SpaceshipOne's Control Problem Fixed

Baldrson writes "Wired News reports that Rutan's team says they have gotten to the bottom of the June 21 flight anomalies that affected the first SpaceShipOne sub-orbital flight: 1) A control surface actuator had run against a stop limiting its movement, and 2) Wind shear caused the 90-degree roll shortly after rocket ignition. Rutan also said with the problems now identified, the next time SpaceShipOne flies, it will be to win the prize."

Comments

Wind Shear

[homeobocks]

I guess that when you're designing a space ship, wind shear isn't the first thing you worry about.

Re:Wind Shear

[zackeller]

When you're designing a space ship thats primary goal is to get it only to the edges of space, wind shear is one of your top priorities.

Re:Wind Shear

[Mycroft_VIII]

No, not first, but it gets list somewhere I'm shure. At least for any craft that has to deal with atmosphere.

Me first thing I worry about is the Huge laser cannons and force shields. That and a seat for cute blue space chick.
Maybe this is why NASA hasn't called back.

Mycroft

Re:Wind Shear

[Anonymous Coward]

You should have been there for the first flight. I'm amazed that they got it off at all. The winds overnight were 40+ MPH on the ground (blew over 4 of the 7 porta-potties in the campground area on the airport grounds). They calmed down for the 6:30AM launch, but it was easy to see from the contrails behind the aircraft above that there was still a lot of wind up there.

Re:Wind Shear

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a pilot, albeit an ordinary private pilot and not a spaceship pilot. I began flying in the 1970s around the time that "wind shear" first started to be considered as the possible cause of certain kinds of accidents. Although the phenomenon is real, for a while it became somewhat notorious as one of those "catch all" explanations that get hauled out when someone can't really figure out what happened. So when I hear it blamed in a conclusory way for something weird, without a good explanation for why it should apply, I get skeptical.

The deal with wind shear is this. Ordinarily, airplanes move within moving masses of air and get carried along by them. This is no big deal except that it affects navigation (e.g., even though your nose is pointed north, you might really be tracking northeast because you are within a mass of air moving from west to east). Moving masses of air don't ordinarly affect the airplane in an "aerodynamic" sense because what matters is how the plane is moving relative to that mass of air, not relative to the ground. Wind shear occurs because there are often distinct boundaries between different masses of air that are moving in different directions or at different speeds. Hitting a wind shear boundary can be an issue because due to inertia (or momentum, whatever you prefer to call it), the plane does not instantly make the transition to the new conditions, so its situation changes temporarily relative to the air. But it's only scary when the extent of the change is greater than the aerodynamic limits for your airplane and your present attitude.

For example, if you are flying at just five knots above stall speed, and you hit a boundary that has an abrupt ten knot difference in the wrong direction, it can pull the rug out from under you. But if you're flying at normal cruising speed, that same difference just causes a little turbulence. So to have a critical problem with wind shear you need both factors -- being near one of your aerodynamic limits (stall speed, red line, whatever) PLUS hitting a boundary that emphasizes the change in air movement in the WRONG direction for that limit.

So the reason I am skeptical is that Rutan gives no explanation for how exactly wind shear caused the loss of control. Was the ship being operated near its stall speed? Was the wind shear differential totally huge? Was the ship in a weird attitude (high bank angle or something) that reduced its tolerance to changes in airspeed? And is there any meteorologic evidence of any big wind shear conditions at that place and time? Otherwise, it is just wishful thinking that he has an explanation for this?

Re:Wind Shear

[TheAdventurer]

Well, I don't think we know for sure whether he had a fully developed hypothesis regarding wind shear because he didn't really say much about anything.

It would be unusual for him to expound greatly upon windshear when so little else was revealed about the rest of the craft.

I suppose that the chances that it is a catch all explanation are about 50/50, given the sparse nature of his comments.

Re:Wind Shear

[Mycroft_VIII]

He was pointed nearly straight up (that's how it looked, about a 75-85). And rotated about his axis of travel (roll? drawing a stupid blank for some reason).
Only thing I can think of is if the two wings were in differently moving masses of air when this occured. He was likely travelling very fast at the time, near his top speed (mach3? my memory is crap today).

Mycroft

Re:Wind Shear

[homb]

No he wasn't travelling near his top speed. In fact it was just at the start of the climb.
So I would tend to believe the wind shear explanation:

At the start of the climb, the "plane" (more like a winged rocket, really) had high thrust but low speed, went vertical and hit wind shear. Each wing was going through a different wing mass, and this spun the plane 90 degrees. After that, the plane was going fast enough that wind shear didn't matter.

Incidentally, I was there watching with another 20,000+ people. It was impressive, seeing this white streak shooting vertically.

Re:Wind Shear

[grozzie2]

So the reason I am skeptical is that Rutan gives no explanation for how exactly wind shear caused the loss of control.

Your explanation sounds great, but, you are using the wrong frame of reference. You are considering classic wind shear at low level/low speed accident scenarios, because that's what the schools teach about. Finding a shear greater than 20 knots at low level is rare indeed. Head up to the tropopause, and it's a totally different story.

At the junction between troposphere and stratosphere is this little phenomena known as the 'jet stream'. 100 knots of shear on the boundary of the jet streams is actually 'quite normal' and 'not bad'. I've seen 150 knots of shear over a very short distance vertically (less than 2000 feet) while penetrating the jets. This is still not a huge big deal, just gets a little bumpy, but, take a good look at SS1.

At the time of the roll event, the aircraft was accelerating on the initial rocket boost. It was in transonic, or early supersonic flight regimes. Penetrating a shear layer that gives a 100 knot difference in relative airspeed would set up some very very interesting asymetric shock wave scenarios, where the shock buildup on one side of the airframe is completely different than on the other. Even if this situation is just momentary, the asymetric forces will be huge, and cause a very noticeable deviation from nominal flight path projections.

Your frame of reference for shear is 'low and slow' in 'low performance' aircraft. SS1 is a very high performance aircraft, operating 'high and fast'. The primary contributor to aerodymanic forces will be shock waves and various forms of drag they produce. It's a whole different world, and everything you learned about 'low and slow' just doesn't apply to the 'high and fast' flight regimes. The SS1 flight mode at the time of the upset was 'at or near vertical' at transonic or supersonic speeds. It would not be at all surprising to see a major upset in the craft stability if it accidently penetrated the core of a 150 knot jet during that flight condition.

At this time of year, at those lattitudes, the core of the jets would be at an altitude in the area of 45 to 55 thousand feet. It would be unusual to see a jet core that far south in June, but, not unheard of. It's to late, and i'm really not inclined to go dig up old met charts from a couple weeks back, and see what kind of jet stream cores were over that part of california that morning. Sounds to me like that's what they may have hit, and, means the meteorology guys will be watching the jet charts a LOT closer for the next launches. Wouldn't surprise me at all that they even overlooked the detail, with an attitude of 'jet stream cores, over california, in june, who are you trying to kid?'. It's common in the winter, but not in the summer.

Re:Wind Shear

[Mycroft_VIII]

Ahh, that makes more sense. I had only seen a brief news clip on tv, and it wasn't clear exactly when in the flight the problem occured.
Wish I had the option of being there, but I live in the St. Louis are of Missouri, a little far for a weekend drive.

Mycroft

Re:Wind Shear

[Anonymous Coward]

That and a seat for cute blue space chick.

I thought that smurfs live on the earth.

http://www.smurf.com/

Re:Wind Shear

[NickRuisi]

Don't have my PPL yet, but getting there.. what kind of effect would wake turblence have on an airframe? Perhaps stall one wing? (90 deg roll)

Re:Wind Shear

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it believable because of the stubby wings on SpaceShipOne. I read that the NASA lifting body aircraft were very prone to roll in any kind of turbulence because they didn't wings to damp out the roll -- kind of like a toy submarine wallowing in a bathtub.

Re:Wind Shear

[0SVide0]

I too as a private pilot have to agree that wind shear although very real and very deadly is also very rare. But we have to realize that this guy was essentially in a rocket with wings (and the wings are really only used as fins for drag stabilization during the launch proceedure). This thing has no stall speed (at least not on this planet). I would say that the "wind shear" explanation is a quick way to ward off the media since they have yet to find the true cause.

Re:Wind Shear

[at_kernel_99]

The kind of turbulence of which you speak can have very drastic affects on an airframe. Particularly if the turbulence is generated by something heavy flying slowly and you are in something light. They will teach you in class to stay above and well behind anything heavy and slow in front of you. Note that slow for them may be in excess of your maximum attainable speed in level flight!

In other words, its certainly a real issue, but any turbulence encountered by SS1 was not due to turbulence from other craft.

Re:Wind Shear

[at_kernel_99]

This thing has no stall speed (at least not on this planet).

'This thing,' presumably referring to Space Ship One, most certainly does have a stall speed. Everything with wings has a stall speed. SS1 has wings - its a glider for its return from space to landing.

As far as trying to 'ward off the media' I imagine they would not have stated they're ready to fly for the prize if they were not ready & confident.

Re:Wind Shear

[Rei]

Lets not forget that everyone's favorite saftey-punching bag, NASA, knows enough to delay a flight when there is wind shear.

Talk about being concerned with safety - what on earth was Rutan thinking??

Re:Wind Shear

[Rei]

I'd have to agree with this. You have a rocket, which is pretty much an inverted pendulum, with low speed but in an atmosphere, which decreases stability. A little bit of torque would be disastrous to the angle you're trying to maintain.

I wonder how much gimballing of thrust SpaceShipOne has... either it wasn't enough, the reaction time was too slow, or someone really messed up.

Re:Wind Shear

[Rei]

Hmm... you seem to know a lot about atmospheric effects. Would you perchance know a good page that discusses modelling wind resistance? I've been working on a rocket flight simulator in my spare time to satisfy my curiousity, and I only have a fairly simple model of subsonic wind resistance to work with so far (your basic 1/2 * v^2 * area * drag coefficient).

Re:Wind Shear

[N3WBI3]

Yes but aparently not sub zero temperatures that can damage wearable parts **cough** o-ring **cough**. NASA has also had trouble with that whole metric system thing..

NASA has learned from mistakes, so will other companies and organization. This was an experimental flight, would I have called it off? maybe..

Re:Wind Shear

[Rei]

1) NASA did not do the whole "metric to english" conversion error; it was a private contractor.

2) The sub-zero temperature O-ring failure issue was indeed NASA's fault (Statistics rule #1: Never omit data (in this case, omitting successes and simply plotting failures) to simplify a graph.). However you can pick on anything from an organization that has launched tens of thousands of rockets of hundreds of designs.

Rutan didn't do one of the most basic things in spacecraft launch (don't launch in high wind conditions), well known since the V-2, because he was even less safety conscious than NASA. Rather than disappoint all of the people that came to watch, he launched anyway into a highly dangerous environment, and nearly killed someone in the process. If NASA behaved like this, every other launch would be catastrophic.

Rutan has far, far simpler requirements than NASA, and consequently can use a far simpler machine. Nearly blowing up his spacecraft in a case as simple as the X-prize, I'd never trust a dime to him for a real payload launch mission.

Re:Wind Shear

[grozzie2]

It's been more than 15 years since I've worked with modelling of supersonic stuff. I dont know of any online material, have never looked, and all of the good reference books I've got deal exclusively with subsonic flight regimes.

Re:Wind Shear

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously, it sounds like it just rolled, rather than pitch or yaw. Of the 3 axes, this was probably the least problematic for the pilot to deal with or experience.

JC

[Avada Kedavra]

So Carmack and the Armadillo gang are out of the running?

Re:JC

[MrBlue VT]

It's doubtful that they could get their big vehicle together and working by the end of the year. John has said if Rutan fails they might make a push (ie, work on it more than the current 2 days a week and evenings) to get done by the end of the year for an attempt.

According to John there is no other team even close, and I believe him.

Re:JC

[grozzie2]

Were they ever in the running ?

Re:JC

[khaverblad]

Well, then again, they have actually shown that they are close to pull it off; so getting there wouldn't be impossible by the end of the year. The press cover that they got should at least generate some kind of interest of funding, etc. Guess that Paul Allen just has to ca$h up a bit more.

Re:JC

[khaverblad]

In what way where they not running?

Re:JC

[grozzie2]

I'll grant they are doing some interesting and probably fun playing with rocket engines. But, the X-Prize is about building a manned craft to go to into space. They have done basically zero vehicle design for the high altitude supersonic flight regimes required to achieve that. They have spent all thier time and effort fiddling with rocket engines basically.

Serious X-Prize contenders realized early on, there's a lot of rocket technology available 'for sale' out there. They bought rocket engines, and concentrated on the difficult part of the engineering problems, the vehicle to get into space and back.

There's 2 teams that have a chance of actually completeing the X-Prize flights this year. It's interesting, Scaled has used the 'all aerodymanic' approach, with a mothership for first stage lifting to get above troposphere. Da Vinci project is 'all ballistic' with a mothership to provide first stage lift above troposphere.

Scaled is currently the odds on favorite to achive the X-Prize flights first. They have a really good chance, they have all the flight hardware, and it's been thru rigorous testing. Still, manned space flight is HARD (just check with Nasa for reference), and it's NOT a given that the SS1 + WK combination can complete 2 more flights without incident. A serious incident with either vehicle, and Scaled will be out of the running for the X-Prize, there isn't time left to replace either of them.

Da Vinci project has flight tested engines, but, they have yet to flight test an all up final configuration. They have the permits in place, and, the hardware is built. They are expected to start flight testing within the next 6 weeks.

Armadillo, well, they are tinkering with rockets, and writing a blog about it. They dont have a vehicle to mount an all up configuation rocket in, and they dont have a design to build one from. The X-Prize must be claimed this year, and Armadillo hasn't even got a vehicle design yet. No, they are not in the running, and have no hope of being in the running. If you haven't done the engineering analysis on a design, to validate it should be capable of withstanding the launch/recovery portions of the flight, and got the hardware built, ready to fly this summer, you are not in the running for the X-Prize. No matter how much money you throw at it, you are not going to design/build that package in the next 4 months, and if it's not flight ready in 4 months, you cant meet the requirements for winning the X-Prize.

Re:JC

[hanssprudel]

It is no use explaining all this. Armadillo are the Ogg Vorbis of spaceflight: in the real world, out of the running, but here on Slashdot they'll always be most important.

Re:JC

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm, is there a single major music player that doesn't play ogg vorbis?
Other than WMP obviously.

Re:JC

[peacefinder]

Armadillo, well, they are tinkering with rockets, and writing a blog about it.

I think we can give Armadillo a bit more credit than that. Granted, they are not close to the X-prize. (Especially compared to Scaled.) But the work they've done really is very impressive. Just look at their "perfect boosted hop" video.

They have constructed, in their spare time, a VTOL rocket craft with very good autonomous control and capacity for a useful payload. That may or may not be a detour on the way to the X-prize, but it's a damned impressive feat in itself.

I don't know what their problem is.

[Anonymous Coward]

MY spaceship wasn't affected by wind shear.

Re:I don't know what their problem is.

[Saven Marek]

MY spaceship wasn't affected by wind shear.

Sure, take the easy way out winning the xprize by launching 100km up from the moon

free trust_based image hosteing

I don't get it ...

[Tensor]

The article says that the problems were caused by:
"the actuator delayed moving one of the ship's flaps because it "had run against a stop," limiting its movement."

Isn't the WHOLE purpose of the stop to limit movement? or was the stop jarred loose and was stopping movement when it wasn't supposed to ?

Re:I don't get it ...

[RollingThunder]

That could mean that it whacked into the stop pretty hard, and then couldn't return. They're not saying which direction the movement was limited in. :)

Re:I don't get it ...

[frankmu]

Rutan probably had to change the dial from "10" to "11"

Good idea

[no1here]

Rutan's plan to have 3 flights within 2 weeks is a good idea. That way they have an even better chance of winning the prize. It's something I never thought of before.

And without co-op students, no less!

[westendgirl]

According to Scaled's Careers page, "We are sorry but Scaled is unable to hire Summer interns or Co-op students." I didn't think any high tech companies could cope without co-ops and interns!

Re:And without co-op students, no less!

[bsartist]

But... but... but... who makes the coffee? You can't tell me they're doing this without coffee. Three flights in two weeks I can believe - but engineers without coffee is just crazy talk.

Re:And without co-op students, no less!

[cynic10508]

According to Scaled's Careers page, "We are sorry but Scaled is unable to hire Summer interns or Co-op students." I didn't think any high tech companies could cope without co-ops and interns!

Huh? They have an intern program. Go to the Jobs section, then look under "Ballast".

Re:And without co-op students, no less!

[appleLaserWriter]

High techs *love* co-ops and interns. It is like paying people with stock options, except you don't have to worry about the share dilution.

Re:And without co-op students, no less!

[karstux]

I certainly wouldn't mind being ballast on ther X-Prize flights...

Re:And without co-op students, no less!

[lobsterGun]

This is probably because it takes so long to do a security check that ithe intern would be long gone before the paperwork was finished.

Re:And without co-op students, no less!

[GoRK]

Robots do it. They are from the future.

Re:And without co-op students, no less!

[visgoth]

They outsourced their coffee supply... to india.

Re:And without co-op students, no less!

[bsartist]

They outsourced their coffee supply... to india.

Isn't that called "tea"?

Re:And without co-op students, no less!

[kin_korn_karn]

But... but... but... who makes the coffee?
Bikini-clad Burt groupies.

another trip == couns:?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the media has said the second trip must come within two weeks of the first. The date posted in the article says, "June 12". Two weeks would be 21 + 7 = 28 and 7 more is July 5. We're obviously beyound July 5th.

Re:another trip == couns:?

[Mycroft_VIII]

Not to mention they have to notify the Prize people of a prize attempt at least 60 days in advance for it count. No advance notice, No prize.

Mycroft

Re:another trip == couns:?

[MrBlue VT]

The trip they made on the 21st of June did not count at all for the X-Prize. It did go past 100 km, but it did not have the additional weight necessary to simulate two passengers. Basically it was just another test flight. What was significant about it in a historical perspective is that this is the first time a privately owned company has put a man in space. Thus, they yet to even do the first of two flights required by the X-Prize.

Simple Process

[nasor]

"1) A control surface actuator had run against a stop limiting its movement, and 2) Wind shear caused the 90-degree roll shortly after rocket ignition. Rutan also said with the problems now identified, the next time SpaceShipOne flies, it will be to win the prize."

So I guess it's:

1. Fix control surface actuator
2. Fix wind shear problem
3. Profit!

Re:Simple Process

[homeobocks]

1. Fix SpaceShipOne 2. ? 3. Profit!

Re:Simple Process

[flmngbrd]

you have no idea how close that is to the truth. or do you.... (insert suspenseful music)

Re:Simple Process

[SlashdotLemming]

Reminds me of how I write software

1. Write code
2. Proclaim success!
3. Prof... err, wait, some bugs
4. Fix code
5. Proclaim success!
6. Prof... err, wait, some bugs
7. Fix code
8. Proclaim success!
9. Prof... err, wait, some bugs
...

Re:Simple Process

[el-spectre]

I've often defined programming as the process of thinking "Oh, I am a GOD!!" and then "Jesus, how stupid can I be", several times an hour :)

Re:Simple Process

[zuzulo]

I think you forgot the most important part of the development process. So my general software development proceedure tends to look more like -

1. Write code
2. Proclaim success!
3. Prof... err, wait, some bugs
4. Fix code
5. Proclaim success!
6. Prof... err, wait, some bugs
7. Customer or Management changes requirements
8. goto 1.
9. Profit!

Maybe I should debug my development methodology, seeing as I never seem to get to step 9.

The cool thing about the xprize is that it provides a fixed milestone for private companies to shoot for in a fixed timeframe.

I am a big fan of the private 'prize' process, and think that with the success of the xprize we should figure out how to offer a slew of additional prizes to continue to stimulate private space efforts.

I am somewhat surprized that there are not more prizes offered for solutions to hard problems in other areas. Seems like a cheap way for folks to get researchers motivated.

Why not start a non-profit foundation whose sole purpose is to offer bounties with well defined acceptance criteria for a whole range of technical challenges? Any philanthropic and technically oriented billionaires up for the challenge? ;-)

Re:Simple Process

[TastyWords]

c/Profit!/Get Laid/

Re:Simple Process

[FireFury03]

I am a big fan of the private 'prize' process, and think that with the success of the xprize we should figure out how to offer a slew of additional prizes to continue to stimulate private space efforts.

I think (hope?) that once the X-Prize has been won, there will be another prize put up for the first private flight into orbit, since that's the next big milestone in commercial spaceflight. Or maybe a prize for the first suborbital space flight to the other side of the planet - there are big applications for suborbital space flight as a replacement for normal air travel since once you get our of the atmosphere going hypersonic is much easier.

I must admit that I didn't realise the prize expired at the end of this year though - that kinda puts a lot of pressure on everyone.

Re:Simple Process

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't that the process of going to a brothel?

Re:Simple Process

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure. I'll do it.

Re:Simple Process

[Sindri]

Some times when I have been fixing some old bug in a large application my team is working on and run into some impossible to understand code. Then look through the CVS history thinking "Who the F*%$ wrote this crap!" only to find my own name listed as the author.

Re:Simple Process

[el-spectre]

Um, I dunno. Is it?

Re:Simple Process

[alder]

...there will be another prize put up for the first private flight into orbit...

Indeed. It looks like NASA would like to be the entity behind such new prize.

Re:Simple Process

[liquiddark]

I'm thinking the best prize would be the $100,000 to $1,000,00 a head, but I could be smoking the pipe here. ld

Re:Simple Process

[Amorpheus_MMS]

I think (hope?) that once the X-Prize has been won, there will be another prize put up for the first private flight into orbit, since that's the next big milestone in commercial spaceflight.

We're gonna need zero-g trash collectors ...

Re:Simple Process

[FireFury03]

You're right that space junk is becoming a quite big problem and I'm not sure what can be done about it - larger particles can probably be vaporised by laser within the next few years. NASA tracks particles down to about 1cm in size with radar and experiments looking at particles below 1mm involve putting up satellites that are essentially large orbital dartboards. Of course, when you're doing mach 25, hitting objects smaller than 1cm is still a really bad thing to do.

The trick, now that we know how much of a problem orbital debris can cause, is to stop dumping more up there.

For larger objects such as disposable rocket stages and low satellites this shouldn't be too big a problem - fit them with reaction control thrusters and enough propellent to deorbit them. You also need to take this into account when designing the satellites so they will burn up on reentry instead of crashing into possibly populated areas - I wouldn't have thought this would be a big problem - if you're designing a satellite and isn't going to burn up, why not put a small charge inside it to fragment the satellite after it's entered the atmosphere?

The use of completely reusable vehicles like Space Ship One will help here too.

The real problem is when things go wrong and something unexpectedly fragments while in orbit (your space craft explodes while in orbit or a satellite is hit by some large debris and disintegrates) - then you're left with a lot of junk floating around with no way for it to deorbit itself.

Another problem seems to be that geostationary satellites are too high to deorbit - geostationary orbit is at about 36,000 Km high and they just don't have enough fuel to deorbit from that altitude. At the moment, these satellites are pushed into a "graveyard orbit" that's 200 - 300Km above geostationary. Eventually it's going to get pretty crowded in the graveyard orbit, with the added problem that in a few hundred years those satellites orbits will decay back to geosynchronous altitude.

See headlines now...

[eamacnaghten]

I can see the headlines - SpaceShipOne flies into space - passenger lands safetly near launch site...

His luggage lands in Africa somewhere...

Re:See headlines now...

[Mycroft_VIII]

Looks like someone got modded by a humorless baggage handler for one of the airlines.
Lighten up people, some jokes I can see getting down modded by mistake or for mentioning proffit or russia, but this one was obviously enough a joke that you'd have to be minus a few clue points to miss.

Mycroft

Re:See headlines now...

[bsartist]

The modders are trained to mod down posts that vibrate. They ignore posts that tick; modern trolls vibrate. They're careful never to imply ownership; in the case of a troll they refer to it as "a troll", never "your troll".

Re:See headlines now...

[Anonymous Coward]

HUH? I don't have the required IQ to make sense of your post, you insensitive CLOD! Somebody set up us a translator!

Re:See headlines now...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a joke based upon some lines from the film Fight Club. If you haven't seen it and enjoy some dark humor, it's worth watching; it's not what most people who don't know anything about would expect.

Re:See headlines now...

[hanssprudel]

One of the funniest dialogs in a film, ever:

Narrator: Was it ticking?
Airport Security Officer: Actually throwers don't worry about ticking 'cause modern bombs don't tick.
Narrator: Sorry, throwers?
Airport Security Officer: Baggage handlers. But, when a suitcase vibrates, then the throwers gotta call the police.
Narrator: My suitcase was vibrating?
Airport Security Officer: Nine times out of ten it's an electric razor, but every once in a while...
[whispering]
Airport Security Officer: it's a dildo. Of course it's company policy never to, imply ownership in the event of a dildo... always use the indefinite article "a dildo", never "your dildo".
Narrator: I don't own...

When will be the next flight?

[aboynoir]

Anyone know when the next flight will occur? I wouldnt mind coming and camping out to take the whole thing in. Probably meet some cool people and witness an amazing event.

Re:When will be the next flight?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Given the contest's requirement of 60 days' notice before a prize attempt -- and the lack of any notice so far -- the earliest Rutan or other teams could fly for the cash is now around Labor Day. The prize offer expires at the end of the year."

Re:When will be the next flight?

[FishermansEnemy]

Is that correct? I didn't realise the x-prize was only valid if they did it before 2005.

Passengers

[femto]

I reckon Scaled Composites could almost make more than the value of the X-Prize if they offered those two empty seats for sale. It's almost worth starting a fake ebay auction just to see what price is reached!

Re:Passengers

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed. Buying your names into the history books was worth (how much did shuttlesworth and tito pay?)

Re:Passengers

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect that Burt Rutan and Paul Allen already have reservations.

I mean, don't you think Paul Allen has paid enough already?

Re:Passengers

[Narkov]

> I suspect that Burt Rutan and Paul Allen already have reservations.

Yeah but have you seen Paul? Thats really like taking 4 people.

Re:Passengers

[CrazyTalk]

20 million each, if memory serves.

Re:Passengers

[Ruprecht the Monkeyb]

They probably can't. I suspect there would be a whole other set of FAA hoops they'd have to jump through to take paying 'passengers'. Not to mention insurance issues.

Re:Passengers

[EABird]

IANAL but... I think the closest applicable set of regulations would be within FAR (US Title 14) Part 135 and 91. If the service was provided under either part, the regulations are not extreme, and as I see it, could be construed to allow a part 135 or part 91 operator (with a commercial certificate and currency requirements) to provide the service with minimal hoops. As I see it, the most difficult parts would be the clearance to climb through the Class A airspace between 18,000 and 60,000 ft, the waiver to exceed the speed of sound, and the request for a NOTAM to clear the area for a space flight.

Re:Passengers

[Ruprecht the Monkeyb]

IANALORAPFTM (...or a pilot for that matter). I was think more of 135.25 regarding whether the vehicles had the right certifications.

Re:Passengers

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey...how about we send Bill & Mr. Ballmer as the 2 'ballast' spots.

I mean it *might* blow up right?

Re:Passengers

[EABird]

In fact after looking into it, 14 US 91.319(a)(2) also would present an issue for the compensation issue. (I assume they are operating under an experimental certificate) If they were to give rides for free (and the craft was deemed safe under 14 US 91.319(b)) they could operate inside of part 91.

On a side note, if the rides are free, let me be the first to sign up.

Chaos and Unpredictability

[KitFox]

Nothing is really guarenteed to be perfect. The fact that there are factors that are beyond our control and completely unpredictable means that there is always a chance that something will go wrong. Fixing it and trying to make sure it doesn't go wrong again is all fine and everything, but there is always that probability factor that we cannot detect, calculate, or control.

I am just quite glad that they had the backup system, because that is what prevented a catastrophy. If there is a x% chance that the primary system will fail, and x% that the backup will fail, combined it makes the chances of a catastrophy much lower.

I believe that if we are going to be successful at a private space race, or even any other high-risk things (Even lacking risk to human life), then redundancy and backup is definitely critical. If a few failed heat tiles can destroy a space craft and kill people, and there is no contingency plan for failed heat tiles, that is a problem. If a computer miscalculation in Metric vs English measurements can completely throw off a multibillion-dollar space probe, and there is no way to recover when the error is first detected and has not yet caused problems, then that is just not right.

I look forward to seeing if they win the prize, and I applaud them for having contingencies. If more systems had contigencies for the most critical failures, we'd possibly be much further ahead in various technologies. Let's see how this space race goes.

Re:Chaos and Unpredictability

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a lot to be said for redundancy. There is a lot to be said for redundancy. [duplication intended...]

But I think there is even more to be said for simplicity.

Fortunately both are signature attributes of Burt Rutan.

Re:Chaos and Unpredictability

[Anonymous Coward]

wtf why would this get modded up, everyone knows this already, it is hardly 'interesting' and definately noy 'insightful'

Re:Chaos and Unpredictability

[FireFury03]

Metric vs English measurements

You mean Metric vs Imperial or American measurements don't you? Here in England we use metric a lot (pretty much 100% of the time in engineering although there's probably a 50:50 split between metric and imperial outside of engineering circles). I honestly couldn't tell you how many yards in a mile, but I know right off the top of my head that there are 1000 metres in a kilometre and that 1 litre of water has a mass of 1 kilogram.

Re:Chaos and Unpredictability

[bwy]

What happened with the loud bang the pilot heard during the last flight? It had looked like some of the composite material near the engine had buckled. I wonder if that is something they addressed, or if it is just a case of using more duct tape???

Re:Chaos and Unpredictability

[KitFox]

You mean Metric vs Imperial or American measurements don't you?

Ah, yes.... That's what I get for trying to post at that time of night from work with no sleep prior.

Re:Chaos and Unpredictability

[MadCow42]

Redundancy also has a cost - added cost, added weight, added complexity, added development time.

The X-prize competitors probably will have SIGNIFICANTLY less redundancy than any NASA craft would ever have (triple redundancy is normal in spaceflight), but they'll also be cheaper, lighter, and faster-to-completion. The associated risks are ones that government-run institutions just wouldn't take.

So, by putting the competition to the public instead of trying to achieve the same thing through NASA/etc. they're able to test riskier technologies quicker and cheaper - resulting in more significant technological advancement.

The risks are great... but they're being taken by individuals that have weighed them and accept them, not a government that's accountable to it's populace.

My meaningless 0.02.
MadCow.

Re:Chaos and Unpredictability

[freqres]

But I think there is even more to be said for simplicity.

Re:Chaos and Unpredictability

[DiscoDave_25]

Agreed but there's a value to simplicity in any engineering design as well.

It's also a shame that there was NO redundancy in some of really important things (heat shielding and the solid rocket boosters spring immediately to mind)

Re:Chaos and Unpredictability

[khallow]

The solid rocket boosters had a bit of redundancy in that you had to punch through three o-rings to have a problem. But freezing temperatures made all three brittle.

hm

[Vlion]

Interesting.
Good to see it getting fixed. =)

some questions

[BelugaParty]

Paul Allen is worth more than a small country and he is funding Scaled Composites. If SC actually wins the X-Prize, will it really be a spectacular gain for space flight?

NASA, on some level, is really an organization for several major and minor companies, why would it be ruled out of the prize?

Will commercializing spaceflight be a step forward for space research? Why is it that when companies step into public domain scientific fields the results are inevitably viagra when there is still no cure for cancer, aids... etc. Public grants and public institutions (Nations and Universities) are still the bedrock for pure scientifc research. I only see economic and superficial consumerism inspired by the x-prize.

What do you think?

Re:some questions

[ron_ivi]

"Will commercializing spaceflight be a step forward for space research? ... when companies step in...the results are inevitably viagra when there is still no cure... etc. "
Because recreational drugs like viagra and alchohol are more valued (practically by definition - they measure this value with their paychecks) by people than the hard-to-make-and-not-very-effective treatments for difficult to cure diseases.

Similarly, Space Tourism has the potential to benefit many many people compared to the handful of astronauts who got to golf on the moon so far.

" Public grants and public institutions (Nations and Universities) are still the bedrock for pure scientifc research. I only see economic and superficial consumerism inspired by the x-prize. "
Public grants fund wierd artwork too. The outcome of both efforts (pure research and wierd artwork) is of direct interest to a pretty small class of people. I'm not saying it's a bad thing; just not wide-reaching.

"NASA, on some level, is really an organization for several major and minor companies, why would it be ruled out of the prize?"

Because NASA is doing it by taking other people's money. If NASA needed 10 more million, they have channels to ask for it. Scaled is doing it with their own.

Re:some questions

[tarunthegreat2]

I think that it's much easier to fix a malfunctioning pecker than to hold back a life-threatening disease. However, I would assume that Pfizer's plan runs as follows:

1. Identify impotence as a problem
2. ??? (i.e. R &amp: D, and manufacture Viagra)
3. Profit!!!! 4. Once you're bored of making loads of money off viagra, and you've got loads of competitors and are lying in oodles of money, devote your attention to fixing some of the world's real problems, like AIDS, cancer, and George Bush.

Will commercializing spaceflight be a step forward for space research?

Yes. NASA has to jump thru a billion bureaucratic hoops to get funding, not to mention a whole host of other problems plaguing all government projects. The Space Shuttle is actually a very inefficient machine, and these it's not even considered completely safe. Since profit will be the motivation of any private entrepreneur, they will eventually be forced to consider things like safety (what good is your craft if your customers are dead? I'm assuming most customers for a pvt spaceflight would insist on paying after they're safely back on the ground), a very efficient design as a way to save fuel, find a cheap fuel, try and propel the craft as far as possible e.t.c. e.t.c. e.t.c. The fact is that NASA was founded on lots of other priorities (getting a man into space before the Commies was one of them), but I don't think their aim has ever been to make a profitable business out of human spaceflight. And whether that's good or bad is not my point. But human spaceflight is only going to be furthered if it can be proved that there is money a such an undertaking, and that it can be done by a relatively small non-bureaucratic private entity.

Re:some questions

[NeuroManson]

That's like comparing public and private schools, both have similar roles, but completely different practices.

NASA was started in order to compete with the Soviet Union on an exploratory basis, along with a thinly disguised military basis.

After all, remember how NASA had a conniption over the first space tourists. Some conspiracy nuts could say that NASA allowed Columbia (a relatively old relic) to break up without advance warning, just to kill any public hopes of space tourism in the future.

Re:some questions

[amcox]

Why is it that when companies step into public domain scientific fields the results are inevitably viagra when there is still no cure for cancer, aids... etc. Public grants and public institutions (Nations and Universities) are still the bedrock for pure scientifc research. I only see economic and superficial consumerism inspired by the x-prize.

This is why it's so distressing that the research aspect of major universities has recently been driven more and more toward economic gain. Presidents and boards are seeing the hard sciences as a way to get patents and generate cash, not as a public service or even as goal worthy of persuing just for the sake of knowladge. Maybe science will have to move in the direction of open source as well, like these argiriculturalists have done.

Re:some questions

[BelugaParty]

I really don't agree with you at all.

Viagra is of almost no social benefit. Treatments for cancer save millions of lives around the world each year. Yes they are hard to make (at the moment) and are not always effective and have side effects, but this is exactly why money and effort should be put in this direction. While it may not reap huge economic benefit in the short term, saving lives will help the economies in the long term.

I don't see how pure research is related to "weird artwork". Pure research underlies most facets of modern society. If the unique properties of semi-conductors weren't researched and catalogued computers wouldn't exist.

NASA, like Scaled Composites, has to present it's projects/budgets/plans to boards of directors (congress), investors (governments, other space agencies). The money isn't just handed over... there was time when it was, and that was the time of its highest inefficiency; but this wasn't just because it was government owned and operated, it was because private contractors knew a fat wallet when they saw one and tried to get as much money as they could.

Re:some questions

[ocelotbob]

Of course, you realize that viagara was a side effect of heart research, right? Seems that medication that was intended to help an ailing cardiovascular system also managed to give men's little friends a little pick me up, and the rest is history. Just because something is marketed doesn't mean that a corporation is all about making money.

Re:some questions

[Anonymous Coward]

Viagra is of almost no social benefit. Treatments for cancer save millions

Both contributed a certain number of man-hours-of-happyness to the world. I'd say that's a social benefit.

While it may not reap huge economic benefit in the short term, saving lives will help the economies in the long term.

I bet more healty productive lives were created by Viagra than were saved by cancer drugs. But to me the long term economic benefit seems such a wierd way of measuring the social good of Viagra vs Gemzar I'm not sure where you are going with that argument.

Both are economically successful commercial products, and both help overpopulate the world.

"I don't see how pure research is related to "weird artwork"."

Both are federally funded, and both appeal to a very limited subset of the population.

If the unique properties of semi-conductors weren't researched and catalogued computers wouldn't exist.

That's hardly "pure research" - it's mostly "applied research" done by commercial companies for commercial goals.

Re:some questions

[Anonymous Coward]

3. Profit!!!! 4. Once you're bored of making loads of money off viagra, and you've got loads of competitors and are lying in oodles of money, devote your attention to fixing some of the world's real problems, like AIDS, cancer, and George Bush.

You are so wrong. Pfizer is using it's "oodles of money" to keep bush, not fix him. So far their record is 65% to republican and 35% to democrat for the 2004 election

Re:some questions

[tarunthegreat2]

Ok, so that was a little disinformation on my part. I think what I was hoping is that once they're bored of sitting on their pile of money, they'll repent their evil ways...;-)

Re:some questions

[Anonymous Coward]

NASA, on some level, is really an organization for several major and minor companies, why would it be ruled out of the prize?

NASA was never part of this, but the support companies could have done this. But had they done so, it would have been gutting their own money makers. Witness the X-33 debacle. L-Mart's CEO (can not remember his name) was visionary and supported it. Unfortunately, when he left, the bean counters got ahold of the project and determined that this would gut their other work. Between the current admin and L-Mart, the project got killed.

Besides, we should be happy that so many new companies just came into this picture.

Re:some questions

[59Bassman]

Will commercializing spaceflight be a step forward for space research? Why is it that when companies step into public domain scientific fields the results are inevitably viagra when there is still no cure for cancer, aids... etc. Public grants and public institutions (Nations and Universities) are still the bedrock for pure scientifc research. I only see economic and superficial consumerism inspired by the x-prize.

Cancer and aids research is ongoing. It hasn't stopped. But it's a tough nut to crack, obviously. Also, realize that if a cure for cancer is ever found, governments and private citizens around the world are going to scream that the drug should be given away for free. Some may threaten to allow their country's companies to reverse-engineer the drug and sell it cheaper if the inventor's don't play along. If the successful inventor stands their ground (as they'll be ordered to do by shareholders - remember this is likely a public FOR PROFIT company), there will be expose's on 20/20 about the evil corporate drug giants who hold life in their hands and won't dole it out...

It's a no-win situation. Dump millions into cancer research only to be called evil for attempting a return on investment. Or don't spend millions on cancer research and be called evil for not doing it.

Believe it or not, drugs like Viagra provide a valuable benefit to men who've survived prostate cancer. Figure it out if you like, but the fact is that Viagra is a life-enhancing drug for a lot of people. Is making life for large numbers a bit better that much less meaningful than curing cancer for a relatively smaller number of people?

I personally believe that the commercialization of space flight is a good thing. Part of why NASA's long range probes have been so successful (and cost effective) in recent years has been the use of COTS (Commercial Off The Shelf) parts. Much easier to do than developing everything in-house. Imagine if you were able to buy the pieces to build a viable space vehicle - NASA's costs should come down, and the amount of space exploration should increase.

Plus, there are likely scientific advancements that will come about simply because of cheapening space travel. I know that the semiconductor industry will probably get a boost if it gets cheap enough to do large-scale MBE (Molecular Beam Epitaxy) in space - right now it's really inefficient on earth due to the vacuum equipment needed to pull it off.

Re:some questions

[dpilot]

>viagra vs cancer drugs...

When you discover you've got cancer, which are you going to want to buy?

>Space Tourism ... benefit

Watch the word 'benefit'. Space tourism itself will have little benefit to society, other than to make a few people happy. It's merely a bigger handful than the really small handful of astronauts. The 'benefit' of space tourism to society will be in opening up economy-of-scale for space travel, so that in time we can actually DO something up there. For one, perhaps move environmentally ugly things off of Earth, like mining asteroids, solar power satellites, etc.

>pure research and weird (not wierd) artwork
I'm not going to touch the weird artwork, but that pure research is only of interest to a small class of people TODAY. I'll compare pure research to venture capital. In a normal market, fund 10 companies. 7 will go bust, 2 will do so-so, and 1 will be a Winner. Maybe 70% of pure research turns out to be utter drek, maybe 20% makes some improvement, but just look at that 10%. The problem is, you can't always tell what that 10% is when you start, just like venture capital. I've read one report that part of our economic doldrums in the face of outsourcing is that venture capitalists are sitting on money until they can figure out and ONLY invest in that winning 10%. They're not doing their job, which is helping others discover what the 10% really is.

As far as "other peoples' money," some of that money is mine. There are many things the government takes MY money for, and NASA is one of the smaller ones. I'd rather see that money go to NASA than many of the things it does go to.

Re:some questions

[dcw3]

Will commercializing spaceflight be a step forward for space research? Why is it that when companies step into public domain scientific fields the results are inevitably viagra when there is still no cure for cancer, aids... etc.

If I'm not mistaken, Viagra was originally a blood pressure drug. Do you really believe that the major durg companies aren't spending millions every year on cancer, aids, etc.? Obviously, they are. It may not be for the altruistic reasons we would like them to, but they are. Loosen up that tin foil hat buddy...your comment isn't logical.

Re:some questions

[AGMW]

Identify impotence as a problem

Actually, you are doing Pfizer somewhat of a disservice here. They were actually looking into drugs to be used during heart surgery, specifically drugs to be used to lower blood pressure during same.

During some trials an interesting side effect was noticed. I expect there were some happy happy people.

FYI & FWIW For those interested, high blood pressure is often a cause of impotence (though many might incorrectly argue that a higher pressure might be useful!). Of course, stress causes high blood pressure, and not being able to get (or retain) an erection causes stress! My but men are just a big mixed up bag of emotions!

The problem is that the muscles that restrict blood flow out of the penis are overwhelmed by the excessive blood pressure, and the erection subsides, or is never present. Along comes this wonder-drug for lowering blood pressure during heart surgery, and, as a side effect, it also lowers the pressure so that those handy muscles can retain the blood in the penis and hence keep (or allow) an erection.

Re:some questions

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I have a bunch of respect for Paul Allen, even if his investments haven't been panning out since Microsoft. The FlipStart is cool; the XPrize is cool; Bailing out of Microsoft at the top and becomming so super rich that you don't have to invest in a uncool money making idea ever again in your entire life is uber cool.

I just hope that Scaled Composites pulls this off in a huge way. I hope burt gets a chance to put a nice fat rocket up NASA's ass (and the military industral complex in general). I hope that in 5 years we have civilians going orbital and that in 10 years there are more civilans with astronaught wings than NASA/military ilk (retired or otherwise).

Scaled Composites has been getting snubbed by the status quo so long... So many good ideas, such innovative engineering and skillful execution. it's about time he kicked them squarely in the nuts. In a country where the general aviation industry is at least 30 years behind the times (you have to build your own "experimental" aircraft if you want anything approaching state-of-the-art performance), Scaled composites represents one of the few outlets where innovative ideas actually make it into the air. Some people may call them "boutique", but it's probably better to think of SC as a "purpose engeineered" shop. You want something cutting edge done, you want to get into the record books, you want to build something that hasn't been done before? SC is the place to go. Name one fscking University that even approaches SC in their nitch. There isn't one. I see the XPrize as fixing a shitload of problems created by the cold war and monolithic multi-national space agency left over after the wall came down. You would have to be completely ignorant to realize the opportunity the XPrize is CREATING.

BTW, did anyone notice the garmin and commerical moving map diplays that SS1 is using for "navigation"? Doesn't that worry anyone? How useful is GPS once civilians start going orbital? You think NASA is just going to open source their naviation and flight control software? There's plenty of room in the aviation community for us computer geeks; we're one in the same with the experimental aviation community (I like to think of them as shop class geeks with rocket scientist asperations).

Re:some questions

[freqres]

I think this has great potential with the overweight 'epidemic' happening in the developed world as well. Instead of counting calories, Atkins, Hershey's Syrup & mashed potato diet, etc., we can ship the fat people to the moon or other low gravity settlement and they can live like Baron Harkonnen from Dune.

Re:some questions

[Teancum]

This is utter BS.

NASA was started to consolidate flight research centers. They were scattered in several agencies, although the NCA, widely considered the predecessor to NASA, did operate many of them. With the importation of V-2 rockets from Germany (with a little help from the U.S. Amry going in and taking the rockets by force) rocket research really started to get into high gear. This is where the term "rocket scientist" really came into its own, because before that a rocket scientist was a crazy lunatic like Goddard or Oberth who loved to blow things up.

Both the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Army got into a competition (not with Russia, but with each other) trying to see who could develop these rockets first and claim supremacy on their use. This was no different than what these two military branches did with aircraft just a mere 20 years earlier, including several officers who were involved with the early testing of military aircraft. Both the Navy and the Army Air Corp (later reorganized as the U.S. Air Force) launched thousands of rockets, learning quite a bit regarding how to build them, how to handle them, and what they really could be used for (in addition to putting a nuke on the top of them... that was obvious even to Hitler during WWII).

Later on, particularly after Sputnik achieved orbit, the Eisenhower Administration looked around and saw three competing space programs in the U.S. government. That was the Army, Navy, and a very anemic NCA which was a civilian program. What happened was a transfer of many of the people involved with the Army and Navy programs to the NCA, which was then renamed to become NASA. The parallels with what happened after 9/11 to form the TSA and the Dept. of Homeland Security can compared to how NASA was formed, and this is almost typical knee jerk reaction by Congress.

Because most of the working rocketry projects were already military, NASA took on a military flavor. And of course since many NASA personnel still had connections to the military, those people involved still tried to push goals that would benefit their respective armed services for weapons research. It paid off with the missile programs that are still maintained by the Air Force and Navy, which I guess was your "thinly veiled military control of the program".

NASA was concieved as a civilian-run agency from the beginning because it was obvious to everybody involved that spaceflight would take on aspects that were clearly non-military as well. In addition to trying to sell the program to the American people by trying to give ordinary citizens a "stake" in the program, there was an implied concept that commercial interests would also get involved. AT&T built one of the first commercial satellites (Telestar) and even paid for the whole thing out of their own pocket, including the rocket construction and the salaries of most of the ground crew (by contract through NASA) to get the thing up into space. What happened to kill the Telestar program should speak volumes for what was to come from NASA and is still an issue today.

The big push to seriously expand NASA occured during the Kennedy administration, where JFK was litterally reading some science fiction books, and got a sort of stary-eyed vision about where NASA could go. It was entirely his idea to get astronauts to the moon, and to push for NASA to become even more under civilian control. This was when the second batch of astronauts was announced, and included for the first time civilians like Neil Armstrong who did not hold military rank.

Regarding Columbia: You are doing a huge disservice to the memory of those astronauts to even repeat a wild rumor that has no basis in fact. While there are many things I can complain about regarding how NASA dealt with Columbia, it was not an intentional and deliberate action to kill astronauts. If that were the case, there would be no astronaut corp left at NASA, and they more than anybody else would know more about those issues than any tin-hat conspiracy

Re:some questions

[jdavidb]

Why is it that when companies step into public domain scientific fields the results are inevitably viagra when there is still no cure for cancer, aids... etc.

If voluntary contribution and sponsorship by private individuals and companies cannot cure cancer, then I want to put a stop to all these incessant breast cancer marathons.

Re:some questions

[jdavidb]

Space tourism itself will have little benefit to society, other than to make a few people happy.

On the contrary, space tourism is an excellent way to transfer money out of the hands of those rich enough to afford it and pump it into the economy. It's like a voluntary tax! If this industry takes off it could create many new jobs, technical jobs like we slashdotters like, here on our shores. How exactly is this a problem?

Besides, we (virtually) don't get a say in it, anyway. Frankly, people have the right to spend their money on what they want to. If they want to blow $20 mil on a few moments in space, that's their prerogative. If an insanely rich person wants to fund expeditions into space with new equipment in addition to what NASA is already doing, it's his money, and what could be wrong with that? If you saved for something you really wanted that was expensive, how would you like it if suddenly the world was trying to tell you what you were spending was a waste?

I'd rather see that money go to NASA than many of the things it does go to.

I'm sure both NASA and the SpaceShipOne project would happily accept any private donations you have to offer, if you believe in it that much.

Re:some questions

[dpilot]

They certainly do have the right to blow $2e7 for a few moments in space. I'm not saying it's wrong to do that, just that it doesn't benefit society. But you do have a good point, that it does take that $2e7 and pump it back into the economy.

We all can take a wide range of actions, and on multiple scales (legal, moral, intelligent, benefit-to-society) they can be positive, neutral, or negative. There's nothing wrong with neutral actions, and IMHO, spending $2e7 for a space trip is mostly-neutral. As you say, moving that money back into the economy is a positive. Plus, from what I've heard, most people come back from space with a much better attitude toward our world, which would be a positive. I don't know if sub-orbital flight would really do the attitude adjustment as well as orbital, or if orbital is as effective as lunar (see the whole Earth, small) orbit was.

I wasn't offering private donations, merely that there are places that my involuntary donations go that I disapprove of much more than NASA.

Re:some questions

[mdielmann]

Commercial enterprises do the tedious things that research does poorly, like finding economical ways to get stuff in space. They do this well because it affects their success indicators (profit). The X-Prize works because it requires that someone build up the technology to get to space in a truly reuseable craft for less than $10M, or have a reasonable expectation of engaging in commercial activity afterwards, both of which are desireable. Research, and bureaucracy, have different success indicators (knowledge and grants for research, favours for bureaucracy), and so don't do things that minimize expenses. Being run by people, though, they are still affected by greed, and will use known cost-saving measures if they have somewhere else they can spend the money (cheaper flight technology means more research).

So, no, commercial interests won't cure rare diseases, or explain why butterflies fart on a remote island in the Pacific (unless it directly affects someone influential within the company). And that's why this is important. Give commercial interests a reason to make money, and they will. For things that commercial interest don't generally look out for (general welfare of the people, national pride), government-funded agencies perform better.

A good example of this was Canada giving Canadian Pacific Railways (or Canadian National Railways, doesn't matter which) land adjacent to any track they built (I think 25 miles on each side). The government didn't have the wherwithal to build a railway across 3000 miles of mostly-deserted land with no prospects of anything happening there anytime soon, but you tell a company they can have land of various types (and various profit-making capabilities), and shortly you have them blasting tunnels through mountain ranges. Sure, it cost them wads of cash, but they could sell entire towns in arable land (with a profitable route to get goods to market) along the way.

Re:some questions

[jdavidb]

Plus, from what I've heard, most people come back from space with a much better attitude toward our world, which would be a positive. I don't know if sub-orbital flight would really do the attitude adjustment as well as orbital, or if orbital is as effective as lunar (see the whole Earth, small) orbit was.

So what you are saying is: we need to fix this world by sending some particular people into space. :) (Of course, you probably meant for them to return. ;)

I wasn't offering private donations, merely that there are places that my involuntary donations go that I disapprove of much more than NASA.

I know. Same here. I'd rather not pay the taxes, and if I didn't I guarantee you the money would be going to what I consider to be a better distribution of good causes, but as long as they are taking the money I'd rather it be there than many other places. But I think long-term having a commercial interest is what will finally cause space exploration to take off.

Re:some questions

[orim]

Hey speaking of NASA, what are they doing? Where's their attempt at a reusable crew vehicle?

Are they just waiting to pick the X-prize winner, and be happy with that? Or do they have a contract with Lockheed or some big contractor (last one of those I believe was cancelled).

Looking through their web site, (and admittedly I looked for 5 minutes only) I could find nothing that indicated even trying to find the shuttle replacement?

Re:some questions

[Anonymous Coward]

On the contrary, space tourism is an excellent way to transfer money out of the hands of those rich enough to afford it and pump it into the economy. It's like a voluntary tax! If this industry takes off it could create many new jobs, technical jobs like we slashdotters like, here on our shores. How exactly is this a problem?

Reagan's rotting carcass called - he wants his voodoo economics back.

Re:some questions

[blamanj]

The big push to seriously expand NASA occured during the Kennedy administration, where JFK was litterally reading some science fiction books, and got a sort of stary-eyed vision about where NASA could go.

Sorry, I don't buy it. While JFK was responsible for the big push to the moon, it was hardly a new idea. Werner von Braun was promoting a vision of the space program that included space stations and moon landings back in the 50s.

He even did a TV series (scroll to Tomorrowland) with Disney that was so realistic the Eisenhower administration gave it to the military as background info.

Re:some questions

[khallow]

Paul Allen is worth more than a small country and he is funding Scaled Composites. If SC actually wins the X-Prize, will it really be a spectacular gain for space flight?

Yes. Because now you don't have to be a government to put a person in space. Note also that Paul Allen has spent an insignificant amount of his funds on the project. It's definitely well in excess of $20 million which is an amount that can be attained by a lot more than just small countries and superrich billionaires.

NASA, on some level, is really an organization for several major and minor companies, why would it be ruled out of the prize?

NASA is publically funded. If you need public money to get into and stay in space, then it's not going to work long term. I think the X-Prize people wanted to see what private industry could do. Anyone can burn billions of public funds (Other Peoples' Money), but what will they do when it's their money and reputation on the line?

Will commercializing spaceflight be a step forward for space research? Why is it that when companies step into public domain scientific fields the results are inevitably viagra when there is still no cure for cancer, aids... etc. Public grants and public institutions (Nations and Universities) are still the bedrock for pure scientifc research. I only see economic and superficial consumerism inspired by the x-prize.

You maying be "seeing", but you aren't looking. First, why do you think curing cancer or AIDS is as easy as curing a large category of male (and female) sexual impotence? Why do you trivialize the improvement in quality of life that viagra brings?

Second, consider why we have "space research". It's nice to know something about the universe. But why do we care? Is it to prevent the 1 in 50 million year asteroid impacts? Well, that's a nice thing to prevent and we're well on our way to solving it. But the real goal here is colonization not knowledge. We want and need people to live in space.

You talk of space research. Space research doesn't get me a nonstop ticket from Los Angeles, USA to Pretoria, South Africa in eight hours or less. It doesn't build space elevators, orbital hotels or solar power plants, colonies on Mars, or lunar mass drivers. We need more than just the knowledge.

Re:some questions

[jdavidb]

Yes, because, after all, when people spend money it just disappears into the ether.

Look, how exactly do you think tech jobs get created?

Re:some questions

[Teancum]

While I would agree that Werner Von Braun was good at promoting the ida of spaceflight, it was indeed JFK who "caught the vision" and was able to get it moving. When you are President of the United States of America, there are very people who are going to say "No" to any crazy idea you come up with.

The program that Eisenhower originally established (it was his administration that started NASA) would have had the moon landings in the 1980's or 1990's, much like how Bush is currently "pushing" for in regards with "Moon, Mars, & Beyond", and that is considerably more vision than his father or his predecessor in regards to a national space program. The ISS was clearly a vision of Reagan (for good or ill). If we had a President of the USA that had the drive of JFK to move the space program further, we would be going to Mars sometime in the next 5 years.

There are other things about the Kennedy adminstration I am not too happy with, but his enthusiasm for space is not one of them. It is a case of how a single individual, in the right place, can have a significant impact on the history of all of mankind. This is also why people want to become President of the USA, because they can have this sort of impact. That in this case the technology situation was also ripe for something like to occur should also be noted.

Re:some questions

[BelugaParty]

Well, the billions "burned" by NASA provided the groundwork for these commercial ventures. The reason a company can put together a space program for 40 million is because of the work done by public instiutions that use "Other People's Money" for the last 30+ years.

It is dissapointing that most people don't understand public research (paid for with other people's money) is basically exploited by the private sector to lower their cost of investment. When a product emerges, the people who funded the initial research (the public) are charged again.

I trivialize viagra because it is absurd. It makes me think of a society that only rewards pursuits into plastic surgery. And, what annoys me, is that it's advertising budget (in excess of 200million), is not a grant to sneeze at.

I would think that the crowd of slashdot would be more interested in research for the sake of knowledge rather than something like colonization. Why are pictures from the latest deep-fields posted on here?

Well, the fundamentals for your space elevator, orbital hotels, solar power plants ... etc will be the product of research. I just see that X-prize as a way of testing the maturity of public research, to see if it's exploitable already.

Re:some questions

[susano_otter]

Newsflash: Research costs money.

Universities need money to do research. There's only four places places a university research facility can get money: Tuition, Government Subsidies, Private Donations, and Profits from Research.

The more scientific research and innovation you want for universities, the more money you need to give them. If you don't want them doing Profitable Research, then you have three choices:

1. Raise your Tuition.

2. Raise your Taxes (because that's where Government Subsidies come from).

3. Donate some of the Profit from your own line of work to the University.

Actually, all three of these choices are actually a transfer of your Profits from your own work to the University Lab, to offset the sacrifice of Profits you're asking the University to make.

Moral: If you want the Universities to sell out less, you're going to have to sell out a whole lot more. In the mean time, it's probably inappropriate to lecture them on paying the bills and generating the wealth that fuels the engine of innovation.

Re:some questions

[dcam]

On a slight tangent, I believe that the Russian Space program was classified as an Artillery program.

Re:some questions

[khallow]

Well, the billions "burned" by NASA provided the groundwork for these commercial ventures. The reason a company can put together a space program for 40 million is because of the work done by public instiutions that use "Other People's Money" for the last 30+ years.

But note also that NASA has been a big obstacle to commercial space development. From 1975 till 2000, we have done little manned space exploration. Congress eventually had to kick out NASA from launching satellites. Even now, NASA spends money on manned space flight that would be better spent on unmanned space probes. And don't forget the games NASA plays with Hubble right now!

It is dissapointing that most people don't understand public research (paid for with other people's money) is basically exploited by the private sector to lower their cost of investment. When a product emerges, the people who funded the initial research (the public) are charged again.

Is the private sector some sort of enemy because they use freely given knowledge to make money? Because they show insufficient gratitude?

I trivialize viagra because it is absurd. It makes me think of a society that only rewards pursuits into plastic surgery. And, what annoys me, is that it's advertising budget (in excess of 200million), is not a grant to sneeze at.

The US shuffles around something like 12 trillion dollars a year in created value. The global economy shuffles more than three times that much. More important, this economy grows faster than the rate of global population growth. It's pretty clear that basic and applied science played a key role in getting things where they are now, but that they get only a small piece of that huge pie.

I guess many scientists are bitter about their station in the current economy. What I don't quite understand is the sense of entitlement I often hear. Because I am a scientist I should get more budget, respect, whatever. Here's my problems with that attitude: a) the research isn't that good particularly in the large projects, b) efforts to make science (eg, "popular science" books) comprehensible to an outsider are often derided and undermined, c) there is overproduction of researchers (ie, people with PhD's), d) most scientists are overly specialized, and e) there's a tremendous resistance to making science useful.

I would think that the crowd of slashdot would be more interested in research for the sake of knowledge rather than something like colonization. Why are pictures from the latest deep-fields posted on here?

From what I've read, slashdot readers are indeed interested in research for the sake of knowledge, but they are also interested in applying that knowledge. It makes no sense to discover a cure for cancer and then do nothing. Nor does it make sense to perform fifty years of research on animals and human beings in space and then ignore that. What Scale Composites and other projects show is that there's a deep interest in exploiting that knowledge and going somewhere with it.

While not directly relevant to this argument, I should point that humans have developed new knowledge and technology whenever they live in a new environment. Because people needed to sail on the open ocean, they developed navigation which requires substantial investment of research into measurement devices and which spurred much of modern science today.

Space is a new and challenging environment. I wonder what sort of research will be conducted in a place where you need to know zero G dynamics in order to survive. Or where everyone needs to understand the biological and engineering systems they'll use.

On Earth, living is easy. You don't need to know any science to live or work. In space, it won't be acceptable for someone to damage the colony because they don't bother to understand how to move heavy massive things around in zero G, or how to properly maintain the life support system. The scientific ignorance that is tolerated and even encouraged on Earth will be dis

Re:some questions

[Anonymous Coward]

Part of why NASA's long range probes have been so successful (and cost effective) in recent years has been the use of COTS (Commercial Off The Shelf) parts.

I'm sorry but you really have to back this up! I have some experience with high reliability applications and implimenting most COTS systems and components ends up increasing development time and costs, if it is possible at all. And be careful what you call COTS just because it is produced by a company doesn't make it COTS. True COTS would be putting an unmodified Athlon in an ECLSS or avionics system.

Space age

[ottffssent]

Best of luck to all involved, Scaled Composites and others. I would love to see the Information Age give way to the Space Age and humanity crawl from the cradle of Earth.

Re:Space age

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd first like to see the cradle working properly...

Re:Space age

[October_30th]

I'd first like to see the cradle working properly...

So why are you sitting in front of your computer when you could be helping in Sudan, for instance?

Developing means for reliable access to space and fixing problems on Earth are not mutually exclusive goals.

Re:Space age

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sending shed-loads of money to Sudan.

But I guess you feel better for having "made a difference" yourself by telling me off, right?

dont-run-away.-Stay-on-earth

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets hope the Spaceship-one will fly again after it won the prize.

Whatever you say. Gimp RulZ anyway

Re:dont-run-away.-Stay-on-earth

[cr@ckwhore]

This is very a very smart comment!

I agree... it would indeed be sad to see Spaceship-One go into a hanger and never come out again, except for a trip to the smithsonian 30 years later.

Of course, I really want to see a successful X-prize flight, followed by a series of private companies getting in line to order their own spacecraft from Scaled Composites.

NASA would make a very smart move by buying a couple of these and using them for actual routine space-flights. Of course, my intuition tells me that NASA would buy a few of these and then somehow figure a way to make a launch cost 100 million with a 2-year turn around on launch times.

Can you imagine the not-so-distant future where there will be several companies around the globe operating these craft, performing such tasks as launching microsats, ferrying world leaders around the globe in a matter of a few minutes, etc.? It's going to be amazing. If it progresses to the point where several companies are operating spacecraft, then NASA will have no purpose, other than perhaps acting as a regulatory agency like the FAA.

Re:dont-run-away.-Stay-on-earth

[Have Blue]

If spaceship launches are taking place from corporations "around the globe", NASA wouldn't be too useful as it only has jurisdiction in the US. However, I could easily see NASA becoming the US body charged with negotiating international space regulations and treaties (if it isn't already), or the UN starting up a space division.

Re:dont-run-away.-Stay-on-earth

[cr@ckwhore]

Oh, you mean the US isn't the entire world? Sorry, I didn't know.

Re:dont-run-away.-Stay-on-earth

[Teancum]

Honestly, I sincerely hope that NASA does NOT become the agency to do space treaties. As consultants to full-time diplomats, perhaps. As members of the negotiation team, yeah, I could see that.

As the principle body charged with the negotiations? I shudder at the thought. NASA is so ill equipped to do such a thing it is incredible. They also have their own interests in mind, and I can see NASA negotiating away commercial spaceflight simply because they don't see any practical reason to keep it.

Space treaties that have been written to date are so awful that I just cringe to think of what else could be come up with next. They are also meaningless for the most part, because most of the nations that sign them don't have spaceflight capabilities anyway, nor do they think there is any reason to believe that it could happen in the near future for them. Satellite communications is enough for the moment for most of those countries, and it does mainly a good PR move, particularly when they can show they support a globally popular treaty that the USA doesn't want to sign.

Impressive

[Mark_MF-WN]

The fact that there are TWO teams within striking distance of the prize is pretty impressive. These are interesting times we're living in.

Between the private space-flight, a entire space station (built internationally no less), and the possibility of a space elevator, humankind really is heading for the stars!

Re:Impressive

[EnglishTim]

I wouldn't really class Jon's team as close. Sure, they're definitely getting there, but the highest controlled flight they've done was only 131 feet high with a subscale model. Several of the other teams could have done the same thing and we'd never know about it - its just that Armadillo are very open about their progress.

Actually, that's one of the things I really admire about Armadillo Aerospace - they've kept very little to themselves - anybody with some money, patience and skill could get going quite quickly by learning from the Armadillo website.

Re:Impressive

[grozzie2]

I wouldn't really class Jon's team as close.

Nobody considers Armadillo anywhere near close. The other team that's close is Da Vinci project. They are the only other team that's actually got hardware constructed with any amount of testing (photos) done on it. Thier schedule calls for the first sub-orbital test flights in august of this year, and they are the only X-Prize team other than scaled actually planning to fly this summer. they are also the only other team that has minor details like launch permits etc all wrapped up.

Re:Impressive

[jproffer]

that rocket is a joke. I dont think he has a clue as to what he wants to do. It looks more like a publicity stunt to me with all those pretty-but-not-very-functional window panes.

Re:Impressive

[MrBlue VT]

You're joking right? The webpage hasn't been updated since 2003. Those photos don't tell you much at all, and the last one (the "Engine Flight Testing") looks like a bad photoshop. I'll bet you dollars to donuts they are nowhere even close.

On the launch permits point, they may be approved to launch from Canada, but they sure as hell won't be launching from the US. The FCC's AST office has a ton of red tape. Having a launch permit is nothing more than a marketing gimmick if they don't actually fly the damn thing.

The difficult part is the flight control software and testing the engines in real life test flights (which Armadillo has done). Just because they built a long tube with some engines on the end doesn't mean they are ready to fly.

Re:Impressive

[MrBlue VT]

The FCC's AST

Er, I mean the FAA of course. Brain is fried.

Re:Impressive

[jscharla]

There's also the Canadian Arrow that starts test flights next month. As a Canadian myself, I'm very happy that both Canadian teams are poised to actually make attempts by the end of the year. O Canada!

Re:Impressive

[Rei]

I have to concur. Armadillo is way off - reading their test diary makes this quite clear. I really have to question their design philosophy. While I'm not fond of cryogenic fuels (especially LOX/LH), peroxide as an oxidizer is no simple task. The stabilizing chemicals tend to ruin your catalysts. The way to get around this is what the Germans did - inject ample liquid catalysts into the fuel that you burn with peroxide as the oxidizer.

Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, Armadillo isn't even using a fuel - it looks to be a straight peroxide rocket, as I haven't seen them mention a fuel since May 2003. So, not only do you have a chemical that's hard to work with, you have a very low ISP, too. I'd never dream of going that route. Not that I think that Rutan's choice of fuel and oxidizer are all that incredible (why on earth NO3 as an oxidizer???), but they're better.

Also, vaned thrust deflection instead of gimballing, while it may look great on paper, just seems like a problem waiting to happen, as far as rockets go. It's no shock that they've been having big problem with that system... it's fine for jet engines, but with rocket engines, you're dealing with far more intense, far hotter exhaust in a high vibration environment. Also, vaned thrust deflection loses more energy than gimballing due to drag, which is something that they just can't afford, especially with a monopropellant rocket.

In short, I don't much care for their design.

Re:Impressive

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, Armadillo isn't even using a fuel - it looks to be a straight peroxide rocket, as I haven't seen them mention a fuel since May 2003.

No, they're using a peroxide/methanol mixture as the fuel. I think Carmack mentioned exploring ethanol instead of methanol in a post at the xprize.org message boards. And of course, recent updates also indicate that they're exploring liquid catalyst, with disappointing results to date.

I believe the issue of energy loss due to the use of vanes was also addressed (though perhaps not to your satisfaction) in the Armadillo thread at xprize.org.

Re:Impressive

[georgewilliamherbert]

General comment: Please read more before posting.

I have to concur. Armadillo is way off - reading their test diary makes this quite clear. I really have to question their design philosophy. While I'm not fond of cryogenic fuels (especially LOX/LH), peroxide as an oxidizer is no simple task. The stabilizing chemicals tend to ruin your catalysts. The way to get around this is what the Germans did - inject ample liquid catalysts into the fuel that you burn with peroxide as the oxidizer.

Armadillo was using high purity non-stabilized peroxide up until roughly a year ago. It does not need injected liquid catalysts: just using silver and platinum, or various other solid catalysts, works just fine.

Now, Armadillo is using a mixture of 50% unstabilized peroxide and methanol. It has about the same energy per unit mass/volume as 90% peroxide does, but is a fraction of the cost and handling issues of 90% plus unstabilized peroxide. Still a monopropellant, but very much simpler and cheaper.

Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, Armadillo isn't even using a fuel - it looks to be a straight peroxide rocket, as I haven't seen them mention a fuel since May 2003. So, not only do you have a chemical that's hard to work with, you have a very low ISP, too. I'd never dream of going that route.

Please read harder. Armadillo has been describing their rocket motors in detail repeatedly.

Isp is not everything. For a first stage, density impulse is much more important. And for a non orbital rocket vehicle, handling and ease of design and construction are also very important.

Amateurs talk Isp; Professionals start with density impulse and then system design tradeoffs on the overall vehicle; Experts talk development cost and timeline to get vehicles that meet the minimum requirements flying successfully.

Not that I think that Rutan's choice of fuel and oxidizer are all that incredible (why on earth NO3 as an oxidizer???), but they're better.

Not NO3. N2O; Nitrous Oxide.

Why? It's not a bad oxidizer, that's why. It has less oxygen than LOX or peroxide or nitrogen tetroxide or nitric acid, true. But like peroxide and hydrazine, it's got internal energy, so when it starts to react the dissassociation adds energy to the reactions. That evens it out. Nitrous is decent overall performance and self pressurizing, which none of the other oxidizers are.

Also, vaned thrust deflection instead of gimballing, while it may look great on paper, just seems like a problem waiting to happen, as far as rockets go. It's no shock that they've been having big problem with that system... it's fine for jet engines, but with rocket engines, you're dealing with far more intense, far hotter exhaust in a high vibration environment. Also, vaned thrust deflection loses more energy than gimballing due to drag, which is something that they just can't afford, especially with a monopropellant rocket.

Again: Specific Impulse is not everything. It's a lot simpler, safer, easier to develop a vanes system than a fully gimballing motor. Less mass is moving, no propellant lines are moving.

Real rocket innovators have been looking at jet vanes on and off continuously for the last decade. Most chose to go another direction, but they are not a bad choice for certain sets of vehicle design and development assumptions. Carmack's group called that one right: it is a good choice for their vehicle and their development program.

In short, I don't much care for their design.

Well, fine, but at the very least you could read up on the actual details and see what other people who actually know something about rocket design think about it.

I would never have developed exactly their vehicle, however, Armadillo are making incremental good choices and have a clue about both ultimate performance and doing development on

Re:Impressive

[Rei]

> ... various other solid catalysts, works fine

http://www.armadilloaerospace.com/n.x/Armadillo/ Ho me/News?news_id=265

They're still trying to figure out a liquid catalyst that will get them a better burn. If I dig, I can show you why they're doing that - they've been having trouble with solid catalysts. Every other one of their recent news articles is complaining about problems with the catalysts. You paint *way* too rosy of a picture - their articles are one problem after another, and most having to do with the propellant and catalysts.

BTW, unstabilized peroxide is very dangerous. It has nasty problems with runaway decomposition when it gets hot.

> Armadillo has been describing their rocket motors in detail ... and they keep changing. It's hard to keep up. I mean, for god's sake, they're still trying to figure out what catalyst will function reliably.

> For a first stage, density impulse is more important ... LOX, while it doesn't have as good of a density as H2O2, isn't bad at all density-wise (1141kg/m^3 vs 1410 kg/m^3). There's no way at all the density issue can justify the ISP loss of peroxide. The only argument one could really make is concern about cryogenic fuels (insulation, for example).

> N20

Hmm... then the report I read about the specs for SpaceShipOne was incorrect. No matter, N20 is just as bad.

> Why? It's not a bad oxidizer.

Yes, it is. Rutan's choice of fuel/oxidizer means that they get only 250 sec ISP. That's so bad, I don't even know where to start. That's almost as bad as the V-2 rocket(!), and is about as bad as the SCUD-A. And it doesn't make up for it in density, either. About all you can say for it is that it's easy to make decompose.

> Again, specific impulse is not everything

Have you ever tried to simulate a rocket with low ISP? I suggest you try it.

> Most chose to go another direction

With reason!!!

> Carmack's group called that one right

Which is why they've been having huge problems with their vanes recently, and why they can expect a pointlessly low ISP?

Re:Impressive

[EnglishTim]

Which is why they've been having huge problems with their vanes recently

To be honest from my reading of their work, they've had a lot less trouble with their vanes than with their multiple rocket system.

I read a post by Carmack reckoning that they were losing about 2% of their thrust to the vanes, which doesn't seem that bad, and they appear to be happy with it.

I think the biggest advantage they see with their vanes is that they are considerably more responsive than turning the rockets on and off, where you have to wait for the solenoid to move and the resulting spurt of peroxide to catalyse before you get any effect.

Re:Impressive

[Rei]

The only page I can find from armadillo discussing this is:

http://www.armadilloaerospace.com/n.x/Armadillo/ Ho me/News?news_id=256

It is Carmack saying that they only take a few percent, but he doesn't compare it to his own case (it's just a "in general" notion). I have no clue where he got his "in general" notion from, however; it goes against history.

They don't erode or bend in their situation? That's contrary to what they found out:

http://www.armadilloaerospace.com/n.x/Armadillo/ Ho me/News?news_id=259

Sure, they did run it for a bit before going to full throttle, but that's hardly an excuse. It's a disaster waiting to happen.

Vanes have been pretty much abandoned since the V2. It wasn't without reason. Vanes were thought of *first* - it was the first choice. They didn't want to go to gimballing. However, vanes were found to be inefficient and a common source of failure, and were largely abandoned.

Remember: drag on something the size of a vane will be proportional to the velocity squared. So, a jet engine which produces exhaust with Ve=400m/s may be able to take it without serious drag or risk of deforming; however, a rocket engine with Ve=, say, 3500, has serious problems.

Great, but...

[91degrees]

This just an altitude record. Not a space flight! There's only so much you can do in suborbital. If you just want to get up there to launch a satellite, then you might as well simply use a big missile, and put the effort into recovering the lower stages.

When they manage to get to 3 times that altitude, then its time to be impressed.

Re:Great, but...

[TheAdventurer]

I think that the difference between orbital and suborbital is one of speed, not altitude. I'll let some one who knows for sure back me up or prove me wrong.

Re:Great, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

By definition, it is indeed a space flight.

Of course we'll all be more impressed when people leave the galaxy too; but make up your own word for that, and don't try to belittle the impressive accomplishment of the first private space flight.

Re:Great, but...

[el-spectre]

well, technically you could orbit at 100 feet, but the speed required would make you burn up... so the trick is a combination of high enough speed, and high enough altitude that you avoid most of the atmosphere. It has a nasty habit of slowing down and heating up moving objects...

Re:Great, but...

[FleaPlus]

Even when one ignores the potential billions of dollars in the suborbital tourism market, this also opens the door for intercontinental spaceflights. Even if they don't go into orbit, it still lets people get around the globe quite fast ("one hour from New York to Tokyo") without having to worry about things like sonic booms along their path. Such intercontinental spaceflights are a nice transition to orbital flights.

Even if that's not enough to impress you, it certainly fills me with amazement.

Re:Great, but...

[foniksonik]

"If you just want to get up there to launch a satellite" which has been done to death if you ask me.... I mean how many countries and companies already do this regularly, OH WAIT!

The prize is for Manned Flight.

Speaking of which, isn't "Space Flight" an oxymoron? Flight implies flying, movement through a medium using lift mechanisms. I was under the impression that generating lift required a medium a little more dense than the vacuum of space. Anyways... I don't see your Sub-Orbital Rocket Plane or Missile on the X-Prize list of contenders.. so that makes you:

a hater, don't hate.

Re:Great, but...

[Slartibartfast]

Well, it's not speed, per-se, but the vector. Basically, you need to be going (ROUGHLY!) 25K mph at some vector that doesn't intersect with the Earth (and, preferably, avoids its atmosphere, too: see SkyLab).

Re:Great, but...

[el-spectre]

well, sure... orbital speed (anything over R17) straight down would be a bad thing...

Re:Great, but...

[khallow]

This just an altitude record. Not a space flight! There's only so much you can do in suborbital. If you just want to get up there to launch a satellite, then you might as well simply use a big missile, and put the effort into recovering the lower stages.

Suborbital is space flight once it reaches 100 km. That's the legal definition.

When they manage to get to 3 times that altitude, then its time to be impressed.

How about to orbit?

Actually, 200 km is interesting because it requires a big improvement in launch systems over those that can get to 100 km. That's why Baldrson (who submitted the Scale Composites story) created a prize for this altitude (later to be copied by the CATS prize people).

yeah, probably

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's anything like the last flight, it will be an amazing sight and the people will be great.

NASA is ruled out.

[Anonymous Coward]

NASA is ruled out because that's what it says in the rules. This is to encourage private spaceflight. The main reason for that is efficiency. NASA can't screw in a light bulb for under $1M.

Yes, Paul Allen paid a lot for this. He paid $20M. But as Rutan (I believe Dick) said at the SSOne launch, Paul Allen could have bought a flight to the ISS with that money (Tito paid $10M), but instead he bought an entire space program. So others will be able to go to space (for short periods) for a whole lot less than they would have before.

Spending $20M on this ship is a huge advance for space flight in my book. You can't get a Gulfstream jet for that, and its development cost was amortized across multiple airframes. Also, a Gulfstream doesn't go to space.

Re:NASA is ruled out.

[WindBourne]

I suspect that SC will be leaving orbit in under 5 years. There are issues to resolve, but Russians and NASA have done all the real ground work.

Re:NASA is ruled out.

[gjbivin]

Also, a Gulfstream doesn't go to space.

...yet.

Re:NASA is ruled out.

[at_kernel_99]

Manned or unmanned? I could see them having manned orbital flights in 5 years, getting humans out of orbit will take them longer. It may turn into a race between the Chinese and Scaled Composites.

Re:NASA is ruled out.

[zuzulo]

Heck, some folks would spend $20 million just so they could put a bumper sticker on thier Gulfstream to taunt the other billionaires.

How does

"My other plane is a SPACECRAFT."

sound? ;-)

I was there too...

[Anonymous Coward]

... among about 20-40 other *really* hard core people who rode motorcycles to the event. We may have been among a half dozen who rode 2-up. We're bigger dorks than you, neener neener. :-) We are not bigger dorks than the (literal) tin foil hat crews that showed up, however.

The reports I heard put the crowd at around 10,000. Have you heard differently?

I don't know if SpaceShipOne was the *fastest* thing I've ever seen in the sky (I saw something launch from a B-52 while working a race at Willow Springs, a little south of Mojave), but it sure did get and move.

Spaceship One isn't even a space ship

[Viol8]

Its an aircraft with a rocket motor attached. Real spaceships can't use wings to slow themselves down and manuouveaure because there is no air to do it in! I'm sorry if I sound churlish but this whole enterprise to me smacks more of someones ego than anything practical. When they've solved the problems of manourveuring in a vacuum , long duration human life support (an O2 cylinder doesn't really count) , proper re-entry from near orbital speeds (which are required for any useful flights other than just oooh-isn't-it-pretty quick hops) involving heat shields and all the other necessaties than the US & Russia spent BILLIONS on developing THEN I'll be impressed. But a small plane with a rocket shoved up its backside? Umm no , sorry , its not a spacecraft.

Re:Spaceship One isn't even a space ship

[Ranma21]

Mediocre Troll. Rather than trying to judge their efforts by your own (inaccurate) personal definition of a spaceship, how about you try seeing it for what it is?. I am sure there are folk here who wouldn't consider it a spaceship unless it had Federation markings... "Its an aircraft with a rocket motor attached" - You mean like the space shuttle? "Real spaceships can't use wings to slow themselves down and manuouveaure(sic) because there is no air to do it in!" - Wow, the things you learn... You don't think it's too much of a stretch to add attitude jets to SpaceshipOne? "...whole enterprise to me smacks more of someones ego than anything practical" - So you really, really cannot comprehend this as a stepping stone to greater things?. You actually think the only acceptible first demo would have been a fully-staffed ship doing a few orbits then a nice firey re-entry? 100km is the acknowledged and regulated boundary of space, ok?. If you accept that "ship" is in any case a funny thing to call a flying machine, well I am sure you will have no trouble seeing that it is a spaceship. To be honest, no-one will care if you call it a space-ship, -craft, -plane or whatever, but it has travelled into space. Live with it. You never even heard of the X-prize until last week, did you?.

Re:Spaceship One isn't even a space ship

[91degrees]

proper re-entry from near orbital speeds (which are required for any useful flights other than just oooh-isn't-it-pretty quick hops)

This is probably the main engineering problem. Manoeuvering and life support have some engineering issues, but essentially, it's thrusters and CO2 scrubbers. Not exactly rocket science. Well, it is, but you get the idea...

Heat shields on the other hand do a very tough job. The protective tiles on the Space Shuttle, for example, are expensive, and very fragile. Ablative heatshields are a possibility, but they do add to the per flight cost.

Re:Spaceship One isn't even a space ship

[emorphien]

Man, you're head is shoved so far up you must not even need a heater in the winter.

It has maneuvering thrusters, it has an O2 cannister because they have to carry their oxygen somehow. The cabin is pressurized however. If it were a bigger ship on a longer mission, of course it would be different. And finally, reentry. We've been re-entering the earth at breakneck speeds because it's the simplest physically (although not technically). Who's to say it's right? If someone can design a ship that can slow down enough on re-entry to not need any consumable tiles or heat shields, I say bravo to them. It looks like these guys are on to something.

It's a spacecraft, it's a bigger accomplishment than you'll ever achieve, and even with its problems, for the small cost they put in to it, the first flight in to space was an incredible success.

Re:Spaceship One isn't even a space ship

[0123456]

"Heat shields on the other hand do a very tough job."

Not really. The Chinese reportedly used thick sheets of (admittedly chemically treated) oak on some of their early unmanned launches.

"The protective tiles on the Space Shuttle, for example, are expensive, and very fragile."

I think it's a safe bet that Rutan won't be using such tiles on SpaceShipTwo.

"Ablative heatshields are a possibility, but they do add to the per flight cost."

A properly designed ablative heatshield is much easier to remove and replace than shuttle tiles are to maintain. You just unbolt the old one, slap on the new one and you're ready to go... with tiles you have to check they're all in place, check they're all secure, and make sure there are no bumps larger than about a millimeter over the entire underside. That's a huge job, and one of the reasons why the shuttle takes so long to turn around.

(Note: ablative shields weren't really an option for the shuttle as designed, but there were a lot of other designs proposed before this one was picked).

Re:Spaceship One isn't even a space ship

[Viol8]

"It's a spacecraft"

Is it? Well in that case they won't need to modify it at all to into orbit will they? Whats that? It can't do it? But you just said its a proper spacecraft. So its a spacecraft that can't stay in space. Make your mind up.

Re:Spaceship One isn't even a space ship

[emorphien]

Do you actually have a point or would you just like to argue semantics? It made it to space, it survived re-entry. For what, $20 million as the total cost of their research? Maybe for another $10 million they would have been able to provide something that could stay in space, but that wasn't their goal (and even then it would still be cheap).

What is your definition of a spacecraft? Would not being able to enter and exit space be the main requirement? By all acounts, staying in space is among the easier of the tasks that faces the shuttle. That can be seen even by the disasters we've [unfortunately] experienced, they've been destroyed going up or coming back, not in orbit.

Re:Spaceship One isn't even a space ship

[AGMW]

We can build rockets and we can build aircraft. Getting rockets into space is expensive, and what we really need is to build 'spaceships' in orbit, and travel to them in some sort of 'shuttle'. Now a 'shuttle' is going to be, give or take, an aircraft with a rocket motor attached..

This is why it is useful.

Re:Spaceship One isn't even a space ship

[AGMW]

Would you agree that the capsule on the top of a Saturn V is a 'space craft'? 'cos it sure as hell couldn't make it into space without a whole bunch of help from the rest of the Saturn V.

Re:Spaceship One isn't even a space ship

[emorphien]

Or perhaps the proposed space elevator would be a more economical means once built.

Re:Spaceship One isn't even a space ship

[91degrees]

It made it to space, it survived re-entry.

Oh, come on! The reason it survived re-entry is because it wasn't fast enough to cause any problems. Sure, it made it into space, but that really is semantics. Space doesn't suddenly start at 100km. Most people would consider it to be in space if it got there and stayed there in orbit. This is a velocity thing more than an altitude thing. If it got to 40000km/h then it would be a spacecraft.

Maybe for another $10 million they would have been able to provide something that could stay in space, but that wasn't their goal (and even then it would still be cheap).

It would be very cheap. But getting it to stay there is difficult. Getting it back again is also pretty tough.

What is your definition of a spacecraft?

Don't know about the grandparent, but I'd say it's a vessel that goes up and stays in orbit indefinitely (or at least for a couple of orbits), and if it's "manned", I'll add that it should be able to return the occupants safely.

Re:Spaceship One isn't even a space ship

[Teancum]

Look, you need to start somewhere. The Wright brothers didn't claim trans-atlantic flight, that was Charles Lindburgh, and that was to claim the Ortig prize.

The whole point of the X-prize competition is to encourage the development of rocket vehicles that would be capable of spaceflight, and you have to start somewhere. The X-prize tried to set a goal high enough that it would be difficult to obtain (many thought it was impossible for people to do this on their own dime) but yet easy enough that private individuals could actually get something going. The X-prize has done that with flying colors.

I would agree that the next reasonable goal that should be set is a 4-10 orbit minimum spaceflight that has all of the other characteristics of the X-prize as well, including pilot, two passengers, and minimal turn-around preparation (NASA hasn't figured this one out yet). Would this be enough for you? I doubt it. You would then say that real astronauts can only be those that travel to other planets/star systems/galaxies (always setting the bar higher because what has happened is not good enough).

I'm not totally sure about the X-Prize races they want to make, which seems to be the goal for the next round of X-Prize vehicles. There is something behind what the X-Prize Foundation is trying here, but they are trying to make a NASCAR type competition but for passenger spaceflight. Awards for setting records (highest flight, farthest flight, most number of passengers, most effecient). I would be more inclined to try not to fix the system, but rather set lofty goals and let people's imagination run wild. Turning it into a NASCAR competition is just going to make a bunch of fake rockets that give the appearance of passenger spaceflight, but really don't do anything. (Like the NASCAR vehicles that have painted decals for headlights.) While I would be willing to donate to the "Ansari X-Prize" competition if goals were set like orbital or lunar spaceflight, I don't know if I can stomache this current plan they are seemingly going for. That is a legitimate realm of criticism.

Re:Spaceship One isn't even a space ship

[emorphien]

So there's a lot of things that need to be done for people to consider it as a spacecraft. Does that make it a lesser accomplishment?

As far as re-entry, there's nothing to prevent future shuttle type craft from taking an example from this and taking the time to slow down so it doesn't fall apart during re-entry. Thats one of the things that has some people excited. It hasn't really been done before, and they've shown that if you re-enter slow enough there's no problems with overheating. Some people are saying this is how a future shuttle might be designed, it would allow itself to slow enough for re-entry such that it wouldn't require expensive ceramic tiles.

Space doesn't start at 100km, but this is a lot closer than any small, and inexpensive venture such as this, has been. You can just as easily argue semantics against this being a spacecraft as you can for it.

Re:Spaceship One isn't even a space ship

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, "Space doesn't start at 100km," should have been "Being a space craft doesn't necessarily start at 100km"

at least thats what I had in my head

Re:Spaceship One isn't even a space ship

[AGMW]

Yes indeed, hence (presumably) the latest Prize being offered for something like a 250kg climber climbing a 16km tether, or something like that!

As mentioned in a previous Slashdot article about Blaise Gassend's Notes from the Third Annual Space Elevator Conference.

Re:Spaceship One isn't even a space ship

[Viol8]

"The whole point of the X-prize competition is to encourage the development of rocket vehicles that would be capable of spaceflight, "

Indeed , and because of that its a very laudable endeavour. My point is simply that Spaceship One is not (yet) a spaceship. One day it or its descendents probably will be but its just premature to call it one now. The mans achievement is impressive but I do get the feeling that he's claiming he's running before he's really even walked. Though as usual on slashdot if you're not 100% for something then you must be 100% against in the kind of adolescent logic that prevails on here and hence it gets modded as a troll by some 14 year old half wit moderator.

Re:Spaceship One isn't even a space ship

[91degrees]

The problem is that it's an arbitrary height. Of course it can be done. You just need a good enough rocket and a light enough plane. Why 100km though? Only because it's a round number. 80km or 130km would be every bit as logical as the boundary to space. The rules would have it that anything that gets to 99999 metres is a plane, but anything that gets to 100001 metres is a spaceship. Are those 2 metres really important? Only according to the rules.

Charles Lindbergh is famous. That's because he achieved something. Do you know who was the first person to make a flight of 100 miles, or 1000 miles? He's probably not in the record books. Lindbergh wouldn't have been if he flew from New York to Anchorage. The Atlantic was a natural barrier.

Re:Spaceship One isn't even a space ship

[Daniel Dvorkin]

The first manned Mercury flight was a suborbital hop, too; eight years later we put men on the Moon.

Re:Spaceship One isn't even a space ship

[91degrees]

Not really. The Chinese reportedly used thick sheets of (admittedly chemically treated) oak on some of their early unmanned launches.

I didn't believe you at first. But I looked, and was surprised to find they did. (Personally, I would have thought Halloumi cheese, which seems to be totally impervious heat, but perhaps they can't get hold of it in China).

I think it's a safe bet that Rutan won't be using such tiles on SpaceShipTwo.... A properly designed ablative heatshield is much easier to remove and replace than shuttle tiles are to maintain. You just unbolt the old one, slap on the new one and you're ready to go... with tiles you have to check they're all in place, check they're all secure, and make sure there are no bumps larger than about a millimeter over the entire underside. That's a huge job, and one of the reasons why the shuttle takes so long to turn around.

I suspect nobody will never use those tiles again. In hindsight, they were probably a mistake. They were also one of the many reasons the Shuttle was so late. They were still sticking them on after it was delivered. The problem, apparently, was that they break as soon as you look at them.

Presumably they could avoid any shielding at all if they could slow down enough before re-entry, and just hover down on a rocket.

Re:Spaceship One isn't even a space ship

[red floyd]

An even better counterargument would be the Mercury capsule. Remember, Shepard and Grissom were suborbital.

Re:Spaceship One isn't even a space ship

[Anonymous Coward]

Though as usual on slashdot if you're not 100% for something then you must be 100% against in the kind of adolescent logic that prevails on here and hence it gets modded as a troll by some 14 year old half wit moderator.
So sorry - I modded you as a troll because your post was trollish. You were looking to pick a fight. How about these sentences:
But a small plane with a rocket shoved up its backside? Umm no , sorry , its not a spacecraft.

Stop posting like a troll and you'll stop getting modded as a troll.

Re:Spaceship One isn't even a space ship

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately that requires at least as much fuel coming back down as it took to go up. (Assuming you're completely empty when you get up there, and you can refill.)

Re:Spaceship One isn't even a space ship

[91degrees]

Yes; it would need a much better rocket then we have now. I'm sure someone will come up with a better way of slowing spacecraft down.

This is why I'm so cynical about the X-Prize. Sure, it encourages some innovation, but getting to and from orbital speeds seems like the real engineering challenge.

Re:Spaceship One isn't even a space ship

[Teancum]

My point on moderation. I prefer to comment when I disagree, so that I can vent my ideas, even when I have moderation points. I usually let them burn.

I usually agree with a few points, and I'm glad that we both agree here that the X-Prize is a laudable endeavor. I just hope the X-Prize Foundation spells out clearly where their next goal is going to be, and I hope it is LEO at least.

Re:Spaceship One isn't even a space ship

[Teancum]

While I would admit that the mark of 100 km is arbitrary, I would like to offer this more scientific definition of the "boundary" of space:

When changes in "atmospheric content and pressure" have a much larger influence due to conditions on the Sun rather than with weather conditions on the Earth, you are no longer within the atmosphere of the Earth.

This definition can also be applied equally to Mars, Venus, Jupiter, or any other body that maintains its own atmosphere. By this definition, this occurs on the surface when you are talking about the Moon. (And IMHO a good way to define planet, but that is another story).

With regards to the Earth, this happens at about 100 km, so there is some strong reasoning for this altitude. Does the 1 meter differance mean anything? Does the fact that you are 20 one day and 21 the next mean anything when you buy a beer?

Sometimes you have to establish arbitrary limits, but it helps if they are grounded on something that is even approximately close to "reality" based on what is going on.

BTW, Space Ship One is going to try for 110 km anyway, just to make sure they are clearly above the arbitrary altitude.

In regards to people that flew the first flight of 100 miles or 1000 miles, you had better believe that it was a big deal when it happened. That happened so quickly after the first flight though that is didn't make so much of a big impact among the general public. Back in the 1920's records like this were being broken all of the time, and it was a big deal with the popular news media at the time (read the newspapers at your local library if you don't believe me)

Re:Spaceship One isn't even a space ship

[Viol8]

"You were looking to pick a fight."

Thats your interpretation. It happened to be something known as an "opinion"

"Stop posting like a troll and you'll stop getting modded as a troll"

And how about you stop being such a jerk? Now THATS picking a fight.

One problem

[flyhmstr]

As a wise man once wrote, the soul will still be travelling at the speed of an Arcturan megadonkey.

An intriguing way to protect during descent.

[MtViewGuy]

Actually, there is a very interesting way to cool the spaceship during its descent from orbit: use the rocket fuel itself.

Why not? Cryrogenic fuels are extremely cold, and it is theoretically possible to route these cryrogenic fuels to actually cool down the spacecraft's structure during atmospheric re-entry if there is a safe way to vent the heated fuel. When Douglas Aircraft did its studies for the ROMBUS launch system in the early 1960's they actually figured out a way to use liquid hydrogen to provide heat protection during the descent. I'm sure that Burt Rutan knows about this idea and might use something like liquid methane as a rocket fuel for the ascent and as a coolant to protect the structure on Scaled Composites' Tier Two/SpaceShipTwo project.

Re:An intriguing way to protect during descent.

[red floyd]

The F-1 and J-1 engines on the Saturn used this technique to cool the exhaust bell and keep it from melting.

Re:An intriguing way to protect during descent.

[0123456]

Yeah, most of the plug-nozzle designs used excess rocket fuel to cool the plug: I think the DC-X was one of the few that intended to enter nose-first with a conventional heat shield.

Soundtrack

[Anonymous Coward]

When they launch they should play Flash Gordon by Queen.

Control Limiting is a Serious Problem

[Goldenhawk]

A few months ago, I took a class on Pilot-Induced Oscillations (PIOs). As an aerospace engineer who works on military high performance aircraft, I know how bad PIOs can be, and just how deadly a problem they can be. This looks like a classic PIO, triggered by a control problem.

To summarize the two-day class into one paragraph, a PIO is an oscillation that is generally sustained by pilot inputs, is usually triggered by some external event, and has at least two common causes: rate-limited control actuators, or so-called "phase lags" (lag between input and output).

Relevant to this case, then, is the roll actuator (the hydraulic device responsible for moving the roll control surfaces). It sounds from the non-technical answer in the article "the actuator delayed moving one of the ship's flaps" like a rate-limited actuator. The pilot demanded a larger input faster than the system was able to provide, so the control surface hit its stop.

What ends up happening, in such a case, is that the pilot doesn't get the overall response he expects, so he puts in MORE input. But then it turns out to be too much, so he puts in a response the other way - but it takes a while to start reacting, so he puts in MORE input... etc. etc. etc..

Also, the "external event" in this case was probably a wind shear. You can have a PIO-prone system and it will fly just fine - right up until you hit that trigger event which is just large enough to throw you into a PIO - and then you're basically hosed. Nothing you can physically do will stop the PIO - OTHER than just releasing the controls and letting everything stop naturally - because it's the inputs that drive the oscillation. And you can bet that's quite frightening for a control-freak pilot who's afraid he's about to lose control. Takes a LOT of training in how to recognize it for what it is; stopping it is easy (if you have time or altitude) - just let go.

To fix a control system that has PIO problems, you can (a) increase the authority of the control device, (b) increase the response speed of the device, or (c) decrease the phase lag so it responds more quickly. None of those fixes are trivial, unless they're caused by a broken component.

I'm quite sure Rutan, of all people, is intimately familiar with this issue, and I have no doubt that he and his team will address it appropriately.

Re:Control Limiting is a Serious Problem

[Long-EZ]

This looks like a classic PIO....

Knowing a bit about Mike Melvill's attitude, capabilities, skills as a test pilot, and previous flight test responses to unpredicted situations, I think you're barking up the wrong tree with this theory.

...the "external event" in this case was probably a wind shear.

The wind shear induced a 90 degree roll to the left, followed by a 90 degree roll to the right. That doesn't sound at all like a pattern of pilot induced oscillation, characterized by overcontrol with divergent flight characteristics. Rather, it sounds like a very well damped response to an external stimulus. In other words, the test pilot made exactly the right control inputs to perfectly correct the situation.

The pilot demanded a larger input faster than the system was able to provide, so the control surface hit its stop.

The wind shear occurred at the start of the rocket boost phase, when SS1 was in relatively denser atmosphere. The control hard stop occurred near the end of the boost phase, long after the wind shear. There is no way that the pilot was overcorrecting for wind shear and forced the controls to the hard stop. The wind shear happened long before the actuator went to the hard stop. SS1 had fully recovered from the wind shear and had flown a good trajectory throughout the middle portion of the boost phase. Only then did the problem occur with the hard stop.

Re:Control Limiting is a Serious Problem

[jhines]

Feedback to the pilot. I seems to me there needs to be some feedback to the pilot, that he has hit the limit, and no more is available.

Add a little vibratation to the stick, when ever the rate limitation is reached, as if the plane where saying "I hear you, but their ain't no more". Something like that.

Re:Control Limiting is a Serious Problem

[Dun Malg]

Nothing you can physically do will stop the PIO - OTHER than just releasing the controls and letting everything stop naturally - because it's the inputs that drive the oscillation. And you can bet that's quite frightening for a control-freak pilot who's afraid he's about to lose control. Takes a LOT of training in how to recognize it for what it is; stopping it is easy (if you have time or altitude) - just let go.

I remember an Air Force F-15 pilot telling my father a couple stories about training fighter pilots in some Islamic Persian Gulf state (dunno - I was only 8 years old then). He said the students had an alarming habit of reacting to control difficulties during training flights by letting go of the stick, throwing their arms in the air and shouting "Allahu Akbar". This reaction worked when the trouble was PIO, but he frequently had to take control because the students would simply let go and trust Allah to fly the plane out of trouble for them! One time, shortly before returning to the US, the training aircraft suffered some sort of serious failure and the student pilot shouted "Allahu Akbar" repeatedly as the plane spun out of control. He (the instructor) yelled at him to eject, but he just kept saying "Allahu Akbar". So the instructor ejected and landed without serious injury, while the student rode the plane all the way into the ground.

They will have to fly twice to win the X-Prize.

[Thag]

To win the X-Prize, you have to do two flights within a 14 day period.

It's an important detail, because it means the vehicles have to be reusable with minimal refitting.

The Space Shuttle could never win the X-Prize, even if it were flying and qualified for the contest, because its turnaround time is too long.

Jon Acheson

175 days left to win prize

[peter303]

The X Prize Web Site says its "fully funded until Jan 1, 2005", or 175 days from now. I presume some of the prize money or insurance behind it has time limits. That may be a reason why we are seeing a fair amount of activity in late 2004.

Re:175 days left to win prize

[Teancum]

The X-Prize Foundation originally tried to raise all fo the funding to make the prize essentially open-ended. They got to about $5 million before they hit close to a brick wall in raising much more money other than nickle and dimes that the occasional space enthuisist was sending forward. That was when they "bought" an insurance police to get the rest of the money, on the condition that it had to be won by the end of 2004.

This is why there is a time limit. It wasn't there originally, but once there were several teams making some serious progress toward the goal, they decided to make the prize fully-funded if it were to be won. It also put a little bit of time pressure on some of the teams, who had earlier been trying to refine their vehicles rather than really pushing for the deadline.

Knew it

[Chanc_Gorkon]

I knew Rutan could do it. I hope they do! Unfortunately, they'd have to develop a completely new craft to truely make it possible for regular everyday Joes and Companies to send people and their own satellites into space with out the need of NASA or the space shuttle.

Re:Knew it

[Anonymous Coward]

I knew Rutan could do it. I hope they do! Unfortunately, they'd have to develop a completely new craft to truely make it possible for regular everyday Joes and Companies to send people and their own satellites into space with out the need of NASA or the space shuttle.

That is not the main purpose of their craft or any future crafts. It's for people, not objects. And there are plenty of other organizations that send up satellites other than NASA. Even many USA satelittes are send up by Russian or Europeans rockets.

Re:Knew it

[Chanc_Gorkon]

Yes but every one of those that you stated are run by governments. Private and public companies should be abel to launch with thier own vehicles without needing more then a government approval of the flight plan and the resources to do it..

re-entry not solved

[Somegeek]

You guys aren't getting it. They have not solved re-entry, they have yet to have to deal with it. Orbiting spacecraft (i.e., shuttle) have orbital speed to bleed off (~mach 30) and that is what causes the massive heat, ~3000F for the shuttle.

SpaceShipOne has ZERO orbital velocity to bleed off, just their falling speed, (~mach 3?), and heat to deal with. They just go UP and DOWN, not into a big fast circle around the planet - get it? Not to minimize their incredible accomplishments at all.

Re:re-entry not solved

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not getting it either. If we can find a way to slow down the shuttle there won't be the issue of scorching heat. It's doable, just closed minded nimrods like yourself just don't want to give credit where credit's due.

Re:re-entry not solved

[shawnce]

Wow... you do realize that the "scorching heat" is cause by hitting the atmosphere which they are purposely using to slow down the shuttle, you need to bleed off the orbiting velocity. You the atmosphere is an efficient way of doing that and one that allow bleeding off of orbital velocity without exceeding acceleration limits of the space craft or the humans in it.

Now one could cary more fuel or generate such fuel on orbit (various method and theories for that) and use propulsion to counter act orbital velocity so the craft could descend out of orbit. Of course to do that enough propulsion needs to be used to negate the orbital velocity, if you want to keep "scorching heat" away, before the space craft is pulled into the atmosphere by gravity. The deceleration required to this is an issue and one that cannot be managed like one can do with heat using heat shielding, etc.

Humans and space craft can only handle so much acceleration before they are damaged.

Anyway Mr. AC what is your idea? And why do you think folks don't think about this stuff?

A little too bold?

[blahlemon]

Maybe it's just me but I think they are being a little fool hearty. The next time they run will be for the money? Last time I checked they had a pretty good lead on the other teams. And their primary full scale run didn't go perfectly, good but not perfect. Why run the risk of killing 3 people when you've got such a lead? Why not run a couple more tests to the target altitude with the craft to be sure it's not going to fail? One test just seems reckless to me, especially considering what happened.

Re:A little too bold?

[Anonymous Coward]

You should read the article. It clearly states that they are NOT going to add extra people for the flight, just extra weight:

For the prize attempts, ships can carry a pilot and weight equivalent to the two passengers. [...]

"Whether we fly passengers on the second flight we'll decide later, but there's no way we'll do that on the first flight," he said.

So, no they're not being too bold. They're proceeding as planned with the next step in the testing -- adding full weight and testing the longer burn necessary to still reach space with the increased load.

Please learn how to make links.

[Anonymous Coward]

Please learn how to make links.

<a href="http://www.smurf.com/">smurfs</a>

yields: Oh, holy shit, no, no, don't learn how to make links. In fact, don't post here any more.