Slashdot Mirror
SpaceShipOne Captures the X Prize
I got to Mojave yesterday evening (it's a long way from El Paso), slept in my car, and got to the airfield itself just before 4 a.m. Traffic on state highway 58 was brisk already, though not clogged (which it later became), and nearly every car was turning onto the two-lane entrance heading for acres of packed-dirt parking spaces near the runway from which SpaceShipOne would take off.
The crowd which built up in the following hours was surprisingly quiet on takeoff, which happened right at 7:45 local time. Not exactly hushed -- perhaps "hesitant" is a better word, or maybe just waking up. Only scattered clapping (guilty!) as the White Knight / SpaceShipOne piggyback duo lifted off, followed shortly by two chase planes, an AlphaJet and a Beechcraft Starship. The enthusiasm grew, though, as the flight progressed; a P.A. system kept the spectators informed of the trip's progress.
When SpaceShipOne finally separated and fired upward ("Good release, good release!" over the P.A, followed by enthusiastic cheering), it was after three separate two-minute warnings, then for one-minute and 30-second intervals. After an 84-second burn followed by a clean shutdown, SpaceShipOne coasted to its final altitude. At 90 seconds into the flight, the ship was well past 100,000 feet, and out of sight to the unaided eye. At 7:51, an altitude of 328,000 feet was reported, but the ship was still climbing for the next 40,000 feet under its own momentum. The reported peak altitude is enough to top the previous record, set by an X-15 at 354,200 ft. in 1963.
The descent was happily uneventful. At 60,000 feet, Binnie experienced "slight oscillations" -- consistent with previous flights, according to the announcer, who continued to count down the altitude. At approximately 45,000 feet, the conditions are right for contrails, and more cheering erupted when those popped into view. The crowd perked up and cheered even more with the first of two sonic booms audible on the ground (the booms that occur during ascent aren't), pointing and shading their eyes from the sun, following the ship as it traveled in wide arcs to bleed off the energy of the ascent, followed by a smooth 3-point landing.
(Special thanks to the members of the Foothill High School band who traveled the three hours from Orange County to watch the flight and play both before and after the flight. The launch itself was surprisingly low on ceremony, and their playing provided a bit of well-deserved pomp.)
After the first several dignitaries and rich adventurers (and probably pile of useless pop stars and actors/actresses) the thing will probably be booked solid with geeks with telescopes.
i wonder if William Shatner can get me cheap tickets through Priceline...
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
That's a bit of a let-down, actually. I was hoping a few more people would have a successful first launch before someone managed to do it twice in two weeks. It would have been a little more dramatic.
What do you think will happen to the other projects? I suppose they must have been funded well enough to not depend on receiving the prize.
<sig>Guvf vf abg n frperg zrffntr
Official X-Prize peak height from first flight
According to those numbers, the first flight was several kilometers lower than the number given by the Mojave radar. i.e. The X-Prize foundation says that SpaceShipOne only went ~102 km, while the unofficial numbers has said ~117 km. This time SpaceShipOne only went to 368,000 (~102km) according to the unofficial numbers. (CNN said that 328,000 is the cutoff point, not the altitude) Given how much lower that number is, I'm sweating bullets until I get the numbers from the X-Prize foundation.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
According to the rules...so anyone from the da Vinci team...you know how to win!
Now that the Mercury missions have more or less been reproduced for ~$25 million, I'd like to hear some reassessments of modern Moon mission costs. Same for Mars. The media (and a lot of slashdotters by the way) like to come up with estimates which go something like "if Apollo cost $X billion dollars, Mars will cost 10 times that cause it's harder".
Based on the fact that this was an order of magnitude or two cheaper than comparable NASA missions, anyone care to extrapolate a Moon or Mars mission if NASA is just turned into a clearing house for prize money? I'm guessing that Zubrin's crazy estimates of less than $25 billion seem a lot less crazy now.
Blaze a trail to the New World
Say what you will, but this guy is a true visionary and genius. First the round the world on a tank of gas flight, and now this.
Congrats to Paul Allen as well, for his vision and support.
I was wondering when this news would be making it to slashdot. It's been nearly 15 minutes since I first read about it.
"budget embarrassingly smaller than NASA's"
Of course Rutan didn't perform any of the fundamental research that lead to the first manned flights, so his efforts are piggy-backing on those of NASA.
What a bullshit comparison.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
On the webcast. Wow. I mean really - ok, it isn't the moon landings, but it is one of the more significant things I'm likely to see in my life I think.
I have to say, it brought a tear to my eye when they did it. Yo, America - you guys have something to be proud of today!
fortune -o
The rules say the pilot must land in good health. Good health means surviving 24 hrs after the landing.
Even as we speak Spaceship ones competitors are arranging a hit......
I thought to win the X-Prize that the team had to launch 3 people into space. Did spaceshipone use the equivilant weight when doing the launches?
If you don't vote, you don't matter, so don't waste your time telling me your opinion
Today is a great day for space afficionados. We've been rather fed up with NASA's castration for years... it's great that the doorway to space seems to be opening up again.
Next step: orbit.
"Times have not become more violent. They have just become more televised."
-Marilyn Manson
Finally private industry has shown it can rocket a man 62 miles straight up and stay there for a couple of minutes! Congratulations! Now all it has to do is send someone to, you know, orbit the globe, and it will have caught up with government-sponsored space flight a third of a century ago.
What will become of the other X-Prize contestants who were on track to make their attempts but did not do so in time?
END COMMUNICATION
Much as I absolutely loathe Microsoft and their products, it's nice to see this kind of cool thing being done.
:-(.
I just hope these guys didn't use Microsoft Space Management to run the thing, although I have a nasty feeling that they had to
Well, it worked. And today, that's all that matters. I lift a glass of metaphorical champagne. For today, a truce -- at least until I see my next Windows meltdown here on the ground.
(Come to think of it, though, I believe Paul Allen has very little to do with Microsoft nowadays -- right?)
D
I'm wondering what took up the extra mass to account for a 3 person flight. Did they have to take up extra stuff or did the weight of the pilot's 200 pound testicles suffice?
Blaze a trail to the New World
Its also a hell of a lot later than when NASA did the same, with technology that is more widespread and cheaper to boot. When NASA did their shots, it had to invent pretty much all of the technology, whereas Scaled Composites had the benefit of all the public knowledge now available about space travel. Not to put a cloud on this success, but come on guys, comparing it to NASA and saying its much cheaper just isnt fair.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I put together the footage I took at the last launch attempt into a video on my homepage.
The music is from the very cool band ZIA. The lead singer/songwriter was at the launch this morning. (Lucky woman!)
Shared by Sputnik and SpaceShipOne.
Soviet Russia and Capitalist America, forever entwined by space history.
>...repeatably (if only technically) reaching space, on a on a budget
>embarrassingly smaller than NASA's.
Let's see them reach orbital velocity and then I'll be impressed by the budget difference.
It is not that I am unimpressed by the flight, but I'm not really impressed by comparing the budgets of two totally different projects with totally different goals.
"prestige of repeatably (if only technically) reaching space"
That is the point - to 'technically" do it. Sure the X-prize is won, but like a first in anything this is a starting point not a finish line.
I'm sure more technically minded will discuss practial applications and new limits to be beaten. But I'm glad I was here to "witness" this. I imagine in 100 years when people will talk about this like they talk about kittyhawk now.
Just wait till some crappy band steals your nic.
I grew up in the 70's dreaming of being an astronaut and going into space. That dream of course crumbed along with NASA.
Now at least my children can have that dream again.
This is an exciting time to be alive.
NASA does a lot more with its budget than "only technically" reaching orbit. And despite a few tragic "early terminated" missions, its safety record is extremely high, especially compared to its competition. And the amount of science it has released into the public domain has been vast, and nearly inestimable. We'll see how well you and I benefit from the privatization of spaceflight. I'm filing my preemptive patent on "extraterrestrial birth" now, while supplies still last.
And incidentally, it's been a long time since Paul Allen was "Microsoft's own" - as a major shareholder not employed at the company for decades, it's more like Microsoft is Paul Allen's own, to some degree. More appropriate is to say that the money invested in winning the X-Prize was "our own" before we paid the Microsoft tax.
--
make install -not war
Step 3: Spend less tha ten million dollars.
There's actually going to be a company called "Virgin Galactic" in my lifetime.
I would say that it would be more accurate to say that SS1 reporduced the results of the X-15. What is interesting is that in terms of costs, both efforts cost the $25 Million.
If you assume that a 1960 dollar is worth 4x of what it is today, then SS1 cost 1/4 of the X-15.
Well done Scaled!
myke
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
This is an amazing feat. Definitely one of the top 5 space events in my lifetime. I do have a beef with the article summary though. This part:
it will win the $10 million purse, and more importantly attain the prestige of repeatably (if only technically) reaching space, on a budget embarrassingly smaller than NASA's
Although this is a great feat for a privately funded venture. This is only equivalent to NASA's first manned suborbital flight which happened in 1961. NASA has still put many people in space for extended periods of time, including 12 manned flights to the moon. And for all practical purposes, NASA started this adventure with no prior experience or knowledge of space flight. Also, a good portion of NASA's budget is for the first "A" in the acronym.
Again, this is a great feat, and its a first, but this is only the very beginning of private space flight.
doh.
The problem is money. Scaled has Big Bux behind them. All the others involve huge model rockets (a good way to die). And it's not just the model rocket thing (hey, the V-2 is proven technology that eventually lifted man into space via NASA), its R and D. All these other programs just don't have the technical skill to build something other than a Roman candle.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Besides the fact that SpaceShipOne utilizes a completely different and more efficient aeronautical approach than NASA to reach space,..
Different than what?
Oh, you mean the one that worked for 40 years?
The fact that you have a comparison to make only reinforces my point.
How many hours of Rutan's work was spent on failed attempts to achieve space flight?
Wow, he didn't have to spend any because it had already been done.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
Microsoft is finally associated with something that DOESN'T crash!
Oh COME ON! Yes, that was a fantastic achievement ... I've been cheering Scaled on from my desk, and grabbing every bit of information I can about this. I find it incredibly exciting. But your comment "Take a look at Scaled Composites' expenditures and then compare then with those of NASA for one damn shuttle launch. Then shut your mouth." is incredibly silly. The space shuttle is doing a far more difficult job, a job that SpaceShipOne cannot conceivably do. Comparing SpaceShipOne to X15 is fairer, but then you *CAN* justifiably say that Scaled has benefitted from NASA's research.
None of this takes away from Rutan et al.s fantastic achievement. But let's keep a little perspective : NASA has problems, but it still has achieved an incredible amount, and it (and the smart people who work there) deserve a bit more respect from the slashdot crowd.
I don't think it was Microsoft sponsoring it - I think it was Paul Allen personally putting some of his own money into the project.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
For those who didn't see this headline on CNN earlier today, here's a screenshot:
http://musicalgearbox.com/cnnorbit.jpg
Oh how I hate news reporting of science. If people think SpaceShipOne goes into orbit just as does NASA's Space Shuttle, it's no wonder, with science reporting like this. "But it said it right there on CNN's website..." For some people it would be easier to explain that "a hacker [they wouldn't understand the 'cracker' distinction] put that headline on CNN's website" rather than a major news organization being wrong.
An I overly cynical, or have I just been spending too much time around stupid people?
Tag lost or not installed.
Congratulations are particularly in order for Anousheh Ansari's family without whom the X-Prize would not have been funded.
Hopefully guys like Paul Allen and Bill Gates will get the idea they can do a lot more with their philanthropy money if they put up prize awards than if the schmooze it up with toadies. If they do they will start making major advances not just in space migration but in life extension, intelligence increase and fusion energy which will finally embarrass the government into doing what it should have been doing all along the right thing as well:
Fund prizes, not proposals.
Seastead this.
I think its interesting to point out that Rutan & co. have made it into space, sure, just space, not orbit (but seriously, when did we start getting so picky? It is _still_ rocket science, and getting to space is still a technical achievement that took over 10 millennia of human technological progression), three times while NASA is still trying to cobble together a way of making their space shuttle (launch cost: about what every slashdotter COMBINED will ever make) safe enough to fly again.
So basically, the ONLY way that the US can send anyone into space right now is with SpaceShip One - making it one of 3 vehicles, including Russia's Soyuz and China's Soyuz-esque rocket, that can go into space with people in it.
Its also significant that I think this is the only completely reusable vehicle to ever go into space, as being able to do a one-week turnaround shows, having this capability has some pretty big benefits.
Tim
I live in Ridgecrest California which is about 50 miles away from Mojave. When I arrived at work this morning I first noticed a bunch of people outside looking up. Above us were two contrails doing a slow right hand pattern. White Night and probably the Alphajet chase plane. When the contrails were way to the south, probably over Edwards Air Force Base, SS1 released and shot off to space. Even from where we were we could easily see the orange rocket plume and also see when the exhaust stopped. A great show that I didn't expect to see at all today.
What's a Sig???
I watched the documercial last night on Discovery called Black Sky about the Scaled project, it's on again this week and there is a second piece coming up as well, it's worth watching.
After I watched it I was thinking about who it really shows as being behind the ball. Well NASA is the obvious choice, but NASA made an investment from the 70s on into Shuttle and with the tangled web they have to tread with Congress and internal inertia, I don't think we can say "Look, NASA sucks!"
Who it really makes look foolish, in my opinion, is the Chinese space program.
They have been ramping up for thier space program for decades, and thier way of doing it was to buy Russian hardware, reverse engineer it and then build it again. No one knows how much that cost the Chinese, but look at Scaled. 250 people and about 25 million in venture capital is running a space operation out in the desert. Yea they haven't orbited yet. But they will, I've read it costs about $80,000 in fuel and prep.
I'm a night owl. I mean, a serious night owl. I rarely get to bed before 2AM, and tend to get up after 9 at the earliest. However, knowing that today's flight was to start at 7AM, I was up, ready and waiting, at 6:30.
I was bebopping from one news channel to another (no, I don't get CNN), looking for coverage of the flight. About 7:30-ish, NBC said they were going to have the seperation live in about ten minutes. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Lots of blather about how Mt. St. Helens could erupt at any time, much blather about Hollywood news, politics, and/or both, but naft on Space Ship One.
Then I caught mention that it had hit the mark, and would soon be landing. Again, live coverage of the landing coming up on MSNBC. Again, nothing. Nothing. More Mount St. Helens blather, more Hollywood, more people selling unsound "treatments" for non-existant "diseases",, then, finally, on Fox, a shot of SS1 landing.
Total coverage, from 6 different networks' news shows? Under a minute. For an event that could well have a major impact on humanity for generations to come. Not even 60 whole seconds of air time. Compare this to Lindberg's landing, and the hullabaloo that caused.
I'm steamed. As NBC claimed they were going to have live coverage, and didn't, and NBC is now MSNBC, I really hope that Paul Allen will raise the roof about this. After CBS' fake memos, and NBC dropping the ball here, I REALLY hate to point out that the place that had the most coverage, and the timeliest, was Fox News.
Scary.
Lemon curry?
"Microsoft Money," as you put it, has done some very interesting and beneficial things. The X-Prize isn't the exception to the rule, it's pretty much the standard practice.
SS1 and NASA do different things, that is why there is a price difference.
OK so a shuttle goes into orbit for how long and supports life and experiments for that duration. How long did SS1 stay up for? Not that long (just a couple mins). They didn't even do one orbit.
Not that I am trying to take away from what they did. I shed a tear as I watched this morning.
In a rare break of Microsoft solidarity, Steve Ballmer says most people flying to space are stowaways and Microsoft will lead the way to space. "There is no way you can get there with NASA. The critical mass has to come from the PC, or a next generation lift-off device."
Second, I notice Rutan did NOT go on the second flight. In fact, from the fact that the two "passengers" were balast (again!), I'm concerned that Scaled Composites were more concerned about the rolls in the first flight than they let on.
Remember, Rutan was all dead-set on going into space on the second flight, and the spirit of the X-Prize rules was that the vehicle was to carry passengers. The fact that only the pilot was on the second flight indicates that the potential publicity coup of being on the second flight was outweighed by the risks.
The only risks we're aware of are the "bang" heard on the first sub-orbital flight, and the propensity for SpaceShipOne to lose control on the edge of the atmosphere. The first problem was likely overcome, which means that the second problem likely has not.
Whilst I certainly applaud Scaled Composites for what they have achieved, I think it's worth stressing that they will need to achieve a lot more (on the technical front) before the technology becomes viable.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Let's see fundamental research:
- flying (see Wright brothers- not NASA)
- rockets in general (see Chinese/Goddard/Germans)
- reentry feather tail (Rutan- not NASA)
- jet engines (Whittle- not NASA)
- hybrid rocket motors (irc Bevin, not NASA)
- supersonic flight (X1-US Airforce- not NASA)
In fact, I can't think of any technology on SS1 or WhiteKnight where the fundamental research was by NASA. Anyone?
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"Step 3: put line breaks in your comment.
Their navigation display did actually flake out while the rocket was firing three flights ago; the pilot said he just kept going since with his head straight forward he could see the earth out of the corner of his eye and knew he was still going up.1 4P m
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceShipOne_flight_
http://scaled.com/projects/tierone/logs-WK-SS1.ht
I don't understand why everyone dumps on Scaled Composites. I mean, they only spent $20-$30 million, but this was because scientists under NASA had already done a lot of the enabling R & D and put that into the public domain.
.5 * mass * velocity squared. V^2 is a really large number.
Furthermore, this is a far cry from orbit. This was just lifting something into the sky. (Potential energy, which is equal to mass * grav. constant * height.) To reach orbit, you have to hit a really high rate of speed, which is kinetic energe:
So Scaled Composites was a great achievement, but it stood on the backs of giants. It's rocket will not scale to orbit, either, nor would that craft survive orbital reentry.
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
Check the X-prize website (says they won as of 12:15 eastern) and Please update the headline accordingly.
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
Bigelow has recently announced the logical follow-up to the X-Prize: America's Space Prize, a $50 million prize to build a vehicle capable of taking 7 people to an orbiting space habitat and back before the end of the decade.
Bigelow actually denies any plans for an orbital hotel, but with his background everyone keeps assuming that's his intention anyway.
Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
I watched the documentary on the development & testing of SpaceShipOne, up through last week's flight. If you didn't see it, it was called "Black Sky" -- set your Tivo to look out for it. I'm sure they'll be showing it again.
Don't take away what NASA accomplished in the '60s and early '70s. They were really pushing the envelope. Only since then have they stalled, and now deserve the criticism they receive. Their plan was to have a reusable spaceship that could lift astronauts and equipment at a fraction of the cost of previous methods, but that plan was horribly inaccurate. There was no real plan after that, and over the next decade and a half, it became painfully obvious, which is why there was such a shakeup around 2001/2002.
The next 5 years will determine NASA's future. If they can get back on track, set big goals (like the '60s) that interest the public and push science and technology, and most of all, work with the private industry, they will continue to be relevant, and I dare say, could easily accomplish feats that rival those of the early '60s. If, on the other hand, they continue to drift along, dabbling in various projects, but never commiting to anything large, as they have done for the past 20 years, NASA will fade into obscurity, and private enterprise will take over.
The ball is in your court NASA. Will you run with it?
....for the first privately-funded manned orbital spacecraft.
:-)
And guess who's in the lead to win that prize: you guess it, none other than Burt Rutan and his group at Scaled Composites. You're forgetting that Scaled Composites did development work for both the McDonnell-Douglas Delta Clipper and Lockheed Venture Star programs. Though these programs were not complete successes it has given Scaled Composites valuable learning experience in building real spacecraft, and that experience gives them a huge advantage in winning the US$50 million prize. Besides, given Paul Allen's financial resources, Allen could easily part with the US$150-US$200 million needed to develop the so-called TierTwo project that will lead to a privately-funded manned orbital spacecraft.
When deep space exploration ramps up, it'll be the corporations that name everything, the IBM Stellar Sphere, the Microsoft Galaxy, Planet Starbucks.
-Fight Club
basically gave up on winning the X Prize. According to this press release, they were dogged by two things: 1) they had pinned their hopes on using 90% peroxide as their fuel, but it wasn't available to them, and 2) a test flight crash on August 8th.
They are continuing work, albeit at a slower pace.
Perhaps you could go on for hours, but here are a couple for you to consider:
Which government has found a way to get suborbital flights for $25M R&D?
Oh that's right - there aren't any.
Which government has developed a reusable spacecraft that can be launched twice within 6 days?
Oh that's right - there aren't any.
Which government has designed a launch vehicle for the purpose of selling commercial tourist flights for $200K each?
Oh that's right - there aren't any.
If your goal for manned spaceflight is to have the occasional huge spectacle taking government employees into space, followed by long stretches of inactivity or wasteful boondoggles, well, then I can see why you'd like NASA's approach. Personally, my goal for manned spaceflight is that I'd like to go there myself someday. Scaled Composites' achievements look infinitely more relevant to that end than the ones you mention.
I do agree with you that NASA is likely to be better at space science (probes to planets) than private industry. NASA would be a healthier agency if they focused on that, and stopped spending billions on the Shuttle and IIS.
IIRC, the old X-15 rocket plane had to align its fuselage on a perfect ballistic trajectory to reenter the atmosphere, or it would tumble and break apart. It had little attitude jets on it so that the pilot could position it while outside of significant atmosphere (making it, for those moments, a real spacecraft).
SS1, on the other hand, simply bends itself into a V shape, so that most or all of its wing area is significantly above its center of mass. Thus as it hits atmosphere the fuselage automatically hangs downward, preventing the kind of tumbling that would have killed the X-15. Once drag on the wings slows it far enough, SS1 flattens out again and becomes a glider.
Does that help?> Especially since private industry built our modern Internet where the government couldn't.
>Boy, private industry picking up and popularizing a government service
I'm glad you two both agree with me! Or put another way, duh! That's what's supposed to happen! Pure research (which especially these days, is mostly funded by the gov't) comes up with things that US businesses can then bring to market and profit on.
Pure research drives industry. The US Gov't (through military and non-military programs) is the biggest sponsor to pure research. And US industry grows. See a connection?
Oh, wait... neither of you are socialists who want the gov't to actually _compete_ with business, are you? I hope not.
A.
AIAA Long Island Section AIAA DINNER MEETING October 14, 2004 SpaceShipOne - First Private Manned Space Program Kevin Mickey, Vice President, Scaled Composites LOCATION: Jillian's, Airport Plaza, Northeast corner of Rt. 110 and Rt. 24, East Farmingdale, NY Time: 6:00 PM Sign-In, 6:30 PM Dinner, 8:00 PM Presentation Cost: $25 Members/Guests, $15 Student Members RSVP By October 11 to Gerry Yurchison (516) 346-0048, Gerry.Yurchison@ngc.com As of the latest news today, October 4th, 2004, the Scaled Composites contender for the ten million dollar Ansari X-Prize competition has become the successful winner. They are the first privately funded team to achieve 100km altitude with a three person payload, successfully return, and repeat the flight within two weeks. The first flight for the prize was September 29th. Their second flight today was achieved only 5 short days later. Our speaker will discuss the development, testing, and organization behind the SpaceShipOne program, and be able to share details and videos related to their amazing achievement. Mr. Mickey first joined Scaled Composites in 1986 as a Technician, fabricating parts and aircraft made of then-revolutionary composite materials. Later he worked at Lockheed's Skunk Works as a Program Coordinator, responsible for programs involving RCS (radar cross signature) models, composite structures, and flight. He then returned to Scaled Composites as a VP, Program Management, where he has been since 1996. He is responsible for the overall execution and performance of several projects, most notably SpaceShipOne, Scaled Composites manned spacecraft. It is generally seen as the leading contender for the Ansari X-Prize competition, and is the first entirely privately funded spacecraft.
Okay, way to go Scaled team!
But I must object to "embarrassingly smaller budget than NASA's." NASA had to do their first manned suborbital flight with 1950s hardware borrowed from the artillery boys, and without 40 years of prior experience to draw on.
The X Prize contestants are, in Newton's words, standing on the shoulders of giants. They're doing great things, and I applaud them, but there's no need to tear down other pioneers to build these guys up. The present work is quite impressive enough as it is.
Let us not forget that he also built Evil Knievel's Sky Cycle in the 70's. Did you see some of the exotic aircraft flying with SS1. They were his too. The guy is amazing.
an ill wind that blows no good
This is obviously a great situation for innovation, not only here in America, but also in the world.. here's why the SS1 program will go farther faster than NASA. NASA's governmentally funded and based.. they take all of their orders from the government. This is free enterprise at work here. If it took this program less than 5 years to get to the point where it's at now.. imagine where we could be in 5 more years? Trips to the moon, anyone? Wonder who's going to be the first to start researching ways to create artificial atmospheric conditions on the moon. Will there be an X-Prize for that?
Some of the others were serious contenders. Unless you research the "wacky" theories as well, no one will find some new rules. Submarines: Huh, everyone knows metals sink in the water. Heavier than Air travel: Duh, of course impossible (according to much reowned Lord Kelvin, discoverer o many thermodynamic rules).
Flying from baloons is quite viable, especially when you are talking about really big payloads. I hope daVinci team will manage to get to space, eventually.
This statement would only make sense if you think the government should own your life. If, on the other hand, you believe individuals own their own lives, you'd be glad the government stayed out of the way.
Some other contenders:
* American Astronautics
* Acceleration Engineering
* American Advent
* ARCA
* Armadillo Aerospace
* Bristol Spaceplanes
* Canadian Arrow
* Da Vinci
* Discraft Corporation
* Fundamental Technology Systems
* High Altitude Research Corp.
* Interorbital Systems
* ILAT
* Lone Star Space Access
* Micro Space
* Pablo de León & Associates
* PanAero, Inc.
* Pioneer Rocketplane
* Mojave Aerospace Ventures, LLC.
* Space Transport Corporation
* Starchaser Industries LTD
* Suborbital Corporation
* TGV Rockets, Inc.
* Vanguard Spacecraft
When will Windows be ready for the desktop?
I think it's wonderful that the SpaceShipOne team one the X Prize. However, I think it went a little outside what the competition was trying to accomplish. I do admit that it is a great achievement, but what I'm referring to is that the prize was for $10 million. In such, I think they were hoping that someone would spend less than that to pull it off with a reusable craft. They obviously spent much more than that. They still did it for less than the US government spends pulling it off though, so they still did prove a lot in the exercize. What do others of you think? I think prizes like this can be great to move our society forward and get individuals active in inovations.
unlike CNN and other news acronyms, I didn't have a satellite connection from the strip, and had to jog back to the press room's wireless coverage ;)
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
The risk of traveling by plane is lower than by car even if you compute it per mile travelled. It's not lower because you fly by plane less often. You are a lot less likely to die on a 400-mile plane trip than you are to die on a 400-mile car trip.
By increasing the power, something like SpaceShipOne could reach orbit, but that's the easy part. Returning without burning up is the hard part, and it's a problem on a whole different scale. When SpaceShipOne reached the top of its arc, its speed was zero; the problem is just to control the acceleration on the descent. A craft in orbit is going at 18000 mph, and all that kinetic energy has to be dumped. You can use atmospheric friction (as the space shuttle does, but then you generate enormous heat if you do it right, and if you enter at the wrong angle you either burn up or bounce off the atmosphere like a skipping stone. I don't think other approaches (like using onboard rockets to get rid of most of the kinetic energy) are feasible.
That's not to say that these problems can't be solved. But acting like we're going to have space tourism tomorrow because some guys won the X-prize is mistakenly optimistic.
I think, though, that private companies offering satellite launching services with non-reusable vehicles is a much easier objective to achieve. For that, you don't have to worry about the problem of re-entry.
Indeed, you should see all of the information (*not* just PR) that NASA publishes, for anyone to read, compliments of the U.S. taxpayer. You're welcome.
His point was that all those guys are on the level of the guy in the balloon chair, not that they didn't exist. Only Scaled Composites was a serious contender.
And HIS point was that with that many competing, there is bound to be some real competition.
I happened to be on the loop while the Space Ship One flight was going on. Pretty much everyone here at Johnson Space Center stopped to watch it.
One of the ground controllers told Mike and Gennady the news about the flight. Mike's statement was moving (hopefully I don't screw up his quote):
"It's nice to know, if only for a few minutes, that we're not the only two people up here."
That's how all of us engineers at NASA feel, as well. Most of us are here because we Believe in spaceflight, and it is a relief when some of that pressure gets taken off our shoulders.
More the merrier. Great job Scaled!
I assume any company that's selling suborbital trips will make a big production out of the whole pre-flight thing. A week of training, meet-the-astronauts, maybe ride up on the carrier plane for the guy ahead of you's flight, and then you actually get to fly. For that, it might start to seem value for money.
With all the news headlines about Afganistan and Iraq ... and with the whole world seemingly hating the US these days ... I think the Scaled Composites team should receive a congressional medal for remdinding the world of what truly makes our country great.
Proudly (once again ... thanks guys),
DT
The factor that makes all the difference between accidents from flying verses driving is based on training, currency, and type rating. You only need one generic license to drive any passenger vehicles and in most states there are never any requirements other than paying a fee to get it renewed. Also the requirements to show driving profficiency are so pathetically low and the odds of ever lossing your license even more so when compaired to that of a pilot's license.
Essentially if they held drivers to the same standards as they did pilots right off the bat at least 25% of the population would never be allowed to drive, ever. 75% of the remaining population would not be allow to drive anything but a 50hp compact car at speeds less than 40MPH during the day and only on nice clear weather free days. Also nearly anyone involved in an accident where they were at fault or illegal activity would loose their license until a governing board could review the discretion and then most likely if they were found to be negligent loose it for several years if not permanently.
For some odd reason I see the number of auto accidents being greatly reduced if that were the case.
"Doing it right" not only refers to completing the task, but doing it efficiently enough that a "normal" person could conceivably afford it. That's one goal governments seem to have problems attaining.
Last post!
The risk of traveling by plane is lower than by car even if you compute it per mile travelled. It's not lower because you fly by plane less often. You are a lot less likely to die on a 400-mile plane trip than you are to die on a 400-mile car trip.
I've seen that claim often. And suspect it's true. (I was in a plane, for instance, that blew ALL the tires on one side when it touched down - due to improper maintainence. I'm afraid I wrecked the captain's day when I congratulated him on the landing - he'd just bet another crwe member that nobody noticed anything.)
But I'd trust it a LOT more if any auto fatalities of auto passengers in the horrendous traffic near airports (where you WOULDN'T have been driving if you didn't have to go there to transfer to/from the plane) were counted toward the air travel, rather than car travel, totals.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
...it's the rest of the world that is too modest. To be fair, the Americans are front-and-centre on this project so kudos to them as long as they remember they got there with a little help from others.
The US sometimes isn't the leader in Aerospace but give them credit when it's due. Russians and Canadians bet them in the sattelite race--the Canadians also beat the Americans to Mach 2 flight speed. And the REALLY big, complicated projects are the result of collaberation between all three of those nations among many others. However one thing the US consistently tops the world in is national pride and the associated amitious goals they have set. Only Amercans had the balls to reach for the moon and actually REACH it. When they win they win BIG.
Thank God rocket scientists don't get into pissing matches like the ones here or nothing would get done.
Furthermore, I just want to say, private enterprise has NOT taken the lead in spaceflight, SSO doesn't reach the neccicary altitude for low earth orbit, much less the distance that NASA has brought us to with the Apollo missions to the moon. Private enterprise still has a LOT of catching up to do. Oh, and one would EXPECT it to be a lot cheeper to get a suborbital space flight today than it was when doing such had never been done before, we have better materials and better understanding of what we're doing.
Little Brother, watching the watchers
There was a 2 hour special on the discovery channel last night that I would highly recommend. It was called Black Sky: The Race For Space. It is airing again 10/4 and 10/10. One of the things you said was exactly what Burt Rutan said; that you need to try the wacky theories as well, and it requires a lot of balls because you risk losing life, wasting money, and so on. He said that 50% of innovation was thinking and planning, the other 50% was developing and testing crazy ideas to see what worked. The rest of the program talked about their challenges, how they overcame them, Burt's previous experience, and a little about the prize. Cool stuff.
Glenn Mahone/Bob Jacobs
Headquarters, Washington
Oct. 4, 2004
(Phone: 202/XXX-1898/1600)
RELEASE: 04-329
NASA CONGRATULATES SPACESHIPONE'S X PRIZE WIN
NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe today congratulated the
SpaceShipOne team on the third successful flight of a private
human spacecraft. The team also wins the $10 million X Prize
competition.
"Burt Rutan, Paul Allen and the rest of the SpaceShipOne team
are to be congratulated for this important achievement. They
successfully demonstrated a new human spacecraft, a new
propulsion system and a new high-altitude airborne launch
platform," said Administrator O'Keefe. "The spirit of
determination and innovation demonstrated today show that
America is excited about a new century of exploration and
discovery. We wish the SpaceShipOne team continued success
and many more safe flights," he added.
Aboard the International Space Station 230 miles up, the
Expedition 9 crew, made up of NASA astronaut Mike Fincke and
Russian Cosmonaut Gennady Padalka, noted that for a few
minutes this morning, they were joined in space by
SpaceShipOne pilot Brian Binnie. "From Gennady and myself and
the International Space Station team, congratulations on a
job well done, and we're really glad SpaceShipOne returned
safely," said Fincke.
The X Prize Foundation created a $10 million prize designed
to encourage space tourism through competition among
entrepreneurs, engineers and other rocketry experts. The
Ansari X Prize was conceived to reward the team, which
designed the first private spaceship to successfully fly to a
sub-orbital altitude of just over 62 miles (100 kilometers)
on two consecutive flights within two weeks.
The competition was modeled after the Orteig Prize, won in
1927 by Charles Lindberg for the first non-stop flight
between New York and Paris. All teams had to be privately
financed.
For information about SpaceShipOne and the White Knight
carrier aircraft on the Internet, visit:
http://www.scaled.com/
For information about NASA's exploration initiatives on the
Internet, visit:
http://www.exploration.nasa.gov/
-end-
* * *
NASA press releases and other information are available automatically
by sending an Internet electronic mail message to domo@hq.nasa.gov.
In the body of the message (not the subject line) users should type
the words "subscribe press-release" (no quotes). The system will
reply with a confirmation via E-mail of each subscription. A second
automatic message will include additional information on the service.
NASA releases also are available via CompuServe using the command
GO NASA. To unsubscribe from this mailing list, address an E-mail
message to domo@hq.nasa.gov, leave the subject blank, and type only
"unsubscribe press-release" (no quotes) in the body of the message.
I worked with researchers for several years doing testing and research at Langley Research Center Hampton VA. Believe it or not it takes more than one fiber or even just the idea of carbon fibers to make a space craft. A lot of testing of fiber combinations, weaves, temperatures and epoxies went in to the development of COMPOSITES. People didn't know exactly what those combinations would be until they tried them. This is what we in the busines call ENGINEERING. Can you say ENGINEERING. I thought you could. Much of this was paid for or done by NASA before the cost came down and the materials could be used in consumer products.
Similary transisters we use were developed by funds for from THE GOVERNMENT for BASIC RESEARCH long before there were practicle APPLICATIONS for them.
Knowing a bunch of names and factoids doesn't mean you have a complete picture. The fact is the US invests in most of these things with DARPA in an nevering ending effort to find better and more cost effective was to kill people. In fact the first people to go into space were just ballistic payload replacements. Secondly the GOVERNMENT found that computers were good at breaking codes of your enemies making it easier to kill them. This encouraged them to make better computers and thus smaller transisters.