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

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!

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.

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!

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

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: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: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: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.