![Space Space](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/space_64.png)
![Science Science](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/science_64.png)
Burt Rutan On Future Of SpaceShipOne (and Two) 182
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."
9 People Hey? (Score:3, Funny)
Rus
Re:9 People Hey? (Score:1)
Re:9 People Hey? (Score:3, Funny)
And the 'orbital orgy' just replaced Natalie Portman as bedtime fantasy for geeks everywhere...
Re:9 People Hey? (Score:3, Funny)
>
>And the 'orbital orgy' just replaced Natalie Portman as bedtime fantasy for geeks everywhere...
For $250K, my orbital orgy had damn well better be with Natalie Portman.
Re:9 People Hey? (Score:2)
Not like they're mutually exclusive...
Re:9 People Hey? (Score:2)
Re:9 People Hey? (Score:2)
Just a little short of the mark, then.
It should be obvious that the necessary altitude for (sub)orbital orgies is 69 miles.
Rutan is my hero. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Rutan is my hero. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Rutan is my hero. (Score:2)
I agree on the second part, though - God willing, Bush will be written up for his legacy of job loss, environmental damage, turning the world against America, and unprovoked warmongerin
Re:Rutan is my hero. (Score:5, Informative)
Lets look at polls, now shall we?
jeez, Rei, you're WAY too easy on him.
Need we break out the picutres of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand?
Need we point out the billions of dollars of illegal business Halliburton did with Iraq in the 1990's, under Cheney's watch (as CEO of Halliburton)?
Need we point out that EVERY SINGLE SHRED of evidence in the so-called "oil for food fraud scandal" was *lost* when "evul hackerz broke into my computer and erased the hard drive and all the backups, HONEST!" - All the evidence comes from Ahmed Chalabi's INC. The same Ahmed Chalabi who's wanted in Jordan for embezzling $300 Million from Petra Bank. The same Ahmed Chalabi who passed on highly sensitive (read: Classified) US SIGINT information to Iranian Intelligence. The same Ahmed Chalabi that ran a ring to re-submit old Saddam Dinars in exchange for new CPA Dinars, AT US TAXPAYER EXPENSE! The same Ahmed Chalabi whose Nephew had an Iraqi finance minister assassinated. The same Ahmed Chalabi who took tens of millions of US TAXPAYER dollars every month throughout the Bush Administration, in exchange for information about Saddams WMD programs - ALL of which ultimately proved FALSE. The same Ahmed Chalabi who has ties to Ghorbanifar (yes, THAT Ghorbanifar, the arms dealer from the Iran-Contra days).
The SAME Ahmed Chalabi who sat behind Laura Bush at the State of the Union address in 2002.
George Bush and his Administration has made a very close ally of this man. They trusted a traitor. They are NOT on our side, and have done more harm than good to US security. Both with their policies enacted during the Reagan and Bush I adminsitrations, and the crap they're pulling in the Bush Administration.
And you people put these white-collar criminals back in office.
The "Only those who were opposed to the US were involved in scandalous activities" is a laugh and a half. Keep watching Fox and keep taking those Blue Pills Neo.
Re:Rutan is my hero. (Score:4, Funny)
Jafac writes:
[ Snip most of a vast conspiracy theory... ]
The "Only those who were opposed to the US were involved in scandalous activities" is a laugh and a half. Keep watching Fox and keep taking those Blue Pills Neo.
Ah, but what are you hiding?
A quick google search shows Jafac new and used aircraft and aircraft parts [quicksitemaker.com]. Ah hah! I see your plan:
You were crafty, but not crafty enough for this slashdotter.
PS: My tinfoil hat is tighter than yours.
Re:Rutan is my hero. (Score:3, Informative)
This man is an inspiration to everybody. He is innovative, intelligent, and follows through with his dreams and goals. So tell me why, WHY Dub Bush gets Time's Person of the Year and Rutan does not.
Relax and let history be the judge. Time's Man/Person of the Year has included every US predident going back at least to JFK. They had to do W at some point. How big of an honor can it be, anyway? Hitler was it 1938. See a list here [about.com]).
Re:Rutan is my hero. (Score:2)
Winning an election in which more people voted for the other guy and in which dirty tricks, family connections and ultimately heavily contested court cases were the deciding factors hardly counts as a great and noble achievement.
Re:Rutan is my hero. (Score:5, Informative)
Time's Person (nee Man) of the Year originally was not meant to be a "This person did the greatest things this year" award. Rather, it was about who most influenced current events that year...hence why both Hitler and Stalin recieved it.
Many argue that the Person of the Year for 2001 should have been Osama bin Laden, rather than Rudolph Giuliani. No one is going to say that bin Laden is a nice guy...but his actions influenced 2001 more than any single person.
Apparently Time had some pretty big arguments in-house when it came to picking the Person of the 20th Century. Again, if you're choosing Most Influential Person, it probably would have been Hitler, but in these PC days it's not something that most would find accceptable.
Re:Rutan is my hero. (Score:2)
According to your own link, they already did W in 2000. He has now joined a very exclusive list of people to make TMotY twice.
Oh, well I didn't know anyone was actually going to RTFL! ;-)
I look at it this way: it's a comment on magazine sales, not historical signficance or suitability as a role model. Everyone in the US knows who W is. As much as we on /. would like it to be so, I suspect that most Americans do not know who Rutan is. Add to that our being in Iraq and W being an extremely devisive fi
Re:Rutan is my hero. (Score:2, Informative)
Doesn't that mean he's in there three times now?
But as someone said, Hitler was in there once, and Stalin was included twice.
That's easy (Score:2)
Re:That's easy (Score:3, Insightful)
With all due respect, I think Bush has had a far greater impact on the world that Rutan will. Bush invaded Afghanistan, instituted massive tax cuts, racked up huge government deficits, added prescription drug benefits to Medicare, invaded Iraq, and made huge changes in US policy towards Israel/Palestine and North Korea. By
Re:That's easy (Score:2)
You too? How many interns did he have?
Re:Rutan is my hero. (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if you don't like Bush, you have to realise that he was the most influential person (publicly) for last year.
Re:Rutan is my hero. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Rutan is my hero. (Score:2)
-g
Re:Rutan is my hero. (Score:2)
Good! Widen the field! (Score:2)
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-
Re:Good! Widen the field! (Score:1)
People's lives and billion dollar equiptment is not something I'd want to see being tested in such a manner.
"Release early, release often" (Score:2)
People die climbing mountains, swimming rivers, racing cars. They also die in bed, old and feeble. Fact is, people die and nothing can stop it (yet).
So be polite and let people choose to risk their own lives if they want to. The only restriction I would place on it would be to demand full disclosure about any system I am interested in using.
But if you want to use "closed source" spaceflight, that's your choice to make.
Bob-
Re:Good! Widen the field! (Score:2)
Just because a spacecraft can carry passengers, doesn't mean that it must carry passengers on each flight.
Beta versions are rarely tested in production environment; and passenger-capable spacecraft will propably be tested with crash test dummies and auto-pilot.
Their lives, t
Re:Good! Widen the field! (Score:2)
-- Greg
VTOL? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:VTOL? (Score:2)
Rus
Re:VTOL? (Score:2)
Re:VTOL? (Score:2, Interesting)
It's possible that the extra fuel weighs less than heat-shielded wings and a tail plus wheeled landing gear.
Re:VTOL? (Score:2)
What about the tried and true capsule with no wings or a tail to heat shield, just one insulated surface and a parachute?
Re:VTOL? (Score:2)
Re:VTOL? (Score:5, Informative)
A lot of folks think that the mass penalty of carying extra fuel for landing is less than the mass penalty of carying wings (a penalty which includes extra fuel and engine mass to compensate for the increased drag).
If you are doing SSTO, you can have much less sophisticated heat shielding because the requirements of heat shielding decrease as you get less dense. At reentry, a SSTO is not very dense at all, so it's easier. Also, there's some arguments about reentering tail-first and using the engines to reduce the heat loading, which hasn't yet been tested.
Furthermore, range safety is simpler with VTOL. You have to assume that, at any point, your spacecraft could explode, raining parts down on populated land. Less gliding means less area to wory about. Airliners don't need to wory about such things, but airliners also have a good track record of not blowing up. Spacecraft don't have that record yet.
Ejection seats and escape capsules aren't very heavy, if they are included in the design early (They are now saying that, given that both the Challenger and Columbia's crew cabin survived the explosion intact, that they really could have made it removable for a minimum weight penalty. However, it's too late to do that now.)
The biggest problem is that NASA spent all of their time between the 1980s and today designing a bunch of different concepts for spacecraft, none of which have actually flown enough to be able to contribute factual data about all of this except for a few low-altitude hops made by the DC-X that made the VTOL model seem rather reasonable.
Re:VTOL? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:VTOL? (Score:2)
An ever bigger problem with the shuttle tiles is that they are so fragile that the supposedly reusable heat shield (indeed the whole vehicle) needs to be effectivly rebuilt after every flight.
Thus the whole thing ends up costing far more than a vehicle intended to be replaced after every flight.
Airlines would go bankrupt if Boeing and Airbus turned out planes which required a "heavy maintanance visit" every flight. The only way in which spac
5 requests? (Score:1)
Private space-flight (Score:2, Insightful)
It's kind of trusting law-enforcement or health-care to private corporations. Way too important to be trusted to people who only understand profit.
Re:Private space-flight (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Private space-flight (Score:2, Insightful)
His drive is to fulfill a life-long goal of traveling to space. I bet many slashdotters share that desire.
Re:Private space-flight (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you afraid of airliners, too?
Re:Private space-flight (Score:2)
Without government meddling, I wouldn't trust air flight to corporations either. All they know is profit. If it's cheaper to kill a few people now and then, they'll do it.
Air travel is too difficult and expensive for private enterprise to offer it to the masses safely without government services (like ATC) and oversight (like the FAA).
But, NASA isn't developing space flight in the public int
Re:Private space-flight (Score:2)
The problem is, almost inevitably, private industry can do "things" more efficently than the government. This is the same reason why a monopoly is bad -- because there's no competition, people stop improving stuff.
Thus, one of the goals of a good government is to provide structure, where necessary, to grow ind
Re:Private space-flight (Score:2, Insightful)
Health care seems private from this end - most people I know takes at least one type of medicine he buys himself (homeopathic or prescribed non-free medicine).
We have medical plans, payed by docking our salary. If I need a major surgery, I pay some of it and my financed-out-of-my-salary insurance pays the rest. Nothing here is government, nor profit-free.
Same for accidents insurance, in my history. I was the cause of the accident so I had to pay, despite insurance. No government protec
These stories are great (Score:2, Insightful)
It's amazing how fast it's coming along since the X-Prize, with some great (and very rich!) minds at the forefront.
The future in this area looks good
Re:These stories are great (Score:2)
Bad news? WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
The bad news is that SpaceShipOne will be retired straight to the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum...
This has to be the stupidest comment I have seen in a /. article posting in a long time. Does this person have any regard at all for the enormous historical value this space ship has?
Imagine it was *not* retired, then went down in flames in a subsequent mission. A very important part of humanity's history would be lost, forever.
Try to think beyond the next few years for once in your life. You can send up payloads in SpaceShipTwo, or SpaceShipThree, or SpaceShipNineteen. But there is only one SpaceShipOne. And I for one would like it to still be around in 80 years, so I can go to the museum with my great-grandchildren and say "Look what some people of my generation accomplished".
Re:Bad news? WTF? (Score:2)
Re:Bad news? WTF? (Score:2)
You aren't explaining why they decided not to fly it more. I think it is surprising that they don't test this craft more to make sure all the bugs they had to fix really are worked out rather than just patches over the symptoms without fixing the actual problem.
Re:Bad news? WTF? (Score:3, Interesting)
It was designed to reach the x-price. Ist just reached the height, it did the 2 runs. Plus it had a real nasty spin in one that didnt remotely look funny or planned.
Somewhere else, back after the second flight there was talk about needed improvements to counter such behaviour, which would be implemented in a successor.
Think about it: that thing may have 95%, or lets say 99% success rate. That would be a good value for a cutting ende test-design. 2 tries without probl
Re:Bad news? WTF? (Score:2)
The article was hardly the stupidest thing I've seen, but I agree that it's hardly bad news to retire it. It has done what it was built to do. The investment was in the design, not the construction. Construct a new one, a better one, and let the prototype become an artifact.
Re:Bad news? WTF? (Score:2)
Granted, it would have been exciting to see the craft launch again, but they've presumably learned all they need to learn from SpaceShipOne. Their knowledge will go into SpaceShipTwo, which will be better and
Re:Bad news? WTF? (Score:2)
Its really a proof of concept rocket. "Can we build a cheap-ish rocket out of composites and get into space?" Yes, they did. And it was risky. So off to the museum it goes while they build a much safer and profitable flyer.
Obligatory Star Wars Quote (Score:2)
Re:Bad news? WTF? (Score:2)
I won't trust the thing until... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I won't trust the thing until... (Score:2)
Re:I won't trust the thing until... (Score:2)
Expensive item for your 'been there' list (Score:2)
But then, it is hard to imagine what kind of profit flying payloads could make, it seems like it is a long way to go up, in order to go a (relatively) short distance across/around...
Is anyone else having flashbacks to Heinlein novels?
Pixie
Re:Expensive item for your 'been there' list (Score:2)
Actually, I'm going to wait and see how long the actual maximum downrange will be on SpaceShipTwo. It's quite possible that it might also be evolveable into a point-to-point transportation vehicle.
Good Decision (Score:5, Insightful)
SpaceshipOne was a concept demonstrator. For him, its time to move on to the production version.
Re:Three Words (Score:2)
Re:Three Words (Score:3, Interesting)
Burt Rutan knows how to get what he wants from his people. He's a good leader with a good team. And the part that might make the biggest difference between Scaled and PARC - it's Burt's show. He's always the deciding vote. I'm sure he's kicked a lot of dea
Personally... (Score:4, Interesting)
Here are a few random thoughts on what I would have considered doing, had I been in charge:
Re:Personally... (Score:4, Informative)
One problem is SS1 is still an experimental aircraft. Under FAA regulations, you can't use it in a for-hire operation. That means you can't just start selling tickets for SS1 rides.
Scaled would have to make SS1 into a certificated airframe first, which is a horrendously expensive and lengthy process, and doesn't make sense with SS1 being a one of a kind technology prototype. My guess is with SS2 they're going to work on certification from the beginning, and given that it'll carry 9 people and they'll build more than one of them, the certification costs can be spread out more and be recovered easier.
Re:Personally... (Score:2)
Re:Personally... (Score:2)
Re:Personally... (Score:2)
Re:Personally... (Score:2)
The dumb thing is to assume he HAS to be right and that everyone else HAS to be wrong by the mere fact of disagreeing with him.
Last I heard, there was more than one kind of airplane in the sky. More than one kind of airframe, too. Aircraft are
waiting for commercially available flights (Score:2)
And, yes, I know I'm weird. Thanks for calling.
Isn't 'Virgin Galactic' just a bit presumptuous? (Score:2, Insightful)
Virgin Orbit sounds more likely in the near term.
A Spruce Goose? SpaceShip1 airframes cost nothing! (Score:2, Interesting)
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 post
t/Space Gets It (Score:4, Interesting)
This is great! (Score:2)
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.
dont bet on virgin (Score:3, Interesting)
virgin rail was launched in a blaze of media coverage with branman waving from trains etc. promising the earth. years later fares are much higher and the service seems to be much worse from what i read.
a few years ago i believe he had to sell 49% of virgin atlantic, it was the only thing making any money. needed the cash to pay off debts.
so whatever you do please just dont quote this ludicrous plan (and a ludicrous name- galactic? we havent even got there yet!) and give him more bloody free publicity. only mention it when it becomes a reality.
Re:dont bet on virgin (Score:2)
chances are it would just be a licensing deal like virgin cola or virgin mobile. i dont believe they have the money to fund something that big. he would be sent into space grinning like a looney in a chunky jumper (as usual) and the ships would be read. that's really about it.
i don't know what you think of him in the states but really anybody with a
VTOL novel? (Score:2)
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.
Just in time b4 that asteroid hits in 2029.. (Score:2)
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 th
Re:SpaceShipOne (Score:1)
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" beca
Re:SpaceShipOne (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:SpaceShipOne (Score:2)
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 passenger
Re:SpaceShipOne (Score:2)
I don't remember this. Can you provide a reference?
Re:SpaceShipOne (Score:2)
I can't find the article any more, but people who were there said that the wind on the ground gusted up to 40 mph the day that they launched.
Re:SpaceShipOne (Score:2)
I do know for a fact that the flight profile was also changed on subsequent flights to lessen the possibility of the craft entering an uncorrectable roll.
Re:SpaceShipOne (Score:5, Informative)
The real cause of the uncommanded roll was an issue with the wing dihedral, which is used to provide a natural corrective tendency for crosswinds. It's difficult to design a mach 3.5 spaceship that is also a 70 knot glider.
The test pilot, Mike Melvill, had ample time to abort the flight. He felt confident and in sufficient control to continue the first suborbital flight. Burt and Mike are very close friends and have been since the 1970s. Ground control suggested an abort, but Mike was comfortable with the roll rate. Yes, he's that good. He later commented that it was "kind of cool". Mike was clearly not too upset by the 20+ rolls as he corkscrewed into space, because a minute later he was playing with M&Ms in microgravity.
So don't go throwing around reckless comments about Burt almost getting a test pilot killed. It's a lie, plain and simple. The truth is, Burt Rutan has done almost 400 designs and for decades has consistently averaged flight testing a couple of truly unique aircraft, and now spacecraft, per year. None of his projects have ever resulted in an injury, much less a fatality. The few incidents have all been minor, such as the SS1 test flight where the left landing gear collapsed after a rough landing. Burt Rutan has the best safety record in the industry, while simultaneously doing the most cutting edge designs. He attributes a large part of that safety to an environment that wouldn't be possible in a large bureaucracy, whether in government or big business.
The SS1 roll problem was fixed by simply changing the flight profile and the two subsequent X-Prize flights had no trouble. The dihedral issue will be corrected in SS2, which is probably one reason that SS1 is being retired after accomplishing the X-Prize mission. That, and the fact that it is a very valuable historic spacecraft.
So for anyone keeping score, NASA has lost two shuttles with all crew (14 people total) out of a little over 100 missions, for a little less than a 2% fatality rate. SS1 has been into space three times with no injuries. Safety is a big part of the SS1 design, including the novel "carefree reentry".
There were some uninformed opinions and lame attempts at sick humor prior to the SS1 success. Why do some people need to see the dark side of everything? Why do some people need to comment about things when they are totally clueless?
Suggestion:
1) Read
2) Think
3) THEN write
Re:SpaceShipOne (Score:2)
NASA is intelligent? (Score:2, Insightful)
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 flyi
Re:SpaceShipOne (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [wikipedia.org] Prize that encouraged the first trans-Atlantic airplane crossing in 1927. We are about to enter the era of space development that is similar to what the 1930s was to the aviation industry in all important respects.
Re:SpaceShipOne (Score:2)
Private companies *can* get to space, and I really look forward to it. But SS1 did nothing in this direction except inspire.
Re:SpaceShipOne (Score:2)
Re:SpaceShipOne (Score:2)
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 techno
Re:SpaceShipOne (Score:2)
The lack of a profit motive is the reason NASA has developed space access as they have. They are in the business of spending mone
Re:Test? (Score:1)
Re:Potential income? (Score:2)
Re:Potential income? (Score:2)
The actual question is why? What mission can SS1 really fly, other than tourism? It has far more value in a museum, because it is the first.
White Knight hired by NASA? (Score:2)
Re: Jeff Bezos's link is weird (Score:2)
Re:Let me be the first to say... (Score:2)
well, you are talking about scales (very large) and composites after all
¦)