SpaceShipOne to Attempt Second Flight on Monday

Congrats! by grape+jelly · 2004-10-01 06:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

Congrats the the Scaled Composites team! While I hope the $10M prize will give you guys a nice shot in the arm, why not put it toward developing space travel for high-speed human transport rather than tourism? It just strikes me as something that's much more financially viable than tourism....

Re:Congrats! by grape+jelly · 2004-10-01 06:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

Come to think of it, high speed transport -- or any transport, for that matter -- has to be cheap (partly why Concorde failed, although I'm sure its crash in France also helped do it in). But people are content dropping $$$ into fun (as opposed to transport).... This is just a small step anyway, right?
Re:Congrats! by XaXXon · 2004-10-01 06:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

That really doesn't make sense. The $20M is gone. Period. Picking up $10M isn't losing money. It's making $10M you wouldn't otherwise have.

If you paid $4 to drive over a toll bridge and there was a $2 bill lying there, would you not pick it up because it would still be net negative?

It also means that they only have to find a way to make $10M profit to break even as opposed to $20M.

Your comment really doesn't make any sense to me.
Re:Congrats! by Obfiscator · 2004-10-01 06:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

I think the situation is closer to seeing a $2 bill on the other side of a toll bridge and crossing the bridge to get it...only to learn that crossing the bridge cost you $4. Your net gain is negative and the direct result of wanting to pick up the $2 bill.
I would only consider picking up the $2 bill to be earning money if you were going to cross the bridge anyway. In that case, like you said, the toll money is already gone and you can say you "made" $2.

--
"Nothing shocks me. I'm a scientist." -Indiana Jones
Re:Congrats! by chromaphobic · 2004-10-01 06:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

Or, just that no human being had ever crossed that bridge before and you wanted to prove it could be done, and didn't care about the $2 or the $4.
Re:Congrats! by Romeozulu · 2004-10-01 07:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'm not really sure I'd call Concorde a failure with 20+ years in service. Because of the cost, it's far from a huge success, but not exactly a failure.

The biggest problem with Concorde was the noise issues that kept it some being deployed worldwide. Had it had been, economy of scale might have made it an economic success as well as a technical one.

The 747 would have been a huge failure with so few planes only two routes.
Re:Congrats! by wafflemonger · 2004-10-01 09:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

How much money is he going to make off the deal with Virgin? The X-Prize is just the first step toward other money making opporunities.
Re:Congrats! by Richard_at_work · 2004-10-01 11:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

A quick note here, but Boeing had a large part to do with Concorde not flying over the Continental US. The US administration and the FAA had no qualms about sonic booms or supersonic flight over the continental US until the Boeing supersonic aircraft project failed, some years after concorde was finalised. A Boeing aircraft would have had exactly the same issues with regards to sound, but the FAA decided to ban supersonic flights across the US citing noise to be the issue. Boeing had been assured that this wouldnt have been a problem when approached by the Kennedy administration with regards to building a Concorde competitor. From where Im standing it looks decidedly like a case of "Not invented here".

X-Prize, NASA Funding by Aceto3for5 · 2004-10-01 06:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

Does/Should the X-Prize Foundation get federal funding for the efforts they are making towards space travel? Certainly NASA could learn a thing or two about budgets from these space explorers. I think perhaps it is a better investment for the government to fund private groups like this, considering the results of the state-run programs.

Re:X-Prize, NASA Funding by sql*kitten · 2004-10-01 06:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

Does/Should the X-Prize Foundation get federal funding for the efforts they are making towards space travel?

Err, do you actually want to get into space or not?
Re:X-Prize, NASA Funding by System.out.println() · 2004-10-01 06:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

I think the entire purpose of the X-Prize is that it does NOT get government funding. commercial entities need to be self-sufficient here.

--
I've got more mod points and GMail invi
Re:X-Prize, NASA Funding by robi2106 · 2004-10-01 06:33 · Score: 3, Interesting

Gahhhhhhhhhh!!! Not everything needs government funding!

It shouldn't be some big tit that someone can just suck on for a little extra juice to keep on going (please tell that to the airlines & railroads...)

Besides as other posters have said, it was desigend to be privte avoid all the stupid red tape.

But your point about the state run groups is good. I would much rather have the fed hand out a contract to "develop X for us" with exclusive rights to the Fed, than have the Fed create a department to do "X".

Of course, national security concerns says that if the Fed ownes and wholely controlls the development of "X" then there is no company that could possible sue them for breach of contract, or accidentally leak data / information to the press, or other nations.

jason
Re:X-Prize, NASA Funding by Skater · 2004-10-01 07:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

All transportation is government funded at least in part. Think about it: airport terminals, bus terminals, railroad stations, roads, and plenty of other things are all built by the government which the transportation industry then uses. And that doesn't even count the money spent on things like Amtrak, airline bailouts, and other expenses, such as oversight (FAA, FRA, etc).

Why would space travel be any different?

--RJ
Re:X-Prize, NASA Funding by Forbman · 2004-10-01 08:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

NASA's problems are that it really does not do it all internally anymore. The rockets are Lockheed or Boeing. Both of those companies want/need MASSIVE layers of ass-covering documentation to go with their stuff, which of course adds layers of supervision, documentation specialists, checkoff specialists, etc.

Throw Congress poking their noses into the mix, and it really all gets fucked up bad.

cool, now make if affordable and do it to orbit by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-01 06:01 · Score: 3, Interesting

I am glad they are a go! Best wishes to all involved.

It is about time that we had someone other than Government make it to space. This should open up the market! Now, if they can just make this afforable to those of us who can't afford 100K or so...

Hope they go for the $50M prize for a vehicle that will house 5 to/from orbit....

Other competitors by UncleJam · 2004-10-01 06:01 · Score: 5, Interesting

If SpaceShipOne reaches the 100km mark on Monday, will the other competitors just give in, or will they too try to prove that they have the design and technology to reach space? Even if SpaceShipOne did not launch Oct. 4th, would anybody even be close enough to take advantage of this? (Hoping that any failure of the SSO mission would not result in casulties)

Re:Other competitors by idontgno · 2004-10-01 06:12 · Score: 4, Interesting

I've wondered about this myself. There are a lot of teams, full of talented folks and brilliant ideas. The spur of competition (and a big purse) has been excellent, but what happens when that goes away? Are the other efforts going to dry up, or will they perhaps find other funding in the attempt to survive as a commercially-viable endeavor?
It's kind of a shame, isn't it, that money keeps coming into it. But this rocket science stuff gets expensive. I just hope some of the really cool technology being looked at now finds whatever it takes to keep going. I really don't want to get stuck with just one type of commercial spacecraft, the same way we (in the US) has been stuck with only one type of government manned spacecraft. (Which has been the case, with the recent exception of buying flight time from the Russians.)

--
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
Re:Other competitors by zx75 · 2004-10-01 06:13 · Score: 4, Informative

The Canadian DaVinci project has already stated that they are a couple weeks from launching, so if SpaceShipOne for some reason is unable to complete its bid for the X-prize in the next 2 weeks there is a possibility it could occur.

In addition, they have stated that they will be proceeding with the launches regardless of whether the SpaceShipOne project succeeds in claiming the prize or not. Their goal is to prove that they can do it, even if they don't win the prize.

--
This is not a sig.
Re:Other competitors by cly · 2004-10-01 06:14 · Score: 2, Informative

According to Wikipedia, da Vinci Project was planning to make its first competitive flight on Oct 2, but has to delay. So at least someone is close.
Re:Other competitors by Kallahar · 2004-10-01 06:14 · Score: 3, Informative

At the last launch, the X-Prize Foundation announced that they will be continuing the $10 mil prize every year, which will allow other teams to win the prize and give several different designs to the world.
Re:Other competitors by deathcloset · 2004-10-01 06:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

surely the other teams will continue to test their spacecraft.

Especially as we now have the 50mil prize being offered for orbital flight.

Sadly, these flights won't nab them that nice 10mil, but futher tests will certainly yield data that will help those who wish to pursue orbit (and I'm certain at least some do) in the development of thier orbital spacecraft.

Furthermore, just because Rutan wins the prize and is first doesn't mean that he's developed all the best technology for private spacecraft.

It seems likely that just the effort should yield some valuble research and technologies (which they might just sell to virgin galactic or scaled composites).

It's too big an investment to just toss a spaceship in the trashbin.
Re:Other competitors by TrippTDF · 2004-10-01 06:27 · Score: 3, Insightful

They had better keep going... Number 1: They have all thrown tons of time/money into it. Number 2: This is JUST the first step. The X Prize was to kick the Private sector into gear and start a competition... it's not like the X Prize guys said "Hey Burt! We'll give you, and only you, $10 Mil to get to space!" No, they wanted to see copmetition. And not that competition is going to move into the investor market... Virgin made their stake in Scaled, and now that's going to make others kick in to onto the other competitors... Like with any new market, people will throw a ton of money into it, there will be a ton of new companies trying to get their business off the ground (no pun intended)... Think Dot-Com bubble... only this one (hopefully) won't end up the same way. I hope that in 50 years, the X-Prize is remembered as well as Scaled and SSO will be.
Re:Other competitors by cmowire · 2004-10-01 06:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

Well, the next one to get a launch vehicle working will be able to compete with SpaceShipOne for the real payoff -- commercial spaceline companies. Especially if they can do it for less money, safer, or better.

--
Gentoo Sucks
Re:Other competitors by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-01 07:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

I keep seeing this question, and it's starting to drive me a bit batty. Say you've invested several million dollars into making a working, passenger carrying suborbital rocket, hoping to win the X-Prize. Someone else gets the prize first. Can no one seriously come up with a way of making money off a suborbital, passenger carrying rocket ship? Do the investers not care about recouping at least part of their investment? Does no one want to go to space? Do people sit around with a spaceship up on blocks in their front yards wondering what the hell they're going to do with it?

It's even worse when people ask John Carmack this, since his rocket even has a guidance system and lands by itself (and has shown progress beyond cg animations at the x-prize website). Apparently few, if anybody, can come up with a use for a self-guided, self-landing, easily reusable rocket that can carry six hundred pounds. Should I even bother typing out "overnight automated package delivery to Japan"? Sure, there's problems with the idea, but I'd think slashdot and especially the x-prize forums could display a small hint of creativity.

Now granted, if someone spent several million on a suborbital rocket and all they have to show for it so far is a few sketches on a napkin, then I could understand them throwing in the towel. But they'd probably be giving up no matter the status of the X-Prize if their investment hasn't shown any progress.
Re:Other competitors by foolish · 2004-10-01 08:39 · Score: 3, Informative

Can you find a reference? Because all I see is reference to the X-Prize Cup which is entirely different than a "X-Prize a year" concept.

The X-Prize Cup is a bit more oriented towards "racing" team competition than as a stepping stone towards commercial space travel/tourism.

Not that the racing concept isn't useful for publicity and development of parts of the playing field, but they aren't the same prizes.

Peter Diamandis was heard saying by Neil+Blender · 2004-10-01 06:03 · Score: 5, Funny

Damnit, where am I going to get 10 million dollars?

Re:I hope they can do it without the spin-stabiliz by mkmoose · 2004-10-01 06:03 · Score: 2, Interesting

I am guessing that there succuss will come out of the fact that a pilot can control this ship and it is not reliant on predetermined scenarios. I always worry when aircraft have too many computers in them. The pilot obviously averted disaster here.

Re:I hope they can do it without the spin-stabiliz by CriX · 2004-10-01 06:03 · Score: 5, Interesting

One thing that's amazing is that Melvill turned off the rocket something like 40 seconds early!! I wonder if SS1 could survive the stresses of atmosphere reentry falling from 200km altitude.

--
Moderation: +1 pwnage

Improvements? by ppz003 · 2004-10-01 06:04 · Score: 2, Interesting

I think it will be interesting to see how well they can repeat or even improve on the last flight. Or will they try to run an exact repeat?

Basically, how safe and sound are their methods?

Media Coverage by Plocmstart · 2004-10-01 06:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

It'll be interesting to see how the media covers any potential problem that occurs this time. They hyped up the whole roll situation like it was the end of the world, even after he safely made it back down (a majority of the questions asked of him were about the unexpected roll). Gotta love how reporters constantly repeat nearly the same question when they don't really understand the situation....

Re:Media Coverage by ctwxman · 2004-10-01 06:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

The roll showed inherent design problems with this particular spacecraft. No one seriously believes Mike Melville mistakenly kicked it into the corkscrew. Now that they have commercial contracts to carry passengers (with Richard Branson) spinning is not good for business. Dick Rutan will find a way to have this craft go up once more, a new (modified) design will be built which fixes this instability and SpaceShipOne will go to the Smithsonian before it hurts anyone. I can't commend Rutan's team enough, but this is an experimental craft in a rush to fly. There will be problems - that's why a test pilot was at the controls. The press (where I work) has a right and obligation to question this part of the flight. Rutan already has PR specialists to slavishly praise.
Re:Media Coverage by Tablizer · 2004-10-01 06:39 · Score: 5, Funny

a majority of the questions asked of him were about the unexpected roll

Media: "Can you please comment on the repeated rolls in which you kept rolling around and around and around in a dizzying, girating, spiraling, stomach-spinning fashion as if it would never end?" (making spinning hand-gestures)

Pilot: "Bwwaaaaarrrrrf" (splat)

--
Table-ized A.I.
Re:Media Coverage by el-spectre · 2004-10-01 07:03 · Score: 3, Interesting

Question, and apparently draw conclusions based on knee-jerk analysis. MANY otherwise sound craft have experienced unexpected behavior (including rolls) because of pilot error or overcorrection.

This is why they use test pilots. These guys know how to recover when things go bad.

You are right that the press has an obligation to investigate. But BEFORE that, you need to make sure you know what the hell you are talking about. The ability to publish does not prove the ability to speak authoritatively on the subject.

--
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
Re:Media Coverage by voidptr · 2004-10-01 08:22 · Score: 2, Funny

Well, if you're in the press...

Could you at least *try* to keep which of the Rutan brothers is responsible correct? Burt Rutan designed and built SSO.

Dick Rutan is his brother who piloted Voyager around the world in 1986.

Once you get the cast of characters correct, then you can start to think about explaining aerospace engineering and control envelopes.

--
This .sig for unofficial government use only. Official use subject to $500 fine.
Re:Media Coverage by el-spectre · 2004-10-01 08:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

So, one of the best aeronautical engineers, and a damned good pilot BOTH share the same opinion, but unnamed folks on the ground disagree... yup, solid reporting there.

--
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
Re:Media Coverage by iabervon · 2004-10-01 09:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

It may also turn out that the corkscrew is not a problem and keeps the craft pointed in the right direction, similar to how rifling improves the accuracy of bullets. It might just look disturbing to the people on the ground, and not upset the pilot or passengers. If you recall, the test run had two instabilities at that point in the flight, and rolling was the less hazardous one. I wouldn't be surprised if Melvill let it spin, rather than correcting, to keep it from doing anything else.

For that matter, if a part detatched from a spinning launch vehicle, it would be (slightly) more likely to fly clear of the vehicle, rather than hitting the vehicle further back.

Video mirrors by Rupan · 2004-10-01 06:06 · Score: 4, Informative

I have to go out right now, but when I return (soon) I will have the videos mirrored on my website here: http://www.css-auth.com/ss1/ Perhaps within the hour.

--
Ads? What ads?

Holiday snaps? by bludstone · 2004-10-01 06:06 · Score: 3, Funny

Could be taken on a holiday.

Photographs, ey? He asked him knowingly... ..but still.. WOOOAAAHHHhhh

--

no .sig

Re:That's hot by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-01 06:08 · Score: 3, Informative

There is a mirror at mirrordot ... ;) http://www.mirrordot.org/

Re:I hope they can do it without the spin-stabiliz by f00zy · 2004-10-01 06:10 · Score: 4, Informative

It was more like 11 seconds.
CNN story

Flight Two Sponsored By... by MonkeyGone2Heaven · 2004-10-01 06:11 · Score: 2, Funny

ReliefBand: Nausea relief to go.

Mike Melville rolled it on purpose! by mark99 · 2004-10-01 06:11 · Score: 2, Interesting

That is what I think. He even said he thought it was kinda cool.

I think he just wanted to say "Yehaa...".

Re:Mike Melville rolled it on purpose! by Nick+Driver · 2004-10-01 06:24 · Score: 3, Interesting

You're not the only one suspecting that he did intend to perform a one or two turn roll... and that the roll turned out to be vastly more intense than he bargained for... maybe due to the lack of atmospheric friction against the aircraft in the roll. A little control input perhaps goes a loooooong way in this craft, once beyond the point where there is no more atmospheric drag.

Have we heard anything official... by MarcoAtWork · 2004-10-01 06:11 · Score: 3, Interesting

about what exactly caused the roll last time? Given that now they had time go to through the telemetry data one assumes they would know for sure exactly what happened: did they make the info public?

--
-- the cake is a lie

Re:Have we heard anything official... by m_member · 2004-10-01 06:16 · Score: 4, Informative

I think it was announced that it was wind shear which caused the roll on the first flight.
Re:Have we heard anything official... by Tablizer · 2004-10-01 07:04 · Score: 3, Funny

what exactly caused the roll

He dropped his Snickers Bar on the floor, and had to feel around to find it. I have this problem all the time when I don't have a passenger to help me find my Snickers. Complicating the matter is that what is the "floor" changes when going into space. Never know where a Snickers can end up.

--
Table-ized A.I.

Bransons space adventure by hsmith · 2004-10-01 06:11 · Score: 2, Interesting

Branson is only funding his Virgin space ship line becuase he wants 2 hour flights from Australia to london instead of 20+ hour flights :o

Re:Bransons space adventure by platos_beard · 2004-10-01 07:50 · Score: 2, Interesting

Hmmm, how far could SS1 actually get if it hadn't steered straight up? It would still take an hour to get up to detachment altitude, but if he only flew up to, say 15 km and did a long glide, could it at least get from US West Coast to Europe in a couple hours?

--
What's a sig?

I wonder... by Pig+Hogger · 2004-10-01 06:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

Almost 50 years ago, the X-15 basically had the same capabilities as Spaceship One's.

What were the development costs of the X-15 program???

Re:I wonder... by Lumpy · 2004-10-01 06:40 · Score: 3, Funny

What were the development costs of the X-15 program???

60 bucks and a couple of Jiffy-pop packages.

it's a little known secret that when you expose a Jiffy-pop package to microwave energy it's resulting expansion act's like a very powerful rocket.

The military took advantage of that side effect and used it to win a bar bet against the German V-II rocket engineers who said that they could not make it to space on popcorn power.

It's amazing what you discover about history using the freedom of information Act.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.

Re:The other X-Prize contestants by Animats · 2004-10-01 06:16 · Score: 2, Interesting

Well, after the Gossamer Condor won the Kremer Prize, and the Gossamer Albatross flew the English Channel on pedal power, everyone else pretty much gave up.

It was flying the English Channel that did it. Nobody else could even fly the Kremer course (a one-mile or so figure 8), and then the group did the English Channel.

Robust design by mdp1173 · 2004-10-01 06:17 · Score: 5, Informative

Actually, the method SpaceShipOne uses to re-enter the atmosphere is pretty robust and safe. Most times, entry vehicles use a blunt end - think the bottom of the Apollo capsule - to slow down through a process called 'aerobraking'. If a vehicle starts to spin rapidly during that time, bad things happen. SSO can enter the atmosphere in any orientation - nose down, nose up, sideways - and it will be OK because of it's back wing surface. In an orientation the Scaled guys call "feathering" the back end flips up 90 degrees in a high drag configuration. This forces the nose into the atmosphere at the right angle, so spinning isn't a vehicle loss issue Still, you go a lot slower re-entering from a suborbital flight than an orbital speed re-entry a la Columbia circa 2003

For when the site gets slashdotted. by Avtar · 2004-10-01 06:17 · Score: 2, Informative

http://www.mirrordot.org/

or

http://www.mirrordot.org/stories/23a07365766c74d70 6a3f98adfc2cc05/index.html

BitTorrent download by TheSHAD0W · 2004-10-01 06:21 · Score: 5, Informative

Download video via BitTorrent at X-Prize-flight-1.wmv.torrent

Come on guys, start caching stuff... by Black.Shuck · 2004-10-01 06:28 · Score: 4, Funny

...with FreeCache or Coral.

Or just make it Slashdot-policy to use the past-tense when describing off-site content, like this:

Before: "There is a very cool video..."
After: "There was a very cool video..."

Kind of pre-empts the whole /. effect, don't you think?

It would be great to start moving away from the whole organised-DDOS attack thing...

Love the video! by JUSTONEMORELATTE · 2004-10-01 06:31 · Score: 2, Interesting

I watched the webcast, but the Scaled video has some of the in-cabin footage. After Mike cut the engines, you can see him working to stabilze the roll, then as he hit the zenith, he grabs a digi-cam and starts taking snapshots out the windows.
Gotta love it!

--
Free gmail invites

Re:I hope they can do it without the spin-stabiliz by Lumpy · 2004-10-01 06:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

The other thing that is amazing is that the man is flying that spaceship MANUALLY!

Nasa never launched with a manual flight system, nor the Russians.

I am curious as to why it does not have a simple flight computer and gyros to auto stabalize the launch flight. Even a low cost autopilot out of a old jet could do the job.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.

./ed already by trilks · 2004-10-01 06:34 · Score: 3, Funny

From the site:

"(sorry slashdot.org visitors, overloaded...start a bittorrent feed?)"

How did they know we were coming?

--
You won't hate yourself in the morning if you don't get up before noon.

Re:./ed already by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-01 06:40 · Score: 5, Interesting

because the webmaster reads slashdot. ;)

And also when you try to load your own website and it takes 30 seconds to load the main page, this is the first place you look. Well, I'll post the torrent mirror link right now, that will help. There's three machines in a round robin, but the port only has so much bandwidth. :)

--Mike the webmaster

Re:I thought they had to carry 3 people? by Thomas+A.+Anderson · 2004-10-01 06:37 · Score: 3, Informative

They do have to carry 3 people, or the pilot and weight of 2 passangers (probably used sand bags).

BTW, Burt Rutan mentioned just after the last flight that he might be a passenger in the next one.

--
Personally its not God I dislike, its his fan club I cant stand (bash.org)

Yes, consider the results of the state-run program by 2nd+Post! · 2004-10-01 06:38 · Score: 5, Insightful

We got to the moon. And back. Multiple times.
We sent probes to Mars. And Venus. And beyond. And some of them still work.
We sent rovers to Mars. That still work.
We built several working space vehicles.
We space-walked.
We build a space station. And then we built another one.
We chased comets. And sent the collected materials back.
We've populated our solar system with several probes that have performed beyond expectation.
We have Tang.
We have titanium hips, golf clubs, glass frames, laptops, and spyplanes.

There are many, many, more places where our investment into NASA has benefitted us enormously.

--

GPL Deconstructed

Lesson #1: Use FreeCache by Matthew+Angel · 2004-10-01 06:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

- Videos -
Oct 01 11am - VIDEOS TEMPORARILY UNAVAILABLE (sorry slashdot.org visitors, overloaded...start a bittorrent feed?)

So instead of just everyone jumping all over their site directly, why not use FreeCache first, especially when you know the video is 5.7 megs and it'll be popular...

(sig)^-1 ... is that sag?

Canadian Arrow Team by uberdave · 2004-10-01 06:42 · Score: 4, Informative

The Canadian Arrow team has put together the world's first private astronaut training centre. If they were only in it for the X-Prize, they wouldn't have built the training centre. They are looking to space tourism, and are also hoping to start a new extreme sport: Space-diving (like sky-diving, except from space).

--
"I'm not impatient. I just hate waiting." - My Dad

Re:Canadian Arrow Team by CvD · 2004-10-01 11:20 · Score: 2, Informative

Space diving? Thats insane... I don't know if you've heard of Joe Kittinger, who jumped from a balloon at 102,800 ft. The first jump he had serious trouble stabilizing himself, as there was no air to work with. On later jumps he deployed a drogue as is used with tandem skydives these days. He had a special suit made and took oxygen along. It was all a rather complicated affair.

Of course I'm not saying space travel is not complicated. Its just that skydiving becomes a lot more complicated when you travel higher than 15,000ft. I'm sure there'll be some people that will do it, but I don't see it as something that many skydivers will be willing/able (skill-wise or finallcially) to do.

Cheers

--
The Official Steve Ballmer Webpage
Re:Canadian Arrow Team by uberdave · 2004-10-01 15:45 · Score: 2, Informative

London hosts one of the largest airshows in Ontario. Aside from the usual areobatic displays, there is a huge ground display. Besides, I don't think 2hrs outside of the fifth largest city in North America, just off of North America's busiest highway is the middle of nowhere.

--
"I'm not impatient. I just hate waiting." - My Dad

Re:I hope they can do it without the spin-stabiliz by DaHat · 2004-10-01 06:50 · Score: 3, Informative

The heat due to reentry has less to do with the altitude and more to do with the actual speed at impact.

Objects that reach orbital velocity are going far faster and thus generate far more heat then something that effectively goes straight up and straight down such as SpaceShipOne (relative to something like the space shuttle that does achieve orbit).

--
Help Brendan pay off his student loans

Re:Yes, consider the results of the state-run prog by Tanktalus · 2004-10-01 06:58 · Score: 3, Interesting

I suppose the big question is ... if NASA instead were merely a contracting arm of the goverment which put together specs for tender, would we have gotten further, faster, and cheaper?

And let's not forget the human cost: would we have lost similar or fewer people doing it (safety)?

No, really. I'm serious. This is not intended as a slam against government waste or corporate cost/corner cutting. It's really a question for thought. Is there a middle ground available where we get the same safety, but further/faster/cheaper?

Contractors would need to be able to find ways to compete against others for the research business. There are some things that competition is good for. But, then again, with only one possible customer at the time (NASA), would there be enough competition for those dollars? Now might be a much better time (than, say, the 1950's) to thin out NASA, spin off JPL, and then have NASA merely contract out: the competition will be competing for business from much more than NASA - airlines will be interested in some of this technology, too, I'm sure.

Resting on your laurels is counterproductive by dillon_rinker · 2004-10-01 07:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

We sailed to England. And back. Multiple times.
We sent messengers to Persia. And India. And beyond.
We sent caravans to India. We still trade with them.
We built several working sailing ships.
We swam in the sea.
We colonized a tiny island. And then we colonized another one.
We chased whales. And sent the collected materials back.
We've sent our driftwood around the world on the ocean's currents.
We have spice.
We have gunpowder, algeabra, paper, Arabic numerals, and modern surgery.

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO NEED FOR US TO FINANCE THIS FLEET OF YOURS, COLUMBUS!!!

Re:Resting on your laurels is counterproductive by dillon_rinker · 2004-10-01 10:28 · Score: 2, Interesting

"government programs are doing useful research"

But that's a red herring. USEFUL isn't the topic of discussion; the X-Prize, or more generally, manned spaceflight, is the topic. The post the GP was replying to suggested that funding should go somewhere besides NASA. I don't suggest de-funding NASA (they ARE useful), but I would suggest funding some manned space programs that might actually get us out of the gravity well. LEO doesn't cut it. 20,000 bureaucrats doesn't cut it. Feynman's report on the shuttle bureaucracy (in the wake of the Challenger explosion) was quite damning. Nothing changed, and 15 years later we lost another shuttle and another crew to another avoidable problem again predicted in advance by engineers. We will NOT get large-scale manned spaceflight with NASA as it currently exists. Feel free to point to empirical evidence that suggests otherwise.

"Besides, if we liken NASA to..."
I'd liken NASA to one of the kings who had already turned down Columbus (he approached several monarchs of several nations before hitting it off with Isabella. I would liken her to the X-Prize. (Yeah, it's not a perfect analogy.) Columbus didn't care who funded him as long as someone did. I don't care who funds manned spaceflight as long as someone does. Again, hanging around in LEO doesn't cut it, and I haven't seen anything from NASA to suggest they'll do anything else.

Re:Heard they got a cypher lock on the space ship by flosofl · 2004-10-01 07:14 · Score: 2, Funny

Damn! That's the same as my luggage. Quick, change the combo!

--
"This calls for a very special blend of psychology and extreme violence" - Vyvyan "The Young Ones"

Re:I hope they can do it without the spin-stabiliz by cmowire · 2004-10-01 07:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

Well, because it's harder than you think.

Remember, he's got a stick for subsonic flight. He's got trim for supersonic flight. And then he's got thrusters for space usage. Plus backup systems, which you have to know when they should be activated. So it can't just be an off-the-shelf system.

The thing is, if you *needed* the autopilot, you'd need to have redundancy and reliability and whatnot. If you don't *need* the autopilot, it's an added expense, a waste of time, and it takes up weight that can be used for something else. So, for an experimental aircraft that's going to be flown by Scaled's best pilots, why not?

The other problem is that the main folks who have an off-the-shelf flight computer that would be suitable is the Air Force. Who obviously isn't going to sell one to "just anyone", which means that an X-prize contender can't have it.

--
Gentoo Sucks

Re:Or 1 + equivalent weight by voidptr · 2004-10-01 07:32 · Score: 4, Informative

They could put tickets for the two additional seats on E-bay

No, actually they couldn't.

N328KF is registered as an experimental glider. Under Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) that means two things:

a) You can't carry passengers at all until the craft has been satisfactorily flight tested.
b) You can never carry passengers for hire.

Whether or not at this point SSO has been flight tested is up to the FAA. It's usually about 40 hours of testing, and I have no clue whether they've put that much time on the airframe at this point or not and whether the FAA inspector is happy with the suborbital flight tests they've done. In any event, they won't be able to recover costs from passengers until they develop a certificated platform.

--
This .sig for unofficial government use only. Official use subject to $500 fine.

Video Mirror Up, with MPEG conversion (soon) by IdahoEv · 2004-10-01 07:35 · Score: 3, Informative

Ecliptic Enterprises, who makes the onboard videocamera used for much of that footage, has two mirrors of the video footage:

RocketCam (TM) Videos

RocketCam (TM) Video Mirror at RocketCam.Space.TV

MPEG and QT conversions of the WMV will be going up in a few minutes, as well, for all you linux and mac users. (As of 12:30pm PST, should be up by 1:00PST/4:00EST).

Disclaimer: I'm Ecliptic's webmaster by subcontract.

Enjoy.

-Ev

--
I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.

Re:I hope they can do it without the spin-stabiliz by pragma_x · 2004-10-01 08:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

The other problem is that the main folks who have an off-the-shelf flight computer that would be suitable is the Air Force. Who obviously isn't going to sell one to "just anyone", which means that an X-prize contender can't have it.

That's probably no coincidence since a "spacecraft" with an autopilot, is basically an explosive device short of a missile. There may be some heavy federal legislation involving the private production of such systems let alone the government not wanting to share such technology with just anyone.

Just a thought.

Re:I hope they can do it without the spin-stabiliz by dinodrac · 2004-10-01 08:27 · Score: 3, Insightful

Given Bert Rutan's history with experemental aircraft, and the things that can go wrong with automated controls, fully manual flight controls only make sense. By keeping the controls simple, and by having avionics that tell the pilot what to do rather than do it for him, they reduce the expense, while improving pilot safety. Look at all thats gone wrong with NASA's massively redundant computer systems - if the flight computer on spaceshipone completely fails, chances are the pilot will still land the craft safely, and may even be able to complete the mission safely.

Video Mirror with MPEG for Linux Users by IdahoEv · 2004-10-01 08:45 · Score: 2, Informative

The SpaceShipOne footage is available along with a lot of other cool space launch footage including the June SS1 first flight into space at Ecliptic Enterprises' RocketCam Videos page.

I just uploaded MPEG conversions, as well, so Linux users (and Macs without Windows Media Player) get to join in the fun.

Disclaimer: I'm Ecliptic's webmaster.

--
I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.

Dead end hacks by Phil+Karn · 2004-10-01 09:54 · Score: 4, Interesting

I wish Rutan et al well, but this whole X-Prize thing bothers me.

If these guys were investigating and developing a radical new technology that's orders of magnitude cheaper than the traditional ways of getting into space, then it would be really interesting. Even a stunt like the X-Prize shot would be worthwhile to help develop it. But it's not radical new technology. It's just the same old chemical rocket stuff all over again. With a lot of cut corners. (And, apparently, "unscripted maneuvers").

And they're not even particularly good chemical rockets. Hybrid rockets burning plastic/rubber/etc and N2O have inherently poorer performance than, say, the hydrogen/oxygen engines that are common on the upper stages of orbital launchers. Hybrids are simpler, cheaper and safer, and they've become very popular among amateur high-power rocketeers for this reason. They're fun. But they just don't have the performance for a practical orbital launcher, as opposed to a suborbital "stunt" flight. Or is "commercial manned space" just about quickie zero-g joyrides for people with too much money? I can already experience zero-g on an airplane or Six Flags' Superman: The Escape a lot more cheaply.

The problem is that there just don't seem to be any radical, new technologies promising to cut space access costs by orders of magnitude just waiting for entrepreneurs to commercialize them. And that means only a tiny handful of humans will ever be able to go into space in our lifetime, and for at least several more. I wish it were otherwise, but we have to face facts. In the meantime, we have to get the very most out of the expensive launchers we do have, and that means putting more and more capable robots into space to give us earthbound humans the best vicarious experience of space travel we can possibly get.

I'm also really put off by all this "go private enterprise, rah rah rah" stuff, as if NASA is full of complete idiots. (It got so thick the other morning that I had to turn the TV volume down.) Who do they think builds the rockets that NASA has been flying for decades? What about the many space launchers that have already been fully commercialized? And where did the money for SpaceShipOne really come from? (Hint: what if the US Government were to actually enforce its antitrust laws against large software companies?)

If you've got the money, you can already buy a launch from any of several commercial companies, and only some of them are American. And there are companies who routinely launch stuff and make money. Space is already big business.

But when I look at SpaceShipOne and similar projects, I see a bunch of rich guys publicly stroking their egos. SpaceShipOne is a dead-end hack. I'd actually be completely okay with that if only they would be more honest with the public about what they're really doing.

Good hacks by Dr.+Zowie · 2004-10-01 10:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

Nah, you've got the emphasis all wrong. These guys are demonstrating that existing technology is sufficient to open a new niche. Hybrid rockets have been in serious use (by the amateur community) for a little over a decade, and are a very important development for safety.

The big problem with liquid-fueled rockets is that they blow up so damned easily. You have to mix two (often cryogenic) fuels rapidly and efficiently, and ignite them rapidly and steadily enough that no pooling or major vortex shedding occurs in the engine (BOOM). You have to pump those liquids into the engine against the pressure of combustion; just the mechanical power required to do so is a major problem for existing rockets (e.g. the Space Shuttle Main Engines, which use insanely expensive turbopumps that still require overhauls after every flight).

Rubber/Nitrous hybrid engines may have lower specific impulse than LOX/H2 engines, but they have the added advantage that it's pretty hard to make one explode. The combustion occurs on a well-defined surface (the surface of the rubber) and you can throttle the engine easily by controlling the flow of oxidizer. Rutan's insight in the SS1 design was that controllability, simplicity, and safety are more important than sheer power.

When you start treating spaceflight as a routine event, rather than an expensive stunt, then having the most power possible isn't as important as having reliable, low-maintenance, safe engine components. You might as well complain that Ford isn't getting 1,800 HP out of its 6-liter Explorer engines -- after all, drag racers achieve more than 300 HP/liter, why shouldn't your family bulgemobile?

Re:Good hacks by Phil+Karn · 2004-10-01 10:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

You don't understand. Sure, it's easier to build low-performance rocket engines. Sure, they're much safer and cheaper. But they're simply not enough, not if you want to reach orbit instead of being limited to quickie suborbital stunts with no meaningful future. Why do you think NASA and its international counterparts work so hard on developing advanced rocket engines despite the enormous challenges? Just to waste money?
The average man on the street doesn't understand that just achieving altitude, even 100 kilometers, is easy compared to entering orbit. Nearly all the energy it takes to orbit the shuttle goes into its kinetic energy, not its potential energy. Nor does the average man in the street understand that energy goes up as the square of velocity, nor does he know that the rocket equation that relates mass fraction to velocity is exponential. Heck, he probably doesn't even know what "exponential" means, or why that's bad.
The average man in the street thinks SpaceShipOne is now just a step away from going into orbit and replacing the shuttle, and that's just bunk. Rutan and company certainly know this, but they seem to enjoy the attention too much to point this out.
Re:Good hacks by Teancum · 2004-10-01 14:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

*Sigh*

The average person "on the street" frankly is totally clueless about what is even happening. Frankly, they are asking the average geek/nerd/astro guy they happen to know and ask them just what all this hoopla is really all about, and wondering why the geek is wetting his pants. (well, some of them at least)

This is a cool thing, and credit should be given where credit is due. With the announcement of the "America's Prize" (I guess yet to be announced) a new round in the competition for going into space will soon be at hand. If you are correct about Space Ship One, that Burton Rutan can't get it (or a similar ship) into orbit, then it looks like Armadillo Aerospace and the Romanians are going to be much more in the running for that prize.

The ships from those two groups appear to be more upgradeable to make it to orbit, although I would have to agree that reentry issues have not been fully explored. Still, there are a number of private groups now that have working propulsion systems going, and have been at least sending things up a few hundred feet, if not more, and are dealing with scalability issues as well.

I appreciate the fact that the X-Prize has set the tone of the current attitude toward space exploration. While it is more than likely driving nails into the coffin of NASA, there is much more to what is happening in the space industry than even cute rocket stunts. And don't think the big aerospace companies aren't paying attention to what is going on either.

Right now the rocket industry is in a renasannce that looks very much like the early days of the automobile industry or the early aviation industry. There are a couple of very well financed companies (like XCOR, for example) that I would be surprised if they went belly up, but still anything is possible. Boeing certainly struggled in their early days when they were first starting out, and it was a construction team smaller than Armadillo Aerospace, with far less financial backing.

I predict that private commercial space enterprises (like Virgin Galactic) will be within 10 years bringing in more cashflow than the entire computer industry. One reason in particular is because there is much more room to grow into space than there is for the computer industry to penetrate into 3rd World nations. Private space companies "going public" will be the next darling on Wall Street, and will create the next round of Billionaires for those who are getting in right now.

Re:Roll all the way by starbird · 2004-10-01 11:15 · Score: 2, Informative

There is only 1 rocket nozzle.

The theory is the roll was started by upper level winds, which was correctable. Mellville says he stepped on a rudder pedal a bit too agressively which started the unrequested roll.

If you look at the design, the rudders are above the thrust line. If you give a rudder input, you will get a roll in the same direction. Its like having built in dihedral. Once the roll started, they were in the upper stmosphere. The aero surfaces would be pretty much ineffective, but the RCS would not be strong enough yet to control the craft. By that time the feathering system could be opened, and any roll/yawing moments would be dampened as the craft comes back into thicker atmosphere. You even see the pilot stop fiddling with the controls once the roll was slowed and start taking pictures.

You could ask 'well why not put the wings and vertial stabs in line with the thrust line?" My thinking is that you want the weight further below the line so that on reentry it will want to come down right side up. It would help it be more stable on the way down and make sure the craft reenters at the corect attitude (rather than inverted or backward).

Slashdot Mirror

SpaceShipOne to Attempt Second Flight on Monday

81 of 314 comments (clear)