Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
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.
Lets hope the Spaceship-one will fly again after it won the prize.
Whatever you say. Gimp RulZ anyway
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
"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.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
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?.
I certainly wouldn't mind being ballast on ther X-Prize flights...
Don't whistle while you're pissing.
>viagra vs cancer drugs...
... benefit
When you discover you've got cancer, which are you going to want to buy?
>Space Tourism
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.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
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.
I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
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.
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.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
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.