One-man version of SpaceShipOne may be next stage in development of space holidays
A one-person version of Scaled Composites' SpaceShipOne that reaches an orbit of 130km (81 miles) [note: this is likely a misquote or error, as orbits below 350km are generally unstable] to rendezvous with an orbiting hotel may form the next stage of Burt Rutan's private manned spaceflight plans.
Speaking at a lecture organised by the Manx Festival of Aviation at the Royal Aeronautical Society in London, the aerospace designer detailed how such an orbital vehicle could be evolved from his existing three-man, suborbital 3,000kg (6,600lb) SpaceShipOne. The amount of spacecraft mass dedicated to fuel would be increased to achieve the greater altitude and speed required.
"We'd have a small cramped cabin for the orbital flight and you'd be in it for a long time. You'd want to go to a hotel [because of that] and for orbital tourism you'd want an altitude of 130km," says Rutan.
In his lecture, Rutan referred to plans by Robert Bigelow, founder of Bigelow Aerospace, to develop a space hotel based on NASA-originated inflatable habitat technology.
Before Rutan begins work on orbital flight technology, he will attempt to win the X-Prize, which requires two suborbital flights within two weeks carrying a mass equivalent to three people. Rutan's first flight is scheduled for 29 September and his second for 4 October. But before he flies for the second time, competing Canadian X-Prize team da Vinci Project is scheduled to try to reach space in its Wild Fire rocket on 2 October.
Another X-Prize team, Space Transportation, saw its Rubicon One rocket fail a flight test in Washington on 8 August seconds after launch. The engines of the $20,000 rocket failed after it reached an altitude of 1,000ft (305m). Rubicon One's remains crashed to Earth 61m from its launch site after its parachute system failed. It was carrying three dummies representing the pilot and passengers.
>To claim that private companies will invest the money necessary to generate a similar body of data making the next leap in space commerce possible is foolish.
I doubt that SS1 relied on this body of data as much as you think it did. The only things really differentiating it from other Rutan aircraft are having to control in the absence of atmosphere and the parameters of reentry heating. The first problem is just basic physics. The second set of data could be obtained by simply sending up an unmanned model covered with thermal sensors.
A very cool illusion is available here. Try looking inside of the triangle defined by the yellow dots, as the blue dots wander around. After a few moments, the yellow dots begin to blink in and out of your visual consciousness. It's quite a powerful effect.
> One of the big problems to date has been NASA's overwhelming insistence on safety at the expense of actually developing the technology.
Actually, I'd argue that NASA's big problem is its insistence on developing cutting-edge technologies and cramming as many of them as possible into its space vehicles (which need large numbers of maintenance workers to ensure their proper functionality), instead of just using and refining older technologies which have already proven to be reliable.
> There already are quite a few private space companies. Some are large and well known, like Boeing and Lockheed-Martin. Others are small and not as well known, like Orbital Sciences.
Those are only private companies in name. They're effectively branches of government, relying almost solely on government funding for their space activities. They really haven't been particularly inclined towards developing low-cost solutions.
> How many of Rutan's cheerleaders know that over a decade ago Orbital developed their own space launcher -- Pegasus -- that is also dropped from an airplane, but unlike SpaceShipOne, can reach orbit and has already placed quite a few satellites there?
I'm well aware of it, as are many other "Rutan cheerleaders." The thing is, it costs $11 million per launch and only lifts 375 kg to orbit. Try comparing it to the SpaceXFalcon I (a privately-funded vehicle which will launch in a couple of months), which will lift 670 kg for $6 million. It's follow-up, the Falcon V, will be able to launch 4200kg for $12 million.
The Bigelow modules are built using the Transhab technology licensed from NASA, which was initially intended to be used on the ISS. There's some debate over why Transhab funding was cut: some say that it would've required more development time than NASA wanted, or perhaps they simply wanted to stick with aluminum shells because they were more used to them.
Unfortunately, reusability isn't some sort of panacea which suddenly makes everything cheaper -- just look at the shuttle. It will be in the best interest of whatever teams compete for the orbital prize to make their product as cheap as possible, since they'll be dealing with the commercial world, rather than the government world. It makes no sense to dictate whether those cheap solutions should be expendable or reusable.
Undoubtedly some entries will be expendable, while others will be reusable. The market can decide which wins out in the long run.
Also, how is offering $25 million of his own money to fund a competition (albeit one that could benefit his own goals) being an asshole? If there were more assholes like that, the world would be a much better place.
More info on Bigelow inflatable modules
on
After the X Prize
·
· Score: 4, Informative
The submission was a little sparse on the info, and since I've been following Bigelow Aerospace for a while, I feel obligated to share some more info on it. First off, there's an article with better photographs available here, and a press release here. The founder Robert Bigelow was also the founder of Budget Suites of America, and is applying a lot of the cost-cutting tricks he learned from his previous contracting experience to the aerospace industry. He licensed the Transhab technology from NASA (which had previously had its funding cut), and is subcontracting for things like life support from other companies who already have systems running.
The inflatables themselves (photograph here)are quite interesting, with a docking mechanism designed to attach with either a Russian Soyuz, a Chinese Shenzhou, and/or whatever vehicle comes out of the aforementioned America's Space Prize. A one-third size prototype of the inflatable module will be launched on the maiden flight of SpaceX's Falcon V rocket, which is itself a very interesting vehicle (~3000kg into LEO for $12 million, and the first orbital vehicle designed to be man-rated since the space shuttle). The first full-size inflatable habitat will be up by 2008, and it's planned to have a crew by 2010.
What's exciting about this is that the inflatable modules appear to be designed, built, and have undergone some preliminary tests. The outsides of the modules have withstood projectile impact tests fairly well. Pretty much all that needs to happen now is for them to undergo further tests and be launched. Bigelow's use of multiple contractors for the same part will allow him to ramp up production if there's a demand for it, and sell the inflatable modules for ~$100 million each to whoever wants them.
Regarding the prize itself, I'd actually be quite interested to see if somebody ends up just designing a descent capsule and sticks it on a Falcon V.
Any bets on how long it'll be until video of this app running will be in every single Powerpoint presentation you see? I can just imagine people using this thing whenever they talk about a new area, showing a zoom-out of the presentation locale, showing a far-away view, then zooming back in at the locale being spoken of.
Did you read the comments on that story? It turns out that supposed $0.01/kwh price was actually heavily subsidized -- actual costs are more like $0.05/kwh.
A different questionnaire from Science journal
on
Bush vs. Kerry on Science
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
It looks like Science, the -other- premier research journal also gave questionnaires to the candidates. Their responses are available here.
Some of the responses are copied-and-pasted, but the Science questionnaire also covers issues like Creationism, NSF funding, and their "top three priorities in science and technology," which the Nature article doesn't cover.
I found their top 3 priorities in science and technology particularly interesting:
Bush: ensure every American as access to affordable broadband by 2007, perform next-generation hydrogen research, and recruit science and technology to combat terrorism
Kerry: restore and sustain preeminence of American science and technology, ensure Americans prepared for jobs of future, and ensure that his administration's decisions are informed by the best possible science and technology advice
For whatever reason I never actually went to any KGB meetings, except for CTFWS (which I attended every semester). In retrospect I wish I did go to some meetings, as KGB seems to be a hella cool organization. In any case, about half of KGB seems to already know me.;)
I can't help but wonder what CMU's KGB organization will do when this building goes up. Basically, KGB is an on-campus group which engages in all sorts of random silliness, and describes itself as "an eccentric bunch of nerds, geeks, freaks, visionaries, outcasts and ne'er-do-wells, who plan on being on the right side of the guns when the Revolution comes."
When Bill Gates came to visit campus earlier this year, the group painted the Fence (a frequently painted object in the middle of campus) bright blue in his honor. Also, during the Q&A session of the talk, KGB's president Ed asked the following:
(transcribed from rough memory) Ed: Hello Bill. Have you ever used Linux? Bill: Yeah, a few times. Ed: Would you accept my gift of Linux? [holds up Linux CD] (chuckles and applause from audience) Bill: What's it worth? (grins) (more chuckles and applause from audience) Bill: Sure. (Ed gives Bill Linux CD)
> Think about it. The government has a hard enough time delivering mail. Imagine if the USPS was privatized. Now it's dozens or hundreds of companies. If the government had to ensure that all of these companies were being ethical and legal, it would be a bigger and more expensive job than just delivering the goddamn mail! Now imagine a bunch of those companies consolidate into one or two monopolistic entities. What if one company decides not to deliver mail to customers of the other company? What if they decide to start charging $1.50 for every letter? It's well known that the Post Office, along with many other government agencies operate at a defecit. They intentionally lose money, because the overall economic value of letting citizens send documents around for $0.37 outweighs the fact that it may cost much more to deliver these documents. Your private corporations won't have such a broad and enlightened view.
God forbid that our mail be delivered by the likes of FedEx and UPS.
Keep in mind that oil is a commodity that is constantly being consumed. I guess you could manipulate gold prices a little by lowering production or some-such, but that only alters the rate at which the quantity of available gold increases -- the amount available doesn't actually decrease.
Slashdot Mirror
(Pasted from this article)
One-man version of SpaceShipOne may be next stage in development of space holidays
A one-person version of Scaled Composites' SpaceShipOne that reaches an orbit of 130km (81 miles) [note: this is likely a misquote or error, as orbits below 350km are generally unstable] to rendezvous with an orbiting hotel may form the next stage of Burt Rutan's private manned spaceflight plans.
Speaking at a lecture organised by the Manx Festival of Aviation at the Royal Aeronautical Society in London, the aerospace designer detailed how such an orbital vehicle could be evolved from his existing three-man, suborbital 3,000kg (6,600lb) SpaceShipOne. The amount of spacecraft mass dedicated to fuel would be increased to achieve the greater altitude and speed required.
"We'd have a small cramped cabin for the orbital flight and you'd be in it for a long time. You'd want to go to a hotel [because of that] and for orbital tourism you'd want an altitude of 130km," says Rutan.
In his lecture, Rutan referred to plans by Robert Bigelow, founder of Bigelow Aerospace, to develop a space hotel based on NASA-originated inflatable habitat technology.
Before Rutan begins work on orbital flight technology, he will attempt to win the X-Prize, which requires two suborbital flights within two weeks carrying a mass equivalent to three people. Rutan's first flight is scheduled for 29 September and his second for 4 October. But before he flies for the second time, competing Canadian X-Prize team da Vinci Project is scheduled to try to reach space in its Wild Fire rocket on 2 October.
Another X-Prize team, Space Transportation, saw its Rubicon One rocket fail a flight test in Washington on 8 August seconds after launch. The engines of the $20,000 rocket failed after it reached an altitude of 1,000ft (305m). Rubicon One's remains crashed to Earth 61m from its launch site after its parachute system failed. It was carrying three dummies representing the pilot and passengers.
>To claim that private companies will invest the money necessary to generate a similar body of data making the next leap in space commerce possible is foolish.
I doubt that SS1 relied on this body of data as much as you think it did. The only things really differentiating it from other Rutan aircraft are having to control in the absence of atmosphere and the parameters of reentry heating. The first problem is just basic physics. The second set of data could be obtained by simply sending up an unmanned model covered with thermal sensors.
I believe he was referring to Rambo, not Bush.
(Wow, that's a sentence I never thought I'd write.)
A very cool illusion is available here. Try looking inside of the triangle defined by the yellow dots, as the blue dots wander around. After a few moments, the yellow dots begin to blink in and out of your visual consciousness. It's quite a powerful effect.
> One of the big problems to date has been NASA's overwhelming insistence on safety at the expense of actually developing the technology.
Actually, I'd argue that NASA's big problem is its insistence on developing cutting-edge technologies and cramming as many of them as possible into its space vehicles (which need large numbers of maintenance workers to ensure their proper functionality), instead of just using and refining older technologies which have already proven to be reliable.
> There already are quite a few private space companies. Some are large and well known, like Boeing and Lockheed-Martin. Others are small and not as well known, like Orbital Sciences.
Those are only private companies in name. They're effectively branches of government, relying almost solely on government funding for their space activities. They really haven't been particularly inclined towards developing low-cost solutions.
> How many of Rutan's cheerleaders know that over a decade ago Orbital developed their own space launcher -- Pegasus -- that is also dropped from an airplane, but unlike SpaceShipOne, can reach orbit and has already placed quite a few satellites there?
I'm well aware of it, as are many other "Rutan cheerleaders." The thing is, it costs $11 million per launch and only lifts 375 kg to orbit. Try comparing it to the SpaceX Falcon I (a privately-funded vehicle which will launch in a couple of months), which will lift 670 kg for $6 million. It's follow-up, the Falcon V, will be able to launch 4200kg for $12 million.
> They are made out of multiple layers of kevlar
Not to nitpick, but they're actually made out of Vectran, which is twice as strong as kevlar and performs better in extreme temperature conditions.
The Bigelow modules are built using the Transhab technology licensed from NASA, which was initially intended to be used on the ISS. There's some debate over why Transhab funding was cut: some say that it would've required more development time than NASA wanted, or perhaps they simply wanted to stick with aluminum shells because they were more used to them.
Unfortunately, reusability isn't some sort of panacea which suddenly makes everything cheaper -- just look at the shuttle. It will be in the best interest of whatever teams compete for the orbital prize to make their product as cheap as possible, since they'll be dealing with the commercial world, rather than the government world. It makes no sense to dictate whether those cheap solutions should be expendable or reusable.
Undoubtedly some entries will be expendable, while others will be reusable. The market can decide which wins out in the long run.
I'm kind of curious as to why this was moderated off-topic. Although it isn't on the subject of the article, it is quite relevant to the parent post.
Not to mention that it has the Japanese school-girl from Kill Bill. w00t!
> I don't know about the privitization of this...I think it makes it too...hmm..what's the word - Republican.
Indeed! Spaceflight should remain solely the domain of government, and only government employees should be allowed to fly into space!
Also, airflight should be put into government hands as well. We can't let those Evil Corporations keep on flying through our skies.
I'm a big fan of the Centennial Challenges myself, but it's been mentioned on slashdot several times already.
Also, how is offering $25 million of his own money to fund a competition (albeit one that could benefit his own goals) being an asshole? If there were more assholes like that, the world would be a much better place.
The submission was a little sparse on the info, and since I've been following Bigelow Aerospace for a while, I feel obligated to share some more info on it. First off, there's an article with better photographs available here, and a press release here. The founder Robert Bigelow was also the founder of Budget Suites of America, and is applying a lot of the cost-cutting tricks he learned from his previous contracting experience to the aerospace industry. He licensed the Transhab technology from NASA (which had previously had its funding cut), and is subcontracting for things like life support from other companies who already have systems running.
The inflatables themselves (photograph here)are quite interesting, with a docking mechanism designed to attach with either a Russian Soyuz, a Chinese Shenzhou, and/or whatever vehicle comes out of the aforementioned America's Space Prize. A one-third size prototype of the inflatable module will be launched on the maiden flight of SpaceX's Falcon V rocket, which is itself a very interesting vehicle (~3000kg into LEO for $12 million, and the first orbital vehicle designed to be man-rated since the space shuttle). The first full-size inflatable habitat will be up by 2008, and it's planned to have a crew by 2010.
What's exciting about this is that the inflatable modules appear to be designed, built, and have undergone some preliminary tests. The outsides of the modules have withstood projectile impact tests fairly well. Pretty much all that needs to happen now is for them to undergo further tests and be launched. Bigelow's use of multiple contractors for the same part will allow him to ramp up production if there's a demand for it, and sell the inflatable modules for ~$100 million each to whoever wants them.
Regarding the prize itself, I'd actually be quite interested to see if somebody ends up just designing a descent capsule and sticks it on a Falcon V.
Any bets on how long it'll be until video of this app running will be in every single Powerpoint presentation you see? I can just imagine people using this thing whenever they talk about a new area, showing a zoom-out of the presentation locale, showing a far-away view, then zooming back in at the locale being spoken of.
Did you read the comments on that story? It turns out that supposed $0.01/kwh price was actually heavily subsidized -- actual costs are more like $0.05/kwh.
When did that happen?
It looks like Science, the -other- premier research journal also gave questionnaires to the candidates. Their responses are available here.
Some of the responses are copied-and-pasted, but the Science questionnaire also covers issues like Creationism, NSF funding, and their "top three priorities in science and technology," which the Nature article doesn't cover.
I found their top 3 priorities in science and technology particularly interesting:
Bush: ensure every American as access to affordable broadband by 2007, perform next-generation hydrogen research, and recruit science and technology to combat terrorism
Kerry: restore and sustain preeminence of American science and technology, ensure Americans prepared for jobs of future, and ensure that his administration's decisions are informed by the best possible science and technology advice
I found another great picture, of the roof of Wean Hall at CMU:
e en_fence_front_small.jpg e en_fence_back_small.jpg
BILL PH34RZ WEAN!!1!1
Also, here's some better pics of the front and back of the blue fence of death:
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~akj/stuff/gates/blue_scr
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~akj/stuff/gates/blue_scr
I'd love to, but I'm in California now...
;)
For whatever reason I never actually went to any KGB meetings, except for CTFWS (which I attended every semester). In retrospect I wish I did go to some meetings, as KGB seems to be a hella cool organization. In any case, about half of KGB seems to already know me.
I can't help but wonder what CMU's KGB organization will do when this building goes up. Basically, KGB is an on-campus group which engages in all sorts of random silliness, and describes itself as "an eccentric bunch of nerds, geeks, freaks, visionaries, outcasts and ne'er-do-wells, who plan on being on the right side of the guns when the Revolution comes."
When Bill Gates came to visit campus earlier this year, the group painted the Fence (a frequently painted object in the middle of campus) bright blue in his honor. Also, during the Q&A session of the talk, KGB's president Ed asked the following:
(transcribed from rough memory)
Ed: Hello Bill. Have you ever used Linux?
Bill: Yeah, a few times.
Ed: Would you accept my gift of Linux? [holds up Linux CD]
(chuckles and applause from audience)
Bill: What's it worth? (grins)
(more chuckles and applause from audience)
Bill: Sure.
(Ed gives Bill Linux CD)
> Think about it. The government has a hard enough time delivering mail. Imagine if the USPS was privatized. Now it's dozens or hundreds of companies. If the government had to ensure that all of these companies were being ethical and legal, it would be a bigger and more expensive job than just delivering the goddamn mail! Now imagine a bunch of those companies consolidate into one or two monopolistic entities. What if one company decides not to deliver mail to customers of the other company? What if they decide to start charging $1.50 for every letter? It's well known that the Post Office, along with many other government agencies operate at a defecit. They intentionally lose money, because the overall economic value of letting citizens send documents around for $0.37 outweighs the fact that it may cost much more to deliver these documents. Your private corporations won't have such a broad and enlightened view.
God forbid that our mail be delivered by the likes of FedEx and UPS.
Assuming it was one of the larger aerospace corporations, aren't they effectively branches of government nowadays?
Keep in mind that oil is a commodity that is constantly being consumed. I guess you could manipulate gold prices a little by lowering production or some-such, but that only alters the rate at which the quantity of available gold increases -- the amount available doesn't actually decrease.
It's a pity this thread has degraded itself to simple name-calling. For a while the discussion was actually interesting.