Slashdot Mirror
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."
Could they join the 100 mile high club?
Rus
Cheap UK and US VPS
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.
Kip Hawley is an idiot.
The more participants in the fray, the better. May the fit survive and the fittest flourish!
& mode=classic
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
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
"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.
Yes, yes it is.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Jonathanjk.com
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
Excuse me, I don't mean to impose, but I am the ocean
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".
...SpaceShipThree.One.
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
don't mess with those geekgrrls
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.
Here are a few random thoughts on what I would have considered doing, had I been in charge:
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)
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.
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.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
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...
We're all familiar with the tragedy of being you.
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.
PC moderators can suck my White pierced, tattooed dick. If you think pride == hate, s/dick/Aryan meat mallet/g.
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?
-- derby
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.
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
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.
We're all familiar with the tragedy of being you.
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.
Virgin Orbit sounds more likely in the near term.
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
>> My ultraviolent Linux switch video.
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.
-- derby
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...
"Knowing everything doesn't help..."
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.
>> My ultraviolent Linux switch video.
Seastead this.
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.
My other
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.
"Diplomacy is something you do until you find a rock." --Richard Pound
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.
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.
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...
Space Elevator and Carbon Nanotubes!
well, you are talking about scales (very large) and composites after all
¦)
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.
We're all familiar with the tragedy of being you.
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.
Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
Backwards? In what way?
>> My ultraviolent Linux switch video.
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.
>> My ultraviolent Linux switch video.
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.
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.
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
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.
>> My ultraviolent Linux switch video.
"You went up in that thing? You're braver than I though."
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-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
Allen practically owns SS1 so he decided to shelve his expensive toy into the museum.
Oh please, NASA did this 40 years ago
Maybe, now, we're on our way, again.
"Knowing everything doesn't help..."
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/
"You lied to me! There is a Swansea!"
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.