Canadian Team To Launch X-Prize Attempt Oct. 2

FreeHeel writes "A second team of rocketeers competing for the $10 million Ansari X Prize, a contest for privately funded suborbital space flight, has officially announced the first launch date for its manned rocket. The da Vinci Project, led by Brian Feeney of Toronto, Ontario, said Thursday the group plans to loft its Wild Fire Mark VI spacecraft on Oct. 2, just days after the planned launch of another X Prize contender, the U.S-based SpaceShipOne. The balloon-launched Wild Fire event will be followed by a second launch within two weeks to snag the X Prize purse, according to the plan."

Comments

Days after huh?

[cephyn]

Is the SpaceShipOne team planning for a rapid turnaround (48hr? 72hr?) to try and grab the XPrize before DaVinci has a chance?

Re:Days after huh?

[jfoust]

Is the SpaceShipOne team planning for a rapid turnaround (48hr? 72hr?) to try and grab the XPrize before DaVinci has a chance?

Burt Rutan has suggested that the second SS1 flight could be as early as October 4. (Note the historical significance of the date.) If so, then the only way da Vinci could win is if they have a very tight turnaround time: no more than about 48 hours. Given the October 2 Wild Fire flight will be its very first, that short of a turnaround time may be infeasible.

Re:Days after huh?

[cephyn]

Hmm. that doesnt sound very promising for DaVinci at all. 8/

Re:Days after huh?

[ResidntGeek]

Note the historical significance of the date.

Very significant:
1993 - Doom press-release version is made available to journalists for review.

Re:Days after huh?

[semifamous]

For people who *don't* know the historical significance and have to look it up, click here.

Re:Days after huh?

[Carnildo]

Burt Rutan has suggested that the second SS1 flight could be as early as October 4. (Note the historical significance of the date.)

Which significant event are you referring to?

* 1992 - An El Al Boeing 747-200F crashes into 2 apartment buildings in Amsterdam, killing 120 including 43 on the ground.

* 2001 - A Sibir Airlines Tupolev TU-154 crashes into the Black Sea after being struck by an errant Ukrainian missile. 78 people are killed.

(From Wikipedia)

Re:Days after huh?

[osu-neko]

A lot of interesting things have happened on October 4. Among other things, it's the birthday of the modern (Gregorian) calendar! I assume, though, you're refering to the 1957 one...

Re:Days after huh?

[Carnildo]

The 1992 one is a lot less auspicious.

Re:Days after huh?

[Rei]

You know, you could launch the space shuttle again after a rather small turnaround, too. It would just be more likely to.. well, blow up/break up/kill the crew/etc. The goal should not be just low turnaround time and turnaround cost, but *safe* low turnaround time and cost.

Rutan has clearly decided to try and push the envelope to win the prize, like he did by doing his last test flight in high-wind conditions. Lets just hope that he doesn't kill someone in the process.

Re:Days after huh?

[Capt'n Hector]

Only on slashdot: Score: 4, Funny...

Re:Days after huh?

[Bitsy Boffin]

Rutan has clearly decided to try and push the envelope to win the prize, like he did by doing his last test flight in high-wind conditions. Lets just hope that he doesn't kill someone in the process.


At the end of the day, it's the pilots (both of White Knight and SS1) who make the final go/no-go call, if after everything the pilot's feel it's unsafe then they don't go. No different than any other flight operation.

Re:Days after huh?

[mirror_dude]

October 4th, 1957 , Russia launches Sputnick 1 , the first man made earth orbiting satellite .

Re:Days after huh?

[stienman]

At the end of the day, it's the pilots (both of White Knight and SS1) who make the final go/no-go call, if after everything the pilot's feel it's unsafe then they don't go.

Of course Rutan keeps a few extra pilots around just in case the first one chooses not to go.

-Adam

Yeah! Go Canada!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm Canadian....the only thing that seems to rocket upwards here are taxes, so this is good news.

PS. First Post? Perhaps not.

Man, if they win

[Anonymous Crowhead]

They're going to be pretty unhappy when they get the check and it's 10 million Canadian.

Re:Man, if they win

[Carnildo]

The Canadian team would probably be fine with that. It's Scaled Composites that would be unhappy.

Re:Man, if they win

[rawstewage]

Dude, if is is 10 Million dollars canadian it will be in the form of a cheque

Re:Man, if they win

[Anonymous Coward]

Checked the rates lately? Dubya's driving your fucking country into the ground. The Canadian dollar is still gaining ground on the greenback.

It wasn't that long ago when the Canadian dollar was more than the US. If Dubya keeps running things it will be that way again.

Fucking Americans.

Re:Man, if they win

[Anonymous Coward]

It was many years ago when Amerikan M$ spelll chekers first entered Kanata. A document I rowed specifying details of a municipal tax cheque writing system replaced every okerence of "cheque" with "cheeses". Now I spell chek with a produck form a Province in the east in my new job.

Re:Man, if they win

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, go make a post an a good canadian site if you hate yanks so much

Re:Man, if they win

[VoidWraith]

Its not the majority of Americans who voted Bush in. He lost the popular vote. Now stop making broad generalizations. Leads to "ethnic cleansing."

Re:Man, if they win

[uberdave]

Just curious, if this is the case is anything being done to fix the election system?

Re:Man, if they win

[stienman]

Anyone who has taken economics knows just how much control over the economy the president has:

Little to none.

The president can set the agenda a little bit for the government spending (fiscal policy) but ultimately its congress that decides how that works out.

The president has some affect on tax policies, but again that's done through congress. All he can do is make suggestions and threaten to veto - which is only so strong of a threat.

Further, economic policies that the president tries to set in motion will only affect the economy several years down the road. Alan Greenspan (chairman of the federal reserve, essentially the primary bank in the US upon which all other banks depend for various functions) makes changes to the economy in four different ways, and they affect the economy within 1-3 months. This is monetary policy. Fiscal policy, set by congress, may affect the economy as fast as one year, but often takes much longer.

Like many things in life, sometimes you take a fall because you made a major mistake, but more often you take the fall because something outside of your control occurred. The economy is cyclical. We haven't had a downturn since the early 90's, and we were overdue for one. The tech bubble made this one a bigger downturn than it needed to be or would have been.

Of course, a whole new generation is coming into this discussion not knowing the past, and complaining about high unemployment. The economy is robust, and if you think 6% unemployment is high, consider that 5% is 'normal' and most economists agree that anything above or below 5% is bad for the economy. The last 1.x percent represents millions of people, certianly, but is not as bad as people like to think.

Go find out what the unemployment and inflation were in the 70s. Then go look at current unemployment and inflation in Europe. Then try to find the decades where Germany had inflation in the triple digits (yes, over 100% inflation)

The president is not driving the economic vehicle. All he gets to do is take the bad and spin it into good, and pretend the good came because of his hard work.

-Adam

Crime in Space.

[deft]

This must be the first instance of an attempted stellar purse snatching.

Re:Crime in Space.

[Mr_Matt]

The sad thing is, they've never really tested their gear. From what I can tell from their webpage, they've fired the engine (unmanned) and had a few parties deciding who got to paint the ship. It seems to me that the Wild Fire crew launching this early, without any real tests of their hardware, is making a foolish decision.

Attempting two space launches in an untested vehicle in an attempt to purse-snatch from a crew who's already flown their ship to the edge of space is only a good decision if your crew-return strategy involves a lot of scraping a smoldering crater with a stick and a spoon.

Re:Crime in Space.

[Rei]

Well, their design methodology seems pretty sound, and they have had some pretty big backers, too. Given the extent of time they've put into software simulation of their craft, I'd trust that their abort scenarios are pretty decent.

I mean, there's no comparison with people like Carmack who are just strapping pieces of metal together on a "try it as you go" fashion; even Rutan doesn't seem to have employed such a detailed design process as Da Vinci. Their software actually can back-design the spacecraft due to parameter changes - for example, if they put in a different ISP number, it modifies the CAD design for different tank sizes and re-optimizes the whole craft through a CFD program, while still constraining the craft to basic size/power requirements.

I give them decent odds of making it. Rutan will probably beat them to it (if he doesn't do anything stupid like his last launch in high wind-shear conditions), but Da Vinci has had some good money behind them, has a good design, and a good development methodology.

Re:Crime in Space.

[LWATCDR]

You would think they would at least try an unmanned test flight. This is going to be pretty much an all or nothing flight. What do they have for an abort system? Good luck I wish them well.

Re:Crime in Space.

[RedWizzard]

I mean, there's no comparison with people like Carmack who are just strapping pieces of metal together on a "try it as you go" fashion;

Still, I'd feel much safer in Carmack's tested vehicle than Wild Fire's simulated one. Don't underestimate the value of knowing what works and what doesn't in practice, as opposed to knowing merely in theory.

Re:Crime in Space.

[Cthefuture]

As experience has shown time and again, nothing can equal the results of a live test.

It's like learning martial arts without ever practicing with full contact. All that simulation is worth very little in a real fight because there are so many more things going on.

I see programmers do this kind of crap all the time. They code stuff up and don't test very well. Then it gets out in the field and the damn thing falls apart.

If I had to guess I would say these guys have a 10% chance of success and 25% chance of catastrophic failure involving loss of life.

Re:Crime in Space.

[DrCash]

The Canadian entry is headed up by two beer-loving hosers from the great white north, eh? Otherwise known as Bob and Doug McKenzie of Strange Brew fame.

Take off, eh?

Re:Crime in Space.

[Anonymous Coward]

You aren't in a position to guess.

Re:Crime in Space.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not?

note: dunno why I'm replying to all these trolls as of late

Re:Crime in Space.

[Rei]

?

You'd feel safer in Carmack's vehicle? Every time they change something on it or try to do something different with it, it breaks. The only thing that changes is whether it's catastrophic or not. Don't you read their news logs?

Re:Crime in Space.

[joggle]

What makes you think that the Rutan team hasn't used a detailed design process? The feauture you mention of the code they're using can be done with software off the shelf, granted for a lot of money (Pro/E with Pro/Mechanica). Rutan designed and built two complex, composite structures for flight which simply can't be done succesfuly without detailed design work, almost certainly using an in-house CAD system designed for simulating composite material structures (probably they say as much on their website if I bothered to check).

Keep in mind that they are doing this more for long-term profit than to win the X-Prize and want to keep a competitive advantage by keeping as much secret behind their design process as possible.

Re:Crime in Space.

[RedWizzard]

Don't you read their news logs?

Yes I do, and nobody is flying in it. Once they have it working then they'll test it manned. The WildFire guys seem to think that since their vehicle's been simulated it's safe to fly manned to the edge of space. All they've done is some drop tests. Even Carmack's done more than that. Frankly I think that making an X-Prize shot the first manned flight of the vehicle is risking to the point of negligence.

I'd rather go with the tested solution, thanks.

Re:Crime in Space.

[Rei]

What makes me think that they didn't just use something off the shelf?

This:

http://www.scaled.com/projects/tierone/faq.htm

They sure make it sound like they wrote a simulator, and simply plugged in values to it from the CFD analysis. Nothing as advanced as Wild Fire is doing, which involves being able to have direct feedback from parameter changes into the design model with reoptimization.

According to an article (http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_aws t_story.jsp?id=news/04213top.xml), " The supersonic design skill is largely borrowed from reading the "Datacom" Air Force compendium of aerodynamic information, from experienced consultants, and from CFD programs."

So, it would seem that some of their CFD stuff is stock, and some is custom made. And the simulator is custom made.

Re:Crime in Space.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because...

Re:Crime in Space.

[ansible]

Indeed. As Armadillo Aerospace has shown, there are lots of little things which could go wrong that you never anticipated.

The problem is that no one's brain is big enough to think of all the possibilities, and prevent them.

It takes experience to build a reliable system. And bending metal (in both senses of the word).

Carmack's team is on the right track finally, they've just got a lot of work ahead of them. They're not going to win the X-Prize, but that's OK. They are learning and having fun. And people like me are learning and having fun just watching them.

So what happened to...

[Anonymous Coward]

...Wildfire I-V?

Re:So what happened to...

[darth_MALL]

On the shelf next to preparation A through G.

Let's hope...

[dangerousbeans]

...it doesnt become a wild fire.

Re:Let's hope...

[Vaginal Discharge]

No chance of that. Saskatchewan in October is going to be frozen solid, with lot of snow on the ground. I for one, have never heard of a wild fire in Canada during winter.

Which brings us to an interesting question. Is it wise to do a space launch in Canada during the winter? There's good reason why NASA launches from Florida instead of Maine, and ESA launches from French Guiana instead of Finland.

Re:Let's hope...

[Carnildo]

The reason everyone launches from near the equator is because they can use the Earth's rotation to give them a speed boost on the way to orbit. These are suborbital flights, so it doesn't matter where they launch from.

In fact, from a recovery standpoint, you might want to launch from one of the poles -- that way, the craft will land near the launch point.

Re:Let's hope...

[Rei]

In addition to what the other poster stated, Wild Fire is a small, single-stage rocket that doesn't get its high acceleration/vibrational loads until the upper atmosphere. Ice breaking off and falling shouldn't be too much of a risk. Also, unlike the shuttle's SRBs, Wild Fire doesn't have a segmented frame attached by O-rings.

I'd be mostly worried, however, about the thoroughness of their design - for example, did they attach heating elements and temperature sensors along the oil and hydraulic lines, along the fuel lines and tank, etc? If not, they could have problems in a low-temperature environment. I know they've got some good simulation software, but I don't know, for example, whether they just considered skin temperatures, or actually considered the temperature of all parts and the effects of that on viscosity.

Re:Let's hope...

[Bobzibub]

It's always cold in Canada. Don't worry 'bout it.
= )

Go Team Canuck!
-b

Re:Let's hope...

[Egonis]

gee, that's a new one...

Re:Let's hope...

[vanyel]

Why would it nuke itself? Besides, I don't think it's going far enough to pick up alien lifeforms...

Blackjack in Space

[scowling]

The best part of the story is that the team got $500K in funding from Golden Palace.com, who is promoting the launch by saying that they'll enjoy playing casino games in suborbital flight.

Ha.

They've been showing pictures of the project on Space (the Canadian equivalent of Sc-Fi Channel) for months, and I've always gotten the impression that there's gonna be a lot of wreckage strewn over the Alberta countryside.

I can't explain why. Maybe it's the hip, urban office they have, gambling site sponsorship, proprietary fuel source, overall secrecy and hot-air balloon assist that all merge together to fill me with confidence.

"It's going to be one hell of a ride", Feeney said

Yeah, I'll bet.

Re:Blackjack in Space

[LiquidCoooled]

If it was me doing this flight, and I needed sponsorship, I would go for Viagra!

I would want to go up and stay there all night!

Re:Blackjack in Space

[untermensch]

They've been showing pictures of the project on Space (the Canadian equivalent of Sc-Fi Channel) for months, and I've always gotten the impression that there's gonna be a lot of wreckage strewn over the Alberta countryside.

Considering that it's launcing from Saskatchewan, not Alberta I rather doubt it

Re:Blackjack in Space

[Darth Muffin]

And Golden Palace.com is currently taking bets on who will win the X-prize and whether or not Wild Fire even has a successful mission...

Re:Blackjack in Space

[Dark Nexus]

I haven't seen them show anything on the da Vinci Project... sure you aren't thinking about The Canadian Arrow project out of London?

Re:Blackjack in Space

[scowling]

Yep, I'm sure. Those eyeglasses are memorable.

Re:Blackjack in Space

[ron_ivi]

But will they get introuble for promoting online gambling, like Google?

Suit Charges Search Companies With Aiding Online Gambling Aug. 5, 2004

More Stories on:
Industries

The class-action suit filed in San Francisco names 13 companies, including Yahoo and Google.

Re:Blackjack in Space

[jfoust]

Considering that it's launcing from Saskatchewan, not Alberta I rather doubt it

Well, Kindersley is close to the border with Alberta...

Re:Blackjack in Space

[scowling]

And something like 20 miles from the Alberta border.

I rather doubt that much of the inevitable wreckage will end up in Saskatchewan, as summer winds in the area are most often from the south and east.

Re:Blackjack in Space

[Rei]

What, exactly, is proprietary about LOX/Kerosene? As for openness, have you ever seen their website? They're certainly less secretive than Rutan (althouh not as open as Carmack). And what is wrong with balloon-launch, exactly?

Re:Blackjack in Space

[afidel]

And what is wrong with balloon-launch, exactly?

Look at the sucess rate for super high altitude dirigible flights with respect to circumnavigation, not very impressive. Hell half the time they fail to even get off the ground due to winds exceeding a couple miles per hour. That's not the kind of thing that a commercial launch concern is going to want to use, and not something likely to win a fast turnaround race with scaled composites. Of course as far as safety is concerned I wouldn't be too worried since the big bomb strapped to the balloon is a MUCH bigger concern for the sane =)

Re:Blackjack in Space

[Rei]

> Look at the sucess rate for super high altitude dirigible flights with respect to circumnavigation

Oy, where to start!

1) This is not a super high altitude dirigible
2) It is not circumnavigating the earth

I think that ends that right there...

> winds exceeding a couple miles per hour

That's only relevant for, as you put it, "super high altitude dirigibles", because they have to be built so thin. The atmosphere, where Wild Fire is released (24.4 km) is hundreds of times more dense than the atmosphere at the altitude that the record setters go up to (40+km).

> since the big bomb strapped to the balloon is a much bigger concern

Wild Fire is a LOX/Kerosene rocket designed with a pretty impressive "simulate the heck out of everything first!" methodology. SpaceShipOne is an N2O/Polybutadiene hybrid rocket. While both involve pressurization (since neither use a turbopump), the pressurized substance in SpaceShipOne is much larger, and is the oxidizer itself (as opposed to a relatively small helium tank in the case of Wild Fire). Furthermore, with a gaseous oxidizer, the explosion would be a lot more violent. So, if I have to call one a "big bomb", I'd call SpaceShipOne the "big bomb".

In general, I really like Wild Fire a lot better. Higher starting altitude, a much higher ISP engine, and a very good design methodology.

Re:Blackjack in Space

[Jorkapp]

But ships are supposed to be long, hard, and full of seamen - not spacemen. Maybe the Canadian Navy should go for the Viagra sponsorship.

Re:Blackjack in Space

[SpamJunkie]

Wreckage on the Alberta countryside? It's launching off from Saskatchewan...

Re:Blackjack in Space

[Oggust]

Wild Fire is a LOX/Kerosene rocket designed with a pretty impressive "simulate the heck out of everything first!" methodology. SpaceShipOne is an N2O/Polybutadiene hybrid rocket. While both involve pressurization (since neither use a turbopump), the pressurized substance in SpaceShipOne is much larger, and is the oxidizer itself (as opposed to a relatively small helium tank in the case of Wild Fire). Furthermore, with a gaseous oxidizer, the explosion would be a lot more violent. So, if I have to call one a "big bomb", I'd call SpaceShipOne the "big bomb".

I disagree, a N2O/plastic motor like that is very safe, and a lot less complex than any biprop liquid. The pressurization you talk about is not the big deal. The LOX and the hydrocarbon can mix and become super dangerous, the N20 and plastic can not.

At altitude none of that matters of course, but the guy was talking about it from a bomb perspective, I guess he meant "what if it drops somewhere and goes kablooie". The biprop is a lot worse in that scenario. (The hybrid would pop as the nitrous tank gets ruptured, but that should be it. No explosion.)

/August.

Re:Blackjack in Space

[pilkul]

Not to mention the Japanese navy. Aw yeah, sexy seamen.

Re:Blackjack in Space

[afidel]

Uh, the world manned balloon record altitude is 34,668 m, not ... record setters go up to (40+km)., and most circumavigation attempts are at MUCH lower altitudes, the first sucessfull one the Breitling Orbiter hit a max altitude of 11,737 m, or aprox half the altitude that Wild Fire is shooting for. Stats are here, and here. So yes, I do think that wind will be a significant impediment to the sucessfull launch, relaunch, and commercial success of the Wild Fire approach. As to the bomb thing, I was trying to put the danger of the ballooning in perspective for those who thought it was a big risk, it's not compared to strapping yourself to a rocket, just about any rocket.

Re:Blackjack in Space

[Rei]

My apolgies about the balloon record; checking again, the RE/MAX mission was supposed to set the record at over 40 km feet, but they had to cancel due to budget cuts. The QinetiQ mission also was supposed to break 40km, but failed on its first attempt. So the record still is from the 1960s at 34,668 by M.D. Ross and V.C. Prather.

Once again, I'll state: This balloon isn't attempting to do anything even remotely like circumnavigation, so the analogy is pretty pointless. ;)

Re:Blackjack in Space

[Rei]

Polybutadiene is not "plastic". More accurately, it is rubber (one of the first synthetic elastomers; natural rubber is polyisoprene).

Hybrid rocket motors are *simpler* than bipropellant rockets. That makes them less prone to *failure*, but it doesn't make their failures less catastrophic. The facts of the pressure in the tanks and the chemistry remain the same. N2O makes up the vast majority of the propellant mass in SpaceShipOne. I can't find exact stats on how much it's pressurized to, but it's not uncommon to find N2O rockets with pressures up to 50 atmospheres at launch (steadily decreasing thereafter). In short, the vast majority of the oxidizer is *incredibly pressurized*, and is *gasseous*. That's a perfect recipe for, should failure occur, *catastrophic failure*. If the nitrous tank were to rupture, it would easily slice open the polybutadiene. The notably increased surface area in the polybutadiene would dramatically increase the combustion rate (damaging it more), etc. In short, it would be a catastrophic failure.

In case you're not familiar, surface area is everything with solid fuels. You can select your thrust over time by the pattern that you cut into the center of the solid rocket booster (circle, star, etc). The reason that solid rocket boosters tend to fail catastrophicly is because when they're ruptured, their surface area increases, and the explosion takes off exponentially (as described above). While hybrid rocket motors don't have the oxidizer mixed in, the situation we're describing is a rupture of the oxidizer tank - and since the oxidizer is a pressurized gas, it will be all over the solid fuel and ready to combust.

On the other hand, getting a fast conflagration from LOX and kerosene isn't that simple. Have you ever tried to get a conflagration from gasoline? It's not that simple. You need proper mixing ratios and fine particle size of the gasoline. The same holds true here. The LOX won't vaporize instantly (unlike the N2O, which is already gaseous). The kerosene will vaporize even more slowly. It's not that likely to form a major conflagration before the capsule was ejected and out of range; and, unlike using a solid fuel, the explosion of a liquid/liquid biprop rocket tends to *disperse* the fuel and oxidizer, *slowing* the reaction.

Re:Blackjack in Space

[Rei]

> 40 km feet

geez, I need to porff raed....

Re:Blackjack in Space

[joeljkp]

As others have said, the launch pad is very close to the border with Alberta.

Re:Blackjack in Space

[Oggust]

Hybrid rocket motors are *simpler* than bipropellant rockets. That makes them less prone to *failure*, but it doesn't make their failures less catastrophic.

The danger of failure depends a lot on what's in it. You could have a LOX-and-plastic/rubber/whatever hybrid, and I'd call that a hell of a lot more dangerous than any N2O one.

I can't find exact stats on how much it's pressurized to, but it's not uncommon to find N2O rockets with pressures up to 50 atmospheres at launch (steadily decreasing thereafter)

Vapor pressure of N2O is about 50 atm, so yeah, that's where they'll all be. You need to feed the hybrid liquid N2O.

In short, the vast majority of the oxidizer is *incredibly pressurized*, and is *gasseous*.

Nope. Most of it is a liquid. In the beginning essentially all of it is, but as you use up liquid N20, some will (of course) boil off to fill the space in the tank.

And 50 atm is not very high pressure, especially not in comparison to LOX.

In case you're not familiar, surface area is everything with solid fuels. You can select your thrust over time by the pattern that you cut into the center of the solid rocket booster (circle, star, etc). The reason that solid rocket boosters tend to fail catastrophicly is because when they're ruptured, their surface area increases, and the explosion takes off exponentially (as described above). While hybrid rocket motors don't have the oxidizer mixed in, the situation we're describing is a rupture of the oxidizer tank - and since the oxidizer is a pressurized gas, it will be all over the solid fuel and ready to combust.

The oxidizer will be all over it, but at a much lower pressure than before, when the motor was running as it should. The solid fuel will burn significantly slower (if at all) should the pressure drop (as in after the chamber has ruptured). Look, a major problem with hybrids like this is their low burn rate even at the correct pressure.

On the other hand, getting a fast conflagration from LOX and kerosene isn't that simple.

Are you kidding? LOX and kerosene (or, hell, pretty much anything that will burn at att in air) is an explosive. You're lucky if it just burns, it's likely to detonate.

Have you ever tried to get a conflagration from gasoline? It's not that simple. You need proper mixing ratios and fine particle size of the gasoline.

In air. Not when it's mixed with LOX.

Look,. N2O hybrids are super safe. Hobbyists use them all the time, they are not considered experimental, you can buy a motor like that off the shelf. (Google for hypertek, rattworks, west coast hybrids etc.)

LOX is not used at all in the high-power rocketry hobby (It is used sometimes in really big, exepimental amateur rockets. RRS has had a few firings etc., but not in regular HPR)

/August.

Re:Blackjack in Space

[Rei]

> and I'd call that a hell of a lot more dangerous than any N2O one.

You would, now would you? Care to explain why LOX, which is generally minimally pressurized and would require vaporization before rapid conflagration would be a risk, would be more dangerous than already gasseous (i.e., as soon as it leaves the tank and its pressure drops) and highly pressurized N2O?

> especially not in comparison to LOX

What are you talking about? LOX tanks are generally unpressurized if you use a turbopump, and at far lower pressures than 50atm when pressurized (with, say, helium).

> but at a much lower pressure than before, when the motor was running as it should

Not at all. SpaceShipOne has a burn time of over a minute. The tank would be ripped apart in milliseconds if it ruptured. While the gas would expand in all directions, there's no question that there would be far, far, far more oxidizer available for combustion across the freshly-increased-surface area of the torn-up polybutadiene.

> A major problem with hybrids is their low burn rate even at the correct pressure

As I mentioned, it is completely proportional to surface area. Are you going to deny this? Or are you going to deny that an explosion of the N2O tank would dramatically increase the polybutadiene's surface area? What, exactly, is your argument against runaway detonation of solid fuels in an oxidizer-rich environment?

Are you unfamiliar, for example, with hybrid rocket explosions? Despite the fact that hybrids are used notably less, they don't have the safety record pancae illusion that a lot of people imagine. Both NASA and Amroc have had case ruptures on their hybrids that would have destroyed manned vehicles - and they weren't even using an pressurized oxidizer that is gasseous essentially instantly apon leaving the tank, like N2O (Amroc, for example, was using H2O2). Part of the hybrid safety illusion comes from the fact that they're less dangerous than *solid* rocket engines. Yes, that's true, but solid rocket engines are little more than controlled fireworks, so that doesn't say much.

> LOX and kerosene ... is an explosive

As I stated, *only when mixed properly*. As I'm being forced to repeat from my last post, *only when the kerosene is reduced to a fine particle size and the LOX is vaporized and warmed*. The first is difficult to accomplish even in controlled conditions (it's a major part of LOX/Kerosene engine design!), and the latter takes time (which, in airborne flight where anything that leaks moves away from the craft quickly, isn't an option). And you completely ignored the fact that any conflagration will disperse such tiny particles far, far more effectively than it would the much more massive polybutadiene chunks.

Here, let me keep going, because it gets worse, and you apparently are unfamiliar with these fuels.

LOX is cryogenic, and kept below -183C. Kerosene's freezing point is -73C. When they touch, the kerosene freezes into solid, less flammable chunks, preventing it from having the low surface area and high volatility needed for a conflagration or detonation (it doesn't even burn slowly that well when frozen).

The general failure mode of a LOX/Kerosene rocket in the air (which Wild Fire would be during its entire burn) is a cloud of flame that trails the rocket. Catastrophic LOX/Kerosene failures are incredibly rare, even in testing.

The only serious risk modes in LOX/Kerosene rockets are due to highly effective injectors with ignition failure. Such injectors end up producing heated LOX droplets (starting to vaporize on the outside) surrounded by a coating of kerosene. Such a mixture is like dynamite if the nozzle doesn't ignite; however, this is again only a real risk for rockets on the ground, where it can accumulate, as the mixture gets blown away when in atmospheric flight.

Re:Blackjack in Space

[Rei]

Minor post correction: "... preventing it from having the *high* surface area and high volatility ..."

Re:Blackjack in Space

[Forbman]

Hmm... IIRC, iron filings that have LO2 dropped on them burst into flames, because the rate of oxidation of iron is fast enough with the LO2...

If the LO2 tank bursts, the Kerosene tank will burst also (look at old videos of Vanguard rockets blowing up on the pad). Lots of oxygen + kerosene. Hmm... fire!

the LO2 will vaporize as soon as the temp gets above -282 deg F, or whatever that temp is.

Vaporizing kerosene helps it burn more in "normal" atmospheric conditions. but being in a pure O2 environment is not normal.

Get a little cylinder of O2 at your hardware store (they're red. propane is blue, and MAPP gas is yellow). Make an "oxygen" tent, and try to burn things in it. Paper burns nice and slow, right? in an oxygen-enriched atmosphere, it burns MUCH faster.

Kerosene does have a much higher flash point than gasoline, yes. But throwing a bunch of O2 seriously tips the scale the other way.

Re:Blackjack in Space

[Oggust]

(Sorry about the late reply, I was away for a few days. Gone fishing.)

You would, now would you? Care to explain why LOX, which is generally minimally pressurized and would require vaporization before rapid conflagration would be a risk, would be more dangerous than already gasseous (i.e., as soon as it leaves the tank and its pressure drops) and highly pressurized N2O?

N2O doesn't work as an oxidizer until it's been decomposed (to GOX and N2) by heat/pressure. That's a reason why it'd be safe. (And also part of why they're a bit of a hassle to get lit) In every single one of the (destructive) hybrid failures I've seen, they flamed out after the initial pop.

As I mentioned, it [burn rate] is completely proportional to surface area. Are you going to deny this? Or are you going to deny that an explosion of the N2O tank would dramatically increase the polybutadiene's surface area? What, exactly, is your argument against runaway detonation of solid fuels in an oxidizer-rich environment?

Well, if both the combustion chamber and the N2O tank ruptures at the same time, what you'll have is one or more large piece(s) of burning HTPB flying though a really cold (as it's boiling off) cloud of liquid and gaseous N2O. It might burn while it's passing the cloud, but probably not, the pressure drop when the combustion chamber went away likely flamed it out. If it burns, the surface area of the HTPB is probably higher than before (might burn on all surfaces, might have broken) but the pressure will be vastly lower. Once the HTPB passes the N2O cloud, it will just be a possibly burning piece of rubber, and that will be it.

If it happens on the ground, then the pieces of HTPB might end up in a puddle of liquid N2O. That could probably be a fairly hot fire, but I haven't seen or heard about that failure mode, so I'm not sure. Doesn't apply to SS-1 anyway, since they light the motor while under way.

If you'd have a hybrid with a brittle grain that could shatter and really increase its' surface area, and an oxidiser that doesn't need to be broken down, say GOX, then I agree that you could get a proper fireball out of it.

Are you unfamiliar, for example, with hybrid rocket explosions? Despite the fact that hybrids are used notably less,

Well, thay are a bit new compared to solids and biprop liquids...

they don't have the safety record pancae illusion that a lot of people imagine. Both NASA and Amroc have had case ruptures on their hybrids that would have destroyed manned vehicles - and they weren't even using an pressurized oxidizer that is gasseous essentially instantly apon leaving the tank, like N2O (Amroc, for example, was using H2O2).

Well, most any case rupture is going to be fatal to the craft, and that can happen in any rocket motor. What happens then is the interesting part. If you have any details of more spectacular hybrid failures (especially with N2O), I'd love to hear about them.

LOX is cryogenic, and kept below -183C. Kerosene's freezing point is -73C. When they touch, the kerosene freezes into solid, less flammable chunks, preventing it from having the low surface area and high volatility needed for a conflagration or detonation (it doesn't even burn slowly that well when frozen).

Well that explantion certainly makes sense. But I'm not sure. This (mixing LOX with, well, anything) is not something I've ever done personally, and I don't feel like it either.

It's a well known fact that a LOX spill on asphalt (long hydrocarbons) creates a dangerous high explosive, that's very sensitive to pressure. And the asphalt is solid to begin with, unlike kerosene that need to freeze first.

The effect of GOX on any oil/grease and the need for O2 cleaning is also well known, and I know of spill procedures for LOX that treat anything touched by it as a contact explosive. MSDSes say to keep it away from hydrocarbons.

I agree that LOX is a lot more dangerous on the ground than once in flight. And anyway, with these kinds of failure, discounting passengers on the craft, from a range safety point of view, a detonation at altitude might well be better than just a fire, because of the smaller pieces downrange.

/August

Their new name.

[DAldredge]

"Since then, the effort has found a new title sponsor, the online casino firm Golden Palace.com, which has pushed the effort forward. In honor of that, the da Vinci Project has been renamed the Golden Palace.com Space Program powered by the da Vinci Project."

That is about the worst name for a space mission that I have every head.

Re:Their new name.

[Anonymous Coward]

What's that about your head?

Re:Their new name.

[Anonymous Coward]

Heads up, fellow troll. He actually has "every" head, not just one head. So, unlike the 9-headed troll in "East of the Sun, West of the Moon," he has 5 billion or so heads. Certainly enough for him to give head to someone, I'd say.

Re:Their new name.

[bwy]

I have every head

here is one head you'll never have. Laugh if you want about the name, but that is one big dick.

Re:Does a balloon launch count?

[Ayaress]

The prize is just for a manned trip 100 km up. Nothing specifying how you get there from what I understand. I suppose if you wanted to, you could try to build a bigass slingshot and it would qualify.

Test Launch

[red floyd]

Has WildFire even done a manned test launch of the thing?

I know that SS1 has done a full manned test of the profiled mission.

Re:Test Launch

[Anonymous Coward]

Has WildFire even done a manned test launch of the thing?

For {insert deity of choice here}'s sake, read the bloody article.

Re:Test Launch

[Anonymous Coward]

To quote from one of the Space.com articles: "Unlike SpaceShipOne, Wild Fire has not undergone any test flights and Feeney said he would not disclose when such shakedowns - if any - were scheduled before the Oct. 2 flight."

Re:Test Launch

[Carnildo]

Have they even done an unmanned launch?

Much Cheaper, I hope they win.

[njcoder]

While the SpaceShipOne people have spent $20 Million on their attempt, DaVinci has spent considerably less.

If they win, they'll make a profit and be able to throw one kick ass party.

If this is based on the feasibility of commercial space flights, my vote is for the one that does it first and makes money. :)

Re:Much Cheaper, I hope they win.

[njcoder]

Oooh.. just saw they're homepage... long time since I last visisted.

Imagine, gambling and strippers in space!

Re:Much Cheaper, I hope they win.

[jfoust]

While the SpaceShipOne people have spent $20 Million on their attempt, DaVinci has spent considerably less.

True, but if one assigns a fair market value to tens of thousands of hours of volunteer labor reportedly spent on the project, the difference between the two becomes much smaller.

If they win, they'll make a profit and be able to throw one kick ass party.

Hopefully the project has its eyes on longer-term goals than the short-term profit realized by winning a prize.

If this is based on the feasibility of commercial space flights, my vote is for the one that does it first and makes money.

That analysis is flawed primarily because it confuses development costs with operational costs: while Wild Fire may be cheaper to develop than SpaceShipOne, it could end up being more expensive to operate. (Reliability, in addition, is an issue for obvious reasons.) In any case, this is a moot point because neither Rutan nor Feeney plan to put their first-generation suborbital vehicles into commercial service, electing instead to develop larger second-generation vehicles capable of carrying more passengers.

Re:Much Cheaper, I hope they win.

[Anonymous Coward]

I know I'll get flamed for this here in the land of "I'll take my space elevator to the 10^3 floor and smoke some fairy-crack," but:

The only thing the DaVinci project has produced is a method for separating sponsers from their money. There is nothing behind the curtains, aside from perhaps another party thrown by the recipients of said sponsership money.

I like the guy who says there'll be a lot of wreckage on the Alberta countryside. I had to laugh, thinking the DaVinci folks WISH they could get anything up high enough to come down crashing. Aside from expectations, that is.

Re:Much Cheaper, I hope they win.

[willjohnson]

"Oh, no room for Bender huh? Fine, I'll go build my own lunar lander, with blackjack and hookers. In fact forget the lunar lander and the blackjack..." - Bender

Re:Much Cheaper, I hope they win.

[njcoder]

"True, but if one assigns a fair market value to tens of thousands of hours of volunteer labor reportedly spent on the project, the difference between the two becomes much smaller."

C'mon, on here, one of the biggest open source forums, do you really think people factor in "volunteer labor"?

Re:Much Cheaper, I hope they win.

[Idarubicin]

True, but if one assigns a fair market value to tens of thousands of hours of volunteer labor reportedly spent on the project, the difference between the two becomes much smaller.

From the article:

The all-volunteer da Vinci team spent about $350,000 of cash, $4 million of in-kind donations and they've put in 150,000 man-hours in pursuit of the X Prize, Feeney said.

If they paid a hypothetical $30 per hour for the volunteer labour, the total cost would still be only $8.5 million. Further, the article doesn't mention whether or not those are Canadian dollars--if they are, then you can cut another 25% or so off the cited prices. Even paying a fair price for labour, the da Vinci effort would seem to cost a third to a half the amount of SpaceShipOne.

To be fair, we are all still waiting to see if it flies.

Re:Much Cheaper, I hope they win.

[bwy]

I'm skeptical. I admit it. Have these guys done test flights? Have they flown the balloon to 80K feet yet? Have they test launched the rocket enough, or at all? Do they HAVE a rocket that isn't a prototype?

Also, what is up with needing 500K to go ahead and finish up and launch? I really think perhaps this is all about publicity and not going into space, but I hope I'm wrong. Because Scaled seems to be all about going into space and only doing publicity when they feel like they are obligated to.

Re:Much Cheaper, I hope they win.

[lommer]

I think these guys have a good chance of doing it because they are clearly focused on only one thing - winning the x-prize and walking away with cash and a launch vehicle that could have commercial applications. Scaled is very obviously more concerned about general space access, the scalability of their concept beyond the x-prize, and various other long term goals. While I commend them for their foresight, I really to wonder wtf they've being doing since that last flight? Why wasn't the x-prize won last month? do they really have that many issues? These guys are clearly a one-shot deal. They're not gonna bother dicking around with test flights to 80K ft, or anything else for that matter. They've designed a system on paper and they've decided that there's enough money on the line that it's worth the risk to do it now before someone else does.

Re:Much Cheaper, I hope they win.

[Fallen Andy]

Let's not factor in the mere issue that Rutan's "Scaled Composites" has gotten a lot of publicity. Hmm. How much is *that* worth? Remember, this is the same guy who created "Voyager"... Street cred matters if you're a small engineering outfit... (Even if Burt *loses*, he got to 100K first. Chalk up another. Don't think that man has *heard* the word quit).

Re:Much Cheaper, I hope they win.

[bwy]

I really to wonder wtf they've being doing since that last flight? Why wasn't the x-prize won last month? do they really have that many issues? These guys are clearly a one-shot deal. They're not gonna bother dicking around with test flights to 80K ft, or anything else for that matter.

Scaled has a mildy successful flight that had a few issues that could have been serious, and they've promptly addressed them. Compare this to NASA who has been grounded for how long now? When it comes to spaceflight and human lives, the folks in charge have a responsibility to be diligent about things but also not take it so far that it is ridiculous. I think Scaled has the right mentality. Some issues occured, they found out why, they fixed them, tested a few things and went over them a few times, and then schedule the next flight.

I'm not sure where you are coming from when you say "not dick around with test flights." That is like me saying that I'm not going to test software, I'm just going to move it straight into production. Except, my software goes bad and a few thousand people have screwed up mortgages. You move an aircraft into production with no test flights and almost certainly you end up with dead people. Have you seen the photos? These guys don't even have anything that remotely resembles something that could fly- and there is no way they'll have it built by October.

Re:Much Cheaper, I hope they win.

[joeljkp]

"Compare this to NASA who has been grounded for how long now?"

The last Space Shuttle also disintigrated mid-flight, killing all seven occupants of the vehicle. And you're complaining that they've grounded the fleet for what will amount to a couple years? Sorry, but you can't compare the two.

Re:Much Cheaper, I hope they win.

[jfoust]

If they paid a hypothetical $30 per hour for the volunteer labour, the total cost would still be only $8.5 million.

$30/hour (USD or CAD) seems absurdly low for a fully-burdened labor rate, particularly for engineers and other professionals. With more reasonable labor rates the total "cost" of the effort would more likely be US$12-15 million, within about a factor of two of SpaceShipOne. That's still an impressive accomplishment, assuming Wild Fire successfully flies.

Re:Much Cheaper, I hope they win.

[bwy]

You can be sure the whole Shuttle back-to-flight process HAS been slowed by big government methodology- create several committees and a heap of several thousand page reports.

Consider what happens when a 747 crashes and kills everyone on board. Say, a couple hundred folks. Do they ground every 747 for 2 years? If a B-2 Stealth crashed, would the Air Force ground them all (especially if the B-2s were needed at the time for missions?) Doubtful.

Rather, perhaps the whole Shuttle program is flawed. Almost every launch now is delayed due to some type of failure. And those are just the ones they catch. You see what happens when they miss something. It isn't practical to have a launch vehicle/orbiter with these types of issues. If you're trying to actively maintain a space station, it isn't a good idea to rely solely on an unreliable vehicle that can be grounded for several years especially when the those "in the know" estimate you'll have a 1-2% catastrophic failure rate.

So, foam comes off and causes the shuttle to basically explode. Was it a one time thing or a global problem that we've gotten lucky on avoiding until now? Can it be fixed? Is this a 747 type issue that is immediately regarded as isolated, or is it a Concord issue where you end up scrapping the entire fleet?

To me, you either fix it an move on, or you scrap the fleet. Anything in the middle is asking for trouble with the age of the fleet and with no budget to completely refit the shuttles.

Re:Much Cheaper, I hope they win.

[Idarubicin]

$30/hour (USD or CAD) seems absurdly low for a fully-burdened labor rate, particularly for engineers and other professionals.

But not everyone on the project is an engineer or high-level professional.

Much of the work could be done by people paid as graduate students or interns--and you're looking at $12 to $15 per hour there...not to mention a few $8 per hour positions to do things like fetch coffee and move paper.

One engineer ($100 per hour) with a skilled assistant ($65/hr) and an intern ($20/hr), supported by two grad students ($15/hr each) and two gofers/summer students ($8/hr each) gives a cost of $33 per labour hour.

Further, it's silly to assume that the cost of SpaceShipOne actually includes a full cost for every hour contributed. I'm quite certain that a lot of people (some expensive and highly skilled, and some otherwise) contributed a significant amount of unpaid overtime, just because it's a fun project. If you want to use a $70 per hour average labour rate for comparing SpaceShipOne to Wild Fire (to give a total cost of $15 million) you're going to have to a) explain why all the junior, less-skilled members of the project are getting so well paid, and b) account for the unpaid hours on Scaled's project, too.

Re:Much Cheaper, I hope they win.

[Forbman]

If a B-2 Stealth crashed, would the Air Force ground them all (especially if the B-2s were needed at the time for missions?) Doubtful.

Yes, the military will ground an entire flight system if need be, or even entire flight operations. During Gulf War I, the B-1 bombers were not used much, if at all, because the fleet was grounded for a technical issue, except for national emergency (i.e., drop nuclear bombs).

CH-46 helos have a tendandy to crash in bunches, killing lots of marines flying in them. If it appears to be a systematic hardware problem, the entire fleet can be and has been grounded until the problem is addressed.

If it appears to be a pilot training issue, if need be, the entire flight operations will be grounded until the Brass feel that the training issue has been addressed. But this is usually more related to a facility (i.e., air base, carrier) than anything else.

Obviously, because commercial aviation is involved with making money, it is not as feasible to ground all the world's 747's to fix a technical problem. IIRC, they have come close to doing so, but usually with a very strict set of parameters so that it only affects certain planes, especially with the rudder activator in 737's, the door lock assembly in 747's, etc.

Re:Much Cheaper, I hope they win.

[coastwalker]

I hope Mr Feeney survives his attempt, he is a brave man. SpaceShipOne will fly and has a resonable chance of returning its passengers to the ground in one piece now the obvious bugs have been ironed out through testing. There is no evidence whatsoever that Wild Fire can do that. Engineering is not all about theory otherwise it would not be a seperate discipline from Science. Flying Wild Fire without progressive testing is risky no matter how good the science is. It would not surprise me if the difference in costs between the two projects could be accounted for entirely by the cost of testing.

Dibs..

[Anonymous Coward]

Dibs on the scrap, which we (I) can sell to George Bush claiming it's a terrorist "dropping on thingy ma jiggies!" weapon!

Weather

[stoolpigeon]

would make or break their timing w/the baloon thing. It is 1000 feet- baloon top to rocket at bottom. I've got to think you need a calm day to get it going. No?

Re:Weather

[Carnildo]

You can usually count on calm winds early in the morning.

No previous testing...?

[flying_monkies]

I haven't been keeping up on the Canadian team, have they even attempted a live fire testing of this launch platform? For some reason, I keep hearing the looney tunes theme and picturing Wiley Coyote whenever I think about this. Whoever the person/people are they plan on sending, your families have my condolences.

Re:No previous testing...?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's "Wile E. Coyote," like "Chuck E. Cheese," only different.

Re:No previous testing...?

[Rei]

They're sending their team leader as pilot. And his family is apprehensive, but supportive.

Re:No previous testing...?

[jmichaelg]

I think the announcement is just a publicity stunt that appears to be working. When it's time to launch the rocket, there'll be some reason to put it off. Nobody in their right mind would fly in a rocket that has zero flight testing.

Re:No previous testing...?

[gl4ss]

umm.. their aproach doesn't quite warrant for much other flight testing than what they're planning to do now, their craft being quite different from spaceshipone for example which wasn't just planned to fall back to earth basically(with a 'chute).

it's not like they can fly test it without going up there(well, they could run it unmanned I guess but then again it might not be suitable for that either). maybe their 'worst case' scenario is that the rocket is a dud and the craft gets an _easier_ way down.

Re:No previous testing...?

[Forbman]

No, think Evil Kineval [sp], and his failed "rocket-powered motorcycle" jump across the Snake River.

At least with the balloon-assisted launch, if the engine fails to produce enough thrust, hopefully the capsule can be separated before Range Control blows the whole thing up.

Dupe

[Anonymous Coward]

Posted July 28th. Link doesn't work, even though it's from /. search. Editors: you might want to fix the links that search provides?

Re:$10M US? That's like...

[Anonymous Coward]

bang the prime minister's wife

Ugh, have you SEEN the prime ministers' wife? You'd need to pay me $10M to bang her, no make that $20M.

Re:So ... manned commercial space flights eh ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Then why post?

Oh, no room for Canadians in space, huh?

[Tackhead]

Oh, no room for Canadians in space, huh? Fine! I'll go build my own spaceship! With blackjack and hookers! In fact, forget the spaceship and the blackjack! Ah, screw the whole thing!

(Bite my maple-sugared ass?)

Re:Does a balloon launch count?

[Aerion]

Yes, but whoever you shoot out of the slingshot has to survive and get shot out of it again a couple weeks later.

I imagine that getting slingshotted is probably a thoroughly unpleasant enough experience that it would be tough to convince anyone to do it twice. ... Well, maybe for $10 million.

Newsflash... Newsflash...

[hadesan]

October 2nd, 2004 - Wild Fire Mark VI spacecraft reached a new speed record for descent...

For descent as the balloon it was suspended from popped. The crewmen, Doug and Bob, were unharmed. However, they have been relieved from duty after the true cause of the incident was determined.

Here is the transcript of the incident from our on the scene reporter, Troy:

Troy: Close call out there today, ay?
Bob: {sip from beer} belch
Doug: Ay

Troy: What happened?
Doug: We had just opened some beers for our ascent when I remembered we did not sew our Wild Fire patch on our jackets.
Bob: {another sip from beer}

Troy: and?
Bob: Hoser {pointing to Dough} knocked over the beers while I was sewing on my patch. Luckily, some guy named Bert gave us some cool sewing kits. [shows off his Scaled Composites travel sewing kit]
Doug: Ay, swell, ay.

Troy: How did this cause the problem?
Doug: Well, Bob let one and I needed to get some air. I opened the door and a bird flew in. I swatted it out but knocked over the beers, ay.
Bob: Hoser. Burp!

Troy: But what caused the accident?
Bob: Hoser, dropped his needle and it popped the balloon.
Doug: Ay, but I was able to recove my beer.

End Story

Re:Newsflash... Newsflash...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey Goofball, it's Eh, not ay.

Sheesh, I don't mind the mockery, at least get it right. All the pirates and Sailors are coming for your ass now.

Re:Newsflash... Newsflash...

[Rei]

Change your sentence prefix "Ay"s to postfix "Eh"s. Geez.

Besides, you're repeating a silly notion that many people have about helium-based lighter than air aircraft: that they can "pop". It takes a pretty darn large leak (i.e., a cut several feet long) to deflate a helium craft of this size in a relevant amount of time.

Re:Newsflash... Newsflash...

[mirror_dude]

In Canada we say "Eh" not Ay , you hoser

Re:Newsflash... Newsflash...

[freezin fat guy]

If you're going to Bob and Doug something like this you should really throw in a "Take off, eh?"

"...as well as an eight-track tape..."

[tlambert]

"...as well as an eight-track tape..."

Let me guess... Steppenwolf's "Magic Carpet Ride".

Sorry, but "Brian Feeney" just doesn't have the same ring as "Zefram Cochrane"...

-- Terry

Re:"...as well as an eight-track tape..."

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah... for a Canadian launch, it would have to be Rush's "Distant Early Warning"

Cruising under your radar
Watching from satellites
Take a page from the red book
Keep them in your sights
Red alert
Red alert

Re:"...as well as an eight-track tape..."

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize that Steppenwolf is Canadian, eh? (From Toronto, in fact).

Re:"...as well as an eight-track tape..."

[Anonymous Coward]

Or ...

Crackling speakers, voices tense
Resume the final count
All systems check, T minus nine
As the sun and the drama start to mount

Re:"...as well as an eight-track tape..."

[Kenshin]

Well, if it were Germans, it would have to be Nena's "99 Luftballons", wouldn't it?

Re:So ... manned commercial space flights eh ?

[Potatomasher]

cause i'm bored at work ?

The 10 million dollar prize...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've wondered this for quite awhile... Does the 10 million dollar prize actually mean anything to the contenders? certainly, the research and development costs must far exceed the 10 mil jackpot that they'll get if they win. am i wrong?

I realize that i'm just a mere anonymous coward, and thus more than likely will be modded down for no one to see. although, i think i have a 4 or 5 digit slashdot cd registered under some account on some email account i've long forgotten about.... i bet i could get a decent chunk of change for it on e-bay.

Re:The 10 million dollar prize...

[Dark Nexus]

The idea is not for the $10M to pay for the cost of it with some left over, but to offset the costs of the R&D.

The main idea was that once the R&D was done, there would be one or several methods of reaching space that have relatively inexpensive launch costs. This, so the idea went, would lead to someone actually coming up with commercial applications for them.

Actually, some of the teams that probably won't win could turn a profit before the ones that stand a chance of winning because they're not focusing on just R&D, but also commercial ideas and are using their contendership in the X-Prize as advertisement.

timing

[Kallahar]

It's pretty amazing how competition drives people. When Scaled put its craft into space they were the only team that anyone thought would have a chance to win the prize. Now with a deadline set another team comes out of the woodwork and has a craft ready for an attempt.

Of course, it's probably not really ready to go, they just don't want to miss a chance at the prize. I'd hate to be the pilot picked to fly that one...

I'll be there for the launch!

[hunto00]

.. as the drive is only 4 hours away from me, I'm wanting to hit up this geek-fest. /me wonders where the BYOC will be set up.

Re:I'll be there for the launch!

[qwave54]

Hah, you much live close to me (toon town). I'm gonna be there, too! See you there.
Man I hope he doesn't crash. I'm all for rooting for the little guy and all, but the circumstances surrounding this launch just don't add up to 'safe'.

Re:I'll be there for the launch!

[vi-rocks]

Me to ... and I will drive from BC.

Now, checking the Kindersley town calender:

Sept 29: Rotary Club meeting, Legion Meeting
Oct 2: Launch Space Craft, Flat Landers Racing Association
Oct 3: Elks Bingo

I'm not making this stuff up!!!! http://www.kindersley.wcreda.com/calendar/

Re:I'll be there for the launch!

[g-to-the-o-to-the-g]

See you there! I'm in Calgary. Hope they own the Americans.

Racketeers!

[dgmckay]

There's a link to images on the announcement. Follow that, and look for a pic of the da Vinci team. The caption describes them as "racketeers". Ok. :)

+1 Obscure Futurama Reference.

[Anonymous Coward]

No one knows who the first commercial spaceship pilots will be, but /.ers believe it went something like this:

"We're whalers on the moon
We carry big harpoons
But there ain't no whales
So we spin tall tales
We're whalers on the moon"

Re:Does a balloon launch count?

[Rei]

Then Rutan's wouldn't count either, since it's not based completely on rocket stages. There's an air-breathing stage, after all (the White Knight).

Good for them

[MtbRocket]

This is just a good old fashion horse race. I hope it is a photo finish. -Dan

If it isn't tested

[Zebra_X]

It doesn't work. Scaled has been so meticulous about testing, and it's paid off. I don't see the same level of testing in the the competing team. Component level testing only works to a point... Then you need to test the whole shebang.

Someone is going to get hurt. It's not all about that.

Re:If it isn't tested

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, there's plenty of time for them to do manned test flights in the next 60 days. It's called pipelining.

Re:If it isn't tested

[CptNerd]

I sure hope "shebang" isn't going to be the sound effect for their attempt.

Ummmm......

[tufflove]

Looking at those photos on the site I am reminded of that 70's movie ( or mebee early 80's- I was young) with Andy Griffith as a junk yard proprietor who makes a rocket and- no shit- uses a cement mixing truck hopper as the "capsule". While I admire their pluck, there is NO WAY in hell I am going to get inside that thing. Good luck to them though. It's at the very very least a spectacular way to leave the Earth, whether for a short time OR eternity.

Re:Ummmm......

[ptbarnett]

Looking at those photos on the site I am reminded of that 70's movie ( or mebee early 80's- I was young) with Andy Griffith as a junk yard proprietor who makes a rocket and- no shit- uses a cement mixing truck hopper as the "capsule".

Salvage 1. It was 1979.

Re:Ummmm......

[tufflove]

Thanks. I always remembered seeing that as a kid. Ahhh, for the days when imagination was unburdened by skepticism....... aaron

I wonder where the other canadians are at?

[earthforce_1]

http://www.canadianarrow.com/

(I saw their spacecraft during the Hamilton airshow - resembled a V-2 with windows.

Re:I wonder where the other canadians are at?

[yohan1701]

That is because it is a V-2. The engine has a few mods to it but basically its a V-2 rocket engine.

Re:I wonder where the other canadians are at?

[WEFUNK]

They've been doing real world testing and refinement of their systems, including their 57,000lbf (500,000HP) propulsion system, which had its first successful test as far back as last fall. This is apparently the most powerful rocket ever tested in Canada.

They have based their tried and true aerodynamic design and some other aspects of their project on the V-2 rocket, which has (mostly in unfortunate circumstances, of course) the distinction of being the most widely used space capable rocket in history. Their team leader, Geoff Sheerin, is probably the world's foremost expert on the technical aspects of the historical V-2/A4, based on years (some predating the X-Prize) of collecting and interpreting original source documents and data, comparative analysis of museum pieces and CAD drawings, prototyping, and even consultation with surviving designers.

Perhaps more so than any of the other teams in the race, their goal is very much to create a viable business model for, as they say, "Making SPACE for you", and they have spent resources developing training equipment, facilities, and programs at the expense of necessarily being first. They're also investing considerable resources and time to ensure safe operation, ranging from splashdown to the use of experienced pilots/cosmonauts -- an approach that forces the designers and engineers to not take the same level of risk they might take if they were chancing their own lives.

That said, according to their website and other sources, they are planning to begin further testing in August and intend to launch by the end of the year. So best of luck to the teams of Sheerin, Feeney, Rutan, and any others that are moving closer! As long as everyone runs a safe program there really can't be any losers in this race -- in fact, the more ways that work, the better!

Re:Does a balloon launch count?

[gl4ss]

why wouldn't it count?

the competition is about finding new cheap ideas how to get something to very high altitude('space') cheaply and reliably.

I don't see any point in why they would want to limit the possibilities.

Re:Supercalifragilisticexpialitrollcious!

[Anonymous Coward]

wedding hazlenuts

Sorry, redirection limit exceeded. Your lame troll does not work on firefox. Try to make it more cross-browser next time.

They Still Need Our HELP!

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been saying this for a while now and I'm telling all my friends... $500k isn't enough for a manned space flight. I love Burt's SpaceShipOne design, but this is a race that the underdog MUST win! The economy of space-travel needs to know that more than government contractors (Burt built up his knowledge and technology through gov't funding) can participate in the spaceflight market!

da Vinci has a donations button (http://www.davinciproject.com/beta/index.html) and they've got some great merchendise on cafepress.com (http://www.cafepress.com/davinciproject/)! I've done my part (bought the Blast-Off-Thong and the Rocket-Mug three weeks ago... Astronaut-Training-Jersey today)

Da Vinci needs resources. They need margin. They need contingency funding. They need pizza. Slashdot and the geek-revolution as a whole can contribute in a big way to making barn-storming space travel a reality. NASA/Boeing/Lockheed/and now Rutan have given us the Rolls-Royce... we need someone to give us the Model-T. I'm sure even a small donation or merch purchase would be put to good use by Da Vinci. Go for it!

Well....

[desmogod]

Personally, I would love to see a bunch of Canadians jump into a machine built with hot glue and bean cans, with no prior testing, and blast the yanks away. Troll me, mod me down, whatever you want, but there is something oh so nice about the underdog winning is there not? Slap on a CD, buckle yourselfs into the bucket seats you robbed from your mums plymouth, and do yourselves proud boys! P.S. I am neither canadian or yank, so my only bias is caused by politics:P

Re:Well....

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude.......there's no bigger underdog than Burt Rutan. He came from nowhere to turn airplane design on its ear - and he did it on his own.

Re:Well....

[tehcyder]

there is something oh so nice about the underdog winning

Wild guess, you're from the UK (like me)?

Something smells fishy, unfortunately.

[Thagg]

TFA says that the DaVinci group is planning on using a hybrid rocket engine, using nitrous oxide as the oxidizer (as Rutan's SpaceShipOne does) but using something other than synthetic rubber as the fuel. That does make a little bit of sense, as after Rutan's group settled on their rocket engine design, there has been some spectacular research out of Stanford using paraffin (in the American sense of the word) as hybrid rocket fuel. Paraffin has the nice property that it as it gets hot it turns from a solid into a very free-flowing liquid -- which lets it burn very quickly (something that rubber-burning hybrid motors have a hard time with -- the Rutan engine has four separate channels through the fuel to allow it to burn quickly, this leads to the possibility of blowing chunks of propellant.)

Unfortunately, though, the DaVinci website says that their ship will use Kerosene/LOX as the propellant and oxidizer. They have pictures of the engines, including some test firings, on the web site.

You just don't change engine technology at this point in the project.

The only possibilities are that these people are 1) insane or 2) scam artists. It's too bad, it would be spectacularly great if they were on the up-and-up...but...it doesn't appear that they are.

Thad

Re:Something smells fishy, unfortunately.

[SpamJunkie]

I'm confused: unless I'm mistaken paraffin=kerosene so the problem with Kerosene/LOX is the LOX part, which is liquid oxigen? As opposed to the nitrous oxide you being your post with. Your post reads as if their choice of propellant is wrong when really all you're saying is that TFA says they're using a different oxidizer than they actually are?

Re:Something smells fishy, unfortunately.

[bwy]

2) scam artists

The press are dumb asses for falling for it. Shit, I might as well get my 15 minutes of fame. I'm registering for the X-Prize and announcing my winning flight tomorrow. You see, I've had the good fortune of securing temp access to the word's largest rubberband....

Re:Something smells fishy, unfortunately.

[Thagg]

Sorry, I said paraffin in the American sense of the word. We use the word paraffin to mean "candle wax". I understand that it means something different in the rest of the world.

Hybrid engines have a solid fuel and a liquid oxidizer. The article says that the DaVinci rocket uses Nitrous Oxide (a liquid if kept under moderate pressure) as the oxidizer, and something other than rubber (I'm guessing candle wax) as the fuel.

Here is the article that describes the Stanford research. It's great work.

Thad

Re:Something smells fishy, unfortunately.

[IBX]

polyethylene or polypropylene are also possible fuels here. (ButI would rather try building the engine in opposite way - having tank with liquified ethane as a fuel and use solid magnesium perchlorate as solid oxidizer. It would be much lighter combo than rubber+N2O.)

Re:Something smells fishy, unfortunately.

[Forbman]

Paraffin in North America is a white wax that melts at about 150 deg F.

In the UK, paraffin is indeed kerosene (in the US).

Take a chance already.

[Anonymous Coward]

The purpose of the x prize is to stimulate competition in the space industry, and competition involves pushing the limits.

I'm not suggesting that these Canadian contenders should kill themselves over this contest, but it could be argued that in the 21st century we've become a little too risk averse.

Consider that its been 35 years since the crew of Apollo 11 landed on the moon, got out, walked around, and amazed us all. The moon, people! Now that's excitement!

35 years later and its all a lot of test, test, test..

perhaps they should start with a test flight

[Greg@RageNet]

Since they've done very little testing. This is all hype. They are trying to get a little publicity before Rutan sweeps it in a few months..

-- Greg

Beckham!!!

[desmogod]

X Prize vehicles must be able to launch three humans - as well as an eight-track tape, a laptop computer, and a ball kicked by famed soccer player David Beckham WTF???? Beckham would be lucky if he could even spell X Prize, what the hell has he got to do with the cost of rocket fuel?

WildFire Mark VI looks like a giant...

[javaxman]

HA HA HA!!

You've got to be kidding me. Am I just crazy, or er... what does this

http://www.space.com/images/h_wildfire_02.jpg

look like to _you_?!?

Wasn't this a bit in one of those Austin Powers movies??

Redstone History

[jmichaelg]

When I was a kid, I remember seeing films of rockets blowing up for a variety of reasons. One of the reasons Alan Shepherd (first American Astronaut) was feted was he had the balls to get on top of a rocket that was just as likely to blow up as to fly. Browse through John Camack's blog to see how many times he has had something go wrong.

A worst case scenario would entail the rocket blowing up at 80,000 feet because a valve got stuck or the fuel didn't flow quite the same way at 80,000 that it does at sea level when the rocket is steady versus swinging on the end of tether or the guidance mechanism doesn't work the way they thought it would and the rocket flies into the balloon instead of away from it.

Rutan and Carmack have already demonstrated why you test before you go for the big prize - way too many things can, and do, go wrong.

I doubt anyone is stupid enough to try to fly an untested rocket which is why I think the announcement is just a stunt.

Re:Redstone History

[mhollis]

I was around back then and the rocket that couldn't fly was the Atlas, not the Redstone, which was (slightly more) proven. Specifically, the Atlas I "Big Joe" had a number of mishaps, many of which took place in full view of the 7 original astronauts.

The Mercury-Redstone launches did have their problems. Mercury-Redstone 1 had a very short liftoff, rising 4 or 5 inches (10 to 13 centimeters) before settling back on its fins, while the escape tower launched-without its attached capsule. On a manned mission, the tower was supposed to carry an astronaut to safety if the flight were aborted. But Redstone was a more proven vehicle. Unfortunately, it could not attain orbit with a Mercury capsule payload which is why it was used for the suborbital flights (Freedom 7 - Alan Shepard and Liberty Bell 7 - Virgil "Gus" Grissom). Glen's Freedom 7 used an Atlas booster.

Canadians are great at making robot arms. this particular group doesn't look viable to me.

Re:Redstone History

[Anonymous Coward]

I happen to both work for the company that makes the Canadarm and also volunteer for the da Vinci project. I'll admit the philosophies of my day job and night job are very different. Both are viable modes of operation in the space industry.

The -only- problem with da Vinci over the year that I've been involved has been money. Now that we have some money, hopefully enough, the problem has suddenly become 'time'. Burt's team has set a tough schedule for us, but it's certainly not a foregone conclusion. We've done -tonnes- of design on this rocket, and now we have to take on a sort of skunkworks mentality to get it done. Contrary to what I've been reading today, we will be doing lots of component/subsystem level testing. The amount of integrated end-to-end testing will likely be limited simply due to time. This does NOT mean that the rocket will be fundamentally unsafe. There will be no launch unless it's determined that the pilot has a very high chance of survival.

With our design, there are very few inescapable scenarios. Our engine technology change was made long ago in part due to the added safety (I don't know why it hasn't been added to the website). Failure and loss of the vehicle may be likely (makes it more exciting to tune in on launch day), but there will only be an outside chance of anything morbid.

It's dangerous for this new industry to become obcessed with doing things like the rest of the space industry. Space projects cost a billion dollars because of paperwork and analysis, not because of hardware and software. At my day job, nothing is done unless there is essentially -no- credible chance of failure (loss of crew or loss of vehicle). Anything which could become a hazard to that extent has triply (or more) redundant systems (4 ways to drive the arm joints, etc.)

If my night job (da Vinci) took on that mentality, nothing would get done, and all we'd have is a pile of paper and empty toner cartridges. Take away some of the requirement for -complete- safety, and all of a sudden more gets done.

Anyway, I'm optimistic that we'll get things together pretty soon. We've got some high-profile tests on the books in the coming months. Should be exciting.

Re:Redstone History

[VoidWraith]

Why not just focus on making things essential to preservation of the pilot extremely redundant, and have a lower level of redundancy for everything else? The priority should be keeping him alive, not keeping to the schedule... ...In my opinion.

Closer and closer

[Gundampilotspaz]

It is about time that we started to push these things farther. The space programhas been going down hill since 1969 and this contest will hopefully push us into a whole new space era.

Ah...gallows humor -- nothing like it....

[iamcf13]

Only death in fiction in a satiric sense could be deemed funny such as 'Capt. Kong's Wild Ride' at the end of Dr. Strangelove.

By Carnildo's definition, Tuesday, 2001-09-11 should have been a hysterical laugh riot as nearly 3,000 people died in the 'September 11' attacks which involved airplanes and buildings like the 1992 El Al accident cited by Carnildo.

I don't think so.

Real life death is not funny--no matter how spectacular it is....

Re:Ah...gallows humor -- nothing like it....

[Anonymous Coward]

Carnildo didn't say or imply that any of those events were at all funny.

You should blame the people who chose to moderate the post as '+1, Funny'...

Re:Ah...gallows humor -- nothing like it....

[joeljkp]

Who says he wasn't blaming the moderators?

Re:Ah...gallows humor -- nothing like it....

[Anonymous Coward]

In historical context, death can be considered funny. Look at Monty Python's "The Life of Brian", which parodies crucifixion (sp?); or "Hogan's Heroes", where allied bombings of ball-bearing factories (with the accompanying civilian casualties) are presented in a comical light; or the pilot to "Red Dwarf", where nearly everybody on a mining ship dies; or the surprise ending to the "Sherry Bobbins" episode of "The Simpsons", which results in the death of a decent, do-gooding person.

I've no doubt that, ten or twenty years from now, people will be writing comedies about "9/11" (or, at least, comedic references to that event) that will be broadcast on prime-time TV (assuming that such a thing still exists).

Re:Ah...gallows humor -- nothing like it....

[Anonymous Coward]

"Who says he wasn't blaming the moderators?"

Well, the fact that he blames Carnildo's sense of humor is a good clue.

Re:Ah...gallows humor -- nothing like it....

[iamcf13]

The date in question for the X-Prize attempt was picked more likely to commemorate the launch of the Russian satellite Sputnik in 1957 not the death of people in two separate accidents involving airplanes, buildings, and waward surface-to-air missiles....

The blame, such as it is, rests with Carnildo and the moderators who modded up his/her post as funny.

I really would like to say 'shame on them' and truly mean it but I can't because such behavior as this is a consequence of living in the Unites States Of America....

Birthplace of the First Amendmant that guarantees 'Free Speech'....

Birthplace of what is now known as 'The Internet'....

I went to their rollout

[MarkLR]

During lunch time I took the subway and bus to their worksite in the former Downviews AFB in Toronto. The craft itself is now black with GoldenPalace.com logos but they say once a few more layers of thermal shielding are put on they will repaint it will all of their sponsor's logos and the Canadian flag. So its going to look like a NASCAR racer.

They still need to join two pieces of the body and it appeared that the interior where the rocket engine and fuel tanks and pipes would be mounted is completely empty. Also I'm pretty sure that some interior parts of the craft beneath the thermal shielding are made out of wood.

However they seemed confident so I wish them all the best.

They'll be ridin' ...

[Mad Bad Rabbit]

No chance of that. Saskatchewan in October is going to be frozen solid, with lot of snow on the ground. I for one, have never heard of a wild fire in Canada during winter.

Uh oh: it's named "Wildfire" and they're gonna launch it in the dead of winter.
I hope it doesn't bust down its stall and get lost in a blizzard...

escape velocity

[sreid]

in a balloon? maybe if they release the air in the balloon they can reach it, but the ride can't be very smooth.

Re:Yeah! Go Canada!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes! It's abooot time~!

Re:Yeah! Go Canada!

[layer3switch]

Yes! It's abooot time, ay?!

What's the big fucking rush?

[My_Dirty_Facist_Ass]

I mean seriously, why are we trying to rush to get to space possibly at the risk of a person's life, regardless of whether that person is aware of the danger? What is the fucking goddamn hurry? We've been to space, we can get there, we can get there again, why do we need a fucking race to prove something? This is fucking stupid and if anyone dies in the attempt, I will not grieve. Any asshole who discards safety for a fucking guiness record, or a monetary reward, deserves death for a fuck-up.

Your mission, should you choose to accept it...

[zeath]

This message comes to you from far into the future. We have recently discovered ancient texts that indicate a horrible timeline of events is about to transpire:

1. Canadian team launches X-Prize entry due southeast.
2. US sees incoming Canadian ballistics; President orders retalliation strikes. Canada's government is overthrown by the US in the name of the War on Terror and replaces it with a "better" democratic government.
3. Canadian militias revolt and succed in a coup, overthrowing the new government and militia leaders take over governmental responsibilities. Quebec, on the other hand, grasps opportunity in the chaos and officially secedes.
4. US locks down its northern borders. Canadian military immediately and successfully invades the poorly defended state of Alaska.
5. Russia seizes opportunity to get foothold on the North American continent and invades Alaska; Canadian forces resist, and Russia deploys its nuclear arsenal.
6. US sees ICBMs launched by Russia toward the North American continent; fearing they have allied with Canada, US retaliates, firing its arsenal at Russia as well as all other Russian-allied or communist nuclear powers.
7. Global nuclear war sends civilization back 500 years of development. The upright macaque manages to survive and begins propogation.
8. The international space station is caught in a space-time fissure created by nuclear resonance and the astronauts are sent into the future.
9. Planet of the Apes

What do we learn from all of this? You must make every possible effort to stop this launch!

This message will self destruct in 7.5 seconds. Have a nice day.

Re:Your mission, should you choose to accept it...

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you please resend? For some reason your message exploded before I could read it and now half my face is covered in ASCII characters.

Re:Your mission, should you choose to accept it...

[RealAlaskan]

1. Canadian team launches X-Prize entry due southeast. 2. US sees incoming Canadian ballistics; President orders retalliation strikes. Canada's government is overthrown by the US in the name of the War on Terror and replaces it with a "better" democratic government.

Since our constitution requires that each state have a republican government, that shows that we didn't make Canada into a state. Too bad for them. I guess they have to keep on coming down here for health care.

3. Canadian militias revolt and succed in a coup, overthrowing the new government and militia leaders take over governmental responsibilities. Quebec, on the other hand, grasps opportunity in the chaos and officially secedes.

When the Canadians are revolting, we tell them to take a bath. They are disarmed, by their own government, so wouldn't present a threat to an invader. I begin to suspect that this message didn't really come from the future.

4. US locks down its northern borders. Canadian military immediately and successfully invades the poorly defended state of Alaska.

The Alaskan Independence party regularly gets 3 to 5% of the vote for governor, and has once elected a governor. We might invite them in, but I doubt that they could invade if they wanted to. Alaskans are not disarmed. See the previous point.

5. Russia seizes opportunity to get foothold on the North American continent and invades Alaska; Canadian forces resist, and Russia deploys its nuclear arsenal.

Twenty years ago, it was official policy that if Alaska were invaded, the U.S. would pull out of Alaska. National Guard units were to be prepared to resist on their own, without support. There was no provision made for them to link up with returning Americans ... If Russia had invaded, they would have gotten Alaska back. Maybe this message did come from the future.

6. US sees ICBMs launched by Russia toward the North American continent; fearing they have allied with Canada, US retaliates, firing its arsenal at Russia as well as all other Russian-allied or communist nuclear powers.
7. Global nuclear war sends civilization back 500 years of development. The upright macaque manages to survive and begins propogation.

Let's see: 2004-500=1504. Da Vinci (Mona Lisa, 1504)Shakespeare, the Enlightenment, the Reformation (Martin Luther, 1517), Michaelangelo (starts the Cistine ceiling, 1508), the age of exploration (Columbus, 1492, et cetera). And macaques are cute, and have sense enough not to post on Slashdot. Sounds ok.

8. The international space station is caught in a space-time fissure created by nuclear resonance and the astronauts are sent into the future.
9. Planet of the Apes

Planet of the Apes? A future of bad acting and silly symbolism? Now you're scaring me.

Re:Your mission, should you choose to accept it...

[codemachine]

When the Canadians are revolting, we tell them to take a bath. They are disarmed, by their own government, so wouldn't present a threat to an invader. I begin to suspect that this message didn't really come from the future.

Actually Canadians, especially in rural areas, still have a lot of guns. Probably many more hunting rifles than handguns, but there are lots of guns nonetheless.

The government has somehow blown $2billion on a database to register these said guns, and passed a law saying all guns have to be registered. I guess this does lead to the possibility that the government could take them away, since they know where they all are. But since there are plenty of them still not registered, and our government doesn't plan on taking away the registered ones, the Canadians still remain a well armed population. If you believe Michael Moore, we're still as well armed as the American population. This is likely the truth.

Re:Your mission, should you choose to accept it...

[zeath]

Let's see: 2004-500=1504. Da Vinci (Mona Lisa, 1504)Shakespeare, the Enlightenment, the Reformation (Martin Luther, 1517), Michaelangelo (starts the Cistine ceiling, 1508), the age of exploration (Columbus, 1492, et cetera).

500 just seemed like a nice round number. Incidental human genius aside, it's unlikely that any great minds such as these would be born out of the nuclear fallout. Besides, the macaques would eventually subdue them all, since 500 years is also a massive setback in our technological and social evolution.

Re:$10M US? That's like...

[rhuntley12]

I'll do it for $50 US money, and a bottle of Jack.

Wood?

[tufflove]

So why isn't this thing sponsored by Estes???

Long ass tether

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm just amazed that they plan to use a 750 meter tether to attach the rocket to the balloon...

Re:Long ass tether

[flab007]

the same reasoning caused the Mars Climate Observer to smack itself onto the face of Mars. Feet != Meters... but still .. 750 feet is a long ass tether

All I can think about this is...

[k31bang]

Welcome to the Red Green School of rocketry. Instant rockets, just add duct tape. :-)

Why Beckham's ball is on board

[Anonymous Coward]

Beckham has a reputation for missing penalty shots at goal by skying the ball high into the air, so someone has a sense of humour.

"A collector has paid more than $45,000 for the ball David Beckham booted high into the crowd during England's [national soccer team] penalty shootout loss to Portugal in the European Championship quarter-finals ... the auction website said the successful bidder was "goldenpalacecasino." That appears to be an online casino."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM .20040722.wbeck0722/BNStory/Sports/

Golden Palace are the new sponsors of what is now called the "Golden Palace.com Space Program powered by the da Vinci Project."
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/davinci_xpriz eupdate_040805.html

balloons? Don't trash apparent old tech.

[Fallen Andy]

Do not sneer at the Canadian attempt. 30 years or so ago most people would snigger about hot air balloons. While you have Burt Rutan in the U.S. We have Don Cameron in the U.K. They have a lot in common. Especially great engineering taste... Imagine going to your bank manager and saying you want to make balloons? Well. I graduated from Bristol (where Cameron's outfit started I think - I have fond memories of a disused (church?) in Cotham and one van)) in the early 80's and I can tell you that nobody, repeat *NOBODY* is going to know what will happen until it's done. Hey, maybe John Carmack will get there. Personally, my bet (I don't bet) is on Burt. But seriously I'd guess that *this* X-prize doesn't advance affordable space flight much? So when do they define the next one (the one that separates the men from the boys)?

Re:Does a balloon launch count?

[Fallen Andy]

Sure does. But it would make an interesting pastime to consider exactly how many beer cans you'd have to stack to get to the same altitude.... Tower of Babel indeed. Try the "Tower of slashdot"

Great, just great...

[NeuroManson]

First we had to put up with banner ads and spam from online casinos, now we have to put up with online casino ads in space.

Re:viability and testing

[mhollis]

A corporation I know purchased a Cessna Citation II some years back in order to get their executives around quicker. I believe, at the time, the plane cost around $1 million (USD). Yearly maintenance on the plane was $1 million.

That's a lot of money just for maintenance and when I asked about that expenditure I was told, "One doesn't go cheap where the only thing keeping you alive up there is the integrity of the aircraft and its systems."

Anonymous Coward writes: I don't know why it hasn't been added to the website. Perhaps all efforts are being expended in development, not PR. Anonymous Coward writes: Failure and loss of the vehicle may be likely (makes it more exciting to tune in on launch day) ... I can forgo all that excitement where human life is concerned.

Perhaps the reason why I don't see the Canadian group as being viable is due to the fact that entire systems are not being tested. Scaled Composites had a nasty surprise that really frightened the pilot (he commented that he thought he would not survive the flight until the backup steering mechanism began to work) after careful and exhaustive testing. I, for one, would not particularly want to be a part of the media delivery system for a catastrophic failure for any team. And it's likely that I will be handling part of the broadcasts for both.

would space ship one make a THIRD flight?

[peter303]

Rutan's X-Prize attempt would the 5th and 6th manned flight of their vehicle, with the potential for many more. There is no evidence that SS1 has the organization to make 2nd flight or any there after.

Hmm, ...Balloon, Rocket......Acme

[ripcrd]

Reminds me of something that Wile E Coyote might have purchased from Acme to try to catch the Road Runner. For some reason I see a splat against a large flat rock in their future.

(OT) Crime in Space.

[ckaminski]

Pro/ENGINEER. Now there's a product. I've never spent more time in product training learning how to use the product than I did apprenticing under the developers learning how to write code for it. That thing was a beast. I once got a chain-drive assembly going with Pro/Mechanica and gave up. I once wondered why the product suite cost $20-$80,000 per seat. I found out pretty quick.

Re:(OT) Crime in Space.

[joggle]

I didn't claim that it was a GOOD piece of software, just that it could do it. I agree, Pro/E is aweful and terribly expensive (so aweful that for an app like this it could conceivably be easier simply to right a custom app). I would have said a different app if I knew of one that could do it (I'm not aware of any).

If you think your experience was bad, you should try running Pro/E in Windows, probably the worst port ever of any app from Unix (at least back in 2001 when I was trying it out).

Re:(OT) Crime in Space.

[ckaminski]

Don't laugh. I had a hand in that port (worked at Parametric from 1994 to 1997). Pro/E could certainly use some modern user interface redesign, but the port from Unix to Windows was nearly perfect. Both interfaces sucked equally. :-D

And you have to admit, the whole trail file thing was a stroke of genius...

Re:(OT) Crime in Space.

[joggle]

My main gripe, other than the UI, was that Pro/Mechanica had a tendency of crashing (often) on my Windows 2000 box whenever I tried doing a simulation. I had a gig of ram too, so it ticked me off to some extent. Maybe it was because I was using the student version.

Re:Yeah! Go Canada!

[uberdave]

It's spelled "eh".