SpaceShipOne Back in Action 200
JoeSilva writes "After a 3 month wait,
Scaled Composites' SpaceShipOne is
back in the skies above Mojave! Not only is it patched up from a failed landing gear, it's got a 'thermal protection system' installed.
Looks like high temp insulation on the leading edges. Also they have a picture of it with 'the rocket motor for the flight 13p'. This was the 12th SpaceShipOne flight."
Lucky 13? (Score:3, Insightful)
missing flights? (Score:3, Insightful)
Armadillo Aerospace (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Minimal info (Score:2, Insightful)
Needed: Improved Fuels (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Minimal info (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:heat shielding (Score:5, Insightful)
As this is not an orbital flight there is no excessive velocity to burn off. Hence, the bathtub mode of recovery from altitude.
Re:Armadillo Dreamin' (Score:5, Insightful)
Neither of these guys are professional rocket builders. They're both private individuals spending their (ample) money to compete for the X-prize. Rutan has previous experience building aircraft and has worked more at putting together a team and securing infrastructure to help with the build, but it's not as if Rutan is leading a billion-dollar team of button-down 1950's engineers at Boeing or something while Carmack is competing out of his back yard shed.
Just because Carmack posts his day-to-day struggles on the web for us all to enjoy (and I *do* enjoy it, BTW) doesn't imply that the SpaceShipOne team isn't encountering the exact same sorts of technical hurdles, supply problems, permit bullshit and etc. In other words, whichever wins will be a victory for the little guy because they're *both* the little guy.
Re:Needed: Improved Fuels (Score:3, Insightful)
Improvements usually come a few percent at a time.
Re:Cute text changes (Score:3, Insightful)
It's probably a bit of both, if you ask me.
Re:Minimal info (Score:5, Insightful)
Or maybe he's just unbelievably rich, thinks that this is a cool project and wants to support it? Lets go easy on the cynicism folks!
Re:Looks good (Score:3, Insightful)
After all, today's commercial airline industry [airlinetechnology.net] isn't flying planes built by Burgess, Curtiss, or Loening [centennialofflight.gov]... It was Boeing who got the contracts for training planes during World War I, and commercial transport planes afterwards...
Re:Minimal info (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no longer any need to keep secret the fact that people and objects can get to space - Wernher von Braun wanted to try it way back in 1945, but his A-9/A-10 project got killed and it took him almost 20 more years before he accomplished that goal. If there was ever any time for secrecy, it was way back then when all this was still a surprise to spring on the bad guys. Not when there's about to be a change as big as the one we went through when Gagarin and Shepard went up.
The why (and some of the difficulties) of NERVA (Score:5, Insightful)
Nuclear reactions yield about a million times more energy per unit mass than do chemical reactions, so it's natural to try to get the energy that way.
NERVA got OK Isp (about a factor of 2 better than chemical rockets, something like 1000 seconds), but its thrust-to-weight ratio was pretty low, about 4 if I remember right. That's because it included a critical, operating nuclear reactor with an actively controlled chain reaction, and them thar things are heavy.
Thrust-to-weight is just as important as Isp to a rocket: higher thrust-to-weight means you can tote more fuel, payload, and structure for the same Isp, since you always have to have the mass of the engine itself around. By contrast to the NERVA's thrust-to-weight of about 4, the Space Shuttle main engines have a thrust-to-weight ratio of around 75. Since solid rockets are technically made out of their own fuel, their effective weight is much lower for this calculation (pretty much just the bell nozzle) and you might see numbers in the several-hundreds range.
Of course, one could always work on making the NERVA more lightweight -- but do you really want to optimize a nuclear reactor for mass, rather than safety? I didn't think so.
Now, for use in space, thrust-to-weight isn't so important. The rocket doesn't have to support itself against gravity, so low-mass engines that also produce low thrust are perfectly OK.
Of course, international treaty bans the use of critical nuclear reactors in space, but that alone wouldn't slow down our current administration very much.
[Nuclear reactors get flown into space all the time, but they always have much less than critical mass, relying on spontaneous decay to keep the chain reaction limping along at a constant rate. NERVA would require controlled reaction rates, hence a critical-mass reactor.]
Re:Armadillo Aerospace (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Lucky 13? (Score:2, Insightful)
Which means that the X-Prize is incidental to Scaled goals here. Scaled is getting paid on contract terms to build this vehicle and it's pretty clear that the prize is just an incidental side-issue to their planned goal. The backers had this in line a long time before X-Prize was fully funded and they did not even enter it until after the Prize was fully funded.
Their primary goal is basically an extension of the tourist market like commercial flights in former military jets. There is a market for people paying $65k to go supersonic. This is something that is their primary goal. An incidental prize of $10 million is not something that can be counted on, so it really won't make much difference to a number of X-Prize developers. They are aiming for a specific niche market that can recover their costs regardless of whether they win the prize, or not.
They are going onto the next phase of flights. That's about all that can be said for it. There isn't much leeway in terms of timing now. If it isn't a go, they aren't going to rush things. $10 million is a lot less than what has been invested in it to this point and their primary aim is to recover the whole amount and then some. The best way to do that is systematically test and improve the vehicle. Their flight rate is remaining consistant to basic flight test timelines. Somewhere in Scaled, there will be a timeline with all sorts of milestones. It could on track for a flight within the prize window. Or not. Either way, they'll fly it when they have tested it to those parameters.
no pilot will fly a pink spaceship... (Score:3, Insightful)
SS1 At 100 km This Year (Score:2, Insightful)
The rocket engine has been tested on the ground at full power for an entire burn. The boost phase on the previous flight was stopped to keep the test program progressing in incremental stages. Binnie could have just as easily kept going well past 100 km, but they're still wringing out the subsystems. The rocket engine works. It's a very clever and simple system that uses nitrous oxide as the oxidizer and rubber as the fuel. The rocket can be throttled by changing the flow rate of the liquid oxidizer. A low cost, safe and throttleable solid rocket booster is quite an achievement (but not invented at Scaled).
To correct a couple of falacies in previous posts.... 100 km is the internationaly recognized limit for being an astronaut. Parabolic suborbital flights do not require heat shielding because they are much slower than orbital flights, not because they have less atmosphere to penetrate on reentry. Both are essentially in the vacuum of space.
I like the Armadillo Aerospace research too, but it isn't going to win the X-Prize. I think they should have called their rocket engine the BFR-9000.
And to the person who said the older Rutan aircraft designs are works of art, I'd have to agree. A picture of my Long-EZ is here [thinkingdevices.com].
The X-Prize is going to change the way we look at space. No longer will a $1B shuttle launch be required. We will all have access to space. This is long over due. My appreciation to those who are making it happen. As always, all that is required is big dreams, intelligence and determination.