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?

[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?

[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?

[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 .

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

[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.

Let's hope...

[dangerousbeans]

...it doesnt become a wild fire.

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.

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

[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

[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

[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]

> 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.

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.

[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.

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.

[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.

[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:So what happened to...

[darth_MALL]

On the shelf next to preparation A through G.

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?

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...?

[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.

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: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.

"...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..."

[Kenshin]

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

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.

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"

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.

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: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: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/

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: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.

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?

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: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.

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.

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: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.