Slashdot Mirror


White Knight Testing X-37

mknewman writes "The innovative carrier plane used to air-launch SpaceShipOne has a new mission. At its inland spaceport in Mojave, Calif., the White Knight mothership has been involved in fit and high-speed taxi checks with a new passenger: the X-37, an unpiloted, reusable space plane. "

86 comments

  1. Private Space May Be The Only Game Left by geomon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The cynical people (like me) know that the best way to kill an agency is to starve it to death slowly. The Mars mission is a classic example of this process. First you cut back on all smaller missions to consolidate spending under one gigantic program. Then you allow the costs for the gigantic mission to ballon until their is no public support for it any longer. At that point you can kill the agency without political damage.

    Fortunately there are newer, less expensive methods for delivering payloads into LEO and with this vehicle it will be possible to perform much of what NASA proposed doing with the ISS with a fraction of the cost.

    Universities would be a good customer for this type of launch/service space company because the payloads launched by NASA come with significant strings attached to them and they do not get to control the vehicle once launched.

    How much do you think a partnership between a university and a private company could save by doing their own space probes?

    --
    "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
    1. Re:Private Space May Be The Only Game Left by /ASCII · · Score: 1

      The future is looking pretty bright for space travel right now. Nasa is finally facing some competition again, both from the European space agancy, the russians and private enterprises. I think the cost of sending junk to space will decrease by an order of magnitude in the next decade.

      --
      Try out fish, the friendly interactive shell.
    2. Re:Private Space May Be The Only Game Left by geomon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As is usual for geomon,

      I've got a FAN!!!

      Goody!

      There are NOT newer and less expensive methods..

      Really?

      Ask the folks over at DirecTV.

      If you read the press release it said nothing about using NASA for the launch.

      --
      "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
    3. Re:Private Space May Be The Only Game Left by HoneyNutCheerios · · Score: 1

      Geomon, I would completely ignore the above "Anonymous Coward". He obviously is an idiot.

      I agree with you that the costs will be lowered. Additionally, we will not need to risk human lives as well.

      I hope universities will get a part of that action as well. I know many universities do research for NASA; my university does. The MARS rovers, Spirit and Opportunity, were designed with collaboration with CMU and other universities.

      I believe partnerships with private companies and universities will save a great deal of money and time. NASA has always subcontracted a lot of services to the private sector.

      The Bush Administration is not helping much. They recommended to Congress a budget cut for NASA. I believe that the Voyagers may no longer get funding soon; this is an vehement protest from the international community of scientists. This is a cruicial issue since the Voyagers are headed for interstellar space. (I am not sure of how the budget cut proposal were handled by Congress. Does anybody know?)

    4. Re:Private Space May Be The Only Game Left by maxwell+demon · · Score: 3, Funny
      I've got a FAN!!!

      So what? I've got several. One for my processor, one for my graphics card, one for my power supply, and one for me :-)
      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    5. Re:Private Space May Be The Only Game Left by geomon · · Score: 1

      I hope universities will get a part of that action as well. I know many universities do research for NASA; my university does. The MARS rovers, Spirit and Opportunity, were designed with collaboration with CMU and other universities.

      My advisor graduated from UofArizona and they did quite a bit of the hydrogeology research for the Mars landers.

      I believe partnerships with private companies and universities will save a great deal of money and time. NASA has always subcontracted a lot of services to the private sector.

      Which is where my question was directed and I'm glad you have highlighted. Government research has few customers: the angencies coordinated within their departments, military, legislative, and administrative groups. Scientific research (or more precisely, basic research) is nearly always a government-university-private industry collaboration. The end-users of the data include all of the various universities who have departments that benefit from the research (including yours and UofA with respect to Mars). If the goverment cuts itself out of the equation (except for some funding), then universities and private companies will have to find low-cost systems to move payloads into space.

      Using a federal agency to fund, direct, and perform engineering for space launches may be ending.

      --
      "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
    6. Re:Private Space May Be The Only Game Left by iammaxus · · Score: 2, Informative
      Fortunately there are newer, less expensive methods for delivering payloads into LEO and with this vehicle it will be possible to perform much of what NASA proposed doing with the ISS with a fraction of the cost.
      Exactly what newer methods? What is "this vehicle"? The White Knight? The White Knight is a conventional air craft that goes no where near LEO. Perhaps you are talking about the X-37? While it is testing new, cheaper space travel technologies, I don't see how it can do what the ISS can do, namely, extended experiments in space. Get your facts straight.
    7. Re:Private Space May Be The Only Game Left by geomon · · Score: 1

      Exactly what newer methods?

      This platform.

      Get your facts straight.

      Which facts?

      --
      "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
    8. Re:Private Space May Be The Only Game Left by Shadowlore · · Score: 1

      While it is testing new, cheaper space travel technologies, I don't see how it can do what the ISS can do, namely, extended experiments in space. Get your facts straight.

      Ahh the irony of someone who doens't know what the X37 is telling someone who does to get their facts straight. One of the purposes of the X37 is long term space experimentation.

      The X-37 is intended to be (initially) lifted to LEO by the shuttle. It has a 7'x4' bay for carrying up to 500 pounds of experiments for durations of up to 21 days. Three times longer than STS experiments can be. And without the billions of dollars the ISS will cost when/if it is completed.

      So yes, it as a matter of fact can do much of what the stated goals of the ISS can do, and can do it cheaper.

      As far as launch methods, not exactly "newer" but good old fashioned rocket payload lifts are cheaper than the STS. A Delta IV heavy, or Delta IV can lift payloads to LEO cheaper, by far then the STS can. You can launch 2-3 Delta IV-heavys for the cost of a single shuttle launch. Not to mention a failure at launch doesn't stall all further launches for years after. IIRC, both the Atlas V and the Delta IV can fit the diameter of the X-37 though I don't recall if the length is in the range but I think it is. And finally, you can launch more Atlas and Delta rockets per year than the Shuttle.

      If the X-37 can be launched via Atlas/Delta rockets, you could have half a dozen up in a single year for slightly more than the cost of launching a single shuttle payload. Using teleoperation you could use transfer experiment payloads from one X-37 to another to provide longer than 21 day orbits if needed and the experiment was capable of such.

      Any experiment going to ISS will require basically two launches, not including the launches to build the ISS. An experiment launched and ran on the X-37 requires only the one.

      --
      My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
    9. Re:Private Space May Be The Only Game Left by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The cynical people (like me) know that the best way to kill an agency is to starve it to death slowly. The Mars mission is a classic example of this process. First you cut back on all smaller missions to consolidate spending under one gigantic program. Then you allow the costs for the gigantic mission to ballon until their is no public support for it any longer. At that point you can kill the agency without political damage.

      Yeah, that does sound a lot like the Mars mission so far. But if you look at funds actually spent, it sounds even more like the ISS...

  2. this X37 design by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1, Interesting

    reminds me of the one that Steve Austin crashed in the Six Million Dollar Man tv program intro...

    1. Re:this X37 design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which makes me wonder how soon we're going to see a movie of the $6M man with Lee Majors as Oscar Goldman. The only question is when and who will play Steve Austin (a man barely alive)

  3. Re:How does this relate to the America's Space Pri by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    well, he's gotta feed the monkey!

  4. Re:How does this relate to the America's Space Pri by s20451 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Are you trolling?

    Burt Rutan may be a superhero, but he needs to eat, just like everybody else. He is not a charity. It doesn't seem like White Knight or its pilots were doing much anyway. I can't imagine that renting out a plane to NASA is a huge distraction.

    Rutan's current project, Virgin Galactic, has nothing to do with orbital flight. It is merely a souped-up version of Spaceship One. Rutan has himself said that scaling up to an orbital spacecraft would be many orders of magnitude more difficult and expensive, and it doesn't seem to be a priority for him right now.

    And in what sense is this selling out? If taking Richard Branson's and Paul Allen's money was not selling out, then how does it follow that he is tainting his principles by helping NASA out with a test platform for reusable space technology?

    --
    Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
  5. Re:How does this relate to the America's Space Pri by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Scaled Composites (Rutan's company) does a LOT of things. The company also is involved in several projects at any given time. This sort of thing is not at all unusual for them. Rutan himself is probably not too terribly involved in this. He's stated before that most of his own time from now on will probably be invested in the Space Tourism efforts. Also note that the larger craft being built for Virgin Galactic will more than likely require a larger version of the White Knight so without SSO flighing any more, this seems like a good way to keep using White Knight to me.

    Also, as much of a leader Rutan is, he's not the only one shooting for affordable and safe privately manned space flight. Personally, I can't wait until the X-Prize Cup's first year.

  6. Real-life crash by Latent+Heat · · Score: 4, Informative

    As explained in Milton Thompson's "Flight Without Wings", the Steve Austin crash was an actual crash at Edwards of one of the lifting bodies. But in real life, the pilot actually walked away from that one -- apparently they needed extra weight in the nose to balance the craft for flight, so they used that weight to beef up the safety cage for the pilot.

    1. Re:Real-life crash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought the pilot had both of his hands sheered off in that crash? And, IIRC, the crash was a result of turbulent air from an observation helicopter. No?

    2. Re:Real-life crash by jamstar7 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Lucky him.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    3. Re:Real-life crash by WormholeFiend · · Score: 2, Informative

      as AC pointed it out, he did lose an eye.

      And to the moderator who modded me down, WTF?! It does look similar :P.

      Ok, well maybe except for the big holes in the hull.

    4. Re:Real-life crash by Hektor_Troy · · Score: 1
      IMDB offers the following:
      The aircraft seen crashing in the opening sequence of The Six Million Dollar Man was an M2-F2, a "flying body configuration" built by Northrup. The audio sound effects are from a crash that occurred on May 10, 1967, at Edwards Air Force base in California (although the dialogue heard was recorded by Lee Majors). The test pilot, Bruce Peterson, hit the ground at 250 mph, tumbling six times. He lost use of his right eye and had to stop flying, ending his career. Understandably, Peterson has said that he hated reliving his accident, week after week, courtesy of Steve Austin.
      It doesn't say wether or not he walked away from the crash, but it does point to a more severe crash than "the pilot actually walked away from that one" :)
      --
      We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
    5. Re:Real-life crash by doyen2000 · · Score: 1
      I think it was the tail configuration that the lifting body had. The two small vertical tails at the end of the delta wing is inherently unstable under certain conditions. I used to have the reference but I forget at this moment.

      This is one of the reasons the space shuttle has a huge vertical tail.

      Another point.. the B52- High and Mighty - NASA 008 was actually retired after the X-43A scramjet test last year. So now they have to find another plane to do the job. Scaled Composites is just another company like Boeing so I do not see the polemic here. NASA will use whatever suits them. Cheers, A.

  7. Re:./ed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    The site is not slashdotted. Nevertheless the original space.com article.

  8. It never fails by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well you made it to space, now we need you to be our guinea pig.

  9. Re:How does this relate to the America's Space Pri by DanielMarkham · · Score: 1

    Not trolling at all.

    Perhaps my post was poorly worded.

    Is Rutan going to advance the cause of civilian orbital spaceflight or not? I was under the impression that he was. I thought he was onboard for the Bigalow orbital prize. Perhaps this is due to my confusion over the myriad prizes and programs out there today.

    If he is, then I don't understand how helping DoD furthers that cause. If he isn't, then by all means go for the bucks. No troll intended.

  10. Why? by uberdave · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why do they need the White Knight? Don't they usually drop these types of test craft from bombers (like the B-52)? Surely the US air force can get thier hands on one.

    1. Re:Why? by ChePibe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The White Knight will no doubt be significantly cheaper than a B52.

      Just take a look at the two:

      B52 - 8 big jet engines, combat crew of 5 (probably smaller for most NASA missions), 159 feet long.

      White Knight - Not entirely familiar with the specs on this plane, but it looks like it has two engines, a crew of one or two, and is probably about 45 feet long or so (just guessing from photos and comparing it to length of X 37).

      The White Knight is likely much cheaper to operate than a B-52, so that would probably explain it.

    2. Re:Why? by valkyriekl · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the White Knight is cheaper to operate than a B-52? It is, after all, designed to carry something slung beneath it (externally) and then release its payload in the air...

    3. Re:Why? by ChePibe · · Score: 3, Funny

      So is the B-52... only the things it carries are more likely to go "boom" than "voom" ;-)

    4. Re:Why? by jargonCCNA · · Score: 1

      Minor nit: NASA != USAF. Thus, NASA doesn't necessarily have ready access to large bombers. Besides, as someone else said, the White Knight was specifically designed for this purpose. Bombers weren't. Not with a payload that large.

      --
      Matthew G P Coe
      http://mgpcoe.blogspot.com/
    5. Re:Why? by torpor · · Score: 0, Troll

      umm .. in case you didn't know, your nation is At War. War means money. the Air Force is fighting. 'r&d' is frivolous when you have Shawk and Oww to deliver ..

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    6. Re:Why? by uberdave · · Score: 1, Insightful

      *MY* nation is not at war. I don't think it has been officially at war since WW2.

    7. Re:Why? by iamlucky13 · · Score: 1

      NASA actually has a B-52 specifically for carrier type flights such as this. Look up the X-15 and the X-45 programs and you'll see it could handle payloads that big. In fact, it really is overkill, which is why they're using the White Knight.

    8. Re:Why? by jargonCCNA · · Score: 1

      I thought their carrier was the modified 747 that they use to fly the orbiters from Edwards to Kennedy...

      --
      Matthew G P Coe
      http://mgpcoe.blogspot.com/
    9. Re:Why? by Rei · · Score: 1

      Would you launch a microsat on a Saturn V? The B-52 has a very large payload capacity; it's unnecessary for this task, and so you're just operating a more expensive craft. The B52 carries 30,000 kg of payload, but WhiteKnight was only designed to carry the 3,600kg SpaceShipOne.

      Furthermore, you need to look at carry-launch styles: White Knight was custom designed for a belly launch method. While the launch method requires a custom plane (its downside), the upside is that it simply works better once you've paid the development capital costs (your load is balanced, directly under the area with the most structural support, and has less geometric restrictions). Depending on the mission, this can be a big benefit.

      Rutan is an excellent aircraft designer (his "spacecraft" is really just low-ISP rocketplane), albeit a bit risky much of the time (this can be a good or bad thing, depending on the situation). I wouldn't be surprised if he ends up working on drop planes which carry real rockets built by more experienced developers (for example, if SpaceX ever gets into the drop-launch business).

      Other external craft assist methods (apart from stowing the craft under a wing or under the belly) include stowing it on top of the craft (the downside is that whole "tail" thing; you'd typically want a custom craft if you want to launch it that way), tow launch (with or without midair fuel transfer from previously attached lines to save on landing gear requirements), stowed craft launch (you store the craft inside the lifting aircraft, and drop it out the back with a drogue chute - very geometrically constraining, but low landing gear requirements and no midair fuelling), and midair docking (the spacecraft takes off on its own power but minimal fuel, and connects/refuels midair like a fighter on a long range mission, thereby lifting up most of the fuel/oxidizer on airbreathing power)

      --
      Aeris Died For Your Sins.
    10. Re:Why? by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2, Informative

      NASA has a large fleet, included in that fleet are a B-57 Canberra bomber, a B-52 for large aircraft drop tests and 2 747-100s for carrying the Shuttle.

      http://www.nasa.gov/missions/research/index.html
      http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets /FS-005-DFRC.html
      http://www.nasa.gov/news/special/747_Shuttle_Carri ers.html
      http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/

    11. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the nation that has all the B52's IS at war, and they don't have spare B52's because they might need them to bomb somebody.

      I note that in the BRAC they are not closing Minot AFB, or even reducing the staff there.

    12. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cheaper? Not likely. Reliability? No way. The B-52 has 50 good quality years of service. They are battle-hardened to lift and deploy heavy loads. They were designed 50 years ago, and are to tough military specifications. The '52 is the workhorse of the sky.

      Just because something is big and old doesn't mean it sucks.

      To wit, compare this year's Hummer model to one of 10 years ago ;-)

    13. Re:Why? by uberdave · · Score: 1

      NASA has it's own B-52 that is used specifically for drop tests. It is not used for combat.

    14. Re:Why? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      The B-52 that NASA uses is also.
      It was modified to carry the X-15 but they have also carried Hounddog missiles, SRAMS, ALCMs,and Harpoon anti ship missiles.

      You are correct that the White Knight is without a doubt cheaper to operate. Not to mention the B-52 NASA uses is the last flying B-52a in the world. Odds are NASA will want to save it for payloads that are too heavy or need to be dropped at a higher speed than the White Knight can handle. In sort it is in this case the White Knight is the best tool for this job.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  11. America's Space Prize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rutan & Co. may have won the X Prize, but their design doesn't stand a chance in the race to low-Earth orbit. Their design will not scale well.

    Okay, they have one chance: Falcon V might never fly. If it does fly successfully, though, there will be a capsule stacked on top of it before you can say "Soyuz is obsolete."

    1. Re:America's Space Prize by Rei · · Score: 1

      Falcon-V was beaten by Orbital's Pegasus (fully private dollars). Although if you're talking about manned travel, sticking a capsule on top of a Falcon V (you could probably manage a 1-person capsule on top of a Falcon I) would be your best bet. Rutan isn't close at all. To get to orbit, he'd need a completely new engine (unrelated to his old one), completely new types of tanks, completely different structural materials, a brand new TPS (as he didn't use much of a TPS at all), etc. I.e., he'd have to essentially start over from scratch.

      --
      Aeris Died For Your Sins.
    2. Re:America's Space Prize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, I agree; that's exactly what I was saying.

      I think that a capsule on Falcon V (if it successfully flies) will be the first fully private orbital manned spacecraft. The SpaceShipOne design is completely different from what Rutan would need to go orbital.

      (And, unless Griffin really lights a fire under the contractors, I think such a private capsule will beat the CEV to flight by a significant amount of time, too.)

    3. Re:America's Space Prize by jnhtx · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Aviation Week says that the new NASA administrator likes the idea of putting a manned capsule on top of a single space shuttle solid booster. The booster is already man-rated and (by rocket standards) in mass production, so the idea does make some sense.

  12. Same Ol' Same Ol' by sycodon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Nasa has been doing this kind of crap ever since they finished the Space Shuttles.

    They start down a promising path of cheaper, more efficient access to orbit, just ditch the research.

    Personally, I think it's the middle managers that are screwing everything up. Administrations and directors come and go, but the morons in the middle are always around.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:Same Ol' Same Ol' by geomon · · Score: 1

      Nasa has been doing this kind of crap ever since they finished the Space Shuttles. They start down a promising path of cheaper, more efficient access to orbit, just ditch the research.

      Government agencies are not equipped to commercialize basic scientific research. The shuttle was an attempt to make space flight more routine and cheap, but has instead become incredibly expensive and dangerous.

      --
      "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
    2. Re:Same Ol' Same Ol' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Government agencies are not equipped to commercialize basic scientific research.

      Arguably, if they're going to do basic research, they should at least get it to a point where it might be commercialized. It seems they can't even do basic research without abandoning it halfway.

  13. Re:How does this relate to the America's Space Pri by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's simple.

    He's developed SS1. He has test pilots on his payroll that he probably has contractual obligations to pay whether they're doing something or not.

    Both SS1 and its pilots are currently not doing anything, and operating them right now doesn't take ANY resources away from other projects. By renting out SS1, he's converting a possible money sink into a moneymaker, money he can use to further the development projects he wants to pursue.

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  14. Bloated? by tinrobot · · Score: 1, Troll

    Cost of the White Knight AND the SS1 - around $25 million

    Cost of the X37 -- $173 million.

    The article didn't say if this is $173 million is just for the X37 prototype or for one that can actually be used. My guess is the former.

    1. Re:Bloated? by kinnell · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Cost of the White Knight AND the SS1 - around $25 million

      Cost of the X37 -- $173 million.

      Maximum speed of spaceship one - mach 3.5

      Maximum speed of X37 - mach 25

      --
      If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
    2. Re:Bloated? by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      Obviously, you didn't read the part that said the X-37 needs t be carried to orbit by another craft. It's a test bed for propulsion and reentry technologies. It was originally designed to test technologies for use in the orbital space plane. Now it's being used by DARPA.

      Space ship one, while not an orbital vehicle, actually travels under its own power.

  15. Re:Why? Answer: Cost by uberdave · · Score: 4, Informative
    I guess the answer is cost.

    "NASA has transferred its X-37 technology demonstration program to the Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), which plans to go ahead with atmospheric drop tests of the prototype space plane next year."

    The B-52 aircraft that NASA normally uses for such drop tests would not be used, a decision made by the agency now in charge of the X-37 program, he said. "The cost analysis favored Scaled Composites," [NASA spokesman Michael] Braukus said.
  16. just the right size for atomic bombs by eurostar · · Score: 1

    Hey, this looks just the right size for strategic bombs...

  17. cheap by rctay · · Score: 1

    Do you know how much money it takes to maintain and fly a modified B52 as a launch platform? It may make sense for military use for quick surveillance satellite insertion, but not research. It's always about economics.

    1. Re:cheap by dabigpaybackski · · Score: 1
      The main reason the B-52s are so expensive to operate is that the Air Force has steadfastly refused to refurbish them with modern engines because the upgrade would cut into funding for fighter planes.

      Those 8 engines you see on the B-52 are old, very thirsty turbojets. Fuel costs for this plane are a mutha.

      --
      "OH SHIT, THERE'S A HORSE IN THE HOSPITAL!"
    2. Re:cheap by hcdejong · · Score: 1

      It also requires a large crew, and lots of maintenance.

    3. Re:cheap by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Actually, the Airforce has considered plans for refurbishment of the B-52s with 4 replacement Turbofan engines, but has decided to hold off on any plans due to the abundance of already delivered spareparts for the current engines (they have enough spare engines and parts to take the current fleet through to 2015 without spending any money on replacements).

  18. Re:Why? Answer: Cost by TheHawke · · Score: 1

    'sides, the B-52H that replaced the B-52B "Old 008" is not ready to do drop missions.

    The last mission the old warhorse did was the Hyper-X mission and they had the devils' own time with the fuel transfer system. They finally managed to avoid aborting the mission by using the air refuelling management panel.

    --
    First rule of holes; When in one, stop digging.
  19. Plagiarism by Stankatz · · Score: 1, Troll

    Why is there so much plagiarism on /.? The two sentences supposedly written by mknewman, were actually written by Leonard David, the author of the article. Why give credit to someone for cutting and pasting?

    1. Re:Plagiarism by Stankatz · · Score: 1

      That's Slashdot for ya. I get modded "Troll" for pointing out plagiarism. And this isn't the first time I've seen the "article summary" posted by someone turn out to be just the first paragraph of the linked article. I went to the original article, which was on space.com, not MSNBC, and posted a comment to let them know about this problem.

  20. LEO should be left to private, NASA needs moon/mar by Shivetya · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I agree that LEO is best left to the private concerns. However I disagree about your view of what setting a Mars mission does to NASA.

    NASA should be about advancing our capabilities many fold. This does not mean doing the same damn thing we have been doing for nearly 50 years which is playing around in orbit of our own planet.

    NASA should be about goals outside the capabilites (read monetary concerns) of privates/corporations. This means setting up on the moon and eventually getting to Mars.

    Scenario. Use NASA to setup a PERMANENT facility on the Moon. Then by the design and policy have that open to private interests. The big expense is setting up a launching point that others can use. NASA (read:government) could charge a nominal fee for usage and set some ground rules. However this makes it open to ANYONE.

    NASA isn't hobbled by looking to Mars, NASA has been hobbled for the last 20 years simply because they WERE NOT looking beyond the Earth. (let alone public imagination - I am pretty sure orbital excursions are and have been ho-hum for sometime)

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  21. A Miracle! by rbanffy · · Score: 1

    They are so deeply different in each and every aspect that it's a miracle the dont't develop allergic reactions on the contact elements ;-)

  22. Re:./ed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and thus we wonder why someone linked to an MSNBC article to begin with

    Also, this news was originally announced several months ago when the contract was signed, although I don't believe it was covered on slashdot at the time.

  23. Re:How does this relate to the America's Space Pri by jnhtx · · Score: 4, Informative

    Rutan has done a lot of DoD work for years. He started by making composite models of various low observable aircraft for radar cross-section testing, hence the name "Scaled Composites".

    He has made an ultra-low cost ground attack fighter and an experimental flying scale model of a tactical transport airplane.

    White Knights sister ship, Proteous, has been dropping various smart bombs as a "UAV Surrogate" for DoD testing for the last year.

  24. Re:Think they should change the name? by Rei · · Score: 1

    It's about as bad as naming roller coasters after Zyklon gas

    You mean like this?

    Reality can be scary...

    --
    Aeris Died For Your Sins.
  25. Re:Why? Answer: Cost by hey! · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Hmm. So it sounds like they'd either have to speed up the preparation of the plane they'd planned to use, or to delay the program, either of which could be a lot more costly than if they had the aircraft ready to go.

    I wonder too if Scaled isn't charging something closer to marginal cost rather than average costs (e.g. not accounting for sunk costs in the fee). I can think of several strategic reasons to do so, not the least of which this is a one time opportunity to demonstrate that this kind of thing could be handled by a private contractor. It's clearly a potential service they could offer which would commericalize some of the technology they used for the X-prize.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  26. Re:How does this relate to the America's Space Pri by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Correction, he's renting out white knight, not SS1. That doesn't really take any resources from his design devision, in fact it's probably helping to fund it.

  27. Re:How does this relate to the America's Space Pri by bbc · · Score: 1

    "I don't understand how taking the entire rest of year to do drop tests for the Air Force is going to advance anything. Make a few bucks, sure. But make progress towards civilian orbital flight? If there's some strategy there I don't understand it."

    From what I understand this is pretty much business as usual for him. You know, the sort of thing that is going to pay for that civilian orbital flight of yours?

  28. Re:Bloated? - more info by mofochickamo · · Score: 1
    Pilot of SS1: Mike Melvill
    Pilot of X-37: Software (not remote controlled)

    Customer of SS1: Nobody
    Customer of X-37: NASA, Air Force, and DARPA

    --
    Honk if you're horny.
  29. Poor NASA, and Poor us. by Xac · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Man, i feel sorry for our species. We spend 3 trillion dollars on killing humanity. and only 53 million a year to save it.

    It seems like we want our species to end on this godforsaken rock.

  30. Just because they weren't listed... by Froze · · Score: 1

    doesn't mean they don't exist (still in the prototype phase, but still an intriguing idea).

    --
    -- The morphemes of your disquisition are ascertainable, but they have eschewed an ambit of transpicuous exposition.
  31. X-planes are *not* prototypes by raptor_87 · · Score: 1

    Or at least they're not supposed to be. Rather, they give you the information that you need to then build a good air/spacecraft using similar ideas. (eg: The X-31's vectored thrust ideas being used in the F-22)

  32. Re:Think they should change the name? by putaro · · Score: 1

    Is it me, or does the name White Knight sound racist.

    It's you.

  33. Re:he didn't use much of a TPS at all by Rhinobird · · Score: 1

    a brand new TPS (as he didn't use much of a TPS at all)

    What? Didn't he get that memo?

    --
    If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
  34. White knight a Wunderwaffen? by F34nor · · Score: 1

    Dieter Wulf's article in The Atlantic Magazine shows a picture (not on the web) of a Wunderwaffen or Nazi "miracle weapon" that looks exactly like the White Knight Space Ship One combo. Not to knock Burt Rutan or anything, but it goes to show the German war machine did some serious thought. What's interesting is that they current thoery on the plane was to fly it into US buildings. Here's the picture

    1. Re:White knight a Wunderwaffen? by hcdejong · · Score: 1

      The 'Amerikabomber' isn't the first application of the concept either. The Nazis experimented with several similar combinations, often called 'Mistel'. Before WW2, the Short company tried combining two flying boats into the Mayo Composite. There was also a Russian bomber that could carry parasite fighters that's even older than the Mayo.

  35. Re:Why? Answer: Cost by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    I know I've always squaked that NASA ought to amble on over to Burt's place and talk serious business. Well I'll be, they did it! Looks like NASA just might finish this project on time, and under budget. Congrats NASA.

  36. Re:How does this relate to the America's Space Pri by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

    Oops, yeah. Little typo there, WK is what I meant.

    And yes, my point was that it takes 0 resources from the design people, and minimal resources from other people (test pilots/maintenance) that were probably idle to begin with, and the money coming in from these rentals will fund the new designs. :)

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  37. Re:LEO should be left to private, NASA needs moon/ by mahmud · · Score: 1
    However this makes it open to ANYONE.

    How would you ensure that companies from other countries than US get to use this plan too?

  38. Re:Think they should change the name? by Thuktun · · Score: 1

    Its about as bad as naming roller coasters after Zyklon gas.

    Zyklon is the German word for cyclone. Are they not allowed to use that word anymore?