G acceleration, it's seven hours. It's 3 days if you don't have any fuel and basically drift the entire way (a la Apollo). A real presence in space means gas stations, something the Apollo project didn't have. They basically drove real fast to the base of the hill, threw it into neutral, shut off the engine and coasted up, over the top and down the hill and then started the engine and did reverse to slow down.

A .1G acceleration is pretty light on fuel (relatively speaking - right now we do the cheapest method no matter what), and it gets us there pretty quickly.

I may be off by a neat order of magnitude one way or another, as I'm pulling remembered figures, but I think they are right.

--
Evan

Re:Question

[daveashcroft]

If an object moves fast enough it can escape a massive object's gravity and not be drawn back toward the massive object. The critical speed needed to do this is the escape velocity. More specifically, this is the initial speed something needs to escape the object's gravity and assumes that there is no other force acting on the object besides gravity after the initial boost. Rockets leaving the Earth do not have the escape velocity at the beginning but the engines provide thrust for an extended period of time, so the rockets can eventually escape. The concept of escape velocity applies to anything gravitationally attracted to anything else (gas particles in planet atmospheres, comets orbiting the Sun, light trying to escape from black holes, galaxies orbiting each other, etc.).

Using Newton's laws of motion and law of gravity, you can find that the escape velocity vesc looks very similar to the orbital speed:

vesc = Sqrt[(2 G M)/r].

This is a factor Sqrt[2] larger than the circular orbital speed. Since the mass M is on top of the fraction, the escape velocity increases as the mass increases. More massive bodies exert greater gravity force, so escaping objects have to move faster to overcome the greater gravity. Also, the distance from the center of the object r is in the bottom of the fraction, so the escape velocity DEcreases as the distance increases. Gravity decreases with greater distance, so objects farther from a massive body do not need to move as quickly to escape it than those closer to it.

http://www.astronomynotes.com/gravappl/s8.htm

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you are pretty dumb for someone who claims to be so smart. You need THRUST, not speed, to escape the Earth's atmosphere. You can do it at 5mph if you have enough thrust to continue that speed until you are clear of the earths atmosphere.

25kmph is a typical speed to ORBIT (ie: go fast enough to avoid falling back to earth, think of centrifical force) and it may be the speed needed if you are shooting a GUN, which only has initial thrust, not a continuous supply like a rocket.

Yes, Newtons laws hold effect (since we are going well under the speed of light, they are good enough and much simpler to calculate anyway). This means that once you are out of the atmosphere (drag from air) and farther away from the center of the earth (gravity is inversly proportional to distance) then "an object tends to go in straight line unless acted upon by another force" holds very true. You have reduced the "other forces" acting upon it, dramatically, so the amount of thrust to gain x% of speed is reduced because the amount of trust needed to overcome drag and gravity are reduced.

You, sir, are a dumbass.

Re:Question

[Ford Prefect]

I think ' Moderate: Needs coffee -2' might be in order...

I very nearly typed up a huge rant about Rupert Murdoch and the failing US educational system. It's probably for the best that I didn't - I already look enough of a pillock already. :-)

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

"The rules of the contest stated that something like 90% of the craft (by mass) must be re-used."

But they can't re-use the fuel! So, declare the hydrogen filling of the ballon as the fuel and presto :)

Cheers,

Tels

Re:Question

[Tongo]

It's a matter of going so fast that you continuously miss the Earth

Is that kind of how humans learn how to fly. You just fall and miss the ground???

Re:Question

[GraWil]

Not quite. Orbital science has been launching small satellites on modified cruise missiles dropped from a plane for quite a few years now. I know for a fact that they do make it to orbit. The weight of the pegasus launch vehicle compared with SpacePlaneOne are not that different so there won't be a huge leap to get them to orbit. Keep in mind that atmospheric density increases exponentially as you approach the ground so flying a rocket to 30K or 50K feet using an efficient aircraft with lots of lift saves you a considerable amount of rocket fuel.

Re:Question

[seafortn]

More Sorries:

While your point #2 may be correct, #1 is (to quote you) "simply incorrect" - what physical explanation can you give to justify it? The poster is correct - "escape velocity" is just the velocity required for an object to escape Earth's gravitational field (in actuality, probably to arrive at a point where Earth's gravitational field is counterbalanced by other influences).

There is no physical reason that a spacecraft (given an engine which can generate the required thrust) could NOT leave Earth at any velocity - from .1 m/s to 3X10^8-1 m/s - instead of criticising the parent poster, why don't you stop and think about what you're writing, or did you stop learning physics at the college freshman level?

(disclaimer - if someone with a physics or aeronautical engineering degree beyond my B.S. can correct me, I welcome a better understanding of classical mechanics)

Re:Question

[ParamonKreel]

IANARS but I would think no, as getting "horizontal" velocity from the fall would require pushing off somthing. This works fine in atmosphere for a falling plane as it pushes down a "ramp" of the air as it falls, converting it's height into horizontal velocity. But in space, I would think that this would have to be done with a rocket as there is nothing to push off of and you would just fall. As has been said eariler, it would probbably be better just to do it during the launch.

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

My karma's probably blown now for this post but I have a thing for truth....

Yep, it got blown because you are as wrong as the original poster.

You might want to think a little longer before you post next time. While it is true that high speed is a requirement to reach orbit it is not necessary to escape earths gravity well. If you were going to another planet you only need to provide acceleration exceeding the inverse square of gravity by distance. (matching velocities with the target body is another story)

So slow down cowboy, the first poster made an innocent mistake.

Re:Question

[Rei]

Ablatives aren't reusable. :) They require just the same reapplication/inspection turnaround effort that the shuttle's tiles do. Of course, the materials can be quite cheap - in fact, the chinese investigating wood as an ablative, and some US rocket engines and payload shrouds actually use cork. The main cost, however, is the man-hours.

Neither NASP or X33 ever fully overcame the reentry problem, despite a lot of research.

There are a number of other interesting proposals out there that may cut the turnaround time for reusables - for example, a Russian/German joint venture developed an inflatable reentry system, which seems an interesting idea (do your breaking in the thinner atmosphere first with a giant surface area to radiate off the heat).

Another idea is the use of a plasma torch in front of the reentry vehicle to create a hollow cavity that the hypersonic craft moves through. As the shockwave created by a leading edge can create a cavity which the rest of the surface can pass through without touching the superheated air (hence the reason why they only need the carbon-carbon panelling on the leading edges of the shuttle), so can, in theory, a plasma torch - eliminating the need for contact all together.

Re:Question

[Patrick Mannion]

I agree entirely JabberWokky. It's great to see that something has brought the aerospace industury into spotlight again after almost a year and a half of no activity since Columbia disintegrated. Ironically, the entire project was funded by Paul Allen, and this used just a simple desgin and controls to get into space and not a version of the latest Longhorn beta controlling it. Imagine the humanity that would have happened if it was running Windows, it might have just crashed and burn! Well, maybe not. But still, I find it funny that Microsoft is invovled in spaceships now.

Re:Question

[ab762]

...using balloons to get up past most of the atmosphere?...I'm sure somebody else has come up with the idea, but is anybody pursuing it?

First done in the 1950's - my memory says Ford Aerospace, but several Google searches turned up no details.

One of the X-Prize contenders from Canada uses this model - The Da Vinci Project

The basic launch configuration is to lift the rocket using a reusable helium balloon to a launch altitude of 24,400 meters (80,000 feet).

Re:Question

[Rei]

Can you please provide a reference for the "low altitude fly-by over Russian soil" comment? On the face of it, that sounds crazy, so I question it. I also can't seem to find a reference for it on google.

Re:Question

[AKAImBatman]

Is that kind of how humans learn how to fly. You just fall and miss the ground???

Believe it or not, I just used that gag to explain orbital velocity to a coworker. (Everyone here saw Melvill on CNN.) It got a few chuckles, anyway. :-)

Re:Question

[Alien Being]

What a maroon.

Re:Question

[kfg]

I think ' Moderate: Needs coffee -2' might be in order...

If that were available as a self-mod I'd be inclined to use it. I've certainly responded to the odd criticism of my posts with "Sorry, not enough coffee yet," when I've been a brainless twat for no apparent reason other than the fact that I was silly enough to post while the pot was still doing its thing.

Maybe some sort of AI would be in order that reviews posts before you hit the submit button and if they look too braindead issue a popup "Are you sure you wouldn't like a cup of coffee before you post this? Yes/No".

KFG

Re:Question

[pclminion]

You are, sadly, a perfect example of the dangers of partial education. You know just enough to make some really stupid blunders.

Stick to your day job, please. Somebody could get killed.

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft isn't involved in spaceships. Just Paul Allen, using his own private billions.

Re:Question

[Rei]

1) Pegasus payloads are about the weight of the *current* SpaceShipOne fully loaded, and yet the plane that they use is already pretty darn big. SpaceShipTwo (or whatever they call it) will need to be many times heavier (at least a dozen, probably several dozen; the exact amount depends on how much drag they're getting in the upper atmosphere, the final impulse of their thrust, how much additional structural support they need, etc) to reach orbit, and to be able to survive reentry.

2) The White Knight goes up to 50,000 feet instead of 40,000 feet, which is a significantly (although not incredibly) thinner atmosphere, requiring a plane with more lift.

Re:Question

[Charles Dart]

Thank you for that rebuke. People claiming to own the truth really bug me (especially when they are as dead wrong as that twit). Welcome to my friends list.

Re:Question

[vidarh]

I won't try to guess whether it would be fuel efficient or not, but you most certainly CAN enter orbit with a low trust craft by going further up, though I'd agree with you that trying to "fall" back towards earth and enter orbit doesn't sound feasible.

If your craft has enough trust to escape the gravity well, and has enough fuel to maintain trust over extended periods of time, you can get the right velocity by going far enough "up" (as in away from earth), turning and aiming for the right insertion vector so you'll be in the right position at the riht velocity to enter orbit. The lower trust, the longer you'll need to be able to keep burning to get the velocity you need.

Re:Question

[kfg]

In this way it is possible to escape Earth's gravity with continual acceleration. . .

Yes, which acceleration makes you go faster and faster and faster. . .until you reach escape velocity. Sorry, but that's how it works. Turn off your engines one moment before attaining that velocity and you don't escape. You are confusing the fact that you may choose your acceleration rate with the idea that you don't have to attain a particular velocity to escape orbit.

. . .and never actually experiencing speeds of Mach 25.

Could you define "Mach 25" in a vacuum?

KFG

Re:Question

[Gregb05]

That, my friend, is the entire point behind a space elevator...

of course, to build it requires some brand spankin new materials so that it could support it's own weight.

I'm claiming no other knowlege than what I read in This article, but it appeared to cover everything I had questions aboot.

Re:Question

[jwdb]

So what if you take, say, a 1000kg vehicle (which weighs roughly 9,800 Newtons), attach an engine that can deliver 10,000 Newtons of thrust, and let it go? Will it also fail to reach space? It definitely won't reach Mach 25... And don't bother attacking my credibility in basic physics - engineering student and all.

Re:Question

[essreenim]

Yeah, I knew there was a balloon program.

I simply want to type in this thread to acknowledge what the guys at Space Ship One have achieved. Its amazing.

Now, when are day going to open up the source for all their design / engineering specs ...

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Rocket hovering not possible?

You need the acme patent pending jet pack as used by real life (tm) people.

Time to redesign your engine...

takes CALCULUS to calculate the equations of such control

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm going to step in and support Mr. Rocket Scientist, as I also share that distinction.

What he stated about "leaving the surface at ~25k mph will result in zero velocity at infinite distance" is true. It is a statement of initial vs. final energy. 25k mph is the required escape velocity at the surface of the earth, or just outside the atmosphere, since it's pretty thin when compared to the earth's diameter.

Actually reaching 25k mph is NOT required. You could make the trip to some intermediate point at a lower velocity (forget about acceleration, it's not important in this discussion) as long as your velocity at burn-out is greater than or equal to the local escape velocity. So yes, if you had LOTS of time and LOTS of fuel, you could make the trip to infinite distance at 1 m/s.

Nowhere in Mr. R.S.'s post did he confuse acceleration and velocity. As long as your spacecraft provides enough thrust to overcome the local gravity and drag, then you will not fall back down. If your thrust is more than enough to overcome gravity and drag, then you will accelerate.

Next time you want to discredit someone who knows what they're talking about, I suggest you make sure that you know what you're talking about too.

Re:Question

[snellgrove2]

Coooooool!!!!

Calculation Complete
The orbital velocity at 70000000000.00 kilometers is 0.00 km/sec! The period of the orbit is 3071888463277.06 minutes.

-hmm, maybe I should post this anonymously.. :P

Re:Question

[AKAImBatman]

There's some info on the Air Force's desires for the Shuttle on NASA's History Site. From the article:

One Air Force requirement that had a critical effect on the Shuttle design was cross range capability. The military wanted to be able to send a Shuttle on an orbit around the Earth's poles because a significant portion of the Soviet Union was at high latitudes near the Arctic Circle. The idea was to be able to deploy a reconnaissance satellite, retrieve an errant spacecraft, or even capture an enemy satellite, and then have the Shuttle return to its launch site after only one orbit to escape Soviet detection. Because the Earth rotates on its axis, by the time the Shuttle would return to its base, the base would have "moved" approximately 1,100 miles to the east. Thus the Shuttle needed to be able to maneuver that distance "sideways" upon reentering the atmosphere.

Given a choice between straight and delta wings, the latter perform much better in terms of cross range capability. Delta wings produce more lift at hypersonic speeds, enabling more maneuverability (Heppenheimer, p. 220). Given the requirement for cross range capability, a delta-winged vehicle became the clear choice. Additionally, delta-winged vehicles do not heat up as much as straight-winged vehicles during atmospheric reentry (Draper et al., p. 26), thus decreasing the need for expensive and potentially heavy thermal protection systems, although the thermodynamics are too complex to cover fully in this paper. Moreover, some aerodynamicists argued that delta-winged vehicles were a proven technology that provided good balance, stability, and aerodynamic control (Draper et al., pp. 29, 35).

Now you know why the Space Shuttle has stubby delta-wings for hypersonic flight. I'll see if I can dig up some other links.

Re:Question

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it a lot cheaper to inspect and re-apply a spray on material than it would be to remove, inspect, and re-attach 60,000 individual tiles.

The spray on can be applied by machine. The Space shuttle's tiles have to be maintained by hand. You can just peel off the old abblative before applying new. Tiles you alway wonder if there is some problem underneath that is not visible through the grout. Abblative's have no seams, can be re-applied in orbit, and cool the vehicle during re-entry.

The plasma torch concept is interesting, except of course that it you had that much spare energy on-board you would be better off using it to brake the spacecraft so it wouldn't be contacting the atmosphere at such terrific speeds.

Re:Question

[XryanX]

Not to sound rude, but I think you missed the joke. If I'm correct, the comment was about the people that come up with bullshit, unscientific answers as to why they think we didn't go to the moon.

Re:Question

[merlin_jim]

Actually, there is in fact a way to be in a stable balance of inertial and gravitational forces by thrusting straight up; just hit one of the lagrange points with no relative velocity and you'll be in a stable location. Not necessarily orbiting anything (other than the sun of course), but still...

Re:Question

[mlyle]

That isn't it.

The air force wanted "large cross range capability", in other words, the ability to glide in large distances. The Air Force's desire for 1100 miles of cross-range doesn't put the shuttle anywhere near the capability of doing a low altitude flyover of Soviet airspace-- Florida is a LONG glide from Russia for something that effectively drops like a brick.

The nefarious use of cross range capability would be for the Shuttle to be able to enter a polar orbit, grab a spy satellite, and come back around and land in the same field. The problem is, in the hour and a half that orbit would take, the Earth would rotate about 22 degrees. So for the Shuttle to land at the same field, it would need to glide about 1000 miles (depending on how far from the equator it was).

This has pretty obviously not been used. But the versatility that the high cross range capability provided has greatly eased shuttle operations and also makes the vehicle safer by adding additional abort capabilities.

Another point: cross range capability has nothing to do with the heat shields. The Shuttle has a huge amount of kinetic energy that has to be dissipated one way or another; and really, you don't have a lot of choice in how quickly you aerobrake. The high cross range capability required more wing area and wing mass; and if you had a lower surface area to mass ratio, you'd actually aerobrake more quickly and require additional shielding.

AoA doesn't really come into it much. Once you enter the atmosphere, you're losing huge amounts of velocity. At hypersonic velocities, L/D ratios are awful, pretty much no matter what your AoA is.

Re:Question

[forgetful_ca]

Nonsense. As long as you still have your towel, you're fine.

Re:Question

[ryanwright]

[quote]It would add a lot of time to the flight, but you would save all the fuel needed to get up through the first 50K or so, without having to piggyback off a 747.[/quote]
Seems like a waste of money to me. White Knight is essentially a normal aircraft. The fuel required to fly this vehicle to a medium altitude where Space Ship One is then released isn't that much. In fact, I doubt White Knight burns more than a hundred bucks in fuel on it's quickie trip to drop off the spacecraft.

Getting a balloon that high, carrying such a large payload, would require a significant amount of gas. Much more spendy, I'd imagine, than the standard jet fuel that powers White Knight.

Re:Question

[crizh]

TANSTAAFL.

To obtain the necessary height would require EXACTLY the same amount of energy as just accelerating to the appropriate speed directly. Always ignoring the complication of drag of course.

Re:Question

[Ignorant Aardvark]

You are confusing the fact that you may choose your acceleration rate with the idea that you don't have to attain a particular velocity to escape orbit.

Sorry, but you're still wrong. Let's try this simple exercise. Imagine a hypothetical craft that has finely-tuned engines capable of producing thrust at 1% above the gravitational pull at any given distance from Earth. Slowly ... very slowly, the craft would lift off from the surface of the Earth, travel through the atmosphere, reach space, etc., because at every point in its travels it would be accelerating just above whatever g is at its particular distance from the Earth.

Shut the engines off every so often to bleed off speed and stay at a slow velocity, but never shut off the engines long enough to allow your velocity away from the Earth to become negative. You could travel at 1 m/s away from the Earth in this fashion to any arbitrary distance; it would just take awhile.

The definition of escape velocity is the velocity at which a projectile must be fired from an object's surface in order to come to rest at infinity. In this way, you'll see that the ballistic object would only be travelling at Mach 25 at the Earth's surface, and would slow down over time as it was attracted by the Earth's gravity - but it would never slow down enough to come to an actual stop (and by that point it'd be an infinite number of light-years away and out of the effect of Earth's gravity).

Escape velocity is a concept which is misunderstood by a great number of people. It applies only to ballistical orbits; those which have a large initial input of energy and then none thereafter. Obviously, everything we have ever done in spaceflight uses rockets and steady acceleration rather than a huge initial boost of energy which would liquify people and flatten the spacecraft. Escape velocity is a term that really doesn't apply to spacecraft with thrusters on them, because as long as you keep increasing your distance from the Earth, you'll escape.

I'd also like to point out that escape velocity is a function of the mass of the planet and the inverse-square of the distance to that planet. Yes, to eventually escape from a planet's gravity well you would have to exceed escape velocity - but that escape velocity is not anything so concrete as "Mach 25". The farther away from the planet, the lower the escape velocity is. With my aforementioned example of a craft that is always moving 1 m/s away from the Earth, keep on thrusting until you reach a distance from Earth at which point the escape velocity is 1 m/s, and boom, you can turn off your engines and you'll still be free from the Earth forever.

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

That depends on the weight of the engine. Seeing as you're an engineering student and all, you're probably assuming a weightless engine and no air resistance, neither of which should be ignored.

Re:Question

[chainsaw1]

AS the other pos(t)er said, geo-orbit is the minimum distance you have to be to go stright up (no horisontal speed) and achieve orbit. I think this also assumes the Earth's rotational speed is inherited by your spacecraft (IANARS).For comparison:

Today's SS1 launch went to 100km

A Space Shuttle can go to ~300km (plus a huge amount of horizontal speed.. depends on cargo weight probably). Based on what I've heard, the ISS is a bit farther out than this... there is only 1 shuttle that can reach it)

Geosynchronous Orbit is at 35,786 km. A _lot_ higher up.

Info from:
http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/rocket _sci/sa tellites/geo-high.html

Re:Question

[Ignorant Aardvark]

But they can't re-use the fuel! So, declare the hydrogen filling of the ballon as the fuel and presto :)

The hydrogen filling of the balloon is fuel. Well, I can't particularly speak to the plan used by this particular team, but here's how I'd do it. I'd have my hydrogen balloon double as initial lift through the atmosphere and fuel tank. Once you get to an altitude at which the balloon really isn't helping very much, you start sucking the hydrogen into your engine, mix it with oxygen, and use it as a fuel source for your conventional thrusters to get the rest of the way out of the atmosphere.

Yes, I know some of you are going to say there isn't a lot of oxygen high up in the atmosphere; I was thinking more along the lines of bringing it in the traditional way that the space shuttle does, i.e. in liquid form in tanks.

Re:Question

[iabervon]

If I'm doing my math right, in order to have sufficient energy from gravitational potential to be able to fall into orbit, you need to get twice the 'r' that you will have in orbit. That means that, in order to get in orbit at the edge of space, you'd have to fly straight up to 6478km above sea level and then do a perfect swoop without an atmosphere.

Getting to the right altitude is only half of the trip to orbit, and you start at 98% of the right altitude, due to taking off from the surface, rather than the center, of the the earth.

Re:Question

[AKAImBatman]

Actually, there is in fact a way to be in a stable balance of inertial and gravitational forces by thrusting straight up; just hit one of the lagrange points

Except that you'd have to thrust 930,000 miles before you hit the L1 point (the closest). I think that's a bit more than the 200-1000 miles that current space craft have reached. Not to mention that orbital velocity allows you to "steal" energy from the earth via a slingshot effect, thus allowing you to thrust just about anywhere with orders of magnitude less fuel.

Re:Question

[Rei]

Ah, by "low altitude", you mean many kilometers. :) Basically, the requirement was to be able to be able to launch and retrieve polar satellites. Of course, there are other reasons to want polar orbit satellites than the USSR, but the point is well taken. :)

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure from high school physics, we all remember that kinetic energy is given by (1/2)*m*v^2. So, something going 8 times faster has 64 times as much kinetic energy.

Re:Question

[corngrower]

You're correct up to a point. You really do want to get to orbital velocity as quickly as possible, for the reasons you state. Once you have orbital velocity, you're free to accelerate as quickly or as slowly as you want. But you might as well accelerate quickly, you'll get to the destination faster.

You definitely do not want to sit around hoovering on your engines.

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Sigh. I'm embarassed for all the lovely ladies of /. right now. Why must the dimwit identify itself as female? Does it believe that it will be forgiven its idiocies for lacking a "Y" chromosome? I weep.

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

That brings up one of my favorite Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy quotes:

"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy has this to say on the subject of flying. There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. Pick a nice day, it suggests, and try it.

"The first part is easy. All it requires is simply the ability to throw yourself forward with all your weight, and the willingness not to mind that it's going to hurt. That is, it's going to hurt if you fail to miss the ground.

"Most people fail to miss the ground and if they are really trying properly, the likelihood is that they will fail to miss it fairly hard. Clearly, it is this second part, the missing, which presents the difficulties."

Re:Question

[Slashamatic]

I thought the problem with cross-range is that it meant that the reentry profile had to be shallower with more of the Shuttle underside being heated as it is flying more level.

What I don't understand is that reentry with a high AoA would only cause heating at the base and for a shorter period (although arguably the same energy must be lost, so the base must get hotter).

Re:Question

[NineteenSixtyNine]

Yeah, but thier main spacecraft is pedal-powered.

Re:Question

[Rei]

Applied by a machine that gets a deep, even, and well secured coating over the entire surface of an irregularly craft? The same argument could have been made about the space shuttle tiles ;) But really, that's cutting corners. You need *inspection* of the whole surface to make sure that it actually is adhering evenly and securely. If you can just "peel off" the ablative, it's a lousy material to use in such a high stress environment.

For example, look at the case of the X15 A-2, which used spray-on ablatives. They found that it took 20 days to fully refurbish the surface, and that there *still* were ablator-to-skin bonding problems. While the tech has gotten better sicne then, it's still not great. Ablatives have other problems - you have to be gentle with the material once applied (just like tiles), you can't walk on it or anything for inspection, you can't remove panels without leaving cracks very easily, they're more chemical-succeptible than tiles (spill some liquid oxygen on it, and you've lost your protection), etc. They're really not the answer for reusability; they work well for a "single time" on a "ready to launch craft", but beyond that....

Re:Question

[ckaminski]

From what I've read, the SSME maintenance rebuilds are the single largest per-launch refurbishment cost. I can't imagine that replacing 20,000 tiles comes anywhere near the complexity of maintaining a powerplant that's routinely driven at 110% of it's rated design power. 3 of them, no less.

Re:Question

[Rubyflame]

Um, that last "9" in your sig should be a "6".

Re:Question

[sik0fewl]

Ah, but speed doesn't have direction. :)

Re:Question

[raygundan]

Again, you're wrong, as I was trying to point out clearly and without attacking you. Just capitalizing "CAN'T" and "NOT" doesn't make it so. I was careful to point out in my post that doing things this way is impractical currently. There is no way to do it with a chemical rocket for the reasons you state-- the more fuel you carry the more fuel you need to carry, etc...

That doesn't mean it's impossible to putter into space at 1mph under constant thrust. Just saying "but we can't build it that way now" doesn't mean physics forbids you. Newton's laws are quite clear-- if we apply a force that is greater than g in the opposite direction, we'll just hover. If we apply a bit more, we'll move slowly away from the Earth.

You COULD just add the speed later. Again, as I said in my post but which you apparently ignored in rebutting me-- it's impractical now, especially with chemical rockets. But there is nothing preventing it in physics. Just in budgets.

This is a silly argument, though-- I'm saying "the laws say it's possible, but it's damn expensive to build" and you're saying "It's impossible because we couldn't afford to build it." You're wrong, but the difference is a small semantic one, not one with your understanding of the physics. It's possible. Just not likely, and damn expensive.

Re:Question

[AKAImBatman]

Thanks for your corrections.

AoA doesn't really come into it much. Once you enter the atmosphere, you're losing huge amounts of velocity. At hypersonic velocities, L/D ratios are awful, pretty much no matter what your AoA is.

It depends. Obviously, the atmosphere is much thinner the higher up you go. The sooner you can obtain a flight envelope (rather than the "falling refrigerator" configuration of the shuttle), the longer you can take in your descent. Keep in mind that the Space Shuttle intentionally bleeds off a lot of speed by doing a supersonic slalom on the way down. This is such a difficult flight path, that only one human has ever flown reentry on manual. All other flights were handled by the computer. There's a nice description of reentry here.

At least two designs other than the shuttle's current one were considered:

On faster descent:

Despite these arguments that eventually prevailed, at least one straight-wing design was prominent for a time, in part because of its designer. Max Faget, the chief engineer at NASA's Manned Spacecraft Center (later renamed the Johnson Space Center), drew up plans for two straight-winged vehicles--one an orbiter and the other a booster stage--that rode piggyback and were both piloted and fully reusable. [snip] Faget argued that his design would enable the orbiter to return to Earth at a sharp angle that would significantly heat only the orbiter's lower surfaces (Faget, pp. 52-54)

On slower descent:

If it weren't for the payload bay requirement, a lifting body configuration might have worked well. Lifting bodies could have been a good compromise between ballistic capsules and delta- or straight-winged vehicles. They are lighter, have simpler structures, and encounter fewer reentry heating problems than winged vehicles. Lifting bodies have better lift-to-drag ratios than ballistic capsules, which enables them to be piloted more accurately (Peebles, December 1979, p. 487). Lifting bodies had even been considered for the Apollo command modules (Peebles, November 1979, p. 439). Throughout the 1960s and early 1970s, NASA and the Air Force had conducted significant research on various lifting body programs such as the X-23A and the X-24A, demonstrating, among other characteristics, the maneuverability of wingless vehicles (Reed, pp. 129--131, 140).

Source

I don't have a link at the moment, but descent was a big problem in the early rocket plane experiments. If they descended too slowly, they'd lose their flight envelope and become difficult to control. But if they descended too quickly, the craft would heat up at an incredible rate.

Re:Question

[barawn]

Not true. It is not trivially easy to build up that extra velocity, because you have to lug all of the extra propellant through the atmosphere.

Well, kindof true. If you want to have a single-vehicle-to-orbit solution, yah, you have to lug all of the extra propellant. But there are solutions in design which could definitely utilize a suborbital reusable spacecraft.

In fact, you can make docking and pickup very easy, if you make the rotation opposite the direction of orbit at the right rotation to match velocities. Someone would have to do the math on the acceleration to figure out how big it would be to allow for safe human transport on the craft, but it's definitely doable for small satellites.

Anyway, I know I'm glossing over a lot of details (like how do you guarantee the "human module" that an SS1-like craft would dump off has a safe abort procedure) but the point is that there can be very interesting uses for a suborbital craft. You're out of the atmosphere. That's a huge benefit right there.

Re:Question

[nyekulturniy]

It should reach space, provided the engine can deliver 10,000 N of thrust for an extended period. It would need some very potent fuel to do that, wouldn't it?

Re:Question

[at_kernel_99]

Last time I heard anything about OSes in Rutan craft, it was Apple(scroll down to 'General Aviation's golden years').

More info here.

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

A French paper in 1913, reprinted in a 1958 book by Andrew Halley

Wow...

Re:Question

[mlyle]

There were concepts in the late 60's that were designed to fly different reentry profiles; I think you're thinking of the "stubby" shuttle concept (it flew a high AoA, didn't have much wing area, and focused a lot of design effort on putting thermals in a couple of narrow regions).

You are correct, though -- not having to satisfy any cross-range requirements in your design does mean you can control where the heat goes more easily; but overall heat loading remains about the same.

Re:Question

[Dr. Evil]

I think there's some trolling moderation going on... but I have to agree with the fellow who everyone is calling a twit. Here we go:

"However, if you provide a continual thrust that everywhere is greater than the local acceleration due to Earth's gravity, you will never fall back down."

*cough* If you're providing continual thrust to counteract the acceleration due to earth's gravity YOU HAVEN'T ESCAPED GRAVITY!

By your logic, a helicopter has escaped the earth's gravity. It produces a constant thrust which keeps it in "orbit" or as it accelerates vertically away from the earth, it's "escaped".

When you alter the definition of the phrase "escape the earth's gravity", then yes, mach 25 is meaningless! (and some rough numbers I worked out have it closer to Mach 32)

You're being silly and ignoring the physics of the whole thing. Of course sucking away the Earth's atmosphere and instantaneously accelerating an object to Mach32 is not a practical way to launch an object into an infinite orbit... but it is the speed you would posess on the earth, at sea level, measured in mach (prior to sucking away the atmosphere) to be able to get there.

Somehow you must attain that velocity relative to the earth which dictates the energy required to escape the earth's gravity.

Re:Question

[AKAImBatman]

You are correct, though -- not having to satisfy any cross-range requirements in your design does mean you can control where the heat goes more easily; but overall heat loading remains about the same.

Isn't thermodynamics wonderful? Yep, you get the same amount of heat no matter how fast or slow you descend. The primary thing that changes is how fast you can dissipate that heat. If a large buildup is allowed, your craft will become a crispy critter in no time flat. :-)

Re:Question

[rpj1288]

I believe that the Da Vinci X Prize team may be trying something like this, but correct me if I'm wrong.

Re:Question

[dylan_-]

A handy excuse to help you out:

"They don't have sarcasm on Betelgeuse, and Ford Prefect often failed to notice it unless he was concentrating."

Re:Question

[f97tosc]

" Other than that you can "orbit" at any speed (v) you want as long as your altitude (r) makes the above equations balance."

No. Your equations are correct of course but they assume no air drag. You have to both leave the athmosphere AND reach the appropriate speed for the altitude.

An important border case example of this is the ISS. It is at 300-400 km but because of the (very very thin) athmosphere it slowly slows down and falls towards lower and lower orbits. For that reason the supply ships need to bring fuel so that it can bolster its orbit before it is too late.

Tor

Re:Question

[Smidge204]

I'm not quite sure where all this "falling into orbit" talk came from. It makes no sense whatsoever to go out past your orbit altitude just to "fall" back down into the desired orbit.

You are right that energy is what it's all about... but not speed as the OP suggested. For spaceships, available energy is a matter of fuel capacity. First, you would need energy to move against the gravitational field (and air resistance/other losses), then you would need energy to get my craft moving fast enough to maintain orbit.

That still has nothing to do with "speed" to maintain orbit. Fact is speed is still a function of altitude.
=Smidge=

Re:Question

[Rei]

I like the idea of tethers - I really do. But so far, our experiments with space tethers have been disatrous. Also, without payloads to send back, tethers need to *themselves* be able to supply the thrust needed to lift the craft up. Furthermore, if they're dipping down to 62 km, they'll be having to counter a bit of wind resistance - more, I'd imagine, than an ion drive could make up for.

I don't think the technology is there yet. :(

Re:Question

[pjt48108]

A Space Shuttle can go to ~300km (plus a huge amount of horizontal speed.. depends on cargo weight probably). Based on what I've heard, the ISS is a bit farther out than this... there is only 1 shuttle that can reach it)

Actually, all the remaining shuttles can reach ISS orbit. Columbia was too heavy, as I recall, and also didn't have the appropriate space in the cargo bay for a docking unit.

Re:Question

[Smidge204]

That is correct, however compensating for air drag is a matter of energy and not speed. My reply was refuting the OP's comment that height was irrelevant, which of corse it's not.
=Smidge=

Re:Question

[Ethidium]

James Van Allen did this back in 1953. Not carrying humans, but his "rockoons" got instruments relatively high up in the atmosphere for not much money.

By the way, contrary to popular assumption Dr. Van Allen is still alive and still working at the University of Iowa as a professor emeritus. His autobiography is here

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

you dont need to keep accelerating...if your initial velocity is v, all you need to do is keep your engine thrust equal to g. when you exit the atmosphere, you will still have a velocity of v!

put that in your pipe and smoke it!

Re:Question

[Rei]

The SSMEs run at 110% (actually, 109%) due to a historical issue; the original version of the engines was rated at 100%; as the engines were improved, their output was increased accordingly, but the figures were never recentered. They were run at 102% until the new Block II engines were added in 2001.

I haven't seen a breakdown of costs - if you could find one, I'd appreciate it.

BTW, I think Boeing's "Space Lifter" (aka "Ariane-Killer") was an interesting design. It called for SSMEs, which are very reliable and efficient - but throttled at only 75% (making it more like an aircraft, in which the engines aren't run at their tolerance and can withstand the loss of an engine; less wear, less catastrophic failure, etc). :) If a company like Boeing considered SSMEs where the goal of the craft was cheap reusable launch, they can't be *that* expensive to maintain. They're very good engines, too - they have one of the best records of any large-scale rocket engine, reusable or not.

Re:Question

[Joe the Lesser]

Personally, I think it's a matter of weight ratios!

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Take a look at TG's other posts. Not too bad. I suspect TG (trans-gender) had her/his hormone shots today, putting her/him/hir out of whack. I've seen this before.

Re:Question

[JohnFluxx]

Unless they run out of gas before they hit the bottom.

Re:Question

[barawn]

Furthermore, if they're dipping down to 62 km, they'll be having to counter a bit of wind resistance - more, I'd imagine, than an ion drive could make up for.

100 km, not 62 km. 62 miles. (What, you thought they chose it in imperial? :) ). At 100 km, you've got 0.00003% of the atmosphere left. While you will have air resistance, it's so small that I think it can be neglected. When the tether is unloaded, it probably also would have a negligibly small cross-section. In addition, it's only travelling at mach 3 with respect to the atmosphere at the worst density! It has very little to worry about when it comes to atmospheric drag.

Also, read the link I provided. The thrust is provided by electromagnetism, pushing against the Earth's magnetic field, powered probably by solar panels, most likely situated at the center of mass.

It should also be pointed out that our current experiments with space tethers have been phenomenally successful, not disastrous. The one experiment generated so much electricity that the tether essentially exploded. In this case, however, you'd prefer the tether not generate electricity. Again, not hard to do by design.

Re:Question

[ek_adam]

Depends on your definition of a stable orbit. No orbit outside one of the L5 points is truly stable.

Re:Question

[ultranova]

A little correction: they started from the base of the hill (well, actually no - the base of the hill is at the planets center) and accelerated upwards, then switched to neutral.

They did not have any nice flat ground to gather speed first.

Re:Question

[CrowScape]

Except the twit is saying you must reach 25,000mph in order to escape the Earth's pull, not simply "reach escape velocity". If I travel at a constant 1m/s up from the Earth's surface, I will eventually put enough distance between myself and the Earth that a mere 1m/s is enough to escape Earth's gravity well, as gravity's strength decreases exponentially the further away you get.

Re:Question

[Chibu]

Actually, SpaceShipOne was piggybacking off of a very small plane. Nowhere near 747 size. I luckily was able to attend the launch (having only hear about it 2 hours before it started)

Re:Question

[igny]

eliminating the need for contact all together.

will it pass through the Earth in similar fashion as well?

Re:Question

[ultranova]

F = G*m1*m2/(r^2)

Shouldn't this be F = f*m1*m2/(r^2) where f = gravitational constant ? G = gm...

So the final equation would be v = sqr(f*mEarth/r) ?

Re:Question

[jwdb]

Sure. How about the Saturn rocket? I expect that the thrust it produced was slightly larger than it's weight.

My point is that you do not need to reach Mach 25 to get into orbit - you only need a constant thrust to counteract gravity.

Jw

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

"Sorry but your knowledge of basic high school physics "

Bwahaha, coming from such a fertile mind that gave us this gem...
Go back to your make-up and cooking, woman.

Re:Question

[spacerodent]

don't forget according to anime constant thrust==constant acceleration

Re:Question

[Smidge204]

G is the gravitational constant. 6.673e-11 m^3/kg-sec^2. Small g is generally used for near-earth gravity acceleration 9.82 m/s^2

=Smidge=

Re:Question

[autopr0n]

My back of the envelope (pun not intended) calculations showed that the mass that would have been used for a ballon would be better spent on a bigger booster.

I'm sure it would be cheaper and much less dangerous though. I doubt the Xprise people would care.

Re:Question

[Sqwubbsy]

Sure, hydrogen has a fraction of the mass of air at STP, but you are still talking about tons of it.

Man, that's funny.

Re:Question

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

This month's Skeptical Inquirer had an article about cold war ballons used for spying and sensing atomic blasts.

They were some 300 feet in diameter, about 2x the volume of the Hindenberg, and would reach heights of 100,000 feet or more. They could carry tons of equipment (one 4 ton camera is mentioned.) All this started in 1947.

It's old tech.

So yes, folks, "someone should do", has already been done.

Re:Question

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

BTW, it was called project Skyhook, and it was in SI because it was the source of many a UFO sighting.

Re:Question

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> The amount of propellant doesn't rise linearly, either: it rises exponentially.

People always say this. Are they sure they don't mean geometrically?

Re:Question

[Rei]

Lets assume a 3cm thickness cable, that extends from 100km to 300km, centered at 200km. That's a cross-sectional area of 6,000 m^3. Pretty hard to overcome that... that's the sort of cross sectional area of a blimp cutting through the atmosphere's fringes ;)

Electromagnetic tethers are still just theory currently, although I strongly support their use :)

Heh, you call an broken tether a success? :) The reason that it broke wasn't due to how much power it produced; that was calculated in advance. It got cut in half because air trapped in the insulation allowed for plasma generation, and the plasma cut the tether neatly. But even unpowered tethers have been complete failures, such as the attempt to have a spinning craft for "artificial gravity". I can't think of a single successful space tether experiment thus far.

Re:Question

[Rei]

An exponential curve is e^x. Seems to fit this situation.

Re:Question

[Richthofen80]

The exotic widget you're referring to can be achieved. Explode a directional nuclear reaction to your rear. i mean, i suppose blowing something like that up in the atmosphere, even high up and very thin, is probably a bad thing environmentally, but there's your thrust.

Re:Question

[CrimsonAvenger]

Except that you'd have to thrust 930,000 miles before you hit the L1 point (the closest)

930,000 miles? I think not. Especially given that L4 & 5 are only 238,000 miles away.

Even so, going to L-x in s straight line doesn't put you into orbit. If you went straight up to any L-x position, you'd be there with a speed ~1km/s away from orbital speed, and immediately after ceasing thrust, you'd fall back out of the sky - it'd take you a few days to smack into the ground, but smack into the ground you would.

Re:Question

[CrimsonAvenger]

I'd also like to point out that escape velocity is a function of the mass of the planet and the inverse-square of the distance to that planet.

No. Escape speed is a function of the mass of the planet and the distance to the planet.

Specifically, Vesc = 2*r*g, where r is the distance from the planet, and g is *local* gravity. Which local gravity varies as the inverse square of the distance. So Vesc reduces to 2*G*m/r, where G is the Universal Gravitiational Constant, m is the mass of the planet (or other such body as you care to determine an escape speed from), r is the distance to that planet (or other...), and 2 is, well, 2.

Re:Question

[AKAImBatman]

See for yourself. L4 is 93,000,000 miles out. Or are we talking Earth/Moon L points? That would still be 200,000 miles out for L1.

Re:Question

[ISPpfy]

One word: Vandenberg. That's where the Polar Orbital flights were supposed to originate. It was built before the Challenger accident - and mothballed immediately thereafter.

Re:Question

[Dr. Evil]

So how fast would you hit the atmosphere if you cut your engines at that near-infinite distance from the earth?

Where did that energy come from?

Ignoring energy requirements and declaring that your distance increases 1m every second as you leave the earth, is a really boring way to speak about the physics of the situation. Theoretically, unless gravity is quantinized, you can never escape the earth's gravity. When you cut that engine, a few hundred million millenia later, you'll graze sea level of the atmosphere-devoid earth somewhere around Mach 32. . .

. . . assuming an empty infinite universe with nothing but you and the somewhat stationary earth of course. But even in a full universe, the gravitational effect of the earth will still be there. You just won't get to measure the impact because something else will have a stronger attraction than the earth.

So if you start the experiment with the mach 32 object at sea level on the atmosphere devoid earth, it will fire out to the near-infinite point once again, hanging around for near-infinite time.

. . . Any faster and it will be an "infinite" time, but that's getting mathematically obtuse.

Re:Question

[CrimsonAvenger]

I sincerely hope we weren't talking Sun/Earth Lagrange points! But if we were, my apologies to you....

Re:Question

[TheGavster]

The insulating coating on the large fuel tank is a spray-on system; note how that really didn't work out so well, what with the large air cavities causing big chunks to flake off.

Re:Question

[barawn]

Lets assume a 3cm thickness cable, that extends from 100km to 300km, centered at 200km. That's a cross-sectional area of 6,000 m^3. Pretty hard to overcome that... that's the sort of cross sectional area of a blimp cutting through the atmosphere's fringes ;)

6000 m^2, not m^3. Except for the fact that the atmosphere decays exponentially with a scale height of 10 km. So if you wanted to take that into account, the drag would be something like the equivalent of 300 m^2 at 100 km (integral of 6000*e(^-x/10000) from 0-200,000, roughly).

Plus it's rotating, so its profile is only 6000 m^2 when it's flat against the atmosphere. On average, it's half that. So its profile is 3000 m^2.

Plus you're not taking into account the differential velocities. At 100 km, it'd only be travelling at mach 3, or 1 km/s, right? Orbital velocity at 100 km is about 8 km/s. That means that, roughly, it's going to experience 64 times less drag than an orbital object at 100 km. I'm not going to take the time to work out all the math, but sufficient to say, I doubt it would be an insurmountable amount of drag. Even 300 m^2 is not much more than the ISS, and the ISS only needs reboosting every 90 days or so.

It's also important to realize you're talking about fluid flow here, and a tiny, thin piece of ribbon is not going to act the same as a very large flat object - the flow is going to probably be completely laminar, with very little resistance at all. They don't teach drag along with friction because drag is very, very hard.

I can't think of a single successful space tether experiment thus far.

Hmm, is this the same experiment? Were there two? This was a Columbia-based mission.

Although the board found that the tether's insulation was more vulnerable to damage than the experiment's designers had believed, they also found that the problem "is not indicative of any fundamental problem in using electrodynamic tethers." In fact, while the tether was operating it produced currents three times higher than theoretical models had predicted prior to the flight, the board reported.

As for successful space tethers, SEDS 2, SEDS 1. We'll never know about ProSEDS, since it was cancelled.

Re:Question

[AKAImBatman]

I sincerely hope we weren't talking Sun/Earth Lagrange points! But if we were, my apologies to you....

Indeed, I was. I tend not to even think about the Moon's Lagrange points. I guess I've always considered the Moon's pull to be too weak to be of much use in stabilizing a station there. i.e. It would be too easy to accidently drift out of the gravitational "lock-in". OTOH, the Earth/Moon L1 point was featured in Jules Verne's "A Trip from the Earth to the Moon" and its "sequel", so I guess I should remember it better than that.

Re:Question

[babbage]

In otherwords, remember the gag from one of the later Hitchhiker's books where it is said that the trick to learning how to fly is to fling yourself at the ground with great vigor, but forget to actually land? Douglas Adams was joking around, of course, but this isn't such a bad description of how orbital dynamics work.

Bodies in orbit are flinging themselves to the side at exactly the same speed that the earth is pulling them inwards, such that they just happen to keep missing the ground.

I'm going to mangle the math here, for which I apologize in advance, but please bear with me, because this stuff is neat. For a body the size of the earth, the speed you need to keep a body in orbit -- that is, the speed at which you have to fling yourself perpindicular to the planet's downward pull in order to sustain a perpetual balance above the planet's surface -- is something like 17,500 miles per hour. At lower orbits, this translates to an orbital time of around 90 minutes, which is what the space shuttle sees. If you push out from the earth though, there's a height at which the rate at which you fall towards/around the earth just happens to be identical to the speed at which the planet rotates on its access. This height works out to something like 22,000 miles up, and if you put a body in orbit there, it will just happen to give the illusion of hovering over a single point on the planet's surface, perpetually, more or less forever.

Hey presto, geosynchronous orbit.

Douglas Adams was talking about something else -- something that doesn't seem to be possible -- but he happened to convey a very good sense of how orbits work in the process.

Re:Question

[GileadGreene]

And in order to "never fall back down" you MUST eventually achieve a speed of ~25Kmph or you most certainly WILL fall back down. I know you don;t understand any of this but it's true none the less.

Uh, I hate to burst your bubble, but this is essentially false. The so-called "escape velocity" is simply the instantaneous velocity that you would need to have to be in a parabolic orbit (i.e. one at which you have zero velocity at an "infinite distance" - usually equated with the edge of the Earth's "sphere of influence" - from the Earth), thus giving you some idea of the delta-v (change in velocity between your current geocentric velocity and escape velocity) that you would need to generate in order to "escape Earth's influence". The instantaneous "escape velocity" is actually a vector, and should be directed perpendicular to the vector from the center of the Earth to your spacecraft. If you generated a greater instantaneous velocity (with the same direction) you would end up in a hyperbolic trajectory - this is how interplanetary missions are typically launched, because they want enough "hyperbolic excess" velocity at the edge of the Earth's sphere of influence to enable them to proceed into a heliocentric orbit that is substantially different than the Earth's orbit about the Sun. If you generated a smaller instantaneous velocity you would end up in an elliptical orbit about the Earth. Generate too small a velocity, and you end up in a ballistic trajectory - your "orbit" intersects the surface of the Earth.

Note that all of the above is couched in terms of instantaneous delta-v's (which is typically how very preliminary trajectory calculations are done), and neglects atmospheric drag effects. In real life a rocket burns for a finite (rather than infinitesimal) amount of time so there is no instantaneous delta-v. You have to take into account atmospheric drag, gravity losses, and the fact that pure Keplerian orbit mechanics don't apply to a thrusting spacecraft. Bottom line: "escape velocity" is a convenient back-of-the-envelope number derived from simplifying assumptions, and is really only applicable if you are interested in going interplanetary.

Disclaimer: I am not a rocket scientist. I am however a spacecraft systems engineer with a rough grasp of basic astrodynamics.

Re:Question

[BagMan2]

In gaseous form the hydrogen/helium in the balloon isn't going to add up to much energy for thrust. After all, it has to weigh less than the air it is displacing and then some.

Re:Question

[homer_ca]

The part that failed on the Columbia wasn't the ceramic heat tiles, it was the wing leading edge made from carbon-carbon composite. The only other things I know of that use that material are brake rotors for Formula 1 cars. It withstands higher temperatures than the tiles and covers the nose and wing leading edges. It's also very expensive and difficult to produce, even more so than the tiles. Apparently, they're so rare and expensive they didn't even have a spare one on which to test fire the foam during the accident investigation. The RCC panel used in the test came from the Shuttle Atlantis.

Re:Question

[CrimsonAvenger]

I guess I've always considered the Moon's pull to be too weak to be of much use in stabilizing a station there. i.e. It would be too easy to accidently drift out of the gravitational "lock-in".

Hmm, seems to me that Jupiter's gravity would have more effect on the Sun/Earth L4/5 points than Earth's does. So the Sun/Earth L1 is probably the only one of that set worth even talking about. But Earth/Moon L4/5 should be more stable...I think (not like I've run the numbers, or anything ;) )

Re:Question

[Yarn]

Erp. Guilty as charged. I hope I don't have to hand my degrees back :(

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you mean constant thrust==constant velocity?

Re:Question

[Ignorant Aardvark]

You're right, thanks for noticing my mistake and correcting it. Of course it's 2GM/r ... I was just confusing it with GMm/r^2.

Re:Question

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Florida is a LONG glide from Russia for something that effectively drops like a brick.

Which reminds me of something I heard once about the Shuttle Atlantis.

"How would you like," the pithy quote goes, "to try to land a dead-stick glider on a tiny strip of land in the middle of the ocean when the vehicle you're riding in was named after something that disappeared beneath the ocean without a trace?"

Re:Question

[srleffler]

This has no meaning. You can't "fall" into an orbit. An orbit is falling. If you are outside the atmosphere and turn off your engines, the path of your ship is fixed. To a good approximation (neglecting the atmosphere, the moon, and the rest of the solar system), if your ship is below escape velocity it is either in an elliptical or circular orbit, or it is on an elliptical path that re-intersects the atmosphere. (There is no fundamental difference between the elliptical paths that re-intersect the atmosphere and an elliptical orbit, by the way.)

Re:Question

[ultranova]

When I was learning physics, i was told that G is quickhand for gravitational force, that is, G = mg. The gravitational constant was marked by f.

Can it really have been so long ago, that the markings have changed... ?

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

The enviromental concerns are overblown, if you think back you'll realise there were alot of nukes detonated in open air. And they wern't to concerned about the bombs being as clean as possible back then either. Something that you can design a nuke for if you want to.

Quickshot

Re:Question

[Moofie]

you could also dig a big hole in the ground and travel through the earth's crust to get from California to Hawaii, but it's still a pretty stupid idea.

The air resistance at that altitude, at the speed required, is seriously non-trivial. Get to LEO.

Re:Question

[CrowScape]

Look, the statement that we are dealing with is "you MUST reach 25,000mph to escape the gravitational pull of the Earth," not "it is more efficient/practical with current means to reach 25,000mph to escape the gravitational pull of the Earth." If you're going to argue against something make sure you know what that something is.

If you would like a potential real life scienerio in the future, look to the concept of the space elevator. Cimb it up to the point where you're in a perfect geosynchronous orbit with the planet (approximately 22,236 miles). Climb it at any speed you want using any energy source you want, it need not be 25,000mph using a chemical rocket. Once you're there, leave the elevator. Take a rock (you did remember to bring a rock, right?), chuck it down to the Earth. Congratulations! You have reached escape velocity, and the fastest you have traveled is just a smidge over 6,876mph (your tangential velocity).

Re:Question

[Moofie]

ISS isn't really in a low-earth orbit. Obviously, this is all very fuzzy taxonomy, but ISS is generally considered to be in a medium-altitude orbit.

But you're right...inclination has nothing to do with whether or not something is a low-earth orbit.

Re:Question

[Moofie]

PE=mgh
KE=mv^2/2

V has to be really really really really big. KE for orbits is an order of magnitude greater than PE.

So, you are not doing your math right. How would you "fall" into orbit anyhow? The conic section you follow (parabola, hyperbola, circle, ellipse) is defined by your energy state. Unless you change your energy state, you'll stay on that conic section.

Re:Question

[tyler_larson]

it's not a matter of height, it's a matter of speed.
Here is a nice orbital velocity calculator.

Using that calculator: Enter the altitude above the earth in kilometers: 100 (how high SS1 flew today)

- - - - - - - - - -

Calculation Complete
An orbit less than about 185 kilometers is not stable.

- - - - - - - - - -

Then, apparently it is a matter of height... at least to a degree.

Re:Question

[Rei]

While a particle experiences drag along with the velocity proportional to V, a cable experiences it proportional to V^2.

While due to rotation the cable experiences almost no resistance at its lowest point, at its highest point it is moving about double the orbital velocity, and since we're looking at V^2 here, that should be 4x resistance. So, lets just do a quick and easy breakdown of the cable into thirds: lets say that the lowest 2000m^2 of the cable is experiencing resistance proportional to (1/3v)^2 at altitude 150km; that the middle 2000m^2 is encountering resistance proportional to v^2 at altitude 200km; and the upper 2000m^2 is encountering resistance proportional to (2v)^2 at altitude 275km. Sound reasonable? In reality, due to the fact that the lowest part will be still encountering significant resistance despite its relative motion, the numbers will be worse.

The density of air D at a given altitude is roughly d0*e^(-alt*1.43e-4); d0=1.29kg/m^3. That means that we're looking at 5.769e-10 at 150km, 4.895e-13 kg/m^3 at 200km, and 1.076e-17 kg/m^3 at 275km. Our orbital velocity v will equal sqrt(G*Mearth/(alt+Rearth)) = 7782m/s. Drag = 1/2 * C * D * A * v^2. Substituting, we get drag=0.0296C at 200km, negligable at 275km... but at 150km, we get 3.88C. So, I suppose if you had a very low value for C, and a big stock of ion drives or a good solid electromagnetic propulsion system, it might be possible to overcome for atmospheric drag... but it'd be no easy task. But on top of that, you have to lift a spacecraft.

Then, there's the other issues. Oscillations - both natural (such as atmospheric or magnetospheric drag) and induced (such as when the spacecraft is picked up). Charge buildup. Micrometeorites. Severe cable strain (I think you'll need a cable with a much bigger diameter than 3 cm!). Etc. It's a huge task.

Oh, and with SEDS 2, the tether snapped unexpectedly 3.7 days after deployment. I hadn't heard about SEDS 1. Note that these are simply tidally-locked tether systems, not rototethers.

Re:Question

[nlindstrom]

For an entertaining discussion of escape velocities and an illustration of why you can't just keep piling the fuel into a rocket and expect it to ever take off (the law of diminishing returns) see Robert Heinlein's classic work The Man Who Sold the Moon .

Re:Question

[Ignatius]

> I was thinking more along the lines of bringing it in the traditional way that the space shuttle does, i.e. in liquid form in tanks.

If you have to bring along the oxygen anyway, then this wouldn't be too helpful: 1 kg of oxygen can burn no more than 300g of kerosin, so more than 3/4 of the fuel would have to be LOX, anyway.

Also, the hydrogen would have to be compressed, befor it can be burned by conventional rocket engines. Also, a rocket is only effective if it accellerates at several g's, as the portion of thrust used to merely balance earth's gravity doesn't add to the kinetic energy of the vehicle and is basically lost; the drag of the balloon's hull would make this an impossibilty.

So you would have to deflate the balloon and compress the hydrogen into a compact tank befor you can fire the engines, all of this in a matter of seconds, as you are getting into free fall once you start the deflation.

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Since nobody answered the question correctly, the lowest stable orbit is about 115mi(185km) at 17,390mi/hr(7.79km/sec). At 185mi(300km) where the Shuttle orbits the velocity is about 1 percent less. A geosynchronous satellite orbits at 35,800 km and has a orbital velocity of 6720mi/hr(3.01km/sec). The Moon at 238,000(384,400km) travels at about 1km/sec.

All that crap about escape velocity was just that. All energy is spent on climbing out of the gravity well(aside from aerodynamic losses, of course). The orbital velocity is energy spent to fall around the earth.

All esoterica: air-launch, sea-launch, equator launch sites, airship-to orbit, and aerospikes are meant to maximize efficiency in the least efficient realm of traditional rocketry, the low altitude, high air pressure troposphere that kills specific impulse of rocket nozzles designed for space. All are looking for a better way to punch through that first 15-20 miles without burning rocket fuel. If you're going 200-300 miles why not hitch a free(or almost) ride for the most troublesome 5-10%?

Here's a javascript orbital period and velocity calculator.

Incidently, for that other questioner, if you simply go straight up, you will "fall into" orbit. It will simply be an elliptical orbit with near-infinite eccentricity.... and it will intersect with the surface of the Earth at whatever point is below you now that the Earth has had some time to turn.

You'll make one hell of an impression.

Re:Question

[HeghmoH]

Yes, I'm fully aware, that's the whole point of the sig. You're only the second person to find it, though, so congratulations. :-)

Re:Question

[GileadGreene]

but ISS is generally considered to be in a medium-altitude orbit

Not unless you are using a completely different taxonomy than everyone else. The ISS orbits at an altitude of 400 km (+/- around 20 km). That is most definitely LEO. You are right that there is a vagueness in the taxonomy, but in my experience the Medium Earth Orbit (MEO) region is generally considered to start somewhere between 800 km and 1400 km (Globalstar operates at ~1400 km, and is typically considered LEO), never as low as 400 km.

Re:Question

[fucksl4shd0t]

The guys that worked on that had a working model built using non-nuclear explosives. Can you get the extra thrust to get out of the atmosphere with chemical explosives and *then* use the nukes?

Mind you, the way I understand it, uranium is so hard to come by that it's impractical in the short-term for space travel, and unless we can find another supply 'up there' it'll rapidly become impractical in the long run.

Anybody know if it's possible to make thrust with pure electricity? Or does there have to be a chemical/nuclear reaction of some sort?

Re:Question

[fucksl4shd0t]

Thank you for clearing that up for me. Now I can clearly see that all you have to do to make space travel really feasible is change the gravitational constant of the universe.

Re:Question

[Smidge204]

Apparently they have!

I was always taught G as the gravitational constant, and F was force, as in F = ma ... or, for gravity near the surface of a planet, F = mg, where g is the gravitational acceleration (Earth being 9.82)

In other words, exactly the opposite of what you apparently learned! (Gotta love standards in convention)
=Smidge=

Re:Question

[barawn]

The density of air D at a given altitude is roughly d0*e^(-alt*1.43e-4); d0=1.29kg/m^3. That means that we're looking at 5.769e-10 at 150km, 4.895e-13 kg/m^3 at 200km, and 1.076e-17 kg/m^3 at 275km. Our orbital velocity v will equal sqrt(G*Mearth/(alt+Rearth)) = 7782m/s. Drag = 1/2 * C * D * A * v^2. Substituting, we get drag=0.0296C at 200km, negligable at 275km... but at 150km, we get 3.88C. So, I suppose if you had a very low value for C, and a big stock of ion drives or a good solid electromagnetic propulsion system, it might be possible to overcome for atmospheric drag... but it'd be no easy task. But on top of that, you have to lift a spacecraft.

No, you don't need to "lift the spacecraft" - your momentum will do that. The ribbon will simply slow down and enter a lower orbit, depending on its relative mass compared to the spacecraft, at which point it will need to raise itself to a higher orbit again, which can take as long as you need. A few solar panels and probably in a day or so it's back at normal orbit. They're just orbital momentum storage devices, that's all.

And C_d for a thin ribbon would be of order or less than 0.1. At the low point it's less than a newton of force.

Well, more than that. The atmospheric drag equation doesn't work at high relative velocities and low densities like we're trying to use. Considering the shape of the cable, I doubt that it'd be proportional to v^2 at all.

Oscillations - both natural (such as atmospheric or magnetospheric drag) and induced (such as when the spacecraft is picked up). Charge buildup. Micrometeorites. Severe cable strain (I think you'll need a cable with a much bigger diameter than 3 cm!).

All the effort you spent trying to debunk atmospheric drag - very strange. You could've just worked out the math as to how fast a 200 km cable would've needed to be rotating to be at rest with a mach 3 aircraft. Unfortunately it'd need to have a centripetal acceleration of about 50 gees - it'd shred the craft to pieces.

Obviously the cable would have to be much longer than 200 km - probably 1000 km at least, and you'd still need to have SS1 be going about 4 times faster. But it's still practical.

Etc. It's a huge task.

Absolutely. But I don't believe that it's anything that we couldn't do right now, with enough engineering. Engineering that I'm certainly not going to be able to work out in a Slashdot post.

Oh, and with SEDS 2, the tether snapped unexpectedly 3.7 days after deployment.

Man, that's mean! On SEDS 2 the tether didn't 'snap' - it was severed due to an impact. Considering it was merely meant to be a proof-of-concept on the deployment, and not actually survive the length-of-mission, that's fine. I mean, c'mon. The satellite it was hosting only transmitted for 10 hours!

Re:Question

[fucksl4shd0t]

It's a matter of going so fast that you continuously miss the Earth.

Well if it's that easy, why don't they just go up as high as they want and then just forget that they're supposed to fall back down. Really, if astronauts weren't so busy focusing on how they don't want to fall, the problem would just solve itself.

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Quote: I was thinking more along the lines of bringing it in the traditional way that the space shuttle does, i.e. in liquid form in tanks.

Which will make a friggin' big bang... two down three to go.

Re:Question

[flug]

Those of you interested in the dynamics of space flight, how much fuel it takes to get into various orbits or to leave the earth, whether or not you need to reach "escape velocity" and so on and on, ought to have a look at this:

Orbiter Space Flight Simulator.

I've take physics classes, calculated orbits, blah blah blah, but Orbiter gives you a hands-on feel for what it takes, both fuel-wise and navigation-wise, to get into low earth orbit, move from one orbit to another, match orbits with another spacecraft or satellite, fly to the moon, mars, etc. etc. etc.

Eye-opening, to say the least . . . and also a heck of a lot of fun!

Re:Question

[Basehart]

How about a really big trampoline - has anybody ever thought of that?

Re:Question

[Moofie]

The test article came from Shuttle Enterprise, I think. At least, Enterprise (on display at the new Smithsonian Museum annex at Dulles) had its leading edge heat shielding removed when I saw it earlier this year.

Re:Question

[Dr. Evil]

No you won't, you'll just reach a slightly eccentric orbit. That's no more escaping earth's gravity than me sitting here on my chair.

But for you to escape the earth's gravity, you need to have enough gravitational potential energy such that if, instead of being theoretically outside the earth's gravitational influence, you were at sea level, you'd be moving at Mach 32.

Whether you build that energy up in drips and drabs doesn't matter. The absurd speed isn't a jibberish figure, it's just being taken out of context. It's much more accurate to say that you'd need to be moving at that speed at sea level to escape the earth's gravity than it is to say that pushing away from a geosynchronous orbit will fling you hoplessly into space.

Re:Question

[Rich0]

You can't fall into orbit.

If you propel yourself 200 miles straight up, you'll eventually fall 200 miles straight down and go splat.

If you propel yourself 10,000 miles up and stop the same applies.

You can orbit a body 10 feet above the ground if you want to - you could easily do this over the moon. You can't do it over the earth because of atmospheric drag (well, drag is an understatement!).

The problem is that orbital velocity is tangental to the orbit - not directed away from the earth.

If you're 60 miles up and motionless relative to the center of the earth, you'll fall. If you're 60 miles up and moving at a few thousand miles per hour tangentally to the surface of the earth, you'll never fall. Well, you're actually always falling - but never getting closer to the ground.

Of course, you couldn't do this in spaceship one - even with enough fuel to maintain this velocity, unless you also had enough fuel to quickly decellerate back to a relative standstill and fall gently back to earth. Most rockets do not carry this kind of fuel into orbit. Instead, they use fuel to get themselves up to orbital velocity, and then carry just enough fuel to slow their orbit sufficiently to fall back into the upper atmosphere. At this point, air resistance does all the work of slowing you down to a sane velocity for landing. However, as the Columbia disaster illustrated, handling these kinds of air resistances is not a trival problem.

Spaceship One avoided re-entry problems by never entering orbit - so it was going at probably 1/10th the speed of the Columbia when it re-entered. Keep in mind that friction goes up with v^2 - so that is 100X less heat to deal with.

Re:Question

[Rich0]

Actually, I'm guessing those aren't even truly stable since they are usually solutions to only 3-body problems. They don't account for the gravitational attraction of other planets, or for that matter the stars on the other side of the galaxy.

However, they're generally close enough for most practical purposes. You are probably right about L5 being much more stable - the moon is heavy enough and near enough that any Earth orbit probably shifts quite a bit.

Re:Question

[homer_ca]

They used a leading edge panel from the Enterprise for an earlier test too, but it was a fiberglass panel. The last test was with a real carbon-carbon panel taken from the Atlantis. Link here.

Re:Question

[Moofie]

Cool...thanks for the linkage.

Re:Question

[Moofie]

Unless you've got a motor on the thing, .00003% atmosphere at Mach 3 means that, after a day or two, you are a) no longer orbiting and b) no longer going at Mach 3.

And, re: tethers, I'd say an experiment where the tether essentially exploded would be a really good description of a "disaster". But hey, what the heck do I know?

Oh yeah. And where are all the successful tests of rendezvous-ing with a Mach 3 tether in the upper atmosphere? Oh yeah. They don't exist. Mostly because it's a targeting problem a little harder than ballistic missile defense, because you can't fudge a targeting error with a big ba-da-boom.

Re:Question

[CrowScape]

You do realize that the energy required to travel at 25,000 mph != traveling at 25,000 mph? If so, then why are you trying to argue a point different from one being discussed? And yes, my method would allow you to escape Earth's pull, it would take an extraordinary ammount of time, even in galactic terms, but eventually you'd be flying across the solar system. The potential energy that you discussed would have slowly been transfered from the Earth's momentum to you. Take the Moon for example. It's slowly moving away from the Earth. In several billion years it'll break orbit and go flying off somewhere. In the meantime, as it moves away, it slows the Earth's rotation down. That energy has got to go somewhere, I'll let you figure out where.

Re:Question

[jrivar59]

God bless Douglas Adams for figuring out the secret to flying. If he had never come up with that missing the ground thingy, it's unlikely that later, Issac Newton would have been able to invent math and then where would we be. Staring at our digital watches, thats where.

Re:Question

[Moofie]

This was a stupid idea when Werner Von Braun had it, and it's a stupid idea now.

A "directional" nuclear explosion? Care to tell me how to make one of those?

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems it's pretty clear to me, once you're in orbit, you pretty much have to be going at Mach 25 (relative to the ground, of course there's no air up there, or so little, this probably another source of confusion in this thread) to *stay* in orbit, because that's the definition of orbit: 'free-fall', or moving forward so fast that the distance you cover makes up for the fact that you are falling, and you always stay at the same height relative to the curved surface of the Earth.
There's no orbit on a Ringworld...

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

I think if you ask Paul Allen he will tell you that it takes about 20 Million USD to reach escape velocity. ;-)

Re:Question

[XO]

I don't know if it was weight, but it certainly was not equipped with the hardware to dock.. And I think that was since it did have a smaller cargo bay than the newer units did...

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

You are quite the moron

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Ion engines, they are already in use. They can't get you into orbit (low acceleration), but they are better than chemical thrusters for long distance trips, and for medium distance (like the Moon), it has advantages, too, but it's slow. One thing, though, it actually works by 'pushing' on something (like a noble gas), so you need some source to get electricity (nuclear reactor is a good one), and a supply of gas; I don't know how much of a problem is the latter... maybe skipping on the atmosphere of planets could provide enough of a refuel, but it's just a wild guess. I guess you could emit particles out of the back of your ship to get thrust, but hell if I know how, and it'd probably be terribly inefficient. Ion engines are a very good thing, they just won't get you into orbit. All this talk about throwing a plasma jet ahead of the ship on reentry to create a bubble around it makes me think of Ringworld, whether it could be possible to have a ship use the main thrusters to get 'out there', use ion engines in space, and then use the engines to shoot forward to create the bubble. Hell of a weapon it would be :)

Re:Question

[iabervon]

I thought you were suggesting that, at some altitude the velocity necessary to get into orbit becomes trivial; I assume the original poster suggested "falling into orbit" because SpaceShipOne was doing so well at getting altitude that it seemed like it should be possible to translate some of the gravitational potential into enough kinetic energy to be in orbit. Unfortunately for that idea, the kinetic energy is a whole lot, and that translates to a whole lot more energy.

What I meant was, in terms of energy, the potential energy due to altitude of a craft in orbit and the kinetic energy are equal, but a craft on the ground has 98% of the distance from the center of the earth of one at 100km, so you have to go the last 2% up, but the whole 100% forward.

Re:Question

[iabervon]

PE is only mgh on small scales, where 'g' is approximately constant. KE and PE for orbits are the same, but only if you measure the PE based on falling all the way to the center of the earth; the delta PE from the surface of the earth is an order of magnitude less.

There are plenty of way to change your direction while maintaining (some of) your speed without using your own power, from curved tracks to wings. Unfortunately, they all depend on having something in the way of going straight, which is what makes a big swoop in space impossible.

Re:Question

[CaptainAvatar]

Sorry to butt in here, but since the OP's reference was in the context of orbiting the Earth, surely Earth-Moon Lagrange points were the ones intended. Personally, though, whenever I hear Lagrange I think O'Neill colonies anyway ...

Re:Question

[Ignorant Aardvark]

Seems it's pretty clear to me, once you're in orbit, you pretty much have to be going at Mach 25 (relative to the ground, of course there's no air up there, or so little, this probably another source of confusion in this thread) to *stay* in orbit, because that's the definition of orbit: 'free-fall'

Wrong. To stay in orbit you simply need to maintain a velocity that is equal to the orbital velocity at that distance from the Earth. At the Earth's surface the required velocity is Mach 12.5 (half of the escape velocity), nevermind that air resistance would be a big problem :-) Farther out from the Earth, though, the orbital velocity is smaller - much less than Mach 12.5 the farther you get from the Earth.

I wish we had fewer armchair physicists on /. and more people who actually know what they're talking about. I don't understand why this poster seems to think you need to be at escape velocity to stay in orbit - by definition, once you've reached escape velocity, you're not in orbit anymore, you've, well, escaped. Also, escape/orbital velocity is not a constant like "Mach 25" - it is dependent upon how far away from the center of mass of the object you are.

Re:Question

[slazar]

heh constant thrust does equal constant acceleration...

Re:Question

[CaptainAvatar]

Is that from David Brin, Earth? Good book, that.

Re:Question

[LeoDV]

AHHHHHHH! YOU FUCKING GEEKS!

And this is from a guy who woke up in the middle of the night to stand in line for each LotR and Star Wars movie!

Re:Question

[grahamlee]

"However, if you provide a continual thrust that everywhere is greater than the local acceleration due to Earth's gravity, you will never fall back down." *cough* If you're providing continual thrust to counteract the acceleration due to earth's gravity YOU HAVEN'T ESCAPED GRAVITY!

You have when you get out of the potential well, which under the above situation you will eventually do. You will eventually reach a point where the upward velocity is greater than the local escape velocity, and it's bye-bye blue world. At no point have you had to attain a speed equal to the escape velocity at the surface, which is the claim you and TG are erroneously making.

By your logic, a helicopter has escaped the earth's gravity. It produces a constant thrust which keeps it in "orbit" or as it accelerates vertically away from the earth, it's "escaped".

A helicopter does nothing of the sort, and nowhere have I claimed explicitly or otherwise that it would. For a start, a helicopter is usually not in a single orbit. Of course, any motion could be described as a sum over many orbits. The helicopter has not escaped the potential well due to the Earth, so it has not escaped the Earth's gravity. The difference between the helicopter situation and that of a rocket is this: what happens when you switch the engine off? A helicopter goes smack back into the planet, a successfully launched rocket will carry on at some constant velocity away from the planet (or would do, if some git hadn't put the Sun there. In fact it starts orbiting that).

Somehow you must attain that velocity relative to the earth which dictates the energy required to escape the earth's gravity.

That is not necessary at all. The only situation in which your argument is even in appropriate scope is that not of a continually thrusting body such as a rocket, but that of a body that has gained momentum through an initial impulse. That is, a projectile. I'm afraid to say that Verne's "De la terre a la lune" is inaccurate in supposing that this is how astronauts are launched into space (though it is a riveting read). You are making the assumption that the body is essentially (resistive forces notwithstanding) moving in a single orbit from the beginning, and trying to derive the condition for which this orbit is unbounded. That isn't how we throw rockets into space.

sucking away the Earth's atmosphere[...](prior to sucking away the atmosphere)

We merely assume that atmospheric resistive forces may be neglected to arrive at an appropriate order-of-magnitude estimate for certain properties, because it simplifies the equation of motion. No-one's suggesting that the atmosphere needs to be removed ;-). You can calm back down now.

Re:Question

[Eivind]

Not really 62 times the energy. I suspect you considered only the kinetical energy in being 100km up, as compared to that of being 350km up and travelling at orbital velocity.

This ignores the significant energy-expenditure needed to push away atmosphere. It wouldn't surprise me in the least to hear that 75-90% of the power in the propulsion of SS1 went to dealing with atmospheric drag.

Re:Question

[CrimsonAvenger]

Probably. On the other hand, the Sun/Earth Lagrange points are technically year long orbits relative to either the Sun or Earth.

And O'Neill is why I assumed Earth/Moon points in the first place. Sun/Earth points are inconvenient to get to, as well as not terribly stable, what with Jupiter out there and all....

Re:Question

[Dr. Evil]

Why yes, if you increase your displacement at one meter per second away from the stationary earth, you will eventually reach a distance such that the effects of the earth's gravity are infinitesimially small. It is true too that in a perfect earth-moon system, provided you could not colide with the earth or sun, you can use the momentum of the earth to attain an orbit with an infinitely long period. The fellow who spoke about escape velocity at the surface of the earth neglected to recognize your brilliant observations of the principle of acceleration, and the astounding rocket. We are truly ignorant. It is good that you raised this practical solution to a theoretical problem. I am humbled.

Re:Question

[barawn]

Unless you've got a motor on the thing, .00003% atmosphere at Mach 3 means that, after a day or two, you are a) no longer orbiting and b) no longer going at Mach 3.

Sigh. It's encountering weak drag at the most extreme range of its spin. The vast majority of the tether would be located higher, in orbit. In order to make the acceleration tolerable, it'd probably have to be about 500 km long, so it'd be orbiting at 350 km up, where there's far, far less drag. 1000 km would probably be more feasible, but obviously more of a logistical nightmare.

C'mon, the concept is not hard to understand. It's like a pinwheel that laps at water at the bottom of its spin. And it would have a motor on the thing - an electric generator, powered by solar. Run current through the tether and it pushes against the magnetic field of the Earth, and moves its orbit. Brief calculations (not done by me!) showed that it's only half a newton or so drag for the portion at the low end.


And, re: tethers, I'd say an experiment where the tether essentially exploded would be a really good description of a "disaster". But hey, what the heck do I know?

Apparently not as much as the review panel that said that while the experiment showed that the insulation of the cable was more vulnerable than believed, it also showed that there were no fundamental problems in the concept of using orbital tethers for power generation, which is exactly what the mission was supposed to do.


Oh yeah. And where are all the successful tests of rendezvous-ing with a Mach 3 tether in the upper atmosphere? Oh yeah. They don't exist. Mostly because it's a targeting problem a little harder than ballistic missile defense, because you can't fudge a targeting error with a big ba-da-boom.

The relative velocity between the two would be zero - the suborbital craft is moving at Mach 3, the tether is orbiting at Mach 25 (ish), and its extreme ends are moving at mach 22, in retrograde. Net result is a rather slow moving rendezvous. The length of the cable determines how much of a margin of error you have in timing (and also the acceleration of the payload). Mach 3 is probably too slow - 2 to 3 times the velocity would be much more feasible.

Re:Question

[Rei]

*grin*, good point, I should have calculated the G force first ;) Hmm.. 1000km cable, assuming 3cm in diameter, using a 2 GPa tensile strength steel weighing 7700kg/m^3... at best, this cable would carry 14,000kg (with little margin of error), so we probably need it to be thicker. I'd probably want 9 cm or so, which would be 127,000kg, which would leave you room for safety margin while still getting a sizable payload. At 7700kg/m^3, that cable would weigh a whopping 490,000kg. No way with current lifting costs... Perhaps if we were to get smaller cables to lift parts of a bigger cable... hmm, I wonder what the stresses on such a cable would be like? I don't feel like calculating them right now, but I'm betting you'd have to taper your cable pretty heavily. I should probably recalculate for kevlar...

When I said "lift the spacecraft", I was referring to the fact that any energy you transfer to the spacecraft, you're going to need to compensate for unless you're receiving return payloads. Often, it *will* receive some return payloads, but A) not always, and B) often only a "partial" payload, since you'll typically be launching a satellite or something.

BTW, I'm not trying to assert that the technical problems are insurmountable - they're not. I'm just saying that there's a lot of engineering left before we can get such a thing to work right. :) When we can get it to work, it would be a great thing.

> it was severed due to an impact.

I.e., snapped. It doesn't matter whether it snapped due to stress or due to an unforseen collision - both of them would be equally big problems! :)

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Although I am not a rocket scientist, I know enough about physics to say that the rocket scientist dude/dudette post is superior to the parent post.

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Bollocks. As you consume fuel, the mass of the ship lessens. Constant thrust on a constantly decreasing mass equals increasing acceleration.

Re:Question

[Moofie]

I think the person who told you that a ribbon-like object would only have drag of half a newton or so when it's moving through the upper atmosphere at mach 3 is pretty wrong. A lot.

Is a device like you describe possible? Sure. Anything's possible. I could theoretically build myself a robot tyrannosaurus rex and ride it into town to get myself an ice cream cone.

But it's not very practical with current technology. Waiting for this thing to work before exploiting space would be like waiting for steam liners before exploiting the Americas: A bad idea that means less money for everybody.

You have a funny idea of "rather slow moving", if you think that a rendezvous with an object on a circular trajectory will be an easy problem to solve.

And we haven't even started talking about how we're going to deal with the aeroelastic forces that are making your 500 km long shoestring go WUBBEDAWUBBEDAWUBBEDA all over the place.

Hold a ribbon out the window. See what happens to the end of it. Tell me if you'd like to ride on it.

Re:Question

[elrond2003]

Onemore nucleaaar physicist/rocket scientist puts his $0.02 into the arguement. To escape the earth's gravity you need not attain any particular veocity you just have to get (nearly) infinitly far from the earth. By the time you get to the orbit of Saturn, for example, the gravity effect from the sun (not to mention saturn) is far stronger than that of the earth, so you could seriously claim to have escaped earth's gravity. Geosynchronous orbit is nowhere near far enough to claim to have escaped earth's gravity. It's still the strongest source of the gravity field you are experiencing.

Re:Question

[barawn]

1000km cable, assuming 3cm in diameter, using a 2 GPa tensile strength steel weighing 7700kg/m^3... at best, this cable would carry 14,000kg (with little margin of error)

How'd you get this? The carrying capacity of the cable is completely dependent upon the rotational acceleration. 2GPa tensile strength with ~30 cm^2 area implies 6 MN maximum load capacity. At 1000 km, it's got a volume of 2827 m^3, so it's got a mass of 21,767,900 kg. The tension on the cable is just the centripetal acceleration times the mass of the cable. It'd never hold itself together at 1 gee... best you could do is say, 0.2 gee. Your load capacity would be essentially infinite (8,232,100 kg). Did I do something wrong here?

You'd be much better off with carbon fiber cables (the real kind, not the space elevator kind). You could pretty much assume at least 5X steel (10 GPa), and the *huge* benefit of lower density (1800 kg/m^3). This is unlike a space elevator, where only the tensile strength matters, because the acceleration is independent of mass. The lower weight (4X) and heigher strength (5X) means that the cable can support an acceleration 20X higher, or up to 4 gees. If you would run it at 2 gees, that'd give you a 100% safety margin. With a radius of 500 km, an acceleration of 2 gee, the tangential velocity is 3129 m/s, or mach 9.2. Orbital velocity at 500 km is 7500 m/s or so, Earth's rotation is 500 m/s or so, so the suborbital craft needs to be going about 3871 m/s, or mach 11.4. That's a fair mite faster than SS1 was going, and it's way faster than anything on the horizon as well, but it's still less than full orbital.

The air resistance doesn't worry me - it's not that much of an acceleration, and the exponential falloff of the atmosphere means that the drag really only matters for the tiny portion of time that it's at the bottom. And if it's really too bad at 100 km, just have the bottom at 200 km, and the drag is suddenly thousands of times smaller. The height of a suborbital hop isn't difficult, it's the delta-V.

The other problems, like oscillations, plasma forming in the cable, etc., I'd worry about more. But those are generic problems that space tethers need to solve anyway, and I think with the advent of carbon fiber cables and the massive benefits that tethers can provide that not trying to solve them is really silly.

I.e., snapped. It doesn't matter whether it snapped due to stress or due to an unforseen collision - both of them would be equally big problems! :)

Yah, but it would've been like criticizing the Wright brothers for a bumpy landing, or saying that the dust buildup on the Mars rovers makes the design a "failure". They weren't trying to have the tether hold together for the entire trip. It wasn't designed to, and someone probably calculated that it wouldn't, so it was probably expected. After all, as I said, the sensor only was supposed to transmit for 10 hours. The tether lasted for days.

Re:Question

[barawn]

Wow, you know, there's an obvious solution to the atmospheric drag part that I didn't even realize. Just goes to show you that a human's normal experience sucks for trying to figure out orbital dynamics.

Incidentally, the full system design is here, and it's moderately more fleshed out than we're ever going to do in a Slashdot post. But anyway...

The solution to the atmospheric drag part is easy - only the perigee is at low altitude. The apogee is at high altitude. This, of course, solves the atmospheric drag part elegantly - the vast majority of the travel is well outside of the atmosphere. Thus you experience a small amount of drag once per orbit (which lowers your apogee), but you have a long time to recover that via solar power. Quite elegant - it basically utilizes the fact that the magnetosphere is immensely larger than the atmosphere.

The solution they're proposing is for assisting LEO to GTO, but the design is scalable and could eventually do suborbital to LEO. Oddly enough, they also used 2 gee acceleration, and listed mach 10-12 as the needed suborbital velocities (on a different page). Apparently I did my math somewhat right.

Re:Question

[CrowScape]

But I didn't say you had escaped Earth's gravity, just that you have the proper velocity to eventually escape Earth's gravity.

Re:Question

[adamy]

IANARS should be IANRS

In the immortal words of SSG King (NCO at Fort Benning 1993-4 when I was there)

I aint no rocket science.

This was alternated with

I aint no brain surgery.

Re:Question

[ultranova]

Actually, I did learn that the big F was force. It's just that the little f was the gravitational constant...

So, F=ma, f = the universal gravitational constant (so that Newtons gravity force formula takes form F = f * m1 * m2 / (r * r) where r = distance of objects and m1 and m2 are masses of objects 1 and 2 ), g = Earth's gravitational acceleration (= 9,82), and G = mg.

You know, I suddenly sense a new opportunity for confusion between engineers from different countries...

And More importantly...

[Gudlyf]

...the successful landing!

Re:And More importantly...

[snake_dad]

"Any landing you can walk away from is a good landing" :)

Congrats to Astronout Mike Melvill, now grab the X-Prize! Oh, and good luck to the guys maintaining www.scaled.com, you're in for a trip too :)

Re:And More importantly...

[cedhed2]

Any landing where you can use the plane again is absolutely wonderful. :)

Early shutdown?

[American AC in Paris]

According to most reports, everything went swimmingly, but the Globe and Mail are reporting that SpaceShipOne's engine shut itself down prematurely (according to CNN reports.)

Anybody with more details on this? Is this an Issue Of Significance, or is it no big deal?

Note to editors: It's not like you didn't have advance notice of this. It's not like this isn't a huge story. SpacesShipOne successfully lifted off over an hour before this previewed on the front page. Step lively!

Re:Early shutdown?

[nonameisgood]

If they hit the 100 km mark, as planned, it was obviously not premature, although it might have been shut down earlier than planned due to any of many reasons (better conditions aloft, etc.) If it was earlier than planned, and they made the target altitude, then that shows they have planned well and the systems worked. Everything I would expect from these people.

Nothing here...move along.

Re:Early shutdown?

[thentil]

I read that too, and was frustrated that I couldn't figure out where they were coming up with that. According to this story:

"For a few minutes after SpaceShipOne began its descent, it was unclear whether Melvill had reached his goal. But the mission announcer finally said the mission had been successful as the craft prepared to land at Mojave Airport, accompanied by three chase planes. "

Looks like Globe and Mail just jumped the gun. thpt.

Re:Early shutdown?

[raider_red]

As long as they made the 100km goal altitude and landed safely, it shouldn't be a problem. I'm sure they built in some safety margins to make sure that they reached the right height, with the possibility of exceeding it.

Re:Early shutdown?

[Kong99]

I was watching/listening to it on MSNBC (who's coverage was abysmal) and based on the radio comm's it sounded like they shut it down prematurely... I cannot recall for sure what words Mike said exactly so I will not try and quote but the gist of the message was the ride was rougher than expected.

Re:Early shutdown?

[amabbi]

According to the mission status page on SpaceFlightNow, Melvill heard three large bangs in flight (see 11:11am update)... if there was a premature shutdown, perhaps this was the reason?

Re:Early shutdown?

[khallow]

Actually, they may have planned to hit the 108 km mark. I believe that's the highest altitude (actually 107.8 km) achieved by the X-15 and the world record for a "plane". So when the engine cut out early (which it apparently did), they might have achieved the main goal of 100 km, but not break the world record on that sort of thing.

Re:Early shutdown?

[evenprime]

Probably nothing major. I expect that it was just burning a little hotter than normal, and that it ate up enough of the exhaust nozzle to destroy the fiber optics. (That automatically shuts the engine down.) This was discussed a few months back in AW&ST, but I can't find the link. This will have to do: http://www.hobbyspace.com/AAdmin/archive/RLV/2003/ RLVNews2003-08.html

Scaled itself makes the case-throat-nozzle structure, which consists of an "inner layer of silica phenolic insulator and an outer graphite epoxy structural case." Burn-throughs of the insulator occurred in five firings but did not reach the sensor layer of fiber-optic cable between the insulator and case. They want to do a test in which they fire the engine until a burn-through reaches the sensor layer and it triggers a shutdown.

Re:Early shutdown?

[Anonymous Coward]

Melvill heard three large bangs in flight

Now we know Rutan's secret to success - he stole technology from Mir!

Re:Early shutdown?

[Anonymous Coward]

They fed the astronaut chilli beans prior to the flight "Just in case!"

Re:Early shutdown?

[Methuseus]

could the thre bangs maybe, just maybe be him hitting Mach 1, 2, and 3 as planned?

I figured that was part of the plan, to have 3 sonic booms to tell him he reached Mach 3.

Re:Early shutdown?

[goates]

"..three loud bangs..."

Mojave, we have a problem...

Re:Early shutdown?

[Thomas A. Anderson]

But it was Mike who supposedly reported the bangs, and the occupant of a plane that reaches mach 1 does not hear the sonic boom that's generated....

Re:Early shutdown?

[AWHITEMAN]

Quoted from MSNBC "He said he had one scary moment when he heard a loud bang during the flight. Pointing toward a buckled section at the rear of SpaceShipOne, he suggested it may have been the source of noise." "...a buckled section..." That doesn't sound good, not at all.

Re:Early shutdown?

[EvanED]

Holy crap, I mean I know that if it burns through it's not catastrophic failure (as was demonstrated today), but I don't see why they allowed that. Brings back memories of NASA going "oh, the o-rings are suffering burn through and blow by? fly it anyway" in the early to mid 80s...

Re:Early shutdown?

[Void_of_light]

wernt there three sonic booms before the delorean went back in time? Maybe thats why it took so long for this story to hit the slashdot frontpage.

Re:Early shutdown?

[YU Nicks NE Way]

No -- it's good engineering. If you know that something can fail in ordinary usage, you drive it to collapse during testing to determine whether you can recover, and, if so, how to do that. It's like randomly triggering out of memory situations in your code -- no, you don't ever want to run out of memory, but it's always possible that you will. Best to find out what's going to happen when you're testing instead of when you're live.

Re:Early shutdown?

[Andy_R]

A sonic boom is heard onboard a supersonic craft when it catches up with and overtakes the noise it has recently produced.

There is no sonic boom associated with travelling at multiples of the speed of sound, since at multiples of the speed of sound it just leaves it's noise further and further behind.

Re:Early shutdown?

[kevlar]

I don't believe there are any booms for Mach 2+. They're merely velocity waypoints.

Re:Early shutdown?

[EvanED]

But at the same time, during testing you don't push it past its limits then ignore the fact that it's past the limits. So if they started to burn through the cables they should have gotten it to the point where even during the extensive, extreme testing the cables weren't harmed so that under typical use (as much as you can call these flights typcial use) you'd be completely sure that they wouldn't fail.

(I'm not saying that they shouldn't test what happens if they did fail either, but it sounds like they were getting burn through in even normal tests.)

Re:Early shutdown?

[gnunick]

Quoting the BBC here:

Mr Melvill said he had heard a loud bang during Monday's record-breaking flight. On the ground, he pointed out a section towards the back of the craft where a part of the structure covering the nozzle had buckled, suggesting it may have caused the odd noise. After the flight he said: "I think I'll back off a little bit now and ride my bike."

(emphasis mine) It sounds to me like it might be something more serious than the news I've seen is making it out to be, though I have no doubt they'll iron out the problem before the next flight. I'm just glad he made it back safely this time.

Re:Early shutdown?

[GoneGaryT]

I don't believe there are any booms for Mach 2+. They're merely velocity waypoints.

Concorde hitting Mach 2 certainly produced a double boom. I have experienced this twice while yachting across the English Channel. Fucking loud, too. The sea is not great at sound absorption at the air/sea boundary.

Re:Early shutdown?

[Anonymous Coward]

Some non-relevant external engine part or somesuch became wrinkled, or something. Scaled.com might tell you more.

Re:Early shutdown?

[Anonymous Coward]

The double boom comes from the front of the aircraft and from the rear, not the fact that it's going twice as fast. Its from a positive and negative pressure from normal.

Re:Early shutdown?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sure here, but I thought the goal was to hit the "official" altitude of 100.6 KM, and according to what I have seen, they only hit 100.1km. I know its only 500 m short, but short is short.

Re:Early shutdown?

[Anonymous Coward]

really, my father flew 104's, and he swears that he has never heard a boom while strapped in, only if you are on the ground. I know he went transonic more times than I care to count, do you have any actual facts, or are you just guessing? I asked him this very question, and he insists, he has never heard one while in the jet, not on acceleration or deceleration. In fact he said that without the Mach meter, you would't have any idea if you were super/sub sonic.

Re:Early shutdown?

[crankyspice]

I was there, and listening on an aviation handset. (Hoping my videocamera picked up the chatter.) The engine cut out prematurely, the pilot did not shut the engine down. However, in spite of this, SpaceShipOne did achieve its target altitude.

Re:Early shutdown?

[Doubting Thomas]

They were coming up with it because Dick Rutan said it live on CNN, while SpaceShipOne was still on descent.

Re:Early shutdown?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course it could also be the fact that they reached an acceleration G-load that they haven't seen before. From what I read, and from I was gathering from what Dick Rutan said on CNN (they thought maybe a breaker tripped) the engine was set up to be ' OFF on POWERLOSS ' as the oxidizer flows through a valve that is required to be energized in order to be open. Kinda a smart thing for a rocket if you think about it. You lose electrical power whether it be to one or multiple components, having the bloody thing shut off (especially when the craft functions like a glider without power) is a good thing. I think that they had an unforeseen short (wiring harness touching hot something? circuit breaker being forced partially open because of the load?) because of the higher G-load which led to a safety designed shut off.

Re:Early shutdown?

[Anonymous Coward]

Jumping in to your flawed comment.

(it was a long drive from Mojave for me)

If an object is traveling *faster* than the speed
of sound, there is no catching up, they are always ahead of the sound

Re:Early shutdown?

[randyest]

A sonic boom is heard onboard a supersonic craft . . .

Sorry, wrong -- the only way to finish that sentence correctly is "never," or "when another supersonic plane passes by as it breaks the sound barrier."

And that's why one of your +1 Informative mods just got m2'd unfair. Stay tuned, I might get to negate another one in 8-12 hours :)

Private craft flies into space

[Lord Zerrr]

MOJAVE, California (CNN) -- Rocket plane SpaceShipOne reached an altitude above 62.5 miles (100 km) during its brief flight Monday morning, making it the first privately built craft to fly in space, controllers said.

Space.com
Updates

11:08 a.m. ET: Mike Melvill and his SpaceShipOne have made it into space. Everything looks good, mission official said, and the craft is now gliding back toward a landing at the Mojave Airport, where it took off earlier this morning. "I got goose bumps when I saw contrails," Greg Klerkx, author of Lost in Space: The Fall of NASA and the Dream of a New Space Age. "I never thought I'd see this moment, but here it is."

w00t

[paco3791]

private space flight in my life time is now a reality, just read they landed safely alright!!

Successful launch and landing

[chrylis]

CNN also has the full story, still being rewritten as of now.

They MADE it!

[Zzootnik]

Woo-Hoo! They made it into Space (Or so Dick at Mojave on CNN reports...)
Mike is down safely, too!

Make way for the Next thousand ships!

It has already landed

[Omega1045]

The posting is a bit late, check out this story. The ship has already set the record and landed.

For the Europeans

[Anonymous Coward]

And other people using that backward metric system, that's about 100 kilometers in the title.

Re:For the Europeans

[Anonymous Coward]

Alternatively, by definition it is 100.584 kilometres. It just so happens that the inch is defined in terms of the backwards system: 25.4mm

;-)

Re:For the Europeans

[strictnein]

It just so happens that the inch is defined in terms of the backwards system: 25.4mm

Actually, it is generally defined as 2.54cm :-p
So we Americans do use the metric system!

Re:For the Europeans

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, but centimetres are not a preferred SI unit! The preferred SI prefixes are multiples of 1000, so either metres or millimetres are the go.

Then again, I've always liked the definition:

1 inch = 25 400 000 000 000 000 000 000 yoctometres

8-)

Touchdown!

[Jibber]

SpaceShip One has successfully landed and it is being reported that they broke the 100 km limit needed to be officially certified as entering space.

Note that this is a sub-orbital flight but Burt has said that he eventually wants to go full orbital.

Jib

blow by blow

[Pharmboy]

get the blow by blow here.

Just refresh your page to get the newest news.

Re:blow by blow

[meringuoid]

Just refresh your page to get the newest news.

So... you're telling Slashdot to go to some page and keep hitting refresh?

Reckless, don't you think?

Re:blow by blow

[Pharmboy]

So... you're telling Slashdot to go to some page and keep hitting refresh?

lol, after careful thought and consideration (or lack thereof...) that might not have been the best idea, but its a popular site, almost all text, and it has been reasonably fast all morning. (some delays toward appex). I am assuming they can handle the load. There is, of course, no mirror.

Actually, the site says to "hit refresh" to get the latest news. Its mainly just single or two sentence updates.

Re:blow by blow

[RobertB-DC]

My favorite update so far is this one:

1250 GMT (8:50 a.m. EDT)

The International Space Station will be flying high above Mojave at approximately the time SpaceShipOne is scheduled to launch. The Expedition 9 resident crew will attempt to photograph the launch and contrail.

The ISS crew, likely to be remembered as caretakers of NASA's failed scheme, will be witness to the future of space exploration. Poetic, isn't it?

It also occurs to me that if something bad happens to the Russian space program, the ISS crew may have to wait for Rutan's future orbital project, if they hope to get home at all...

Re:blow by blow

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is the text of that page up to now, in case it does get /.ed.
-----
1537 GMT (11:37 a.m. EDT)A post-flight press conference is expected in about 90 minutes.

1532 GMT (11:32 a.m. EDT)He says he was weightless for three-to-three-and-a-half minutes. Altitude was over 300,000 feet.

1531 GMT (11:31 a.m. EDT)"The flight was spectacular."

1531 GMT (11:31 a.m. EDT)"I feel great. I really do."

1530 GMT (11:30 a.m. EDT)"It was absolutely amazing!" Melvill tells reporters at the runway.

1528 GMT (11:28 a.m. EDT)Mike Melvill has climbed out of SpaceShipOne! He is hugging the VIPs and celebrations continue.

1526 GMT (11:26 a.m. EDT)Melvill has his hand out the porthole waving to the crowd and flashing a thumbs-up sign. The craft is being towed down the runway by a pickup truck.

1524 GMT (11:24 a.m. EDT)Crews have begun to tow SpaceShipOne from the runway to the viewing spot for spectators and the press to see the craft up close following its voyage today.

1520 GMT (11:20 a.m. EDT)To recap, the SpaceShipOne flew a safe, 24-minute free-flight today above Mojave, California. With its engine blasting the tiny craft skyward, SpaceShipOne rocketed to an unofficial altitude of 62 miles where the edge of space begins. Pilot Mike Melvill then brought the vehicle to a smooth touchdown on the same runway where the historic mission began.

1517 GMT (11:17 a.m. EDT)SpaceShipOne will be towed to a viewing location shortly. A news conference is expected a little later today.

1516 GMT (11:16 a.m. EDT)White Knight is making a low-altitude flyby down the runway.

1515 GMT (11:15 a.m. EDT)SpaceShipOne has rolled to a stop on the Mojave Runway with Burt Rutan and Paul Allen pumping their fists in the air.

1514 GMT (11:14 a.m. EDT)TOUCHDOWN! SpaceShipOne has returned to Earth safely!

1514 GMT (11:14 a.m. EDT)The landing gear is down!

1513 GMT (11:13 a.m. EDT)Approval has been given for landing gear deploy.

1513 GMT (11:13 a.m. EDT)Surface winds are down the runway at 5 knots.

1512 GMT (11:12 a.m. EDT)SpaceShipOne is banking around to the south for touchdown on Runway 30.

1511 GMT (11:11 a.m. EDT)Dick Rutan says Melvill reporting hearing three large bangs during the flight. But the chase planes have examined SpaceShipOne and the craft looks OK.

1509 GMT (11:09 a.m. EDT)SpaceShipOne is in view from the ground as it glides to landing.

1506 GMT (11:06 a.m. EDT)Officials say SpaceShipOne reached 62 miles above Earth today! That is considered the edge of space. The Guinness Book of World Records flew a representative to Mojave today to verify the data from Air Force tracking radar.

1504 GMT (11:04 a.m. EDT)Crowds are now eagerly awaiting the landing, and news on the apogee -- or highest altitude reached.

1502 GMT (11:02 a.m. EDT)The chase aircraft says the aft end of SpaceShipOne -- around the rocket engine -- looks good. Some thermal effects on the nose are also reported.

1459 GMT (10:59 a.m. EDT)The descent continues. Altitude is now roughly 30,000 feet. SpaceShipOne will glide to landing on the runway like an airplane.

1458 GMT (10:58 a.m. EDT)"A pencil-thick contrail that went straight up" is how the launch was described from Mojave.

1457 GMT (10:57 a.m. EDT)The top altitude reached is not yet known. About 62.5 miles was the target.

1456 GMT (10:56 a.m. EDT)Edwards Air Force Base is feeding live radar tracking data to the controllers.

1455 GMT (10:55 a.m. EDT)Melvill is now pulling 5 g's.

1455 GMT (10:55 a.m. EDT)SpaceShipOne is now 316,000 feet in altitude.

1454 GMT (10:54 a.m. EDT)Ground controllers say everything is going according to plan.

1453 GMT (10:53 a.m. EDT)The pilot is not reporting any problems.

1452 GMT (10:52 a.m. EDT)Mike Melvill is talking to controllers as his historic flight continues.

1452 GMT (10:52 a.m. EDT)The engine firing has been completed. SpaceShipOne is now

Re:blow by blow

[areve]

Actually this site was really good during the event I refreshed this and watched streaming video thanks to BBC news. The site stopped working just before it got slash-dotted.

Re:blow by blow

[The Ape With No Name]

Refresh? No problem.

#!/usr/bin/perl

while(1) { system("wget ('http://www.spaceflightnow.com/ss1/status.html')" ); }

Re:blow by blow

[baywulf]

1557 gmt (11:57 a.m. edt)
--------------------
Profit!

Re:blow by blow

[Paulrothrock]

NASA does have a future, just as a regulatory/exploration agency. I doubt highly that commercial systems would spend millions on sending a probe to Saturn to look for anything other than resources, so NASA has a future there, at least in designing the probes and manning the ground stations.

And someone will have to regulate space flight so we don't have unsafe craft zipping around. Perhaps NASA could use some of their expertise to help the FAA, or maybe split a bit of NASA off and fold it into the FAA, and keep the JSC running for exploration. Somebody's gotta be there when Voyager decides to call home again.

But now that we're not relying on a cost-plus government agency for space flight, we should see a lot of movement really, really soon.

Re:blow by blow

[Pharmboy]

Profit!

hehehe, no, that will be in August when they try to launch three people 100km (same as today) twice in two weeks to win the xprize, $10 million.

That will cover almost half of their expenses, which is very cool. I wish them luck.

Re:blow by blow

[Paulrothrock]

One more thing: You could say they're looking down and laughing at our paltry efforts so far below them, but one day, very soon, we will be looking down on the ISS and laughing. Won't be very funny then, will it?

Re:blow by blow

[HeghmoH]

It also occurs to me that if something bad happens to the Russian space program, the ISS crew may have to wait for Rutan's future orbital project, if they hope to get home at all...

The ISS has lifeboats with enough capacity to get everyone down without help from Earth. That's one reason why they never had more than three people on it at a time, because there is currently no vehicle capable of acting as a lifeboat for more than three people. Even if all spacecraft on Earth disappeared tomorrow, they'd be able to get back fine.

Re:blow by blow

[Rxke]

My favorite:
Melvill: ""Man!" Melvill said, shaking his fists together as he climbed from SpaceShipOne. "I went pretty high, though. When I got to the top, I released a bag of M&Ms in the cockpit. It was absolutely amazing. M&Ms were going all around. It was so cool! We have got to have video of that because I did it in front of one of the video cameras. I haven't ate them. They are in the cockpit."

Imagine a NASA astronaut doing that on a maiden flight...

Re:blow by blow

[maxpublic]

And someone will have to regulate space flight so we don't have unsafe craft zipping around.

Only insofar as Earth is concerned. No nation on Earth, nor any group of nations, has any business at all regulating any activity beyond Earth orbit.

Earth doesn't own the solar system.

Max

Re:blow by blow

[Galvatron]

Well, Alan Shepard was sitting in a spacesuit full of urine, does that count?

Re:blow by blow

[Paulrothrock]

Right. Of course. But for the foreseeable future, Earth is the only place they'd have to worry about.

Re:blow by blow

[MindStalker]

Yes, but countries will dictate rules on what can takeoff and or land from their territory. And your basically screwed if your up there and noone will give you clearance to land. Though personally I'd just land in any non hostile country regarless and take my chances. Space isn't very forgiving :)

Re:blow by blow

[ratsnapple tea]

Thank you. I thought the Memento thing was out of fashion.

Re:blow by blow

[justins]

It also occurs to me that if something bad happens to the Russian space program, the ISS crew may have to wait for Rutan's future orbital project, if they hope to get home at all...

Or they could use the Soyuz capsule which is attached to the station at all times. Their operations are designed such that there is always a vehicle at the station, ready to take the astronauts home.

Re:blow by blow

[dj_virto]

Land in the island state of Bullemia

Re:blow by blow

[jkabbe]

Earth doesn't own the solar system.

If we plant our flags there first we do.

No flag = No ownership

Re:blow by blow

[RobertB-DC]

When I got to the top, I released a bag of M&Ms in the cockpit. It was absolutely amazing. M&Ms were going all around. It was so cool!

M&M's: the milk chocolate melts in your mouth, not in your cockpit at 100km above the Earth!

Re:blow by blow

[RobertB-DC]

The ISS has lifeboats with enough capacity to get everyone down without help from Earth.

Good point. I guess I just got caught up in the moment! /me <face color=red />

Re:blow by blow

[jon787]

The only places I've ever heard of that are when I went to Space Camp in Alabama and Florida. Is it an urban legend or did it happen?

Re:blow by blow

[Waab]

Well, Alan Shepard was sitting in a spacesuit full of urine, does that count?

According to Chuck Yeager, all of the Mercury astronauts were sitting in monkey [expletive deleted].

Re:blow by blow

[admdrew]

*watches as the entire solar system becomes a hugeass game of CTF*

Re:blow by blow

[bje2]

I hope he got corporate sponsorship for that...that's excellent product placement...

Re:blow by blow

[bje2]

i mean, look what it did for tang!

Re:blow by blow

[bestguruever]

Isn't that the definition of profit that caused the dot com bubble to burst?

Re:blow by blow

[kalidasa]

Read Wolfe's The Right Stuff. Yes, he did, and he apparently said "Well, I'm a wetback now" after it happened, which didn't exactly endear him to the brass.

Re:blow by blow

[orac2]

Yes it happened -- you can read about it in Wolfe's The Right Stuff (the book, unlike the movie, is serious, if irreverent, journalism). If you're more hard core you can buy the Freedom 7 volume in Apogee Books' excellent "NASA Mission Reports" series, and read the transcript of Shepard's debriefing where he talks about it.

Re:blow by blow

[pjt48108]

Earth doesn't own the solar system.

No, but so far, we seem to be the only ones asserting eminent domain...

Re:blow by blow

[Rxke]

I thought so... At least, I read about it in several places... It was to be a short hop, so there was no need to worry about this, so it was thought, but the countdown got interrupted several times, and time dragged on... So after a while Shep felt the pressure in his bladder mount... He asked permission to urinate in his suit, but ground control was initially afraid it (the liquid, heh) could short-circuit several sensors in his suit, so they said 'no.'

But the countdown kept getting interrupted, and he again contacted ground, almost begging them to give the green light... Eventually they did.

Re:blow by blow

[maxpublic]

No, but so far, we seem to be the only ones asserting eminent domain...

Which'll amount to dick once others get firmly established out there...seriously, what's Earth going to do? Invade any station that doesn't comply with it's directives? In an environment where people can throw rocks at any incoming hostile ship and destroy it? Or at Earth itself, if Earth refuses to get the message?

Earth will never be able to lay claim to the solar system. And as far as I'm concerned, that's a damned good thing.

Max

Re:blow by blow

[CompressedAir]

Wow, of all the un-informed, anti-NASA comments.

You're not running for office here. We expect at least one correct fact in a post. If you just want to bash NASA, try Salon.

CompressedAir

Re:blow by blow

[RobertB-DC]

You're not running for office here. We expect at least one correct fact in a post. If you just want to bash NASA, try Salon.

You must be new here. Welcome to Slashdot! Enjoy your visit.

Re:blow by blow

[Keebler71]

"The ISS crew, likely to be remembered as caretakers of NASA's failed scheme, will be witness to the future of space exploration. Poetic, isn't it?"

I am all for private spaceflight and don't want to come off like I am diminishing the significance of todays events but I really think your sense of perspective needs adjusting...

The ISS is a permanent space station, at an altitude of 386 km. The thing was built in space. Astronauts live for six months at a time in a zero-g environment. Robotic spacecraft deliver supplies. They eat their meals in space. They surf the web in space. Dude, they are living in space. The astronauts on the ISS are not "witnessing the future of space exploration"... they are living the future.

Let me preface what I am about to say with the following: I think that what Scaled Composites has done is nothing short of amazing. I don't need to wish them the best, as I have been to their plant, and seen and crawled inside their vehicle. That said, I believe that SpaceShipOne is more of a bureocratic and idealogical achievement. First off, SC defined the process by which civilian companies are certified for space flight. Second, this event will usher in a newfound pride and enthusiasm for space exploration that has been missing for decades.

Unfortunately, this design is not very, well, useful other than to make Scaled Composites LOTS of money from space tourists. There is not a lot of interest otherwise in manned sub-orbital (heck, the Soviets skipped it entirely) and despite what Mr. Rutan says, this technology is not scalable to an orbital version. SpaceShipOne was point designed for commercial tourism of sub-orbital space.

and yes, IAARS.

Re:blow by blow

[jbridge21]

3.1415926535897932384629

...84629? come on man, it's 846264338, so rounding would make that a 6, not a 9.

=)

Re:blow by blow

[omicronish]

One of the Apollo astronauts, IIRC, pulled out a sandwich during flight. Mission control was afraid of crumbs getting into the instrument panels.

Re:blow by blow

[Pharmboy]

But this is more fun...

#!/bin/bash
while true
do
wget -b -p -q http://www.spaceflightnow.com/ss1/status.html
done

Even works with Cygwin without perl... :>

Re:blow by blow

[grozzie2]

And someone will have to regulate space flight so we don't have unsafe craft zipping around.

Before you jump on your bandwagon of lawyers to create yet more regulations, you better check on the little detail of 'jurasdiction'. About the only portion of the venture possibly under the jurasdiction of FAA/NASA would be launches originating within the borders of the USA. Once above the atmosphere, trajectories and orbits will be governed by a higher power, the laws of physics will prevail, no matter how much regulation the bearocrats feel they can apply. The same can be said for re-entry, once it's started, the laws of physics will prevail over anything on paper.

Re:blow by blow

[EvilNight]

In other news, SpaceShipOne's second flight out of the atmosphere failed catastrophically today... investigators are currently looking into reports that melted M&M's may have shorted out critical guidance systems.

Re:blow by blow

[grozzie2]

SpaceShipOne was point designed for commercial tourism of sub-orbital space.

and yes, IAARS.

As a rocket scientist, you should then fully understand the signficance of todays step. SS1 was point designed to a mission profile. The profile was to deliver 600 pounds (3 people and life support) to an altitude of 100km. That's a very significant point in the process, it's the point at which aerodymamics terms of all the relavent equations approximate zero.

The current system is a 2 stage lifting process, stage 1 (White Knight) carries stage 2 (SpaceShip One) which achieves a point outside the atmosphere. For commercialization, this may well be enough to start generating a revenue flow, but, it's obviously a building block for a third stage. With relatively minor mods, SS1 can be converted to a cargo carrier, which is capable of ejecting a 600 pound payload at that location 'in space'.

As an engineer, the next problem is relatively strait forward. Design a vehicle that can carry a payload into orbit, based on the starting parameters of ejection from SS1 at the top of it's arc. Considering the economics of the first 2 stages of the launch process, we can forego all the traditional redundancy found in satellite systems, and build cheap disposable ones, it's not going to cost millions to place them anymore.

I'm sure all the engineers at Boeing, Lockheed, and everybody else in the business will look at that as a silly/unpractical problem, you just dont build satellites that way. BUT, get a group of amateurs akin to the OSCAR series of amateur satellites, give them a set of parameters that is '600 pounds delivered to an altitude of 100km, with effectively zero forward velocity', and they will produce a vehicle that's capable of achieving orbit from that location, and carrying sufficient payload to that orbit to be a functioning communication satellite. A bunch of volunteers will design and build the unit, and it'll arrive at the launch site for a grand total budget well under a million dollars.

Is this practical in the business world? Just ask globalstar what will happen to thier business model if a competitor can step up, building disposable satellites for $100K, and putting them in low orbit for another $100K. They wont have the service life or reliability of a current globalstar satellite, but, who cares? We can launch 50 of them for less than the cost of a single globalstar bird.

To fully understand the commercial potential, just look around. What did Bic do to Zippo's business when they started selling disposable lighters for under a buck ?

I remember reading articles a few years ago about a vision of hundreds of low orbit satellites providing broadband coverage for data, the world over. It was a Bill Gates vision paper that came from, and guess what. Bill's original partner in Microsoft has just financed the development of the technology required to achieve that goal.

SS1 is the second stage of a 3 stage delivery system that will ultimately place thousands of inexpensive, disposable, satellites into low orbit. This is a 'disruptive technology' because the complete re-useability and quick turn around without an army of technicians means that the biggest obstacle to space commercialization will finally be overcome, launch costs. Disposable satellites have not been practical historically because the launch costs as much or more than the bird itself. For small deliveries, this is about to change.

It's now time for the next generation of engineers to take a good hard look at the operational parameters. Using the absolute latest in electronics, and the most efficient propulsion, what percentage of that 600 pound payload can become 'productive satellite', and how much will be the final acceleration stage? I'd be immensly curious what kind of ideas would come forth from the pathfinder teams given these parameters.

It's really easy to sit back and say 'been there, done that' for the atmosphere exit trajectory, it wa

Re:blow by blow

[ultranova]

No nation on Earth, nor any group of nations, has any business at all regulating any activity beyond Earth orbit.

I second this, at least as far as traffick control goes. Planetary orbits need to be regulated (because the LEO is already getting dangerously full of junk), and planetary governments/international organizations are best suited for this.

Deep space should be treated as a neutral, non-owned area. There should be minimum regulations there (some are needed to prevent things like space piracy (or, more to the point, of making it legal to prosecute these pirates once they are caught)).

Re:blow by blow

[ultranova]

Why use Perl when a simple shell command will do the same:

while /bin/true ; do wget "http://www.spaceflightnow.com/ss1/status.html" -O status.html ; done

Hmm. I wonder if I have just created a monster...

Re:blow by blow

[Anonymous Coward]

When I was contracting with NASA and working at a MSTS (Manned Space Tracking Station) during the last 5 Apollo missions, there were several instances of "M&M" situations that were never viewed by the general public. Of course M&Ms weren't allowed but there were several other simular items that did make the rounds. Made for some interesting conversations, I can tell you! :)

Re:blow by blow

[G-funk]

Look out! They're ruffled!

Re:blow by blow

[Anonymous Coward]

the laws of physics will prevail

Ha, try telling that to John Ashcroft.

Sweet

[cmaxx]

I saw the take off and the landing live on BBC News24 and it looked very smooth.

Apparently there may have been some slight damage to the nose, but Mike Melvill declared it a 'mind-blowing experience'.

Burt Rutan seems quite moved too.

Woohoo, now maybe my SpaceDev shares will be worth

[darkharlequin]

something! Spacedev does the rubber engines for the spacecraft.

Quick FAQ

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Is this a major accomplishment?
A: Yes. Private spaceflight is huge.
2. Does this win them the X-Prize
A: No. They've got to do it twice, in quick succession.

Re:Quick FAQ

[dustinbarbour]

They've got to do it twice with two passengers on board, no? There were no passengers on this flight, right? Hence, they have yet to begin actual runs for the X Prize.

Re:Quick FAQ

[omega9]

This was /not/ the official first flight to attempt winning the X-Prize. It was a test flight just like the last one, only this one made it to regulation altitude.

Re:Quick FAQ

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only do they have to do it twice, but they have to do it with 3 ppl on board.

Re:Quick FAQ

[dr_dank]

A: No. They've got to do it twice, in quick succession.

On top of that, they must have two passengers or the weighted equivalent of two passengers with the pilot.

Re:Quick FAQ

[Anonymous Coward]

2(B) They have to also take 3 people (or the weight equivalent of 2 people plus the pilot/astronaught) on both flights.

Re:Quick FAQ

[Anonymous Coward]

actually, also need...2(?) passengers and do it 2x in succession(over 2 weeks). So this doesnt technically even count..

big woop, my brain has been flying into outter space for years!

lsd ftw ;O)

Re:Quick FAQ

[mahdi13]

This international competition can be won by the first team 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.

That's what is needed to get the X-Prize, and this was one very large step to making that goal!

Re:Quick FAQ

[scowling]

They've got to do it twice with a crew of three in a two-week period.

Re:Quick FAQ

[afidel]

To elaborate.
This wasn't even an attempt at the X-Prize. With a sucessfull launch under their belt they will file the 60 day notice, and THEN they can attempt. At that time they will have to make two back to back flights with the same craft within 2 weeks in order to win the prize.

Re:Quick FAQ

[bhmit1]

2. Does this win them the X-Prize
A: No. They've got to do it twice, in quick succession.
And they need 3 people on-board.
From the article:
Scaled Composites is one of 24 companies from several countries competing for the $10 million Ansari X Prize, which will go to the first privately funded group to send three people on a suborbital flight 62.5 miles (100.6 kilometers) high and repeat the feat within two weeks using the same vehicle.

Re:Quick FAQ

[Pikhq]

One pilot and the weight of two more people is required.

wings?

[Mz6]

So when does he get his Astronaut Wings?

Re:wings?

[Cyclopedian]

He already did, just by reaching the 62 mile threshold.

-Cyc

Re:wings?

[JabberWokky]

The FAA is presenting them to him on Wednesday... it's a certificate, according to the (semi-knowledgable) MSNBC on-site guy.

The quality of the anchors was a notch above filming cottage cheese. They clearly did not understand what was going on, why it was important, and they thought they made $10 million when they touched down and that it was all about science. They treated it like a NASA launch, expecting it to be months until the next one, and there to be a bunch of ill-explained science as a rationale for the launch.

I'd like to say it again:

The United States now has a certified and *operational* civilian space port. Holy frick.

--
Evan

Re:wings?

[gl4ss]

never, his not in the army/nasa.
if he were, 50 miles would have been enough.

***
from some random site: From the earliest days of the U.S. space program, military pilots who have flown in space have been awarded astronaut wings upon completion of their flight in space. Eligible pilots have received the astronaut wings from the branch of service they are affiliated with. However, astronaut wings were not restricted to rocket flights.

Military pilots who have been able to fly their aircraft to altitudes greater than 50 miles have also been eligible to receive astronaut wings. To date, this rare feat has only been accomplished during the X-15 research program. Military pilots who flew their X-15 aircraft higher than 50 miles were awarded astronaut wings.
***

Re:wings?

[reality-bytes]

The live video fee which the BBC presented online was - er - interesting.

Apparently it was provided by a US media company. Unfortunately the Camera crews could be heard talking over the commentary although it did provide insight into the 'blank shots' of the sky; none of the camera crews could locate the aircraft! :)

The only good shots were WhiteKnight takeoff, the con-trail on 'light' and SpaceShipOne landing. Most of the rest of the flight was obscured by them being 'in the sun'.

Re:wings?

[Ford Prefect]

The live video fee which the BBC presented online was - er - interesting.

Do they have camera tripods the other side of the Atlantic?

You'd briefly catch a glimpse of the spacecraft, then the camera would lurch and you'd have another couple of minutes of funky lens-flares from the sun.

I hope the final footage is better. :-)

Re:wings?

[maxpublic]

The quality of the anchors was a notch above filming cottage cheese.

No shit. Not only was coverage absolutely abysmal for a first in the history of the human race, but the anchors kept going on and on about the $10 million dollar prize, as if that were the only real thing of importance. Heeeellloooo! The project already cost $20 million - what are you folks, economic advisors for the Bush administration?

That and the fact that the 'news' stations seem to think that yet another bullshit report on terrorism, or some two-faced conversative bitch ripping Michael Moore a new one, was more worthy of air time than this great achievement.

I knew there was a reason I stopped watching TV news years ago. I was reminded of those reasons this morning.

Max

Re:wings?

[TheSync]

The United States now has an operational *manned* space port...seeing how nobody is going to be launching from anywhere else in the US for a year or so.

Re:wings?

[jwdb]

I ended up listening in on a streaming radio broadcast from 'Dr Space' on the Space Show radio program. Pretty sure he was broadcasting over a cell phone, and his feed was ./ed for a few minutes, but all in all did a pretty good job.

That's the kind of thing we need to look for in the future - noncommercial news reporting. I expect that the spectators probably would have done a better job than the anchors for the news networks :)

Jw

Re:wings?

[JabberWokky]

Last night a friend left a LiveJournal phone post that I-80 was backed up. It caused a person to change their route (Sacramento I-5 to Stockton, across to the Bay). It'll be interesting when somebody makes a Google for phone posted "just in time" information.

--
Evan

Re:wings?

[jwdb]

Indeed - good example. Once connectivity is available from everywhere, it'l be a simple matter to post anything.
I expect that processing and filtering the absolutely massive ammount of raw info this kind of thing will generate will become the next software holy grail.

Jw

Re:wings?

[rpj1288]

The United States now has a certified and *operational* civilian space port. Ain't that the craziest thing to say? I have every intention of working as a space pilot out of there once I finish school. Man.. a space port..

Re:wings?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously. I tuned into CNN (I live in Asia) and they were talking about the launch. They went live to the scene where the guy was like, "We have about 10 more minutes before the launch", and I was thinking, "Awesome! Where's my popcorn?"

And then they went back to the news, and passed a few more headlines. And I was thinking, "Ok, any minute now, we're going to go live to the scene."

Instead, the anchor says, "Living Golf (In time with Rolex) is up next." Bam. And we switch to some putz talking about how Ireland is the hottest golf destination this year.

I mean jesus. CNN sucks.

Re:CNN Article

[Anonymous Coward]

Grr. I post two seconds after it shows up and someone gets the URL up before I do. Oh well. Congratulations to the SpaceShipOne team.

I never thought

[tmork]

I never thought that my generation (I'm 26) would see commerical space flight in our life time. I thought that the world was too caught up in war and and greed for the next great step to the stars. NASA's stalled and caught in buracrecy, GovCo's got a poltical agenda for the Mars mission.

I am happily, gratefully, wrong. I hope with all my heart that Rutan and his contemporaries continue the privately funded drive to the stars.

Re:I never thought

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought that the world was too caught up in war and and greed for the next great step to the stars.

That's because the media is slanted towards those negative stories.

Re:I never thought

[petepac]

I'm 53 and saw the start of the space race in the begining of the Sixties. When those missions started, we stopped everything at my school to watch them. I hope the schools follow this just as as mush as they did back then.

Re:I never thought

[TopShelf]

Your post sounds somewhat contradictory. If you think the world is too caught up in war and greed, then commercial space flight isn't a farfetched idea at all. In the near term, there are great rewards in store for commercial providers of orbit-level space flight, and in the long term, well, who knows what the possibilities might be???

Re:I never thought

[TechnoGrl]

>I never thought that my generation (I'm 26)
>would see commerical space flight in our life
> time

You still haven't I'm afraid. Rutan has built a vehicle that can attain a 60 mile altitude...AND COMES IMMIDIATELY DOWN again.

What's he's done is little different from shooting a man out of a slick looking cannon that can happen to blow him 60 miles high.

To actually ORBIT a craft must reach about 18,000 mph give or take....rutan's craft can only go about 1,500 mph....not even 10% of what's needed to achieve orbit.

And don't forget...to go that fast you need special materials to withstand the heat effects (>1000 degrees F) that occur at such velocities when back in atmosphere.

Rutan's kind of a hero of mine but I am forced to keep things in perspective. He's built a BIG cannon that can launch someone 60 miles high nd come back down again...but he's NO WHERE NEAR achieving a true suborbital flight which needs HORIZONTAL velocities AT LEAST 5 to 10 times what he could possibly hope to achieve now with his current design.

He'll win an X-Prize..but he needs another vehicle design to make a REAL space ship. IMHO there's a BIG hype factor going in here.

Re:I never thought

[overunderunderdone]

I never thought that my generation would see commerical space flight in our life time. I thought that the world was too caught up in... greed for the next great step to the star

Greed, for the lack of a better word, is good.

To be fair this wasn't really a commercial space flight - on the other hand there are governments that do truly commercial space flights. In the long run though self-interest will always be a greater motivation than philanthropy. How much time have you spent on such a project yourself as an unpaid volunteer? How does it stack up against the amount of time you spend at your paying job? See, even your own "greed" is a more powerful motivation than either charity or intellectual curiosity. When space travel has tangible benefits that those with the means (either of money, but also of knowledge) can profit from THEN we will see even greater strides.

Re:I never thought

[john82]

NASA's stalled and caught in buracrecy, GovCo's got a poltical agenda for the Mars mission.

You're too young to remember that we've been here before. Kennedy went to space for political reasons too. Americans were trying to one-up the Russians. Check this and this out. For those who don't like to RTFA:

Contrary to the popular view of John Kennedy as a space visionary, the president had little interest in space and strove to put humans on the moon only for its political importance. "I'm not that interested in space," he told NASA chief James Webb late in 1962.

Re:I never thought

[Anonymous Coward]

I never thought that my generation (I'm 26) would see commerical space flight in our life time

You have got to be kidding.

Re:I never thought

[whovian]

Just to expound on that 18,000 mph figure ... NASA's calculator says the minimal stable orbit is around 185 km, or about 110 miles.

Congrats to SpaceShipOne et al. that they made it half way!

Re:I never thought

[Art Tatum]

I was 8 years old when Challenger flew her last mission. The whole elementary school was watching the thing on a big screen TV. I don't know if they still do that stuff or not. I'd wager that they don't. I think they're spending most of their time (trying to) keep kids from raping and killing each other now.

Re:I never thought

[Anonymous Coward]

He probably meant before he was 30. Kids these days, eh.

Re:I never thought

[rilister]

and all thanks to the Microsoft tax you paid with that PC...

Re:I never thought

[Art Tatum]

I thought this was just about achieving "spaceflight". In other words, make it to an altitude that could be considered space and fly there for some period of time. Somebody else here said that X15 pilots that got to the edge of space earned "Astronaut Wings". I guess it's pretty much a question of how people are interpreting what's done and said here.

Re:I never thought

[dAzED1]

are you taking into consideration that "HORIZONTAL velocities" are easier to acheieve than vertical? Yes, he went straight up, then right back down. If he had gone straight up, leveled off, and applied the same amount of thrust...he'd have started going much faster. Also note that at that distance the getting-faster part is much easier to accomplish (less atmosphere and gravity to fight against, and all). Note that he even used enviro-friendl[y|ier] fuel....

ALSO note that per the article itself, they said they're hoping on doing the *same flight* commercially within 10-15 years "affordably." I can freaking guarrantee you that my father in law, for example, would sell the shelby he has in his garage that he babies, and remortgage his house, even if it meant only 3 minutes of weightlessness - just to have broken the Space Barrier. Do NOT underestimate the lingering determination of the original Trekkies. It is NOT hype that this is big.

If you compare the computing power of 20, or even just 10, years ago with that of today - its an amazing difference. If there are semi-regular trips to the space barrier on a commercial level, we will learn a TREMENDOUS amount. As humans (esp us Americans), we learn far more by doing than we do by theorizing. Just as we have chips in computers now that break theories of 20 years ago as far as what would be possible, the actual commoditization...of sorts...of space travel will also make it cheaper, faster, better, etc blah.

Re:I never thought

[Anonymous Coward]

What's he's done is little different from shooting a man out of a slick looking cannon that can happen to blow him 60 miles high.

Blah blah blah, everything sux.

Re:I never thought

[HermanZA]

Hmm, there are many commercial orbital space flights going on, but they are all unmanned.

Re:I never thought

[GileadGreene]

What's he's done is little different from shooting a man out of a slick looking cannon that can happen to blow him 60 miles high.

And little different from what Alan Shepard did in the original Mercury/Redstone launch. But it's a start. And it does count as "space flight".

And don't forget...to go that fast you need special materials to withstand the heat effects (>1000 degrees F) that occur at such velocities when back in atmosphere.

That's not necessarily true. There have been designs for aluminum-based thermal protection systems. Of course, most of them make use of complex transpiration-cooling systems to stop the aluminum from melting :-) Personally, I would wager that Rutan and Co. will go with some form of ablative shielding (like the old Mercury/Gemini/Apollo capsules), probably a spray-on ablator that can be reasonably quickly replaced. That kind of approach seems in line with the general philosophy of the SpaceShipOne design (for example, their use of a hybrid rocket engine).

but he's NO WHERE NEAR achieving a true suborbital flight

Actually, they just achieved suborbital flight. It's orbital flight that they are still a ways from achieving.

Re:I never thought

[Flamerule]

As other replies to your post have pointed out, you are laboring under some misconceptions. Allow me to clear them up for you.

I never thought that my generation (I'm 26) would see commerical space flight in our life time.

You still haven't I'm afraid. Rutan has built a vehicle that can attain a 60 mile altitude...AND COMES IMMIDIATELY DOWN again.

You are incorrect. As Wikipedia's article on space notes, "The altitude of 100 kilometers or 62 miles established by the Federation Aeronautique Internationale is the most widely used definition as the boundary between atmosphere and space." Because SpaceShipOne can attain this 100 km altitude, Burt Rutan has, indeed, achieved commercial space flight.

To actually ORBIT a craft must reach about 18,000 mph give or take....rutan's craft can only go about 1,500 mph....not even 10% of what's needed to achieve orbit.

This is all well and good, but SpaceShipOne wasn't intended to reach orbit. Orbit isn't required to achieve space flight. Orbit isn't required to win the X Prize.

[Rutan]'s built a BIG cannon that can launch someone 60 miles high nd come back down again...but he's NO WHERE NEAR achieving a true suborbital flight which needs HORIZONTAL velocities AT LEAST 5 to 10 times what he could possibly hope to achieve now with his current design.

Again, you're incorrect. Wikipedia's article on suborbital space flight gives a definition: "A sub-orbital spaceflight (or sub-orbital flight) is a spaceflight that does not involve putting a vehicle into orbit." Thus, because SpaceShipOne enters space, and does not achieve orbit, it is a suborbital spaceflight.

Re:I never thought

[maxpublic]

I thought that the world was too caught up in war and and greed

Greed is a good thing. Without greed there would be no SpaceShip One. Ponder that a second before you go off on some socialist rant about greed.

And if it still doesn't sink in, remember that it was an AMERICAN company motivated by GREED that pulled off this historic achievement. Not some SOCIALIST collective giving lip-service to 'the common good'.

Max

Re:I never thought

[Plutor]

This is news to me -- not because I thought JFK was a "space visionary", but because I have a hard time believing that anyone would have the misconception that JFK was behind it for scientific reasons. I didn't live through that time (by about a decade) and the space race has always seemed like an obvious Cold War battleground to me. Is the "space visionary" view really that popular?

Re:I never thought

[gad_zuki!]

> Kennedy went to space for political reasons too.

Yes, except Kennedy was serious and helped pull it off. The whole Mars mission is politics, but of the "distract them from the news" kind. Rutan will get on Mars before Bush's "mars mission."

Re:I never thought

[Noofus]

I really do think "greed" is too strong of a word to use here. I wouldnt call the desire to make money "greed". And there are plenty of easier ways to get money, even if you are a wealthy investor.

I am just trying to say that I believe these guys arent trying to do this because they see $ signs in their eyes. Its a motivatinig factor obviously, but there has to be more to it. ROI for this venture wont be in the black for a very long time. There needs to be other motivations.

But yes, it would NEVER happen unless somehow, somewhere down the line there was a potential for a return on investment.

Re:I never thought

[Yet Another Smith]

I certainly didn't think it could happen so fast, either. That's the great thing about private spaceflight, though. 99.99% of the world can be preoccupied with wars or greed or Survivor, and it only takes a few guys (fortunately one of whom was greedy enough to bankroll the venture) to get it done. You don't need a whole government to do it.

That's actually why I'm always a bit optimistic about this sort of thing. As long as the government doesn't get in the way, it only takes a handful of dreamers to get it going.

Now that's not to say that government plays no role in spaceflight. Rutan & Co stood on the shoulders of giants to make this work. Without the advances made by US, Soviet, German, and European (and many others, too) governmental & military organizations, we wouldn't be where we are today.

Re:I never thought

[admdrew]

You still haven't I'm afraid. Rutan has built a vehicle that can attain a 60 mile altitude...AND COMES IMMIDIATELY DOWN again.

I seem to recall the Wright brothers' first flight being rather short as well...

Re:I never thought

[Moofie]

Altitude is easy. Velocity is a bitch.

Exercise for the class: Figure out the potential energy and kinetic energy required for orbit.

PE=mgh
KE=mv^2/2

Guess which one is lots lots lots bigger.

Re:I never thought

[VanillaCoke420]

I was pretty much sure there would be commercial spaceflight in my time (I'm 26 too). I'm also sure that within my lifetime we will see commercial flights to LEO, and possibly small hotels there.

Re:I never thought

[sydb]

You, and everyone like you that says "greed is good", are either mistaken as to the meaning of the word "greed", or lowlife.

Greed is taking more than your just deserves. It is taking food from the hungry because you still have a little room to squeeze some more down your fat neck.

Stop saying "greed is good". A better phrase might be "desire for wealth is good". Not that that's necessarily the case, of course, because what's "good" is totally subjective to the person, or group of people, who is trying to be "good".

A desire for wealth doesn't mean a desire to cheat, steal, or take more than your fair share. Greed does.

If you still think that "greed is good", then I think you're "lowlife". That's subjective too, but that's the way I feel about it!

Re:I never thought

[maxpublic]

Greed is taking more than your just deserves.

Who decides what is your 'just deserves'? You and your little judgemental friends? I don't think so. Try to decide that for me and I'll tell you to fuck off, socialist. I live in a capitalism, and that means I can accumulate far, far more wealth than I could ever reasonably use. And that is *not* a bad thing, no matter what you and your ilk claim.

Stop saying "greed is good".

Greed is good. And what are you going to do about? Come to my house and beat me up for saying something you don't like? Here's another one that'll undoubtedly get your knickers in a twist: "eat shit".

A desire for wealth doesn't mean a desire to cheat, steal, or take more than your fair share. Greed does.

Who elected you Supreme Ruler? Last I checked, you don't get to define terms for the rest of us. You're just one guy, with no power whatsoever, and that's all you'll ever be. Get used to it.

Oh - and greed is good. Really, really good. Mmmmm, greed....

Max

Re:I never thought

[sydb]

You haven't proven yourself to be lowlife, because I don't think you understood my post, so I grant you the benefit of the doubt. You have proven yourself to be very immature, though, if not actually stupid.

Greed is good. And what are you going to do about? Come to my house and beat me up for saying something you don't like?

I'll gladly come over and explain what I mean, if it's not too far from here. Where do you live? I won't beat you up though, because by your aggresive attitude you are probably a sexually-frustrated 15-year old, and I wouldn't want to break you.

Re:I never thought

[GSloop]

You are welcome to wallow in your greed.

However, unchecked greed will result in ultimate detriment to yourself and society around you.

A socialist system is, from an altruistic standpoint, more desireable than a greed based capitalistic one.

However, since humans are not really altruistic beings, greed seems to be a better motivator.

But one shouldn't confuse which system works better on imperfect humans with one that is more idalistically pure.

A four course meal is better in virtually all ways than a bowl of dog-food. If all you can accomplish is dog food, by all means eat it - you'll die otherwise. But don't confuse the dog food as a better meal. It isn't.

Cheers,
Greg

Re:I never thought

[maxpublic]

I'll gladly come over and explain what I mean, if it's not too far from here. Where do you live? I won't beat you up though, because by your aggresive attitude you are probably a sexually-frustrated 15-year old, and I wouldn't want to break you.

Riiiight. No, there are two reasons you won't beat me up. They're called "The First Amendment" and "The Second Amendment"

Let me elaborate, since you seem to be ignorant of the Constitution. The First Amendment says I can state any opinion I want, and there isn't fuck-all you can do about it. You can whine, bitch and moan, but I can just laugh in your face and you're absolutely helpless to change the situation.

The Second Amendment says that if you get uppity and decide that you've the god-given right to ignore the First Amendment, I can shoot your sorry ass.

Those are the two reasons you won't be coming to my house and doing violence to me for saying something you don't happen to like. Neither of those reasons are in your control, nor will you ever have the power to change them.

And this would be me, laughing at your arrogance in thinking you could ever do otherwise. Impotent little git.

Max

Re:I never thought

[maxpublic]

Only a socialist would think socialism more "idealistically pure" than capitalism. Especially when socialism means "the many shall oppress the few, and each other, all in a crusade for 'the common good' - as defined by a few, self-proclaimed morally superior individuals...."

Socialism is just another name for dictatorship. The only thing that distinguishes it from any other banana-republic is who gets to run it.

Max

Re:I never thought

[Anonymous Coward]

you need special materials to withstand the heat effects (>1000 degrees F) that occur at such velocities when back in atmosphere


Just use a parachute and float down.

Sure, you'll have to bring a few extra boxes of twinkies cause it will take longer to get down but this should be more than offset by not having to carry all that heat shielding.

Re:I never thought

[sydb]

I won't be coming to your house because you live thousands of miles away.

Why do you read violent intent in what I said? I was simply responding to your invitation to do you harm, by declining it.

What makes you think I want to stop you speaking your mind? I for one fully support the First Amendment. Say what you like. I'll say what I like in return.

Shoot me for doing anything other than pointing a gun at you or holding a knife to your throat, and I would hope and expect you to cook in that electric chair your people love to turn on.

Anyway, thanks for completely ignoring the content of my posts, and instead reacting in an exaggeratedly agressive manner. I've read your posts and it looks like you're not a sexually-frustrated teenager (you have a wife... but then the two are not mutually exclusive). However it does look like you are probably some kind of psychopath.

Re:I never thought

[Anonymous Coward]

I was 8 years old when Challenger flew her last mission.

I was the same age when the first shuttle went up. It wasn't considered very important by the school or much of anyone else there, and so I was one of the only kids who decided to miss recess in order to watch it.

Re:I never thought

[maxpublic]

However it does look like you are probably some kind of psychopath.

Which would still be a step above being a frustrated little socialist loon.

Max

Re:I never thought

[Anonymous Coward]

God, you're an ass. Get over yourself, the rest of us already have.

Re:I never thought

[Anonymous Coward]

However it does look like you are probably some kind of psychopath.

No, sir, he is most assuredly not. Psychopaths are by definition (in part at least) intelligent and charming. You see my objection, surely? We are most definitely not this Max freak. I might accept psychotic as an appropriate term but, even so, only if streched to the limits of the definition. I would much prefer he be labelled 'freakishly stupid' if only there weren't so many more like him...

Post Scriptum to 'Max'; You yourself state that anything that you can acquire is legitimate gain in a capitolist society (if you don't believe me, go re-read your own posts). Suppose then that one acquired the means to end your existance? That is an acquisition, and a legitimate gain in your 'society'. Assume then, for a moment, that I have the means and the will to use them. Are you scared yet?

Re:I never thought

[sydb]

You lost.

Re:I never thought

[nlindstrom]

YHBT. YHL. HAND.

Re:I never thought

[GSloop]

Your reading comprehension must be lacking.

In a practical world here, capitalism works better. It is not a better system, when individuals are NOT selfish self-interested jerks, to put it kindly.

Perhaps you believe that this world and human nature as it exists today is how it ought to be. If that's so and you don't aspire to better, then fine C is king.

If you believe there is a better way of living and a way to have better individuals internally (i.e. their characters are better) then a socialistic style system is more fair and equitable.

But nice try lumping me as a "socialist." You construct great straw man arguments too!

I should note IHBT. HAND.

Cheers,
Greg

Re:I never thought

[sydb]

Nah, he's not a troll, he's just a fucking idiot.

Re:I never thought

[Anonymous Coward]

This was an US company.
Is it necessary to point out that of the three countries in the world that have the technology to go to space, 2 of them developed it as SOCIALIST countries?
China and the USSR.
Only 1 of the 3 countries that can send people into space did it with a CAPITALIST system.

Re:I never thought

[yourmom16]

You dont need to know the formula for the kinetic and potential energy to tell that the kinetic energy needed is twice the potential energy; It follows from the virial theorem.

Re:I never thought

[yourmom16]

actually now that i thought about it i realized that we were choosing different zero points for potential energy.

Re:I never thought

[yourmom16]

the parachute will heat up then instead and you will lose it; its not worth the extra weight

Awesome

[Primotech]

I cannot describe how truly happy I am to hear this news. It's a major accomplishment that many don't fully understand the significance of. This just about made my week.

Yeehaaw!

[drewzhrodague]

Congradulations, Rock-on! Thank you for doing this! Jane! Get me off this crazy thing!

From live coverage on CNN

[icejai]

Basically at first, they said the engine cut out early on their own (they were supposed to be switched off by the pilot instead). They don't know why the engine cut out early.

As a result, they weren't sure if they reached the 100km mark at first, but were told they did afterward.

On the glide back to the landing strip, some loud pops were heard coming from the back of the rocket. Chaser planes inspected, and reported everything looked ok.

Hooray for private spaceflight!

Re:From live coverage on CNN

[ShadyG]

On the glide back to the landing strip, some loud pops were heard coming from the back of the rocket. Chaser planes inspected, and reported everything looked ok.

It was just backfiring. Happens all the time.

Re:From live coverage on CNN

[DynaSoar]

CNN also repeatedly said Mike Melvill was the first civilian astronaut. I'm sure this came as a surprise to Neil Armstrong, who apparently spent his entire military career unaware he was in the military.

Re:From live coverage on CNN

[admdrew]

It was just backfiring. Happens all the time.

Millions of dollars in research invalidated because of a huge potato stuck in the exhaust.

Re:From live coverage on CNN

[Anonymous Coward]

Neil Armstrong was in the Navy from 1949 to 1952. He wasn't in the military at the same time as he was an astronaut, but he was once in the military.

See this page for more information

Re:From live coverage on CNN

[rew]

The first civillan died on challenger. All others who went into space were officially in the miltary. Really.

Old News?

[thedillybar]

Posted by Hemos on Monday June 21, @11:31AM [EDT]

Around 10:30 EDT the craft will reach an altitude of 50,000 feet...

What's wrong with this picture?

Re:Old News?

[Bombcar]

It's even worse now: Update: 06/21 15:36 GMT by S: An MSNBC story confirms that SpaceShipOne 'glided safely back to Earth, landing back at the Mojave Airport' around 8.15AM PST.

Talk about having to do timezone changes in your head!

Hoorah for the human species

[Ignorant Aardvark]

This is a great day for man. I firmly believe that our future lies in some day getting off this Earth and spreading throughout space. As such, the accomplishment we have witnessed today was great. This heralds a new era of spaceflight, not one in which governments spend billions, but one in which small companies pay millions, to get into orbit. At this rate, in ten years, commercial space flight might be a reality - and space exploitation (and as a side-effect, human colonization of space) would occur. See any number of novels by Stephen Baxter for more details.

Re:Hoorah for the human species

[isolationism]

Amen to Stephen Baxter. Funny, I am currently reading Titan at the moment, having exhausted everything else he's written since Manifold: Space.

I'm currently in the middle of an entire acronym-laden chapter about the battered and careworn hulk of Columbia (sigh) deorbiting for re-entry. The story takes place in 2004 -- go figure.

Stephen Baxter is probably peeing his pants right now. I'm pretty chuffed, myself.

Re:Hoorah for the human species

[dfj225]

"I firmly believe that our future lies in some day getting off this Earth and spreading throughout space."

My brother and I had a conversation about this just the other day and I came to the conclusion that even if we did have a population living on Mars or the Moon, I would not want to live there permanently. Of course, I would want to visit at least once, but as far as a home is concerned I don't think I would be very happy. I mean when you think of the beauty of Earth, the vegitation, lakes, oceans, and wonderful landscapes compared to the baren lands on the Moon and Mars, it seems very depressing. I think that most people would not give up living on Earth in order to have a home on another planet.

Re:Hoorah for the human species

[Shardis]

I think that most people would not give up living on Earth in order to have a home on another planet.

True, but most people wouldn't have to. Only a tiny tiny tiny fraction would, and, with some minor advances in medicine - it would be self-perpetuating. ;)

Re:Hoorah for the human species

[confused one]

once you get a generation born and raised on the Moon or Mars, you might find they think all that green and blue is kinda weird. (Earth -- nice place to visit, wouldn't want to live there). Besides, if you terraform Mars, there'll be water and plants and animals. Before that, to survive, they'll need fairly extensive greenhouses.

Movie search

[smARMie]

That's great. They did it. I've searched for a movie to download, other then the one @ msnbc.com, but was unable to find one. Any ideea where to get the launch/separation (eventually landing) movie?

More on space.com

[Neurotoxic666]

More information should be available today at http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/SS1_touchdown _040621.html

Everybody Is Covering It

[Trogdorsey]

This is great publicity for the X-Prize and what they are trying to accomplish. Just about every news site is covering this flight. CNN and FOXNews have it on their main page.

Re:Everybody Is Covering It

[Anonymous Coward]

CNN and FOXNews have it on their main page.

Yeah, but the Fox News site claims that President Bush piloted it and somehow thrwarted terrorists in the process.

Re:Everybody Is Covering It

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but remember, this is /., so we must repeat the party line: "FOX News != news".

Thank you, comnrade.

Next stop: Kessel run

[patmandu]

Let's see 'em try to do the Kessel run in less than 12 parsecs!

Re:Next stop: Kessel run

[hb253]

Er, a parsec is a measure of distance, not speed.

Re:Next stop: Kessel run

[centauri]

Dat's da joke.

Re:Next stop: Kessel run

[GileadGreene]

Er, the Kessel run is fictional.

The parent post was correctly quoting Han Solo from Star Wars: A New Hope. So if you want to nitpick on units you probably need to contact George Lucas directly.

Aside: I can't believe that I'm actually having to explain this to anyone who reads Slashdot :-p

Re:Next stop: Kessel run

[Anonymous Coward]

Christ, what a maroon. 1) it's a joke, and 2) it's a reference to "Star Wars". Ever seen it? It's one of those movie-things.

Re:Next stop: Kessel run

[nharmon]

Yeah but if Kessel run is 13 parsecs wide, doing it in less than 12 would be a feat. Would require a wormhole or something.

Re:Next stop: Kessel run

[happyfrogcow]

jeebus. you call yourself a nerd? first of all, its a star wars reference. not knowing that is grounds for dismissal. second, regardless of Lucas not knowing what a parsec was and just using it because it sounded cool, imagine the ways in which a measure of distance could also indicate how quick you could complete something.

the targets are moving? so if they get further and further away, your doing a bad job?

Re:Next stop: Kessel run

[hb253]

1. I'm not laughing - no sense of humor. 2. I would venture a guess I saw it when you were in diapers, or maybe when you were a gleam in someone's eye :-) I tend to forget unimportant throwaway dialog from 27 year old movies. Anyway, according to one of those web based geek tests, I'm not much of a nerd, so sue me.

Re:Next stop: Kessel run

[Moofie]

Yeah, this reply definitely makes you look like less of an asshole. Really.

Re:Next stop: Kessel run

[�berhund]

If you get sufficiently close to light speed, the distance decreases, thanks to the wonders of relativity.

Re:Next stop: Kessel run

[hb253]

Such belligerence. tsk tsk young man

Re:Next stop: Kessel run

[Moofie]

Somebody needs a hug. C'mere big guy.

Re:Next stop: Kessel run

[Anonymous Coward]

Aside: I can't believe that I'm actually having to explain this to anyone who reads Slashdot :-p

In the Land of the Blind the one-eyed man is king :-)

Wonderful!

[MachineShedFred]

Next time please provide a link to the actual story so that when CNN takes it off their front page due to the next Clowns Fighting for the White House story breaking, we can still see "stuff that matters" mmkay?

Re:Wonderful!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, cuz like, searching for the story would be beyond your current skills, eh?

Re:Wonderful!

[Daetrin]

My favorite is when they include six or seven links to various things and then include a quote from "the article" at the end, and you have no idea which link leads to the A you're supposed to be RTFing before you comment about it.

New Poll

[PsiPhi]

I think we need a new poll, now that it has successfully landed.

Re:New Poll

[I confirm I'm not a]

I think we need a new poll, now that it has successfully landed.

It'd be interesting to see what would happen if the editors reset the poll: I'm betting a lot more people would be willing to be on the maiden flight now it's happened ;)

Mojave NOT America's first inland spaceport!

[Anonymous Coward]

I was in an inland spaceport at the oxford valley mall over 20 years ago.

Re:Mojave NOT America's first inland spaceport!

[Anonymous Coward]

I was in an inland spaceport at the oxford valley mall over 20 years ago.

Wow, it's been a while since I've been there. Are they even in business anymore?

For those people that aren't from the U.S., Spaceport is an arcade chain.

Made It!!!

[AlricTheMad]

YeeeehAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

way to go Scaled Composites

AlricTheMad

Excellent! Now, the sooner we see real, ...

[Dagny Taggert]

...commercial, for-profit ventures going into space, the sooner it will become accessible to the common man. Just not in any of our lifetimes.

Success

[BCW2]

I watched it land on Fox News. They made altitude and landed safely. Bigtime congratulations to the entire Scaled Composits team.

Re:Success

[dvk]

Wait... you ADMIT to watching FoxNews on /.???
Do you have extra un-nneeded karma or are you just suicidal? :)

-DVK

Re:Success

[BCW2]

Just honest, something that many others still need to learn. I'll take anything closer to the center but refuse the far left. Most of them make it too easy to spot the lies. Their lips are moving.

Honesty is much more important than karma.

Re:Success

[Probashi]

Honesty? Nah, it has got nothing to do with honesty :) You think FOX News is honest because it probably tells what you want to hear. Where as a person from the left would think some other so called left leaning news media to be honest because it matches that person's world view.

And, if you discount everything as lies since they are comming from far left then you are not getting the truth. Neither the left nor the right has any monopoly on the truth.

I, for one, read both sides of the story (from multiple sources) and try to make an educated guess on the truth (it is still a guess :)).

Re:Success

[errxn]

That's probably the smartest way to go about it, in order to get the most balanced picture of the news.

It just amuses me to no end when people complain about how biased FOX News is. Maybe (probably) so, but they are no more biased IMHO than any other large news network. It's just that their biases are different, so they tend to stand out from what we've traditionally been conditioned to accept as 'journalism'.

Funny how we don't hear these same people complain about Dan Rather or Peter Jennings, who are blatantly and unrepentantly biased (especially Rather).

Re:Success

[phud]

It landed on Fox News? Damn, I hope E.D. Hill is ok, but if O'reilly is hurt, I won't cry.

Re:Success

[BCW2]

Wouldn't it be nice to find some OBJECTIVE journalists somewhere. Just the facts with no slant. Then we could decide what to do on our own, or who to vote for. I doubt the teach objectivity in any jounalism class anymore. I know they used to.

Re:Success

[BCW2]

The honesty part is admitting I watch Fox, I also watch CNN. They all lie or warp the stories so much it really doesn't matter. Reporters these days, print or video are a joke.

Re:Success

[BCW2]

O'Reilly is one of the few journalists to be close to objective in this country. He slams everyone that screws up and applauds those that earn it. Tonight he said unkind things about Bush and Kerry, like most nights.

clarification?

[ed.han]

isn't this dependent upon which type of orbit one wishes to establish?

ed

Re:clarification?

[Anonymous Coward]

Assumes any circular orbit. According to some guy named Kepler, elliptical orbits speed up then slow down with equal areas swept out in equal times.

Fantastic

[Limburgher]

Hopefully this is the harbinger of great things to come. I'm glad they made it, and I hope they can do it again.

America's first inland spaceport?

[stevesliva]

So they discount Edwards AFB, where the X-15 flew from a few decades ago?

Re:America's first inland spaceport?

[BCW2]

What about Northrop Strip at White Sands Missle Range New Mexico where one shuttle landed when Edwards was wet?

Re:America's first inland spaceport?

[JMan1865]

NO, this is America's first COMMERCIAL inland Spaceport. This is where the first commercial space flight took off and landed from - hence the soon to be renamed Mojave Spaceport.

Hell yeah...

Re:America's first inland spaceport?

[Anonymous Coward]

So they discount Edwards AFB, where the X-15 flew from a few decades ago?

No, dipshit, it's just not a civilian facility.

Re:America's first inland spaceport?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's an FAA designation. A location isn't called a spaceport just cause a vehicle leaving from it reaches space.

Re:America's first inland spaceport?

[foolish]

Neither of them is a civilian spaceport. The site has to get a HUGE amount of paperwork. EPA, etc. Also, the military ranges tend to want termination devices on spacecraft (the missle model of recovery)

Re:America's first inland spaceport?

[ericspinder]

... hence the soon to be renamed Mojave Spaceport.

Don't you mean the Reagan SubOrbital Spaceport! (for the record; I respected Reagan, but the Republican "Hero worship" has gotten a little crazy.)

All kidding aside, it's a tremendous step. Rutan should be honored in the name of the first commerical spaceport.

Re:America's first inland spaceport?

[Paulrothrock]

Mojave spaceport; You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. Or space hippies having a big party. :D

How about the revised strapline...

[T-Kir]

Slashdot....

'News' for nerds, stuff that matters (an hour or two late, and no guarantee of it not being duped later).

A Truly Historic Day

[yohaas]

This is truly an historic day.
IMO the most historic event since 9/11.
No, it's not the beginning of commercially available space flight, but it is an important proof of concept. I think it's analagous to the Wright brothers flight. Obvioulsy a lot more time and money will have to be spent to achieve widespread space travel, but today's flight accomplishes two things:

1. It gets spcae travel into the private sector. Yes, government programs are responsible for creating many of the technologies we use today, but there's nothing like a little privateization to get things moving.

2. It shows that is can be done. This is more of a psychological thing, but important nonetheless.

Congratulations to the SpaceShipOne team, Godspeed and Thank You!

And so it begins...

[rpj1288]

What's next, after the X prize? Where will our bounds be? I think this is the beginning, the beginning of our spread into the solar system and eventually into instellar space. My goal for my life is to fly in space as a career, and thanks to these people, that was just made a lot more likely. We indeed live in interesting times.

Re:And so it begins...

[BCW2]

They still need to do two launches within two weeks with three people on board to win the X Prize. This was a test only. It validates the capabilities of the design. Next, go for the Prize.

Re:And so it begins...

[rpj1288]

I realize that. But look ahead, after that. Long term. I see a wonderful future. What do you see?

Re:And so it begins...

[BCW2]

More and better things. These are the first but personally I hope they have a three or more way tie for the X-Prize. Think of the different ways of doing the same thing. Then the cheaper one wins in the long run. It is exciting.

My (late) submission

[Kulic]

CNN is reporting in a developing story that SpaceShipOne attained an altitude of over 62.5 miles (100 km) in its historic flight earlier today, making it the first privately built craft to fly in space. More information can be found courtesy of Scaled Composites here and Space.com also has a story.

"Space flight is not only for governments to do," Rutan said. "Clearly, there's an enormous pent-up hunger to fly into space and not just dream about it." "We are heading to orbit sooner than you think," he said. "We do not intend to stay in low-earth orbit for decades. The next 25 years will be a wild ride. ... One that history will note was done for the benefit of everyone."

Re:My (late) submission

[Kulic]

Sorry for replying to my own post, but the Scaled press release I linked to was the old one (June 2).

As of this posting there is no new press releases on the Scaled website.

Soundtrack?

[dr_dank]

Did Mike crank "Magic Carpet Ride" on his way up?

Re:Soundtrack?

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely, with "Spirit in the Sky" on the same playlist, no doubt. :)

Re:Soundtrack?

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Given the number of chase craft "Convoy" might be a better tune...

Re:Soundtrack?

[Ynefel]

How about "Ride, Captain ride...." upon your mystery ship?

Re:Soundtrack?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fly me to the Moon
And let me play among the stars
Let me see what spring is like
On Jupiter and Mars ...

Paul Allen

[dustinbarbour]

I guess Microsoft money is good for something!

Re:Woohoo, now maybe my SpaceDev shares will be wo

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, rubber engines!

How many turns does the rubber band need to be wound to propel the thing to orbit? Must be thousands, if not millions...

that's fantastic!

[RoufTop]

So how long until the Discovery channel does a special on how they hoaxed it?

Very happy to see this without govenrment involved

[the_rajah]

and within my lifetime. I'm 58 so I watched the first sub-orbital shots. This is a great day, but as someone else said, a baby step. It's a long way to orbital velocity and, perhaps even harder, landing from orbital velocity. I'm confident they'll get there. Way to go!!

"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain

Dammit!

[Leroy_Brown242]

Missed my flight!

Cost?

[razmaspaz]

Does anyone have the numbers for how much they actually spent to get to this point? I have heard ~$20 million...but I don't know a real number.

How times have changed

[GreatDrok]

I was watching for this on BBC News 24 and they continued to show the leader of the opposition haranging Mr Blair about the EU Constitution. They did show a little "Breaking News" banner but I can't believe they didn't just cut away. I can't imaging this behaviour happening in the days of Project Mercury....

Re:How times have changed

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup and to top it all off they even got it wrong!

I was flicking trying to get coverage and saw that flash up BBC News24 and Sky News, both of which were covering parliament (along with BBC Parliament, ITV News etc etc) But when i went back to CNN/Fox News which were covering it live, they were listening to the live radio broadcast and still awaiting a height conformation, the last they had heard was 316,000 feet, which was 8000 short.

But hey, at least we got to see the farce that is the government having another argument which isn't actually going to change anything, on 4 channels all at once!

Re:How times have changed

[I confirm I'm not a]

I was watching for this on BBC News 24 and they continued to show [parliamentary debates]

Aye, that pissed me off. Worst yet, though, was Bert Rutan mentioning that he was watching the whole thing courtesy of a tail-mounted camera - dammit! I so wanted to see that live, and I just knew the British media would screw it up. Also, did you notice that much of the News 24 footage of Space Ship One landing had the craft obscured by the News 24 "breaking news" banner? Clowns.

(Disclaimer: I wuv my BBC, etc, just wish they could get the important things in life right...)

Common man

[MAXOMENOS]

I don't know, at $5000 or $10000 a pop it could come within the reach of the reasonably wealthy.

No more NASA!

[Anonymous Coward]

Woohoo! time to cut funds for NASA!

Panel was buckled aft.

[reality-bytes]

I was listening to the radio relay on the bbc.co.uk live video feed.

On the way back (I think after completing the 'feather'), Mike reported a 'loud bang' and his chase plane, the Alpha-Jet reported that an aft fairing had buckled.

When they got back down they were saying that they suspect the loud bang was caused by that same panel.

Re:Panel was buckled aft.

[Anonymous Coward]

No! It was on the wing, tearing at it! I swear it was there!

Re:Panel was buckled aft.

[Anonymous Coward]

Mynoks!

Googling for Michael Melvill

[vijaya_chandra]

shows up The Unity and Gravity of an elemental Architecture in the first page.

Linking this guy with reference to gravity (if only the word) doesn't seem to be a co-incidence. May be Google's brain's evolving.

an article interesting from '98
RUTAN'S WEIRDEST PLANE YET

VIDEO! WHERE ART THOU?

[hkfczrqj]

Anybody captured this on video? Will Scaled/CNN/Discovery/anybody release any videos of this? Photos should be nice... videos are mandatory :)

Privatization, Here We Come

[schnarff]

Now let's hope that SpaceShip One and others competing for the X-Prize can get actively involved in iplementing the Moon-To-Mars Commission's recommendations, which call for a great deal of privatization and commercialization of space, particularly near Earth.

Real news for a change

[hackstraw]

This is the best "news", I believe that I have experienced in my lifetime since the launch of the 1st space shuttle. No, I do not consider wars and killings as news. My life is not really affected by them. Sorry.

My life has been affected by explorers that came to this country (USA), and by those who have gone into space. Both war/killing and exploration provide an idiology for rustling up resources to get a common goal accomplished, but I kinda prefer the latter.

One thing to note is that the X Prize will be awarded to "the first privately funded group to send three people on a suborbital flight 62.5miles (100.6 kilometers) high and repeat the feat within two weeks using the same vehicle."

That is a pretty high goal, because I do not know of any space vehicle that has accomplished this (am I wrong?).

Re:Real news for a change

[maxpublic]

That is a pretty high goal, because I do not know of any space vehicle that has accomplished this (am I wrong?).

No, you're not wrong. No one has ever managed to put the same spacecraft into orbit in a two-week time frame. Whoever wins the X-prize will accomplish what no government has ever been able to do.

Max

Re:Real news for a change

[ttsalo]

Whoever wins the X-prize will accomplish what no government has ever been able to do.

Not entirely accurate. The X-15 could have flown to space twice in two weeks, if they just had had a reason to do so. (X-prize didn't exist at the time)

--

Re:Real news for a change

[maxpublic]

As I said before, 'almost' doesn't count. The X-15 never flew twice in two weeks with three people aboard.

Which makes my statement ENTIRELY accurate.

Max

Re:Real news for a change

[MrBlackBand]

My life has been affected by explorers that came to this country (USA), and by those who have gone into space. Both war/killing and exploration provide an idiology for rustling up resources to get a common goal accomplished, but I kinda prefer the latter.

You do realize, I hope, that the European explorers who came to the "New World" did more than their fair share of killing?

Kurt Vonnegut said it best in "Breakfast of Champions":

"For example, teachers of children in the United States of America wrote this date on the blackboard again and again, and asked the children to memorize it with pride and joy:

1492

The teachers told the children that this was when the continent was discovered by human beings. Actually, millions of human beings were already living full and imaginative lives on the continent in 1492. That was simply the year in which sea pirates began to cheat and rob and kill them."

Re:Real news for a change

[Anonymous Coward]

I do not consider wars and killings as news. My life is not really affected by them.

Lucky for you. I hope you take the time someday to thank the people who keep war so distant from your life.

"Just Keep Going"

[Bob_Robertson]

Now we're into the realm of engineering. They can get above the atmosphere with the composite craft, all they have to do is keep going.

I agree with you that this is the easiest and best way to do the job. I loath the "blast-off" mentality, where 99% of your craft is thrown away just getting up there. Waste!

However, "just keep going" is easy to say and hard to do. It will require substantially more fuel to be carried, which itself requires far more fuel to be consumed accelerating the greater mass. The return flight also must be considered, heat shielding means more mass too.

Will Rutan's formula of nitrous oxide and tire rubber lend itself to this task? In the immortal words of Bugs Bunny, "Nyaaaaa, (munch munch munch) Could be."

It will happen. It may be Armadillo Aerospace, it may be Scaled Composites, it may be someone none of us have heard of yet, but someone will do it and private people who care about their investment won't do it by throwing 99% of their property away.

Bob-

Re:"Just Keep Going"

[j-pimp]

It will happen. It may be Armadillo Aerospace, it may be Scaled Composites, it may be someone none of us have heard of yet, but someone will do it and private people who care about their investment won't do it by throwing 99% of their property away.
Eventually it will happen in a manner that does not throw away 99% of the craft. However, throwing away 99% of the craft is how we've been getting into space for a while. Remember the universal law, Good chepa fast, pick two. Well the X-Prize has a 10 million dollar reward, and plenty of its contestant aren't doing it for the money.

Also, their throwing away 99% of the craft, and then picking it up again. A better way will be found, but seperating rockets are the big block carboreator fed technology of space travel. Sure their are smarter ways of doing it, but sometimes a sledge hammer tool for the job.

Re:"Just Keep Going"

[Anonymous Coward]

"I loath the "blast-off" mentality, where 99% of your craft is thrown away just getting up there. Waste!"

It's completely unnecessary. The space race started off as a beauty pageant for Russian and American ICBM technology. The point of missles was to get a bomb to a target as fast as possible. Space exploration and ICBM technology played off one another. But there's no reason to stay stuck in that loop now.

Most of us geeks don't care how we get to orbit, just that we can. Cheaply and efficiently doesn't involve using gigantic missles.

Re:"Just Keep Going"

[Moofie]

What do you think is so much better than staged rocketry? I don't think we're going to find a more cost effective solution in the next 20 years.

There are very strong mathematical arguments to be made for multi-stage vehicles. SSTO is a very, very, very hard problem to solve. It's impossible to solve if you need a high payload mass fraction. Now, if you can somehow magically make a SSTO vehicle that can be serviced like an airliner, that's great. But I don't think that is anywhere near ready for prime-time.

Now, reusable stages...that's a good idea.

I'm sorry, I can't help myself, but...

[eingram]

FUCK YEAH! GO MIKE!

Imagine the rest in caps: Congrats to the entire team! You guys did a helluva job!

Re:Sweet - Luckily they're in California...

[jpellino]

"5. ... The flight vehicle must return from both flights substantially intact, as defined by and in the sole judgment of the ANSARI X PRIZE Review Board, such that the vehicle is reusable."

"Uh, son? Seem's like y'all got a taillight t'aint workin'."
"Really officer? Which one?"
*BLAM!*
"That one, son. Y'all gonna hafta get this vee-hickle offa this heah runway. Heh heh heh..."

Definitions and achieving orbit

[gevmage]

100 km is the official "edge of space", which is presumably matched to some definition of the "thin-ness" of the atmosphere. It may be the height at which 99% of the atmosphere (by mass) is below you.

Achieving orbits is a 2-step process. You need to get high enough that the atmospheric drag is small enough that it's possible to acheive orbital velocity. Then you have a vehicle with enough thrust to kick you into orbit. Height/velocity isn't the only issue. If you accelerated a vehicle to escape velocity at the earth's surface, it would have the energy to leave the earths gravity well completely; however, the energy would turned into heat by friction with the atmosphere, and the craft would be vaporized.

Re:Definitions and achieving orbit

[PhuCknuT]

however, the energy would turned into heat by friction with the atmosphere, and the craft would be vaporized

Actually, that's a misconception. The atmosphere is heated by the compression of the air in front of the object, not by friction.

Re:Definitions and achieving orbit

[jjjefff]

According to the X-Prize organization...

"We chose 100km altitude because it is beyond the official 50-miles that the US Air Force recognizes as "worthy of astronaut wings" but not so high that the re-entry speed requires exotic heat shielding."

Re:Definitions and achieving orbit

[DerekLyons]

100 km is the official "edge of space", which is presumably matched to some definition of the "thin-ness" of the atmosphere. It may be the height at which 99% of the atmosphere (by mass) is below you.

Actually the 100 km figure doesn't match up to any physical or chemical property of the atmosphere. It's nothing more and nothing less than a nice round number agreed upon some decades ago because it was higher than aircraft flew or were likely to fly.

It's important to note that it's only half-way to the minimum altitude of a stable orbit.

Still below the X-15 flight of 1963

[Animats]

Lest we forget, back in 1963, the USAF's X-15 made a similar flight. Lifted under the wing of a B-52, the X-15 reached an altitude of 107960 meters.

The X-15 could do everything required to win the X-prize except carry three people. It reached 100km, and it was flown repeatedly, for a total of 199 X-15 flights of three aircraft.

Re:Still below the X-15 flight of 1963

[Anonymous Coward]

Key point being "except carry three people." And, lest we forget, a government operation.

Re:Still below the X-15 flight of 1963

[arikol]

Ahh, yes, but could it be flown twice in 2 weeks??
Without replacing more than 10% of the crafts zero fuel weight???
I dont think so.

also, the X-15 wasnt very stable, especially at high altitude (inertia coupling was a very real danger) and made the approach for landing at just around 300 knots (thats 555km/h or around 350 mph)(for comparison a LARGE passenger jet makes an approach at around 140kts)

Finally the x-15 was bigger and heavier than SS1 needed a bigger drop-vehicle, and had a highly explosive and complex liquid fuel engine producing 57.000lbs of thrust (dont know what SS1 pruduces, but substantially less than that!)

X-15 weighed in at 32.000 lbs
SS1 is around 6000lbs

I reckon these craft cant easily be compared, theyre just designed for such vastly different purposes, although one feature coincides (going high)

Re:Still below the X-15 flight of 1963

[Anonymous Coward]

and it was a HELL of a large amount of time between that and the first REAL spaceflight...

Orbit is a real spaceflight. everything else is suborbital hooey.

Re:Still below the X-15 flight of 1963

[CrimsonAvenger]

and it was a HELL of a large amount of time between that and the first REAL spaceflight...

Umm...the first orbital flight was two years earlier, in 1961.

Re:Still below the X-15 flight of 1963

[Chris_Jefferson]

Except of course the whole point of the X-prize is for a private group to do it, not the US Air Force. Of course the government can get into space, it's been doing it for years by using billions of tax dollars , as only it can.

Re:Still below the X-15 flight of 1963

[DoubleD]

Huge Difference, HUGE.

The X-Prize is all about encouraging PRIVATE enterprise. USAF hardly counts there.

Government research and development is great for getting esoteric concepts off the ground. But for real leaps and bounds commercial interest is necessary.

What was it? 20Mill in funding that allowed Scaled Composits to make this flight. I have heard figures of 500 Mill to just fly the shuttle once.

Re:Still below the X-15 flight of 1963

[Kiryat Malachi]

Ahh, yes, but could it be flown twice in 2 weeks??
Without replacing more than 10% of the crafts zero fuel weight???
I dont think so.

I do.

Flights 167 and 170 of the X-15-A2 craft occurred 18 days apart, in August of 1966. These weren't altitude runs, though, they were speed runs as the A2 was modified to have longer engine burn times in order to support higher speed flights.

87, 90 and 91 were each spaced around a month apart, and the latter two were over 100km in the X-15A (3rd vehicle). The first was 86km. June 27, July 19, August 22 were the dates. In 1963.

Refurb % between flights for X15 is not an easily available number, but it's likely it was less than 10%; there was no ablative structure and the engines were reusable. This wasn't a bloat-era NASA program; it was originally a joint USAF/NACA project, which means that the ground crew wasn't huge and major overhauls between short flights were pretty much impossible.

The stability problem was mostly overcome with adaptive control systems; these days it wouldn't even be an issue, controls have gone so far along with easy access to DSP and computation. As to landing, the high speed was a result of a relatively low subsonic L/D ratio; X-15 was optimized for hypersonic flight, while a jet is optimized for subsonic flight. As a result, X-15 had a much harder time staying in the air at low speeds, and stalled at a higher speed, meaning it had to land at a higher speed. SS1, not being designed for maneuverability at hypersonic speeds, could be more optimized for subsonic landing, which is why it lands at a relatively paltry

X15 weighed around 30000 kg, not pounds. It produced 26762 kgf of thrust. By comparison, SS1 is 3600kg and produces 7500 kgf. X15 did nearly as much as this initial flight, despite a significantly worse thrust-to-weight ratio.

And let's not forget, the X-15 flew in the mid 60s. 40 years ago.

I give Rutan a lot of credit, but the X-15 remains one of the most amazing accomplishments in aerospace history, and was capable of most things the X-Prize asks for (obviously, the 3 man requirement not so much).

Re:Still below the X-15 flight of 1963

[CrimsonAvenger]

Refurb % between flights for X15 is not an easily available number, but it's likely it was less than 10%; there was no ablative structure and the engines were reusable.

Actually, that pink stuff on the X-15 was a spray-on ablative. It was used for the high-speed flights.

And the drop tanks, of course. Again, for the high-speed flights.

Flights number 167 and 170 are a bad example, though. X15 #1 flew three times in two weeks, back in May 1960. I believe that the last of those flights was the first Mach 3+ flight...

Re:Still below the X-15 flight of 1963

[confused one]

to put it more in perspective, I'm going to quote Wolf Blitzer (CNN): ... done on a shoe-string budget ... only $20 million ... the kind of money NASA would have spent to do a study ...

Re:Still below the X-15 flight of 1963

[madprogrammer]

Umm... no it couldn't!

Development of the X-15 was government funded...

Development of SpaceShipOne, or any X Prize contender for that matter, must be entirely privately funded.

Re:Still below the X-15 flight of 1963

[Moofie]

I don't believe the X-15 ever had a two-week turnaround. There were several aircraft, and they needed substantial overhaul between flights.

Re:Still below the X-15 flight of 1963

[Kiryat Malachi]

The spray ablative and drop tanks were only used on X-15-A2, which was the only one configured to accept the drop tanks. In addition to which, I believe they only used the full ablative coating twice; it charred so badly they gave up on it, and on that airframe as well. For altitude runs, they didn't use A2, they used the initial airframe, and since X-Prize is altitude oriented, not speed, I chose to pick on airframe #3, the winner in the altitude games.

The problem with the earlier flights is I couldn't find any verification as to which airframe was used on which flight in the quick search I did; if I had, I would have cited flights 8, 9, 10, and 11, which were all during March of 1960, or flights 14, 15, 16, and 17 in May 1960. However, I have no idea if it was frame #1 or #2 used on each of those, and didn't feel like getting fact checked on it.

Re:Still below the X-15 flight of 1963

[CrimsonAvenger]

Overlooked the March flights. #2 did two flights in three days at the end of March. Flights 10 & 11 (& & 8 for #2).

Here's a URL for a good flight listing:

X-15 Flight List

It's in French, but numbers are numbers....

Note that the X-15 went higher than SS1 did yesterday only twice. Both Airframe #3, both in 1963, and just over a month apart. Evidence is, however, that it had the capability to do it within two weeks, if anyone had had a reason to do so.

Re:Still below the X-15 flight of 1963

[Anonymous Coward]

X15 weighed around 30000 kg, not pounds. It produced 26762 kgf of thrust. By comparison, SS1 is 3600kg and produces 7500 kgf. X15 did nearly as much as this initial flight, despite a significantly worse thrust-to-weight ratio.


What's a 'kgf'? And why isn't that quoted in Newtons? (and 'kg' isn't a measure of weight either)

Are these weird American metric units that you use when you shoot Mars probes into suicidal crashes?

Re:Still below the X-15 flight of 1963

[sql*kitten]

I give Rutan a lot of credit, but the X-15 remains one of the most amazing accomplishments in aerospace history

Any idea what it cost? I'd bet it's more than $20M - and back then, $20M was some serious money.

Re:Still below the X-15 flight of 1963

[Kiryat Malachi]

Blahblahmassblahblahweightblah. For the purpose of comparison of relative mass vs. thrust, the distinction is irrelevant.

A kgf is "kilogram force (kgf) - a unit of force equal to the gravitational force on a mass of one kilogram. One kilogram of force equals 9.806 65 newtons, or 2.204 622 6 pounds of force in the traditional English system. Using this unit revives the old confusion between mass and weight, one of the worst features of traditional measurement systems, so it is really a very bad idea. However, kilograms of force have been used rather frequently in engineering and physics. This unit is also called the kilopond."

It isn't quoted in Newtons because I am damn lazy, and didn't bother converting. However, my facts are correct (mass for SS1 is estimated as Scaled wasn't releasing that kind of data, last I knew).

Note that Scaled is an *American* company, Eurotrash. Also, isn't Ariane one of the case studies in what to do wrong in programming?

Re:Still below the X-15 flight of 1963

[Kiryat Malachi]

It always costs more to do it first.

And like I said, it was 40 years ago. Rutan's doing great work, but it isn't anything that hasn't been done before - it's something that hasn't been done before at that price point. Which is worthwhile in and of itself. But it isn't the first reusable quick-turnaround suborbital spacecraft; X-15 was.

Re:Still below the X-15 flight of 1963

[Kiryat Malachi]

Oh, and speaking of suicidally crashing Mars probes....

How's Beagle doing these days? Spirit and Opportunity are fine, thank you.

Love,

The Colonials

Re:Still below the X-15 flight of 1963

[Anonymous Coward]

A kgf is "kilogram force (kgf) - a unit of force equal to the gravitational force on a mass of one kilogram. One kilogram of force equals 9.806 65 newtons, or 2.204 622 6 pounds of force in the traditional English system.

A Dyne, a Pound, or a Newton, would have been better.


Note that Scaled is an *American* company, Eurotrash. Also, isn't Ariane one of the case studies in what to do wrong in programming?

The Mars Polar Lander is a good study on processing spurious signals.


It isn't quoted in Newtons because I am damn lazy, and didn't bother converting.

Multiply by 10, gives you the same round numbers you're already using.

Re:Still below the X-15 flight of 1963

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, and speaking of suicidally crashing Mars probes....

How's Beagle doing these days? Spirit and Opportunity are fine, thank you.


Definitely doing better than the Mars Climate Orbiter, likely better than the Mars Polar Lander.

Speaking of THRUST... how's CONTOUR doing? Or Mars Observer.

Re:Still below the X-15 flight of 1963

[Kiryat Malachi]

I.E. I am too lazy to look up the conversion factor. Also, if you're going to measure mass in kg, it would be a little silly to provide Imperial system measurements, now wouldn't it? Also, kgf vs. kg preserves the advantage that at 1g, kgf thrust must be greater than kg in order to provide positive vertical acceleration (this relationship doesn't hold true for winged vehicles because lift makes a difference, but the site the figures came from is mainly devoted to rocketry, so it makes sense they would provide in these forms).

Call me when anything European manages to put a man in space.

Re:Still below the X-15 flight of 1963

[Kiryat Malachi]

About as well as STENTOR and Superbird B, to tell the truth. I was pissed when CONTOUR died; had friends working on the program, watched it launch from the viewing area at CCAFS.

How exactly do you figure Beagle is doing better than MCO, anyway? MCO probably disintegrated in atmosphere, Beagle likely broke on impact. Broke is broke, as they say.

Mars Express, by the by, was the first European extra-planetary probe. You're 1 for 2 between ME and Beagle, but the US is now at 9 for 14 on Mars missions. Hey, we're even on a 3 of 3 roll what with Odyssey and the two rovers!

Moon probes? Venus probes?

Yeah. Exactly.

Re:If we can send a man into space...

[Anonymous Coward]

but what about the other two seats? Kerry for the US, Martin for Canada and ... who for Europe? What about africa and asia? too many decisions....

Great Idea

[slasher999]

I think it's a great idea to use references to three different time zones (EDT, GMT, PST) in the headline. That's not confusing at all. (I'm acutally not confused by it in the least, but come on people!)

Engines shut out early

[Stargoat]

So the engines on SS1 shut off pre-maturely, after a burn of only about a minute, which was half of the predicted two minute burn. But they claim to have still made it all the way up and back. But wouldn't that mess with the ballistics? Were they trying for orbit and missed or was it something else? Or did the burn not shut off prematurely? What does that say about the pilot and the computer calculating the landing trajectory?

Anyway, if they made it up, and back down, with the engines quitting prematurely, my god. That means that a major failure took place, and everything was alright. That's a record NASA could never come close to achieving with its space shuttle.

Re:Engines shut out early

[Pikhq]

The neccesary burn time to get into space was roughlt 75 seconds.

Re:Engines shut out early

[BLAG-blast]

So the engines on SS1 shut off pre-maturely, after a burn of only about a minute, which was half of the predicted two minute burn.

I think your wrong. All source I've read about SS1 say that is will burn the engines for 63 to 70 seconds - which is a burn of only about a minute. It even says this in the articule.

Do you have any references to the two minutes burn or that engines shut out early?

Re:Engines shut out early

[BLAG-blast]

Do you have any references to the two minutes burn or that engines shut out early?

To answer my own question:

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20 040621.wspac0621_2/BNStory/International/

I think they are wrong as well.

Re:Engines shut out early

[at_kernel_99]

I read an article somewhere - sorry I forget which - that they intentionally do not need all their fuel to reach 100km. There was not a motor failure, at least in the coverage I've seen. This article mentions a 'loud bang' and minor damage to (from what I can tell) the aft fuselage.

Re:Engines shut out early

[torpor]

They don't burn all their fuel for the flight. If I recall correctly, on landing approach, if need be the pilot can start the engines again to do a 'go-around' ... so it might be handy to have fuel for that circumstance ...

Re:Engines shut out early

[MindStalker]

They can't orbit, even if they get up enough speed, unlikly, the craft wasn't built with enough heat shields to survive orbital speed reentry. So they would have to carry enough fuel to reach orbital speeds, then enough fuel to turn around the slow themselves down very quickly while resisting falling and reentering premeturly. Definatly a tricky move, and generally has never been tried. Rule of thumb, don't go faster than your heat shields can handle, even if you are higher than the atmosphere, because eventually, your gonna have to land.

Space Quotes

[JoshMKiV]

http://vesuvius.jsc.nasa.gov/er/seh/quotes.html

Some good ones:

The future cannot be predicted, but futures can be invented. - Dennis Gabor, 1963

It is the policy of the United States that activities in space should be devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of all mankind. - Space Act of 1958

Flight by machines heavier than air is unpractical and insignificant, if not utterly impossible. - Simon Newcomb, 1902
(eighteen months before Kitty Hawk.)

HIGH FLIGHT

Oh, I have slipped the surly bonds of earth
And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings;
Sunward I've climbed, and joined the tumbling mirth
Of sun-split clouds and done a hundred things
You have not dreamed of wheeled and soared and swung
High in the sunlit silence. Hov'ring there,
I've chased the shouting wind along, and flung
My eager craft through footless halls of air.
Up, up the long, delirious, burning blue
I've topped the windswept heights with easy grace
Where never lark, or even eagle flew
And, while with silent, lifting mind I've trod
The high untrespassed sanctity of space,
Put out my hand, and touched the face of God.
- John Gillespie Magee, Jr., (killed in the Battle of Britain, age 19)

A new age has been entered

[aka_big_wurm]

This flight today, has stared a new era and now we all have a chance to reach space in our lifetime.

M&M's

[Sporkinum]

I liked the comment the pilot made about opening a Package of M&M's in the cockpit while weightless. He said he enjoyed seeing them float around and that they are all over the place inside. Thought it was neat he had a little time to mess around with fun stuff.

Sounded like the Simpson's bit when Homer opened a bag of chips. I think Burt Rutan used alot of inanimate carbon rods in the construction oF the ship too.

Re:M&M's

[Anonymous Coward]

"Careful! They're ruffled!"

small step for a man -

[BigGerman]

giant leap for a private biz
Way to go. Looking forward to more.

Flash Gordon

[CompWerks]

This might be a little too old for most /. 'ers but the first thing I thought when I saw SpaceShipOne is that it looks alot like Flash Gordon's Ship

Re:Flash Gordon

[Tumbleweed]

Too right - they _definitely_ shouldn't have painted SpaceShipOne white (or any other colour). C'mon - a little respect for the past, if you please! Plus - it would've made it into the new SF Museum & Hall of Fame that much easier if it'd been left with the raw metallic finish.

Except they didn't.

[Einer2]

Get into orbit, that is. If you crunch the numbers, you find that you need approximately 30 times as much kinetic energy to achieve orbit as you just need to go up 100 km. This requires a far more powerful launcher than for suborbital flights.

By the time you factor in extended life support and the heat shielding needed to survive reentry, orbital flight becomes a much thornier problem that almost certainly won't be solved in a decade.

Re:Except they didn't.

[maxpublic]

orbital flight becomes a much thornier problem that almost certainly won't be solved in a decade.

Funny, just a couple of years back quite a few self-proclaimed pundits said the exact same thing about privately-funded ventures trying to do just what SpaceShip One accomplished today...along with a few officials at NASA, as well.

Looks like they didn't have a clue what they were talking about, either.

Max

Re:Except they didn't.

[Ignorant Aardvark]

By the time you factor in extended life support and the heat shielding needed to survive reentry, orbital flight becomes a much thornier problem that almost certainly won't be solved in a decade.

You're right, orbital flight is a thorny problem ... one that was solved four decades ago. Remember the Apollo missions?

Re:Except they didn't.

[Einer2]

That's funny, I seem to recall Apollo costing a bit more than the millions of dollars that the original poster implied we could achieve. I suppose you just happen to have a spare 10 billion in VC that someone can invest in disposable launchers and disposable capsules?

(And yes, I realize you're just creatively ignoring the context of my post so you can make a smartass comment. If that's the best way you can find to fish for funny mod points, perhaps you should just stick with your natural strength: "Overrated".)

Re:Except they didn't.

[admdrew]

And yes, I realize you're just creatively ignoring the context of my post so you can make a smartass comment.

You should've been more specific in your original post when saying that "orbital flight becomes a much thornier problem that almost certainly won't be solved in a decade." As the Apollo post alluded to, the technology and science behind orbital flight has already be researched and implemented, thereby greatly lowing any potential costs.

I also think you misconstrued or misunderstood what the parent said about private firms paying millions compared to government billions. They made a sound assumption that based on the costs associated with this first flight, one could feasibly expect subsequent private ventures to be vastly cheaper than projects undertaken by our government.

Re:Except they didn't.

[Einer2]

...

At this point, I think it's pretty safe to assume that anybody who reads Slashdot knows at least the basic history of the Apollo program. As such, there's really no reason for anyone to continually add footnotes about it, and so it's equally safe to assume anyone who harps on the lack of said footnotes is only doing so to try to score cheap debate points.

Also, I disagree with the assumption that future orbital flights will be substantially cheaper just because launches with Spaceship One were cheaper. No major space program has ever had a reason to compete in this niche (manned reuseable suborbital vehicles), so the field was still wide open for someone to come in with a good idea. By contrast, there have been a lot of people exploring options for cheap reuseable orbital flight with no results, so someone coming into the field from private industry will need either an equal investment of sweat equity or an extremely unconventional bright idea that all the experts would have missed.

Re:Except they didn't.

[Smallpond]

Actually, it was two programs earlier. Mercury put John Glenn in orbit. Total program cost around $275 M. Pretty cheap considering the technology available, and probably comparable to what it would cost Scaled Composites to do, given their $20 M to get to 100 km. Gemini put multiple people up. Apollo made it to lunar orbit and had golfing vacations.

Re:Except they didn't.

[admdrew]

there have been a lot of people exploring options for cheap reuseable orbital flight with no results

I think you're confusing the usage of "cheap" and "cheaper" as interchangeable in this context. I'm arguing that individuals approaching space travel from a business stance will be able to do what our government has done using far less resources; it's still, however, quite a bit of money.

No major space program has ever had a reason to compete

In a monetary sense, you're exactly right. Unlike a corporation, NASA's end goals have always been achievement-driven, not money oriented. As long as they're still funded by our government, they'll have little concern for cost. Private commercial ventures, however, have a profit in mind; they can't afford to spend excessively if they wish to make a profit. Science and technology aside, any private venture (if it is to be successful) will be more efficient in its spending than NASA has been.

Also, I disagree with the assumption that future orbital flights will be substantially cheaper just because launches with Spaceship One were cheaper.

What's wrong with that assumption? Considering the amount of time and effort that went into the project (and the fact that it was fruitful) is reason enough to say that it is very possible for something like this to be done without an infinite bankroll.

It seems like much of your argument hinges on the belief that space travel has been possible only through vast expenditures only possible by a government. It may be costly, yes, but the only reason why it hadn't been touched by the private sector until now is because a market for space travel is just starting to exist. In the past, space has been explored in the name of science and the occasional national bragging right (read: The Moon Race). As soon as a demand for commercial space travel begins to increase, it will become lucrative and very interesting to the business-minded.

Re:Except they didn't.

[Einer2]

Holy snipping-sentence-fragments-out-of-context, Batman!

RE: Competition. I wasn't trying to invoke the whole government-agencies-don't-compete argument. What I was saying is that nobody, at all, has been working on suborbital manned flight. As such, the parameter space of solutions had plenty of room for Burt Rutan to stroll in and grab the first bright idea that caught his fancy. Good luck doing that with orbital flight.

RE: Cheap vs cheaper. I won't disagree that private enterprise will probably do the job more efficiently. In fact, I never even tried to say that. What I did say is that it's going to take either a lot longer than a decade or a lot more than than the hundreds of millions of dollars a lot of people are saying.

And just to clarify, the argument hinges on two points:

1) Other than space elevators (which have their own issues), I haven't heard any new ideas on how to even put objects into orbit without expensive conventional launch systems, much less bring them back safely. The suborbital solutions are not easily scaleable to meet the problem because there are constraints you simply cannot bypass:

-You have to achieve a perpendicular velocity of ~17000 MPH, requiring rapid acceleration and lots of fuel/reaction mass.
-You have to decelerate at the end in order to come back. If you let the atmosphere do most of the work, you have to carry a lot of heat shielding. If you do it in space and then reenter atmosphere at a leisurely few thousand MPH, you have to carry a lot more reaction mass.

2) A lot of smart people have been working on the problems in #1 for a while now, and they don't have a solution yet. Thus, it's unrealistic to expect someone from private enterprise to stroll in with a magic solution.

Re:Except they didn't.

[khallow]

By the time you factor in extended life support and the heat shielding needed to survive reentry, orbital flight becomes a much thornier problem that almost certainly won't be solved in a decade.

I'm not clear on why it requires a decade to do this. Presumably Scaled Composites and some other companies are already a fair way into designing orbital craft. The technology requirements aren't particularly onerous.

Re:Except they didn't.

[Einer2]

It's a bit harder to accelerate to 17000 MPH than to 3000 MPH (the peak velocity of Spaceship One, according to CNN). You also have to liberally coat the thing with heat insulation, though I could probably be convinced that they're solving that problem with new composite materials.

Of course, it'd be nice if someone actually demonstrated that these composites existed. All I ask is for one chemist who works in that general field to give a rough estimate of the percentage weight savings we're likely to see with new materials over, say, the Space Shuttle's insulation system.

Oh, and the reason I invoked decade is because the parent post specifically said "in ten years", not from any particular knowledge or assumed knowledge on my part. I'm just trying to get across to people, with limited success, that orbital spaceflight is hard and all the suborbital teams don't appear to have even started dealing with the issues that make it hard.

Re:Except they didn't.

[XO]

Well, if nothing else the Rutans are fucking BRILLIANT at their craft - designing, building, and promoting aircraft.

And they've got a lot of "I want to do it, because I just fucking want to do it." behind them. Who wanted an airplane design that could go around the entire world without stopping for refuel? No one! it was the answer to a question no one asked! (just like Windows.. but I digress) And they did it.. and they fucking rock!

Re:Except they didn't.

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember Uri Cagarin?

IRC chat too

[jacobdp]

There was a lively IRC chat during the entire flight on #spaceshipone at irc.freenode.net, and it'll be back for the next launch. Be there!

Chase planes?

[hawkfish]

Maybe a silly question, but what is the function of chase planes? Do they look for external damage/problems? Do they try to help in case of an emergency (what could they do)? I was trying to explain it to my 5 year old and then realized I had no idea what I was talking about (kids are fun that way ;-)).

Re:Chase planes?

[Watcher]

You were right on the first guess. They usually look for damage or other external problems (like the landing gear not actually being down). There really isn't anything they can do to help, except warn the pilot that something has gone wrong.

Re:Chase planes?

[Banner]

From the cockpit of the plane you cannot see any of your own airplane. Chase planes provide you with an outside set of eyes that can look for problems and issues, like bent parts, missing parts, non moving parts, and leaking fluids.

Chase planes also supply you with a moral boost. Even though they can't get out and help you, it's still kind of nice to know that there is another human being who is close enough that you can see him when you're locked in a small metal box miles above the ground all by yourself. (I've flown chase before when a squadron member's jet developed problems on a routine training flight).

And last of all, the people in the Chase planes usually know as much about your plane as you do. And can provide advice when you really, really, need it. Especially as they're right there looking at the situation.

Re:Chase planes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you see Air Force One? If the "chased" plane gets in trouble, the pilot would pop the hatch and toss a line to a chase plane. He then attaches a device to the line and repels out of his plane and over to the chase plane.

This is the real genius of Ratan's design. The White Knight is one of the chase planes, and since it has the same cockpit as the SpaceShipOne vehicle, the SpaceShipOne pilot would not become disoriented if he had to hop over to White Knight due to some unforeseen emergency.

Re:Chase planes?

[Anonymous Coward]

On military flights they do it all the time- fighter pilots have to get good at flying next to each other so they can preform visual inspections of the other aircraft.

Re:Chase planes?

[iabervon]

Now that would be embarassing... "June 21: Went up to 100km. Saw black sky during day. First civilian to pilot in space. Would have gone higher, but accidentally turned off engine (nobody looking, still high enough). Heard loud noise on way back. Forgot to put down landing gear (11,000 people watching).

"June 22: Biked into tree (nobody looking). Space is easier; nothing to run into."

Re:Chase planes?

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Chase planes basically follow the wreckage down so the search parties know roughly where to look.

Re:Chase planes?

[feargal]

They are an eye-in-the-sky for the control centre.
They stay within visual range of the primary for as long as possible in order to provide feedback which cannot be attained by ground-based crews.

A chase plane will describe characteristics of the flight as they see it, and send back video footage. Despite all the telemetry in the world, the engineers still want to hear somebody say that the "burn looks good." They will also take photos which will be analyzed afterwards.

In the case of emergency, they are not of as much use with spacecraft as conventional craft as they cannot maintain proximity as easily. However, in conventional testing they can be invaluable in providing information to the test pilot that his telemetry may not provide; if something has gone wrong, the test pilot may not have any reliable telemetry at all.
The chase pilot can have a look and confirm whether the engine is, indeed, on fire, or whether the landing gear has deployed properly.

The information the chase provides can be critical if decisions need to be made in emergency situations. If the damage to Columbia was more noticeable, in theory a chase could have spotted it and the launch be aborted before reaching orbit. As stated however, it's a lot more difficult providing chase to a spaceship so this would have been luck more than anything else.

AFAIK, NASA uses the T-38 for it's shuttle chase planes, and usually is piloted by other astronauts or astronauts in training. I think it only gets about Mach 1.5, so they will have a number of them in the air at different altitudes waiting for the shuttle to blast by.

Re:Chase planes?

[feargal]

AFAIK, NASA uses the T-38 for it's shuttle chase planes,

Argh! I meant, of course, to say "its shuttle chase planes."

BTW, well done to Scaled Composites, and to Mojave. Nice to think there is now a commercial spaceport out there.

And while I'm at it, doesn't "Ansari" seem like a mega-corporation name that would be right at home in William Gibson's writings?

Re:Chase planes?

[Watcher]

That's true, and it is very dangerous (anyone remember the death of PA Senator Heinz back in 1991 because of this?). More than anything else they have to be able to quickly and clearly communicate any problems they see so the pilot of a wounded aircraft can react appropriately (such as finding out your landing gear did not actually properly deploy).

Re:Chase planes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct, they look for damage, plus do visual inspections of flight control surfaces, landing gear etc. They can also do checklist runs with the test pilot when the shit hits the fan (it can be a little distracting to the test pilot when his "baby" is on fire and falling apart). They also circle the smoking hole should something go terribly wrong, so the "recovery" team knows where to go. Plus, they provide a second pair of eyes for the debrief when things go to shit. But, in the end, mostly they take really cool photos, and provide moral support for the poor bastard who is tied to the controlled explosion!

Re:Chase planes?

[Darth_brooks]

There really isn't anything they can do to help, except warn the pilot that something has gone wrong.

They can also do handy things like make sure the pilot isn't incapacitated, make better judgement calls on an aircraft's condition, etc..Chuck Yeager detailed several stories of just how valuable a chase plane is.

On one occasion his windshield defroster failed, leaving him flying exceptionally blind. His chase plane helped talk him down by flying parallel to him and directing the plane in. (I know, he had instruments, but think about a frost covered windshield on a bright sunny day. You're pretty much flying with your eyes closed)

In another case a pilot yeager was flying chase for neglected to turn his oxygen up. Yeager conned the pilot into returning to a safe altitude.

Re:Chase planes?

[XO]

Moderators: +4 Sarcastic/JESUS I wet my pants funny!

Re:Chase planes?

[Anonymous Coward]

That and carry cameras.

nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

if you take the time to read the second part of the fucking sentence:

and they'll separate from White Knight and ignite the rocket for space entry

Re:nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

oh, you lose ... so badly.

Free video link

[caffeine_monkey]

cbc.ca has video clips in realvideo and quicktime.

Re:Free video link

[larsoncc]

Unfortunately, it's only clips of previous efforts. Here's hoping someone coughs up today's video (for free) pretty soon.

Still a good link, BTW...

OK, now make it cost $10k

[puzzled]

I can't stand the purchase price of a decent house in this town for a set of astronaut wings, but $10k falls in my lap on a regular basis and I'd have no trouble at all with a road trip to Mojave, camping out, and making The Big Zoom(tm) the next morning :-)

Maybe Rutan will get his materials guys interested in space ladders next ...

Re:Woohoo, now maybe my SpaceDev shares will be wo

[Anonymous Coward]

The previous should have been modded a lot more up. The reason? They actually did and will use kind of rubber engines. Burning a mixture of rubber and laugh gas. A new, safe and most likely efficient concept.

"2001 Odyssey": commercial space flight by 1980

[peter303]

I saw "2001: A Space Odyssey" in 1968 as a young kid. At that time the Space Race was making great progress toward a lunar landing. Many thought the technical parts of the movie to be very likely. It was extremely disappointing to watch the manned parts of the US and Russian space programs dwaddle along the next 35 years with mediocre accomplishments- like that 90 giga-buck lemon up there that can barely support two people at a time and do very little science. (Space science probes and robots doing reasonably well, however.)

There are reasonable explainations: The US practically bankrupted itself in an endless series of international military adventures: the Vietnam War, The Energy war, the Reagan Cold War. Not to mention the expensive socialist expansion of health, welfare, and retirement costs. Only in 1990s was there enough capital suspluses to seriously consider commercial space again.

Re:"2001 Odyssey": commercial space flight by 1980

[john82]

...Reagan Cold War

You mean the Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Castro, Krushchev, Brezhnev, Andropov, and Gorbachev Cold War don't you? It's not like Reagan started this all on his own in '46.

My apologies to readers from the UK for leaving out Churchill from that list (given that he coined the term "Iron Curtain").

Re:"2001 Odyssey": commercial space flight by 1980

[Tackhead]

Well, we didn't get commercial space flight by 1980, but we'll have commercials filmed in spaceflight by 2005!

1. Design and build spacecraft: cost $25M
2. Win the X-Prize: income $10M
3. ????

From spaceflightnow.com:

> "Man!" Melvill said, shaking his fists together as he climbed from SpaceShipOne. "I went pretty high, though. When I got to the top, I released a bag of M&Ms in the cockpit. It was absolutely amazing. M&Ms were going all around. It was so cool! We have got to have video of that because I did it in front of one of the video cameras. I haven't ate them. They are in the cockpit." At last, the truth is revealed!

3. Cash advance for "Mars Candies On Mars" ad campaign: income $15.1M
4. PROFIT!

Seriously - congrats to Burt, Mike, Paul, and the rest of the team. Good luck, Godspeed, and the day the general public is allowed to buy tickets on one of your ships, I'm there.

Re:"2001 Odyssey": commercial space flight by 1980

[Anonymous Coward]

the Reagan Cold War.

Good job slipping in the mini-troll here. How does it become the Reagan Cold War, when it started while he was still an actor?

Re:"2001 Odyssey": commercial space flight by 1980

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot Ford (Nixon's replacement)...

Re:"2001 Odyssey": commercial space flight by 1980

[pyrrhonist]

Not to mention Stalin, Malenkov, and Chernenko.

Stalin was still the Soviet leader until 1953.

Malenkov was First Secretary before (and along with) Khrushchev.

Chernenko was only General Secretary for a 13 months, but still managed to escalate the cold war.

Re:"2001 Odyssey": commercial space flight by 1980

[peter303]

During Reagan's term the military budget doubled and the federal deficit tripled. Non-military, discretionary portions of the federal government such as NASA had their budgets frozen or decreased. This is compared to the 1970s when relations had thawed between the US and USSR and the military budget had declined.

Re:"2001 Odyssey": commercial space flight by 1980

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Castro, Krushchev, Brezhnev, Andropov, and Gorbachev Cold War don't you? It's not like Reagan started this all on his own in '46.

The cold war may not have really manifested itself until then, but the seeds were sown long before 1946. Here's an interesting article about it. The short version is that toward the end of WWI, Russia was trying to repel Germany. They even went to the point asking for Western military help in doing so. The US, for sure, opposed Germany and you'd think they'd want to help the Russians repel them, right? Well, the Russians thought so, and in fact Lenin even voted in favor of asking the US for help. But the US declined. And then later, despite a treaty between Germany and Russia that agreed the war was over, the US entered Russian soil without Russian permission and supported people who were fighting against the Bolsheviks (the party that Lenin started). Actually, Britain sent way more troops, and other countries sent troops too, but it's not just about the US; it's about Russia's relationship to the West in general.

So, place yourselves in the Russians' position. Germany was the clear bad guy, and the US won't help you fight him. Then later, the US comes in an intervenes against you in your civil war. And it's clear at that point to you that the US considers the Bolsheviks and Communism a bigger evil than German ambition and imperialism. Just in case you wondered whether the US wants your regime to even exist, they've twice made it clear to you what they think.

Do you think the Russians ever forgot that our troops walked on Russian soil without an invitation after WWI was over and there was no WWI-related reason for us to be there? Do you think the Bolsheviks ever forgot that we chose to support their opponents at their weakest moment, during their civil war?

The point being, between this very early ill will and the ideological differences, the Cold War was pretty much inevitable starting at something more like 1918.

Re:"2001 Odyssey": commercial space flight by 1980

[Anonymous Coward]

Some Historians contend that British/American unwillingness to engage the enemy during WWII was a direct result of "revenge ideaology": let's not forget that Russia left the allied powers high and dry during WWI; Lenin's (essentially) first political decision after the October Revolution was to pull out of WWI and pursue national interests.

Of course, the other theory (it's probably a combination of the two in reality) is that Britain and the US simply were not strong enough to invade continental Europe earlier than D-day. They essentially waited for the Soviets to win the war for them; my grandfather was a German soldier on the Eastern front in WWII and from his war stories (and a considerable amount of historical evidence) it sounds like by D-day Germany had already basically been defeated and it was just a matter of driving them out of occupied France.

Admittedly freeing France was no small feat -- the soldiers that landed in Normandy were essentially massacred but they pressed on anyway -- but the cutting of supply lines (and other terrorist techniques employed by the French resistance) had German forces in France greatly destabilized by the time US/Britain decided to invade.

Growing up in the US, I was told that the Americans went to Europe and "kicked ass" (the exact words of my freshman World History professor) and it saddens me that so many Russians lost their lives ridding Europe of Nazi Germany and that they aren't remembered for their bravery just because Stalin was an asshole.

It has been suggested that Russia could have taken Nazi Germany alone, but that this was unacceptable to the Western Allies because it would have left continental Europe under Soviet control. I'm not sure this is true, but it is definitely true that at least 3 fourths of the war was fought and won by Russian blood. My grandpa fled in front of the Russian Army before being taken POW by advancing American forces in Western Germany. From what he told me, everyone was saying "Whatever you do, don't get taken by the Russians." Wise advice, it sounds like... lots of his comrades in arms never came back from Siberia or wherever they were sent.

Re:Very happy to see this without govenrment invol

[Araneas]

I hear you. I haven't been this excited since I got to stay up late to watch the first moon landings on black and white tv.

FYI: Mach Speed.

[Banner]

I would like to point out here that Mach speed changes as a function of Altitude. Mach 25 at ground level is not the same speed as Mach 25 at 100,000 feet. So it's not a good measure of how fast one has to go to escape gravitational pull.

Re:FYI: Mach Speed.

[Rei]

Not as much as you'd think. Barring changes in atmospheric content with altitude, the only change you'll be getting is due to temperature changes. Due to lower temperatures at high altitudes, the speed of sound will be somewhat lower. This is partly compensated for when you factor in the atmospheric content changes, which speed up the speed of sound. In an ideal gas (yes, air isn't an ideal gas, but it's close enough), pressure (the most altitude-dependant variable) isn't relevant to the speed of sound.

Re:FYI: Mach Speed.

[kalimar]

You're also forgetting that the atmospheric pressure drops as you go up in altitude. That in turn presents less resistance to the craft. As for the atmospheric content, I can't say, though it would be plausible that the heavier gases would tend to accumulate at lower altitudes.

Re:FYI: Mach Speed.

[Rei]

Resistance and Mach speed are different things :)

Atmospheric content *does* adjust as you change altitude - you get more elemental oxygen, your "light" gasses concentrations increase (helium, hydrogen, etc). This overall helps partly compensate for the drop in temperature.

Re:FYI: Mach Speed.

[igny]

pressure (the most altitude-dependant variable) isn't relevant to the speed of sound.

Are you saying speed of sound in vacuum is ~300m/sec? I would probably agree that pressure in noncompressible liquids is irrelevant to speed of sound.

Re:FYI: Mach Speed.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just to inject some fact here. The SOS at sea level at 20C is about 761 mph(1190km/h) decreasing to 693 Mph at 25000, 660 at 50000 then back up to 690 at 100,000 feet and falling again to 600 at 250,000 feet. Thus, you see that the curve is not anything like linear or exponential. The speed of sound is related to temperature and the ratio of specific heats (Cp/Cv or gamma) which changes depending on the state of the gas. Boiled down, the speed of sound is related to how quickly and effectively any two molecules can communicate. It is not directly related to the density of the atmosphere as gamma is different for different states of the same gas.

That said though, a large part of the anomaly of SOS comes from the fact that there are three zones in which the relation of density to altitude and temperature to altitude are verrry different. In the Troposphere, the pressure drops exponentially while the temperature drops off linearly. In the lower Stratosphere 35,000 >> 85,000 feet the Temperature is constant at -57C while the Pressure drops off exponentially. In the upper Stratosphere, the temperature increases with altitude while the Pressure decreases exponentially. A big note on the pressure is that in each of the three regimes the equation for Pressure vs. Altitude are significantly different.

Oh yeah, and it's Mach Number not Mach Speed. Mach is the ratio of velocity to the local SOS, it has no units. A velocity is distance/time. Speed as Mach is meaningless without an altitude for referrence which, ironically, seems to be your point.

Predictions?

[Paulrothrock]

How about some predictions for the next 10, 25, and 50 years?

10 years: Private enterprises are making regular orbital flights, including docking at the ISS and doing crew transfers for various governments. Medium lift (~10 ton to LEO) launch vehicles in test phases. Private probes to Moon, Mars to search for raw materials for harvest or colony support; Cost for suborbital flight: $15K; to LEO: $1 million

25 years: First private space station, specializing in $20,000/night hotel rooms and microgravity research. ISS abandoned, parts sold to private industry. NASA has a probe orbiting Pluto; Lunar colonies in planning stations, private rovers on Mars. Deliveries using suborbital craft are now regular (for when it absolutely, postively has to be there yesterday). Many people confused about time zones.

50 years: I move off the mudball to Mars for retirement. Private citizens now moving into Lunar and Mars colonies. Private industry exploring asteroid belt. Suborbital flight as common as airline flight; Cost to LEO: $15K. Space tether under construction at several points around the globe; Nairobi is a major spaceport.

Re:Predictions?

[Anonymous Coward]

75 years: someone who posts to Slashdot comments will actually get laid and Slashdot will report it 2 hours after the fact.

Re:Predictions?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think your years are a bit off, let me fix them:

"80 years: Private enterprises are making regular orbital flights, including docking at the ISS and doing crew transfers for various governments. Medium lift (~10 ton to LEO) launch vehicles in test phases. Private probes to Moon, Mars to search for raw materials for harvest or colony support; Cost for suborbital flight: $15K; to LEO: $1 million

250 years: First private space station, specializing in $20,000/night hotel rooms and microgravity research. ISS abandoned, parts sold to private industry. NASA has a probe orbiting Pluto; Lunar colonies in planning stations, private rovers on Mars. Deliveries using suborbital craft are now regular (for when it absolutely, postively has to be there yesterday). Many people confused about time zones.

500 years: I move off the mudball to Mars for retirement. Private citizens now moving into Lunar and Mars colonies. Private industry exploring asteroid belt. Suborbital flight as common as airline flight; Cost to LEO: $15K. Space tether under construction at several points around the globe; Nairobi is a major spaceport."

there, a little more realistic.. and sad, sorry =(

Re:Predictions?

[Myolp]

1 year: This day, X-Prize and anything related to private space-flight is forgotten by 99.9% of Earths population.

News die faster than anything else.

Re:Predictions?

[Zepalesque]

"ISS abandoned, parts sold to private industry."

More likely they'll scrap it entirely and let it fall into orbit. And I'll be it happens a hell of a lot sooner than 25 years from now.

Re:Predictions?

[Lumpy]

you forgot some....

75years: first reported loss of a Commercial Mining colony... a corperate "marine" ship sent to investigate, all was lost except for one female crew member.. ... Ohh hell will result from that one... damned gut busting monsters trying to eat/ lay eggs in everyone cut's into corperate profits!

Re:Predictions?

[super awesome]

The year is 2029. The sign above you will read Mojave Spaceport. Universal Airlines? Straight ahead at gate D67.

Re:Predictions?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about this for REALISTIC predictions?

10 years: A couple companies are pursuing spaceflight, spending billions. Cost of sending up vehicles are much higher than the cost of a ticket.

20 years: No commercial spaceflights currently underway, except occasional flights into low-orbit. Investors, disgusted with the lack of any tangible financial reward, have pulled out completely. Realization that only a government with no expectation of profit has the financial resources to escape Earth's orbit. NASAs return to the Moon is delayed due to enormous budget deficits and a hundred million retired baby boomers who want their social security checks.

50 years: Global shortages of hydrocarbons haved led to widespread war and increased defense spending, with the net result that all space exploration not related to military supremacy (i.e. military satellites) has been cancelled.

Re:Predictions?

[HeyLaughingBoy]

I move off the mudball to Mars for retirement

And Mars is made of what, exactly? Bleu cheese?

Re:Predictions?

[happyfrogcow]

porn industry will be pushing the envelope of that "25 years" section.

microgravity research? ...no comment.

Re:Predictions?

[ediron2]

50 years: I move off the mudball to Mars for retirement.

Ew... ick...

The odds of me *retiring* to Mars are slightly lower than those of me retiring to a shanty inside a [mine | oil refinery | chemical plant | dump ].

I might visit the moon or Mars out of novelty, but the only odds of me *living* on Mars is for work. Whether one's fancy lies in golf, hiking, scenic drives, visiting, meeting people, history, shopping, etc., there isn't enough 'retirement' stuff to make me eager to move there. Given the lack of basic liveable resources on Mars, in 25-50 years outposts are still going to be outposts. An outpost lacking breathable atmosphere beyond its confines is about as enticing a retirement zone as the places I've mentioned.

That said, good metrics and good predictions. I just think you overreached, or you'd need to have fairly singular/unique preferences to enjoy Mars enough to retire there.

Note: I DO NOT COUNT 'BUILDING A NEW WORLD' as a retirement activity. If you move there to open the first bodega/brothel/bookstore/bank, you're not retiring, really. And don't even get me started on network lagtimes...

Re:Predictions?

[Paulrothrock]

It's the Dustball. I'd rather be somewhere without bugs and humidity, as anyone who's suffered through 23 years of Mid-Atlantic summers can agree with.

Re:Predictions?

[TheMeddler]

Hell, just move to Phoenix. Probably cost less.

Re:Predictions?

[Paulrothrock]

Pheonix has a smog problem, and all those idiots with their pools and lush, green lawns make it really humid. And I hate other people. Mars is just far enough away that I don't have to deal with them.

Re:Predictions?

[leerpm]

10 years: Private enterprises are making regular orbital flights, including docking at the ISS and doing crew transfers for various governments. Medium lift (~10 ton to LEO) launch vehicles in test phases. Private probes to Moon, Mars to search for raw materials for harvest or colony support; Cost for suborbital flight: $15K; to LEO: $1 million

I think 10 years is a bit premature, but perhaps in 15-20 years this will happen. Except for the ISS, that thing is going to get canned before 2020.

25 years: First private space station, specializing in $20,000/night hotel rooms and microgravity research. ISS abandoned, parts sold to private industry. NASA has a probe orbiting Pluto; Lunar colonies in planning stations, private rovers on Mars. Deliveries using suborbital craft are now regular (for when it absolutely, postively has to be there yesterday). Many people confused about time zones.

More likely closer to 50 years. It took about 50 years for cars to become cheap enough for a lot of people to own them. Until that time, a private space station hotels won't happen.

50 years: I move off the mudball to Mars for retirement. Private citizens now moving into Lunar and Mars colonies. Private industry exploring asteroid belt. Suborbital flight as common as airline flight; Cost to LEO: $15K. Space tether under construction at several points around the globe; Nairobi is a major spaceport.

200-300 years is a liberal estimate. There is no value in colonizing Mars until we find something there that's worth setting up bases for. And people will be stuck inside of bubbles, until they figure out how to terraform Mars. That won't happen for another 500-1000 years.

Re:Predictions?

[Auton]

From 1927 (Lindbergh's first flight across the Atlantic) to 1937, air transportation developed from tiny cottage industries to a major niche, including regular transatlantic service. I would say regular orbital flights by 2014 is not impossible. In fact, I think it'll happen sooner.

Cars took all of 15 years to gain widespread popularity. Henry Ford would tell you that. The Ford T appeared in 1908, some 12 years after the very first real cars appeared (1896). It was a cultural phenomenon by 1910. Similarly, aircraft, the first controllable type appearing in 1903, were in use for a whole slew of purposes by 1920 - not the least of which having been as weapons in WWI.

Mars has a value as, at least, a forward base for mining the asteroid belt. A single asteroid can contain enough paladium, platinum, silver and gold to make the entire return trip worthwhile several times over. Also, there will be a market for off-world colonization, just as there was a market for transatlantic colonization (an area most US-located readers should be familiar with), for much the same reasons.

As to Mars, I think living inside a bubble is far better than you make it out to be. Mars has pressure, which reduces the need for bulky space suits to move about, and allows aircraft, gravity which allows vehicles to move effectively around, and most importantly: Lots of room. It apparently has water, also, if you're willing to work for it A geodesic dome can be built almost arbitrarily big, also, allowing for breathable atmosphere covering a whole city, as well as a controlled climate. Terraforming (for which the ideas are already appearing; so much for 500 years...) is not by a long stretch a necessity for comfortable habitation on another world.

I think the prospects for the future are far better than the naysayers would have them be. Looking back at previous pioneering works, I'd say this one will likely follow a similar pattern. That makes this century a very interesting one to live in.

Re:Predictions?

[TheMeddler]

From 1927 (Lindbergh's first flight across the Atlantic) to 1937, air transportation developed from tiny cottage industries to a major niche, including regular transatlantic service.
That's because there's something worth visiting at the destination. How far would the industry have developed if they were flying to a desert island with no commerical resources (e.g. outlet malls, food, oxygen, cultural attractions, relatives).
Cars took all of 15 years to gain widespread popularity.
Cars give you freedom. People can own cars. Selling cars is profitable. None of these things can be said about rockets and space planes. Airplanes would be a better analogy, but not much - they are still orders of magnitude less expensive than spacecraft will EVER be.
That said, I think the most viable scenarios for commercial space exploitation involve 1) building a space elevator to reduce costs-to-orbit and 2) developing He3 as a fuel source. I don't think either will happen in my lifetime, and I'm not that old...
It all falls back to how much money you can make - that's the essence of commercialization.

Re:Predictions?

[BlackHorse]

Apparently you'd rather be somewhere without oxygen as well.

Re:Predictions?

[errxn]

Phoenix? Really humid? Uhh, no. A quick check of weather.com shows today's relative humidity in Phoenix at a downright syrupy 8%.

If you want to know what "really humid" actually means, try taking a visit to Houston or New Orleans in the middle of June sometime.

Now, smog, that's another story....

Re:Predictions?

[XO]

I'd like to point out one thing a lot of people are missing. This can be considered, in the near time, a major improvement in flight capabilities. Put some horizontal thrust capabilities onto SSO, and you could be running a delivery from the U.S. to Fiji in like... mayube 2-3 hrs?????

Re:Predictions?

[madprogrammer]

> ISS abandoned, parts sold to private industry

You're kidding right? Who in their right minds would want ISS parts?? ISS will be in a museum on a private space station, or will have been vaporized has it fell apart and pieces of it started crashing towards earth...

I give it 10 years until the second scenario ;)

Re:Predictions?

[Paulrothrock]

Museum... now that's an idea. I just think it would be wasteful to let perfectly good materials burn up in the atmosphere. The trusses are useful structural elements.

Re:Predictions?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, looks like you've also been reading Steven Baxter's novel Titan :-)

Re:Predictions?

[Daetrin]

Except it wasn't really a hydrocarbon issue. It was nationalism and teritorial issues between the US (and its allies) and China that caused everything to blow up :)

I just read it for the first time myself a few days ago, and was suprised about the whole coincidence of reading news stories about Cassini right after i started :)

It's amazing how many things he got right even if he was off in the details, the Columbia diaster, the election of a fundamentalist president with fascist leanings. Thankfully he missed out on Russia being able to help out the ISS with their Soyuz program and the whole X-Prize thing.

100 mile high club

[kiwirob]

OK I'm giving up on trying to join the mile high club, all the air hostesses I've approached where not too keen on my advances. Time now to go straight to the 100 mile high club!!!

So what shoudl be the Y Prize?

[Anonymous Coward]

If Rutan and crew will claim the X Prize shortly, what should be the Y Prize? Suborbital delivery of a person from California to Sydney? Or NYC to London/Paris to get all of the super rich who lost Concorde?

can't resist

[fliptout]

Tier Two: ???

Tier Three: Profit!!!

Joking aside, I hope the design scales well.

crappy name?

[asuzuki]

Am I the only one who thinks that "SpaceShipOne" is a somewhat unimaginative name?

I mean for christ sake call it something like "Destroyer III" or "Killer MKII", show those aliens who's boss!

Amazing

[Sunspire]

It's amazing what a small private company can do with just 20 million dollars. Hopefully this will open up the market for suborbital flights in the future, at the very least it's an example of how to go about getting your permits and really start doing private space business.

But what it really goes to show is that what we need is more of these innovative competitions and less half-billion dollar shuttle launches. Image if the government and private sector came together to offer the prize of, say, 200 million for the "X2" prize to the first private orbital fligt. And then later on a cool billion dollars to the first private moon mission. It would still be a bargain! A 747 plane costs around 200 million, and even a billion won't get NASA far these days (*cough, x33, chough*). A billion will get you a single B2 bomber, how many more of those do we need? Imagine all that money fueled into milestone driven private development.

But the best part is, if you're a teen now or in your early twenties, you could one day be working in the space industry! Maybe not as an astronaut, but as a mission planer, technician, sysadmin or accountant :)

Re:Amazing

[Anonymous Coward]

I think its funny how this acheivement cost 1/10th of the price of Van Helsing.

It boggles the mind.

Re:Amazing

[rpj1288]

And that's why I'm glad I'm only starting high school. Space Industry, here I come!

Re:Amazing

[mnemonic_]

But the best part is, if you're a teen now or in your early twenties, you could one day be working in the space industry! Maybe not as an astronaut, but as a mission planer, technician, sysadmin or accountant :)

Aerospace engineers, designing rockets, satellites etc. are not in the space industry?

Re:Amazing

[sql*kitten]

It's amazing what a small private company can do with just 20 million dollars.

Amazing isn't the word. The dotcom I worked for back in the day blew more than that on furniture and parties. It really is stunning to know that there are still people in the world who actually know what they're doing and can actually get stuff done. Imagine what could've been accomplished with a few less dotcoms and a few more clues -a $100M prize for the first private orbiter, perhaps?

re: greed

[Anonymous Coward]

There IS a 10 million dollar prize involved, afterall.

But a successful launch business will quickly dwarf that puny $10M very quickly.

surely this earns Melvill...

[MultisSanguinisFluit]

the right to have a ship named after him on Star Trek: Enterprise.

Do not count on CNN's techincal expertise..

[Banner]

Remember, these are the people who said Columbia was traveling at 25 times the speed of light when it disintegrated.

Again, Mach speed changes as a function of altitude! Mach is dependent on airpressure, the speed of sound changes with it.

And CNN does not seem to employ anyone who understands science in the least.

Re:Do not count on CNN's techincal expertise..

[pyrrhonist]

And CNN does not seem to employ anyone who understands science in the least.

In this case, the information came from Dick Rutan. Mach 25 was the number that he told the reporter who was interviewing him. I assume that he knows what he's talking about, seeing as he's Burt's brother.

Re:Do not count on CNN's techincal expertise..

[rasqual]

"Remember, these are the people who said Columbia was traveling at 25 times the speed of light when it disintegrated.

Well, something would certainly disintegrate at such speeds. So they must be right, QED. ;-)

Re:Do not count on CNN's techincal expertise..

[Rei]

No, mach is not dependant on air pressure, at least in an ideal gas (and air is close to an ideal gas).

Re:Do not count on CNN's techincal expertise..

[loraksus]

likewise, what is the speed of sound in a vacuum ;)

mental picture

[greysky]

Why is it when I read articles about this all I can picture is an episode of monster garage where jesse james comes out and tells the contestents "okay this week you're going to turn a '91 honda civic into a sub-orbital spacecraft, and you have to make is safe 'cus I'm gonna fly it."

Re:mental picture

[CanadianCrackPot]

That would be sweet if they COULD do it, just imagine for $10 000 you could be an astronaut! And of course don't forget the FREEBIE, FrEeBiE, ...

MSNBC Webcast was HORRIBLE!

[Kong99]

Obviously there was no plan for their coverage. They basically missed the takeoff since the camera was unable to track the plane fast enough. We had sporadic interviews right after launch (voice only), in between interviews was silence, then at some point they played a Janet Jackson song while the video was still feeding, and the video feed was just an unmoving shot of the tower, crowd, runway. Then about 30 or so minutes after launch they cut to the live radio transmissions, which was excellent though hard to hear, of course there was no announcement they were cutting to the radio feed which was at least 2x as loud as the announcer feed.

They did manage to catch the landing. And then we had a mix of announcer and radio feeds, you could barely hear the announcer so I turned up my audio to hear and then the radio feeds came back and almost blew out my speakers!!

All in all a horrible webcast!

Re: greed

[SerialHistorian]

There IS a ten million dollar prize offered. But they've already spent twenty million. So what?

Finally.

[Gannoc]

We're one step closer to having privately owned space based ion cannons for use in home defense.

Remember, if having ion cannons is criminal, then only criminals will have ion cannons.

Re:Finally.

[Tumbleweed]

Yeah, if the government won't protect us against invading Goa'uld, then we'll have to do it ourselves!

btw - that's 'homeland defense,' buster, and don't you forget it!

Great for them. I hope they can make money.

[johnjay]

I'm still confused as to how they're going to make money on this. If it is as cheap to take this flight as a regular airline, I might be willing to blow a few hundred bucks to get above the atmosphere. More than that, though, and I, personally, would probably decide it's too expensive for me. That being said, I, personally, don't make much money. Maybe there ARE enough wealthy people out there to sustain short-hop space tourism.

Of course, Rutan says he's going to keep working on the next step. My price point for orbit would be substantially higher than what I'd pay for 3 minutes of weightlessness.
Thinking further into the future--I'd probably be willing to spend a quarter of a year's pay for a trip to the moon or a space station (i.e. years of saving and willing credit card indebtitude). God, by the time we're able to vacation on the moon I'll probably be deciding between a comfortable retirement or a trip to space and years as a Wal-Mart greeter. Still, even if that's the best I can hope for it's better than the future looked yesterday.

Re:Great for them. I hope they can make money.

[Tumbleweed]

> I'm still confused as to how they're going to make money on this.

Simple, they filled in the step 2:

1) Create reusable suborbital spaceplane.
2) Auction off M&Ms released in cockpit during flight on eBay.
3) Profit!

So simple a monkey in a space capsule could do it!

Hurray!

[Fjornir]

Hope Eyrie

Worlds grow old and suns grow cold
And death we never can doubt.
Time's cold wind, wailing down the past,
Reminds us that all flesh is grass
And history's lamps blow out.

But the Eagle has landed; tell your children when.
Time won't drive us down to dust again.
Cycles turn while the far stars burn,
And people and planets age.
Life's crown passes to younger lands,
Time brushes dust of hope from his hands
And turns another page.

But the Eagle has landed; tell your children when.
Time won't drive us down to dust again.
But we who feel the weight of the wheel
When winter falls over our world
Can hope for tomorrow and raise our eyes
To a silver moon in the opened skies
And a single flag unfurled.

But the Eagle has landed; tell your children when.
Time won't drive us down to dust again.
We know well what Life can tell:
If you would not perish, then grow.
And today our fragile flesh and steel
Have laid our hands on a vaster wheel
With all of the stars to know

That the Eagle has landed; tell your children when.
Time won't drive us down to dust again.
From all who tried out of history's tide,
Salute for the team that won.
And the old Earth smiles at her children's reach,
The wave that carried us up the beach
To reach for the shining sun.

For the Eagle has landed; tell your children when.
Time won't drive us down to dust again.

(c) 1975 Leslie Fish

"less than 12 parsecs" explained

[gumpish]

Er, a parsec is a measure of distance, not speed.

First of all, you meant "distance, not time"...

Secondly,

Read this and then STFU.

Re:"less than 12 parsecs" explained

[An Onerous Coward]

Wow! You mean that, rather than showing a penchant for technobabble that he didn't fully understand, Lucas was actually enriching his fictional world by making a subtle reference to such an elaborate setup?

Bull. Lucas had no such thing in mind when the movie was filmed. Lucas made an error, and it was a beaut. Somebody came along after the fact and reinterpreted the world of Star Wars to fix it, which is cool. But it doesn't alter the fact that the Kessel Run started its life as a brainfart. STFU is a totally inappropriate reaction.

Re:"less than 12 parsecs" explained

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh god, a Star Wars apologist. Dude, you can make up any number of explanations after the fact, but just admit that it was a goof in the script.

Re:"less than 12 parsecs" explained

[Trillian_1138]

While I personally believe Lucas fucked up, the script (being the geek I am and having a copy handy...) has the following:

HAN: It's the ship that made the Kessel run in less than twelce parsecs!
*Ben reacts to Solo's stupid attempt to impress them with obvious misinformation.*

So, Lucas probably screwed up (I kinda doubt that's in the origonal draft of the script, rather than the resale copy I have...) but, in spite of what StarWars.com says, at ONE POINT it was Solo's fuckup. They've apparently shifted it so Solo was _right_ (and didn't shoot first - different issue...)

-Trillian

Re:"less than 12 parsecs" explained

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. You are so superior. I bow to your attempted smackdown of a quote (which due to the link you obviously know is correctly quoted) which is, itself, inaccurately worded. This is absolultely rediculous and should be moderated as a Troll as it's about the most rediculous attempt at ego-lashing that I've ever seen. What the hell was this guy supposed to do?? Change the wording to something incorrect so you could bash him for that??

Yes I posted as anonymous. Yes I have an account. Yes I lost the stupid password. Yes I would post this under my login, 21chrisp. No I'm not going to bother recovering my password for this. Someone has to defend people from this type of ego-lashing.

Bug Free Flight

[ericlp]

The project was funded by Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen , who would only describe the cost as being in excess of $20 million.

Shouldn't it be reported as a "bug free" or "crash free" flight?

Re:Bug Free Flight

[Anonymous Coward]

well lets se the engine died too quickly
but its better than if BSD hasd done it
they would have over shot and either hit the space station or the moon (thankfully it would have been computer controlled)

Fast forward...

[adept256]

Clearly this is a great success in the commercial space movement.

Let me begin by saying that SpaceShipOne is a development on clearly establablished NASA research, as NASA have demostrated a prototype which displays the same functionality.

NASA have always maintained that their research is for the benefit of all mankind. Here is where we see the benefits of their tax funded research, in commercial endeavors.

The question to ask is about NASA's place in the future. As the first (of hopefully many) endeavors against a governmental monopoly on space, one must wonder if this is the beginning of a trend. If so, how long before commercial interests take over NASA in R&D, budget and achievements?

To wit; could the first man on Mars be a private individual?

Re:Fast forward...

[Ice Tiger]

Sorry but the lifting bodies series of aircraft are not the same as space ship one at all. None of the vehicles made it out of the atmosphere either.

Re:Fast forward...

[adept256]

Not at all. I assert that SpaceShipOne has many design similarities to NASA's M2-F2. Looking at the profiles of each craft (which is why I linked to the picture), you can see how the general shape (at least) is very similar.

SpaceShipOne undeniably benefits from NASA research, if not for the prior art, than NASA's freely available research on space exploration.

Re:Fast forward...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, in that case... I assert that SpaceShipOne has many design similarities to Boeing's 747. After all, they both have wings and a very similar "general shape".

SpaceShipOne undeniably benefits from private industry research, well, because it was designed and built by a private corporation? Seriously, you're traveling through atmosphere, it's no surprise it's plane shaped. Secondly, the thing uses a completely different fuel material than NASA researched fuels, so saying its a copy of a NASA design demeans the whole project.

Re:Fast forward...

[corngrower]

I'ld have to seriously disagree. The key feature of Rutan's design that allows it to work is the 'feathering' it does as it reenters the atmosphere. This is truly a Rutan innovation. When SSO feathers, the whole back section of the wings fold upwards. (See pictures on their website, once its no longer slashdotted.) I really don't think the vehicles are shaped anywhere close at all, especially when you consider aerodynamics. The materials are completely different, aluminum alloy vs composite. The engines would have been different - hybrid vs liquid. The navigation and control electronics is certainly different. Nope No comparison between the two. SpaceShipOne is clearly the work of Rutan. Rutan may have gotten inspiration from other NASA work, but definitely not from the vehicle you list.

Re:Fast forward...

[zenofjazz]

Clearly this is a great success in the commercial space movement.

Let me begin by saying that SpaceShipOne is a development on clearly establablished NASA research, as NASA have demostrated a prototype which displays the same functionality.
Yes... A line of R&D that NASA dropped, when the decision to launch capsules became expedient.
The ship in question was known as "dyna-soar" by the folks working on it, at the time, and shows NASA's usual propensity for naming things (*yawn*)... Having had family members who worked on the project, and recalling the scifi movie that used some of the models for their "rescue" craft, I'm familiar with the vehicle... You're saying perhaps, that Rutan & company didn't do anything, but copy NASA?
I think not... Rutan and company have done it cheaper, lighter, and better...

Re:Fast forward...

[Anonymous Coward]

He wasn't saying Rutan COPIED NASA! He was saying Rutan took some of the PUBLICLY available results that NASA produced and used it as a PART of his own work. None of this demeans anyone! Trying to design something as complex as an airplane, much less a space craft, without drawing on all available information is idiotic. IMHO, that is how things are supposed to work.

VERY low orbit :) was: Re:Question

[ishmalius]

Remember that a ballistic curve is not a parabola, but one end of a highly eccentric ellipse. He did fly an orbit of a kind. It is just one that does not clear the surface of the Earth at all points.

Escape Velocity is a non-issue

[snatchitup]

It assumes the velocity you would need, if you didn't continue to apply thrust to yourself...

I can't get over how many Slashdotters don't know the simple physics of satellite orbits.

Orbital veloctiy is dependant on Radius from Earth's center, and gravity's pull.

Re:Escape Velocity is a non-issue

[Etcetera]

I can't get over how many Slashdotters don't know the simple physics of satellite orbits.

Yeah, that bugs me too... I mean, come on people, it's not rocket science!

Re:Well, at least MELVILLE landed at the right str

[mlh1996]

So, does anyone know what is so special about Ellsworth that the windows were ordered shut?

Ellsworth is a nuclear base. Not that you can see anything, really, but the presence of nuclear weapons on a base is enough to make base security pretty paranoid. It's probably not policy anywhere, just a judgement call in this rather strange case.

Can we now rename Mojave...

[Phenylene]

... to Mos Eisley?

Re:Can we now rename Mojave...

[Anonymous Coward]

concidering the number out botched mining operartions near by it might not be too bad a choice

REMEMBER!

[Anonymous Coward]

Every copy of Windows you buy pays for this!

I get excited when...

['nother poster]

The stewardess reminds me that there will be no meals serve on todays flight, the microgravitysickness bags are in the seatback in front of me, it will be 20 minutes until orbiter seperation, and that if I touch her like that again, she will handcuff me to my seat, and have me escorted off by Federal Marshalls after landing. ;)

Re:I get excited when...

[Paulrothrock]

I think if you're touching stewardesses like that, you're probably already too excited.

Re:Strange but true

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that guys is a crack up.

M&Ms are now the first candy in space...

[skermit]

[A HREF="http://www.spaceflightnow.com/ss1/status.htm l">...brought up by a commercial aircraft.

Re:M&Ms are now the first candy in space...

[skermit]

oops... ...brought up by a commercial aircraft.

Reporting "news" (OT)

[Anonymous Coward]

Note to editors: It's not like you didn't have advance notice of this. It's not like this isn't a huge story. SpacesShipOne successfully lifted off over an hour before this previewed on the front page. Step lively!

Looks like you're getting sucked into the "get the scoop" game. That's one of those artificial games the news media have created to increase profits: Make people think that getting all news a split-second before anyone else is Very Important, then sell more by doing that.

In reality, scoops are good for some news: when they affect stock prices in a surprising way, when there is imminent danger to the public, etc. But most news, like this one, doesn't affect you adversely if it's delivered some time after it occurs.

If you're really into getting the scoop, you can visit major news media where most stories are pre-written for that reason. Here at Slashdot, we're pretty relaxed about such things. We like our news late, duped, with lots of typos and inaccuracies. But then, Slashdot is not really about "news" (the title is very much tongue-in-cheek), it's about the comments, moderation and trolls.

-hadohk

Re:Reporting "news" (OT)

[American AC in Paris]

I don't give two farts about the "scoop". I am interested in reading the comments here on Slashdot, as they're a fun mix of intelligent geekiness, mind-boggling stupidity, and interesting opinion. You don't get that with CNN.

Slashdot not having a pre-launch story up is like throwing a New Years' party at 12:15 AM on the first of January. Where's the fun in getting things underway after it's all done?

Re:Reporting "news" (OT)

[Dwonis]

...a fun mix of intelligent geekiness, mind-boggling stupidity, and interesting opinion. You don't get that with CNN.

Bah! Yes you do... Well, at least 2 of the 3, anyway.

Quote from Burt Rutan.

[nefele]

From their official website:

He said the pubic and media reaction the flight gave him goosebumps.

Man, I also got excited about the event, but this is too much.

Re:Excellent! Now, the sooner we see real, ...

[Zak3056]

...commercial, for-profit ventures going into space, the sooner it will become accessible to the common man. Just not in any of our lifetimes.

While I don't expect it to happen in our lifetimes either, it's worth noting that the time elapsed between the first powered flight at Kitty Hawk, and the flight of the first Jet aircraft was only 40 years. 20 years after that saw the birth of the SR-71 Blackbird, which is still one of the most amazing aircraft ever produced by man.

I'm not betting on it, but it's possible I'll be around another 60 years. Sometimes things just take off (no pun intended.) I hope this is one of those times.

Re:Sweet - Luckily they're in California...

[red floyd]

Moderation +1 Porky's.

A bold new step....

[Laivincolmo]

Maybe now NASA will see this as new competition and get their act together. Even though this next era of spaceflight technology development might be motivated by money, at least it will lead to greater things...

In this case:
1)Profit
2)???
3)Science and exploration!

What next?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mike Melvill, you have just become the first private astronout, what are you going to do next? Go to Disney [world,land]!

One Passenger Should Be Chuck Yeager!

[Bob_Robertson]

Gen. Yeager should be one of the passengers used to qualify for the X-Prize. He deserves it!

Where do we send contributions to fund the ticket?

Bob-

Re:One Passenger Should Be Chuck Yeager!

[dustinbarbour]

He doesn't deserve it. Other than being the first person to break the sound barrier and shooting down five German aircraft in one mission during WWII, his military career has been anything but stellar. It's my understanding that the rank of Brigadier General was bestowed upon him for more PR purposes than actual merit. That's jsut what I heard, though. :-)

Private space travel = bad idea

[EvilStein]

We have people that can't manage to get across town without getting into an accident.

Can you imagine soccer mom's private spacecraft, with her using one hand to hold the cell phone and the other to beat the kids? :P

We still need to get aircraft to stop running into fixed objects.. and each other! :)

Re:Private space travel = bad idea

[squarooticus]

Because, of course, the government's 3% failure rate is much better than private industry could achieve.

Re:Private space travel = bad idea

[EvilTwinSkippy]

All too well.

Especially because she is doing it while straddling two lanes of traffic in front of me, in a bohemeth that completely blocks my view of the sky ahead.

Re:Private space travel = bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

We have people that can't manage to get across town without getting into an accident.

Yes, but unlike traffic accidents, spaceship accidents are much more likely to be fateful, thus improving the breed!

Re:Private space travel = bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Arrrrgh! Fatal! I meant fatal! [kick! use the damned preview button! kick!]

Re:Private space travel = bad idea

[DerekLyons]

Because, of course, the government's 3% failure rate is much better than private industry could achieve.

The best reliability currently for a private launcher is around 98.5%, the best reliability for a goverment launcher (the Shuttle) is around 98.2%. Not much of a difference there. (Even the much vaunted Soyuz (booster, not the capsule) only clocks in with a reliability around 99.2%)

You do realize that privately built and financed rockets depart the Cape on a fairly regular basis? Boeing is every bit as private a company as Scaled, as is one of Boeing's primary customers... AT&T.

Before you bring up the old saw about their launchers being developed with goverment money... Consider this; No major US launch vehicle today (excepting the Shuttle and the Titan) was developed with goverment money, none. The current Atlas and Delta variants are as far removed from their goverment heritage as the current VW Beetle is removed from it's WWII roots. The name remains the same, but the craft underneath has been redesigned and updated so often that virtually no trace of the original remains. (And the redesigns and updates were/are to provide boosters that have the capabilities desired by their commercial (private) customers, (mainly heavy lift to GTO).)

The goverment (when it uses them) buys 'em off the shelf the same as they do automobiles or pencils. (Actually, the goverment rarely buys the booster, but rather buys a launch in the same way they buy an airline ticket for a goverment employee to fly across country.)

(Parenthetically, it always amazes me how very little so many soi-disant 'space fans' actually know about the space industry.)

Re: greed

[Stregone]

Think of it as a 50% discount on research and development.

Time to offer the Y-Prize

[Anonymous Coward]

100 million $ For the first commercial moon shot?

Followed by the Z-Prize of 1 billion $ for the first commercial interstellar flight to Proxima Centauri.

Or how about 1 quadrillion Quatloos for the first inter-dimensional "slide"?

Some milestones for comparison

[Anonymous Coward]

On October 14, 1947, the Bell X-1 became the first airplane to fly faster than the speed of sound. Piloted by U.S. Air Force Capt. Charles E. "Chuck" Yeager, the X-1 reached a speed of 1,127 kilometers (700 miles) per hour, Mach 1.06, at an altitude of 13,000 meters (43,000 feet, 8.1 miles). (Source: Air & Space Museum)

On April 12, 1961, Soviet cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin became the first human in space. His remotely controlled Vostok 1 spacecraft lofted him to an altitude of 200 miles and carried him once around planet Earth. (Source: NASA)

[Alan Shepard] holds the distinction of being the first American to journey into space. On May 5, 1961, in the Freedom 7 spacecraft, he was launched by a Redstone vehicle on a ballistic trajectory suborbital flight--a flight which carried him to an altitude of 116 statute miles and to a landing point 302 statute miles down the Atlantic Missile Range. (Source: NASA)

The X-15 research plane had some mission similarities to SpaceShipOne. The X-15 was lifted under the wing of a B-52 bomber to around 45,000ft and was then dropped before its rocket engines were fired and testing began. One of the primary purposes of the X-15 was to test the physiological effects on both man and machine of high-speed, high-altitude (near space) flight. The information gathered certainly qualified as high altitude as even under NASA's strict guidelines Joe Walker achieved astronaut status while testing the X-15 on August 22, 1963 by going over the 62 mile mark--to an altitude of 67 miles. (The US Air Force recognizes the limit as 50 miles, under this system many prior X-15 pilots reached "astronaut status." It is interesting that NASA's mark was only passed after they had taken over the X-15 project on 1960.) (Sources: various)

The pilot of SpaceShipOne, Michael Melvill, brought the ship into a vertical ascent at Mach 3, or three times the speed of sound. The craft coasted in a massive arc, about 100 kilometers, or 62 miles, above the Earth. Melvill, the first astronaut to pilot a private spacecraft, experienced weightlessness for about three minutes. (Source: CNN)

Question everyone is wondering..

[Anonymous Coward]

Did he die?

Re:Well, at least MELVILLE landed at the right str

[davidsyes]

Hmmm... Off Topic, ehhh. MLH, do you agree with my post being modded down? Here we have TWO technology-related stories, one with a civilian seemingly trouncing some NASA activities, and another in the wake or 9/11 and BILLIONS of tax dollars spent improving--supposedly-- US security. Oy vey (spelling?). Off Topic. That should BE a topic of concern.

Careful with that "civilian" word there, bub.

[Baldrson]

The United States now has a certified and *operational* civilian space port. Holy frick.

The original NASA charter was to be a "civilian" space program.

"Civilians" were primarily involved in the decision to impose sexually abusive techniques in the Abu Ghurayb prison.

While military discipline tends to slide quite a bit during peacetime (and times where the "war" isn't really life-or-death for the powers that be) the government space program would have been a lot better off if it had been purely military rather than "civilian".

There would likely have been far less competition between the governmental and private sector.

Having said that, there is simply no substitute for a society based on Yeoman farmer conservatism where the nation's real might is derived from free and independent people who know how to use tools and defend their own lands -- and the loss of that society during the 20th century is the true source of all this damaging government policy.

That is the society that gave rise to the Wright Brother's bike shop, the golden age of aviation and the real might of the United States during mobilization in WW II and beyond. That might is not entirely gone yet, but it is profoundly damaged and severely threatened with destruction.

Re:Careful with that "civilian" word there, bub.

[MrBlackBand]

the government space program would have been a lot better off if it had been purely military rather than "civilian".

At least if it was purely military it would have had unlimited funding. Hell, Congress would have been giving them *more* money than they requested if it was purely military.
Of course, they would have been spending the funding on five-thousand dollar BRTLSUs (Battle Ready Tactical Light Shielding Units ("lamp shades" to us civies)).

Re:Careful with that "civilian" word there, bub.

[ausoleil]

... the government space program would have been a lot better off if it had been purely military rather than "civilian".

There would likely have been far less competition between the governmental and private sector.

Ummm, the military relies upon private contractors to build (and many times operate) their equipment. NASA did exactly the same thing to build their moon rockets, as they do with the space shuttle. North American Rockwell, General Dynamics, Grumman, others have all created much space hardware for NASA. The competition, BTW, was viewed as not only a good thing, but a vital aspect of yielding the best design possible at the most reasonable price for the taxpayers.

NASA's original charter was to be a civilian organization because of fears of the militarization of space. The US did not want Soviet or Chinese nuclear bombs orbiting over our country, nor did those other Cold War powers. Had NASA been an outgrowth of the Air Force's space efforts (note that Kennedy Space Center is adjacent to Patrick Air Force Base) then the one-upmanship race that was the COld War of that era may have indeed led to full-scale militarization of outer space.

That said, it was a political move for NASA to be viewed as a civilian organization. In fact, however, most of the original two sets of astronauts came from the military, with the notable exception of Neil Armstrong, who was a civilian test pilot. That may have had much to do with Armstrong's being named Commander of the Apollo 11 mission, something that did not sit with with Edwin 'Buzz' Aldrin, who felt himself the most capable in that particular crew. You know the rest, it is old history now.

Re:Careful with that "civilian" word there, bub.

[JabberWokky]

Several hours ago I wrote this. It is somewhat approprite, and certainly states my opinion on your post... pretty compatable with yours. I am of the opinion that NASA should have been completely privatized (i.e., told to "earn your keep or close up") or taken over by the Air Force a couple decades ago. Right after the Shuttle design by committee fiasco.

It is things like the Wright Brother's bike shop that the DMCA, bad patent law, kneejerk lawsuits and the USPA threaten. The first two are obvious, the third shuts down anything remotely risky (and the flight this morning is a prime example of a worthwhile risky endevour), and the last questions the need of an individual to play with explosives, hazardous chemicals and other things that led to Edison and Tesla.

--
Evan "I reserve the right to blow myself up so long as I do not reasonably risk my neighbor's health or property"

Re:Careful with that "civilian" word there, bub.

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of those civilian contractors were ex-military. As is the guy who gave them the orders (Rumsfeld). Yeoman farmer conservatism is a dream of an age that never happened.

Obligatory Toy Story Quote...

[Anonymous Coward]

"To Infinity, and Beyond!"

Is Burt Rutan the Roger Moore of flight ?

[DRWHOISME]

He seems to 'crave' publicity with his projects.

Also I heard on Cnn interview of Rutan that he didn't develop this rocket with the X prize in mind .

What ?

The big Corporate cash funding doesn't make me happy. Just another contest bought out by the richest guy.

Re:Is Burt Rutan the Roger Moore of flight ?

[Thomas A. Anderson]

He seems to 'crave' publicity with his projects.


Based on what? Since Scaled was the last of the X-prize participants to announce their intent (and the first to qualify), that goes against a guy trying looking for attention (it's not like he's been saying he's going to do this for years with little results).

In my opinion, Burt Rutan and Scaled don't receive half the attention they deserve. Burt Rutan is going to go do in history (along with Kelly Johnson of Skunk Works fame) as one of the countries most innovative and successful aircraft designers.

Re:Is Burt Rutan the Roger Moore of flight ?

[feargal]

He seems to 'crave' publicity with his projects.

Of all the X-Prize competitors, Scaled Composites have been the most media-shy. He receives lots of publicity for his projects because they are pretty, innovative, and successful.

Also I heard on Cnn interview of Rutan that he didn't develop this rocket with the X prize in mind.

They have spent more than double the prize money developing Tier One. They'd have to be pretty stupid to be in it just to win the X-Prize. While it would be nice to recoup $10m by winning the prize, they will continue their developement whether they win or not. (Mass fatalities excluded.)

Just another contest bought out by the richest guy.

Yes. That was the point. Encourage the private sector to invest in commercial space travel by rewarding the smart investor with $10m.

Really. I'm sure you can find out more on CNN.

Re:Is Burt Rutan the Roger Moore of flight ?

[Gryphn]

Huh? What's this guy got to do with any recent publicity hounding.

Maybe you mean this guy .

Re:Is Burt Rutan the Roger Moore of flight ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I thought he meant the Evel Knievel of flight.

talking about low requirements

[igny]

"It was piloted by Michael Melvill, who after the successful flight, officially became an astronaut."

I congratulate Mr. Melvill, but keep wondering about what qualifies a pilot to be an ASTROnaut.

Re:talking about low requirements

[confused one]

Yeah, imagine only having 6,950 hours in 138 different aircraft. 19 years experience as a test pilot. Working on the WhiteNight and SpaceShipOne combo for the past, say, 5 years and spending hundreds of hours in the simulator so he can make this flight. Talk about low standards...

"Kings Of The High Frontier" and "Net Assets"

[Bob_Robertson]

[S]eperating rockets are the big block carboreator fed technology of space travel. Sure their are smarter ways of doing it, but sometimes a sledge hammer tool for the job.

I agree. We (as a species and society) have already "Been There, Done That". Real innovation is now how to get there better. Yes, "good, cheap, fast, pick two." We've done fast, it's now time to do cheap.

Ya see, "fast" isn't important. It's taken 43 years since Gagarin, to do only what Shepherd did but do it for a tiny fraction of the cost and no waste. That's not fast at all. This re-demonstrates the fact that politicians, since they're not spending their own money, don't take the "long view". They go for quick fixes and damn the repercussions.

Excuse me, it's time to go re-read "Net Assets" and "Kings of the High Frontier". I'm enthusiastic again!

Bob-

Re:"Kings Of The High Frontier" and "Net Assets"

[j-pimp]

Ya see, "fast" isn't important. It's taken 43 years since Gagarin, to do only what Shepherd did but do it for a tiny fraction of the cost and no waste. That's not fast at all. This re-demonstrates the fact that politicians, since they're not spending their own money, don't take the "long view". They go for quick fixes and damn the repercussions.

Your absolutly right, privitization is the way to go, and privitization will bring the costs down and make it profitable.

By faster I mean get the X-prize first. All I'm saying, is if I had the money to finance a rocket and two engineers came up to me, one with a new fangled single stage rocket, and another with plans to improve a slightly improved Saturn rocket, I'm going with the Saturn rocket plan. Now once I got the X-Prize, I'm hiring the other engineer to run my R&D.

Time Zone?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know we are supposed to be nerds and all, but is it really necessary to have 3 different time zones in one article?

Beat me, (No not literally)

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn you beat me to it :) Was busy checking out wikipedia - the bullet analolgy is true.

Then couldn't an slow rocket with infinte fuel get into orbit? I know aircraft operating ceiling are due to air density.
So I am sure it could! Irresistable force and all that...

And you're what, a professional physicist? Certainly not, since your error is a grievous one.

Possibly took one of those Science Communication degrees, (sigh)... :P

Re:Beat me, (No not literally)

[pclminion]

Then couldn't an slow rocket with infinte fuel get into orbit?

No, since it would have infinite mass. F = ma, so if m is infinite, there is no finite value of F that will accelerate the object.

With a very large supply of fuel, yes, it's possible. But not an infinite one :-)

Re:Beat me, (No not literally)

[Anonymous Coward]

Not necessarily, provided the infinite fuel supply is already where the ship is at all points in its journey, such as a zero-point field that it draws energy off of.

Plus, you can't really go at whatever velocity you want as velocity is a vector. You need a velocity that takes you away from the Earth, otherwise you could move at a velocity that would try to take you right through the Earth, which would not be a very good thing for you or your craft.

Re:Beat me, (No not literally)

[Anonymous Coward]

But if the fuel was infinitely light...

Re:Beat me, (No not literally)

[fucksl4shd0t]

Not necessarily, provided the infinite fuel supply is already where the ship is at all points in its journey, such as a zero-point field that it draws energy off of.

Looks like the problem is solved once again. Improbability can be infinite, so we just need a drive that'll use improbability as its fuel supply. I suggest a course of research along these lines:

1. Create a device that will generate a finite field of improbability. Create this device to test the hypothesis that "Any object can be created if you can calculate the probability at which such an object will appear 'out of thin air'."
2. Test the device by first using it to, say, remove someone's clothes at a party or somesuch nonsense.
3. If successful, calculate the level of improbability at which a machine capable of generating a field of improbability of infinite size will just 'appear out of thin air'.
4. Test the machine to see if it can generate a field of improbability great enough to create the new machine. If not, re-engineer until it can.
5. Now run the machine and build the ensuing space craft.

It's outta date now....

[eclectus]

Go ahead and change the Poll now....

A question for the Rocket Scientists on /.

[NoNeeeed]

Lots of people have been asking about how SC can take SS-1 and turn it into something that can get people into LEO and beyond.

One option is that perhaps they won't, and they will go back to the drawing board to come up with a totally new design. That doesn't seem right to me; Bert is a smart guy, and they have put a lot of resources and time into this, would they just throw it away.

My thought is that they will scale things up and add another stage.

In essence, what Burt has done is design a rocket where each stage is designed to suite it's part of the flight, and then return in one piece. At the moment they have a stage to get high in the atmosphere, and a stage to get into space, why not add a new stage to get you to LEO and beyond.

If WK and SS-1 (SS-2?) were scaled up, is there any reason why a third stage couldn't piggy-back on SS-1 to 100km and then detach and boost into LEO. Both the previous stages would then land and wait for the return of the orbiter. Each would have it's own crew (or perhaps a really good auto-pilot).

Basically you end up with the advantages of a multi-stage rocket (or the shuttle) but with completely reusable stages.

Have I completely missed something? Would the seperation at 100km be too difficult? Would there be too much mass for it to be feasible?

Paul

p.s. Well done to everyone at Scaled. An amazing achievement, no matter what the "but I want a pony!" crowd might say. This has been one small step in the right direction, on a long journey.

Re:A question for the Rocket Scientists on /.

[Anonymous Coward]

That 3rd stage to boost the ship out of the atmosphere and into LEO requires a lot of power.. SpaceShipOne goes at like Mach 3, to exit earths atmosphere you need to go like Mach 25.. that'll take an extremely large 3rd stage vehicle to boost it to that speeds, it would probably make it too heavy to use that mothership to get it to 50k miles.

Re:A question for the Rocket Scientists on /.

[NoNeeeed]

I guessed that bit, hence "If WK and SS-1 (SS-2?) were scaled up, is there any reason why...".

Something that struck me, while watching the video feed on the BBC, was just how small both White Knight and SpaceShipOne were. SS-1 can't be more that 10-12 foot high when you see it with people. There seems to be a lot of room to scale up both craft (they are *Scaled* composites afterall :-> ), although I'm sure there are many other challanges.

Re:A question for the Rocket Scientists on /.

[cdn-programmer]

While this is certainly a step forward, it is a very long way away from LEO. SS-1 reached only about mach 3 which is perhaps 1/8th the velocity needed for orbit.

The reporter on CNN, being the uninformed dummy that the media normally hires, commented they would need 8x more energy to reach LEO. NO. E=mv^2/2 and thus they would need at least 32 times more energy and next they would need to carry all this extra energy and when you get it all scaled up properly you have a system like the space shuttle.

Still, 90% of the mass of the shuttle is elegible for elimination if oxygen from the atmosphere can be subsituted. We need hyper speed engines for this - which are being worked on.

A more dense energy source would do the job as well. Candidates in this area include nuclear which perhaps might include Hf isomers. But at this point this is just speculation. A nuclear engine will work however and there have been prototypes built.

Finally, if we could figure out a way to beam in the energy then we wouldn't need to carry it with us. The atmosphere probably precludes beaming it up from the surface of the planet. However, today's test clearly shows that obtaining elevation is not really that big a problem... it is solvable - so perhaps the energy can be beamed from space.

One way this _might_ be done (speculation) is to place a number of satelites in orbit that capture solar energy and then radiate it to a ship. With enough satelites a more or less continous energy feed could be accomplished. Thus as long as _some_ positive differential over the drag of the rarified atmosphere can be obtained, then it should be possible to obtain orbit.

However, I don't think radient energy capture systems are anywhere near robust enough to even be considered. It takes quite a bit of solar panel to power a coffee pot, much less a rocket ship.

Re:A question for the Rocket Scientists on /.

[robbymet]

The other reply to your question is misleading. Yeas you need to get to Mach 25 to achieve LEO, but there is no benefit to accelerating the entire craft to that speed. Why would you send people to LEO? You send satellites to LEO. Satellites don't weigh that much relative to a launch vehicle, so a third stage rocket used to boost the satellite from the "edge of space" to LEO wouldn't have to be that big. The only real issue with the third stage is integration with the first two stages. External mounting would add a lot of drag during the low-altitude flight segment. The thrid stage could be held inside the second stage craft which would protect the satellite and reduce performance penalties to the first and second stages. Ideally, the third stage could be launched out the front of the second stage, but the use of a human pilot prevents that because the cockpit is in the front. I would say that you haven't completely missed something. A lot of people can't shake the Shuttle paradigm of accelerating the entire vehicle to orbit and not just the payload. Thanks for the good question! -Robert

Re:A question for the Rocket Scientists on /.

[Baldrson]

I'm an amateur "rocket scientist", mainly versed in high pressure liquid fuel engines, so I'm a bit biased against the low pressure engines used by Carmack etc. but even so my prior response to this issue bears repeating:

The big deal about the 100k altitude goal of the Ansari X-Prize is the space tourism potential. Space tourism is a great business to pursue for advancing the state of the art of rocketry because there are an increasing number of wealthy people who can afford this sort of luxury. The problem is that the real ultimate value of increasing the state of the art of rocketry is access to space, and while SC's and XCor's aerodynamic vehicle approach is a tremendous accomplishment -- it doesn't really give "access" to space without substantial redesign.

Carmack's vehicle does.

That's one reason I chose 200km rather than 100km for my amateur rocketry prize . I'm pretty sure SC's and XCor's aerodynamically-limited approach would both lose in a race to 200km because they aren't really "space" vehicles.

Carmack's vehicle is.

I'm tempted to change my prize award to be private rather than amateur so that I can give it to Carmack's team. The problem is that my goal was, and is, to make space accessible to much lower levels of capital than even Carmack's group has expended -- which is already phenomenally low by aerospace standards.

Carmack's accomplishment, with his simplified fuel and system, is more profound than anything that has come along from the aerospace business since the hybrid rocket motor back in the 60s. Sadly -- compared to the golden age of aviation -- that's still not saying much. Carmack is, howeer, bound to inspire teams capable of running a modern day "Wright's bike shop" -- and that is saying much.

Re:A question for the Rocket Scientists on /.

[Slashamatic]

Ah, but what do you think about the 'lifting-body' approach for launches? I see where you are coming from in high-performance rocket engines, but still it remains that if you can launch drom the air, you have the benefit of a conventional craft to get you to a decent speed and altitude where the air is thinner. Certainly, the ability to glide down is nice and the reuirement of the X-prize for reusability is an excellent goal.

The problem is with a higher-pressure system is that it will probably burn through any vanes faster. This means you have to think about other means such as gimbling (steering the motor itself).

Re:A question for the Rocket Scientists on /.

[Baldrson]

Ah, but what do you think about the 'lifting-body' approach for launches?

It's really too bad no one thought to use David Criswell's (now expired) patent #4,836,470 as the basis for an X-Prize vehicle.

An oblique all wing SST can continuously vary from a high-lift configuration to a ballistic configuration by simply changing the cant of the engine as the wing gains speed and altitude while losing fuel mass. (There need be only one engine -- a rocket engine.) Fitting three guys inside the wing would be rather awkward but it could be done.

Reentry wouldn't necessarily be any easier than with the Scaled Composite design, but I'm not against lifting-bodies per se.

The real draw-back of lifting bodies, and almost any horizontal launch, is the fact that during takeoff you have a horizontal orientation to the tankage which requires you to place more mass and engineering there.

I don't know -- I've heard about ways of reentering the atmosphere with a series of skips that bleed off energy without putting the skin under too much thermal stress -- maybe Rutan has figured that out. Seems like a potentially big development budget problem to me.

The problem is with a higher-pressure system is that it will probably burn through any vanes faster. This means you have to think about other means such as gimbling (steering the motor itself).

Systems like the MX missile use the payload guidance authority to provide main thrust vectoring. You don't need much authority if you have that much leverage (small jets at the top of the rocket changing its heading).

Re:A question for the Rocket Scientists on /.

[rebelcool]

well SS1 did exit earth's atmosphere, but to exit earth's atmosphere and not fall back down somewhere, you're correct.

and then if you want to exit orbit, you need even more speed. Hence the massive moon rockets.

Re:A question for the Rocket Scientists on /.

[Slashamatic]

Well the key problems are reusablility and turnaround for the X-prize. Conventional staged rockets leave too much behind, although I understand the logic of weight reduction. I like the SC idea of a lifting body because both parts return to earth in a controlled fashion.

The SST that you mention is interesting because of this, however I agree reentry could be more problematic especially as people go higher/faster and Scaled Composite are already talking 150Km.

The skip technique has been discussed elsewhere for small RVs. The idea being that the heat can be radiated away during the skip so less of a heat shield is required than something like the shuttle.

What other ideas would you have given budget to get 100% reusability and minimal maintenance?

Re:A question for the Rocket Scientists on /.

[Baldrson]

Carmack can stage and he will probably need to stage to get to orbit. I expect a 2 stage system will turn out to be optimal, as it usually does. His important innovation is the simplified fuel (H2O2(90%)+methanol monopropellant) system per stage -- primarily for the first stage where reliability (due to liablity problems) and cost per mass is more important and specific impulse is less important. Each stage can have its own landing/reuse mode. Parachutes aren't that bad and if the engine can be restarted, as Carmack's can, they can be used in lieu of ablation during early reentry (the shock attach points would be to the engine's exhaust shock) as well as assuring a soft landing.

Monopropellants are fantastic if you can get them to work. I paid a chemical engineer to do a literature search on propalox (propane/lox solution -- they are miscible at tankage pressures) but it turns out to be too easy to detonate. If there were some sort of stabilizer it could deliver >300 seconds as well as remaining liquid at a higher temperature/lower pressure than most cryogenics. Carmack's low specific impulse (200 seconds for his methanol/H2O2(90%) solution -- he says he may be able to get that up as high as 250 seconds if he pushes) is a serious draw-back but the simplicity he achieves is a big deal: you can buy a lot of tankage, methanol and H2O2(90%) for the money you could have spent developing and operating alternative systems.

Scaled Composite may be _talking_ 150km but the fact that they ran into control problems upon leaving the atmosphere is exactly the sort of thing I was concerned about in my first message regarding their limitation as a "space" vehicle.

I think Carmack should go for the prize. I'd be happy to be the test pilot but I doubt I'm qualified even to be spam in a can for his vehicle.

As to other techniques for 100% reuability and minimal maintanence -- well -- reusability per se is over-rated. There are reasons to believe you can manufacture rockets very cheaply if you can just get the volume up. The goal is to get the cost per mass to low earth orbit down dramatically. I've had guys who studied industrial production of automobiles and looked at the Saturn V boosters tell me that those engines aren't really any more difficult to manufacture (in terms of tolerances, materials, quality assurance, etc.) than the engine in my 1969 VW microbus, which I replaced a few years ago with a new one for under $1000. The rest is basically tankage and electronics.

If you can go single stage to orbit then you _really_ don't want reuse -- you want that tankage and mass to stay where it provides locally-available feedstocks for various proceses.

What about...

[CanadianCrackPot]

the human powered version. We have short range human powered aircraft, What about once we get up into orbit? It'd be pretty simple to use a bicycle to power the sparkplug to ignite the fuel...

Re:What about...

[Moofie]

Human powered vehicles don't have fuel, Sparky. Unless you're talking about PowerBars.

You sure are a crack pot.

Re:What about...

[CanadianCrackPot]

Oops human electric powered....?

Another quality Simpsons reference

[Anonymous Coward]

"Son, we are about to break the surly bonds of gravity, and punch the face of God!" --Homer

Cool, he released M&Ms

[(eternal_software)]

"Man!" Melvill said, shaking his fists together as he climbed from SpaceShipOne. "I went pretty high, though. When I got to the top, I released a bag of M&Ms in the cockpit. It was absolutely amazing. M&Ms were going all around. It was so cool! We have got to have video of that because I did it in front of one of the video cameras. I haven't ate them. They are in the cockpit."

Re:Cool, he released M&Ms

[CrimsonAvenger]

Obviously, I made the right choice last week when I decided the M&M's would be my munchy of choice for the next few weeks....

But can they do it TWICE in two weeks, for the 10?

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

He said he had one scary moment when he heard a loud bang during the flight. Pointing toward a buckled section at the rear of SpaceShipOne, he suggested it may have been the source of noise.

I wonder if this will prevent them from getting it back up there within the two weeks required to win the 10 mil?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Advertising is next

[hey]

Pretty soon Coke or Nike will charter a flight to erect some dumb ad in space. What a great day!

Re:Advertising is next

[Sloppy]

I think the M&M guys already beat them to it. Melville released some M&Ms during his flight and explicitly talked about them floating around. Because it was fun and neat? Or because ... ??? Profit?

Re:Predictions? - Space Elevator

[Anonymous Coward]

If we are predicting the next 10/20/30 years let's include the truly cost effective method for reaching space.

With unobtanium possibly within reach, Carbon Nanotubes, the space elevator should be several degress of magnitude cheaper and safer then rocket/jet+rocket propelled craft.

Re:But can they do it TWICE in two weeks, for the

[kireK]

This launch doesn't count for the X-prize. You need to take two passangers up to count for an X-Prize launch.

62-year old in space

[peter303]

Notice the test pilot was 62-years old. He was very experienced (and more expendable than Rutan). Hope I can fly as a apce tourist before age 62.

P.S. Is he like the third oldest astronaut after Glenn and Garn?

contact...

[neurocutie]

Did they remember to emit a warp signature ?

Re:contact...

[Wiseazz]

More importantly... were they playing Magic Carpet Ride on the way up? That's what I want to know.

So what was that noise?

[JonTurner]

Both SpaceFlightNow and MSNBC have mentioned the pilot heard an unexpected noise: "He said he had one scary moment when he heard a loud bang during the flight. Pointing toward a buckled section at the rear of SpaceShipOne, he suggested it may have been the source of noise." (MSNBC)

'Sup widdat? Any more information? I don't know enough about these types of propulsion systems to speculate as to the cause, but I'm curious. Any ideas, folks?

Just think..

[Anonymous Coward]

Today's little historic flight would not have happened if it were not for your favourite company bringing in the green backs for Paul Allen.

One more reason to buy to Micro$oft!

(mumbling to himself: Lets have another look at the Open Source versus M$ score sheet..)

Re:Just think..

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow! M$! You used a dollar sign instead of the letter S! That is brilliant! You are the most original nonconformist ever! Such an iconoclast!

Going to Orbit

[TheSync]

Rutan said something very cryptic today: "Orbit is closer than you may think".

I bet we get an interesting surprise next year...

Re: YES The da Vinci project!

[ArcticCelt]

--I'm sure somebody else has come up with the idea, but is anybody pursuing it?

Yes the Canadian Team called The da Vinci project

"The da Vinci Project, led by Brian Feeney of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, registered as a contender for the X PRIZE on June 2, 2000. A reusable helium balloon will lift our spacecraft, "Wild Fire" to an altitude of 80,000 feet. This is where Wild Fire's rocket engines will fire and propel the crew to the 100 km altitude goal -- space."

They developed the project in a kind of "open process" way; every people who wants to contribute is invited to join the project and can even open a local club in is university. They accept help from people of all fields: engineering, public relations, marketing etc...

"The all-volunteer da Vinci project is the largest volunteer technology project in Canadian history with upwards of 100,000 man-hours having been spent on the project thus far."

They amased a huge amount of sponsers and are well advanced in the project.

Interesting...

[Gordonjcp]

... but there have been many, many space craft launched to orbit at speeds well below mach 25. Try again.

Re:Interesting...

[Anonymous Coward]

> ... but there have been many, many space craft launched to orbit at speeds well below mach 25. Try again.

Uh, correct me if I'm wrong, but craft in *orbit* have not escaped the Earth's gravity well. If they had, they wouldn't orbit-- they'd escape!

Summary?

[Grendel Drago]

Do you know of any good summary of bad or stupid design decisions made in the construction of the Space Shuttle, either by Not Invented Here syndrome, Congressional bloat, or whatnot? I'd never heard of the desire for a low-altitude flyby of Russian airspace. (I'd heard of, for instance, the rejection of the space activity suit in favor of bulky, less-safe pressurized suits.)

Any info or links you could provide in this direction would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance!

--grendel drago

Re:Summary?

[AKAImBatman]

Does this link help? NASA is surprisingly honest on what went right and what went wrong with the program. The one thing they don't cover is that it was Nixon's decision to scale back the space program and merge it with the Air Force. After we reached the moon, Nixon decided that having a low cost "token" space program would be enough.

The truly amazing part is the work that the engineers did. They were given a set of impossible requirements that were all at odds with one another, and the engineers still managed to develop a craft that met the specs. In almost all ways, the Shuttle problems were political, not technical.

Re:Summary?

[blackbear]

...the Shuttle problems were political, not technical.
Which is why commercial spaceflight is so vital our successfully exploiting space.

A little more info re: noise

[JonTurner]

From foxnews.com:
"Melvill said he heard a loud bang during the flight and did not know what it was. But he pointed to a place at the rear of the spacecraft where a part of the structure covering the nozzle had buckled, suggesting it may have been the source of the noise."

Ideas: Thermal shock after main engine shutdown? Structural failure of the engine shroud due to vaccuum or airflow pressure? Structural failue due to faulty ignition?

Note to governments...

[Paul Bristow]

Get the f*** out of the way. Let private enterprise take us into space. You are slowing down the human race.

Tier One == SpaceShipOne, Tier Two == Orbiter?

[bburdette]

If SpaceShipOne is Tier One, then will there be a Tier Two? If you can get to the edge of space by piggybacking a rocket on a jet aircraft, what about having another, smaller rocket on board to accelerate to orbital or escape velocity? So Tier 'Zero' gets you to 50000 feet (jet aircraft), Tier One gets you to the edge of space, and Tier Two goes on to orbit. That way you don't have to accelerate all of your Tier One stage to orbital velocity, only the orbiter. That means that you don't have to worry about making a SpaceShipOne that can withstand reentry or accelerate to mach 25 in space; just build it large enough to carry something that can.

Re:Mars Lawyer

[Anonymous Coward]

Mars' lawyers will sue if they release that video.

Maybe.

From a renown expert in space flight engineering

[Anonymous Coward]

Ye can'ne change the laws of physics

- Scotty

Builing up velocity

[amightywind]

And besides, once you are in space, without having to worry about air resistance, it's trivially easy to build up that extra velocity.

The lack of dynamic pressure in a vacuum is one of the reasons rockets build velocity so fast at the end of flight. But much more important is that the rocket is relatively light. The momentum of the rocket exhaust that barely moved the rocket at take off now makes the lighter rocket scream.

Check out the physics here

Re:Mars Lawyer

[Anonymous Coward]

Mars would love for them to release that video. Imagine the free publicity!

Try it for yourself Orbiter Sim

[estar]

You can download the free Orbiter Sim at

http://www.orbitersim.com

and the SS1 add-on at

http://www.orbithangar.com/download.cfm?ID=466

Enjoy

Re:But can they do it TWICE in two weeks, for the

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

You need to take two passangers up to count for an X-Prize launch

You need to take the weight of two passengers. In any case, I did see that this is not a competition flight, but I'm wondering about the structural issue I mentioned in the original post: Haven't heard any comments from the rocket ship company about it...

lift technology

[daraf]

It'll be interesting to see the implications of this and future private spaceflight from a national security point of view. Spacelift technology is remarkably similar to that of intercontinental ballistic missiles. Many existing lift vehicles, such as the Titan and Delta family, have their roots in modified ICBMs.

Physics. Orbit.

[rew]

To get to 100km height, you need m * g * h in energy. per unit of mass you get: g * h = 9.8 * 100 *10^3 ~=~ 1 MJ /kg.

In orbit, you'll circle the earth every 1.5 hours. That means a speed of about 7.4km/sec. This requires (again per unit of mass) 1/2 * v^2 = 0.5*7400^2= 27 MJ/kg.

So, reaching (low earth-) orbit requires about 27 times more energy than what was demonstrated now.

Now there are a few things to keep in mind. You'll have to lug along the fuel to accelrate the last part of your ascent. That means that just taking 27 times more fuel won't cut it.

We're at least two orders of magnitude away from commercial manned spaceflight. (where spaceflight is defined as "in orbit"). Sure: Big step, but not quite there yet....

Re:Physics. Orbit.

[drbradfo]

errr.....

1) gravity isn't constant, it is inversely proportional to distance.
2) orbital speed isn't constant either. In geosynchronous orbits, an object orbits once every 24 hours.

your calculations are incorrect. SS1 is a huge step, orbiting is closer now then it was yesterday.

Re:Physics. Orbit.

[Anonymous Coward]

(1) The earth's radius is over 6,300 km to begin with. Gravity's hardly any weaker a mere 100 km above the surface.

(2) A 1.5 hour period is about right for a low earth orbit, and this would require a large horizontal velocity. You mention geosynchronous orbits. These are much higher.

Re:Physics. Orbit.

[rew]

Completely right. But engineering is about knowing when you can neglect certain quantities.

The earth's radius is something like 6000km. Adding 100km adds in 1.7%, due to the quadratic relation, that would mean a decrease in gravity of about 3.4%, so if you want to do more accurate math, feel free to correct my calculations by less than 5%.

Orbital speed is not constant. But in low-earth-orbit (like space shuttle), the fact that you're an insignificant amount further than the radius of the earth, means that they are all about 90 minutes. If you go from 100km to 200km above the earth the speed goes down something like 1.7%. Again, for an order of magnitude calculation completely insignificant.

Re:Yeah!!!

[Bombcar]

In a press release from Texas, John Carmack noted that Doom III was being delayed another month to "punish those Californian dweebs."

Half-Life 2 was said to be available........on the moon

like a spent bullet...

[bpetal]

I like the way it's reported here!

Once the rocket's fuel was spent, SpaceShipOne kept going up for about three minutes to reach 104km, a height at which it lost speed like a spent bullet.

haha! "like a spent bullet"... Only the Arab world would use such an analogy so freely. :)

Re:Ethics and priorities

[0123456]

'Nevertheless, I can't see the justification for this kind of thing while people starve right here on Earth.'

I take it that you donate every single penny of your disposable income to those starving people, rather than waste it on frivolous uses like internet access, beer and vacations?

No, didn't think so.

Re:A Truly Historic Day

[east coast]

Obvioulsy a lot more time and money will have to be spent to achieve widespread space travel

I dunno about that. There are something like 20 teams seriously in competition for the X Prize. God only knows how flight worthy some of these designs will be. If this really gets off the gound in the next 10 years we may have a number of craft on the 'showroom floor'. We may see the next private flight from another craft in a relatively small amount of time (say within two years). It may well resemble the early efforts of large scale auto builders.

Congratulations to the SpaceShipOne team, Godspeed and Thank You!

I'll second that.

That's "Taggart" with an "A", dear.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it that all the self-appointed Randroid übermenschen are such dumbasses by any normal standards?

God knows they're brighter than the lefty Luddite cretins who think GM foods are a product of witchcraft, but that's not really saying a whole hell of a lot.

Re:That's "Taggart" with an "A", dear.

[Anonymous Coward]

the 'a' version was most likely taken...dear, but thanks for being an elitist cocksucker anyway.

Why is this interesting?

[phr1]

I mean, the guy flew a plane real real high. It went up, it came back down almost immediately. Others have done that too, maybe not quite as high. Yeah, it's a milestone in the sense of a box on a list that one can check off. But what's the immediate practical consequence? Not much.

Spaceflight gets interesting when you can actually put stuff into orbit. So that once it goes up, it stays up without using more fuel. That means you have to get the rocket flying at close to Mach 25. Then once you've gotten up to Mach 25, if you want to land again, you've got to slow back down to zero, which means getting rid of a heck of a lot of kinetic energy. That's why the Space Shuttle needs those notorious problematic thermal tiles, to dissipate the ferocious amount of heat created by that slowdown. Think your car's brakes get hot driving down a mountain? Try it from orbit.

SpaceShip One's propaganda made it sound like they'd beaten NASA by developing better reentry technology that didn't need thermal tiles. In reality, they didn't need thermal tiles because they never reached anywhere near orbital speed, so they didn't have all that heat to dissipate. If they ever build an orbital craft, they'll have to deal with reentry heat just like everyone else has.

SpaceShip One is about as close to that as the Wright Brothers flyer is to a jet airliner. The amount of technical development (and expenditure) needed to get a reusable vehicle in orbit makes what's been done so far look pretty trivial. Space Ship One got about as far into space as the Redstone rockets of the 1950's.

I don't mean to belittle the accomplishment but it shouldn't be overestimated either. It's a step, an important step, but a baby step, there are a lot more to go.

Re:Why is this interesting?

[Anonymous Coward]

Space Ship One got about as far into space as the Redstone rockets of the 1950's.

Ummm, ever try to reuse a redstone rocket? How about build your own, without gov't funding? And if it was such a tiny little baby step, then why was BR and his team the FIRST to do it? If it was so simple, shouldn't YOU have been the first, I mean being as it is such a trivial accomplishment and all? Read MANY previous posts regarding the whole Mach 25 issue, and why it does not apply.

Re:Why is this interesting?

[DavidBrown]

I don't mean to belittle the accomplishment but it shouldn't be overestimated either. It's a step, an important step, but a baby step, there are a lot more to go.

Ever see a baby's first steps? New parents call their friends, families, etc. They try to videotape it if they can. Baby steps are a very big deal, so you've answered your own question.

Re:Why is this interesting?

[TheGnomonicMan]

You've provided solid points that illustrate the difficulties of orbital space flight and the huge gap in difficulty between orbital space flight and sub-orbital space flight. I agree, it would be nice if private industry were providing orbital space flight. However, this isn't an orbital flight, and Scaled Composites isn't pretending that it is. If you're actually asking why this is interesting, then I'd be happy to provide my point of view on the merits of this milestone flight. A novel rocket design was put into use, that rocket delivered a man into sub orbital space. Due to the implementation of a new re-entry technique, the space craft didn't encounter the same sort of re-entry friction that traditional sub-orbital delivery vehicles have encountered, of course the riggors of reentry from a stable orbit would be considerably greater, but once again, it's not an orbital flight, and wasn't designed to be. I'm sure that aerospace afficionados will be able to contribute other achievements to this list. Nevertheless, there you have two innovations brought about by this project. I'm interested.

Re:Why is this interesting?

[SquarePants]

Spaceflight gets interesting when you can actually put stuff into orbit. So that once it goes up, it stays up without using more fuel.

I disagree, I think transoceanic sub-orbital flights are pretty interesting from a commercial standpoint.

Re:Why is this interesting?

[rpj1288]

DO you have any idea how much people will pay just to go really high up and come back down? Or what about suborbital continental hops?

Re:Why is this interesting?

[phr1]

There is already orbital flight available from private launch services (for satellites), just not manned orbital flight. SC built a suborbital vehicle that carried a very brave human test pilot who at age 61 may have decided that even if the spaceship crashed, he'd already had a pretty good life. Launching satellites is of big practical consequence, putting a person into a suborbital launch is a publicity stunt. Also, when your launch package is 99% fuel, re-usability of the vehicle is overrated. A Space Shuttle launch is a heck of a lot more expensive per pound of payload to orbit than a 1970's Saturn V launch used to be, despite the re-usable vehicle.

Re:Why is this interesting?

[TheGnomonicMan]

Quite right, you've caught an error of omission on my part. Satelite services are already providing orbital launches services for unmanned craft. Nevertheless, if you don't find this achievement to be of any value, you're missing the point. My advice, try and appreciate it for what it is. This has been a $20 million project that has developed a new launch system for manned suborbital flight. The capacity for sub orbital flight may not seem to be an industrial commodity, no more so than a very short airplane trip, for instance, or a trip in a very small plane. Charles Lindburgh didn't offer to use the Sprit of St. Louis for commodoties transport, the wright brothers didn't offer to provide commercial air transport. Lack of practicallity notwithstanding, I would have a hard time being convinced of the quality of the reasoning behind an accusation that Lindburgh was looking for an easy way to snuff it. I don't understand the statement "when your launch package is 99% fuel, re-usability of the vehicle is overrated". I think that there's a disconnect right at the coma. So far as I can tell, you'd want to re-use the vehicle no matter how much of it's payload is fuel.

Re:But can they do it TWICE in two weeks, for the

[jabberjaw]

Please look over the X-Prize Guidelines.

Re:Ethics and priorities

[JabberWokky]

People have always starved. They always will. The house will never be in order. I agree that the human race should be considered and that they should share in the profits of colonialism; as the United States was a colony, so shall be the La Granges, the Moon, Mars and elsewhere. And humanity will starve there just as they do on Earth. And they will thrive there just as they do on Earth. And they will live, love, hate, fight, murder, have children, write songs, be heartbroken, be inspired and will participate in the sublime experience of humanity.

Stealing the stars from our future does not feed the world. But it does starve countless worlds.

--
Evan

Twice in ONE DAY.

[Anonymous Coward]

Once they get the last of the technical glitches ironed out, the SS1 is designed for quick engine swaps such that it may be possible to make two flights in a single day.

Dumbasses Unlimited

[Anonymous Coward]

"Conceder"?! And nary an apostrophe in sight.

I don't know what's most frightening: That somebody as dumb as you is running around loose, or that somebody as dumb as you has the nerve to think somebody else is dumber than he is, or that you're actually right, he really is even dumber than you are... or that on Slashdot, none of this really surprises me at all.

Yeah, I think the last one is the most frightening.

Chortle

[FlashBac]

Classic.
Nothing like a Slashdot full-on bitch slapping to set a little smile playing about the lips.
Ahh yes, things running smoothly, survival of those who know. Happy days indeed.
Thanks Graham...

Re:Ethics and priorities

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no social benefit to the private exploration of space. There's no food out there for the hungry, no housing for the homeless. Imagine if it were your relatives, or you yourself, haunted by drought and famine; would you have your eyes on the tropopause, or on your immediate needs? Those needs cannot be deferred.

We need to get our house in order before we get absorbed in checking out the neighborhood. Space will still be there in a hundred years. It can wait. When the people of Chad and Bangladesh can afford to join in a fair, international effort, then will be the time. And in a just world, that time will surely come.

Bullshit. This isn't a government project spending tax dollars, this is private investment in a future growth industry. If they don't spend the R&D money on this now, they won't grow this new industry in the future and thereby earn enough money to give to charities.

Re:But did you consider...

[mandark1967]

Sound slike you don't like to be corrected.

Cost comparison... Hmmm....

[LightJockey]

The X15 project was said to have cost an estimated $300 Million in 1969 dollars... Rutan and Scaled have done the same thing for probably a LOT less than that... at least 20 million (of Allen's money) for sure, but thats still a long way off from the corrected '69 price. Chalk one up for advances in technology and private efficiency!

Re:Cost comparison... Hmmm....

[confused one]

yes but everything was an unknown and all the components were custom when the X15 project was done. Rutan's building off of 50+ years of engineering & manufacturing experience in the industry. For example, you can (almost) buy a motor like his off the shelf.

Having said that, it's guaranteed to cost more if the government does it... What they've accomplished is one hell of an achievement.

Energy

[Cujo]

Once in free space, it all boils down to energy. If you want to escape the earth, you need a net positive energy. Take the derivative of the 2-body energy wrt velocity, and you can see that the best place to add energy is close to the planet. So, if you;re going to escape, escape quickly.

Nothing in propulsion is easy. Some folks can make it look easy; the way Barry Sanders made evading a pro linebacker look easy. However, you wouldn't be likely to succeed yourself.

Many factors determine orbit

[pw1972]

It's not really a question of height, its mostly a combination of speed and distance.

One little known fact is that at a typical low earth orbit of 120 miles or so, the gravitational pull of the earth is still over 8 m/s^2

They are moving so fast that the effect of gravity is neutralized because they are in a constant "free fall" around the earth.

Working for Change

[Anonymous Coward]

"Internet access"? Have it at work. "Beer"? Straight edge. "Vacations"? I've made a number of trips to underprivileged nations to get a feel for conditions there. I've met a lot of wonderful people in those places, people not fooled by corporate propaganda, people committed to positive social change.

I enjoy few luxuries; those few I do enjoy are trivial, and I've earned them by devoting the vast majority of my energies to effecting positive social and environmental change.

Can you say as much? I thought not. When the US has a third-world standard of living, we'll have regained the moral leadership we only fantasize about now. Not until then will we have the right to dream our own dreams. For now, our only "right" is the right to help rescue the victims of our corporate greed and waste.

Re:Working for Change

[Anonymous Coward]

I've made a number of trips to underprivileged nations to get a feel for conditions there.

The Bahamas and Cancoon don't count.

Next time with Passengers?

[rabel]

Sure, they can try for the X-Prize with dummy passengers with the same mass as two adults, but I wonder... will Paul Allen and Burt Rutan be the passengers? At least for one of the flights?

Now, that would be K00L. Talk about putting your ass where your design and investment is. Foolish from a corporate aspect, but damn, they'd sure show the bigwigs they rub elbows with who has the biggest nuts.

Re:Next time with Passengers?

[rv8]

Sure, they can try for the X-Prize with dummy passengers with the same mass as two adults, but I wonder... will Paul Allen and Burt Rutan be the passengers?

Well, I'm betting that the next flight has Mike Melville as pilot, as he has done the two highest altitude flights so far, and it is safest to have him do the first pax flight. But I bet one of the other previous SpaceShipOne pilots is a pax, as this would be a good work up to having him pilot later missions. And I bet Paul Allen gets the other seat. He has certainly paid enough money to have the seat if he wants it. And he probably wants it pretty bad, or he wouldn't have put up as much money as he has.

Bingo!

[Anonymous Coward]

And there you have it. Getting into orbit is fairly simple (though not necessarily cheap or easy). Just build a big engine and tank that can carry enough fuel to get up to speed.

getting up to altitude is also fairly simple (again, not to be confused with easy), as the Scaled Composites team has proven.

Getting into orbit and back is not easy. With current technology, the mass that can be carried into orbit is much less than the mass of the fuel that it takes to get there. This means that you can't simply turn on a rocket engine and slow down before dropping straight back down into the atmosphere. It's simply not practical to carry the fuel required to do so, unless your spacecraft is not much more than a fuel tank with a cockpit. Forget about carrying any useful payload. When the shuttle performs a de-orbit burn, it's only slowing down enough to change its orbit from one that misses the atmosphere to one that intersects the atmosphere. It still has lots of energy that it needs to bleed off, and it does so by heating up the air as it comes down.

This being said, what the Rutan brothers and the Scaled Composites team have accomplished is no small task. From this jumping-off point, it may be possible to build bigger and more powerful craft capable of entering orbit, and for much less than what can be done through government contractors.

My congratulations to the entire SC team.

Cost of project

[David Horn]

Won't they have spent far more designing and building the craft then they could even win back from the X-Prize?

Re:Cost of project

[TheGnomonicMan]

Yes, the cost is already at $20 and they haven't crossed the finish line yet. This flight does not satisfy the requirements of the Ansari X-prize . But then again, who cares ? This is a historic event, not a game show. The purse isn't the prize at all. Scaled Composites developed a new rocket motor as well as a novel re-entry scheme. In short, they may or may not win 10 million dollars, but they have definately made aviation history and contributed to the school of aerospace engineering.

Re:Cost of project

[TheGnomonicMan]

My apologies, I mentioned that the project already costs $20 dollars, that is of course a mistake. The project has cost over $20 million. Thank you

Check out the history of the LSPA of 1990

[Baldrson]

You should check out the need for the Launch Services Purchase Act of 1990 eventually signed into law as PL101-611.

NASA was legislatively barred from one commercially-related space activity, buildign and operating commercial communications satellites. It was not barred from competing with the private sector for launching of satellites. That would have been like the Air Force runnign an airline or FedEx.

While the military tried something akin to that was tried for a few years during the dawn of aviation, with the US postal service, they got out of the business fast with the Kelly Act and the consequent flight of Charles Lindbergh. The military, having learned its lesson well from Lindbergh and his contemporaries "let a thousand flowers bloom" otherwise the US may well not have been able to beat the Axis powers in WW II. I think the military is far more trustworthy than a civilian governmental agency, and private citizens -- allowed to defend their own lands with their own techniques(Jeffersonian Yeoman farmers) -- are far more trustworthy than a government's military.

What a Tragedy it will be..

[cOdEgUru]

If we forget this moment..

What a tragedy it will be, to squander what we have achieved today.

What a tragedy it will be for all of us to destroy earth with out ever setting foot on another planet in the name of space exploration.

What a tragedy it will be for us to wither away and die, our gaze constant at the dwindling light in the horizon, watching all that we could have discovered and knowing all that we missed.

What a tragedy it will be for our sons and daughters who look upon us to set an example, who look upon us to lead and instead find us fighting in the name of God

What a tragedy that other civilizations, alien to ours, will oneday reflect upon what we were capable of, but miserably failed.

Correct me if I'm wrong

[FrivolousPig]

When I jump I escape earths gravity for a split second the only reason I fall back down is because I loose the thrust my legs provide when my feet leave the ground. However if my feet didn't leave the ground (or had a rocket up my arse) and was able to continue at the same speed I would continue going up and eventually hit space. Since my windows don't shatter when I jump I assume I'm not going 25 times the speed of sound. Forgive my simplistic view of things but this is the way I see things.

Note to Paul Bristow

[Anonymous Coward]

Get the f*** out of the way. Your ass is in the way of a new interstate. -- The Government

Re:Note to Paul Bristow

[Paul Bristow]

I'd mod you +1 funny, but I can't post & mod :)

Re:Ethics and priorities

[pw1972]

If we followed that socialist attitude, technology and everything that has prospered from it would be back in the stone age. Unfortunately socialism fails because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics! Everything tends towards the lowest state of energy. So if we were in a socialist economy, we'd be doing the bare minimum to get by and nothing more. There would be no incentive to work harder and laziness would ensue.

I wonder...

[khelms]

where we'd be if they'd continued the X-15 and Dynasoar rocket plane projects instead of sinking a gazillion dollars into the space shuttle.

A small correction

[raygundan]

Since we're picking nits today, I should have said "a force greater than mg" rather than "a force greater than g," since g is an acceleration rather than a force.

Re:A small correction

[ultranova]

Actually, you should have said "a force as great as mg", because if you use a greater force, you don't hoover, you accelerate upwards.

Re:A small correction

[raygundan]

And in fact, we don't "hoover" at all, that being left to vacuum cleaners of a specific brand. Instead, we'd just hover. Good catch.

Wrong: That's not the 2nd law of thermodynamics

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the Second Law of Robotics, dumbass.

Besides, Adam Smith proved that socialism was viable 300 years ago. Get a clue.

Re:A Truly Historic Day

[Mordaximus]

"IMO the most historic event since 9/11."

I share your sentiment about the success of the flight, but I'm puzzled by the comparison. There have been many historic events, both in the US and abroad, that are at least in the same topic from which to draw comparison...

How about STS-107 - more recent, very historic. And although it was tragic, at least in the end good has come of it.

Or how about all of the Mars exploration? Or mankinds unified and rekindled interest in space? All more recent, more relevant and equally as historic. Not to mention, more positive!

/. Socialists excited about a Capitalist Venture

[AWHITEMAN]

I wonder if they see the irony?

Design notes: cheaper, safer, faster turnaround

[lpq]

BBC's Sci-Tech section reports more on how it was launched off a mach 3+ jet that should be recoverable. It's built off the old X-15 concept of using a re-usable hypersonic jet to carry the shuttle most of the way up. If the launch vehicle (a twin-engine turbojet) is reusable, it should allow for easy re-use and a faster turnaround time.

Also mentioned is the shuttle design that makes it self-orienting on re-entry thus always having it re-enter on a "least friction" path.

Various design differences would appear to make the shuttle inherently safer than the 30 year old NASA design.

The article also mentions the cost on the project, $69 million, is less than most government studies and considerably less than the 1 billion dollar cost of the US Shuttle and the per-fligh cost of $500 million.

-l

Thermal protection system

[john82]

No mention of what their thermal protection system involves, but there's a picture that is labelled as such. Here's another shot showing the wing coating. Look for the pinkish material on the nose/chin and leading edges. Does that give anyone additional clues as to the material involved?

Re:Thermal protection system

[mangu]

Look for the pinkish material on the nose/chin and leading edges. Does that give anyone additional clues as to the material involved?

Let me guess: chewing gum?

Space advertising is really quite old ...

[guybarr]

Already

Just got back from Mojave

[Mafiew]

Just got back home from the Mojave airport and let me tell you the experience of watching this amazing aircraft reach the edge of space was awesome. Six friends and I drove from Los Angeles to Mojave and when we arrived there around 3 am and the place was already full of people. For the next few hours we explored around the field, bought some very reasonably priced breakfast burritos and ran around the tarmac. All the vendors seemed to be local groups and didn't rip you off (except for coffee and krispie cremes which were a somewhat large dollar a piece).

Mojave airport is really cool in itself, no fences around and you can wander all over if you want. We got some good spots as near to the takeoff and landing as possible ( they did restrict where you could watch the event, and the ships wheels actually left the ground about 50 yards north of us) and camped out. Everybody around was really excited. Many had come from really far away, like this pair of guys we met from Seattle. I'm sure that there were many who were from much further than that. There was a big mix of people. Lots of old timer aviation types, college age kids, and families. I'm sure much of the town of Mojave were there. We talked to this one guy who was bringing a group of kids from the local high school who were in their special engineering program(something I didn't have at my HS).

When they announced that the ship was actually going to take off on time I was pretty surprised. I just had a feeling it was going to be delayed. At about 6:40 the low altitude chase plane took off, it was a bright red little single engine plane which according to the announcer was flown by the spaceshipone pilot the night before in order to pull 6G's so that he could go to sleep! Next (I think) came the medium altitude chase plane, which was this really cool and modern looking craft with propellers in the back and a little wing on the nose. Then came White Knight, carring SpaceShipOne which look completely unorthodox and bizarre in person, even if you've already seen pictures of them. It taxied along the tarmac that ran past the crowd did a U turn then sped up and soared off of the runway to a cheering crowd. As everybody watched the ship gain altitude, the high altitude chase taxied and lifted off. This jet was pretty interesting, It sort of looked like a fighter jet that had been squashed to make it all squat lookin, sort of a caricature of a fighter jet. The ship climbed really slowly, about an hour of circling around the airfield getting smaller and smaller. Then we got the word that the rocked was going to take off . The ship was about 2/3 of the way almost directly between the horizon and the sun (the sun being fairly low since this is about 7:45 am). Then all of a sudden this huge contrail appeared and traveled straight up just to the right of the sun traveling at an amazing speed. The crowd loved it , after watching the ship climb slowly for an hour this was really dramatic. The trail kept moving up until it seemed to be about 70degrees above the horizon when the engine cut off. After a few minutes with everybody searching the sky for the craft *boom*, a little sonic boom let loose and the ship then appeared. It circled around a few times on its way down and met up with the chase planes. They all flew in a pretty tight formation and the ship finally made an amazingly smooth landing considering it was an unpowered odd looking bulbous craft. Everybody was ecstatic as SpaceShipOne rolled by, this odd looking craft had reached the edge of space and had made it back in one piece. After that, the low altitude chase plane made a flyby, which was pretty cool but then the topper was when White Night flew towards the crowd then pulled up proudly displaying it's bizarre silouette.

I'm really really happy that I got to have this experience. This amazing flight was the first time in my 19 years that I felt that I was actually witnessing history being made with my own eyes.

Re:Just got back from Mojave

[at_kernel_99]

Thanks for sharing. That was a better read than all the news stories.

Re:Just got back from Mojave

[Sporkinum]

The red chase plane was an Extra.. used for unlimited aerobatics. The funny looking one was a Long EZ, an old Rutan design from around 25 years ago.

Re:Just got back from Mojave

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm really really happy that I got to have this experience. This amazing flight was the first time in my 19 years that I felt that I was actually witnessing history being made with my own eyes.

My eyes actually welled up a bit in reading your post. Thanks for sharing the experience.

Re:Just got back from Mojave

[netringer]

Next (I think) came the medium altitude chase plane, which was this really cool and modern looking craft with propellers in the back and a little wing on the nose.

That's a Beech StarShip which Burt Rutan also designed. The design was too unconventional for business types so it didn't sell well. Sadly Raytheon, current owner of Beech, is buying all of the few of them ever made and is destroying them to avoid any future legal liability.

*Thanks*, ambulance chasing lawyers.

Re:Just got back from Mojave

[CharlieG]

Actually, the "funny looking plane" is one of 4 remaining Beach Starships (50 built) - again, a Rutan design, but one that was a commercial flop

Re:Just got back from Mojave

[Sporkinum]

From the 32k video feed I was watching, it looked like a Long Eze. But then again, with the quality of the video I was watching, any canard platform other than a Wright Flyer probably would have looked like a Long Eze.

Re:Just got back from Mojave

[Jagasian]

This post single-handedly tops all of the major news reportings. Thanks for the insight of what it would have been like to be there.

Re:Just got back from Mojave

[evilviper]

*Thanks*, ambulance chasing lawyers.

As much as I hate to defend lawyers... The lawyers aren't the real problem. The problem is the companies who are deciding that spending a little bit more money to prevent people from dying isn't worth the price...

There is no limit to the number of commercial plane crashes that can be attributed to "cost saving measures", mainly not upgrading because the FAA hasn't forced them to do so just yet.

Re:Just got back from Mojave

[JoeF]

We got some good spots as near to the takeoff and landing as possible
Where was that? I was right on the taxiway as close as possible to the hangar. The northern-most corner. I think that was the best spot (except for the VIP area...)

At about 6:40 the low altitude chase plane took off, it was a bright red little single engine plane
An Extra (German-manufactured airobatics plane).

Next (I think) came the medium altitude chase plane, which was this really cool and modern looking craft with propellers in the back and a little wing on the nose.
The StarShip, a canard plane (the canard is the little wing at the front), a design which was made popular by Rutan.

It taxied along the tarmac that ran past the crowd did a U turn then sped up and soared off of the runway to a cheering crowd.
Standard thing: taxi on the taxiway towards the end, then turn on the runway (parallel to the taxiway.)
As everybody watched the ship gain altitude, the high altitude chase taxied and lifted off. This jet was pretty interesting, It sort of looked like a fighter jet
If I remember right, it was an Alpha Jet.

After that, the low altitude chase plane made a flyby
And that even though they said at the start that this is not an airshow...

Re:Just got back from Mojave

[Ms.XingTianCai]

Wow, that was fantastic reporting. Thanks for all the info, you're much more informative than any AP report I've read so far!

Re:Just got back from Mojave

[Mafiew]

Yeah we were in the northern most corner too. We probably saw each other :) I was thinking that maybe for the next flight we could find some scaled composites jumpsuits or something and sneak over to the VIP area.

Re:Just got back from Mojave

[Mafiew]

Just woke up after sleeping all day and it's great to see all of your comments. Thanks for reading about my experience and posting info about the chase planes!

Re:Just got back from Mojave

[zero_offset]

"Beech" Starship, actually. As in "Beechcraft".

Pop open the champagne, my boy Rutan made history

[sllim]

Sending this out to my friends, to celebrate today, June 21'st, a milestone in aviation history.

Anyone that knows me knows that aviation is my thing. So it should be no surprise to anyone that I am following this.
I was sitting here contemplating what happened today, and for only the 1 millionth time since I learned of this venture I was struck by how purely good this news is. I mean, you turn on CNN or Fox, you pick up the newspapers or whatever and they are filled with this negative crap. So much more these last few months, and for no better reason then 2004 can be divided evenly by 4.

But this, I am hard pressed to see how anyone can put a negative spin on this.

In the fall of the year 1903 The Brothers Wright made a flight of just a few hundered feet in a wooden and canvas contraption that would change the world. They would have been hard pressed to have imagined what there hard work would lead to. These Brothers did this thing of there own accord, they had no help, no government hand outs, no proclamations from the president that a thing will be done because it is hard, just two brothers that owned a bycicle shop and had a thought about how to make this thing work.

A mere 60 years later that creation had blossomed into the likes of which the Wright Brothers would never have imagined. People that had picked up the newspapers in 1903 to read about this marvelous flying machine were now turning on the TV sets and tunning in the radio to learn of Sputnik and rocket ships. Space travel was hard, but our society had marked it as a necessity. As a society we knew we could achieve the impossible, setting foot on the moon, photographing continents and solving communication problems that had plagued mankind since the dark ages. But getting there would not be cheap, and it was decided that only a government could afford to solve this problem.

In the 70's humans would set there feet on the moon. A place that has for the entirety of humanity, been nothing but a backdrop in an inkjet sky turned into a land of wonders. Armstrong said his famous words, left his footprints, astronauts would play a bit of golf, mirrors would be left, flags planted and after about a decade we would leave that place as we found it, inaccessable - a land where we only talk of going.

And now today. Burt Rutan designs airplanes. Up until today his most famous creation is displayed in the Smithsonian. It is called 'Voyager' and it traveled around the globe non-stop without refuleing. You may not be impressed, but consider how much money you will spend in gas just to get to work this week, it was quite an achievment.

Burt Rutan has built a spacecraft that he has called 'Spaceship One'. It is a small, quaint thing that CNN describes as shaped like a 'shuttlecock'. As accurate a description as any I have heard. Today Mike Melvill piloted Spaceship One, with the help of it's mate 'White Knight' and slipped the surly bonds of Earth, and returned again. What it did, admittedly, by the standards of shuttle flights that until last year seemed to be monthly occurances, doesn't seem that spectacular. It leapt a mere 100 kilometers (62 miles) and came down again. Landing at the same Mohave airstrip it took off from. But when Mike came back had the distinction of being the only person ever to earn his astronaut wings without any government help whatsoever.

Take a few minutes today and Google 'Gemini Series'. This is what Burt Rutans craft is compareable to. The early Gemini rockets did not achieve orbit. The went up, and came back down again. Then go to http://www.scaledcomposites.com or google 'Spaceship One' and compare the crafts. What you are looking at isn't just what 50+ years of technology advances will get you. But you are also looking at is a clear illustration of how the private sector (Wright Brothers) can often shatter paradigms that the government has put in place.

Congratulations Burt and Mike. Today is your day.

flat earth suicides

[Bobby Orr]

In other news, there was a mass suicide today among the flat earth society.

Mojave Spaceport = no commercial service?

[ctishman]

If Mojave is as stated a spaceport with no commercial airline service, why did I see the SS1 gliding in past at least two Swissair 737s? Were they privately owned, or was the site of the launch changed, or what?
------------------

Re:Mojave Spaceport = no commercial service?

[BlackHorse]

Chase planes perhaps?

Re:Mojave Spaceport = no commercial service?

[Simple-Simmian]

They store large air craft (747s) at Mojve Airport. Lots of them (100 or more). It's in the desert and dry. Perfect for storing aircraft.

Re:Mojave Spaceport = no commercial service?

[Anonymous Coward]

i live nearby it is a maintenance depot for commercial aircraft and a storage facility as well. there is no passenger service that i know of, but of course there are a number of businesses there that would probably charter/lease/fly you wherever.

Sonic boom

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you saying that a supersonic aircraft hears its own sonic boom?

If so, then you had better do a little more research.

I can tell you from personal experience that the only sensation that you get within the cockpit from exceeding the speed of sound, is the airspeed indicator clicks over to 1.0, and the flight controls get more sluggish...require larger inputs.

Back off Dagny...

[Dr. Smeegee]

I think in this case you are confusing Greed with Desire. Paul Allen already has the Fuck You Money. He and his cronies Desired a space plane. If they make jack off the actual spaceflights it'll be a nice surprize. The spin-offs from the materials and design patents will make some acual money, but the real payoff is doing it.

Now go put your Reardon Metal cuffs back on. I'll be in to deal out your spanky later.

Thank God for Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

Kneel before Paul Allen!

Genius without financial backing is useless.

Maybe now you won't feel so bad about paying the MS tax.

Re:Thank God for Microsoft

[Arcturax]

He was the co-founder of Microsoft, but he left the company in 1983 and struck out on his own.

He has done many great things for astronomy and spaceflight since, such as donating to this as well as the Allen telescope array. But he did this on his own. Microsoft had little to nothing to do with this.

"met the specs" ???

[BerntB]

They were given a set of impossible requirements that were all at odds with one another, and the engineers still managed to develop a craft that met the specs.

Didn't the Shuttle miss the price target in a way that hopefully is unique? NASA promised to launch material for somewhere around a hundred to a few hundreds of dollar/lbs to orbit. The end result was, what? 10,000?

Are you seriously arguing that the Shuttle "met the specs"?? :-)

OK, NASA never expected to really launch things for that price. They lied. So you might argue it wasn't really a spec...

Then we have the way that NASA threw their weight around (DC-X, etc) to kill potential competition to the Shuttle. It has maimed the US space program for decades, but lots of jobs depends upon the shuttle...

Re:"met the specs" ???

[AKAImBatman]

Are you seriously arguing that the Shuttle "met the specs"?? :-)

It met the engineering specs. X amount of cargo, hypersonic cross range ability, variable passenger load, horizontal landing, etc. Is it the engineers' fault that the cargo for a shuttle flight per week just didn't exist?

Then we have the way that NASA threw their weight around (DC-X, etc) to kill potential competition to the Shuttle. It has maimed the US space program for decades, but lots of jobs depends upon the shuttle...

The DC-X blew up. So did the X-33. Given that you should never attribute malice where stupidity would do, I'd say that the real problem was a lack of focus by NASA. As an example, the X-33 was almost entirely composed of untested technology (hydrogen slush, composite tanks, lifting body design, etc.). Was that really wise?

Besides, NASA's stumbling around comes very much from the constant scaling back of their programs. Regean and Bush gave the go ahead for Space Station Freedom, a real layover point for trips to the moon and Mars. Clinton scaled back the program and forced NASA into the whole "International Space Station" concept. Now the Space Station is as useless as the Space Shuttle. How is anything supposed to get done if all the projects keep getting killed?

Re:"met the specs" ???

[BerntB]

Is it the engineers' fault that the cargo for a shuttle flight per week just didn't exist?

Uhm, no. The Shuttle as designed didn't have the turnaround for that. By a very large margin. It wasn't designed after those specs -- NASA knew they were unrealistic. My original point stands.

But you do have a point. I stand corrected on cost overruns -- the Shuttle was nothing compared to the space Station... :-(

DC-X did have an accident -- after NASA forced a takeover. Besides, what was the total cost of that project as counted in Shuttle launches? (And yes, DC-Y's use of totally new technologies might have been stupidity and not a way to kill the project. Are you arguing that is better?)

Now the Space Station is as useless as the Space Shuttle. How is anything supposed to get done if all the projects keep getting killed?

You complain about killing useless, totally overexpensive, systems after decades? I agree, it should have been done earlier. It's sad for humanity when the US' space program is mismanaged.

Re:"met the specs" ???

[AKAImBatman]

The Shuttle as designed didn't have the turnaround for that. By a very large margin.

The politicians wanted to stretch the cost of the Shuttle over time, so the Shuttle was designed with a slow turnaround. It was also designed so that an Overhaul could put it back on track for fast turnarounds. Too bad that not even one payload per month materialized.

BTW, the one shuttle launch per week would have been stretched out across the fleet. This would give the shuttle a four week turnaround time instead of a one week turnaround time.

And yes, DC-Y's use of totally new technologies might have been stupidity and not a way to kill the project. Are you arguing that is better?

No, I'm not arguing that it was a good decision. I'm arguing that the government couldn't be bothered to fund NASA for development of individual technologies. Instead NASA decided to apply their "faster, better, cheaper" concept and got burned when it didn't work. Even more frustrating is that it would have been impossible for the X-33 to fly if ALL the technologies didn't work out right the first time. That kind of sucks when you consider the the Space Shuttle at least had some weight to give during the safety upgrades.

You complain about killing useless, totally overexpensive, systems after decades? I agree, it should have been done earlier. It's sad for humanity when the US' space program is mismanaged.

How was Space Station Freedom over-expensive and useless? It would have made Moon and Mars trips far more cost effective than a straight-from-earth rocket. The only reason why the ISS is useless for this purpose was because they put it in the wrong orbit so that the Russians could reach it.

Re:"met the specs" ???

[BerntB]

The politicians wanted to stretch the cost of the Shuttle over time, so the Shuttle was designed with a slow turnaround.

You argued that the Shuttle met it's specs.

I commented that the promised spec $/lbs payload (the important factor for any transport system, after security) was blown by a factor of close to a hundred(!!). NASA knew their launch assumptions where totally unrealistic, which the promised launch costs where based on.

You answered "Is it the engineers' fault that the cargo for a shuttle flight per week just didn't exist?"

I pointed out that the Shuttle just wasn't designed for doing that number of launches -- which the cost estimates needed. So any which way, the Shuttle as designed didn't live up to the spec. (Maybe it lives up to some revised spec from the middle of the project, but that wasn't your point.)

Your answer still isn't relevant to my point. I don't think you can answer.

You are, more or less, arguing a "dagger in the back" theory -- where NASA got it from the politicians. (-: Like the German politicians lost WW1 for their army! :-)

I'm not going to discuss the horrendous costs of the Space Station, etc. You lost your credibility in the DC-X thread, too. I have better things to do.

Re:"met the specs" ???

[AKAImBatman]

I commented that the promised spec $/lbs payload (the important factor for any transport system, after security) was blown by a factor of close to a hundred(!!). NASA knew their launch assumptions where totally unrealistic, which the promised launch costs where based on.

You answered "Is it the engineers' fault that the cargo for a shuttle flight per week just didn't exist?"

(Maybe it lives up to some revised spec from the middle of the project, but that wasn't your point.)

The Shuttle was all ABOUT revised specs. At every stage of development, the government and air force changed the specs. The engineers who worked for NASA delivered a craft that was light years ahead of any other space vehicle of the time. It STILL stands as the most advanced space vehicle ever to fly. (The Buran was somewhat more advanced, but that was primarly because they learned from NASA's mistakes.) Now you can huff and puff all you want about individual launch costs, but the engineers built what they were told to build. It failed because it simply wasn't a viable craft for so early in the economic development of space hardware.

Your answer still isn't relevant to my point. I don't think you can answer.

No, my answer is simply that you have politics on one hand who are double dealing and everyone trying to get what THEY want, then you have engineers on the other who do their best to deliver what is asked of them. No, the shuttle is not cost effective. In fact, most of the figures were for previous designs instead of the final design. For example, you'll note that the robot tug that was supposed to compliment the Shuttle was never built. The Shuttle COULD have been cost effective if they'd chosen ONE concept and stuck with it. Instead they wasted some of the most powerful engines in existance on weight for both Cargo and Humans.

I'm not going to discuss the horrendous costs of the Space Station, etc. You lost your credibility in the DC-X thread, too. I have better things to do.

Did someone piss in your corn flakes today? Would you like me to believe that someone had intentionally rigged the DC-Y landing gear to fail? Sorry, but I don't. I do believe that NASA handled the thing in a pretty bone-headed way. But keep in mind that NASA managed to also crash their pride and joy, the X-33. I spoke with a gentlemen who was working on the project at the time. Surfice it to say that he was less than generous to the guy who was remote piloting it when it hit the ground.

Re:"met the specs" ???

[BerntB]

The Shuttle was all ABOUT revised specs.

Now we're getting there.... how can you, given that position, claim the Shuttle fulfilled it's specs?!

The people called in to do a job must be able to say "no" at some point -- and not just promise the rainbow, which NASA did. You can't just blaim all problems on the customers/politicians that ordered the job.

For the last few decades, NASA has been the big stopping block for space research. The Shuttle and the space station eat billions of money -- with little result. You can blame the stupid politicians, but those fools must have someone that tells them what can be done, what it'll cost -- and what's worth doing.

What space research need is lower costs to launch. NASA has had a systematic approach to protect the Shuttle (see DC-X argument), which has killed any good alternative. As you argue, NASA might be total f.ckwits or they might kill project after project on purpose for decades. But if you haven't read the argument ("DC-X"), how can you have an opinion?

Re:"met the specs" ???

[Jeremi]

The only reason why the ISS is useless for this purpose was because...

Does it matter what the reason is? Useless is useless.

..and another thing

[Dr. Smeegee]

greed
n.

An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth: "Many... attach to competition the stigma of selfish greed" (Henry Fawcett).

lust
n.

1. Intense or unrestrained sexual craving.
2.
1. An overwhelming desire or craving: a lust for power.
2. Intense eagerness or enthusiasm: a lust for life.
3. Obsolete. Pleasure; relish.

Desire
tr.v. desired, desiring, desires

1. To wish or long for; want.
2. To express a wish for; request.

n.

1. A wish or longing.
2. A request or petition.
3. The object of longing: My greatest desire is to go back home.
4. Sexual appetite; passion.

[Middle English desiren, from Old French desirer, from Latin dsderre : d-, de- + sdus, sder-, star.]desirer n.

Synonyms: desire, covet, crave, want, wish
These verbs mean to have a strong longing for: desire peace; coveted the new convertible; craving fame and fortune; wanted a drink of water; got all she wished.

Watching too much news

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought that the world was too caught up in war and and greed

You've been watching the mainstream news too much. Most of the world is NOT caught up in war. E.g. right now, most Western European countries are in a time of peace and are putting a lot of resources into research and development. It's just that when such news shows up in places like /., it gets overwhedmed by childish racist jokes or inevitably, gets sidetracked to a discussion of "if they can do it why can't USA?"

Even in USA, most of the country is not caught up in its current "wars", just mainly the media and the politicians (and the military of course). The R&D industry is slowed down somewhat by the measures implemented after Al-Queda's attack, but they're still ticking quite nicely.

-hadohk

money talks

[MauricioAP]

how much money they alredy spend?,
i know isn't point now, kindo proof of concept,
but i just wondering about it. i guess sort of US$40 millions?

cheers.

Re:money talks

[zero_offset]

Just over $20M, according to Paul Allen who was the main source of funding.

Just so everyone knows

[CompressedAir]

Those of us at Johnson Space Center are cheering as loud as anyone.

Good job, Burt and Mike!

Balloon Assisted Rentry?

[Pfhorrest]

Has anybody considered using balloons not only for launch assists, but also for reentry? As the craft begins reentry, inflate a very large balloon attached to it. This not only gives you an early parachute effect (which, granted, you'd probably want to minimize to keep from burning your balloon with the air friction), but as you enter the atmosphere proper, the boyancy of the balloon would slow your descent. I imagine if you calibrated the whole system right you might be able to just lower the craft gently back to the ground instead of dropping like a brick from space.

On a completely different topic, what about these new electric-powered charged-air thrusters NASA has been toying with? (A take on the old hobbyist 'lifter' technology). It seems that if you could somehow harness the heat from friction on reentry as a power source, you could power some of these drives to use as breaking thrusters.

hollow cavity shockwave deflection

[Corf]

Does this sound at all like the theory behind that supposed experimental torpedo that may have sunk the Kursk a few years back? Just curious.

Re:hollow cavity shockwave deflection

[Rei]

You mean supercavitation? Supercavitation is quite real and is used in some already proven cases. Kursk, however, despite initial speculation, seems to have been sunk from a poorly maintained torpedo's peroxide leak (ironically, the nuclear reactor of the sub almost *saved* the crew members on the rear half of the ship - take *that* environmentalists!)

Re:hollow cavity shockwave deflection

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the same concept except in air instead of water. The idea being that a shockwave creates an impassable barrier to a fluid or gas and (in this case) protects anything in its wake. For the experimental torpedo though it would have created a low pressure wake which was supposed to as I understand it, cause the water to boil and allow the torpedo to travel more like a missile in air than a torpedo.
Posting anon because you weren't asking for the similarities, and I may not have simplified it enough to be anything but equally unintelligably repeating the grandparent.

Re:hollow cavity shockwave deflection

[Jeremi]

ironically, the nuclear reactor of the sub almost *saved* the crew members on the rear half of the ship

Hm, that's almost impressive. ;^) Can you give any details?

Re:hollow cavity shockwave deflection

[Rei]

Sure - if you want, I can dig up an article for you. Basically, the explosions occurred in the front of the sub. The torpedo explosion launched hot oxygen into the sub creating a huge fireball, which set off other torpedos. The fireball and explosions crushed through the first half of the sub pretty easily, the hallways channelling the blast like happens with an explosion in a tunnel, killing everyone in its path. It only stopped due to the sub's nuclear reactor.

The Kursk's reactor was located in the middle of the sub. Due to safety concerns, it was the most heavily shielded part of the submarine, and had thick, reinforced walls. The walls stopped the blast in its tracks, saving the crew in the rear half of the submarine.

Unfortunately, the rear half of the submarine had its own problems. While they had an escape hatch, leaving through it would almost certainly cause the crew to have the bends, so they stayed (a perfectly reasonable decision; the Russians had rescue equipment. Unfortunately, it too was poorly maintained, and its batteries gave out before it could latch onto the sub). With the propellors stopped at that depth, and with damage sustained by the initial blast, oily water began leaking in around where they exited the interior of the sub. The real tragedy was what happened after a few days: The crew was relying on chemical oxygen generators so that they could breathe. It is believed that as the cold and the increasing pressure began to get to them, one of the crew members dropped an oxygen generator into the water. The chemicals in the generator react on contact with water, and started a fire on the oil, burning up the remaining oxygen and damaging the structure further. Those who didn't burn to death suffocated. All of this, well after we could have saved them if the Russians had swallowed their pride and accepted our offers to help sooner.

It was really such a shame. The US likes to make fun of old Soviet craft, but Kursk really was a truly incredible machine. If it had been able to get the maintinence that it needed, and its torpedoes had as well, it could have rivaled anything we had out there. It was a comfortable sub, too - it even had things like a sauna for the crew to relax in, as well as a gymnasium, solarium, and swimming pool.

Reusable - why bother?

[blitz487]

Yet, why have a reusable craft if it's so hard to add reentry capability? Just have a simple sphere with a heat shield and a parachute. It's probably cheaper to throw the rest of the rocket away and build another than to try to make it reusable.

Re:Pop open the champagne, my boy Rutan made histo

[Oswald]

Well, that was cheery and kinda inspirational. Thanks.

X-15 was a single-person vehicle

[mangu]

And are you sure it could have flown twice in two weeks? IIRC it dropped a part of its tail to land. Perhaps there were more disposable parts, would they add more than 10% of dry mass? That's another requirement of the X-prize, it must be over 90% reusable.

Once Again With Privitazation

[EXTomar]

I posted on this topic earlier (see history) but I'll reitterate: There is no real point in privitzation of deep space because there is no profit there.

This X-Prize contest is akin to GM offering a prize for a flying car. Sure you find find an inventive solution and a flying car that works well but I don't ever see it replacing the family SUV unless it can be made and sold for under $20k.

So here we have a contest where people think that privitization will solve all of the slowness in the sector. It isn't going to happen. Exactly what can you use this vehicle for? Hauling a small amount of weight really high? It hasn't even gotten into LEO yet and by my rough guessatments they need to figoure how to increase the thrust output 30 times more to do so.

Beyond this how is a craft that can take a couple people up to LEO supposed to bring forth a new age of discovery especially when there is nothing is up there? Companies are supposed to magically make money from doing this? I wouldn't hold my breath.

Re:Once Again With Privitazation

[yohaas]

I disagree.
The potential for making money is tremendous. In addition to faster travel from point to point on Earth, space tourism has potential too. Obviously costs will have to come down, but there is no question that it will. As technology matures, and processes are inproved, prices will go down. This is only the beginning. Your arguments could just have easily have been said about the Wright brother flight ("Great, carry one person - try carrying 100 people and luggage" - well we do that thousands of times a day - and cheaply too!)

What this event showed is that space travel is no longer the exclusive domain of governments. When Alan Shepard first went up there was a long way to go to get to the moon, but as we know it happened. Don't judge something by it's humble beginnings.

Why bring back the spacecraft?

[blitz487]

And, of course, WHY bring the entire spacecraft back? Just have a tiny capsule and bring the people down, leave the rest in orbit. This would enable far more useful mass to be put into orbit, rather than expending all that energy to put all the wings, etc., into orbit.

Re:Why bring back the spacecraft?

[khallow]

The economics of a largely reusable vehicle improve significantly when the vehicle also must be man-rated. Testing to insure a vehicle is safe to launch is a large cost of manned vehicles. Being reusable means less testing is required on the ground since most of the vehicle has been tested the last time the vehicle went up. You still need to test for material fatigue and other relatively easy to anticipate problems.

Just think of it this way, everything that's new on a vehicle has never been tested live. You need to test more extensively those components to verify that they'll work right.

Re:Pop open the champagne, my boy Rutan made histo

[yeremein]

Take a few minutes today and Google 'Gemini Series'. This is what Burt Rutans craft is compareable to. The early Gemini rockets did not achieve orbit. The went up, and came back down again.

All manned Gemini missions achieved orbit. I think you're thinking of Project Mercury. The first two manned Mercury flights (Freedom 7 and Liberty Bell 7) were 15-minute suborbital flights. Later Mercury missions were launched on more powerful booster rockets, and they achieved orbit.

Project Gemini, on the other hand, was far more advanced than Mercury. It was the proving ground for technologies and procedures that would be used in the Apollo moon landings (rendezvous, space suits, long duration flights, etc.). Gemini XI reached an altitude of 1368 km, which is several times higher than even the Space Shuttle can reach.

What an obvious troll.

[Anonymous Coward]

see subject.

Re:Ethics and priorities

[Stray7Xi]

Yes because things were so nice in the 15th century when there were the important sailing expeditions right? or when DaVinci did his work?

Spain wasn't in the middle of the inquisition.
Spain didn't just go through Reconquista.
Constantinople wasn't overran by the Turks.
The plague and the hundred years war were far in the past.
And of course no one starved then either right?

Instead DaVinci should of become a doctor, Columbus a farmer. We'd be much better off if they took care of their immediate needs right?

It's natural ecology, people will always die. There are ALWAYS population controls. If you solve the problem of rabbits being eaten by predators, then the population explodes and there isn't enough food. Are they better off because less are being eaten? If you solve the food problem (actually delay would be better word) then the population becomes dense enough that disease runs rampant. Are they better off?

There will always be a shortage of resources, we could try to improve the efficiency of distribution of resources (we could feed everyone on earth now, but that doesn't mean we can feed the next generation) but better yet would be to grow our resource pool by colonizing new frontiers. If we stay on earth there is a limit to growth. We won't solve famine, war, disease by just throwing our resources at them. They'll all get worse as the population grows, thats ecology.

Dead end projects

[heroine]

Burt Rutan seems to build dead end project after dead end project. Each one does something no other plane ever did before. Each one works. A lot of hype is made about this feat being the future.

Then we never hear another word of the feat being achieved again. No-one flys around the world on a single tank of gas. No-one flys to 62,000 ft.

It would be a lot more exciting if we could say, civilians were going to be going into space from now on. It looks more like Space Ship One is going to end up next to Voyager and the concept of civilian space flight never heard from again.

Re:Dead end projects

[Arcturax]

He proved it could be done. No matter what becomes of Space Ship One, this is a crowning achievement and could pave the way for further advancement.

Any research like this is well worth doing, even if the end benefits are not immediate.

Re:Dead end projects

[zero_offset]

Those are just the big-publicity projects -- basically research and proof-of-concept things. (And I disagree this falls into that category.) He actually has several thriving aerospace lines of business which are quite successful, and they derive significant benefit from these projects.

Considering his next stated goal is to reach orbit, it's unlikely civilian spaceflight will never be heard of again. It may not happen overnight, but that's because these things are difficult, expensive, and complicated.

Canadian arrow

[caffeine_monkey]

It's probably too late for them to win the prize, but the Canadian Arrow team just posted on their website that they're starting test flights in August. No details other than that.

No, he's correct.

[Otto]

1) gravity isn't constant, it is inversely proportional to distance.

This is true, but not very useful. Standing on the ground you are a good 4000 miles from the Earth's center of gravity. Jumping another few hundred miles away doesn't make enough of an impact to seriously mess up "back of the napkin" type calculations, like he was obviously using. He did say "Low Earth Orbit" which is somewhere between 100-500 miles up.

2) orbital speed isn't constant either. In geosynchronous orbits, an object orbits once every 24 hours.

True, but then he did say "low earth orbit". A geosync sat does move slower through space, true, but energy-wise, it's a hell of a lot further up too. LEO is between 100-500 miles or so, while geosync orbits are 22,000 miles up. In any case, his energy calculations are correct, in a back-of-the-napkin kind of way. It does take a hell of a lot of energy to get into orbit, and it's a big leap to go from a ballistic jump to actual orbital velocities.

This is one hell of an achievement, I grant you. But Mach 3 just ain't gonna friggin' cut it. It's not how high you go, it's how fast you go that really counts, with regard to getting into orbit.

Should have released ants

[CaptainSuperBoy]

He should have released ants in front of the camera.

Re:A Truly Historic Day

[yohaas]

I'm not comparing this and 9/11 in any substantive way. I'm saying that as far a potential impact on the future, this is the biggest since.

"Or how about all of the Mars exploration?" Pathfinder had already done something similar. The recent successes were great, but did not break any new ground as far a capability.

"Or mankinds unified and rekindled interest in space" Good point, but this is the first fruit of that tree.

Basically, my thought is that today's event is the beginning of commercial space travel, which will lead to widespread space travel. That is why I see it being so signifigant. Obviously there have been greater accomplishments in space travel, but the fact that it is now moving away from government and into the private sector is extremely signifigant IMHO.

Re:A Truly Historic Day

[yohaas]

I don't disagree with you, but what you are saying does not describe "widespread space travel" (as in "Hey kids - we're going to the moon for summer vacation")

Social Justice and the Age of Conquest

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right, the 15th century, the Age of Discovery, was rife with poverty and injustice.

Where you go off the beam is in your assumption that those voyages of discovery were in fact a good idea. Why do you accept that assumption so uncritically?

Do you have any idea how many native Americans died as a result of the Spanish conquest? How many plagues the Conquistadores unleashed? Smallpox? Syphillis? This isn't some controversial left-wing revisionist theory. Nobody, left or right, disputes these facts. Even if we don't consider the slavery, robbery, and outright killing (it was a conquest, after all; they proudly called themselves "conquerors"), even if we leave aside the political destruction of entire societies, the arrival of Europeans in the Americas was a catastrophe of genuinely horrifying proportions. Similar diasters ensued in succeeding centuries when Europeans arrived in the Pacific.

Yes, the 15th century was a terrible time in Europe. Thanks to the "explorers" and "discoverers" you mention, it became a terrible time for the rest of the world, too without improving conditions in Europe one iota.

With eventual improvements in social justice, conditions in Europe were eventually ameliorated, but colonialism contributed nothing to that improvement (how can injustice lead to justice? It's a contradiction in terms, a logical absurdity). If anything, colonialism shifted more wealth into the pockets of the privileged and thereby propped up the existing inequitous power structure for a century or two past its natural lifespan.

Re:Social Justice and the Age of Conquest

[Jamie Lokier]

(how can injustice lead to justice? It's a contradiction in terms, a logical absurdity)

It is not a contradiction to say that injustice leads to justice.

Think about it: justice, that is, intentionally acting in a just way (as opposed to simply observing something and calling it just) arises as a consequence of prior injustice and the intention to not act the same way again.

-- Jamie

Re:Social Justice and the Age of Conquest

[Stray7Xi]

You're right the immediate consequences were bad for the Americans. However my point was it expanded the habitat for humanity (no not Carter's organization). If they tried to stabilize the status quo so they could give everyone a decent living, what would have happened? Well I can't say for sure, but the population can't grow unchecked, some other way would crop up to kill off the excess.

Frontiers give freedom to break from the status quo... If a group of people wanted to form a new government today, how would they do it? There's no where left to emigrate to. I'm not arrogant enough to think that democracy is the *ideal* solution, but experimentation and competition could lead to better systems. 500 years ago, would any country be able to get away with NOT having an aristocracy?

But lemme ask you, do you think the world would be better off today if the new and old world never met? The point I was making had nothing to do with how the exploration was exploited, my point was that in principle the exploration was "a good thing".

Things will never improve enough to say "Okay now that everyone is fed, we have the resources to explore" but if don't work to expand our habitat tomorrow we may be starving more people then we are today.

What's with the care-free reentry?

[michajoe]

Something i don't understand about a quote from Rutan:

and how pleased I am that we have a ship that cannot only go to space but it is the first time that a winged-vehicle -- that can make this beautiful landing on a runway -- can make a care-free reentry. That is an enormous thing for safety

What's with the care-free reentry? I would think that the level care-free-ness is directly proportional to one's speed and angle. I'm sure once you get to orbit and have the required speed to actually stay in orbit for a while, your reentry will lose a whole lot of that "care-free" thing. No?

Re:What's with the care-free reentry?

[Teancum]

Compared to a Shuttle re-entry, or worse yet the Apollo capsule reentry, it was relatively "care-free". I mean, if the approach doesn't look right, or if there is some sort of emergency, Space Ship One could at least in theory land even on a normal 2-lane highway, and certainly on a typical general aviation airport, as opposed to a commercial airport or even the monster runway that the Shuttle needs to land on (there are only 3 runways of the size and strength necessary for the Shuttle: Edwards AFB, White Sands in New Mexico, and KSC in Florida).

In the case of a Shuttle landing, the margin of error is extreamly small, and if they are off by even a couple of miles before the final approach, the astronauts pretty much need to abandon ship, because it won't land. Period.

The flight today was off by almost 20 miles (due to what appears to be an engine problem). The pilot was able to correct for it, and even made several passes over the airport at Mojave before it landed.

Back in the days of the Apollo program, they were pretty happy if they happen to hit the Pacific Ocean. Although there was a target spot they were trying to hit, often they missed the landing spot by as much as 200 miles. This was the purpose for having an Aircraft Carrier do the recovery, because they needed chase planes to spot the capsule and a fairly big support team just to hunt down and pull the astronauts out of the ocean. They also tried to put the landing zone in an area away from typical shipping lanes, just in case it landed on a container ship. I don't know what would have happened if it hit the deck of the carrier by random chance, but that was a relatively small amount of area compared to the ocean around it.

What would happen with orbital craft? I don't know, but it seems as though Rutan has been giving it a bit of thought. He certainly hopes to be able to make it to orbit eventually, but is being very guarded with his plans. The composite materials in Spaceship One, if applied to an orbital craft, still wouldn't be nearly as much trouble as the nearly all-iron frame that makes up the shuttle. The big advancements that the Shuttle represented were mainly with the thermal tiles and the propulsion systems. (The Main Shuttle Engines are really an impressive piece of engineering technology.) With a substantially lighter craft due to the composites Rutan is using, his "feathered" reentry technology, and a little bit of wiggle room added from a much harder reentry burn than the Shuttle typical does on reentry (compared to spacecraft mass), most of this could be overcome. If you can increase surface area relative to spacecraft mass, the reentry would be considerably easier to handle.

Pictures & story

[Kallahar]

I was there and did a writeup with some pics: quickwired.com

some corrections (Sort of)

[khallow]

You also need to include the energy required to get to orbit. Ie, the total energy is kinetic energy plus potential energy (you ignored the latter). Also, there would be some residual kinetic energy at 100 km, but I don't know how fast Spaceship One was going at apogee.

Re:some corrections (Sort of)

[pe1chl]

It is safe to ignore the potential energy, because it is so much smaller than the kinetic energy.

Re:some corrections (Sort of)

[khallow]

I figure it's at least 10% of the total energy, but you're probably right about it being safe to ignore for our purposes.

Re:some corrections (Sort of)

[rew]

Completely right.

So to get into orbit at 100km above the earth you need about 27MJ/kg of kinetic energy and 1MJ/kg of potential energy. Add them together and you get 28MJ/kg. Note that for the 1MJ/kg I rouded 9.8 m/s^2 to 10. This was NOT your average physics-exam-question, where you're supposed to get the exact answer to the question.

This is a back-of-the-envelope calculation. It shows the order of magnitude of the kinetic and potential energies required to reach orbit.

Now surely, a milestone has been reached. However, handling 10 times more energy to reach almost enough speed to go into orbit is going to be tricky. Even with this milstone behind us. Handling 10 times more energy on reentry is ALSO going to be tricky. Anybody remember what did columbia in? It's the massive amount of energy involved in being in orbit. It would be nice if you'd be able to take a long time in coming back so that this energy can be disspated slowly. However, once you hit the atmosphere, you start to slow down, and you start to fall. No two ways about it. So it's a problem. Needs to be solved. Ceramic tiles on the bottom of the space-shuttle work so-so.

But back of the envelope says it's not 10 times, it's about 27 times. Could be 20 times. Could be 35 times. I don't care. It clearly shows: "we're not there yet".

(If the back-of-the envelope calculation would show say 1MJ/kg of kinetic energy, and 27MJ/kg of potential energy, then the energy argument cannot be used to say: we're not quite there yet. In fact, then I'd actually think that it's minor problems to actually go into orbit. But over 20 times more energy means significant scaling-problems....)

DC-X

[justanyone]

The DC-X (as explained in the book, "Lost In Space", about the debacle that IS NASA management) did not explode due to inherent problems with the design. While the program was semi-private, it was (Like Microsoft is alleged to do) badmouthed, FUD'd, and otherwise nearly killed, surviving on a shoestring...

Then, it flew nicely and NASA had to adjust the PR and change their tune so the teams running the Space Shuttle, the Delta rocket programs, Boeing/Lockheed ("United Space Alliance") no-bid monopoly didn't have to compete with a design that worked that they didn't control.

DC-X was then 'purchased' (taken over) by NASA and away from the engineers that had designed and built it, put in the hands of people with no experience base with the technology / platform, and then run through a set of "tests" that of course failed due to improper manual ground procedures followed by the improperly trained NASA 'ground staff'.

It was (supposedly) a great vehicle. It still is. DARPA took it over and (allegedly) has commissioned follow-on versions to explore the tech it developed. DARPA doesn't have the allegedly "backstabbing PHB weasels" (as some would contend NASA is rife with) to contend with, so maybe they'll use it.

All my info is from the aforementioned 'Lost In Space" book (link is here

Re:DC-X

[AKAImBatman]

The DC-X (as explained in the book, "Lost In Space", about the debacle that IS NASA management) did not explode due to inherent problems with the design.

My point is not that it exploded due to an inherent problem, but that both the DC-X and that X-33 were destroyed, and NASA simply didn't have a budget to build another one. If they had a *focused* project with real funding, a crash would have been nothing more than a setback. (After all, you have to expect that some things will go wrong.)

DC-X was then 'purchased' (taken over) by NASA and away from the engineers that had designed and built it, put in the hands of people with no experience base with the technology / platform, and then run through a set of "tests" that of course failed due to improper manual ground procedures followed by the improperly trained NASA 'ground staff'.

As I said before, never attribute to malice when stupidity will do. In fact, one of NASA's biggest problems was the "brain drain" they experienced in the 90's. Since Clinton pretty much guaranteed that the space program was going to go nowhere, and NASA engineering salaries were slowly dropping, all the smart people moved on to the private sector.

It's even more frustrating when you realize that we have the technology today to cheaply lift thousands of tons per launch, and build craft that could cruise around the Solar System at high speeds. Of course, Nixon's administration didn't WANT heavy lift vehicles. They wanted a token space program that wouldn't drain anything from the US Budget. In doing so, he stomped on the hopes and dreams of millions of people. Instead of Space Stations, Moon Bases, and Mars Flights, we got the Space Shuttle. An amazingly engineered turkey that couldn't decide if it was built for Cargo, Human Transport, or Military Spy Missions. And since it tried to shortcut economic development, the craft failed at ALL of its purposes. Special, isn't it?

"At least" 20 million

[khallow]

It's not clear to me how much has actually been burned here. The actual costs may be higher, though no where near NASA levels. :-)

Re:A Truly Historic Day

[east coast]

but what you are saying does not describe "widespread space travel"

I'd tend to agree with you but I guess it really depends on the reception as to when we go from space exploration to space recreation. If there is a lot of open wallets willing to pay the big bills that will be involved in early space-flight-for-profit than we will see a quick development for lower cost space jaunts. Otherwise it may be a commercial only venture for the immediate future. I hate to put a timeframe to it but my guess is that within 20 years we will have space recreation. Perhaps not as cheap and as easy as flying a small prop plane but certainly not into the 6-8 digit figures that the likes of Dennis Tito paid either.

Re:Question so what your saying?

[Anonymous Coward]

So what you are saying is that you can enter space a Mach3 than speed up to mach25 in micro grav to achieve LEO and not corkscrew back in.

That's not SpaceShipOne

[repressitol]

That's my ass!!

So do I get this right...

[thrill12]

...in that we should expect these guys with the pointy ears come down now and greet us ?

YEAH it was pretty terrible.

[CiXeL]

My girlfriend is an out of work camera operator because of the shortage of jobs and she could've done better than that EASILY. actually to think of it i think anyone could've done a better job.

Pop open the champagne, my boy Rutan made history

[sllim]

Fair enough.
I would edit this if I could.
But I can't. So I won't.

What the Christ?

[Anonymous Coward]

How the fuck is this redundant? No one else said it (no, dipshit, Burt Rutan does not count), and the guy was obviously at least somewhat trying to be funny while pointing out that a lot of people are interested in this goal.

Someone mod this poor SOB back up to +1 so his karma doesn't suffer because of fools with mod points.

Oh holy shit

[mcc]

Well in that case, the three bangs must have come from the flux capacitor!

Tell me, I don't know what the positioning of the windows on his craft were, is there any way that from where he sat Melville would have been able to see a Delorean streaking past him...?

Well, somebody had to say it...

[Anonymous Coward]

I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords.

Everything out of the sun

[Thagg]

I think that these pilots are old fighter jocks, every maneuver they did was right out of the sun. Unfortunately, the people on the ground weren't the enemy, but were the fans :)

It was an awe-inspiring show. It seems the crowds were about the same as those at the Voyager landing in '86 -- my wife joked that they were probably the same people, a little grayer and a little longer in the tooth :)

thad

"airframe buckling"???

[vanyel]

What's this bit in the CNN page about?

On landing, Melvill told of a loud bang he heard during the flight. He said it appeared to have been part of the composite airframe buckling near the rocket nozzle. However, the slight indention in SpaceShipOne's exterior did not appear to have jeopardized the craft's performance.

It may not have affected this flight, but it sounds like it came close to doing so, and should certainly impact the ability to do a quick repeat, I would think!

Re:"airframe buckling"???

[rebelcool]

this flight was not part of the x-prize flights. It didnt have enough passengers or weight.

More of a 'proof of concept' flight. There was also talk of the rocket engine cutting off early that may be related to the buckling, though it still made it into official space.

Obviously the concept is proved, now to work the bugs out (like the buckling) and do the official x-prize flights.

Re:"airframe buckling"???

[Teancum]

Apparently there was some sort of aircraft damage after all. It wasn't enough to damage the landing or make a critical failure, but it was bad enough that the re-entry was about 20 miles off course latterally (in other words, it didn't affect the altitude, but wasn't *exactly* as they anticipated.) Spaceship One came "close" to spiraling out of control.

What this means is the X-Prize attempts probabally won't happen right away, and gives a *little bit* more breathing room for the other competitors. More than likely they will do another "test flight" before they go for X-Prize certification, although the next one may not get publicized until after the launch, more like the previous launches.

The evening network TV news did a closeup of the damage, which was comparatively minor. Footage from the chase planes are going to look over everything, and even more is going to go over the telemetry and any internal error logging that happened . Rutan said it was a big enough concern that they weren't going to do a launch again until they can come to the bottom of whatever happened.

Re:"airframe buckling"???

[vanyel]

this flight was not part of the x-prize flights. It didnt have enough passengers or weight.

I realize that, but at least the NPR report I heard said they were planning on trying again in a couple weeks to prove they could do it. Though they may have been confusing the test flight with the actual attempt too. In any case, it seems like a setback, but not a major one...

This guy did...

[gwayne]

Lawnchair Larry

Re:That's supercavitation!

[sense_net]

The use of a plasma torch as you described is called supercavitation. It works in water, too: the Soviets developed a rocket powered torpedo which vented some of its exhaust out the nose to create a bubble in the water which the torpedo flew through. THe supercavitating torpedo had severe manuverability problems: none of its control surfaces were touching the water, and if it tried to turn too much, the rocket exhaust bubble would collapse. Would the plasma torch reentry system have similar problems?

X Prize

[bondjamesbond]

Just give Scaled the X Prize and get it over with. If those other companies try this, they'll probably have loss of life and ruin the spirit of the whole, wonderful thing that Scaled is doing.

Re:Sweet - Luckily they're in California...

[Anonymous Coward]

you have obviously never been to Mojave California ... Porky would fit in well.

Re-entry

[Nefarious Wheel]

Using a large, efficient aircraft as a booster stage is known to work.

Innocent question -- would it help to design a large, efficient aircraft to assist in landing?

I was wondering if a two-stage landing scheme would help to remove some of the design compromises required for low-speed flight. I'd think you could cut back on a lot of subsystems, a fair amount of weight, and possibly even reduce risk. Mid-flight capture has been done before in early surveillance satellite days, although in a much simplified format (bomber hooks parachute of probe out of the air). Could a specialised large flying wing dock reliably with the spacecraft on the way down? That way you'd only need to worry about controlling the trajectory & surface areas designed for dumping heat down to subsonic speeds. You wouldn't need flaps, landing gear, or any low-speed control surfaces, and could cut down wing area etc. couldn't you?

Re:Re-entry

[Moofie]

OK, so rather than trying to slow a spacecraft down from Mach A-Million to safe landing speeds, you want to dock it with another aircraft travelling Mach A-Million?

Houston, we're gonna have a big, big problem.

There would be no reason ever to try and dock on re-entry (unless you're the Air Force and you want to do some re-entry gymnastics to avoid the SFR's (sneaky f***in' Russians). This is a crazy solution in search of a problem.

You wouldn't need flaps or landing gear, but you'd need a crash-worthy structure that would probably weigh a lot more than said flaps or landing gear. Low speed control surfaces aren't much different from high-speed control surfaces.

Use a damn parachute.

Re:Re-entry

[Nefarious Wheel]

No, just bring it down to subsonic speeds before docking, cruise speed for large jet. You'd get versatility in landing options, the use of heavier landing gear, and you wouldn't need all that systems infrastructure for landing. If the landing stage was purpose-designed, you could socket the suckers together -- use a chined surface instead of wings for the spacecraft & avoid their attendant potential for leading edge burn-through. You could use simple structures for control (vectored vents instead of ailerons or other drag surfaces perhaps) and the whole thing could be a lot cleaner. Hypersonic control surfaces may act the same as low speed control surfaces, but you don't need as much surface area either. Lots more control than a parachute for final approach, and oversea approaches wouldn't offer quite the opportunities for impromptu oceanography.

If by "crash-worthy" you mean structures for absorbing the energy of speed differentials at mating point, those could be carried by the landing stage; no reason to carry additional structure on the spacecraft.

We did things differently back in the 70's when I was playing with spacecraft systems; I would have crawled through broken glass to get at the computational power & control systems we have available today. I believe the docking manouvre could be pretty much bump-free with the stuff available today, and there's heaps of optimisation possible once you remove one or two subsystems -- the follow-on benefits tend to be nonlinear.

Re:Re-entry

[Moofie]

Uh huh. I still think that once you've got the vehicle subsonic, landing it is easy. Docking it with a "mothaship" is really, really hard.

Use a steerable ram-air chute, or an inflatable wing. How much control do you need?

I suppose you could design a scenario in which this sort of system might be desireable, sort of like the Air Force did with the Shuttle. However, I sure wouldn't want to fly a subsonic orbiter close to a big mothership without the same sort of control authority I'd need to land.

The docking system you're describing would be vastly more complicated than mid-air refuelling, which while it is routine, is still very challenging to do safely. There would have to be a very big upside to make this approach advantageous.

Re:Re-entry

[Nefarious Wheel]

Still thinking on this -- I'd imagine the landing stage to be something of a large flying wing, optimised for takeoff and landing. The centre back -- the receiving socket -- could be shaped in such a way to form a shaped air pocket to assist in landing, perhaps by raising baffles before docking. If air flow was shaped just so it could form a partial vacuum to assist in docking.

May never be practical, but it's fun to speculate, no?

Re:A Truly Historic Day

[madprogrammer]

I agree. While I love the idea of the X Prize, I believe it has over-shadowed the significance of what was done today.

That being said, go da Vinci Project!!

You didn't answer the point!

[BerntB]

As I said before, never attribute to malice when stupidity will do.

Well, then, how much "stupidity" do you believe is credible? Especially since you didn't comment on the motivation for the malice:

Then, it flew nicely and NASA had to adjust the PR and change their tune so the teams running the Space Shuttle, the Delta rocket programs, Boeing/Lockheed ("United Space Alliance") no-bid monopoly didn't have to compete with a design that worked that they didn't control.

You either have your position without knowing the facts for the counterargument -- or you are actively dishonest. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt -- which you think is important -- and assume you're stupid.

Some Picts for the curious

[QuantumFTL]

I'm not much of a photographer, but I did happen to get into the VIP section, right in front of the actual takeoff. If you'd like to see some of my picts check out:
http://www.lyle.org/~jwick/spaceshipone_jw/index.h tml

The launch was quite exciting! I've been working for NASA on MER but I feel very strongly that it is important to have a commercial/private interest in space (indeed, I intend to be a space tourist one day, if I get the chance).

One of the Scaled Composites guys gave myself and my friends a piece of the material they made part of the ship out of... it's incredibly light and strong.

Congrats to the team, and to all of those there to witness this history making event. We still have a long way to go before we can drive to a spaceport and pick up a ticket, but at least private spaceflight is now a very real thing.

Cheers,
Justin

Re:Pop open the champagne, my boy Rutan made histo

[evilviper]

But this, I am hard pressed to see how anyone can put a negative spin on this.

Well, I like a challenge...

Let's see, now that there will be privately funded space flights, we are going to either need a new agency, or the FAA (you remember, the ones who screw up all the time, blame it on their computers, and say there's no possible way to upgrade them) is going have to be expanded into a much larger agency, with significantly different equipment to monitor objects in space.

I don't think I do justice to just how much of a mess this is going to be... Any agency is going to have to be international, with MANY counties around the world contribiting greatly. Doing anything internationally has been borderline impossible in the past, and I don't see it getting any easier, now that the stakes are higher. They can't even get a single international law regarding the internet, so control of all of space is going to be incredibly tough.

Oh yeah, then there's the incredibly danger...

The shuttle sucks because of politics...

[weedenbc]

Two big factors in to why the shuttle sucks so bad: 1) It was supposed to simply be a ferry between the ground and an orbiting space station. but the space station part never got built 2) It required so many deals to get the funding passed through Congress. Take a look at how many states in the Union supply components for the shuttle and you will start to realize why it costs so much. Not to mention that it isn't reusble - it's rebuildable. In space terms the Shuttle is basically a dinghy. It has trouble even reaching the ISS at only ~350km of altitude. Don't even think about getting out to GEO which is 22,300 miles away.

SS1 Trivia

[tyler_larson]

Ever wonder what type of aircraft SS1 is registered as in the FAA records?

If you look up its tail number ("N-number"), 328KF, in the FAA registry, you get the following:

Serial Number 001
Model 316
Type Aircraft Glider
MFR Year 2003
Certificate Issue Date 03/20/2003
Type Engine None

So, apparently Space Ship One was registered back in March of last year as an unpowered glider. I think that's something of an understatement of the aircraft's potential.

Re:SS1 Trivia

[Anonymous Coward]

The rocket engine makes it hard to categorize.

More trivia: the tail number is 328KF for a reason. Do I have to spell it out? :)

Three hundred twenty eight thousand feet, where the ship was made to go. Neat.

Yes, yes, you CAN request specific tail numbers for your aircraft. Or they can randomly assign one like the DMV.

White Knight is quite a performer

[Anonymous Coward]

When it gets rid of SSOne and turnes on the afterburners, it sure does go, huh?

You can fly it in xplane. It has an incredible power to weight ratio.

Re:Ethics and priorities

[Jamie Lokier]

This isn't a government project spending tax dollars, this is private investment in a future growth industry. If they don't spend the R&D money on this now, they won't grow this new industry in the future and thereby earn enough money to give to charities.

You don't really understand where earned money comes from, do you? Wealth is indeed created by R&D, but "money to give to charities" is not always positive wealth for charities.

Every dollar earned in the future space exploration industry is a dollar that someone pays to the space exploration industry. Those same dollers could be spent directly on the things charities spend them on.

In other words, if in future the industry earns so much that it pays charities $1 billion per year, according to your description they have earned it, how wonderful, that's $1 billion for the charities. Great advertising.

In reality, that's at minimum $1 billion that the industry's customers have chosen not to give to charities. It will be more, because of the actual real costs of running the industry itself, i.e. profits, salaries, raw materials etc.

From this simplistic description of money flow, charities are worse off with the industry than without it.

Of course, money does not behave in such a simple way, and the value of the R&D and the consequent industry cannot be measured so easily. Money in itself is meaningless. It's what we do as a consequence of it that is important.

The point is this: your idea that R&D creates industry which earns money and thus creates money to sponsor charitable work is not correct. Some R&D and some industry assists charitable work. Some actively thwarts it, costing charities heavily even when that same industry is giving money to those same charities, if it causes the charities to have to spend more on solving real problems, or causes them to receive less than they would have received otherwise.

Private space exploration does seem likely to be of benefit to us all. It has no immediate negative impacts on the difficulties of poor people including those outside America, and its basic resource consumption is not significant at this time. The technology is obviously good for us all in the long run, provided we get over our tendancy to make weapons out of everything.

Then again, perhaps not, if it means military culture ends up colonising the Moon and Mars (using privately developed technology of course -- think of those juicy "defence" contracts) and uses those resources to further the warrior superiority complex and IP control agenda back on Earth. :)

Seriously, space exploration is good. It'd be a shame if we explored space and didn't bother to address our problems back home, though.

-- Jamie

flyby

[Anonymous Coward]

After that, the low altitude chase plane made a flyby
And that even though they said at the start that this is not an airshow...

Yep, that was great. The Starship, Alpha Jet and Extra in formation, and then White Knight doing a fly-by/afterburner peeloff was great. An unexpected bonus.

Its too bad the PA system ate it. It's also too bad I forgot to bring my scanner.

Re:Pop open the champagne, my boy Rutan made histo

[Matheus Villela]

In the fall of the year 1903 The Brothers Wright made a flight of just a few hundered feet in a wooden and canvas contraption that would change the world. They would have been hard pressed to have imagined what there hard work would lead to. These Brothers did this thing of there own accord, they had no help, no government hand outs, no proclamations from the president that a thing will be done because it is hard, just two brothers that owned a bycicle shop and had a thought about how to make this thing work.


Did you still believe in Santa Claus?

This guy have made a flight that changed the world.

Re:Ethics and priorities

[randomencounter]

Wow.
Surpassing eloquence and the best argument I've seen for going to space yet.

You're making no sense.

[Anonymous Coward]

The guy wasn't talking about that. He was saying that the profits from the hellish injustice of colonization improved conditions back in Spain. He wasn't saying that an injustice inspired others to do justice; he said it enabled the very same people who'd done the injustice to indigenous peoples abroad, to turn around and do justice to their own indigenous peoples at home.

Now, that's an obvious logical absurdity and a physical impossibility. No profits of injustice can possibly be put to any just use.

Thanks!

[Anonymous Coward]

I was in the cheap seats, so I didn't get to see what was going on over in the high rent district.

OTOH, I probably had a better view of the landing, and especially Mike Melvill's victory celebration when he stopped in front of us and accepted a sign from one of the crowd.

It read: "SpaceShipOne. Government Zero"

Helluva show!

A wild ride

[kitzilla]

Sounds as if SpaceShipOne had a wilder ride than initially thought: a major flight guidance problem; an unanticipated roll; and some structural failure in the rear of the craft. Dick Rutan says his creation won't fly again until they fully understand all that went wrong.

In short, this flight could *easily* have ended in disaster. If not for some damn fine flying by pilot (and new astronaut) Mike Melvill, SS1 might have been scattered all over the well-wishers who had come to see her off.

It also seems that the scramble for backup flight control cost SS1 a lot of altitude. Preliminary numbers show the craft beating the officially recognized boundary of space by all of 500 feet.

MIKE MELVILL: write his name next to Chuck Yeager's as one of the America's great aviators. We have a brand new "steely-eyed missile man."

Adventure ain't dead, after all. :-)

Re:A Truly Historic Day

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I'll have an hamburger to celebrate this being such an history day, though I would rather a hamburger.

Eyewitness report

[Anonymous Coward]

I've just returned home to Portola Valley from watching the Spaceship One launch today at Mojave. I'm very happy my wife and I drove down on Sunday, camped in the desert and rolled out of the sleeping bag at 4:30 to drive to the airport. We chose the northwest side of the airport as our observation point because the takeoff is to the west, and we'd get a great view of the mated White Knight/Spaceship One package as it came off the runway to start its climb to launch altitude.

First, two chase planes took off. One, the Extra, is a prop-driven single engine aerobatic plane that's very fast, and is used to follow SS1 down to the runway on landing. The other is a Beech StarShip, also a Rutan design, a twin turboprop bizplane that's used as chase during climb to launch altitude. The third chase, an AlphaJet, took off after the launch aircraft.

I was surprised at the climb performance of the White Knight. I'd expected a shallow climbout commensurate with the considerable load of SS1, but the package absolutely leapt off the runway and was probably over a thousand feet before it left the airport boundaries. White Knight is a twin turbojet plane, and clearly has lots of performance margin in its role as launch/carry craft. Our vantage point was perfect - the rising sun behind us lit up the fab paint job on the launch package to good advantage, and after hammering our ears on its overhead pass, they started their climb to launch altitude.

We lost sight of them during climb several times, as it's hard to keep a small target in sight in a dusty blue sky, especially when their path approached the sun. It got easier when they reached about 40K feet, where they wtarted laying down a contrail.

At launch, they were too high to resolve with the unaided eye, mine, at least. At ignition, we immediately saw the exhaust track headed down for a couple of seconds until airspeed built up a bit. Then it curved sharply upward, locked on vertical and kept going, going, going! Burnout was an abrupt event, no doubt about it as the plume disappeared. There was lots of wind shear aloft, we could see the plume spread every which way at many levels. It was probably a choppy ride, and I'll look for the after flight writeup in Aviation Week for details. We waited, and waited, and - sure enough, a few minutes later, there was a soft 'boom-boom' as SS1 started its supersonic re-entry. At that point, we dumped our cameras and telescopes in the car and zipped over to the east side of the airport to watch the landing. Nice thing about a gliding re-entry is we had about 20 minutes to get over to the approach to see the landing.

During setup for the landing, SS1 and all three chase planes S-turned several times to dump energy and set up for final. I was really surprised at SS1's high landing speed, although I really shouldn't have been, given its wing loading, which is not exactly like your recreational glider. High wing loading in a glider equals a hot approach and landing.

All in all, a great day. Glad we took the trouble to be there and see it happen. If you have an opportunity, and you will, go see it for yourself.

Congratulations

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

Congratulations to the SpaceshipOne team. Hopefully they'll figure out the problem they encountered and further their goals.

Re:Well, at least MELVILLE landed at the right str

[mlh1996]

Well, it is off-topic. I thought it was kind of interesting, since I hadn't heard about it, but it doesn't have much to do with this discussion. I'd have probably modded it down, too.

MOD UP PARENT

[Anonymous Coward]

jeez, EVERYONE is on slashdot!

Re:Pop open the champagne, my boy Rutan made histo

[Teancum]

First of all, there is the Administration for Space Transportation, a branch of the FAA. It already exists, so you don't need to create it. It already exists.

Second, you forget about just how big America really is. With "international" areas beyond both the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, just about anything necessary for spaceflight operations can be pretty much done within the borders of the U.S.A. until you are into orbit, and existing treaties already deal with what happens when accidents happen and stuff comes down on a country other than the country of origin, even if it is just the spacecraft accidently landing in say Hong Kong when you were trying for San Francisco.

Space tourism is going to be a bit of a tougher problem because until now all [astronauts,cosmonauts,takinauts] have been commissioned officers (or civilian government equivalent) who had formal diplomatic status if they ended up somewhere by mistake. A tourist, particularly one without a passport, might have considerably more problems if they don't land in the country of origin (at least for the spacecraft).

International law also governs most of LEO and up to Geosync orbit, and there are a large number of precedents regarding what goes on with that activity, including if you take a satellite out of orbit and bring it back to the Earth. What goes on beyond a Geosync orbit is not nearly so well defined, and only the Moon has any real treaty status. Because the U.S.A. has refused to sign the Outer Space Treaty, it does not have effect upon American companies, so that area of international law is totally undefined.

Sorry

[khallow]

I just realized you indeed calculate everything that I complained was missing. Brain fault here. I definitely agree that we're not close to orbital and your estimates look good to me. The more I looked at the problem, the sillier my objections appeared. Sorry about that.

Lift-off help, redesigning how a rocket does it

[8AMCGremlins]

One thing I've wondered is, the initial liftoff is the most energy-wasting part to get a rocket moving, why haven't they designed a "tube" to fit around the rocket to catch the gas pressure and literally "pop" the rocket upwards faster? I was thinking they could either put the rocket on an elevator down into a hole, or bring a structure to surround the rocket and have a skirt at the bottom to keep the gases confined below the rocket until it clears the structure, and that way use the build-up of gas pressure to force the rocket upwards faster initially. Seems to me if it's gonna spew all that exhaust out, it should be able to use the gas pressure for something other than a big fireworks display! Hurrah for SpaceShipOne, seems like a better way to boost into orbit than Supersized missles. Keep up the good work, Burt! - Jerry -

So who cried?

[psyconaut]

I nearly shed a tear. But I'm silly like that ;-)

Also felt like crank calling NASA a few times...

-psy

Press conference

[DJdeli]

Does anyone have information regarding the press conference this afternoon with Scaled's crew? Like any future prospects? A link to a brief transcript of the conference would be good enough.

Kessel Run quote always bothered me...

[jayster]

Thanks for the explanation -- that line in the film always bothered me for the same reason, i.e., parsec is a measure of distance, not time (but it sounds like it might be about time, just like a "light-year"... ;-)

So what

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the BFD? the concord flew close to this high, this guy's done it many many times. I don't get what the big woop is.

Re:So what

[Anonymous Coward]

Not close by any stretch of the imagination.

Dumbass.

Re:Pop open the champagne, my boy Rutan made histo

[Hatta]

Burt Rutan has built a spacecraft that he has called 'Spaceship One'. It is a small, quaint thing that CNN describes as shaped like a 'shuttlecock'.

Wait... Shuttles have cocks? Guess that explains this then.

Comprehensive report (need picture hosting as well

[Teahouse]

Chasing the Flying Carpet Chris McCoy

This was quite an event! To see the launch of the first manned, commercial spacecraft only 90 minutes from my Eagle Rock, CA home was too much a temptation to be ignored! So we packed up the ole jalopy and headed for the holy land (in this case the town of Mojave and its airport.) After a very uncomfortable evening of camping in the high desert, we got up and made preparations to witness history. It was time to chase a flying carpet.

I have been a space enthusiast since a young age. One of my first real memories is the grainy image of men in white suits bounding around on the lunar surface. I remember the excitement throughout my family at the nature of the event. As I grew up, I have always seemed to keep a special eye out for opportunities and events in the aerospace world. Doing most of my growing up in Southern California helped. Where else can you visit the facility where they build the Space Shuttle engines, most of the space probes we launch to other planets, and the factory where they build the largest cargo aircraft the military operates in the same day? Yep, right here in "So Cal" .

For this particular event, we have to take into account the importance of the accomplishment. Since humanity has been launching itself beyond our own atmosphere, it has only done so through large budgets and centralized government programs. Only three nations have managed to actually get humans into the great black beyond. Russia and the United states have been doing so for 40 years, China just joined this club last year. No corporation, private citizen, or association has been able to even get close, until now.

What we will be viewing this morning is the launch of Space Ship One. A small spacecraft that will be making a short, first, step into space for all of us who aren't scientists, or military pilots. We were all promised that "someday" we may all get the opportunity to take a trip into space, but never has that promise seemed so close. This launch system isn't a standard "rocket from the launch pad" style system like most of us are used to. Instead, the SS1 launches from a carrier aircraft. This mother ship is called White Knight, and is probably nest described as a gangly, white praying mantis in flight. Tucked under it's belly, is the SS1. At about 45,000 feet, the Knight drops it's little spaceship cargo, and SS1 heads upward towards space.

This inventor of this system, and many other innovative aircraft is no other than Burt Rutan. Burt has had a part in many historic aircraft. Probably his biggest claim to fame was building the Voyager aircraft. This was the first aircraft to circumnavigate the globe non-stop, on one tank of gas! Burt's brother Dick was one of the pilots on that record setting flight. Space Ship One is Burt's attempt to claim the Ansari X-Prize, a $10 million award for the first civilian spacecraft to launch two passengers into space, return them safely, and then do it again within two weeks. Although there were no passengers on today's flight, it seems he and his company (Scaled Composites) are well on their way to being the first of 25 teams to make it this far. It's no sure thing, but it is believed an attempt at the X-Prize could come soon.

The following is a fairly technical account of what the experience was like to an observer at the Mojave Airport. I have a bunch of pics I would like to provide, but I need someone with a hearty server to send me soem help.;

Arrived at 4:30. I would estimate the crowd for the event was about 30,000 people. Most are like me, space enthusiasts (i.e. nuts) there to view a little bit of history being made. It resembles a launch at Cape Canaveral in Florida. Everyone is friendly and helpful, and extremely enthusiastic.

The first aircraft of interest was Paul Allen's private Jet. Mr. Allen is the co-founder of Microsoft, and a patron of many scientific endeavors around the world. He is the major investor in this particular project as well. The

It was an amazing event

[Shafe]

I flew from Washington, DC to LAX to Bakersfield and drove to Mojave, all to see this event. Sleeping in my car in a parking lot adjacent to the airport, working on a little more than 4 hours of sleep, and finally returning to the East coast 22 hours later, it was most definitely worth the trip. The parking lots opened at 3, but I was there at 2:30 -- as were hundreds other, and the line to turn left into the airport was a good fifteen minute wait.

I set up camp in a streambed on the front line next to people I didn't know, but over the course of the next few hours everyone knew everyone else. They videorecorded it and I'm on the hunt for an audio copy of the radio transmissions so that we might dub them into the video. If you know of any digital copies, please e-mail me (mikeshafer at gmail com).

The cheers from the public kept us awake at 6:15 as they started to roll out that beautiful White Knight, but the climax was easily the moment when SpaceShipOne fired her rockets around 7:50. It was difficult to see since the White Knight was right outside the sun's corona, but we saw the contrail start and spiral up into the heavens. It was awe-inspiring. Certainly nothing like a space shuttle launch, but just the fact that a private team of a few dozen people put this all together for around $20 million is testimony to the fact that we won't give up in our pursuit of a privatized space program. Godspeed, Burt Rutan, and others on the quest for the X-Prize. Gravity researchers, hurry up with those anti-gravity machines!

This is what I was talking about!

[Daetrin]

So you're the one responsible!!!

"My favorite is when they include six or seven links to various things and then include a quote from "the article" at the end, and you have no idea which link leads to the A you're supposed to be RTFing before you comment about it." (from here)

So which one of your six links leads to the quote? It seems like it's probabably not the first or the third. It doesn't seem to be the second. I especially liked the way the fourth link is camouflaged by putting it right up against the third link. I didn't even notice it was there thanks to a line break between the two until i happened to mouse over it.

Real Grade A job of obfuscation!

transoceanic sub-orbital flights

[phr1]

are more commonly called intercontinental ballistic missiles and interest in them is generally not "commercial". Launching one takes almost as much velocity as getting all the way to orbit. But SS1 was a long way from either. It just went up and came down in basically the same spot.

minor correction

[khallow]

Actually, I seem to recall that there was at least one X-15 flight slightly higher than 107.8 km, but for some reason, it wasn't considered "official". So if you see people talking about 109 km or so, then that's probably the unofficial record.

Crowd Pleasing Sign

[brj]

I've got to give it to Rutan and crew. They really put on a great show. They didn't just go up and down and then store the rocket in a hangar where the public would never see it. They actually paraded it around in a proverbial victory lap with Melvill proudly standing on top with arms in the air.

I'm not sure where it came from, but when the rocket turned around and came back towards the hangars, Melvill held up a sign that said "SpaceShipOne; GovernmentZero". The crowd loved it and gave a big applause.

What if the gas had no mass?

[Anonymous Coward]

One alternative to a balloon (not the one currently being pursued) was proposed by Buckminster Fuller: use a rigid structure enclosing a vacuum. According to his math, a 400 ft, 15 ton, geodesic sphere could easily generate 200 tons of lift ASL by pumping out half the air. If you could maintain that pressure ratio as the bubble went up, I believe you could comfortably lift 10 tons to a height of 40 km. Obviously, you could lift more with a bigger bubble and you could make it a lot lighter if need be.

vacuum balloon?

[LiSrt]

would a rigid balloon filled with *nothing* provide some mass saving or would the materials req'd be too heavy?

Re:vacuum balloon?

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Yes, a vacuum would provide plenty of lift. In fact, it would also solve the problem of the contents of the envelope expanding as the atmospheric pressure drops.

Now the trick is the materials. You need something that will withstand 14 lbs/in*in. It's not too hard for small volumes. But every time you double the surface area of the lift envelope, you double the force the air around it exerts, trying to fill it back up. One time on Mr. Wizard's World, they created a partial vacuum in a paint thinner can. The air around the can crushed it. (And it was a steel can!)

A peer poster noted a design by Buckminster Fueller. I haven't seen it, but it may merit looking in to.

Using MS Windows in mission critical systems?

[Henk Poley]

See picture at the bottom left.

You'd guess that Paul Allen would know better...

Oblig Douglas Adams quote:

[fbg111]

Attaining orbit is not a matter of height. It's a matter of going so fast that you continuously miss the Earth.

Orbiting is easy, just drop your spacecraft at the Earth and miss.

Re:Question so what your saying?

[Ignorant Aardvark]

Mach 25 is only the escape velocity at the Earth's surface. The farther away you get from Earth, the lower the escape velocity becomes. The escape velocity is a function of your distance from the planet.

Re:Mod parent down plz - It's wrong

[Ignorant Aardvark]

You're wrong. Plain and simple, you're wrong. Escape velocity is a function of your distance from the Earth. The farther away you get, the lower the escape velocity becomes. Are you trying to tell me that if you're one light-year away from the Earth (assuming nothing else is in existence), you would have to accelerated to Mach 25 to escape it? Please!!! All you'd have to do is throw a wrench out the back and that'd be enough. You're the "person [who] took just enough physics to be dangerous."

Re:That's supercavitation!

[Rich0]

Another issue - how does the thing actually stop?

The re-entry heat is nothing more than the kinetic energy of the Mach 20+ shuttle being converted to heat. If you push the air out of the way, then you still have all that kinetic energy. It has to slow down somehow before it hits the ground...

The point you are all missing

[smartalix]

Everybody here keeps talking about reaction masses and thrust as the only things that matter. There is an additional significant factor that takes a part in this success, and will take a significant role in every other vehicle using the approach of the White Knight/SpaceShipOne system.

The spaceplane is part of a binary system, consisting of a carrier aircraft and a rocket plane. The carrier aircraft takes advantage of the largest barrier to traditional rockets, the atmosphere. It does so by generating lift with wings. If there were no wings involved, the energy required to get the rocket plane to the altitude where its engine can push it into space would be prohibitive.

The system is also completely scalable. A bigger carrier aircraft would be able to carry a bigger spaceplane, using its bigger wings to generate more lift to carry the greater load. I don't have the math to calculate how big an underslung rocket plane could be carried by a 747-sized aircraft could be, but it would certainly be able to carry a bigger payload than the current SpaceShipOne.

The hardest part is getting above 90% of the atmosphere, and wings are perfectly suited for that task.

the problem of fuel

[WhiteDragon]

As has already been pointed out countless times in this thread, the problem of having to carry more fuel to boost the mass of all the fuel you are already carrying is the hardest problem in getting to orbit. I think if we had a big lighter than-air-platform (ala jc aerospace) way up in the atmosphere, what do you all think of the possibility of it collecting atmospheric hydrogen or watervapor and electrolysing it (using solar power)? Probably there is not much hydrogen up there, but they could collect it for a long time. I guess the biggest problem is that the hydrogen (or helium) will just leak out of any LTA baloons. I don't know if our material science will ever be able to come up with a good method of containing gas though. If it did, the platform could have a net gain of hydrogen, which could then be compressed and used to launch.

Re: YES The da Vinci project!

[dmitri2060]

Doesn't their rocket remind you of a 4-winged mosquito from estes?

SS1 != X-15

[jnhtx]

The X-15 had a much larger flight envolope than SS1. SS1 could only go straight up.

You could go somewhere in an X-15, and you go there at Mach 5. The X-15 was much closer to a ship that could fly up into orbit than SS-1.

That's not to take anything away from SS-1 at all.

On another note, as he does every year Rutan will be speaking several times at the EAA Oshkosh airshow, I think on July 30 and 31. His presentations are mind blowing and fun.

Rutan is the only person I've ever met who is clearly an actual wizard. He doesn't just think outside the box, it has never occured to him that there ever was a box.

I'm not at all certain that he's not from outer space and just living among us like some kind of ET Jane Goodall.