Slashdot Mirror


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."

34 of 211 comments (clear)

  1. Days after huh? by cephyn · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    --
    Moo.
    1. Re:Days after huh? by jfoust · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Days after huh? by ResidntGeek · · Score: 3, Funny

      Note the historical significance of the date.

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

      --
      ResidntGeek
    3. Re:Days after huh? by semifamous · · Score: 4, Informative

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

    4. Re:Days after huh? by Carnildo · · Score: 4, Funny

      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)

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
  2. Yeah! Go Canada! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    PS. First Post? Perhaps not.

  3. Man, if they win by Anonymous+Crowhead · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  4. Let's hope... by dangerousbeans · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...it doesnt become a wild fire.

  5. Blackjack in Space by scowling · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    www.kitchengeek.com -- Nosh for
    1. Re:Blackjack in Space by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 4, Funny

      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!

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    2. Re:Blackjack in Space by Rei · · Score: 4, Informative

      > 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.

      --
      Yes, I... I've heard good things about the mud. Lots of people talking about the mud...
    3. Re:Blackjack in Space by Rei · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      Yes, I... I've heard good things about the mud. Lots of people talking about the mud...
  6. Their new name. by DAldredge · · Score: 4, Informative

    "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.

  7. Re:Does a balloon launch count? by Ayaress · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.

  8. Much Cheaper, I hope they win. by njcoder · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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. :)

    1. Re:Much Cheaper, I hope they win. by Idarubicin · · Score: 4, Informative
      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.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
  9. Re:So what happened to... by darth_MALL · · Score: 4, Funny

    On the shelf next to preparation A through G.

  10. Weather by stoolpigeon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

    --
    It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
  11. No previous testing...? by flying_monkies · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    --
    I disagree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it to the death - Voltaire
    1. Re:No previous testing...? by Rei · · Score: 4, Informative

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

      --
      Yes, I... I've heard good things about the mud. Lots of people talking about the mud...
  12. Oh, no room for Canadians in space, huh? by Tackhead · · Score: 4, Funny
    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?)

  13. Newsflash... Newsflash... by hadesan · · Score: 5, Funny
    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

    1. Re:Newsflash... Newsflash... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:Newsflash... Newsflash... by Rei · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Yes, I... I've heard good things about the mud. Lots of people talking about the mud...
  14. Re:Crime in Space. by Mr_Matt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --


    But what does my opinion matter, I just vote here. It's not like I have any money or anything.
  15. "...as well as an eight-track tape..." by tlambert · · Score: 3, Funny

    "...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

  16. Racketeers! by dgmckay · · Score: 3, Funny

    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. :)

  17. If it isn't tested by Zebra_X · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  18. I wonder where the other canadians are at? by earthforce_1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    http://www.canadianarrow.com/

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

    --
    My rights don't need management.
  19. Re:Crime in Space. by Rei · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Yes, I... I've heard good things about the mud. Lots of people talking about the mud...
  20. Something smells fishy, unfortunately. by Thagg · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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

    --
    I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
  21. Re:Crime in Space. by Cthefuture · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    The ratio of people to cake is too big
  22. Re:Redstone History by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  23. Your mission, should you choose to accept it... by zeath · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.