Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

XCor Receives Sub-Orbital Launch Permit 108

Posted by simoniker from the spaced-out dept.
Marc Newman writes "MSNBC is reporting that XCor has received the second FAA suborbital launch permit. Xcor Aerospace is not competing in the X-Prize but rather is 'in it to make money'. They are still awaiting a launch permit for their Mojave desert launch site. It'd be interesting if XCor beat Scaled Composites with the first sub-orbital flight but couldn't claim the $10 million prize."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

XCor Receives Sub-Orbital Launch Permit More

XCor Receives Sub-Orbital Launch Permit

Comments Filter:

  • Oh, the SECOND one (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 24, 2004 @12:29AM (#8957102)
    Everyone knows only the first one is important. I mean, we all know who walked on the moon first... Louis Armstrong... but who cares about that second guy Buzz Lightyear?

  • Hmm... (Score:4, Funny)

    by weiyuent ( 257436 ) on Saturday April 24, 2004 @12:29AM (#8957103) Journal
    It'd be interesting if XCor beat Scaled Composites with the first sub-orbital flight but couldn't claim the $10 million prize."

    Yeah...I'll bet that if that happened, Burt Rutan would eXCORiate everyone who worked for him ;-)

  • excellent (Score:5, Insightful)

    by the arbiter ( 696473 ) on Saturday April 24, 2004 @12:29AM (#8957104)
    We, the public, will benefit greatly in the long run with the increased competition. The more companies doing this, the better.

    And when the time comes, I'll be ready to take a flight.

  • Requirements? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by wmspringer ( 569211 )
    What are the requirements for winning the X-prize, again?

    I remember you have to send a manned shuttle up twice within two weeks, but is it limited to those teams that are registered?

    I know, I should RTFA...

    • Re:Requirements? (Score:5, Informative)

      by twenty-exty-six ( 772817 ) on Saturday April 24, 2004 @12:43AM (#8957163)

      Privately finances, builds & launches a spaceship, able to carry three people to 100 kilometers (62.5 miles)

      Returns safely to Earth

      Repeats the launch with the same ship within 2 weeks

    • A team must build a sub-orbital spaceplane that can carry three people to an altitude of 45 miles. Then, it must use the same vehcile to perform the same feat within three weeks.

      Do this, and you get a $10,000,000 prize.

      • Re:Requirements? (Score:5, Informative)

        by BiggerBoat ( 690886 ) on Saturday April 24, 2004 @02:19AM (#8957450)
        Not quite. It need not be a "spaceplane"... a simple rocket will do. And it needs to fly to 62 miles, or 100 kilometers. It needs to be able to carry three 198lb, 6'2" people to that height, but two of the three people can be represented by ballast - only one live body needs fly. That person needs to return in good health. And the vehicle needs to do it twice in two weeks, not three, between which no more than 10% of the mass mass of the vehicle (not including propellant) can be replaced.

        Oh, and one other thing... the ten million dollars is only funded through the end of this year.
        • What do you mean by "10% of the mass (not including propellant) can be replaced"?? So they can't refuel it? What other mass would need to be replaced?
          • Propellant can be replaced (so you are allowed to refuel)
            Other mass: If anything is jettisoned it must be recovered if it would require replacement of >10% vehicle mass. So first stages if used, drop tanks if used, one-shot heatshields etc. must be carefully looked at to make sure that the vehicle (excluding propellant) is at least 90% reuseable.

  • Mojave Desert.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by L0stb0Y ( 108220 ) on Saturday April 24, 2004 @12:35AM (#8957128) Journal
    "They are still awaiting a launch permit for their Mojave desert launch site"

    Soon the 'kingdom of nye' will have new sightings to report...

  • Sounds like they are well on their way (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Fiz Ocelot ( 642698 ) <baelzharon.gmail@com> on Saturday April 24, 2004 @12:36AM (#8957132)
    Quote off the site:"The EZ-Rocket has flown 15 times to date. The first 13 flights were conducted at our base of operations at the Mojave Civilian Flight Test Center in Mojave, CA. Flights 14 and 15 were performed in front of a very large crowd of airshow attendees at the EAA AirVenture fly-in at Oshkosh, Wisconsin."

    Why exactly are they not in the x-prize competition? Looks like they may be some real competition.

    • IIRC, dosn't Xprize require two people to go up? or am I off my rocker?

      • Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Informative)

        by Fiz Ocelot ( 642698 ) <baelzharon.gmail@com> on Saturday April 24, 2004 @12:56AM (#8957214)
        The Rules read: " 3. The flight vehicle must be flown twice within a 14-day period. Each flight must carry at least one person, to minimum altitude of 100 km (62 miles). The flight vehicle must be built with the capacity (weight and volume) to carry a minimum of 3 adults of height 188 cm (6 feet 2 inches) and weight 90 kg (198 pounds) each. Three people of this size or larger must be able to enter, occupy, and be fastened into the flight vehicle on Earth's surface prior to take-off, and equivalent ballast must be carried in-flight if the number of persons on-board during flight is less than 3 persons."

        It didn't look like their vehicle has the capacity required, but I could be wrong. Sure didn't look like it to me.

        • "Three people of this size or larger must be able to enter..."

          This sounds pretty ambiguous to me. So how much larger?

          Is this the 10 million dollar loophole?
      • http://www.xprize.org/teams/guidelines.html

        "Three people of this size or larger must be able to enter, occupy, and be fastened into the flight vehicle on Earth's surface prior to take-off, and equivalent ballast must be carried in-flight if the number of persons on-board during flight is less than 3 persons."

      • or am I off my rocker?

        you mean off your rocket?

    • Re:Sounds like they are well on their way (Score:4, Informative)

      by DerekLyons ( 302214 ) <fairwater@@@gmail...com> on Saturday April 24, 2004 @03:40AM (#8957667) Homepage
      Why exactly are they not in the x-prize competition? Looks like they may be some real competition.
      Because Jeff & Co. are in the game for the long haul, not the short stunt. Don't get me wrong, the X-Prize is wonderful, but to date all of the vehicles proposed for it are stunt ships, not prototypes of commercial ships.
    • The EZ-Rocket is not the Xerus. (I believe that is what XCor is calling their planned suborbital craft.)

      Their suborbital craft has not even begun construction, I believe. They're still in the engine development and testing phase. The EZ-Rocket is by no means a suborbital craft and never will be. It's merely a good testbed for some of their engines. (It happens to use two of their 400-lb thrust engines.)

      So far, if you look at their site, they have only racked up 0.2 minutes of running time on their 18

  • Money, not money (Score:5, Funny)

    by Dorf on Perl ( 738169 ) on Saturday April 24, 2004 @12:38AM (#8957141)

    Xcor Aerospace is not competing in the X-Prize but rather is 'in it to make money'.

    Oh I see, they want to make money, not win the prize... which is... money...

    Uh..

    • Of course it is money, but think for a moment. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by efuseekay ( 138418 ) on Saturday April 24, 2004 @12:49AM (#8957189)
      The Xprize has conditions (like no government funding etc etc) that Xcor probably does not want to follow.

      Also, to win the Xprize, one has to do it with a reusable LV, with 3 passengers and a 2 week (?) turnaround between flights etc etc.

      So it's not so surprising. Of course all the Xprize people are in for the money. One can ask why subscribe to so many constraints, well the Xprize Consortium is backed by a lot of influential people. By subscribting to it, you can free publicity, and A LOT OF connections to people who probably will be your future customers (or your future customers' friends.)

    • Re:Money, not money (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      What they mean is that they want to get into the sub-orbital travel industry, but have no expectation of winning the X-Prize (i.e. doing it first.) Which is probably a reasonable expectation, given that AFAICT they don't even have a prototype vehicle built.

      There's no way they're going to beat Scaled, and no permit is going to help that.

    • Re:Money, not money (Score:4, Insightful)

      by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Saturday April 24, 2004 @01:17AM (#8957285)
      Oh I see, they want to make money, not win the prize... which is... money...

      The X-Prize is a lot of money, but it's not likely to be enough to cover the costs of what it demands... not just one space flight, but two in one week's time. Not to mention, if you plan it all but get beat to the punch, there's no prize for coming in second.

      All of the ventures shooting for the X-Prize have to have a motive to keep going beyond the X-Prize, win or lose, to be viable.

    • Re:Money, not money (Score:2, Interesting)

      by D'Sphitz ( 699604 )
      I imagine any such venture would cost much more than $10 mil, so nobody is going to make money by winning the prize, only cut their losses by that much.
  • Xcor is not competing for the $10 million prize...

    "To make money has always been our goal," he said.

    If they're in it for the money, wouldn't it make sense to compete for the X-Prize, while they're at it?

    It seems the publicity of winning would help their business, not to mention 10 million bucks in the pocket ain't bad.

    • Re:In it for money? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Monty845 ( 739787 )
      I think it is a matter of thier test schedule not being fast enough to meet the time conditions of the X-prize, they are saying they are in it for the long run and aren't going to sacrifice thier buisness model just for a prize. I'm sure if the x-prize deadline was extended they would change thier tone...

  • Obligatory Question (Score:4, Interesting)

    by platypibri ( 762478 ) <platypibri@@@gmail...com> on Saturday April 24, 2004 @12:41AM (#8957151) Homepage Journal
    I guess I am risking my karma that this might be modded of topic, but doesn't the requirement for a permit to engage in a sub-orbital flight set a bad precedent as far as the politicalization of space goes. I mean, who owns earth orbit? How far up does the United States go before you enter "International Space"? We have a flag on the moon, does that mean a private company couldn't fund and develop a moon base? Are we going to have to have another "Age of Conquest" to divy up the moon, or is globalization a necessity for space colinization? I just find the whole thing so facinating.

    • Re:Obligatory Question (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Monty845 ( 739787 ) on Saturday April 24, 2004 @12:48AM (#8957183)
      It would seem the FAA has a legitimate interest in regulating whats flying in US airspace. If something represents a danger to public safety the FAA needs to be able to stop it from flying. It is true on the other hand that at some point (altitude) the FAA's jurisdiction must end, I would say that as long as it is being launched from the US they get a say... There are also probably some international treaties that would provide guidence.
      • The FAA regulates all airspace from ground up to 60,000 ft. ("Flight Level 600").

        This airspace is broken up into different airspaces [helicfi.com] depending upon a number of details, including the presence and type of airports, common routes of air traffic, and terrain. At the upper end, "Class A" airspace is only used by aircraft flying IFR ("Instrument Flight Rules") under air traffic control.

        Rob Machado, a popular aviation educator and humorist, likes to relate a story (which I will paraphrase here). The ATC w
    • I think the permits only apply to launching and landing. An object moving as fast as these craft carries significant kinetic energy as well as explosive fuels so a crash is a public risk. The FAA probably has some minimum safety requirements about construction and laucnch zone.
      • Monty & Fortress,

        Thanks, that is certainly something to think about, both the launch it's self and the supsequent ascension through US air space.

        Certainly no other country needs our approval to orbit satellites. I would be interested to know how far "up" our jurisdiction goes

      • Re:Obligatory Question (Score:4, Insightful)

        by ron_ivi ( 607351 ) <sdotno@cheapcomp ... s.com minus poet> on Saturday April 24, 2004 @01:00AM (#8957232)
        Anyone know what government regulations were in place when F. Magellan, F. Drake, L. Ericson, and guys like them sailed?

        Both a rhetorical question, and genuine curiosity.

        • I think at that time the collection of policies known as "Might Makes Right" was in place. If not, then certainly the "Nah nah nah, we found it first!" Accord was in place.

        • Re:Obligatory Question (Score:1, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward
          In the general sense, I'm sure there were none whatsoever. Build a ship, go sailing. However, anyone whose expedition was funded likely did have conditions imposed upon their specific trip. Your point though is well made.

        • similarly... (Score:4, Interesting)

          by rebelcool ( 247749 ) on Saturday April 24, 2004 @03:32AM (#8957648)
          much like today, there were regulations in water extending out a set distance from shores. Just how far out depended on who you asked.

          But there were still international waters (like today) that nobody owns and have little in the way of law. Space is like that, and the air between orbit and ground is like the border waters.
        • Anyone know what government regulations were in place when F. Magellan, F. Drake, L. Ericson, and guys like them sailed?

          There was a great deal of legal wrangling, piracy, and war as a consequence of the European nations independantly exploring the world. More information here [wikipedia.org]. And more generally, here [wikipedia.org]. Don't forget this [wikipedia.org].
        • Anyone know what government regulations were in place when F. Magellan, F. Drake, L. Ericson, and guys like them sailed?

          The Collision Regulations commonly known as ColRegs are adhered to at sea the world over. In areas where local jurasdictions may apply, local regulations are normally derived from the colregs. International courts uphold the ColRegs, and, in the case of contest, insurance companies will 'assign blame' based on them, irrelavent of jurasdiction or lack thereof at the point of incident.

    • Re:Obligatory Question (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      It's not a permit to fly around in space. It's a permit to fly through US airspace on the way to space.

    • Re:Obligatory Question (Score:2, Insightful)

      by pla ( 258480 )
      but doesn't the requirement for a permit to engage in a sub-orbital flight set a bad precedent as far as the politicalization of space goes.

      As long as you don't plan to come back down, you can safely ignore the FAA.

      Come back, though, and don't have the right permits? You'll wish you'd burned up on reentry.


      Basically, I agree with you. The idea of a US government agency having control over attempts at flights outside the Earth's atmosphere just annoys me to no end. But as I said, if you plan to com

    • no (Score:4, Informative)

      by rebelcool ( 247749 ) on Saturday April 24, 2004 @03:29AM (#8957641)
      there is no regulation of orbit.

      There is, however, regulation of the air between the ground and orbit.

      Which is what the FAA regulates. Launching potentially dangerous vehicles through said air falls under their purvue of regulation.

  • "It'd be interesting if XCor beat Scaled Composites with the first sub-orbital flight but couldn't claim the $10 million prize."

    Ironic, perhaps? But they publicly claim they aren't competing in this...

    Maybe I missed something.

  • Family Affair (Score:5, Interesting)

    by levram2 ( 701042 ) on Saturday April 24, 2004 @12:42AM (#8957157)
    What is interesting is that XCOR's last rocket propelled plane was flown by Dick Rutan, Burt Rutan's brother.

    Burt Rutan's company Scaled Composites has the first license for their SpaceShipOne.

    http://www.dickrutan.com/rocket.html [dickrutan.com]

    • Re:Family Affair (Score:3, Interesting)

      by ruprechtjones ( 545762 )
      Dick Rutan also flew the Voyager with Yeager's daughter, very cool. I think the Rutan family will be a big part of our aeronautical history for the next 20 years.

      The best (rough, from memory) quote from Dick: "My brother told me the Voyager would fly within the specs he told me. After we landed, he mentioned that I, nor anyone else, questioned his specs or asked him to prove his formulas mathematically. I just trusted what he said."

      • Re:Family Affair (Score:3, Informative)

        by Tyler Eaves ( 344284 )
        Nitpick: Jenna Yeager (Voyager) is NO relation to Chuck.
        • Nitpick: Jenna Yeager (Voyager) is NO relation to Chuck.

          You are correct. I wasn't sure, since my source was the History Channel. Here is more (corect) info. [centennialofflight.gov]

          Yeager, who is no relation to the famous test pilot Chuck Yeager, first met Dick Rutan, and his brother Burt, at a California air show in 1980.

    • Re:Family Affair (Score:1, Redundant)

      by rijrunner ( 263757 )
      It's more of a family affair than you think..

      XCOR'S test pilot is Dick Rutan, the brother of Burt Rutan, the guy behind Scaled Composites.

      Talk about interesting family dynamics..

      Everything related to RLV development is still very much in the cooperative phase, like homebrew computers in the early 1970's. Not enough money in it yet to really sharpen the competition.

  • Financial Motive (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Fortress ( 763470 ) on Saturday April 24, 2004 @12:44AM (#8957171) Homepage
    Not very suprising that it doesn't matter to Xcor whether they win the prize or not. I don't think $10M will cover the development costs of most of the entries, so I think most of them are "in it for the money." They must be hoping for some sort of commercial success/government contract using their techniques. Think of it as a long term investment.

    The X-Prize itself serves more of a publicity role, keeping the developing entries in the media (including /.) and greasing the wheels of the FAA to give permits. The permits are interesting-They are a milestone showing which of the entries are serious and which are vaporware.

    Exciting stuff nonetheless.
    • The X-Prize is nothing but a milestone towards the eventual goal of viable commercial-passenger space travel, such as setting up a space station as a hotel no mission other than allowing paying customers to enjoy the view. Why should the Russians be the only ones who can do that?

  • $10 Mil? Peanuts (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MrNonchalant ( 767683 ) on Saturday April 24, 2004 @12:47AM (#8957180)
    Unless I miss my guess there is a heck of a lot more than $10 million for whoever wins this race. If the Bush space plan works, and it may, we could well see the commercialization of space in our lifetimes. And whoever has the best and cheapest commercial transport system at that point stands to make billions and billions.

    • Re:$10 Mil? Peanuts (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      "Bush space plan works, and it may, we could well see the commercialization of space"

      You meant militarization, right?

    • AFAIK Bush doesn't have anything to do with the X-Prize.

      The X-Prize Foundation was founded in 1996, according to their web site [xprize.org]

      The commercialization of space has been ongoing for some time now. Maybe satellites aren't as glamorous as manned missions, but probably a lot more commercially lucrative.

      However, if this leads to more creative practical uses of space, then I am in full support. Solar satellites with microwave power transmission, anyone?

  • nice bluff (Score:2, Flamebait)

    by bwy ( 726112 )
    Nice bluff, XCor. In related news, I'm going to write some exotic foreign country tomorrow and ask for a tourist visa so I can show it off to chicks at the bar. Show them what a world traveler I am. No, my eyes aren't red from a 21" CRT. It's that I just got in from my last exotic trip. Sounds like kind of the same thing as requesting an FAA launch permit, no?

    Dick's brother Burt is going to beat him into space on this one. In SpaceShipOne no less! I'm sure that is going to burn a bit. Maybe Burt wi

    • Re:nice bluff (Score:1, Interesting)

      by aggiefalcon01 ( 730238 )
      Subtle, but good point.

      XCor has basically designed a rocket engine, and slapped it into a modified kit plane to test it. Sure, they've got renderings of a larger, suborbital-worthy ship, but nothing else to show for it for a few years now.

      Scaled Composites, OTOH, has designed and built a rocket engine, a suborbital spaceship, and a carrier to get the ship up to launching altitude.

      They may both be competing for dollars (present or future), but it's easy to see who's farther along.

    • I was wondering about this myself as it says right on the XCOR website about the EZ-Rocket: "The maximum altitude that can be attained is 1.91 miles (10,000 ft)." That's a pretty big stretch to sub-orbital. The Xerus plane (XCOR's next project) looks years away at best. This was clearly a publicity stunt for XCOR. Though it's good to see more people working on making safe and cheap rocket propelled vehicles. The more companies competing in this market the cheaper space filight we'll be someday.

    • I don't think Dick cares, at all.

      Dick has set enough world records in his brother's aircraft already.

      I would not be surprised if there is future cooperation between XCor and Scaled (maybe even an existing project that is under wraps.)

      XCor is primarily a rocket engine development company, which is working on solving many of the safety and reliability problems with liquid-fueled rockets that caused Burt to choose a hybrid rocket for SS1.

      Scaled is primarily an airframe company - It's not often that they be
      • Doesn't Armadillo Aerospace also use XCor engines (at least some components from XCor?)

        The Private space industry is probabally going to specialize in some aspects like this anyway, and why not let that happen. There is currently a friendly rivalry between the different space companies, but I don't see it (yet) as a vicious cut-throat business. There are just too many issues right now, and they want to keep a united front to deal with bureaucratic issues being thrown up by the government.

        The real questi

  • They need a better name...it's all marketing (Score:4, Funny)

    by L0stb0Y ( 108220 ) on Saturday April 24, 2004 @12:59AM (#8957222) Journal
    And I'm sorry, "EZ-Rocket" sounds like it needs a launch pad shaped like a Ritz cracker- and to get the crew out you tilt the nose and they eject out the tip of the cone...

  • Text of Permit (Score:4, Funny)

    by k4_pacific ( 736911 ) <k4_pacific@yah[ ]com ['oo.' in gap]> on Saturday April 24, 2004 @01:02AM (#8957238) Homepage Journal
    This certifies that (name here) is hearby entitled to launch one (1) spacecraft into suborbital flight. Bearer assumes all responsibility for accidents. This permit is provided AS IS without warranty, including the implied warranties of airworthiness or suborbital flight capability. The liability of the FAA is limited to the cost of the permit fees. Some states do not allow limitations of liability, so the above may not apply to you. Void where prohibited. If you do not agree to the terms of this permit, please pack your spacecraft in the original carton and return it to the store where it was purchased for a refund. You should have received a copy of the FAA's Suborobital Flight Guidelines along with this permit. If not, please write to: Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Suborbital Flight, Box 5050, Washington, DC 31416

  • Actually... (Score:3, Informative)

    by BTWR ( 540147 ) <americangibor3NO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Saturday April 24, 2004 @01:25AM (#8957297) Homepage Journal
    It'd be interesting if XCor beat Scaled Composites with the first sub-orbital flight but couldn't claim the $10 million prize.

    Beating Scaled Composites into sub-orbit is not enough to claim the X-prize. To claim the $10 million, you have to fly the same craft TWICE into sub-orbit within (I believe) 2 weeks.
    • Hence the statement you quouted, "It'd be interesting if XCor beat Scaled Composites with the first sub-orbital flight but couldn't claim the $10 million prize."

      Normally in a sentence that begins "Actually..." you disagre with the statement you're responding to in some manner.

      • i AM disagreeing with their post, because I am assuming the parent post implied XCor couldn't beat SC simply because they didn't sign up for the competition, when in fact the reason they won't be eligable for it is because they aren't planning on doinf the X-Prize requirement (2 flights in 2 weeks)

  • good link (xprize), X Prize Cup? (Score:5, Informative)

    by aggiefalcon01 ( 730238 ) on Saturday April 24, 2004 @01:31AM (#8957318)
    Since people keep asking about the requirements ... here ya go [xprize.org]

    The site shows something else interesting ... that while Xcor isn't participating in the X Prize, they do plan on participating in the X Prize Cup (which will happen later).

  • EZ-Rocket (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mykow ( 732173 ) on Saturday April 24, 2004 @01:34AM (#8957331) Homepage
    I'm surprised nobody knew that Burt Rutan designed the Long-EZ, which the EZ rocket is based off of. Rutan helped kick off the homebuilt aircraft revolution with that plane, and its derivatives have always been nothing but tributes to his excellence as an engineer. I don't think he much cares about this competition.
  • God wouldn't it be nice if Xcors' plane could be used as a NASA shuttle replacement to and from the space station at least? Has about the right design to it for that purpose based on what we've seen with NASA's ideas for a small shullte replacement. Am I right here? Would save quite a bit of development costs if this is chosen for that purpose. I do believe the ISS is in a low orbit too so this should work out well. This + next gen huge cargo space freighter might be a nice little combo for future spac

  • Huh? (Score:4, Funny)

    by dj245 ( 732906 ) on Saturday April 24, 2004 @02:00AM (#8957408) Homepage
    Xcor Aerospace is not competing in the X-Prize but rather is 'in it to make money'.

    1. Enter Xprise with the goal of not winning prize.
    2. Attain goal of not winning the prize.
    3. ???
    4. Profit!!!
    Well, so far, I think they have succeeded in not winning the prize. If they are really careful, they can perhaps pull a rabbit out of their hat and manage to not win the prize at the last minute, if they really have what it takes. I, for one, will be watching Xcor very closely to see if they do in fact manage to meet their goal of not winning a prize.

  • Bulk reply from XCOR employee (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 24, 2004 @03:04AM (#8957588)
    I cannot seem to retrieve my /. password using the email method, so I am going to post as AC and hope that somebody's moderating at 0 to bump this up. I am coming to you live from the Space Access Society Meeting in Phoenix, AZ. [space-access.org]

    I just want to clear up some confusion generated by inaccuracies both in the MSNBC story and the slashdot post:

    The vehicle we have received a licence for, as stated in our press release [xcor.com] is not a full suborbital vehicle and is not an X-Prize competitor. It is an intermediate technology research platform to continue development of engines and related systems that began flight testing on the EZ-Rocket, our currently flying manned rocket powered airplane. It is also noted that this new vehicle, the Sphinx, has not yet been built. Quoth the press release: "It is helpful that RLV companies can obtain their launch licenses during vehicle design, prior to committing capital to build a vehicle."

    A stated before, we are not an X-Prize competitor, due to among other things, a conflict in the time scale of the X-Prize and our business development plan, as well as the planned configuration of our current suborbital vehicle design. XCOR is focused on revenue generation. However, we fully support the X-Prize and offer technology and services to X-Prize entrants, as well as moral and legislative support.

    Mike Massee XCOR Aerospace www.xcor.com

  • Xcor - a cool company! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Alioth ( 221270 ) <no@spam> on Saturday April 24, 2004 @05:30AM (#8957884) Journal
    I actually went to CA to see the unveiling of their Rocket-Ez a couple of years ago, and we heard Jeff Greason speak on the visions for the company - the mission, to make a nontoxic, reusable (in the real sense) rocket motor. They are already selling small rocket engines for manoevering thrusters on spacecraft.

    I wrote about it at the time on my website [alioth.net] and took plenty of photos. It was quite impressive the number of firsts that Xcor were achieving.

  • FDP: Commercialization of Space (Score:3, Interesting)

    by QuantumFTL ( 197300 ) * on Saturday April 24, 2004 @05:58AM (#8957931)
    As mentioned in previous posts, I'm an intern at NASA but I absolutely love to see commerical ventures working at launching into orbit.

    Commericialization of space is important in the sense that space will eventually no longer be monopolized by scientists and engineers, but be within the grasp of ordinary people of all kinds of backgrounds. I believe quite strongly that the only way to democratize space, and keep it accessible to the average person is to provide an economic incentive for businesses to exploit their various resources.

    I look forward to the day where a father and son might build a spaceship together and, at very least, head towards the stratosphere. Perhaps saftety systems will be developed to make this a reality.

    I wish XCor the best of luck. Perhaps they will develope things we have not yet imagined :)
  • This sets a bad precedent by pretending that the FAA has authority to grant such licenses.

    "But everybody knows you have to bend over for authority figures!"

    Enough kow-towing to the bureaucrats. They've had space for more than 40 years and wasted it. Let's get off this rock!

    Bob-
    • Spend some time looking at the FAA-AST (the specific agency granting the licenses). This group of bureaucrats has wandered from one department to another over the years.

      They really didn't get serious about even trying to come up with procedures for approving the licenses until well after the X-Prize was announced. Suddenly some people started to realize that this really was a serious effort for privately financed vehicles going into space and a real debate over who exactly was going to take charge of reg

Slashdot Top Deals

Get hold of portable property. -- Charles Dickens, "Great Expectations"

Close