Slashdot Mirror
First Private Manned Orbital Flight Announced
Miroslav Ambrus-Kis wrote in to tell us that Inter-orbital Systems has announced that Nebojsa Stanojevic and Miroslav Ambrus-Kis will be the astronauts aboard the first completely private orbital flight. This is part of their bid for the Google Lunar X-Prize.
Those names don't sound like Astronauts... they sound suspiciously like... Cosmonauts! ;)
http://www.beanleafpress.com
Two Interorbital Systems test pilots---Nebojsa Stanojevic, a 'Tweeting' Serbian, and Miroslav Ambrus-Kis, [vid], a 'Tweeting' Croatian
I think we all just died a little on the inside.
And the solution is called Energia.
Go Soyuz !
Yours In Akademgorodok,
K. Trout
Until the first mishap. Private enterprise and investors can't survive the impact of things going wrong. Look at the numbers and you'll see an awefull lot of private satellite launchers go belly up shortly after a bad launch. The profit margins are just too thin to weather the downturn.
Am I the only one extremely excited to hear a company name like "Inter-orbital Systems?" All of my geek-neurons register glee.
Okay, so personally I think this particular company doesn't seem to have much chance of succeeding. They don't seem to have the funding or the infrastructure. But what's important is this: for the first time ever we're seeing private companies trying to develop launch capabilities. And not just one or two, and not just so they can resell to governments (like SpaceX), but a bunch of them, with many different business models. You throw enough paint at the wall, some of it might stick. And, eventually, I think it is possible to dramatically reduce launch costs this way--which makes things like solar power satellites and space tourism practical.
In 50 years, the space industry could be transformed by this sort of thing into an actual, profit-making enterprise. And it's only once there is profit to be had that the ideal of true multi-planetary life can become a reality.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
They haven't launched yet (and are at least two years from launch according to their plans), so there's no way to guarantee their claims.
If you look at their news page there is a 2004 announcement that they'd be launching a satellite in 2006, but there is no news of an actual launch.
In fact I don't even see news of a flight test of any sort, let alone a full orbital launch.
TBH the website also looks like a pretty fly-by-night operation. You would think that a company with enough money to launch a manned space mission would be able to hire a web designer.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
The Google Lunar X Prize has nothing to do with manned space travel. It's about launching a robot that can deliver HD images from the moon.
Maybe their plan is to go up there and launch the robot from orbit - just seems like an awful waste of energy.
Genesis 1:32 And God typed
True. Just like in the old days it was tough to stay in the shipping business after your ship sank.
Understand that once you start the countdown on a rocket most of the money has already been spent (90% to 99% in my estimation) If that blows up without delivering the results that get you payed (satellite in orbit etc...) your business is dead and your creditors crying. That's life.
What is a real problem is that NASA got to be so large and wealthy a bureaucracy that they were able to under employ most of the best rocket scientists for over a generation. Then put their ideas throgh such rigorous scrutiny that nothing new got built. Until finally rickety old space trucks (Challenger etc...) blew up and took people with them.
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
From the Interorbital Systems site, it says, "Storable, high-density white fuming nitric acid (WFNA) and Hydrocarbon-X (HX) are the rocket's primary propellants." I'd presume "Hydrocarbon-X" is some sort of kerosene-like blend of petroleum distillates.
"FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died."
Then put their ideas throgh such rigorous scrutiny that nothing new got built. Until finally rickety old space trucks (Challenger etc...) blew up and took people with them.
I am trying to fathom how you can lambaste Nasa for being too rigourous with their safety scrutiny in one sentence, then complain that they blew up (insinuating that they weren't rigourous enough) in the following one.
Engr David Koni.
(BOARD OF CONTRACT AWARD COMITTEE.)
Cotonou Republic Du Benin.
Sir/Madam,
It is my great pleasure to write to you and present my business proposal for your consideration and possible acceptance which you will find mutually beneficial to both parties.
Orbital Fares and the "Free Ticket to Orbit" Option: When regular orbital tourism flights begin, the cost per spaceline ticket is expected to be $5 million, but you now have the option of spending a week in orbit for free. Buy a spaceline ticket now at the special promotional fare of $250,000 (regularly priced at $5 million), and get a full rebate two years after your orbital mission. That's the equivalent of a $5 million Ticket To Orbit For Free! We are selling ten spaceline tickets at this price.
There are currently only eight spaceline tickets left! Tim Reed of Gladstone, Missouri purchased the first "promotional fare" spaceline ticket.
"Promotional Fare" spaceline tickets must be purchased directly from Interorbital Systems or Astro Expeditions, LLC. IOS is the only commercial space company offering advance-purchase tickets for orbital tourism flights. If you take advantage of our special promotional offer, you can spend seven days on an orbital expedition at an up-front cost of less than $25 per minute. Each "Promotional Fare" spaceline ticket holder will fly an orbital mission with three "full-fare" astronaut-tourists and one astronaut-pilot.
As soon as all ten of the "Promotional Fare" tickets with rebate have been sold, IOS will sell orbital spaceline tickets at the regular price of $5 million.
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
Pah, they have no ambition. I am *planning* to go to Saturn for 2011. Ok, I have no idea how but I could probably sketch up some Photoshop pictures of my rocket, I've got some technical drawings I made when I was 7 years old.
Seriously, can somebody point me at proof these companies can actually launch human-rated spacecraft? It seems that some fairly large nations are still struggling to make steps towards this. Can anybody explain why it will be any easier for a company like this than India, South Korea, Japan, ESA, etc? at least these companies/organisations have a track record of launching unmanned payloads of 10 -20 tonnes so I can believe they are on the way.
Feels like vapourware to me. What happened to that dozen or so original X-Prizes companies that promised they'd be in space and carrying astronauts by now? I seem to remember it was launched in 1996 and those companies were all promising launches in about 2003?
Hating NASA is like a religion these days. Anything NASA does is bad. No matter. Kinda makes you look a fool, though, when you start letting it warp your logic.
Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious
He is implying that, by vetoing all new ideas by way of ridiculously over-optimistic design standards, they've been stuck using ancient technology for far longer than is safe, economic, or reasonable.
The irony of the situation shouldn't be lost on anyone.
OrbitalSciences also looks as though its been profitable for a while (NYSE:ORB)
The space industry is going to move faster than I think anyone expects. We have China and India getting into the mix pretty heavily now as well. I think we could see space become bigger than it was in the 60's both politically and commercially.
This company managed to launch one high powered amateur rocket in the 1990s. That's it. Nothing since then. Complete vapor. The only serious orbital launch company is currently SpaceX. The only serious near term suborbital launch companies are XCOR and Virgin Galactic, with the various VTVL / lunar X-Prize people (Masten, Armadillo, etc.) filling in a different but useful niche down the road.
SpaceX finally succeeded in orbital launch after many millions of dollars of hardware and testing. XCOR has 66 manned rocket flights to its credit (the largest share of manned rocket flights worldwide since 2000.) Virgin/Scaled has SS1, Armadillo and Masten have a large number of VTVL flights under their belt and years of hardware development.
Interorbital has paper and mockups.
I fail to see how the Challenger disaster can be attributed to using the shuttle far beyond its intended service life when it was merely 3 years old... As for the bolt, the shuttle in question is Atlantis. The bolt has already been removed and the window certified safe for flight. But good work with the uninformed hysteria.
Private enterprise and investors can't survive the impact of things going wrong.
I agree with you, but I've been very impressed with SpaceX's persistence. I think that most of the private launchers will fail, but the lucky/persistent ones might actually pull it off. Presumably, each of them is convinced that they're the lucky ones.
That's right. Businesses have never killed people in the pursuit of profit.
Trust me on this, NASA is dying laughing on the inside. 'Interorbital Systems' are a joke amongst serious minds in the space industry; they are constantly making grandiose claims yet have never fielded any hardware that couldn't simply be bought off the shelf. They are always a short amount of time from some 'amazing' breakthrough - but to put this in perspective, their nominated 'first teenager in space' is now in his twenties.
The idea that private enteprise is simply 'better' - an idea rubbished by experiences with healthcare, banking, transport, energy supply, and many other things - is blinding you to how clearly absurd these people are.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
Thank you.
I was going to respond but you cleared it up better than I ever could.
Space travel is inherently dangerous. (Do I have to spell out why on Slashdot?). By trying to force enginears to eliminate rather thasn mitigate the danger NASA has taken far longer than it should to design an improved replacement for the shuttle.
By Improved I mean:
0. lower Construction cost
1. lower cost for throwaway components (boosters etc...)
2. Lower fuel consumption per payload/passenger pound.
3. Lower cost of serviceing between missions.
4. Shorter prep time for flight.
5. Larger cargo bay.
6. Less likely to blow up under stress. etc...
It's not that nobody came up with anything better than the existing shuttle in those years. It's just that none of the improved models met NASA's upgraded standards. Put another way, You are stuck driving an old Corolla because the best replacement anyone has proposed is Camry and your bosses want nothing less than an Armored Roles Royce Limousine that runs on solar and has a self driving AI.
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
NASA will be asking the Church of Scientology for a lift before these jokers.
The fact is, the private sector does not have a real role in the ISS; Russia can handle the people and Europe the cargo for less money, and can do it right now, than US private enterprise. The only reason SpaceX got a sniff of a contract (when their unproven Dragon capsule being less capable and less value for money than ATV) is because the US government is pushing NASA to go for US private companies even when they aren't the best at their job; thus negating the supposed advantage of private enterprise.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
I've built things in my garage, and flown them multiple times and with more power, than the only thing these people have ever had leave the pad vertically. Sure, they've been static testing all sorts of motors. More's the pity -- I don't have to.
These upstart startups are trying to cash in on investment money (though I do credit IOS with selling tubesat and ad space) and behaving at the functional amateur level as though they're professionals. The startups that don't rely on investors (Armadillo, Scaled until the second half of SS1, etc.) accomplish things the others don't. Still, they're spending a lot on R&D that they don't need to.
My money, and anyone's who wants in, says an amateur-built vehicle made from commonly available materials and off the shelf parts could put itself into orbit for under 6 figures. That includes all incidentals and consultancies. The motors, a major development issue with these companies, are available from Loki Research. Their 96" x 152mm 80,000 ns P motors were used in last April's flight of the 1/10 scale Saturn V. The reason he didn't use three was that (> 200,000 ns) would put it in the FAA/OST's ball park and therefore not amateur. Neither would this be, but the point here is to hit the goal, not just go flying with my NAR and Tripoli friends. I ran the numbers on a 3P booster with 1P sustainer using their older 60" x 152 mm 50,000 ns motors. Ground launched it'd break the 62.5 mile 'space' altitude, and balloon launched it'd break 100 miles. The new motors, obviously proven, pack 60% more power. A ground launched 2.5 stage (the 3 x 1 plus 'dart' payload/nose) should do the job.
Somebody's going to do it, before or after one of these startups. It'll be after if nobody tries before. And if it takes money, rather than investors in a commercial endeavor, sell commercials. Rocketman's GoFast, the first amateur rocket to break the space altitude was named for an 'investor' simply for the advertising. And while Dunkin' Donuts isn't likely to jump in (hey, they didn't for Astronaut Farmer, so why now?) there's some who might.
And once a vehicle gets up there, the next step is human flight. A TV commercial costs between $500,000 and $1M to produce and run the first time. For the bottom end of that, using nothing exotic, and if not off the shelf then built from off the shelf components, a truly amateur enterprise could put a person over 62.5 miles. What are the odds that a company used to paying out that kind of money would be willing to have their name on this project, particularly if at apogee that company's catch phrase got broadcast by the amateur astronaut, for instance: "Can you hear me now? Good."
The major difference is on return on investment. The commercial startups need to return their investors' money, plus. An amatuer project only needs to do what it sets out to do. An ad based amateur project only needs to do what an amateur project does, plus acknowledge the source of the funds, and not return anything to anyone beyond noteriety for the accomplishment. If it weren't for the scale of the designs and the lack of available components, Robert Truax would have done this years ago.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
The Dragon capsule is more capable than the ATV module in two important respects. First, it is designed to ferry people. Second, because it is designed to ferry people, it is capable of bringing cargo down from the ISS. The ATV, the Russian Progress, and the Japanese HTV are all incapable of doing that.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
While I'm not going to address you argument about the private space endeavors - they were and are a bit grandiose in their claims - but the industries you chose as examples of private enterprise are probably four of the most regulated industries in the US economy. Saying that the results of these industries is representative of a free market is laughable.
FWIW, I work in transportation, and it is becoming less regulated over time - and it is more stable than any of the other three.
Learn about Photography Basics.
When the business is the people who are paying you it's not a very good business practice to kill them off.
Um ... tobacco? Alcohol? Fast food? Automobiles? The corporate world has never shown any aversion to killing its customers if it thinks it can get new ones to replace the ones who've died.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
I use 1MW a month at home No you don't. You use 1MWh per month, or 1.4 KW. A watt is a measure of power - ie, the rate at which energy is being used. A 60 watt bulb uses 60 watts when it's on and no watts when it's off. A watt-hour is a measure of the total energy used (one watt for an hour), which is what you're billed for.
A 2.5MW plant running at capacity a month produces 1.8 GWh of energy (roughly $180,000 worth where I live).
in the old days it was tough to stay in the shipping business after your ship sank.
This is why corporations were created, because shipping was a risky business. Way back when, before 1600, if a cargo ship or any of it's cargo was lost the ship's owners were liable. They were also liable for the crews. If a ship sank because of a hurricane or was attacked by pirates too bad for the owners. So in 1600 the British crown granted a corporate charter to the East India Company. The corporate charter gave the owners of the corporation limited liability. Whereas someone who owned a ship could lose everything, including their home, the most a share or stockholder in a corporation can lose is the amount they paid for the shares. Corporations also allow the pooling of a lot of people's money for a business. The next corporate charter was granted to the Dutch East India Company by the Dutch crown in 1602.
However something has been lost in the years since. Corporations were only granted charters if they served the common or public good, and shipping was considered a good. If a corporation no longer did serve the good it's charter could be revoked. Those charters aren't revoked in the US anymore.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?