The Rutan SpaceShipOne Revealed 404
smartalix writes "Burt Rutan's company, Scaled Composites, announced that they have been developing a commercial manned space program in secret for the past two years. The system consists of a carrier vehicle called the White Knight and a piggyback (actually underslung) orbital spaceplane called SpaceShipOne. My money is on this effort capturing the X Prize." Well, it's pretty, whatever it is. Space.com has a story with pictures for those of you who weren't quick enough to hit scaled.com before it melted.
Whahhh? (Score:3, Funny)
Hmm (Score:2, Funny)
Mirror... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Hmm (Score:3, Informative)
Watch out for the patents (Score:3, Funny)
-bort
Re:Watch out for the patents (Score:2)
Re:Watch out for the patents (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Watch out for the patents (Score:2)
Above 50km, it would be "SpaceForce 1".
Re:Watch out for the patents (Score:3, Funny)
Riding a Plane - Air Force One
Hmmmm... I guess by this logic, it would be "Laura Bush One" when he's riding... ummm... well... nevermind.
Mirrors? (Score:2)
In space... (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, I get it.... (Score:3, Funny)
Damn, Burt Rutan is a genius.....
In Secret? (Score:3, Interesting)
I could understand the secrecy if they wanted to develop the whole thing first to avoid the vaporware critiques, and then bam they come out with a ready-to-use orbiter, man that'd be sweet huh? But why announce in the middle of it? Need funding? Sick of keeping it quiet? Poor planning? Any ideas?
Re:In Secret? (Score:5, Insightful)
Essentially Rutan is going 'Look at what I built, we're going to launch this for the X-Prize and none of you can HOPE to catch up'
The only things they have left are flight tests with the rocket suite. The White Knight is working and has flown some test flights... It's the SS1 that need some flight time before the X-Prize attempt.
It'll be interesting to see what XCor does in response to this.
Re:In Secret? (Score:2)
Return Ticket (Score:3, Funny)
A more advanced race was visiting a planet with a primitive culture, slightly pre-industrial age. They had rules of involvement based on the advancement of the culture they were contacting. One of the thresholds of the involvement levels was space travel capability.
So the locals tossed a man into what was the equivelant of a diving bell, set it on a powder keg and blew it into space. They then went to the representative of
Re:Return Ticket (Score:3, Informative)
King David's Spaceship (Jerry Pournelle)
Re:In Secret? (Score:2)
It's neat to see that they've already done some rocket testing and all, but why announce now after two years when they don't even have a full scale version done? What did they get by waiting to announce?
They probaly wanted to make sure the concept wasn't flawed before they announced it - running a few subscale tests and so on - and then announce it before they went and build the real deal. Because if they didn't announce it before they build and launch it, because if they didn't a lot of people would ca
Re:In Secret? (Score:3, Insightful)
Probably they have reached the stage of testing where the tests can't be hidden anymore. When they send piggyback aircraft up and start separation tests, it's going to be pretty obvious what they're working on.
He also makes it clear in the space.com article that he is not looking for funding.
Re:In Secret? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:In Secret? (Score:5, Insightful)
The man said that this was "flight hardware". That means it's the actual vehicle that is going to do the mission.
He said he wasn't soliciting money.
It's still undergoing flight tests, but they're full-up hardware in the loop tests. Rutan is not going to make an X-Prize attempt before he's actually done it successfully more than once outside the scrutiny of the public (and the judges).
It's a PR stunt, yes...but for somebody who actually knows something about things that go up in the air (that'd be me) it's pretty fucking impressive.
A rutan? Dr Who was real! (Score:5, Funny)
Aha! Finally, it is revealed that the rutan landing at Fang Rock [bbc.co.uk], from Dr Who [bbc.co.uk], was in fact real event! The truth can come out.
Re:A rutan? Dr Who was real! [worst episode ever] (Score:2)
Tom Baker definatly was a good doctor, but you've caught him at his worst. Well, perhaps not the worst, there was that time his herpes was showing.
The design shows some imagination (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The design shows some imagination (Score:4, Interesting)
Tom Swift would no doubt be proud of the resumption of US (and other world) efforts to open up space to everyman.
Rutan history (Score:3, Interesting)
It too looked futuristic, like nothing else.
It was a disaster. Overpriced, noisy, slow, fuel hog...
Only like 60 were ever built, half of them never sold, and most of the rest were quickly returned. If you walk around the plant airport, you can find them hidden in clusters of 3 (so it doesn't look as bad as a boneyard of 50
Burt made off with a small fortune before the failure became apparent.
Rutan's bro
Re:Rutan history (Score:4, Insightful)
Overpriced comes from poor cost control, not poor design.
Noisy slow fuel hog comes from poor engine design and selection.
The Starship was a great design that turned into a mediocre aircraft. Burt Rutan has a long history of brilliant, successful aircraft designs.
Re:Rutan history (Score:3, Insightful)
However, living in Wichita at the time, I knew several of the aero engineers who were working on the project. Without exception, they said the plane was horribly flawed - before it was even finished.
Sure, the engines may have been part of the problem, but they were a small part. The main problem was the whole design. Putting the engines _behind_ the plane on the wings where they did subjected the props to large amounts of turbulence. The eng
Re:Rutan history (Score:3, Insightful)
Frank Lloyd Wright made pretty buildings, but he was also famous for making things that weren't functional, and sometimes were just broken. His house on the waterfall is a classic example. The damn thing is falling over now because he valued pretty over solid design. (IIRC the engineer who built it told him
Re:Rutan history (Score:4, Insightful)
In a conventional layout, the horizontal tail generates lift in the downward direction, to balance the center of gravity, which for stability reasons is located ahead of the lift vector of the main wing. Therefore, the main wing must generate enough lift to carry the aircraft, and enough lift to offset the downward force from the tail. This extra lift also creates extra induced drag. (Any time you create lift, you also create drag. No getting around it.)
Since the canard locates lifting surfaces at either end of the airplane, with the CG in the middle, both surfaces can generate lift in the upward direction. Less lift overall is required.
Properly designed canard aircraft are also extremely resistant to stalling. Since the canard is typically shorter in chord than the main wing, it will stall first and bring the nose of the airplane down.
Rutan has built two aircraft that have been resounding public successes (the Vari-EX homebuilt and its derivatives and the Voyager), and numerous military prototypes. Just for fun, he designed his personal aircraft (the Boomerang) to be completely asymmetrical.
The thing that I love about aero. engineering is that aircraft that are properly designed also, by virtue of the laws of nature that drive their shape, have an aesthetic sensibility to them. So, in that sense, it IS about the thing being pretty. Obviously, there's more to it than that, but there is a fundamental aesthetic to good aerodynamic design.
Rutan also has a history of extreme lateral thinking when solving aerodynamic problems. Unlike most designers, he throws the history book out the window when he builds a new airplane, and he often comes up with insightful and clever new layouts in the process.
The Pond Racer was another favorite of mine, but its engines were problematic. Unfortunately, it crashed in 1993, killing its pilot. Air racing is dangerous.
How about borrowing from German ideas? (Score:5, Informative)
Late in World War II, the Junkers company built a number of specially-modified Ju 88 bombers that had a large explosive warhead fitted in place of the four-man cockpit. Junkers fitted special brace mounts on top of this modified Ju 88 so accommodated a small fighter like an Me 109G or Fw 190A series fighter airplane. The whole composite flying unit (called Mistel) was guided by the pilot in the fighter until near the final dive into the target, where the fighter separated from the Ju 88 to escape while the bomber flew straight into the target. Mistel was used late in World War II, though its success was marginal at best.
Very late in World War II, engineers at Daimler-Benz took the idea of Mistel to the next level with their A composite flying machine project proposal. It was essentially a large jet-powered airplane with relatively tall fixed undercarriage that had a smaller jet powered bomber slung underneath. This allowed the smaller bomber to fly much further than possible, since the smaller bomber didn't need to consume fuel on the way to the target.
Essentially, the Rutan SpaceShipOne unveiled today uses the same technological ideas pioneered on the Daimler-Benz A project, but with modern aerospace materials and engines the whole composite flying unit is vastly lighter than the German project.
Just FYI. =)
Re:How about borrowing from German ideas? (Score:3, Informative)
here's an idea. (Score:2, Funny)
Picture of SpaceShipOne (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=8
Dyna Soar Projects (Score:3, Informative)
Burt Rutan and "Kelly" Johnson (Score:2)
Good work and good luck!
Fuel (Score:5, Funny)
Laughing gas, tire rubber, and flames! A recipe for hilinks!!
Re:Fuel (Score:5, Informative)
It's very interesting that they actually used tire rubber for the following reason:
While explaining the rocket to everyone, I mentioned that our particular rocket uses acrylic as the fuel because it looks cool (ie: transparent) and that in industry, they would use something similar to tire rubber. Not really surprised it was used here... it's just cool that we were dead on.
Nitrous Oxide... that's interesting. We used pure oxygen. Wonder what kind of extra boost the Nitrous gives you.
On to some more pertinent information:
Hybrid rockets are hybrid because they use a fluid oxydizer and a solid fuel.
With a solid rocket engine (both components solid), you can't stop the thing. Once you light it, it'll burn til it runs out of its fuel/oxydizer mix. Whereas with a fluid (aka: liquid) rocket, you can shut it off. Unfortunately, you also have a lot of moving parts.... which are bad.
A hybrid rocket is the best of both worlds. You can shut it off, but it has half as many moving parts as a fluid rocket.
Cool stuff. Though I think their version can outpower our whimpy 8 lbs. thrust engine.
Re:Fuel (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Fuel (Score:4, Informative)
would be more effective (they have been used in Titan rockets), but the high toxicity/corrosivity of these is serious trouble.
The most thrust/weight ratio could be obtained with ozone/oxygen mix (which is spectacularily nasty and explosive), then the next best oxidant is oxygen difluoride. (Another nasty boy, potentialy useful as chemical warfare agent)
Back Into Hiding (Score:5, Interesting)
>
>Rutan said that after today, plans call for his group to go "back into hiding," to complete the flight tests and conduct the space flights.
I don't blame him. If I threatened doom for six billion dollars a year of NASA Shuttle Pork, I'd want to be in hiding, too! :)
Burt - you rock. You rock in the way that NASA used to rock. You rock in the way most NASA engineers would love to be allowed to rock.
No matter what NASA does to try and shut you down, please don't stop.
Re:Back Into Hiding (Score:3, Interesting)
Classic. I'm sure there's a nasa engineer out there somewhere paraphrasing the words of Homer Simpson
"I used to rock and roll all night, and party every day, then it was every other day, and now I'm lucky if I can find one night per week with which to get funky."
The quote that thrilled me the most in the article though was that Mssr. Rutan and co. were not looking for addit
Re:Back Into Hiding (Score:3, Informative)
You have to be a little careful regarding Faget and the shuttle, given that his short winged 'DC-3' design was on the losing side of the compromise with the Air Force regarding the shuttle's cross range capability. Additionally, the DC-3 looked like it would have suffered from severe heating and aerodynamic instability problems on re-entry. Unlike the Mercury/Apollo era, where Faget's word was the only word, industry pushed back with their own spacecraft designs for the shuttle program and
Re:Back Into Hiding (Score:5, Insightful)
In a perfect world, yes.
In the real world, when Congress tells NASA that due to the availability of a $10M launch platform, (as opposed to the $500M Shuttle) that NASA's launch budget is being cut by 98%, NASA cares very much.
In the real real world, when $CONTRACTOR tells $LOBBYIST to tell $CONGRESSMAN that the existence of a $10M launch platform threatens $100M per year of funding for jobs in his district, Rutan has to be very careful. Not so much of NASA, or evil Men-In-Black conspiracy theories, but of the FAA and other legal roadblocks that Congress can put up to stop him in order to keep the pr0k a flowin'.
Re:Back Into Hiding (Score:3, Insightful)
I was about to say "Mexico, Brazil, or Australia, sure, maybe French Guinea or whatever, but never Canada", because Canada's nowhere near (nor does own any land near) the equator.
But now that you mention it, it's a piggyback vehicle based on an airplane! If the ca
Re:Back Into Hiding (Score:3, Insightful)
That works for computers. But as an analogy betwee
Contact (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Contact (Score:2)
That's some fuel! (Score:5, Funny)
Burning rubber to orbit, laughing all the way? (Yeah yeah, it's sub-orbital -- for now.)
Re:That's some fuel! (Score:3, Interesting)
Amusing, but on a more serious note, didn't anyone find the following just the least bit suspicious?
"Benson said the company's motor design is thought to be the largest of its type in the world. It uses clean and inexpensive propellants, namely Nitrous Oxide (Laughing Gas) and HTPB (tire rubber)."
Burning rubber is -incredibly- toxic. Note the pictures of the rocket firing? Lots of yellow flame(meaning low-temperature, incomplete combustion- watch the s
Text of main page (Score:3, Interesting)
Scaled Composites today unveiled the existence of a commercial manned space program. This previously hidden, active research program has been in the works at its facility for two years. This program includes an airborne launcher (the White Knight), a space ship (SpaceShipOne), rocket propulsion, avionics, simulator and ground support elements.
Master of Ceremonies, Cliff Robertson, introduced Burt Rutan who explained the history and the components of the program. Other dignitaries who attended the event were Dr. Maxim Faget (pioneer configuratioin designer of the early NASA space program from the Mercury through the Apollo programs), Erik Lindbergh (grandson of Charles Lindbergh and President of the Lindbergh Foundation), and Dennis Tito (Soyuz space tourist).
Further information about the space program and high-resolution photographs are available at the Scaled Composites website: www.scaled.com.
very sci fi looking .. no ? (Score:4, Funny)
Whenever I look at the entries for this competition I can't help but wonder why they all have this sci fi look to them. ie something out of start trek. I always have this image of some guy of a err more feminine persuasion flailing his hands and going " it justht doesnt look spathy enough.... more spathy people
Capabilities of space craft... (Score:5, Insightful)
From the XPrize site:
- able to carry three people to 100 kilometers (62.5 miles)
- Returns safely to Earth (duh)
- Repeats the launch with the same ship within 2 weeks
While the article notes a higher performance level:a three-person single-stage fully reusable spaceship up to 112 miles (180 kilometers), giving those onboard some five minutes of microgravity. In addition, two-stage expendable boosters could be lobbed skyward from the aircraft, placing micro-satellite payloads of up to 80 pounds (36 kilograms) into low Earth orbit.
So we're talking about a total 700 pound payload including crew, capable of traveling to low earth orbit, where many satellites travel. I wonder if you exchanged a crewman and the microsattelite payload, you might have enough fuel to de-orbit with a satellite (though you'd have to have a bay large enough to take it).
If nothing else, I can see a satellite repair / refueling service come out of this in no time. Seems like the next step is to deploy a ferry to LEO that can truck the payload to GEO and beyond.
Re:Capabilities of space craft... (Score:2)
Re:Capabilities of space craft... (Score:2)
Maybe you could just strap on a mini-SRB to get it to LEO. I guess the problem at that point would be the de-orbital burn. Anyhow, this could be an interesting system depending on how flexible the system is.
Re:Capabilities of space craft... (Score:2)
Having re-read this article, I'm strongly left with the impression that the craft cannot achieve orbit, at least in the standard configuration.
This one won't go to orbit (Score:4, Informative)
A manned orbital vehicle would have to have a completely different shape than the SpaceShipOne -- the rocket motor assembly would be more than 50x bigger than the passengers, rather than comparable to them in size. (For example, compare the boosters used for the Mercury/Redstone flights and the Mercury orbital flights).
Data From Web Site (Score:5, Informative)
Mojave, California, April 18, 2003:
Scaled Composites today unveiled the existence of a commercial manned space program. This previously hidden, active research program has been in the works at its facility for two years. This program includes an airborne launcher (the White Knight), a space ship (SpaceShipOne), rocket propulsion, avionics, simulator and ground support elements.
Master of Ceremonies, Cliff Robertson, introduced Burt Rutan who explained the history and the components of the program. Other dignitaries who attended the event were Dr. Maxim Faget (pioneer configuratioin designer of the early NASA space program from the Mercury through the Apollo programs), Erik Lindbergh (grandson of Charles Lindbergh and President of the Lindbergh Foundation), and Dennis Tito (Soyuz space tourist).
Further information about the space program and high-resolution photographs are available at the Scaled Composites website: www.scaled.com.
The FAQ
Frequently Asked Questions
VISION
What does Burt Rutan think of the other X-Prize designs?
Burt prefers to discuss this only after the X-Prize is won.
How long has Burt been working on all this?
The concept dates back to April 1996. Design work and some limited testing was started 3.5 years ago. The full development program began in May 2001.
What's going to be next in Burt's bag of tricks?
Scaled has completed 34 manned research aircraft and none were announced until they were ready to fly.
BUSINESS
How much does it all cost?
This is generally not known until the program is complete, but projections place it close to a Soyuz ride.
How much will it cost to get a ride into space?
Rides will not be offered in SpaceShipOne. The price of a ride will have to take in consideration the cost of certification and establishing an airliner-like operation. One goal of this research program is to see how low it might be without the burden of regulatory costs. At program completion we will have good data for operational costs and may publish them.
Is it physically stressful?
It is expected to be on the order of some modern theme park rides. The highest forces occur during reentry but build up gradually and peak near 6 G's for less than 10 seconds. With the pilot and passengers reclined, these forces should be quite tolerable for anyone in reasonable health.
Is Burt Rutan going to ride in the vehicle?
Yes, as soon as the opportunity presents itself.
WHITE KNIGHT
Why did the first flight last only 2 minutes?
The airplane had outboard spoilers on the wings to help improve roll control in the event of gusty cross wind landings. They were pneumatically actuated (using the same tanks, valves and fittings as the RCS system on SpaceShipOne) and returned to recesses in the wings by springs. On the first flight, the low air pressure, at rotation was sufficient to "suck" the spoilers out which killed the lift and caused the return springs to slam them closed. Four of these surfaces chattering out on the wingtips during the climb out produced significant airframe vibrations and the pilot elected to turn downwind and land immediately rather than aggravate the condition any longer than necessary.
How can you see where you're going?
The visibility is actually much better than you might imagine. By moving your head slightly you can piece together an acceptable picture of the outside world and maintain adequate "situational awareness". What is more difficult is spotting other airborne traffic. However, between radar advisories from ground controllers and an onboard traffic alert system called "Skywatch," this limitation is minimized.
Isn't it hard to land with all those wheels?
No. The pilot doesn't notice that he has two nose wheels up front and with excellent elevator control
he can hold them off until about 45 knots during the landing roll.
Why is the cockpit called a "pressure vessel"?
The cockpit is airtight and
World's most BORING spaceship name! (Score:2, Interesting)
I mean, 'SpaceShip One'? Guy, intercaps are *so* dotcom-era...
Burt Rutan vs. John Carmack? (Score:5, Insightful)
Comparing pictures, you see:
Armadillo Aerospace Launch Vehicle [armadilloaerospace.com]
vs.
Scaled Composites aircraft and drop ship [space.com]
Perhaps one of the issues is that Armadillo publishes their status (and myriad problems) openly (see the latest update [armadilloaerospace.com] for example). No one knows what issues Scaled Composites has had as they worked in secret, but it's easy to feel like Rutan's running a professional company while Carmack is leading a group of (brilliant, talented) hobbyists.
I'd be interested in hearing Armadillo/Carmack's perspective on the competitive landscape, now that this new player has made an announcement.
Re:Burt Rutan vs. John Carmack? (Score:5, Informative)
I don't expect that they will make any flights to 100km this year, but I can certainly be proven wrong...
I am quite happy with our current design, and we are committed to following through irrespective of what Rutan does. Even if he makes it, we have a different ecological niche in terms of vehicle capabilities -- our entire launch infrastructure can be towed by a light truck, and launched from anywhere. If he does win the X-Prize before us, we will ditch the monopropellant propulsion system and move to something more cost effective (at the expense of more development time) for the long term. We may be forced to do that anyway, if our peroxide situation doesn't resolve itself.
John Carmack
Re:Burt Rutan vs. John Carmack? (Score:3, Informative)
We may be forced to do that anyway, if our peroxide situation doesn't resolve itself.
Have you looked into this guy [tecaeromex.com]? It looks like he has Peroxide concentrators ready to go. I think you bought one of his engines, didn't you?
It might not be a high volume, long-term solution, but it might at least get you flying again.
This thing really burns rubber... (Score:3, Funny)
no... really! (read the article)
Wierdest fuel I've ever heard of!
Just like Firestar by Michael F. Flynn (Score:4, Interesting)
I still like XCOR's design... (Score:4, Interesting)
anyone else notice this? (Score:3, Interesting)
You cant keep good engineers down (Score:3, Interesting)
Note that Max Faget is involved in this endeavor. He is widely recognized as being responsible for the basic configuration of the Space Shuttle when he was with NASA. I met him once years ago when I was working on the Space Station. He was involved in the then termed Assured Crew Return Vehicle (ACRV), the lifeboat, I don't know what they are calling it now. You could really sense the frustration in him in the system and how he really wanted to have another oppurtunity to build something. Looks like he found another chance!
Re:You cant keep good engineers down (Score:5, Funny)
Never in a thousand years could I imagine a worse name to grow up with. His school years must make prison look like playschool.
Re:You cant keep good engineers down (Score:4, Informative)
However, to be fair, after the DC-3 battle, Faget's team did have the crucial insight that the external tank could serve a structural function as the backbone of the shuttle stack, instead of just hanging off it, and their MSC-040 orbiter design was the baseline for the production orbiters.
Now that the Rutans have space supremacy (Score:3, Funny)
Rocket nozzle is faked. (Score:5, Insightful)
The 3/4 front view that's posted in the article appears to have a real "not-for-flight" mockup nozzle, but the shape and color are different than the rear-view photos. The rocket nozzles in the rear-view shots have clear cut-and-paste artifacts around them.
It's arguably OK to have a mockup nozzle -- it's a longstanding convention that red "not-for-flight" mockup parts get put on during construction and design, and there's no reason to have the real rocket motor on the device for an aerodynamic flight test. But photoshopping a more realistic nozzle is not OK.
Burt, burt, burt -- don't blow it like that!
Re:Rocket nozzle is faked. (Score:3, Insightful)
I am disappointed that any agency seeking credibility would do that. But time will tell the merits of their work.
robi
Re:Rocket nozzle is faked. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Rocket nozzle is faked. (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact the first picture seems to be an altered version of the second picture. What's different:
- The rocket nozzle.
- In the first pic SpaceShipOne is mated to the launcher, in the second pic SpaceShipOne is resting on it's own landing gear.
- In the second pic the launcher does not have it's jet engines installed (in fact those jet engines are not installed in any of the ground based pictures I've seen except the first pic).
What's the same:- The shadows are in exactly the same positions (so the pictures where taken at the same time of day, to within a few minutes).
- The cracks in the ground are exactly the same so the vehicles have been places in the same position, despite major work having been performed (the jet engines, the mating superstructure).
- The backgrounds are identical, right down to another vehicle on the tarmac obscured in exactly the same way by the landing gear on the right. All the other planes in the background are also in the same locations.
IMO, the picture of the mated vehicles has been faked from the picture of the separate vehicles. SpaceShipOne's landing gear has been removed (suspiciously leaving no hatch for it to emerge from), the mating superstructure has been added, and the launcher's jet engines have been added. I can only imagine this has been done to make it appear that they are further advanced than they actually are.Busted! (Score:3, Insightful)
Well spotted!
Re:Beam me up SCOTTY! (Score:5, Funny)
And to all those folks who say it's an "ugly aircraft", they need to remember that it's a *spacecraft*. And it's actually *two* craft.
Although I think the paintjob is ugly. Paint a red maple leaf on it or something, it would look way better.
Re:Beam me up SCOTTY! (Score:2)
I assume you are talking about the black circles around the front? I have a feeling that these are RCS thrusters and windows -- although the webserver died before I could investigate any further.
Re:Beam me up SCOTTY! (Score:2)
Re:Flamebait... (Score:3, Interesting)
I mean, we have millions of square kilometers of uninhabited land (and some of it is even liveable!), we don't really need to colonize.
Re:Beam me up SCOTTY! (Score:2)
obCartman: "Fuck you. Don't call me Canadian."
It looks to me like (Score:2)
Re:Beam me up SCOTTY! (Score:2)
Actually, in a fairly real sense, it's 3 craft. Both stuck together, each on their own.
The question is whether all three craft will work as designed. It looks good though.
ugly space plane (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:mirrors? (Score:2)
Extremly fast
Re:Can I get the prize? (Score:2)
Unless you managed to shoot three people into orbit with it..... Then you would have to blow up another heater (and three more people) within two weaks
Jeroen
And the FAQ: (Score:4, Informative)
VISION
What does Burt Rutan think of the other X-Prize designs?
Burt prefers to discuss this only after the X-Prize is won.
How long has Burt been working on all this?
The concept dates back to April 1996. Design work and some limited testing was started 3.5 years ago. The full development program began in May 2001.
What's going to be next in Burt's bag of tricks?
Scaled has completed 34 manned research aircraft and none were announced until they were ready to fly.
BUSINESS
How much does it all cost?
This is generally not known until the program is complete, but projections place it close to a Soyuz ride.
How much will it cost to get a ride into space?
Rides will not be offered in SpaceShipOne. The price of a ride will have to take in consideration the cost of certification and establishing an airliner-like operation. One goal of this research program is to see how low it might be without the burden of regulatory costs. At program completion we will have good data for operational costs and may publish them.
Is it physically stressful?
It is expected to be on the order of some modern theme park rides. The highest forces occur during reentry but build up gradually and peak near 6 G's for less than 10 seconds. With the pilot and passengers reclined, these forces should be quite tolerable for anyone in reasonable health.
Is Burt Rutan going to ride in the vehicle?
Yes, as soon as the opportunity presents itself.
WHITE KNIGHT
Why did the first flight last only 2 minutes?
The airplane had outboard spoilers on the wings to help improve roll control in the event of gusty cross wind landings. They were pneumatically actuated (using the same tanks, valves and fittings as the RCS system on SpaceShipOne) and returned to recesses in the wings by springs. On the first flight, the low air pressure, at rotation was sufficient to "suck" the spoilers out which killed the lift and caused the return springs to slam them closed. Four of these surfaces chattering out on the wingtips during the climb out produced significant airframe vibrations and the pilot elected to turn downwind and land immediately rather than aggravate the condition any longer than necessary.
How can you see where you're going?
The visibility is actually much better than you might imagine. By moving your head slightly you can piece together an acceptable picture of the outside world and maintain adequate "situational awareness". What is more difficult is spotting other airborne traffic. However, between radar advisories from ground controllers and an onboard traffic alert system called "Skywatch," this limitation is minimized.
Isn't it hard to land with all those wheels?
No. The pilot doesn't notice that he has two nose wheels up front and with excellent elevator control
he can hold them off until about 45 knots during the landing roll.
Why is the cockpit called a "pressure vessel"?
The cockpit is airtight and the air is not freely exchanged with the outside air. So like a submarine the structure must be able to withstand large forces due to the pressure differential. In the case of this vehicle, there is high pressure air inside compared to the near vacuum outside.
How do you keep the air breathable?
There are three components to keeping the cockpit environment suitable for flight. One, oxygen needs to be added at a small rate for that used by breathing. This is done with a small bottle carried in the cabin. Two, the carbon dioxide from the exhaled air needs to be removed and this is done by means of a substance called "Sodasorb". Finally, the humidity is controlled by another substance called "3X"that removes water vapor, keeping the cabin cool and dry.
Have there been any surprises during flight test?
Right from the start the White Knight has been one of Scaled's best handling aircraft. It has good control harmony and is surprisingly responsive for a large airplane. Despite its high wing,
Re:cheap access to space (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:....what the hell..... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:....what the hell..... (Score:2)
The 'immense forces' you're refering to is probaly the G-forces of acceleration.. so if you cut back on trust and instead prolonged the burn, you would end up with the same amouth of enegry delivered to the craft with lot less stress involed. You don't need to be a rocket-scientist to know that, but it helps.
For most things spacerelated, visit Encyclopedia Astronautica [astronautix.com].
Re:....what the hell..... (Score:5, Informative)
Your example of going 1mph all the way to "orbit" doesn't work 'cause you won't *be* in orbit at 1mph. Being in space and being in orbit are two very different things.
Re:....what the hell..... (Score:2)
Joe
Re:....what the hell..... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:....what the hell..... (Score:5, Informative)
You are also confused. Escape velocity is the velocity at which an object with no attached propulsion needs to be launched from the surface of Earth in order that the object will never fall back down to the surface due to Earth's gravity. Often explained as the velocity need for an object to reach infinite distance from another object.
It is true that you won't be orbitting at 1mph. However, if you consider the the velocity vector that is perpendicular to the Earth's surface, it is most certainly possible to reach orbit with a vertical velocity of only 1mph. Not fuel-efficient, of course.
Re:....what the hell..... (Score:3, Informative)
Escape Velocity is what's required to escape the earth's gravity.
Reaching Earth Orbit is NOT escaping earth's gravity.
Re:....what the hell..... (Score:2)
Re:....what the hell..... (Score:2, Funny)
When it's a couple inches from my back, I don't really distinguish between exploding and burning really fast.
"He didn't technically EXPLODE, Jim, he just burned to cinders very quickly..."
Re:Ho Hum. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Things that make you go hmmm.. (Score:4, Interesting)
And in typical Rutan fashion, it'll probably work perfectly the first flight, and cost less than 1/10th what NASA could do it for
Interesting story:
I attended a lecture Burt gave last year (at Oshkosh Airventure 2002) and he was talking about the Proteus. They were involved in an air quality experiment. There were several layers of airplanes in a vertical stack -- the Proteus was assigned the 65,000ft layer, and a NASA U2 was given the 68,000ft assignment. The U2 (which was only flying 3000ft above the Proteus) had a full maintenance crew of 40. The Proteus came with a crew of 2! Rutan stated that they spent most of their day on the ground, playing cards and waiting for the U2 crew to finish maintenance....
Re:Things that make you go hmmm.. (Score:3, Interesting)
As I recall when the U2 was on the boards, they had to practially reinvent the wheel just to keep it from bursting at their mission altitude.
Rutan simply capitalized on the work that Lockheed's Skunk Works team did and took it a step higher and further, with fewer nuts to take care of the bird..
Of course, you gotta remember, the U2 IS a government aircraft so there is some beraucracy behind it..
If it was stil