Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

Diamandis Predicts X-Prize Winner Within One Year 189

Posted by CmdrTaco from the wear-a-hardhat dept.
drix writes "Things are moving along for the X-Prize. The FAA is currently in the process of approving a launch site for competitors, several of which are set to launch "within the next few months." Perhaps most exciting, Peter Diamandis says he expects a winner within one year."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Diamandis Predicts X-Prize Winner Within One Year More

Diamandis Predicts X-Prize Winner Within One Year

Comments Filter:
  • Or do they have to come down as well?
  • I'd like to go. It'll be a blast.
  • From my dad's dealings with NASA, and from my own experiences with the kinds of robust computer systems involved, I think it would truly be an accomplishment for any private enterprise to successfully launch into space, do something productive, and potentially come back, manned or unmanned. It is just remarkably difficult to get things into space!

    • Re:And space exploration is not easy! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by GileadGreene ( 539584 ) on Tuesday September 30, 2003 @10:22AM (#7093732) Homepage
      Damn! Better alert Boeing (the Delta series and others), and Lockheed Martin (the Atlas series and others), and Orbital Sciences (Pegasus and Taurus), and let them know how amazing it would be for a private enterprise to succesfully launch into space and do something productive. Last time I checked, none of them are government departments.

      The key question is whether or not it's possible for privately funded groups to get things into space. Right now every successful launch vehicle program that I'm aware of has been funded by a government. Which has led many people to believe that it costs so much to build a launch vehicle that only a government could afford it. Personally, having observed government space orgs an action, I'm more prone to believe that because launch vehicles have been government funded they cost a lot to build. Hopefully the X-prize guys, and groups like Elon Musk's SpaceX [spacex.com] can validate that belief for me.

      • Well, that much is obvious. NASA's just the best excuse Johnson could come up with for giving everybody in Texas free money.

        It's not that it's so expensive to build a rocket, I mean, look at the French, but that there's only so much stuff that anybody wants to toss up there. Sure, Lockheed could make something that could dump your satilite on Mars, but nobody wants that. They've got NASA stuff laying around that can do anything anybody wants, so there's no reason to build anything new.

        If you're doing 3
        • Hypersonic jets did try to come into their own commercially, but conventional sub-sonic jets (like a Boeing 747 or a DC-10) have pretty much been "good enough" compared to the huge expenses of running a plane like the Concorde. Not to mention that environmental issues and other legal BS that is holding such planes from being developed. About the only routes that it was legal to fly the Concorde was between London, New York, and Paris. Liability issues is what finally killed the Concorde.

          In regards to co
    • Don't forget the age-old adage about space travel :
      "To make a small fortune in the space business, start with a large one."
    • I think it would truly be an accomplishment for any private enterprise to successfully launch into space, do something productive, and potentially come back, manned or unmanned.

      Indeed. This competition is to get into space, but it does not require LEO. Thus not much time can be spent in space. In order to spend significant time in space, they need to reach LEO, or even higher speed orbits, or in the extreme case, even higher speeds to reach escape velocity. This prize is a long, long, long way from d

    • Re:And space exploration is not easy! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Cosmonut ( 706410 ) on Tuesday September 30, 2003 @11:48AM (#7094510)
      No, actually, it's NOT difficult to get things into space; we've been doing it since 1957. Heck, we pretty much use the same techology now. The difficulty with space travel, I'm afraid, isn't technical, it's organizational.

  • start saving... (Score:3, Funny)

    by lanswitch ( 705539 ) on Tuesday September 30, 2003 @08:59AM (#7093039)
    and send Darl McBride up? We could make a community effort out of this.

  • Homebrew Satellites (Score:5, Interesting)

    by L-s-L69 ( 700599 ) on Tuesday September 30, 2003 @09:01AM (#7093050)
    Will these cheap and private enterprise driven launches lead to many more privately owned satellites in low earth orbit? Just wondering as this would have many very practical applications as well as leading to intense crowding in LEO. Just a thought.
    • Unfortunately, this is a long way from LEO capability. This is just vertically up to approximately the height of the lowest LEO possible and down again. For LEO, you need a massive amount of transversal velocity and, if you want to get back down again, to get rid of it afterwards. The first killed Challenger, the second Columbia.

      • Re:Homebrew Satellites (Score:4, Insightful)

        by GileadGreene ( 539584 ) on Tuesday September 30, 2003 @11:39AM (#7094440) Homepage
        Yeah, and the Wright Flyer could only stay off the ground for around 12 seconds on it's first flight. Stupid Wright brothers! What were they thinking? That their Wright Flyer might actually be the first (albeit small) step towards something much more capable?

        What killed Challenger was a stupid design that used solid motors on a manned vehicle, followed by an idiotic management decision to launch during weather conditions known to be outside the tolerance of said motors. What killed Columbia was a known design flaw that everyone ignored, and that probably could have been mitigated if the astronauts had (a) a better understanding of the problem (e.g. through recon satellite imaging), and (b) the ability to perform an EVA outside the cargo bay to evaluate the problem up-close-n-personal. I won't even get into whether or not the hole could have been patched - at a minimum they would have known that they shouldn't reenter, and could look for alternative options ("scramble" a shuttle? launch a couple of Soyuz capsules? ferry everyone to the station using Progress modules? Who knows what might have been tried?). Trying to claim that orbital flight won't work because NASA has saddled itself with an idiotic design is a stupid argument. The Russians seem to be doing ok on the manned front, and that's even with their well-known reputation for being a little "casual" on the safety stuff. Their system appears to be robust enough to allow them to be casual without generating casualities in the process.

        The problem with NASA is that they are a government program, which means they have to come up with the "one true solution" to everyone's problems, and make a launch vehicle that's all things to all people. The beauty of the X-prize is that we'll get to see a whole bunch of different approaches. Some will work. Some won't. But we'll learn something from both, and hopefully that will allow manned orbital craft to evolve in the same way that early aircraft evolved.

    • Crowding LEO? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by malakai ( 136531 ) *
      I don't think you appreciate the surface area of LEO. Are you worried about overcrowding the sea with wine corks?

      • Mod parent up insightful. Crowding LEO is something for them to worry about in 3003, not 2003.

      • Re:Crowding LEO? (Score:4, Informative)

        by GlassHeart ( 579618 ) on Tuesday September 30, 2003 @01:40PM (#7095737) Journal
        I don't think you appreciate the surface area of LEO. Are you worried about overcrowding the sea with wine corks?

        Yes, if the corks move at hundreds of miles per hour, and are each capable of sinking a ship on collision.

        Point is, while individual satellites are small, you cannot simply consider their size. If you were launching another vehicle through its orbit, and expect to cross it at exactly 5:03 pm plus or minus 10 minutes, then what you need to consider is an arc formed by the said satellite moving at high velocity for 20 minutes. Now repeat for each orbit you are likely to cross. A "crowded" orbit simply means that you have increasing difficulty scheduling a safe launch, because the overlapping arcs make your launch window very small. Finally, consider that satellites don't just orbit. Sometimes they fire their boosters to correct decays in their own orbit, each of which would throw off your timing somewhat. Consider also that while you may not care if your payload is destroyed in a collision, the US government might be rather irate if you destroyed a spy satellite of theirs, or bring down the International Space Station.

        But mainly, any such accident would be so expensive (mostly in terms of money, but sometimes in terms of human lives) that even if the risk of collision is low, any potential spacefarer must still be very careful. It is certainly worth far more attention (and NASA does track objects and debris in orbit) than corks in the ocean.

      • You don't only have to worry about physical crowding. Already Geosyncronous orbit is getting filled up because you need a certain minimum space between them to keep the radio signals from overlapping. Imagine millions of satelites, each able to see a huge swath of ground broadcasting at once. It could easily become overcrowded.
    • Will these cheap and private enterprise driven launches lead to many more privately owned satellites in low earth orbit? Just wondering as this would have many very practical applications as well as leading to intense crowding in LEO. Just a thought.

      I have the solution: satellite condoms.

  • And I predict not just yet.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JusTyler ( 707210 ) on Tuesday September 30, 2003 @09:02AM (#7093058) Homepage
    From statistics you can learn one thing. That is, whenever anyone claims something is definitely going to happen within a short time frame, it almost certainly won't.

    "Duke Nukem Forever will be out in time for Christmas 1999!" - 1999

    "Doom 3 will be out sometime next year." - 2002

    "By 1999, most homes will have access to broadband."

    But I'm not being pessimistic. I think the X Prize WILL be won within "the next decade." The promise is there, but I think the next year will contain a lot of launches, but a lot of mid-air explosions and failures too. It's natural, it happens in every industry.. software and hardware.
    • Doom three has to be worked on a lot because the "leaked" alpha got a bad reception compared to the Half Life Two "leaked" alpha. They claimed the Doom three leaked alpha was on medium settings, so I assume they now have to work very hard to get it to a standard where the highest setting at the moment are medium settings in the game.
      Most homes did have access to broadband by 1999 in the UK, with most being defined as more than 50%. Some places int eh Ukstill don't have broadband (I know, I live in one. The
    • "Doom 3 will be out sometime next year." - 2002

      Since one of the entrants for the X-prize is John Carmack [go.com], if things go wrong, then Doom 3 may never be finished.

      HH
      ---
    • The Slashdot fortune cookie had this to say when I viewed your comment--

      "The trouble with doing something right the first time is that nobody appreciates how difficult it was." -- Walt West
    • Whenever an expert claims something is definitely going to happen within a short time frame, it almost certainly won't.

      And conversely, when they say something won't happen within a long time frame, it almost certainly will.

      Sorry, but I can't remember the correct attribution for this observation - some SF writer no doubt. Perhaps another ./er remembers who?

    • Personally I'm fairly certain that one of the groups will get into space successfully, though getting back in one piece will be questionable, and being able to do it again in 2 weeks will be near out of the question.

  • Scaled Composites (Score:5, Interesting)

    by fudgefactor7 ( 581449 ) on Tuesday September 30, 2003 @09:02AM (#7093061)
    Right now, it's a clear lead for Scaled Composites, at 57%, according to the poll. I admit, I haven't followed this really closely--except for the occasional Armadillo story--but I think I'm going to have to look into Scaled Composites a bit more. Although it would be really cool to see Carmack win, I kind of doubt it will happen that way.
    • I'll be very surprised if Scaled doesn't win. Burt Rutan has tremendous experience with experimental aeronautical engineering. Their carrier aircraft is flying and they've done several successful gliding tests of the spacecraft, including a test of the "feathered" re-entry system. They have a safe, working rocket motor. I agree that it would be cool to see Carmack win, but I just don't think he's a match for Rutan.

      • Re:Scaled Composites (Score:3, Interesting)

        by MtViewGuy ( 197597 )
        I think it was obvious from the the start that once Burt Rutan's company unveiled its project it was going to be in the lead to win the X-Prize. =)

        Remember, when Scaled Composites unveiled the Proteus high-altitude airplane back in the mid 1990's everyone knew it wouldn't take much of a technological leap for the company to build an airplane that could launch something to very high altitudes soon afterward. Essentially, the White Knight carrier plane bases a lot of its technology on what Proteus pioneered.
        • What about a bet on who gets to space first? I guess I favor China, since they're just strapping a guy onto the tip of an ICBM. But, they also have a more difficult mission to fulfill. It would be weird if the next space race was between China, India, and American private enterprise. And, of course, NASA tooling around in the background, coming up with cool tech every once in a while.
          • China has said that Shenzhou 5, the next launch of the Shenzhou spacecraft, will likely carry a single taikonaut (Chinese for astronaut) some time this fall--probably in October. My guess is that the rocket with the Shenzhou spacecraft on top is in final assembly now and will be ready to launch by the third week of October 2003.

            Mind you, Shenzhou is not much more than a highly-modified and modernized Soyuz spacecraft, in my humble opinion.
  • A really big stain near the launch site. This isn't trying to fly across the English Channel by human power. This is a really super dangerous thing to try. Even with a budget of billions and thousands of super geeks, NASA still ends up with BBQ-ed astronauts. As much as I think the free market, private industry is superior to Government, NASA is one of those exceptions. I hope these guys kiss their loved ones before punching the button. It will most likely be the last thing they do.

    • Re:I predict something else... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by The G ( 7787 ) on Tuesday September 30, 2003 @09:20AM (#7093192)
      As the article notes, it is quite likely that someone will die in this endeavor. But private -- the first step to ubiquitous -- space flight is a cause worth risking, and losing, one's life for. If I were given the opportunity, I would accept in an instant.

      Our society has lived for 110 years without a frontier, and in that time we have forgotten that there are things more important than human life -- that there are risks worth taking. Living without a frontier has sapped our courage, our will to freedom, and our sense of proportion. But frontiers aren't opened without pain and loss and death. In the end, though, they're worth it, for what they do for us as individuals and for us as a civilsation, and that's as true of the next (never say final!) frontier as of the earthly ones.

      Beside the grandeur of the universe and the infinite potential that we unlock when we open it to humanity, what is life? A valuable and unique thing that we must stand ready to sacrifice for the dreams and goals that make humanity worth its place in the world. The last and most valuable coin we have to bet for one more step toward the ultimate prize: A wider and stranger and more glorious human universe.
      --G

      • Re:I predict something else... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Cid Highwind ( 9258 ) on Tuesday September 30, 2003 @11:18AM (#7094247) Homepage
        we have forgotten that there are things more important than human life -- that there are risks worth taking.

        Thank Jeebus someone else still feels that way.

        I have a simple answer for the "space travel is too dangerous" crowd: Don't do it. If you think flying into space is too much risk for the reward then you are welcome to stay on earth for the rest of your (hopefully long) life. However, please don't assume that everyone feels the same way you do, and when other people want to take extraordinary risks for what they think are extraordinary rewards, keep out of the way and let them do it!
    • A lot of people died in the pioneer days of aviation - and yet its largely thanks to those pioneers that we have (relatively) safe and cheap air transport for the masses today..
    • The scaled composites approach seems to be the one to bet on. The takeoff will be uneventuful, Burt has been building aircraft for so long, he knows what he is doing. The real problems will start at 50000 feet up when SS1 is dropped from the WK and ignites it's engine.

      • Re:I predict something else... (Score:5, Informative)

        by WolfWithoutAClause ( 162946 ) on Tuesday September 30, 2003 @09:47AM (#7093397) Homepage
        The real problems will start at 50000 feet up when SS1 is dropped from the WK and ignites it's engine.

        No, not really, it's a hybrid engine he's chosen. They're generally reckoned to be much simpler and far safer than the solid rockets that the Shuttle uses; even amateurs fairly regularly build them, and with generally good results. Provided he can keep it pointing in the right direction he should be fine.

        • Re:I predict something else... (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Eight 01 ( 614650 ) on Tuesday September 30, 2003 @11:48AM (#7094507)
          I'd bet on Rutan also for a first flight. However, Carmack may end up furthering the goals of the X-Prize more than Rutan.

          Carmack seems to be focusing on basic engine refinement - making engines cheaper to build and run. Getting mass into space isn't hard, it just requires a lot of money for the vehicle and the fuel. If he is as successful with this as he has been in refining 3D rendering algorhithms, his effect on space access will be profound.

    • you've got a 100% chance of dying someday.

      So what's worse - dying of Alzheimer's in some rathole nursing home never having achieved anything, or going out young taking a calculated risk to get yourself (and eventually humanity at large) off this rock?

  • X-Prize spaceport events.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by adeyadey ( 678765 ) on Tuesday September 30, 2003 @09:09AM (#7093116) Journal
    One interesting proposed idea was to turn these launches from spaceports into paid-entry "events" - with different competitors competing for the best performance etc. When you think about how much money is made in other racing events, this may not be such a bad way to make this technology pay..
    • One interesting proposed idea was to turn these launches from spaceports into paid-entry "events" - with different competitors competing for the best performance etc.

      For best viewing, I recommend a steel and concrete bunker, preferably in another state.

      Not sure I'd pay to be in the immediate vicinity when Salvage 1 goes on it's maiden voyage. I wish 'em well, but I'll watch the video tape, I think.

    • That's a sweet idea. PPV, HBO, what the heck. I bet you could make well over the million you'd win for the prize...

      Of course, it'd only be real successful for the first launch or two, then the sheen's off, you'd have to come up with something bigger:

      Fear Factor X-Prize! Joe Rogan's up there with some hottie in a skimpy white wife-beater, I can see it now...

  • Brink of a Revolution (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ChuckDivine ( 221595 ) * <charles.j.divine@gmail.com> on Tuesday September 30, 2003 @09:19AM (#7093184) Homepage

    I agree with Diamandis on this one. We are about to see the first vehicle not initially developed for government reach space. And, as the X-15 was a precusor to the space shuttle, I expect the X Prize contestants to be the precusors to a variety of orbital vehicles.

    Instead of a one size fits all vehicle, though, I expect to see various vehicles developed for various uses. We've learned the shortcomings of that approach.

    NASA predicts it will take a number of years to develop the OSP. If they do get bogged down in bureaucracy too much, they'll wind up losing that race to private entrepreneurs. That will radically change the way humanity does work in space.

    Even if all doesn't go well, I expect to see a broad range of humans boarding space ships before I die (probably 30 to 45 years from now).

  • Easy Challenge? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by delibes ( 303485 ) on Tuesday September 30, 2003 @09:20AM (#7093190)
    "Well, after all, it's hardly rocket science is it?"

    But seriously, these people are sending perhaps 1000kg (3 people + capsule) to 100km. They are *not* going into orbit. The "delta-vee" they need is a small fraction (1/10 at a guestimate?) of that needed to reach Low Earth Orbit. And still it might kill them - they've got guts and they want to prove it.

    • LEO: The Real Challenge (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Bearpaw ( 13080 )
      They are *not* going into orbit.

      I think this is important to note. Diamandis talks about this being comparable to Lindburgh's trans-atlantic in being "a mind-shift breakthrough", but I think he's wrong. While it will be a hell of an accomplishment, and may encourage more private efforts, I doubt that it will be a "mind-shift breakthrough" for the general public.

      I think most people will think of an private "edge of space" flight as mildly interesting, but probably not worth a mention at the neighborh

      • I think that Scaled Composites may be in the lead to get something into low Earth orbit (LEO), too.

        Remember, what SpaceShipOne demonstrates is only the beginning; what is learned from this vehicle could make it possible to build something that is launched on top of a modified 747 fitted with rocket motor within ten years, and such a vehicle will likely carry 4-6 astronauts into a high enough LEO to dock with the International Space Station. :-)
    • Delta V for a suborbital flight like that is about 2km/s compared to around 10km/s for an orbital flight; so it's about a factor of 5x less delta-v.

      • Sadly, that means a much more than 5x factor of difficulty to get to LEO.

        If you've achieved a 5x greater delta-v, that means a lot more friction (for longer, too) on the way back down... so, more thermal shielding which is more weight to carry up with you. Also, getting to LEO is a nice trick, but once you're there, you're going to want a little extra life support as well - because who wants to kick themselves out of LEO right after reaching it? So, far more weight, which means more fuel.

        I'm going to pu

        • I'm going to pull a number out of my ass and say that reaching LEO is 100x harder than a quick sub-orbital flight to the 'edge of space' despite only needing 5x more delta-v.

          I don't agree that it's one hundred times harder.

          The rocket equation suggest it's about ten times harder or anyway ten times as much fuel; but that probably very much overstates it- just because you need ten times as much fuel doesn't make it ten times harder; by the time you are returning from space safely you already have most of t

  • I have to wonder if the launch permit will be held up until NASA's shuttle flights resume? I also suspect that the launch permitting process will actually become more cumbersome and lengthy as these private space ventures start to succeed? Why? Because I don't think the government wants to be "shown up" by scrappy space entrepreneurs.

  • Great, but... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by allanj ( 151784 ) on Tuesday September 30, 2003 @09:26AM (#7093228)

    Even assuming he's right (and I think he's being a bit too optimistic), it will still be a LOOONG time before anyone does anything commercially viable in space. Only when someone figures out what endeavors in space that makes money we'll see real innovation to get there, driving down the cost immensely. Until then, it'll just be "space geeks" doing it just to prove it's possible.


    I know that space has been profitable for some (TV satellites, for instance), but MANNED spacecrafts have so far had such ridiculously high cost that any gain would be dwarfed by that cost. I know that's part of what the X-Prize is designed to remedy, but realisticly it will take "big business" to drive down the cost.


    So what can we get from manned spacecrafts that couldn't just as easily be handled by automated crafts? Science perhaps? Practically any form of production would be handled better by onboard robots, IMHO.

    • So what can we get from manned spacecrafts that couldn't just as easily be handled by automated crafts? Science perhaps? Practically any form of production would be handled better by onboard robots, IMHO.
      It can be sold as vacation to billionaires.
    • "I know that's part of what the X-Prize is designed to remedy, but realisticly it will take "big business" to drive down the cost."

      But, but, but BIG BUSINESS is EVIL!!! Any corporate conglomerate that digs its meat-hooks into space will surely do so on the backs of the people, and manage to destroy the interstellar environment in the process! And just like they exploit aliens here on earth, what's stopping them from enslaving aliens from other worlds?

      Don't you tell me there's something that the Geek C

    • Re:Great, but... (Score:2, Informative)

      by cosmicpossum ( 554246 )
      Tourism is a commercially viable business. Don't think that just because they are not orbiting communications satellites that there is no money to be made!

      If you had, oh say, $750K in your investment account wouldn't you be tempted to take a ride for $100K?


    • I know that's part of what the X-Prize is designed to remedy, but realisticly it will take "big business" to drive down the cost.
      Realisticly, if you wait for big business to make leaps in technology you'll be waiting a LONG time. Typically it's the little companies that make the giant leaps in technology, and then the big companies eventually get interested only after it's a proven concept. Yes, it takes big business to take a novel idea and make it cheap. But it takes a little business to risk trying

  • Cheap space transport? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by adeyadey ( 678765 ) on Tuesday September 30, 2003 @09:32AM (#7093265) Journal
    The X-Prize has proven that you dont need to spend huge amounts of money to get really promising technology on the road. Ok, it doesnt deliver the payload/height yet, but compare the $10 million against the $600 million per shuttle launch - and to be honest, I prepared to guess in the long term we will see more out of the X-Prize than the next Shuttle mission.. NASA are great at somethings, but genuine cheap space transport needs to come from a competitive commercial environment.

    • What's the payload breakdown? Let's see: shuttle can bring 65,000 lbs to LEO. http://shuttlepayloads.jsc.nasa.gov/flying/accomm o dations/payloadbay.htm At $600M, that's $10,000/lbs/LEO. How many pounds can one of the X-Prize ships bring up to LEO? 0. So what's the cost per pound to LEO? Infinity. Now if someone can point to a high-arc to LEO transfer vehicle that an X-Prize ship can use, then I'll be more impressed.

      Look, the X-Prize is a great thing, but it's competing with 1960 NASA, not 2003 NASA.

      • Oh sure, I dont think the X-Prize will yeild an immediate competitor to the Shuttle, or the best rockets come to that. For instance, the Atlas 551 [pair.com], as commissioned for the Pluto New Horizons [jhuapl.edu] mission in 2006, can lift 20.6 metric tonnes to LEO for a mere(!) $110 million. But even that is too expensive - what the Xprize could eventually deliver is the technology for what the Shuttle should have been - a genuine cheap reusable craft for LEO. When the Shuttle was first concieved, they were going to have 100 mis

  • Scaled Composites seems to be very close (Score:5, Informative)

    by johnjay ( 230559 ) on Tuesday September 30, 2003 @09:39AM (#7093328)
    Although I'm rooting for Armadillo Aerospace, I visited the Scaled Composites website [scaled.com] a few days ago. They seem to be very close to a successful launch. They've been doing all sorts of drop/glide tests of their spaceship, and they've seen a lot of success with those tests. Their crazy shuttle-cock decent seems to work fine. (This is especially amusing after all of the slashdot posts about how a winged successor to the space shuttle is the worst idea ever.) Also, they outsourced their engine construction which, seeing the kind of trouble Armadillo is having with their engines, might turn out to be a winning strategy.
    • holy rollercoaster ride, Batman -

      Link to Mission Log [scaled.com]

      Descent rates > 10000 ft/min!! ...they really mean "rock" stable. Look out 6 Flags!
    • Also, they outsourced their engine construction which, seeing the kind of trouble Armadillo is having with their engines, might turn out to be a winning strategy.

      It may be a losing strategy. They lose direct control over the design, test, and schedule of the engine. Last I checked, this was a pretty critical part, and it's also.. uh.. "rocket science". Hopefully the integration of the engine into the rest of the vehicle won't take too long.

      We won't really know how this works out until Scaled issues so

  • X-prize before Space Shuttle (Score:3, Insightful)

    by guacamolefoo ( 577448 ) on Tuesday September 30, 2003 @10:02AM (#7093527) Homepage Journal
    Perhaps most exciting, Peter Diamandis says he expects a winner within one year."

    I would love to see an X-Prize winner before regular space shuttle flights resume.

    GF.

  • A little Canadianism. ^_^ (Score:5, Informative)

    by MarvinMouse ( 323641 ) * on Tuesday September 30, 2003 @10:16AM (#7093645) Homepage Journal
    I know this is out of character for a Canadian, but I do have to say I have a soft spot for the Canadian Arrow project. http://www.canadianarrow.com

    I have been following it closely, and all of their tests have been reasonably successful, they have their astronaut team now, and they are almost done training. They've finished engine testing, and are even preparing for secondary business ventures when the project is complete (read "spacediving" on their page.)

    So currently now, I am just waiting for them to do their launch (which if I remember correctly from the latest clip of them on "Daily Planet" they were saying was going to be early to mid 2004, barring no complications.

    The Da Vinci project looks good as well, but I just haven't paid that much attention to it.

    Oh well, no matter what happens, hopefully this will get the publics attention, and these companies will continue development further into even more spaceworthy vehicles (ie orbital, etc.) with the money they make from tourism (Assuming they make money. ^_^)
    • Every time I get freaked out by the number of flags we stick all over everything down here, I just look at you guys and suddenly we don't look so bad.
      • Name: Canadian Arrow
      • Rocket: red and white
      • Capsule parachute: red and white
      • Rocket tail: Maple leaf pattern
      • Team uniform: reverse Maple leaf pattern
      • Policy for austronaut protraits: a flag from wherever they're from, and another Canadian flag for good measure

      Armadillo needs to get in on this. Replace the parachute with a giant inflatable Uncle Sam hat, pa

  • X-Prize This Year (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I've been following the X-Prize competition quite closely. There are two contenders that might win the X-Prize before this year's end: ScaledComposites [scaled.com] and CanadianArrow [canadianarrow.com]. I belive Burt Rutan has planned the prize's required second flight for this 13th December, just in time to celebrate one century of flight. Rutan's company seems to be the most advanced competitor (I'd bet real money they win the X-Prize), though the canadian team has that cool prospect of extreme skydiving [canadianarrow.com].

  • Rocket vs. Space Plane (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Yanray ( 686150 )
    This race is essentially becoming one of Rocket (Armidillo) vs. Spaceplane (Scaled). Might NASA take a hint from this in the developement of thier next generation of spacecraft. From my experience with American politics they are likely to try the one that has previously exploded in their face.
  • The X-Prize is an incredibly good idea, the perfect way to spur innovation and experimentation, but at the end of the day, I see ti as mostly a wash...I can't find the blurb on the X-Prize page, but IIRC they say they chose 62mi because it's accepted as being in space, but doesn't require any "exotic and expensive" heat shielding for reentry. Now, suborbital barnstorming is rad as hell, and a very neccessary step to orbit and beyond - but if we really want to commoditize true spaceflight, we're going to to
    • Altitude really is relatively meaningless (after the 100KM limit is reached - that altitude is useful for proving commercial ability to work in an airless environment -- rocket technologies, stabilization of the craft, etc). After you get into space, Orbital ALTITUDE doesn't matter so much as Orbital VELOCITY.

      you can get HIGH without having to go FAST. But you're still not in orbit. In order to orbit, you have to be going fast enough horizontally that you "miss" the Earth as you fall - you still fall, b
      • Yes yes yes, you're absolutely right, altitude and velocity are totally different - I was rolling them into one, assuming orbit at the specified altitude; I probably should have said >Shuttle orbit. My point still stands though, the X-Prize is a great first step, but it cuts out the real bear of spaceflight, at least assuming you don't want to make planetfall as a small, smoking cinder...
        • I guess I wasn't horribly clear either. I am agreeing with you. The Xprize is a great first step, but it's JUST the first step. I was just differentiating between altitude and LEO and specifically stating that once we hit 100KM, altitude doesn't matter anymore - the next step has to be LEO (and I was going into greater detail for the readers who get "going into space" confused with "orbiting" -- that seems to be a common occurrance)

          The BIGGEST obstacle the X-prize is useful for overcoming is the attitud
      • The really impressive feat to me with being able to reach this altitude (100 km) is that once you can achieve it, real engineers can continue to refine the concept through incremental adjustments to eventually become a true orbital vehicle. After the initial rush of getting to orbit, the next big push will be to see what kind of range they can get.

        From the articles, they are currently pushing for about a 35 mile range from launch site to landing site. I can see strong economic viability in trying to push

  • succesful drop tests (Score:5, Informative)

    by photonic ( 584757 ) on Tuesday September 30, 2003 @11:24AM (#7094309)
    The mission log [scaled.com] of Scaled Composites says they already did two succesful drop tests with the SpaceShipOne!
    The video cameras mounted on the spaceship recorded dramatic views particularly during the unique feather maneuver. Observers in the chase Starship were treated to a closeup bizarre view of the spaceship plunging downward in a rock-stable near vertical feathered descent. First public showings of these videos will be on 26 September at the annual SETP symposium in Los Angeles
    Anybody knows where to find those movies?
  • Is there an X-Prize 2 planned? Will all the teams that don't win still finish and launch their projects for the sake of accomplishment?

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close