Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

X-Prize Progress Update 154

Posted by michael from the wild-black-yonder dept.
savuporo writes "The X-Prize organization has released a summary document (PDF), detailing the recent progress and immediate plans of 13 different competing teams, of those who have publicised information of significant hardware development (there are a total of 27 officially listed competitors from seven nations by now). Some details: quite a few teams are expecting to do full-scale or subscale powered flight tests soon, some as early as January 2004. Burt Rutan can still be considered as leading the pack, but others are not too far behind, and the winner is far from certain. Armadillo Aerospace states that some US teams are hindered more by regulatory hassles, than technical issues. Speaking of Armadillo, the team has just released a very special video, commemorating tomorrow's 100th anniversary of powered flight."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

X-Prize Progress Update More

X-Prize Progress Update

Comments Filter:

  • Looking Forward to 2004 (pdf articles text) (Score:5, Informative)

    by glassesmonkey ( 684291 ) on Tuesday December 16, 2003 @06:46PM (#7740533) Homepage Journal

    TEAM: SCALED COMPOSITES
    WEBSITE: WWW.SCALED.COM
    TEAM LEADER: BURT RUTAN
    It is expected that the next six to nine months will involve a number of rocket powered flights of SpaceShipOne, with each flight involving a longer and longer burn of the hybrid engine. The first flight may be limited to a short 15- second burn, with later flights demonstrating the full 60+ second burn time bringing SpaceShipOne from 50,000 feet eventually to an altitude of 328,000 feet (62 miles...space!).


    TEAM: ARMADILLO AEROSPACE
    WEBSITE: WWW.ARMADILLOAEROSPACE.COM
    TEAM LEADER: JOHN CARMAC
    Immediately after completion of the engine test program, Armadillo will be testing a full scale boilerplate X PRIZE vehicle with a captive hover test at their 100-acre test facility, followed by some low altitude hover tests to 3,000 ft. With these tests completed, it's their intent to do some additional low altitude launches within the "amateur" classification (and they continue to work with FAA AST for a burn time waiver). The next phase of successively higher altitude tests and ultimately manned X PRIZE flights will be dependent on what the team calls its biggest challenge: the launch license application and accompanying environmental review. Technically, Armadillo claims they will be ready to fly X PRIZE missions well before the end of the year, but Team members are fond of referring to the Wernher von Braun quote: "We can lick gravity, but sometimes the paperwork is overwhelming." Challenges included, this Dallas based group of bicycle repair mechanics is relishing the prospect of an exciting 2004.


    TEAM: STARCHASER INDUSTRIES
    WEBSITE: WWW.STARCHASER.CO.UK
    TEAM LEADER: STEVE BENNETT
    With the Thunderstar and its new engines now in production, Starchaser plans to fly in 2004. The team has also announced that it will make its propulsion system available for sale to other X PRIZE contestants on a commercial basis.


    TEAM: CANADIAN ARROW
    WEBSITE: WWW.CANADIANARROW.COM
    TEAM LEADER: GEOFF SHEERIN
    Next steps for the team will include continued testing of the engine to prepare it for actual flight onboard the first Canadian Arrow spacecraft that is scheduled for launch next year. When successful, the Arrow will make Canada the fourth nation to put humans into space.


    TEAM: DA VINCI PROJECT
    WEBSITE: WWW.DAVINCIPROJECT.COM
    TEAM LEADER: BRIAN FEENEY
    Da Vinci Project celebrated the 100th anniversary of powered flight with a Technical conference and press evening on December 16th & 17th. Early in 2004 da Vinci Project hopes to receive its license to launch from the Canadian Government and begin a sequence of test flights culminating in an series of flights to win the X PRIZE.


    TEAM: PABLO DE LEON & ASSOCIATES
    WEBSITE: WWW.PABLODELEON.COM
    TEAM LEADER: PABLO DE LEON
    During 2004 we will concentrate in launch test of at least two half scale vehicles and in launch operations. Several hybrid static firing tests will also be performed. Construction of a full scale capsule will begin in July 2004. This capsule will be used for training, simulation and to study mating/demating techniques.


    TEAM: HIGH ALTITUDE RESEARCH CORP. (HARC)
    WEBSITE: WWW.HARCSPACE.COM
    TEAM LEADER: TIM PICKENS
    HARC will continue progressing toward full scale launches while keeping safety first. Hardware design and testing will continue into 2004 with a launch of the Liberator Escape Tower and Capsule in the 1st half of 2004. HARC is planning for a summer launch of the "Little Joe" version of the Liberator to an altitude of approximately 40 kilometers. The first full scale launch is planned for late summer and will be followed by another launch in the fall. The two X PRIZE competition flights will take place in late 2004, and there are already astronaut candidates pitching in to help move the Team toward that goal.


    T

  • lol (Score:2, Funny)

    by Quasar1999 ( 520073 )
    regulatory hassles? If those regulations weren't there, everyone and their dog would be building inter-continental ballistic missiles, and claiming to be contending for the 'X-Prize'...

    The government damn well better keep those regulations in place... otherwise WWIII here we come!
    • regulatory hassles? If those regulations weren't there, everyone and their dog would be building inter-continental ballistic missiles, and claiming to be contending for the 'X-Prize'...

      I haven't yet finished the PDF linked in the article, but I've already noticed one rocket that bears a resemblance to a V2, and another one similar to an Atlas missile.

    • Re:lol (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      OH right, because if it werent for Uncle Sam and his regulations, we all would have nothing better to do than spend millions building ICBMs.

      Tell me something, do you think regulations would stop Al Queada from trying to build a rocket or missle? Do laws against homicide prevent murder? Do laws against theft prevent stealing?

      Many of these regulations are unncessary and hinder private access to space. Private access to space should not be regulated anymore than access to other areas not under the control

  • Makes you wonder (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BWJones ( 18351 ) on Tuesday December 16, 2003 @06:49PM (#7740565) Homepage Journal
    Armadillo Aerospace states that some US teams are hindered more by regulatory hassles, than technical issues.

    It really makes one wonder where we would be if Goddard had restrictions on fuel sources and flight space or even where the Wright Bros. would be if they had to constantly check with local authorities every time they wanted to make a flight.

    When my grandfather learned how to fly, planes had three or four instruments and they simply ran the engine up and took off and landed wherever they wanted. Times change of course and when I learned, we had significant classroom time talking about all sorts of regulations before we could even get into planes. Granted, some of this control is simply because of crowded airspace, but it seems sometimes that our fear of terrorism is actually hampering development of a whole variety of technologies and progress in fields as disparate as aerospace to biology. Where to draw the line?

    • Re:Makes you wonder (Score:5, Funny)

      by pinchhazard ( 728983 ) on Tuesday December 16, 2003 @06:54PM (#7740599) Homepage
      It really makes one wonder where we would be if Goddard had restrictions on fuel sources and flight space or even where the Wright Bros. would be if they had to constantly check with local authorities every time they wanted to make a flight.

      The Wright Brothers would be in the same place now regardless of the governmental regulations of 1903. Unless inventing airplanes is a condition for getting into heaven.

    • Re:Makes you wonder (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Moofie ( 22272 ) <leeNO@SPAMringofsaturn.com> on Tuesday December 16, 2003 @07:07PM (#7740699) Homepage
      Lots of people also died in those old airplanes. They also didn't have to fly in and out of controlled airspaces (like airports).

      Should Carmack be able to buy rocket fuel? Sure, if he can store it safely. Should any old yokel be allowed to fly a plane? I don't know about you, but we let any old yokel drive a car, and that seems to me like a pretty bad idea.

      There were no good old days.

      • Re:Makes you wonder (Score:5, Funny)

        by jonbrewer ( 11894 ) * on Tuesday December 16, 2003 @08:44PM (#7741368) Homepage
        Should Carmack be able to buy rocket fuel?
        If you have to ask that question, you've never played Doom.

      • Re:Makes you wonder (Score:4, Insightful)

        by _Sprocket_ ( 42527 ) on Tuesday December 16, 2003 @10:51PM (#7742111)


        Should Carmack be able to buy rocket fuel? Sure, if he can store it safely.

        Good point. One of my consulting gigs came about when the regular admin killed himself working on a rocket engine. Partially blew himself up in the backyard. Died in his wife's arms.

        It could have been worse. He could have hurt someone else too (I have no idea how competent the guy was with this stuff).

        Now... I appreciate the drive that makes someone want to work with that stuff (unlike some of the admin's former coworkers). But at the same time, its no toy. The stuff is dangerous. To those who work with it and those who just happen to be in the area at the wrong time.
        • Since there are not many deaths in the amateur rocketry community, I'm fairly sure I know which incident this was. In fact, it is the only amateur-rocket-related death I know of. It is worth noting that the blast that killed him was apparently not the result of a chemical reaction, or even related to the fact that he was working on a rocket engine. It was a mechanical failure of a pressure vessel which threw shrapnel -- just like a steam boiler exploding in the 1800's.


          • Since there are not many deaths in the amateur rocketry community, I'm fairly sure I know which incident this was. In fact, it is the only amateur-rocket-related death I know of.

            It may be the same. This happened in a Houston, TX suberb. I don't know the details and what little I have been told came from skeptical (and completely misunderstanding) former coworkers and employer of the individual mentioned.
    • All I have to do is pay sales tax on the parts.

      My real worry is not regulations against my warp drive cos there aren't any, its submarine patents.

      I'm afraid in 1982 somebody may have made an initial filing which by the time my invention comes out will cover my invention.

      Sam

    • Goddard? (Score:3, Informative)

      by gloth ( 180149 )

      It really makes one wonder where we would be if Goddard had restrictions on fuel sources and flight space
      Not to diminish Goddards achievements, but in terms of who-influenced-whom, he was more on a side-track of space explocation. Both Wernher von Braun and Sergej Korolov had most of their roots elsewhere. And of course, the military behind them, paving the road...
    • Actually, if there had been more controls on Goddards work, he might not have almost burned down [wpi.edu] one of the halls a my alma matter... And yes, I was an aerospace engineering student at the same school where Goddard graduated.
    • [I]t seems sometimes that our fear of terrorism is actually hampering development of a whole variety of technologies and progress in fields as disparate as aerospace to biology.

      It shouldn't just seem that way. It is true. One of my professors when calling roll this year at my grad school (in chemical and biomolecular engineering) asked about a student that didn't show up. He jokingly asked if they had their visa revoked. This has happened significantly more since Dubya started his war on terror. Coun

  • Blam! (Score:5, Funny)

    by i_am_syco ( 694486 ) on Tuesday December 16, 2003 @06:50PM (#7740575)
    I'm still wondering whether John Carmack's ship is going to have a BFG 9000 on it or not.

    • Re:Blam! (Score:4, Funny)

      by Camel Pilot ( 78781 ) on Tuesday December 16, 2003 @07:00PM (#7740637) Homepage Journal
      Remember the unidentified "Blam" sort of noise that created such an uproar on the space station a few weeks ago?

      Well maybe we already have an X-prize winner and they have not yet claimed the prize.


      • Remember the unidentified "Blam" sort of noise that created such an uproar on the space station a few weeks ago?

        Well maybe we already have an X-prize winner and they have not yet claimed the prize.

        Look... an astronaut trying to cover up "misuse of government resources" charge when his Quake game was uncovered by his headphones slipping from the laptop sound jack doesn't count. Carmack can't claim the X-Prize for launching a rocket in space - whether he programmed to rocketlauncher or not.

    • ... if only to take out the other projects on its way up... Blam, Blam!
    • I'm more concerned with his plan to detonate explosives under the craft for propulsion...

      • Not such a silly idea... (Score:3, Informative)

        by Goonie ( 8651 ) *
        Ever heard of Project Orion, the plan to go to the Moon (as well as Mars and Jupiter), by sticking a really big, thick, steel and concrete plate at the back of a spacecraft and letting off atomic bombs behind it? Probably would have worked, too.

        However, given his difficulties of getting hold of something relatively benign like hydrogen peroxide, I'm not liking Carmack's odds of getting the requisite quantities of plutonium :-)

  • This is what's needed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Cap'nMike ( 631536 ) on Tuesday December 16, 2003 @06:52PM (#7740580)
    to get commercial space exploration started. As long as NASA is the only serious space agency, progress will be slow and safe. By letting individuals and small groups take risks that NASA is unwilling or unable to take, progress can be expected much sooner. The same thing has been seen throughout history as individuals willing to take risks have always surpassed massive, slow, cautious exploration by governments.
    • True, but in order to be commercially successful you need customers. Would you be willing to PAY money to take risks like that?
      • Would you be willing to PAY money to take risks like that?

        Perhaps we could convince McBride to go. Heck, I'd pay $699 for that!

      • What kind of risk? Financial risk, hoping the operation will be profitable? Well I don't have the money, but there is always some bank or philantropist that can be convinced.

        Or are you asking about risking my life to go on a space tour? the answer is Hell YEAH! Perhaps Americans have become overly safety-wimps^Wconscience, but in the rest of the world, we pay to take risky thrill-rides every day, the example that comes to mind is skydiving. And this'll be the ultimate thrill-ride if nothing else.

        Are you s

    • Re:This is what's needed (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Saeger ( 456549 ) <farrellj@nOSPam.gmail.com> on Tuesday December 16, 2003 @07:38PM (#7740919) Homepage
      I love the privateer spirit behind the X-Prize contest as much as the next guy, but I gotta say that ultimately, chemical rocket powered flight out of Earth's gravity well will never get cheap enough to bootstrap a new age of space exploration. Be it a non-profit, for-profit, or negative-profit beaurocracy, rocket propulsion is inherently energy wasteful and dangerous.

      When we finally see sub-$1 per kg "launch" costs, it will be because we've finally built a series of space elevators around the equator, and that (unfortunately) takes a metric buttload of international redtape.

      I admit that explosive phallic rockets are more exciting to dream about, though. I mean, who wants to take a cheap, practical, slow, silent maglev ride up a stationary elevator to geo, instead of blasting off scream'n "yeehaw!" all the way?

      --

      • Re:This is what's needed (Score:1, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        how much is a metric buttload in pounds?
      • I don't think you should count on space elevators yet though. The materials to build them don't currently exist, and there are lots of potential problems, they may never be practical.

        The underlying costs of rocketry are very low; the fuel costs are below $50/kg (if you stick to hydrocarbon/LOX fuel). Currently the low costs are masked behind the incredibly low launch rate. The low launch rate means that currently expendable rockets are the cheapest way to go into space. The partly reusable Space Shuttle is

        • The materials to build them don't currently exist

          Well, carbon nanotubes do exist, just not in sufficient quantity or length yet.

          elevators have limited life, tend to be cut by micrometeorites and space junk and are going to be more expensive than rockets

          Space junk isn't such a huge problem if you design with redundancy; what are the odds of all, say, 3 ribbons being severed at the same time? And only the first elevator [www.isr.us] would cost an arm and a leg.

          --

          • "carbon nanotubes do exist"

            Hey, I'll go you one better...quarks and electrons exist, just not in the correct configuration yet. Any idea how to get them into the correct configuration? No? I'm thinking you're more of an idea rat.
      • Seeing as how there are exactly zero maglev trains in public service, I think there is a very, very, very long way to go before we can get a space elevator.

        Unless you think you've got a clever idea for making a hyperstrong cable 36,000 km long.

        Space elevators are a great idea. They're also science fiction for the next 50 years. Waiting for a space elevator to explore space is like waiting for a steam engine to the Western Atlantic.
        • Maybe not 50 years. I happened to run into one of the toplevel scientists on that project the other day at our local NASA facility. He claims that they are much further along than the public thinks they are. They have adequate funding for the Research (for now) and are actually HIRING people who want to work on the problems (don't ask for much in salary!). They seem really postive they can make this thing work. That "can-do" attitude was what got us to the moon in the 1970's. It's good to see that coming ba
          • In the 1980's, there was a huge fuss about the new high-temperature superconductors, and a lot of speculation in the popular science press about the coming revolution of room-temperature superconductors. Guess what? It never happened. Whilst the new superconductors have found industrial application, they sure aren't working at room temperature. The majority of the world's electricity is still carried on bits of copper and aluminium, and still suffers resistive losses.

            Until somebody actually demonstrate

          • That "can-do" attitude was what got us to the moon in the 1970's. It's good to see that coming back.

            As I recall, there was also a large amount of money involved in getting us to the moon.

        • At least you didn't outright laugh [physicspost.com] at the idea of a space elevator, or it would have taken much longer than 50 years. :)

          --

          • I think any scientist who laughs at such a well-founded engineering concept isn't a very good scientist.

            Is it feasible now? Certainly not. But anybody who says it's impossible is a fool.
      • When we finally see sub-$1 per kg "launch" costs, it will be because we've finally built a series of space elevators around the equator, and that (unfortunately) takes a metric buttload of international redtape.

        Even with a space elevator, we're not going to see sub $1/kg launch costs. Going from the Earth's surface to geosynchronous orbit straight up a vertical cable will cost you about 50 MJ (megajoules) per kg. That's a bit more than 14 kWh, so even at 100% efficiency, just the electricity for the tri


    • As long as NASA is the only serious space agency, progress will be slow and safe. By letting individuals and small groups take risks that NASA is unwilling or unable to take, progress can be expected much sooner.

      "Slow and safe"? What? Have you been sleeping through the history of NASA? Heck - even if you limit your perspective to recent history and manned exploration... you're still facing some rather noteworthy disasters. Challenger. Columbia.

      While NASA may do a lot to minimize the risks, they

  • Canada (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Kallahar ( 227430 ) <kallahar@quickwired.com> on Tuesday December 16, 2003 @06:54PM (#7740601) Homepage
    Uh, why do they have the canadian flag for armadillo? Armadillo is in Texas and fly's out of Oklahoma...

  • Mmm.../. cache (Score:5, Informative)

    by NewWaveNet ( 584716 ) <me@austinheap.com> on Tuesday December 16, 2003 @06:54PM (#7740602) Homepage Journal
    Armadillo Videos

    windows media [freecache.org]
    quicktime [freecache.org]
    mpeg [freecache.org]

  • Is 10 million really enough? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by nertz_oi ( 596157 ) on Tuesday December 16, 2003 @07:05PM (#7740681) Journal
    By the looks of some of these entries, is 10 million dollars really enough to compensate these guys? Sure, alot of them are doing it to live out some childhood dream, but wouldn't a prize >$20 mill give that extra motivation?

    From the looks of their craft, 10 mill would hardly make a dent to recoup what some of these companies have put in already, and they haven't even made it to space yet!
    • The prize money isn't really the point. Sure, the money is helpful, but more important is the fact that since serveral teams are trying for the same goal, we'll see which team can actually meet that goal.

    • Re:Is 10 million really enough? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Gorobei ( 127755 ) on Tuesday December 16, 2003 @07:33PM (#7740882)
      They mostly aren't looking for compensation. It's a prize, not an R&D funding exercise.

      Looking at the teams:

      Rutan - wants to build cool flying vehicles (e.g. round the world on one tank of gas.) Ignoring his photoshopped SpaceShipOne images, actually has a chance at the X-Prize within two years.

      Carmack - wants to make cool rocket toys. Working on hovering, not space shots. 5% chance of X-Prize within 5 years.

      Steve Bennett - publicity seeking loon. 0% chance of any rocketry of interest, ever.

      All the rest - 20% chance of success with 5 years. Seriously, if you aren't test firing a R motor (think model rocketry A, B, C, etc) every week at this point, you don't have a hope of meeting the X-Prize goals in the next couple of years.
      • You should check the armadillo site more often, they haven't worked on the hovering for the last two years. The current ship is a fully functional rocket capable of getting into space with a crew pod and full flight electronics.
    • Think of it like competing for funding. The first one to take a baby step into space gets unprecidented prestige and a cool 10 mill in future funding. :-)

  • Rutan is ready to flight-test the rocket motor (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Bruce Perens ( 3872 ) * <bruce@perens.com> on Tuesday December 16, 2003 @07:05PM (#7740685) Homepage Journal
    I've been following the test updates on the Scaled Composites site. It looks as if they are ready to flight-test the rocket motor. On the last flight, they tested the entire propulsion system with nitrogen flow. It sounds to me as if they could be ready to fire on the very next test flight.

    I guess the first firings would be short, and would be designed to test the vehicle in the powered and high-speed-glide speed and dynamics envelopes rather than the lower-speed glide one which is now reasonably well characterized.

    This is all very exciting.

    Bruce

  • Heh (Score:3, Funny)

    by Ryvar ( 122400 ) on Tuesday December 16, 2003 @07:12PM (#7740731) Homepage
    I love the objective point of view Fountainhead Entertainment and the rest of the ultra-libertarian Rand fanbois express in the 100 years of flight vid.

    Nevermind that a good portion of the redtape involved has nothing to do with the environment - it's easier to just paint yourself as wounded by crazies on a crusade than rationally represent the problems the other side has with your actions. Not that I don't sympathize with Armadillo Aerospace here (the bureaucracy mindlessly bent on preventing its citizens from doing anything out of the ordinary is a tough thing to stare down), but it's good to know KAK was kicked out of id before she could really Yoko Ono Carmack . . .

    • Re:Heh (Score:1)

      by bwy ( 726112 )
      "ultra-libertarian Rand fanbois?"

      Rand's philosophy is sharply critical of libertarians because in practice they are typically anarchists, not those who advocate individual rights as protected by the Constitution.

      The Apollo program was pretty rough on the Earth's environment in many ways too. And for God's sake, we left JUNK ON THE MOON! The astronauts who did this will surely burn for defacing the prestine lunar surface.

      Of course, this sets an interesting precedence. The next time a volcano erupts an

  • Going down to the wire (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kingdon ( 220100 ) on Tuesday December 16, 2003 @07:22PM (#7740811) Homepage
    Keep in mind that the funding for the prize expires on 1 Jan 2005 ("the X PRIZE is fully funded through January 1, 2005, through private donations and backed by an insurance policy" from the X Prize web site). That's less than 13 months from now. Scaled Composites, which I suppose is the leader, is planning flight tests for the next 6-9 months leading "eventually" to a 100 km altitude which is the altitude needed to win the prize.

    That doesn't give them a lot of extra time if they experience trouble. Of course what is great about having multiple teams is that if one falters, another may succeed. Given the number of things which can go wrong (a zillion technical things, and of course the legal/funding/etc ones), however, it isn't hard to imagine all the teams being delayed past the deadline.

    But having said all that, it is great to see this activity going on. Should be fun to watch!

    • Payout is insured? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by WoTG ( 610710 )
      I guess I shouldn't really be surprised that it's covered by an insurance policy, rather than a $10M in a bank account.

      Still, can you imagine trying to put together a team to do that actuarial calculations for the premiums on that policy?

  • Recent Da Vinci story (Score:3, Informative)

    by AndroidCat ( 229562 ) on Tuesday December 16, 2003 @07:27PM (#7740844) Homepage
    The Toronto Star had a recent human-interest story A do-it-yourself shot at the final frontier [thestar.com] about Brian Feeney behind the Da Vinci team project.

  • An Appropriate Memorial (Score:4, Insightful)

    by randall_burns ( 108052 ) <randall_burns@@@hotmail...com> on Tuesday December 16, 2003 @07:32PM (#7740877)
    It is strange that the Wright Flyer wound up in the Smithsonian-an organization that sponsored Langely and denied [si.edu] the priority of the Wright Brothers for quite some time.


    I suspect that if they were somehow brought into the present era, the Wright Brothers would relate for more to the efforts of folks like Armadillo Aerospace than any of the official government programs.

  • Armadillo is Canadian? (Score:5, Funny)

    by peacefinder ( 469349 ) <[alan.dewitt] [at] [gmail.com]> on Tuesday December 16, 2003 @07:38PM (#7740913) Journal
    I wonder why Armadillo is listed as a Canadian effort in the X-Prize PDF. Maybe I just haven't been paying close enough attention lately... did we trade Texas for Quebec when I wasn't looking?

    Hmm... come to think of it, maybe that's not such a bad idea.

  • Selling "droppings" (Score:2, Interesting)

    by PhoenixOne ( 674466 )
    I like the fact that Armadillo Aerospace is selling bags of "assorted curious gizmos and scrap taken right off of "decommissioned" AA rockets."

    http://www.armadilloaerospace.com/n.x/Armadillo/Ho me/Paraphernalia

    Not only can they laugh at their mistakes, they can try to profit from them. ;)

  • See the Rutan X-Prize fly today (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Download a rendered movie at http://rc.explosive.net/rutan [explosive.net].

    Captive carry takeoff, launch, and re-entry modelled.

  • That Texas based Armadillo Areospace is listed as a Canadian participant?

    The Canadian flag on pg 3 gave them away.

  • 100th anniversary of powered flight

    I thought it said "powdered flight" and wondered if cocaine wasn't older than that...

  • We aren't being held up by regulatory issues. (Score:5, Informative)

    by John Carmack ( 101025 ) on Wednesday December 17, 2003 @06:08AM (#7743718)

    We have a good working relationship with AST, the division of the FAA that handles launch license, and we are one of only three companies (along with Scaled and XCOR) currently in the RLV launch license process. We have found all the people there helpful and eager to work with us. There is a lot of paperwork to be done, but we are working through it, and do not see a problem satisfying them. Things like calculating and minimizing expected third party casualty rates are obviously necessary and sensible.

    The environmental aspects are less rational, with no analytical sense of scale.

    Still, I'm only mildly concerned about the regulatory side of things. I think it will work out. None of our work is held up by any of this, so the worst case is that we have a vehicle built and tested repeatedly at the 200,000 lb-sec waivered impulse limit, with no launch license to allow us to fill the tank the rest of the way up. If that happens, THEN we get peeved about the situation, but continue flight testing with what we can.

    Let me repeat: In no way have we been hampered by regulatory burden. Yet. We have been VERY hampered by commercial companies being too worried about liability exposure to work with us - peroxide companies, filament winders, and parachute companies have all caused us significant problems.

    The supply issue with 90% peroxide basically cost us almost the entire year of flight testing. We spent the last six months developing a propellant combination that could conveniently replace the 90% peroxide based on widely available chemicals instead of the ultra-specialized propulsion grade. We are in the final optimizing and scale up phase of that. Instead of being irate about it, I try to look on the bright side - it is lots cheaper, easer to handle, and even a bit higher performance.

    There are lots of problems still to be worked, but everything is coming along fine. We are behind schedule and somewhat over budget, but no worse off than any other project I have ever worked on...

    John Carmack

    • I stand corrected, apparently i misinterpreted what was written in the X-prize document.

      The next phase of successively higher alitude test and ultimately manned X Prize flights will be dependent on what the team calls its biggest challenge: the launch license application and accompanying environmental review. Technically, Armadillo claims they will be ready to fly X Prize missions well before the end of the year, but Team members are fond of referring to the Werhnher von Braun quote: "We can lick gravity,
  • The founders of these companies are funding several of the x-prize attempts. http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviation/article/0,12 543,458589,00.html

Slashdot Top Deals

How many QA engineers does it take to screw in a lightbulb? 3: 1 to screw it in and 2 to say "I told you so" when it doesn't work.

Close