SpaceShipOne to Attempt Second Flight on Monday

m_member writes "There is a very cool video of the recent SpaceShipOne flight (on the Scaled video page) as covered by Slashdot. It shows some angles not on the webcast and most impressively has internal footage from when the roll occurred in the ascent. There are no M&Ms this time but Melville takes a few holiday snaps!" Gogo Dodo writes "After a successful first flight for the X Prize, SpaceShipOne is a go for launch to claim the X Prize on Monday. Takeoff is at 7am Pacific, ignition at 8am." October 4 will be the anniversary of the Sputnik launch.

Congrats!

[grape jelly]

Congrats the the Scaled Composites team! While I hope the $10M prize will give you guys a nice shot in the arm, why not put it toward developing space travel for high-speed human transport rather than tourism? It just strikes me as something that's much more financially viable than tourism....

X-Prize, NASA Funding

[Aceto3for5]

Does/Should the X-Prize Foundation get federal funding for the efforts they are making towards space travel? Certainly NASA could learn a thing or two about budgets from these space explorers. I think perhaps it is a better investment for the government to fund private groups like this, considering the results of the state-run programs.

Re:Congrats!

[grape jelly]

Come to think of it, high speed transport -- or any transport, for that matter -- has to be cheap (partly why Concorde failed, although I'm sure its crash in France also helped do it in). But people are content dropping $$$ into fun (as opposed to transport).... This is just a small step anyway, right?

Media Coverage

[Plocmstart]

It'll be interesting to see how the media covers any potential problem that occurs this time. They hyped up the whole roll situation like it was the end of the world, even after he safely made it back down (a majority of the questions asked of him were about the unexpected roll). Gotta love how reporters constantly repeat nearly the same question when they don't really understand the situation....

Re:X-Prize, NASA Funding

[sql*kitten]

Does/Should the X-Prize Foundation get federal funding for the efforts they are making towards space travel?

Err, do you actually want to get into space or not?

Re:Congrats!

[XaXXon]

That really doesn't make sense. The $20M is gone. Period. Picking up $10M isn't losing money. It's making $10M you wouldn't otherwise have.

If you paid $4 to drive over a toll bridge and there was a $2 bill lying there, would you not pick it up because it would still be net negative?

It also means that they only have to find a way to make $10M profit to break even as opposed to $20M.

Your comment really doesn't make any sense to me.

I wonder...

[Pig Hogger]

Almost 50 years ago, the X-15 basically had the same capabilities as Spaceship One's.

What were the development costs of the X-15 program???

Re:Other competitors

[deathcloset]

surely the other teams will continue to test their spacecraft.

Especially as we now have the 50mil prize being offered for orbital flight.

Sadly, these flights won't nab them that nice 10mil, but futher tests will certainly yield data that will help those who wish to pursue orbit (and I'm certain at least some do) in the development of thier orbital spacecraft.

Furthermore, just because Rutan wins the prize and is first doesn't mean that he's developed all the best technology for private spacecraft.

It seems likely that just the effort should yield some valuble research and technologies (which they might just sell to virgin galactic or scaled composites).

It's too big an investment to just toss a spaceship in the trashbin.

Re:X-Prize, NASA Funding

[System.out.println()]

I think the entire purpose of the X-Prize is that it does NOT get government funding. commercial entities need to be self-sufficient here.

Re:Congrats!

[Obfiscator]

I think the situation is closer to seeing a $2 bill on the other side of a toll bridge and crossing the bridge to get it...only to learn that crossing the bridge cost you $4. Your net gain is negative and the direct result of wanting to pick up the $2 bill.

I would only consider picking up the $2 bill to be earning money if you were going to cross the bridge anyway. In that case, like you said, the toll money is already gone and you can say you "made" $2.

Re:Congrats!

[chromaphobic]

Or, just that no human being had ever crossed that bridge before and you wanted to prove it could be done, and didn't care about the $2 or the $4.

Re:Other competitors

[TrippTDF]

They had better keep going... Number 1: They have all thrown tons of time/money into it. Number 2: This is JUST the first step. The X Prize was to kick the Private sector into gear and start a competition... it's not like the X Prize guys said "Hey Burt! We'll give you, and only you, $10 Mil to get to space!" No, they wanted to see copmetition. And not that competition is going to move into the investor market... Virgin made their stake in Scaled, and now that's going to make others kick in to onto the other competitors... Like with any new market, people will throw a ton of money into it, there will be a ton of new companies trying to get their business off the ground (no pun intended)... Think Dot-Com bubble... only this one (hopefully) won't end up the same way. I hope that in 50 years, the X-Prize is remembered as well as Scaled and SSO will be.

Re:I hope they can do it without the spin-stabiliz

[Lumpy]

The other thing that is amazing is that the man is flying that spaceship MANUALLY!

Nasa never launched with a manual flight system, nor the Russians.

I am curious as to why it does not have a simple flight computer and gyros to auto stabalize the launch flight. Even a low cost autopilot out of a old jet could do the job.

Re:Other competitors

[cmowire]

Well, the next one to get a launch vehicle working will be able to compete with SpaceShipOne for the real payoff -- commercial spaceline companies. Especially if they can do it for less money, safer, or better.

Re:Media Coverage

[ctwxman]

The roll showed inherent design problems with this particular spacecraft. No one seriously believes Mike Melville mistakenly kicked it into the corkscrew. Now that they have commercial contracts to carry passengers (with Richard Branson) spinning is not good for business. Dick Rutan will find a way to have this craft go up once more, a new (modified) design will be built which fixes this instability and SpaceShipOne will go to the Smithsonian before it hurts anyone. I can't commend Rutan's team enough, but this is an experimental craft in a rush to fly. There will be problems - that's why a test pilot was at the controls. The press (where I work) has a right and obligation to question this part of the flight. Rutan already has PR specialists to slavishly praise.

Yes, consider the results of the state-run program

[2nd Post!]

We got to the moon. And back. Multiple times.
We sent probes to Mars. And Venus. And beyond. And some of them still work.
We sent rovers to Mars. That still work.
We built several working space vehicles.
We space-walked.
We build a space station. And then we built another one.
We chased comets. And sent the collected materials back.
We've populated our solar system with several probes that have performed beyond expectation.
We have Tang.
We have titanium hips, golf clubs, glass frames, laptops, and spyplanes.

There are many, many, more [nasa.gov] places where our investment into NASA has benefitted us enormously.

Lesson #1: Use FreeCache

[Matthew Angel]

- Videos -
Oct 01 11am - VIDEOS TEMPORARILY UNAVAILABLE (sorry slashdot.org visitors, overloaded...start a bittorrent feed?)

So instead of just everyone jumping all over their site directly, why not use FreeCache [freecache.org] first, especially when you know the video is 5.7 megs and it'll be popular...

(sig)^-1 ... is that sag?

Resting on your laurels is counterproductive

[dillon_rinker]

We sailed to England. And back. Multiple times.
We sent messengers to Persia. And India. And beyond.
We sent caravans to India. We still trade with them.
We built several working sailing ships.
We swam in the sea.
We colonized a tiny island. And then we colonized another one.
We chased whales. And sent the collected materials back.
We've sent our driftwood around the world on the ocean's currents.
We have spice.
We have gunpowder, algeabra, paper, Arabic numerals, and modern surgery.

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO NEED FOR US TO FINANCE THIS FLEET OF YOURS, COLUMBUS!!!

Re:X-Prize, NASA Funding

[Skater]

All transportation is government funded at least in part. Think about it: airport terminals, bus terminals, railroad stations, roads, and plenty of other things are all built by the government which the transportation industry then uses. And that doesn't even count the money spent on things like Amtrak, airline bailouts, and other expenses, such as oversight (FAA, FRA, etc).

Why would space travel be any different?

--RJ

Re:Congrats!

[Romeozulu]

I'm not really sure I'd call Concorde a failure with 20+ years in service. Because of the cost, it's far from a huge success, but not exactly a failure.

The biggest problem with Concorde was the noise issues that kept it some being deployed worldwide. Had it had been, economy of scale might have made it an economic success as well as a technical one.

The 747 would have been a huge failure with so few planes only two routes.

Re:I hope they can do it without the spin-stabiliz

[cmowire]

Well, because it's harder than you think.

Remember, he's got a stick for subsonic flight. He's got trim for supersonic flight. And then he's got thrusters for space usage. Plus backup systems, which you have to know when they should be activated. So it can't just be an off-the-shelf system.

The thing is, if you *needed* the autopilot, you'd need to have redundancy and reliability and whatnot. If you don't *need* the autopilot, it's an added expense, a waste of time, and it takes up weight that can be used for something else. So, for an experimental aircraft that's going to be flown by Scaled's best pilots, why not?

The other problem is that the main folks who have an off-the-shelf flight computer that would be suitable is the Air Force. Who obviously isn't going to sell one to "just anyone", which means that an X-prize contender can't have it.

Re:Other competitors

[Anonymous Coward]

I keep seeing this question, and it's starting to drive me a bit batty. Say you've invested several million dollars into making a working, passenger carrying suborbital rocket, hoping to win the X-Prize. Someone else gets the prize first. Can no one seriously come up with a way of making money off a suborbital, passenger carrying rocket ship? Do the investers not care about recouping at least part of their investment? Does no one want to go to space? Do people sit around with a spaceship up on blocks in their front yards wondering what the hell they're going to do with it?

It's even worse when people ask John Carmack this, since his rocket even has a guidance system and lands by itself (and has shown progress beyond cg animations at the x-prize website). Apparently few, if anybody, can come up with a use for a self-guided, self-landing, easily reusable rocket that can carry six hundred pounds. Should I even bother typing out "overnight automated package delivery to Japan"? Sure, there's problems with the idea, but I'd think slashdot and especially the x-prize forums could display a small hint of creativity.

Now granted, if someone spent several million on a suborbital rocket and all they have to show for it so far is a few sketches on a napkin, then I could understand them throwing in the towel. But they'd probably be giving up no matter the status of the X-Prize if their investment hasn't shown any progress.

Re:I hope they can do it without the spin-stabiliz

[pragma_x]

The other problem is that the main folks who have an off-the-shelf flight computer that would be suitable is the Air Force. Who obviously isn't going to sell one to "just anyone", which means that an X-prize contender can't have it.

That's probably no coincidence since a "spacecraft" with an autopilot, is basically an explosive device short of a missile. There may be some heavy federal legislation involving the private production of such systems let alone the government not wanting to share such technology with just anyone.

Just a thought.

Re:X-Prize, NASA Funding

[Forbman]

NASA's problems are that it really does not do it all internally anymore. The rockets are Lockheed or Boeing. Both of those companies want/need MASSIVE layers of ass-covering documentation to go with their stuff, which of course adds layers of supervision, documentation specialists, checkoff specialists, etc.

Throw Congress poking their noses into the mix, and it really all gets fucked up bad.

Re:I hope they can do it without the spin-stabiliz

[dinodrac]

Given Bert Rutan's history with experemental aircraft, and the things that can go wrong with automated controls, fully manual flight controls only make sense. By keeping the controls simple, and by having avionics that tell the pilot what to do rather than do it for him, they reduce the expense, while improving pilot safety. Look at all thats gone wrong with NASA's massively redundant computer systems - if the flight computer on spaceshipone completely fails, chances are the pilot will still land the craft safely, and may even be able to complete the mission safely.

Re:Media Coverage

[el-spectre]

So, one of the best aeronautical engineers, and a damned good pilot BOTH share the same opinion, but unnamed folks on the ground disagree... yup, solid reporting there.

Re:Congrats!

[wafflemonger]

How much money is he going to make off the deal with Virgin? The X-Prize is just the first step toward other money making opporunities.

Re:Media Coverage

[iabervon]

It may also turn out that the corkscrew is not a problem and keeps the craft pointed in the right direction, similar to how rifling improves the accuracy of bullets. It might just look disturbing to the people on the ground, and not upset the pilot or passengers. If you recall, the test run had two instabilities at that point in the flight, and rolling was the less hazardous one. I wouldn't be surprised if Melvill let it spin, rather than correcting, to keep it from doing anything else.

For that matter, if a part detatched from a spinning launch vehicle, it would be (slightly) more likely to fly clear of the vehicle, rather than hitting the vehicle further back.

Good hacks

[Dr. Zowie]

Nah, you've got the emphasis all wrong. These guys are demonstrating that existing technology is sufficient to open a new niche. Hybrid rockets have been in serious use (by the amateur community) for a little over a decade, and are a very important development for safety.

The big problem with liquid-fueled rockets is that they blow up so damned easily. You have to mix two (often cryogenic) fuels rapidly and efficiently, and ignite them rapidly and steadily enough that no pooling or major vortex shedding occurs in the engine (BOOM). You have to pump those liquids into the engine against the pressure of combustion; just the mechanical power required to do so is a major problem for existing rockets (e.g. the Space Shuttle Main Engines, which use insanely expensive turbopumps that still require overhauls after every flight).

Rubber/Nitrous hybrid engines may have lower specific impulse than LOX/H2 engines, but they have the added advantage that it's pretty hard to make one explode. The combustion occurs on a well-defined surface (the surface of the rubber) and you can throttle the engine easily by controlling the flow of oxidizer. Rutan's insight in the SS1 design was that controllability, simplicity, and safety are more important than sheer power.

When you start treating spaceflight as a routine event, rather than an expensive stunt, then having the most power possible isn't as important as having reliable, low-maintenance, safe engine components. You might as well complain that Ford isn't getting 1,800 HP out of its 6-liter Explorer engines -- after all, drag racers achieve more than 300 HP/liter, why shouldn't your family bulgemobile?

Re:Dead end hacks

[Anonymous Coward]

What probably bothers you is that this is real life and not the movies. There aren't usually sudden radical new technologies that can be used in a field that people have been spending billions on for decades.

The world is not a movie. To make progress takes hard work and years and years of time.

Re:Good hacks

[Phil Karn]

You don't understand. Sure, it's easier to build low-performance rocket engines. Sure, they're much safer and cheaper. But they're simply not enough, not if you want to reach orbit instead of being limited to quickie suborbital stunts with no meaningful future. Why do you think NASA and its international counterparts work so hard on developing advanced rocket engines despite the enormous challenges? Just to waste money?

The average man on the street doesn't understand that just achieving altitude, even 100 kilometers, is easy compared to entering orbit. Nearly all the energy it takes to orbit the shuttle goes into its kinetic energy, not its potential energy. Nor does the average man in the street understand that energy goes up as the square of velocity, nor does he know that the rocket equation that relates mass fraction to velocity is exponential. Heck, he probably doesn't even know what "exponential" means, or why that's bad.

The average man in the street thinks SpaceShipOne is now just a step away from going into orbit and replacing the shuttle, and that's just bunk. Rutan and company certainly know this, but they seem to enjoy the attention too much to point this out.

Re:Congrats!

[Richard_at_work]

A quick note here, but Boeing had a large part to do with Concorde not flying over the Continental US. The US administration and the FAA had no qualms about sonic booms or supersonic flight over the continental US until the Boeing supersonic aircraft project failed, some years after concorde was finalised. A Boeing aircraft would have had exactly the same issues with regards to sound, but the FAA decided to ban supersonic flights across the US citing noise to be the issue. Boeing had been assured that this wouldnt have been a problem when approached by the Kennedy administration with regards to building a Concorde competitor. From where Im standing it looks decidedly like a case of "Not invented here".

Re:Good hacks

[Teancum]

*Sigh*

The average person "on the street" frankly is totally clueless about what is even happening. Frankly, they are asking the average geek/nerd/astro guy they happen to know and ask them just what all this hoopla is really all about, and wondering why the geek is wetting his pants. (well, some of them at least)

This is a cool thing, and credit should be given where credit is due. With the announcement of the "America's Prize" (I guess yet to be announced) a new round in the competition for going into space will soon be at hand. If you are correct about Space Ship One, that Burton Rutan can't get it (or a similar ship) into orbit, then it looks like Armadillo Aerospace and the Romanians are going to be much more in the running for that prize.

The ships from those two groups appear to be more upgradeable to make it to orbit, although I would have to agree that reentry issues have not been fully explored. Still, there are a number of private groups now that have working propulsion systems going, and have been at least sending things up a few hundred feet, if not more, and are dealing with scalability issues as well.

I appreciate the fact that the X-Prize has set the tone of the current attitude toward space exploration. While it is more than likely driving nails into the coffin of NASA, there is much more to what is happening in the space industry than even cute rocket stunts. And don't think the big aerospace companies aren't paying attention to what is going on either.

Right now the rocket industry is in a renasannce that looks very much like the early days of the automobile industry or the early aviation industry. There are a couple of very well financed companies (like XCOR, for example) that I would be surprised if they went belly up, but still anything is possible. Boeing certainly struggled in their early days when they were first starting out, and it was a construction team smaller than Armadillo Aerospace, with far less financial backing.

I predict that private commercial space enterprises (like Virgin Galactic) will be within 10 years bringing in more cashflow than the entire computer industry. One reason in particular is because there is much more room to grow into space than there is for the computer industry to penetrate into 3rd World nations. Private space companies "going public" will be the next darling on Wall Street, and will create the next round of Billionaires for those who are getting in right now.