Burt Rutan On Future Of SpaceShipOne (and Two)

Neil Halelamien writes "In a recent interview with the Desert Sun, Burt Rutan talks about the future of SpaceShipOne and SpaceShipTwo. The bad news is that SpaceShipOne will be retired straight to the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum, despite getting five different requests to fly suborbital payloads. The good news is that efforts are being focused on SpaceShipTwo, which will carry nine people, and fly higher and further downrange than SpaceShipOne. Virgin Galactic will purchase a fleet of five of these vehicles, which will start test flights in 2007. Virgin Galactic may end up competing with Jeff Bezos's Blue Origin, which is rumored to be developing a VTOL suborbital vehicle. Also interesting to watch will be Rutan's involvement with t/Space, one of the companies contracted by NASA to conduct concept studies for the Vision for Space Exploration."

Comments

9 People Hey?

[rf0]

Could they join the 100 mile high club?

Rus

Re:9 People Hey?

[doomtiki]

No. Just the 100 Kilometer High Club.

Re:9 People Hey?

[switcha]

Could they join the 100 mile high club?

And the 'orbital orgy' just replaced Natalie Portman as bedtime fantasy for geeks everywhere...

Re:9 People Hey?

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you mean "replaced" you amalgamate the two, obviously.

Re:9 People Hey?

[Tackhead]

> > Could they join the 100 mile high club?
>
>And the 'orbital orgy' just replaced Natalie Portman as bedtime fantasy for geeks everywhere...

For $250K, my orbital orgy had damn well better be with Natalie Portman.

Re:9 People Hey?

[IO ERROR]

SpaceShipOne only went up 63 miles.

Re:9 People Hey?

[dabigpaybackski]

Could they join the 100 mile high club?

And you know some lucky souls are plunking money down right now for that very pupose.

Re:9 People Hey?

[jacksonj04]

Are the hot grits complimentary?

Re:9 People Hey?

[Anonymous Coward]

Eeeew. Remember that, unless 'orbital O with Natalie P' is your game plan, you'll be joinin' the club while 7 spectators are watching. Lucky's not the word I'd use. Sad or pathetic comes to mind.

Then again, give me a phone-booth worth of privacy and half a million dollars and... and... Half a *mil*?! Sheesh. No way. If I *ever* get enough money to squander half a mil on this, I'll *still* be glued to the window enjoying the sights for the entire flight. Nobody, but NOBODY is worth that.

Besides, for about $20k we can boink for a lot longer, with more privacy, more free space and in zero g's, on one of those vomit comet excursions. Or I'll just wait for some LEO or space-tether hotels.

Re:9 People Hey?

[Anonymous Coward]

The next step is 60 uninhibited people in a suitably sized enclosure. The spherical equivalent of a circle-jerk is obviously the Buckyfuck.

Re:9 People Hey?

[bnenning]

And the 'orbital orgy' just replaced Natalie Portman as bedtime fantasy for geeks everywhere...

Not like they're mutually exclusive...

Re:9 People Hey?

[Tassach]

SpaceShipOne only went up 63 miles.

Just a little short of the mark, then.

It should be obvious that the necessary altitude for (sub)orbital orgies is 69 miles.

SpaceShipOne

[wcitechnologies]

The department title for this article should be from the 'Make-NASA-look-dumb' department.

Re:SpaceShipOne

[finker]

"The department title for this article should be from the 'Make-NASA-look-dumb' department."

I fail to see how any of this makes NASA look even remotely "dumb." Actually, I think you're bringing up a very valid point. This is why space exploration hasn't taken off (no pun intended) to the full scale people would have expected it to by now. There are too many people, agencies, organizations, and even governments working against each other instead of with each other.

At any rate, saying NASA is "dumb" because of some amatures is just foolish thinking.

Re:SpaceShipOne

[DeathFlame]

From the article

Question: Considering your motivation to innovate and design futuristic air/spacecraft, are you attracted to the Centennial Prizes offered by NASA to develop new craft designs?

Answer: Oh no, I don't believe NASA can properly put out a (developmental) prize like the Orteg Prize or the Kramer Prize, or either the X Prize. NASA has a real habit of trying to help sub-contractors and contractors by monitoring risks that NASA wouldn't take themselves. What NASA needs to do is to put out a very difficult goal to achieve and then not monitor it at all and let those that go after it take their own risks. I don't see NASA doing that. Possibly they will. Maybe they will put someone in charge that knows the benefits of running a prize properly. I haven't seen that yet.

Too much "help" from NASA has hurt development in some respects.

Are you trying to tell me competion doesn't lead to innovation? There has to be a division somewhere between companies and ideas, otherwise only one sollution would be proposed, and only one solution built.

However many solutions, with the one working solution being used for the next stage of innovation, is a much better system.

NASA may not be dumb. But they are a huge goverment operation that may not be doing things the best way, and other than internal competition, there is not way to promote differing ideas.

Re:SpaceShipOne

[Rei]

Make NASA look dumb? Oh please, give me a break.

For starters, read Why SpaceShipOne Never Did, Never Will, And None Of Its Direct Descendants Ever Will, Orbit The Earth. Rutan's rocket joyride is nice, but it has nothing to do with space exploration, satellites, or anything else relevant apart from stirring public interest in space (which I do credit him for, along with making a privately funded supersonic craft).

Re:SpaceShipOne

[Rei]

Gotta love that. The person who plans to send up people on his rocket wants there to be no monitoring of risks before launch. Lets not forget that this is the same guy who nearly killed his test pilot by launching in high wind conditions, because he didn't want to disappoint the crowd below. Pardon me if I'm awaiting the first space tourist bodies here.

He's going to have a heck of a time getting insurance. A batch of homemade cookies says that he tries to avoid having to get insurance for the passengers...

Re:SpaceShipOne

[c.derby]

Lets not forget that this is the same guy who nearly killed his test pilot by launching in high wind conditions, because he didn't want to disappoint the crowd below.

I don't remember this. Can you provide a reference?

Re:SpaceShipOne

[Rei]

Pretty much any article about their first flight to enter space mentions the major uncontrolled rolls that they had, which they weren't able to get back under control until reentry. Unplanned rolls under high thrust conditions are incredibly dangerous in any craft, let alone an experimental one. They were attributed to high wind shear.

I can't find the article any more, but people who were there said that the wind on the ground gusted up to 40 mph the day that they launched.

Re:SpaceShipOne

[Long-EZ]

Wind shear is a fact of life at the altitude where SS1 is in the early supersonic boost phase. It was made worse by the fact that the jet stream was farther south than normal for that time of year, but the risk was known and accounted for as much as is reasonably possible for such an innovative project.

The real cause of the uncommanded roll was an issue with the wing dihedral, which is used to provide a natural corrective tendency for crosswinds. It's difficult to design a mach 3.5 spaceship that is also a 70 knot glider.

The test pilot, Mike Melvill, had ample time to abort the flight. He felt confident and in sufficient control to continue the first suborbital flight. Burt and Mike are very close friends and have been since the 1970s. Ground control suggested an abort, but Mike was comfortable with the roll rate. Yes, he's that good. He later commented that it was "kind of cool". Mike was clearly not too upset by the 20+ rolls as he corkscrewed into space, because a minute later he was playing with M&Ms in microgravity.

So don't go throwing around reckless comments about Burt almost getting a test pilot killed. It's a lie, plain and simple. The truth is, Burt Rutan has done almost 400 designs and for decades has consistently averaged flight testing a couple of truly unique aircraft, and now spacecraft, per year. None of his projects have ever resulted in an injury, much less a fatality. The few incidents have all been minor, such as the SS1 test flight where the left landing gear collapsed after a rough landing. Burt Rutan has the best safety record in the industry, while simultaneously doing the most cutting edge designs. He attributes a large part of that safety to an environment that wouldn't be possible in a large bureaucracy, whether in government or big business.

The SS1 roll problem was fixed by simply changing the flight profile and the two subsequent X-Prize flights had no trouble. The dihedral issue will be corrected in SS2, which is probably one reason that SS1 is being retired after accomplishing the X-Prize mission. That, and the fact that it is a very valuable historic spacecraft.

So for anyone keeping score, NASA has lost two shuttles with all crew (14 people total) out of a little over 100 missions, for a little less than a 2% fatality rate. SS1 has been into space three times with no injuries. Safety is a big part of the SS1 design, including the novel "carefree reentry".

There were some uninformed opinions and lame attempts at sick humor prior to the SS1 success. Why do some people need to see the dark side of everything? Why do some people need to comment about things when they are totally clueless?

Suggestion:

1) Read
2) Think
3) THEN write

Re:SpaceShipOne

[c.derby]

I thought I read that those rolls were cause by a control surface malfunction/deficiency that was later corrected. At that altitude, "normal" control surfaces really don't work and all the pilot could do was wait until he was back in atmosphere to right the ship.

I do know for a fact that the flight profile was also changed on subsequent flights to lessen the possibility of the craft entering an uncorrectable roll.

Re:SpaceShipOne

[Long-EZ]

You clearly don't understand what is happening. The X-Prize was created to change the entire process of space exploration and development. So far, it has been all about huge government projects, where the goal seems to be to spend as much money as possible while doing as little flying as possible. I'm not knocking the engineers or astronauts at NASA. In fact, I feel sorry for them, trapped in the bureaucracy that won't let them do what they want to do. Governments are not good at invention, innovation, cost reduction, or creative thinking. Entrepreneurs and free enterprise excel in these areas.

Here's the important part you're probably not getting. The recent initial foray into the privatization of space is NOT trying to carry on in the manner of NASA or any other big government or big business space program. They're starting over completely from scratch, using current technology and developing new technology to make space accessable to everyone. We are in the early crawling stages right now, but as any parent can tell you, kids grow up fast. Soon, we'll be walking, then running. There will be other goals such as altitude records, distance records in parabolic flight, etc. Soon, we'll have orbital flight. Although the SS1 can't withstand reentry at orbital velocities, a lot of the technology from SS1 is applicable to orbital flight. After that, there will be privately owned orbital resorts and microgravity manufacturing plants, and eventually private trips to the moon. Watch it happen in the next twenty years.

Private companies will make very rapid progress and will soon surpass NASA and other government sponsored space programs. The financial incentive exists, as does the technical drive to accomplish these goals. Private enterprise will recapitulate NASA's accomplishments, only much faster and for a lot less money.

Many people fail to see the analogy, but the X-Prize really was just like the Orteig Prize that encouraged the first trans-Atlantic airplane crossing in 1927. We are about to enter the era of space development that is similar to what the 1930s was to the aviation industry in all important respects.

Re:SpaceShipOne

[Rei]

Except for the fact that tech developed for the Orteig prize was actually applicable to furthering aviation. SS1 is distinctly *backwards* in every respect. It's like people were driving around in cars, and you made a go-cart with a baking soda and vinegar engine, and people called it a step in the right direction.

Private companies *can* get to space, and I really look forward to it. But SS1 did nothing in this direction except inspire.

Re:SpaceShipOne

[Rei]

Burt launched with 40mph winds on takeoff. Any reasonable person would have postponed the launch. Rutan didn't. Wind shear is not a "fact of life". NASA is intelligent enough to abort when there's wind shear even a fraction of this strength, because it's a good way to get people killed. Yes, the test pilot survived. Good for him, he was lucky. He may well not have had time to regain control.

Re:SpaceShipOne

[Spunk]

Backwards? In what way?

Re:SpaceShipOne

[Long-EZ]

Good insight. Perhaps Scaled Composites would hire you as their Flight Safety Director. It's all monitored remotely, so you could probably continue to do it from your mom's basement.

Re:SpaceShipOne

[Long-EZ]

SS1 is distinctly *backwards* in every respect.

SS1 provided many contributions to the process of starting over and accomplishing the commercial development of space using The Right Stuff. A few of the highlights include:

Low cost hybrid engine using tire rubber and liquid nitrous oxide. It's much safer than other engines, has good specific impulse, and can be throttled and turned on and off.

Low cost flight simulation.

Low cost horizontal takeoff and landing for improved safety.

Low cost air launch technology and first stage turbofan powered lift vehicle.

Practical and low cost flight telemetry.

Innovative aerobrake pivoting wing. While not directly applicable to an orbital crewed flight, the same low cost reuseable vehicle could be used to reach space in a suborbital flight, then fire a third stage to boost a micro satellite into orbit.

Aerodynamics and launch profile allowing for mach 3.5 flight using low tech materials. Again, the materials and techniques are not suitable for orbital reentry, but they contribute to the science in a "crawl before you can walk" manner.

To put the acomplishments in some perspective, and properly contrast the NASA method with the private enterprise method, the entire SS1 development and three manned suborbital missions were accomplished using the amount of money that would be spent on about one hour of shuttle flight time. NASA technology is clearly not the model to use for commercializing space and making it affordable for us all.

You probably feel that a better car is bigger, heavier, burns more fuel, has a larger engine.... You probably do not consider electric or hybrid vehicles as an improvement. What if all of the computer industry placed the same value on larger and more expensive? Fortunately, there were people with vision, and we can buy screaming fast notebook computers today.

Re:SpaceShipOne

[nnappe]

developing new technology to make space accessable to everyone
I'd rather say, to make space profitable. If making it available to everyone is the best (or perhaps fastest) way of doing it, then that's what they're going to do. But perhaps, it will be easier(faster/more profitable), at least for the first decades, to increase luxury and comfort rather than availability.
Perhaps Concorde can be used as an example. If we had been as optimistics as some is people is with SpaceShipOne, we would have predicted supersonic travel to become cheap and the technology to make big breakthroughs.
I am not saying this is what will happen for sure, but I think it is a possibility.
I also think that getting man spacebourne is very important, regardless of wether it is profitable or not.
Moreover, we must not forget that NASA also does base scientific research, and in that area it is more debatable if private companies are really that efficient.

Re:SpaceShipOne

[Long-EZ]

You make some good points. Profit is certainly a strong motive in the commercial development of space. In the simplest analysis, profit is more revenue than expenses. At first, the costs will be higher, although still orders of magnitude less than NASA. As technology improves and economies of scale apply, the costs will come down and access to space will be more affordable.

The lack of a profit motive is the reason NASA has developed space access as they have. They are in the business of spending money, not making money. Yes, NASA has done a lot of very good research, going back to the days before space flight when they were NACA. But most of this research was expensive. I'd like to see NASA as a competitive contracting agency. Their mission would be to manage and assist various aspects of space development. They should establish clear goals for what they want to achieve without specifying the methods. Leave the matter of HOW to the entrepreneurs. Even in pure research, I think private enterprise could be much more cost effective than NASA.

I don't expect NASA to change. It's very difficult for large government agencies to change at such a fundamental level. Trying to create such change has been the undoing of some recent well-meaning NASA administrators. But rest assured, even if NASA doesn't change, commercial space development will proceed, and NASA can look out their cockpit windows and watch the rest of humanity streaking off into space.

Let me be the first to say...

[Metapsyborg]

Space Elevator and Carbon Nanotubes!

Re:Let me be the first to say...

[deathcloset]

Space Elevator and Carbon Nanotubes!

well, you are talking about scales (very large) and composites after all

¦)

Rutan is my hero.

[ruprechtjones]

This man is an inspiration to everybody. He is innovative, intelligent, and follows through with his dreams and goals. So tell me why, WHY Dub Bush gets Time's Person of the Year and Rutan does not.

Re:Rutan is my hero.

[Anonymous Coward]

ummm....maybe because he's smart enough to not try to launch himself into space in an experimental rocket...:-)

Before the nasty responses start: It's a joke people, laugh!

Re:Rutan is my hero.

[Anonymous Coward]

Rutan isn't a subcriber. Read: paid to have his face there.

Re:Rutan is my hero.

[Anonymous Coward]

!MAB .esnopseR ytsaN :llorT

Re:Rutan is my hero.

[hunterx11]

Men in the future will stand on Rutan's shoulders and take his vision even further. God willing, Bush will leave a legacy which will never be overshadowed.

Re:Rutan is my hero.

[discontinuity]

This man is an inspiration to everybody. He is innovative, intelligent, and follows through with his dreams and goals. So tell me why, WHY Dub Bush gets Time's Person of the Year and Rutan does not.

Relax and let history be the judge. Time's Man/Person of the Year has included every US predident going back at least to JFK. They had to do W at some point. How big of an honor can it be, anyway? Hitler was it 1938. See a list here).

Re:Rutan is my hero.

[photon317]

They had to do W at some point

According to your own link, they already did W in 2000. He has now joined a very exclusive list of people to make TMotY twice.

Re:Rutan is my hero.

[arthurh3535]

You do realize a lot of dictators made "man of the year" too?

Even if you don't like Bush, you have to realise that he was the most influential person (publicly) for last year.

Re:Rutan is my hero.

[Rei]

Stand on Rutan's shoulders? What, by building spacecraft out of epoxy? By using engines that they didn't make that have the amazing combination of both lousy ISP *And* high tank mass? And having it cost 10 times more than it should for the performance that they get out of it? What progress, exactly, are you referring to?

I agree on the second part, though - God willing, Bush will be written up for his legacy of job loss, environmental damage, turning the world against America, and unprovoked warmongering that will not be overshadowed by another American president.

Re:Rutan is my hero.

[Anonymous Coward]

Time's Person of the Year is about who changed the world the most, not who is most popular. As an example, Adolf Hitler was Time's Person of the Year back in 1938.

Re:Rutan is my hero.

[discontinuity]

According to your own link, they already did W in 2000. He has now joined a very exclusive list of people to make TMotY twice.

Oh, well I didn't know anyone was actually going to RTFL! ;-)

I look at it this way: it's a comment on magazine sales, not historical signficance or suitability as a role model. Everyone in the US knows who W is. As much as we on /. would like it to be so, I suspect that most Americans do not know who Rutan is. Add to that our being in Iraq and W being an extremely devisive figure and it is apparent that Time's editors went with the person who would result in the most magazine sales.

Just my $0.02...

Re:Rutan is my hero.

[WIAKywbfatw]

Exactly. It has very little to do with merit. After all, just what did Bush achieve or do in 2000 that was so exemplorary and worthy of merit to win the award in that year?

Winning an election in which more people voted for the other guy and in which dirty tricks, family connections and ultimately heavily contested court cases were the deciding factors hardly counts as a great and noble achievement.

Re:Rutan is my hero.

[jskiff]

How big of an honor can it be, anyway? Hitler was it 1938.

Time's Person (nee Man) of the Year originally was not meant to be a "This person did the greatest things this year" award. Rather, it was about who most influenced current events that year...hence why both Hitler and Stalin recieved it.

Many argue that the Person of the Year for 2001 should have been Osama bin Laden, rather than Rudolph Giuliani. No one is going to say that bin Laden is a nice guy...but his actions influenced 2001 more than any single person.

Apparently Time had some pretty big arguments in-house when it came to picking the Person of the 20th Century. Again, if you're choosing Most Influential Person, it probably would have been Hitler, but in these PC days it's not something that most would find accceptable.

Re:Rutan is my hero.

[Ulven]

What about 1990 'The Two George Bushes'

Doesn't that mean he's in there three times now?

But as someone said, Hitler was in there once, and Stalin was included twice.

Re:Rutan is my hero.

[Rei]

> ... the bubble bursted before bush was in office

The recession began, according to the GAO, in March of 2001. While Bush cannot be blamed for all of this, he can, and rightfully should be blamed for. If you want to claim an earlier recession, you need a cite.

1) Being the first president to post a net job loss since hoover; many presidents have experienced recessions, but they've all *been able to make it stop*

2) A multiple dip recession; first, a shallow dip in March, then a big dip after Sept. 11th, then when it started to recover, driving it into recession by uneasing the markets over Iraq; then when they thought the war in Iraq was over, dipping again due to instability in Iraq and other oil producing nations.

3) Such an incredibly slow recovery *at the same time as a weak dollar policy*. A weak dollar policy is supposed to encourage investment in the US economy, at the expense of lowering the buying power of Americans; managing both a recession and a weak dollar policy at the same time is quite a feat. MSNBC.com had a nice graph of how this "recovery" has compared to past recoveries; it's pretty embarassing.

> The environmental damage argument is pure BS

Yeah, that's why the Sierra Club rated him worse than any other president in their entire history.

> Only those against the US were involved in scandalous activities

Lets look at polls, now shall we?

http://www.endthewar.org/features/worldsuspiciou s. htm
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3? Repor tID=175
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/29949 24.stm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,135545 ,00.html

That should resolve that once and for all. Virtually everyone's opinions of us have sharply been cut - in many cases, cut by a third or half. I'm not talking about governments, I'm talking about people.

> Too bad that Germany, France, and Russia got cought .. (blah blah blah)

Already well covered:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1335 03&cid=111 49572

> provoked many times during the Clinton administration

Yeah, because Saddam kept hiding those evil WMDs that he was secretly concealing in massive stockpiles, while throwing people into plastic shredders and building atomic bombs, right? I mean, that's what everyone who wanted war back then said he was doing. Or are you talking about the fact that we were banning Iraqi aircraft from flying through large parts of their own bloody airspace without international backing, and they tried to stop that?

Re:Rutan is my hero.

[Anonymous Coward]

Men in the future will stand on Rutan's shoulders and take his vision even further.

That is assuming, of course, that they'll be able to see through his mondo huge sideburns.

Re:Rutan is my hero.

[DigiShaman]

Basically, after the bubble bursted there was a market correction. You obviously know this. But I really doubt that Bush had a hand in it. If he had that much power, he would not be pulling a stunt like that in hopes to be getting elected again (which he did).

That should resolve that once and for all. Virtually everyone's opinions of us have sharply been cut - in many cases, cut by a third or half. I'm not talking about governments, I'm talking about people.

You think? Maybe..just maybe is has something to do with the #1 super power in the world actually waking up from it's military slumber and lashing out. Of course this would anger and frighten the rest of people around the world. It's a social shock to the globe. But damn if I stand on American soil and take the pop-shots from Islamic radicals. The middle east is and has been messed up for thousands of years now. It's only know they are getting the technology to pose a real threat (militery orginization and atomic power....see Iran). So naturally, it would NOT be wise to sit back and let the middle east pan out on it's own.

Re:Rutan is my hero.

[Greg@RageNet]

Cause' rutan only launched one missile.

-g

Re:Rutan is my hero.

[Rei]

> waking up from it's military slumber and lashing out

What? Lashing out against the world, killing lots of people in a way that most of the world views as unprovoked, is making them mad? Who'da guessed?

> But damn if I stand on American soil and take
> the pop-shots from Islamic radicals.

Great! Because I know this middle eastern strongman who spent his whole life using whatever means necessary to stop Islamic radicals from attacking him and his secular government, earning their scorn and ire (and the label "infidel") the world over. His name is Saddam Hussein, and he lives at...

> see Iran

See Iran.
See Iran Make Nukes.
The The US Whine And Complain But Not Do Anything Because We're Bogged Down In Iraq Where There Are No Nukes.
See Iran Keep Making Nukes.

Should we write some more of these? How about:

See North Korea.
See North Korea Make Nukes.
See North Korea Make Missiles.
See North Korea Sell Missiles to Iran
See Iran Make Nukes To Go With Those Missiles
See North Korea Sell Nuke Tech And Missiles To Pakistan
See Pakistan Sell Nuke Tech To Everyone Else
See Pakistan Get A Slap On The Wrist.

Re:Rutan is my hero.

[Anonymous Coward]

So tell me why, WHY Dub Bush gets Time's Person of the Year and Rutan does not.

Because prior recipients of Time's prestigous award have included men such as Stalin and Hitler, and they wanted to remain thematically consistent.

*rimshot*

Re:Rutan is my hero.

[jafac]

sad though it may seem, 60 Million Bad Apples is a bigger story than "first privately funded space flight".

Re:Rutan is my hero.

[DigiShaman]

I think your starting to get the picture. But just to be sure, let me be more specific.

The whole idea of getting Saddam and his two sons out of power was two fold. 1st, he was tyrannical dictator with his minority Sunnis holding power over the majority (Shiite). 2nd, to set into motion an example of democrocy to the rest of the middle east.

As for North Korea and Iran; they will be delt with. But I have a feeling it will be very very swift to the tune of 100 megaton bombs. Either they will comply, or they wont. Waffling on the topic of nuclear weapons is not an option. Their very survival depends on it. But with China backing Iran and threatening Taiwan, it will only get more complicated. Then again, Japan is getting very upset of China too.

I could go on an on. But basically we are in WW3 if it hasn't already begun. The question is, when does it end and how?

Re:Rutan is my hero.

[jafac]

> Only those against the US were involved in scandalous activities

Lets look at polls, now shall we?

jeez, Rei, you're WAY too easy on him.

Need we break out the picutres of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand?

Need we point out the billions of dollars of illegal business Halliburton did with Iraq in the 1990's, under Cheney's watch (as CEO of Halliburton)?

Need we point out that EVERY SINGLE SHRED of evidence in the so-called "oil for food fraud scandal" was *lost* when "evul hackerz broke into my computer and erased the hard drive and all the backups, HONEST!" - All the evidence comes from Ahmed Chalabi's INC. The same Ahmed Chalabi who's wanted in Jordan for embezzling $300 Million from Petra Bank. The same Ahmed Chalabi who passed on highly sensitive (read: Classified) US SIGINT information to Iranian Intelligence. The same Ahmed Chalabi that ran a ring to re-submit old Saddam Dinars in exchange for new CPA Dinars, AT US TAXPAYER EXPENSE! The same Ahmed Chalabi whose Nephew had an Iraqi finance minister assassinated. The same Ahmed Chalabi who took tens of millions of US TAXPAYER dollars every month throughout the Bush Administration, in exchange for information about Saddams WMD programs - ALL of which ultimately proved FALSE. The same Ahmed Chalabi who has ties to Ghorbanifar (yes, THAT Ghorbanifar, the arms dealer from the Iran-Contra days).

The SAME Ahmed Chalabi who sat behind Laura Bush at the State of the Union address in 2002.

George Bush and his Administration has made a very close ally of this man. They trusted a traitor. They are NOT on our side, and have done more harm than good to US security. Both with their policies enacted during the Reagan and Bush I adminsitrations, and the crap they're pulling in the Bush Administration.

And you people put these white-collar criminals back in office.

The "Only those who were opposed to the US were involved in scandalous activities" is a laugh and a half. Keep watching Fox and keep taking those Blue Pills Neo.

Re:Rutan is my hero.

[Subjective]

I applaud Bush for invading Iraq. It has cost the US alot of money and reduced the dollar further. My rent is much lower now (I pay in dollars, but get payed in NIS)

I'm overjoyed reading Bush's next targets - all aggressive muslim countries who'll resist America at all cost - more money spent, dollar goes down.

I burst into manical laughter at the notion of Bush dropping nukes. MAD, man. MAD.

China's where it's at, just like you said.
It's huge (never been conquered, only changed rulers from within), industrial, and have nukes.
How is the US going to fight one of the biggest countries in the world and the maker of most of US's products?

Re:Rutan is my hero.

[tommyboyprime]

Yeh, he's my hero too, but the magazine wants to keep on the good side of the administration. I guess no one's immune from censorship these days. After all, all they could get from Rutan is a ride.

Re:Rutan is my hero.

[dasunt]

Jafac writes:

[ Snip most of a vast conspiracy theory... ]

The "Only those who were opposed to the US were involved in scandalous activities" is a laugh and a half. Keep watching Fox and keep taking those Blue Pills Neo.

Ah, but what are you hiding?

A quick google search shows Jafac new and used aircraft and aircraft parts. Ah hah! I see your plan:

1. Turn the nation against the current US leadership and those involved in Iraq.
2. Use that anger to end the US involvement in Iraq.
3. Wait until the excess government equipment from the war goes on the chopping block.
4. Buy said equipment at a low price.
5. Sell high.
6. Profit!

You were crafty, but not crafty enough for this slashdotter.

PS: My tinfoil hat is tighter than yours.

Re:Rutan is my hero.

[arthurh3535]

I wrote *exactly* what I meant to there.

Make of that what you will.

Re:Rutan is my hero.

[c0p0n]

Sure, man, Bush is a privileged mind:

Iraqi war reason: WMD. WMD found: nope.

Conclussion:
1.- Bush knew there were no WMD, so he lied.
2.- Bush was fooled to think that, so he is incompetent.

As I said, he has a brilliant mind. He is so awesome, and don't think twice about it. He managed to start a war with no reason (either being incompetent or clearly lying) AND getting re-elected. That's what I would call *impressive*.

Re:Rutan is my hero.

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep in mind also that P.R.China is one of the biggest (if not THE BIGGEST) investor in the . US national debt Japan and Russia trailing China.

I do understand why North Korea would be obliged to say: "Yes, we are developing a Nuclear Bomb." If they see US attacking countries with the excuse that they are developing the bomb but claim NOT TO BE developing one. Since reunification of the Korea is the highest goal of the DPRoK they would never bomb the RoKm, but in fact are threatening the US military bases in Japan. Japan was an aggressor and conqueror of the Korea in WWII.

Those who have invested into the US do not wish to see US economy go bad. IF starting localized "wars" is a way to boost US economy, it may be of the interest of those creditors too. However, wars tend to boost only domestic market, since most of the contracts go to domestic companies. Also, if the contracts would go to foreign (non-US) companies, the international trade deficit of US would increase, which would weaken the dollar.

What we need is stop the short term skirmishes to foreign soil, since they do not help US economy in the long run. We need to concentrate on making products that are exported.

Since I've lived in this country (USA) from 1999 to 2004 the price of oil at the pump has gone up from about $1/gallon to $2/gallon -- that is about 20% price increase per year. We need to be less dependent on oil. More economic ways to commute people. Buy local/national products (agricultural, textiles, etc) that require less transportation and keep jobs in the US, and do not increase the trade deficit. Allow more people telecommute or make incentives for them to change to mass transit instead of drive one person per a SUV daily from home to work and back home.

Now... how is this all connected to space travel, Rutan and SS1 or SS2? One thing is sure. The space tourism is really in its infancy. It wont have any impact in the US economy for the next 20 years or so. Would this be a great boost to US exports? Maybe some foreign millionares would burn some money. Perhaps even foreign governments would be willing to pay something for some of their projects to get something to space cheaper than the conventional government operated programs can do.

There are so many more important issues than space travel.

And to talk about democracy being induced by bombing. Would you accept to change the way you run your own household if someone started bombing your home? Just imagine for a moment that you are the benevolent dictator of your household. You bring home the butter to your home. Your wife takes care of your kids and household without you paying her anything. Sure, she might havea joint bank account with you, or maybe you just give her some allowance each week. Then comes this crazy neighbor who thinks you should not be ruling your home as a dictator and starts trumping up all kinds of false charges (he claims for example, that you have been beating your wife occasionally, and that you have a methamphetamine laboratory in your backyard). Now you have to prove that you are not making any illegal drugs and you do not beat your wife. How do you prove that you are NOT making drugs? IS it enough to show that you have no equipment or chemicals to make them? Is it enough to show that there is no substances anywhere? The crazy neighbors still keeps on telling everyone that you are hiding it and he is going to break and enter your home to check by himself. Then he bombs your home and kills your guard dogs. He puts you in the broom closet and sleeps with your wife and tells that he is now bringing democrazy to this household. There is no end to his rule.

OK, the analogy between Saddam and a homeowner may be really far-fetched. But I hope you see the points:
1. What options you have to answer to accusations that you have to prove being false by showing NOTHING as evidence?
2. How can the people of the occupied country accept your way of rule ("democracy

Re:Rutan is my hero.

[Anonymous Coward]

Now it's time to finish this war they (islamic extremists) started.

You mean the war in Afghanistan?

Or do you mean the war WE started in Iraq? The two are not the same, unless you lump them both under US plans for "redrawing the map".

Re:Rutan is my hero.

[Anonymous Coward]

In the same line, GWB deserves it. He has done more to build up Al Qaeda and change the world than even all of Al Qaeda or Bin ladin has.

Re:Rutan is my hero.

[Council]

Why Hitler was not Person of the Century

They've got a lot of fascinating discussion of the century and the people who shaped it, I've gotten sucked back into reading it just while finding the proper links.

Good! Widen the field!

[Bob_Robertson]

The more participants in the fray, the better. May the fit survive and the fittest flourish!

As anyone who has watched Open Source software development can attest, the wider field of ideas tried yields the best results.

http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20041024& mode=classic

Bob-

Re:Good! Widen the field!

[DeathFlame]

However unlike open source, I don't think the release early and release often is a good idea for manned space travel.

People's lives and billion dollar equiptment is not something I'd want to see being tested in such a manner.

Re:Good! Widen the field!

[Greg@RageNet]

I think the barrier to entry for spaceflight is slightly higher than an old 486 and a cheapbytes linux CD.

-- Greg

Re:Good! Widen the field!

[ultranova]

However unlike open source, I don't think the release early and release often is a good idea for manned space travel.

Just because a spacecraft can carry passengers, doesn't mean that it must carry passengers on each flight.

Beta versions are rarely tested in production environment; and passenger-capable spacecraft will propably be tested with crash test dummies and auto-pilot.

People's lives and billion dollar equiptment is not something I'd want to see being tested in such a manner.

Their lives, their money.

Besides, it's not like current spacecraft were safe...

Re:Test?

[rzebram]

Yes, yes it is.

VTOL?

[ivan256]

VTOL seems like such a bad idea to me. Not only do you have to cary fuel for liftoff, but for landing as well. What's the benefit?

Re:VTOL?

[rf0]

You don't need a runway and can (theoertically) take off from any bit of flat ground

Rus

Re:VTOL?

[MagPulse]

Yes because of course the limiting factor in space exploration is our lack of runways (?!)

Re:VTOL?

[Spy Handler]

I dunno what the Bezos VTOL rocket is like, but I've read some interesting articles on Jerry Pournelle's website and saw this idea:

You could use the exaust plume of a rocket as heat shielding! Nobody's tried it yet and it's just a concept for now, but if it works it could be awesome. The DC-X program was on its way to finding out stuff like this, but then NASA took over the program from the Air Force and ran it into the ground. (literally)

How it works: you have a throttleable rocket launching vertically. You don't use up all your fuel on launch, you save a little bit. Then when coming down, you come down tail-first and fire the rocket at low throttle. The exaust plume theoretically would act as a heat shield and most of the superhot gases formed at reentry speeds would be deflected away from the rocket by the plume. So you will not need much heat shielding for reentry. The weight savings from not needing Space Shuttle-type heat tiles could even be greater than the weight of fuel you carry for reentry (!)

Then when you're safely in the lower atmosphere, you could pop a parachute for landing or something. (this is my notion, the link doesn't mention this) All depends on how much fuel you need to build a sufficient plume, what percentage of gross takeoffweight is fuel, etc. X-programs is where you find out stuff like this, but they don't run X programs any more.

Re:VTOL?

[Waffle Iron]

Not only do you have to cary fuel for liftoff, but for landing as well. What's the benefit?

It's possible that the extra fuel weighs less than heat-shielded wings and a tail plus wheeled landing gear.

Re:VTOL?

[cmowire]

Because you don't need wings starting around Mach 2-3. After that point, they become dead weight and add drag.

A lot of folks think that the mass penalty of carying extra fuel for landing is less than the mass penalty of carying wings (a penalty which includes extra fuel and engine mass to compensate for the increased drag).

If you are doing SSTO, you can have much less sophisticated heat shielding because the requirements of heat shielding decrease as you get less dense. At reentry, a SSTO is not very dense at all, so it's easier. Also, there's some arguments about reentering tail-first and using the engines to reduce the heat loading, which hasn't yet been tested.

Furthermore, range safety is simpler with VTOL. You have to assume that, at any point, your spacecraft could explode, raining parts down on populated land. Less gliding means less area to wory about. Airliners don't need to wory about such things, but airliners also have a good track record of not blowing up. Spacecraft don't have that record yet.

Ejection seats and escape capsules aren't very heavy, if they are included in the design early (They are now saying that, given that both the Challenger and Columbia's crew cabin survived the explosion intact, that they really could have made it removable for a minimum weight penalty. However, it's too late to do that now.)

The biggest problem is that NASA spent all of their time between the 1980s and today designing a bunch of different concepts for spacecraft, none of which have actually flown enough to be able to contribute factual data about all of this except for a few low-altitude hops made by the DC-X that made the VTOL model seem rather reasonable.

Re:VTOL?

[ivan256]

It's possible that the extra fuel weighs less than heat-shielded wings and a tail plus wheeled landing gear.

What about the tried and true capsule with no wings or a tail to heat shield, just one insulated surface and a parachute?

Re:VTOL?

[Rei]

I'm not so sure that a rocket plume would be your best source... you want laminar flow, not turbulent flow. Turbulent flow transfers a lot more heat to the craft at hypersonic velocities. Perhaps simple jets of liquified gas, injected at regular intervals along the control surface, would be better.

Re:VTOL?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, but what about: having wings and not having wings? Just like the good ol' days of Thunderbird 1! :-)

Re:VTOL?

[mpe]

The weight savings from not needing Space Shuttle-type heat tiles

An ever bigger problem with the shuttle tiles is that they are so fragile that the supposedly reusable heat shield (indeed the whole vehicle) needs to be effectivly rebuilt after every flight.
Thus the whole thing ends up costing far more than a vehicle intended to be replaced after every flight.
Airlines would go bankrupt if Boeing and Airbus turned out planes which required a "heavy maintanance visit" every flight. The only way in which spaceflight can become affordable is spacecaraft can be turned around on a timescale of at worst a couple of days. Preferably only as long as it takes to plug some hoses in and swap over people/cargo.

Re:VTOL?

[CrimsonAvenger]

Yes, that would meet the definition of VTOL, wouldn't it?

5 requests?

[BaronSprite]

Wonder if they had anything to do at all with the development design of Spaceshiptwo. Or would they just have an "interested hand" instead of a full blown sponsorship.

Private space-flight

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't trust private space-flight at all.

It's kind of trusting law-enforcement or health-care to private corporations. Way too important to be trusted to people who only understand profit.

Re:Private space-flight

[Anonymous Coward]

What exactly do governments understand? Power is about all I can think of.

Re:Private space-flight

[KavanaghNY]

And the government only understands flying it's own to space. NASA will never deliver on affordable spaceflight for the rest of us. If you take a moment to follow Rutan's interview his motivation is clear - and it is not profit - although he understand running a business fine without spending taxpayer money.

His drive is to fulfill a life-long goal of traveling to space. I bet many slashdotters share that desire.

Re:Private space-flight

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as the power (as in democratically elected officials) is handed out by people, I'm all for it.

Profit, on the other hand, is much much more sinister. In fact, most corporations won't listen to the public or the democratically elected governments. Therefore I don't trust them.

And don't give me the tired, old "vote with your wallet" crap. It doesn't work - never has and never will - because the corps can buy your wallet. Hey! You work for them!

Re:Private space-flight

[cmowire]

No, it sounds like trusting a private corporation to get me in one piece from one place to another using aircraft.

Are you afraid of airliners, too?

Re:Private space-flight

[Anonymous Coward]

As opposed to those who only understand taxation?

Re:Private space-flight

[gayak]

Then don't you trust private aeroplanes either? What's the difference with flying in air and flying in space? People want to move from place to place, and corporations are the ones providing it. Since there's no cold-war, governments aren't interested in providing funds for space-flights. But private sector is, since they see profits there. Maybe that's the ultimate way of getting to Mars, with private spaceshuttle. I'm sure a lot of people would pay for that.

Re:Private space-flight

[Subjective]

Airliners are private.
Health care seems private from this end - most people I know takes at least one type of medicine he buys himself (homeopathic or prescribed non-free medicine).
We have medical plans, payed by docking our salary. If I need a major surgery, I pay some of it and my financed-out-of-my-salary insurance pays the rest. Nothing here is government, nor profit-free.
Same for accidents insurance, in my history. I was the cause of the accident so I had to pay, despite insurance. No government protected me.

Re:Private space-flight

[Subjective]

Voting with your political power works even less.
You can only do so every long while.
You can only choose between just a few corrupt groups. In some commercial areas, you have dozens of corrupt groups to choose from.

The corps can fire you. But they can't really fire every employee who bans McDonalds - it's impractical, to enforce nor defend in court.
The government can pursue you, and can pursue groups of people, not only in press releases and lawsuits.

Re:Private space-flight

[Anonymous Coward]

You're such a fucking retard. Corporations don't listen to people? They're not actually CREATED BY AND COMPOSED OF PEOPLE? They just make products or offer services and force people to buy them, whether they like it or not? They just put stock on the market and force people to invest?

Yes, yes, that fuckwit logic should suit your paranoid fantasies.

Re:Private space-flight

[mjeppsen]

I don't trust government-funded space-flight at all.

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Way too important to be trusted to people that only understand that they need only make minimal advancements to guarantee that funding will not be cut, and have no pressing motivation to reach a goal in a timely manner.

Re:Private space-flight

[node 3]

No, it sounds like trusting a private corporation to get me in one piece from one place to another using aircraft.

Without government meddling, I wouldn't trust air flight to corporations either. All they know is profit. If it's cheaper to kill a few people now and then, they'll do it.

Air travel is too difficult and expensive for private enterprise to offer it to the masses safely without government services (like ATC) and oversight (like the FAA).

But, NASA isn't developing space flight in the public interest, so private enterprise has had to step up to either fill the gap, or motivate NASA towards progress in that area.

Re:Private space-flight

[cmowire]

See, I think you are placing too much faith in the government. Now, I'm a political moderate, not a liberatarian who's going to tell you that all government besides the bedrock requirements is bad.

The problem is, almost inevitably, private industry can do "things" more efficently than the government. This is the same reason why a monopoly is bad -- because there's no competition, people stop improving stuff.

Thus, one of the goals of a good government is to provide structure, where necessary, to grow industries, but not to replace or unduly restrict private industry.

The thing is that the current system doesn't work all that well. It works well enough that people are not demanding its immediate replacement. ATC was born in the days before computers and the current features of the ATC system are often as useful as an apendix. Similarly, the FAA and product liability lawsuits have made airliner travel astonishingly safe but has saddled light aircraft with undue fiscal burden. The only way to buy a new light aircraft that doesn't cost as much as a house is to build it yourself under the Experimental Aircraft rules.

Incidentally, Space Ship One is build with the benefits of these experimental aircraft rules, which do tend to limit what Burt's allowed to do with it.

Why is this the case? Well, partially because the established rules for aircraft product liability are geared for airliners with seasoned pilots, and partially because the FAA requires exacting flight testing and documentation that can be viewed as excessive.

The problem comes in when an inexperienced private pilot augers in. The heirs may not accept that their cousin/child/parent/spouse/etc. is really a alchaholic who was high and not able to deal with flying. Or the lovely borderline case where a important-but-not-critical flight system fails and an impaired pilot is not able to compensate for it.

Burt Rutan got sued. Apparently, the short form is that the heirs of a woman who sat in the back of a Burt Rutan-designed, built-by-somebody-else aircraft, piloted by a very drunk pilot, that crashed through no fault of the aircraft, decided that somehow this was his fault. This is the big reason why you can't buy a kit for any of his aircraft anymore.

Similarly, there's a wide assortment of handheld aircraft instruments for aircraft, like GPSes, altitude warning devices, etc. They are all handheld for the simple reason that if they were installed in the aircraft, they'd need to dramatically increase the price. These would increase safety for light aircraft when they were functional and wouldn't hurt safety if they failed in flight.

Thusly, I've argued that both excess legal liability and excess government requirements together can impair progress.

See, the problem that I think you are confusing two different common corporate behaviours.

See, your average corporation is going to be as unfriendly as they can get away with to their customers. They will send out collection agencies after you for their screwup. They will not let you return things because they think you were trying to pull one over them.

But there's a difference between ruining somebody's life and killing them.

The problem is that as soon as there's the whif that you might be killing people, you get lawsuit after lawsuit. Think about how much lawyers are salivating over Vioxx. There are very few cases where a company has "gotten away" with murder. The only one that I've ever heard of is the Bhopal disaster.

Potential income?

[CrackedButter]

Why not reuse the craft for some extra funding, then bung it in a museam to inspire children with? It would also get more press attention and maybe more investors interested for those future projects. That way they can put the extra cash into the second craft.
I was brought up to never turn down a job, or cash as you never know when the next meal might come from, I woudn't in this case either if I was Burt.

Re:Potential income?

[Timesprout]

Probably because the odds of it surviving more than a couple of trips are not that good? The first flight showed there was still a lot of risk involved.

Re:Potential income?

[Rakishi]

Yeah, it's simply a better chocie to make a new one with fixes for the problems than to temp luck by flying the current one. Sure it may work but if it fails (read: this implies death of crew) then things could get problamatic.

Re:Potential income?

[CrackedButter]

That makes sense then...

Re:Potential income?

[YrWrstNtmr]

There is no real reason to fly that particular ship. SS1 could probably be recreated at a small percentage of the money they've spent so far. R&D soaked up the largest part by far.

The actual question is why? What mission can SS1 really fly, other than tourism? It has far more value in a museum, because it is the first.

Re:Potential income?

[Spy Handler]

With Paul's big pockets, the SS2 sale to Virgin, and the $10 mil Xprize money, Burt probably has more than enough funds for whatever he's working on now.

Also it's likely that he learned all he needed to know from the SS1 project, and with time being of essense, he's going forward at full speed on SS2 and Tier Two projects. No time to waste fooling around with more SS1 launches.

These stories are great

[Eric(b0mb)Dennis]

These stories (Private spaceflight) are one of the few things that strike me as awesome. Simply because of all the science fiction I have read, and interest in space flight...

It's amazing how fast it's coming along since the X-Prize, with some great (and very rich!) minds at the forefront.

The future in this area looks good

Re:These stories are great

[Winkhorst]

If you think this is great, just wait till we have privately funded national defense. Then you'll really see some scifi scenarios!

Bad news? WTF?

[brunes69]

The bad news is that SpaceShipOne will be retired straight to the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum...

This has to be the stupidest comment I have seen in a /. article posting in a long time. Does this person have any regard at all for the enormous historical value this space ship has?

Imagine it was *not* retired, then went down in flames in a subsequent mission. A very important part of humanity's history would be lost, forever.

Try to think beyond the next few years for once in your life. You can send up payloads in SpaceShipTwo, or SpaceShipThree, or SpaceShipNineteen. But there is only one SpaceShipOne. And I for one would like it to still be around in 80 years, so I can go to the museum with my great-grandchildren and say "Look what some people of my generation accomplished".

Re:Bad news? WTF?

[danieljpost]

But the historical value would be so greatly increased if they managed to get two paying passengers into space before retiring the vehicle.

I mean, c'mon, there's not even going to be a second SpaceShipOne vehicle (spaceshipone.two?). I guess I don't like that they're obsoleting a proven design so quickly.

Re:Bad news? WTF?

[joebok]

Historical value isn't necessarily the most important consideration. I think it would also have enourmous value as a working spaceship. Spaceship two, etc. are not yet built. Why not try out One's legs a bit more, work out some more kinks to make Two and Three and the rest that much better that much quicker?

Re:Bad news? WTF?

[Moofie]

What else would you like them to do with this proven design? The designer obviously feels like the aircraft did what it needed to do, and I'm willing to make the wild ass guess that he's a little more familiar with his plan than you are.

SS1 was a prototype, and a technology demonstrator. They didn't make any more Bell X-1's either, you know...

(although they used very similar airframes for a few more aircraft)

Re:Bad news? WTF?

[Moofie]

" Historical value isn't necessarily the most important consideration"

OK. Build your own spaceship, and you can do whatever you want with it.

"Why not try out One's legs a bit more"

Because the owner and the designer agree that that's not what they want to do. Any other questions?

Re:Bad news? WTF?

[Jeff DeMaagd]

IMO, a handful of flights doesn't make the design necessarily proven, mostly just a successfully working proof of concept.

Re:Bad news? WTF?

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Because the owner and the designer agree that that's not what they want to do.

You aren't explaining why they decided not to fly it more. I think it is surprising that they don't test this craft more to make sure all the bugs they had to fix really are worked out rather than just patches over the symptoms without fixing the actual problem.

Re:Bad news? WTF?

[Moofie]

Previous poster's word, not mine.

Re:Bad news? WTF?

[jfengel]

Agreed. As long as they can afford it, it seems to make sense to retire SS1 and use the expertise they gained to build SS2.

The article was hardly the stupidest thing I've seen, but I agree that it's hardly bad news to retire it. It has done what it was built to do. The investment was in the design, not the construction. Construct a new one, a better one, and let the prototype become an artifact.

Re:Bad news? WTF?

[Moofie]

It's not my place to explain why they decided what they did. It's not my space ship. I proceed from the assumption that, since Burt Rutan has a highly successful track record of small-production run aircraft, he knows better than I do how to develop his concept.

I know more about aeronautical engineering than your average joe on the street. If I'm reluctant to armchair quarterback this guy, doesn't that say something?

His design worked. He's moving on to the next design. This is the sort of thing NASA would do well to look at.

Re:Bad news? WTF?

[imsabbel]

Because its a death-trap in the long run?
It was designed to reach the x-price. Ist just reached the height, it did the 2 runs. Plus it had a real nasty spin in one that didnt remotely look funny or planned.
Somewhere else, back after the second flight there was talk about needed improvements to counter such behaviour, which would be implemented in a successor.
Think about it: that thing may have 95%, or lets say 99% success rate. That would be a good value for a cutting ende test-design. 2 tries without problems are very likely->xprice won.
But every further try increases the "big bang" factor of a failure, negating ALL positive press, destroying the market for commercial manned space flight at least for the next decade and generally messing things up.
So they rather create the new&improved spaceship2...

Re:Bad news? WTF?

[mhteas]

I think it was probably designed to figure out how to do this, winning the X-prize was the motivation but not the goal.

It didn't have a spin on any flight, a spin is rotation about the vertical axis of the ship. It did rotated about the longitudinal axis (fore and aft), this is a roll not a spin and a much much more managable situation.

I'd personally like to see it fly again. I've visted the Air & Space museum a number of times and while it's nice to see the planes, it's a little sad to know they'll never do what they were designed to do again.

But, in the end SpaceShipOne was a prototype. Meant to make a path of knowledge to follow. It did that very well.

Re:Bad news? WTF?

[FleaPlus]

Woah now! I'm the original submitter. I really should've put some quotes around "bad news" to show that I was trying to be amusingly flippant. I didn't think anyone would actually think I seriously thought that putting SpaceShipOne in a museum for future generations to admire was some sort of tragedy.

Granted, it would have been exciting to see the craft launch again, but they've presumably learned all they need to learn from SpaceShipOne. Their knowledge will go into SpaceShipTwo, which will be better and safer in just about every way. It'll be a little while before it actually goes up, but I'm perfectly happy to wait.

Re:Bad news? WTF?

[gad_zuki!]

Its not about historical value, the damn thing is a death trap. The documentary the Discovery channel showed exactly how dangerous that thing is and how lucky Rutan got. Its not worth attempting to fly again. They won the prize and so far no one has died. Mission accomplished.

Its really a proof of concept rocket. "Can we build a cheap-ish rocket out of composites and get into space?" Yes, they did. And it was risky. So off to the museum it goes while they build a much safer and profitable flyer.

Re:Bad news? WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

But there is only one SpaceShipOne. And I for one would like it to still be around in 80 years, so I can go to the museum with my great-grandchildren and say "Look what some people of my generation accomplished".

And they'll say "what no warp drive? BORING."

Re:Bad news? WTF?

[danieljpost]

Send ME up there, for one...

I won't trust the thing until...

[Anonymous Coward]

...SpaceShipThree.One.

Re:I won't trust the thing until...

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Yeah, because we all know that Windows 3.1 was just so usefull.

Re:I won't trust the thing until...

[doormat]

Nah.. I'm waiting for SpaceShipXP SP2.

Expensive item for your 'been there' list

[sillypixie]

So for now, it sounds like it will be exploited as a very expensive roller-coaster ride, not a mode of transportation...

But then, it is hard to imagine what kind of profit flying payloads could make, it seems like it is a long way to go up, in order to go a (relatively) short distance across/around...

Is anyone else having flashbacks to Heinlein novels?

Pixie

Re:Expensive item for your 'been there' list

[FleaPlus]

So for now, it sounds like it will be exploited as a very expensive roller-coaster ride, not a mode of transportation...

Actually, I'm going to wait and see how long the actual maximum downrange will be on SpaceShipTwo. It's quite possible that it might also be evolveable into a point-to-point transportation vehicle.

Good Decision

[ZPO]

I applaud his decision to send it straight to the Smithsonian. It shows he's a realist and understands the experimental nature of the project.

SpaceshipOne was a concept demonstrator. For him, its time to move on to the production version.

What happened to SpaceShipNaught?

[Anonymous Coward]

I was hoping I could be a Naughty pilot.

Bad news

[onyxruby]

How is it bad news to have something historical placed directly in a museum where it can be properly preserved? Think of the early Wright Flyers which are only chuncks of the original with best research replacement parts. They have learned from this one, it has done what it was meant to do, be a proof of concept. Now they are doing what they need to do, capitalize on said proof of concept with something more practical. Phooey.

Shaky Deals

[rocketman768]

Somebody's already bought 5 of these things that don't exist yet? Last time that happened, China ended up with 747's that had bungee cords holding the third engine on.

Personally...

[jd]

I think it's a little stupid to retire it to the museum. Sure, it's a valuable piece of history, but there are plenty of things that they could have done with it that would have improved awareness and possibly increased sponsorship efforts.

Here are a few random thoughts on what I would have considered doing, had I been in charge:

• A tour of airshows, possibly even marking the "start" or "close" of the airshow by having SpaceShipOne dropped at a fairly low altitude & speed, to glide in. There's always some risk with flight in general, so there's some chance of an accident, but getting the "unwashed masses" up close to SpaceShipOne will reinforce the idea that space travel could become within the reach of anyone. A static display would be safer, but wouldn't require the real thing either. It also wouldn't have the same impact.
  
• SpaceShipOne can carry three people. A top-notch celebrity, or top-ranking politician would likely pay very big money to be taken on a simple flight (go up a bit, no rockets, just glide down). Photo ops tend to revolve around celebs getting out of aircraft, so the lack of any really dangerous stuff would be irrelevent to them.
  
• There are usually "special" amateur rocket events in many countries. Can you imagine what impact it would have on the sport, if SpaceShipOne was trucked in? Not launched, but just there for the gawp value?
  

Re:Personally...

[Moofie]

Well gosh, jd, I guess dumb ol' Burt Rutan disagrees with you.

It is his space ship. Who the hell are you to tell him what to do with it?

Re:Personally...

[voidptr]

SpaceShipOne can carry three people. A top-notch celebrity, or top-ranking politician would likely pay very big money to be taken on a simple flight (go up a bit, no rockets, just glide down). Photo ops tend to revolve around celebs getting out of aircraft, so the lack of any really dangerous stuff would be irrelevent to them.

One problem is SS1 is still an experimental aircraft. Under FAA regulations, you can't use it in a for-hire operation. That means you can't just start selling tickets for SS1 rides.

Scaled would have to make SS1 into a certificated airframe first, which is a horrendously expensive and lengthy process, and doesn't make sense with SS1 being a one of a kind technology prototype. My guess is with SS2 they're going to work on certification from the beginning, and given that it'll carry 9 people and they'll build more than one of them, the certification costs can be spread out more and be recovered easier.

Re:Personally...

[blackmonday]

No Thanks. But, I do see a future for you in marketing.

Re:Personally...

[jd]

I'm not telling him what to do with it. I'm saying what I'd do, which is entirely different. There's nothing that says Rutan and myself can't both be wrong, or even can't both be right. Maybe the museum is a superb idea, but maybe my thoughts would be equally good.

The dumb thing is to assume he HAS to be right and that everyone else HAS to be wrong by the mere fact of disagreeing with him.

Last I heard, there was more than one kind of airplane in the sky. More than one kind of airframe, too. Aircraft aren't unique in being able to travel through the sky, and the sky isn't the only way to travel. Seems to me, there's a lot of room in the world for different opinions.

Re:Personally...

[jd]

It had better be a long way in the future. The character Stef from User Friendly is all too close to actual marketroids. I'd rather listen to Vogon poetry than be stuck with that crowd.

Re:Personally...

[Moofie]

"I think it's a little stupid to retire it to the museum."

I think you've got a lot of sand to second guess one of the best aircraft designers ever to punch a hole in the sky. Note: that's not a compliment.

You're entitled to your opinion. You'll forgive me for giving his a little more weight.

Re:Personally...

[putaro]

Well, when you pony up $20 million to build a cool new spaceship you can do whatever you like with it afterwards. Allen ponied up the money and it's HIS.

Re:Here's why...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not many people have the ability to reshape reality in their image

Apparently you have it, though. What the hell are you talking about?

Re:but the real question is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe, but the more pressing question is, if someone wrote a virus for Gnome, would it be called "Ghonorrea?"

That's easy

[hey!]

Because Bush is more controversial, and his face on the cover will sell more magazineS than somebody who has taken part in something so enormous its consequences can barely be imagined.

Re:That's easy

[jgalun]

Because Bush is more controversial, and his face on the cover will sell more magazineS than somebody who has taken part in something so enormous its consequences can barely be imagined.

With all due respect, I think Bush has had a far greater impact on the world that Rutan will. Bush invaded Afghanistan, instituted massive tax cuts, racked up huge government deficits, added prescription drug benefits to Medicare, invaded Iraq, and made huge changes in US policy towards Israel/Palestine and North Korea. By the time he's done he may also privatize Social Security and preside over the successful completion of another WTO round that could have a huge impact on third world economies. These actions all will have a major impact on social welfare programs, global economics, and geopolitics for years to come - whether they are good or bad, no one can deny their unbelievable impact. Personally, I loved Clinton, but there's no way Clinton had as much impact as Bush has had thus far.

Hell, I haven't even mentioned Bush's coat tails - the man increased his congressional majorities in both 2002 and 2004! That's simply amazing, and may be the start of a long period of Republican dominance in Washington, D.C.

As for Rutan, yes, SpaceShipOne is impressive. But, to my mind, it impacts only one aspect of human existence, and is a breakthrough that would have occurred even without him.

What is amazing about SpaceShipOne is not that it is some unimagined technological marvel, but that it heralds the start of a commercial age in space (or speeds up the commercial age in space, since satellite launching had already been privatized to some extent). But if Rutan had not been around, someone else would have done it. He didn't initiate the X-Prize, he just won it. As we can see by the other competitors for X-Prize and the others who are trying to set up competitors for the next round of space commercialization, if he didn't do it, someone else would have.

By comparison, if Gore had been elected, things would be anything like they are now. Again - good or bad - Bush has heralded in huge changes that would not have happened without him. Rutan has issued in one change that won't impact any of us for years to come, and would inevitably have happened even if he hadn't been around.

Re:That's easy

[QuickFox]

Personally, I loved Clinton,

You too? How many interns did he have?

Re:That's easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Argghh... never any mod points when I need them.

MOD PARENT UP!

What do you mean "too"?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are plenty who'd argue that that "too" is redundant.

As to his influence, well influences can be good and bad.

Posting anonymously because I don't really want to get into another pointless flame war about how "good" Dubya is. You believe what you want to believe and I'll do the same, and let's just leave it at that.

Jeff Bezos's link is weird

[Chuck Bucket]

In the story, why does the link for "Jeff Bezos's" include "Jeff Bezos" but not the "'s"? Kinda weird if you ask me.

As for Burt, he rocks, the A+E documentary on the development and first flights of SpaceshipOne was amazing, the fact that smart people can actually get together and do something that Nasa can't shows the power of the team.

CVb

Re: Jeff Bezos's link is weird

[0racle]

Exactly what have they done that NASA hasn't? I seem to recall that the Murcury Missions did exactly what SS1 did, but about 40 years ago. Well, ok, the Murcury capsules were not reusable.

Re: Jeff Bezos's link is weird

[AtillaTheKilla]

Possibly because it is linking to an entry about Jeff Bezos, and not to an entry about things belonging to Jeff Bezos. Just a thought...

Re: Jeff Bezos's link is weird

[Tap-Sa]

the fact that smart people can actually get together and do something that Nasa can't shows the power of the team.

Oh please, NASA did this 40 years ago

Re: Jeff Bezos's link is weird [SOLVED]

[Chuck Bucket]

Now I know why, Apple prob sued and now you can't link with the "'s" anymore. Makes sense.

PCB#$@

waiting for commercially available flights

[painehope]

I was actually talking about this a few dats agi with a co-worker. I'm hoping that by the time you can purchase tickets for this, I'll have the funds to do so. I plan on being the first man to consume hallucinogens in suborbit. Take a small syrette with some LSD along, hit it while preparing to depart, and enjoy the trip.

And, yes, I know I'm weird. Thanks for calling.

Times Person of the Year

[JThundley]

The Times Person of the Year is not necessarilly a person who has been benevolent to society. He/She is simply the person that got the most press and is the most talked about and controversial person.

As a Bush hater, I think he fully deserves that title.

enormous historical value

[Anonymous Coward]

How about a deep breath before you write?

COnsidering that most americans are two steps beyond clueless about history and that most of the US history is seriously flawed, I think using it as a roadside dinner somewhere in the desert would make more sense.

This is a country where a ball hit with a bat is considered of historical value.

Yours has to be the stupidest, shrillest, whiniest comment I have seen in a /. article posting in a long time.
You are hereby renamed Rev.Lovejoy's wife.

"Wont someone think of the spaceship?'

tg.

PS: If you think that comment was stupid, then I guess you havent been around here long enough.

Re:enormous historical value

[Anonymous Coward]

+1 Impugns Baseball

First Flight of Spaceship Two

[Anonymous Coward]

Hopefully it'll be used to fly the bearded twat into the sun ...

Richard Branson just fscking owns you.

[J4]

Fuck Bill Gates, this is the worlds greatest businessman. I have personally seen and recorded 45 impromptu minutes of Branson speaking to young entrepreneurs at the drop of a hat when asked to by a complete stranger.

LTBN: "Hey! We're doing a thing across the street, would you mind saying a few words?"
Richard Branson: "Sure, let's go!"

Okay, he did ask for female volunteers to go on the round the world balloon trip while he was on the dais but it would have taken longer than 45 minutes to charm them all individually. Personally, I thought that was great, but some people gotta be haters.....

Re:Here's why...

[Anonymous Coward]

Steve Jobs can!

White Knight hired by NASA?

[iamlucky13]

A little before SS1 did it's two X-prize flights, a few quiet news articles announced that Scaled Composites was being contracted to supply the dropship for glide tests for the X37 program. Speculation is that the White Knight carrier plane is to be used for this, so although SS1 might not get flown again, White Knight probably will, and there will be some extra cash coming in from the project.

Isn't 'Virgin Galactic' just a bit presumptuous?

[xski]

Virgin Orbit sounds more likely in the near term.

A Spruce Goose? SpaceShip1 airframes cost nothing!

[Invisible Now]

The cost is all in the intellectual work to create the design and prove it works. The airframe itself is on the order of $1 to 3 million for materials and labor.

IT IS INTERESTING that a brilliant engineer like Rutan would be moving to a completely new 9 passenger SpaceShip2 instead of putting airframe #1 of SS1 into the Smithsonian and selling hops on her sister ships.Though he does seem to reveal there was an internal discussion...

Flying the design again has nothing to do with any of the previous posts regarding 'history'. Make a fresh copy and put it into service. Unless you're worried it's lack of redundancy makes it unsuitable for non-test pilot passneger flight. Paul Allen may not want to expose himself to some pin-head real estate mogul's wife's tort attorneys.

Or, maybe they feel good to get up and down safely a few times in this frontier expanding design (There where some close calls, after all.) Hughes flew the Spruce Goose once and ordered it mothballed. Some designs proudly push the limits but aren't great for everyday use...

t/Space Gets It

[Baldrson]

When t/Space says:

NASA becomes the first bold customer for commercial services.

they clearly get the idea I was trying to put across to Congress in my testimony before the House subcommittee on space when I said over a decade ago:

Americans need a frontier, not a program.

Incentives open frontiers, not plans.

If this Subcommittee hears no other message through the barrage of studies, projections and policy recommendations, it must hear this message. A reformed space policy focused on opening the space frontier through commercial incentives will make all the difference to our future as a world, a nation and as individuals.

Let's hope NASA gets the idea before its too late.

This is great!

[Subjective]

Ah, rich people, is there anything they can't do?

Enough rich people are willing to pay 200.000$ to get to space that a huge company decides it's worthwhile to spend millions building ships that'll fly to space.

When that's done, they'll realise enough people are willing to pay for actually staying a while in space, and enough can be profited by research in space, that they'll build private space stations.

Three Words

[thermopile]

Personally, I'm worried that SpaceShipTwo will never get off the ground:

Second System Syndrome.

I didn't come up with that term; it was first coined by Chuck Thacker of PARC. (great book for any engineer, by the way) You may come up with a great design for your original version, but often times the second version gets so bogged down with extra bells and whistles trying to be better than the first, that it never gets anywhere.

PARC suffered from SSS with their supercomputer, PARC did it again with the successor to the Alto -- the Star, and history has shown it again and again.

Re:Three Words

[ZPO]

Given Rutan's history I think we're pretty safe from that. Its a very real concern though.

Re:Three Words

[Picass0]

Second System Syndrome can usually be chalked up to poor project management. Without proper leadership any project can spiral out of control and never reach a conclusion. Poor focus, scope creep, bad testing, a failure to meet the customer's requirements.

Burt Rutan knows how to get what he wants from his people. He's a good leader with a good team. And the part that might make the biggest difference between Scaled and PARC - it's Burt's show. He's always the deciding vote. I'm sure he's kicked a lot of dead weight ideas out of the way in his many years of designing flying craft.

dont bet on virgin

[Dr.Knackerator]

its pretty easy to make a press release - that costs no money. virgin is an interesting company having as many bad ideas as good. branson seems to jump on bandwagons and push the 'maximum publicity' button at any oppertunity.

virgin rail was launched in a blaze of media coverage with branman waving from trains etc. promising the earth. years later fares are much higher and the service seems to be much worse from what i read.

a few years ago i believe he had to sell 49% of virgin atlantic, it was the only thing making any money. needed the cash to pay off debts.

so whatever you do please just dont quote this ludicrous plan (and a ludicrous name- galactic? we havent even got there yet!) and give him more bloody free publicity. only mention it when it becomes a reality.

Re:dont bet on virgin

[Dr.Knackerator]

just to clarify, when i say 'ludicrous' i mean not that the idea of selling space flight is bad, it is the level of involvment that virgin would actually have.

chances are it would just be a licensing deal like virgin cola or virgin mobile. i dont believe they have the money to fund something that big. he would be sent into space grinning like a looney in a chunky jumper (as usual) and the ships would be read. that's really about it.

i don't know what you think of him in the states but really anybody with a bit of nous in the uk believes he is a bit of a publicity seeking.... errr.. person.

What's so special about it

[tobirius]

The Russians did it first, decades ago, orbiting Earth with the computing power of a C64. So what's new, 40 years later, going up into the sky 100 miles and falling down again. Not even going into orbit. There is no invention, no progress, only privat funding. This is only an aircraft going rather high, no space flight at all. Just like in, what's so exiting about all that.

I agree...

[Anonymous Coward]

I found it interesting that the vehicle was being used again (for the X Prize) after being the first private space vehicle.

But I have to say that retiring it without taking up a single passenger is disappointing. It showed we could take passengers to space, but it didn't do so.

I think they should have given it one more go and then retired it.

I applaud Paul Allen for letting this go to the Smithsonian instead of putting it in his own private space museum in Seattle. It would be a great "get" for him, and he did pay for it, but it does belong in the Smithsonian.

A big thumbs down to Universal for not putting SSOne into the opening credits of "Enterprise". It's one of the most significant space vehicles ever and they should have changed the intro.

Re:I agree...

[Anonymous Coward]

> A big thumbs down to Universal for not putting SSOne into the
> opening credits of "Enterprise". It's one of the most significant
> space vehicles ever and they should have changed the intro.

And since when does Universal own ANY of the rights to Enterprise, credit sequences or otherwise?

Answer: They don't, and never have.

QED: You're an idiot, so STFU.

VTOL novel?

[Vo0k]

Take such Saiuz from Russians. No doubt it starts vertically. All of them do. Then the capsule lands on parachutes, mostly vertically too. Only shuttles don't land vertically. So essentially most of our spaceships are VTOL.

NASA is intelligent?

[marcus]

Intelligent enough to save lives?
Simply ridiculous.

Do you know why Challenger exploded?

Summary: Because NASA was not smart. They launched when the conditions were documented out of spec.

Do you know why Columbia burned?

Summary: Because NASA was not smart. They launched and re-entered after engineers had warned about the foam and tiles.

As far as being reasonable about 40 MPH winds on takeoff goes, I've flown planes in those conditions. No problem, all you need is a little skill. Believe me, the guys flying for Rutan have much more skill than I do, as well as much more capable planes. Add to that, surface conditions are largely irrelevant for aircraft that are exploring a flight envelope centered on >50Km altitudes and supersonic speeds.

Obligatory Star Wars Quote

[BranMan]

"You went up in that thing? You're braver than I though."

"Release early, release often"

[Bob_Robertson]

So long as no one uses force to make you get on the spacecraft, why not?

People die climbing mountains, swimming rivers, racing cars. They also die in bed, old and feeble. Fact is, people die and nothing can stop it (yet).

So be polite and let people choose to risk their own lives if they want to. The only restriction I would place on it would be to demand full disclosure about any system I am interested in using.

But if you want to use "closed source" spaceflight, that's your choice to make.

Bob-

Re:Paul's Good Decision

[Tap-Sa]

Allen practically owns SS1 so he decided to shelve his expensive toy into the museum.

Read his testimony! Re:t/Space Gets It

[Invisible Now]

You said it right. Beautifully expressed. I have never heard anyone else articulate, as you did before Congress, the case for space exploration as an American ideal more clearly and persuasively.

Maybe, now, we're on our way, again.

Just in time b4 that asteroid hits in 2029..

[adeyadey]

Question: What's on the horizon in terms of future interests?

Answer: Well, I think I will spend a large percentage if not all of my main efforts for the rest of my career on manned-space travel. I think we can, if we do it right, be within 20 to 25 years of being able to visit hotels in orbit and many thousands of people being able to afford to do that. I would like to see affordable travel to the moon before I die, so I am starting relatively soon on developments for orbital-space tourism.


Better get that moonship sorted before Fri 13th April 2029, Burt..

(NEWSFLASH - Asteroid 2004 MN4 is now upgraded to Torino risk scale 4 - highest ever score for any asteroid..)

http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news146.html
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/

US National Debt and Trade Deficit [Re:Rutan is my

[tuomas_kaikkonen]

The PRChina is actually the second-biggest holder of US debt AFTER Japan. According to Bloomberg China holds $174.4 billion of Treasury notes and bonds at the end of September, while Japan holds more than $720 billion of the securities.