SpaceShipOne 100 km Attempt Slated for June 21 345
apsmith writes "Scaled Composites has just announced their first attempt at breaking 100 km, scheduled for June 21. This would make it the first commercial manned vehicle to officially enter space. This is not quite an Ansari X prize attempt since it will carry only one person without the extra mass corresponding to the 3-person prize requirement; they have to give at least 30 days' notice for that. Past flight history is available from their site; the Discovery Channel is producing a documentary on the whole project, 'Rutan's Race For Space.'" Roger_Explosion adds "If successful, the craft - named Space Ship One - will become the world's first commercial manned space vehicle. Space Ship One will temporarily leave the earth's atmosphere, and the pilot (yet to be announced) will experience about three minutes of weightlessness."
Webcast? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Webcast? (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.scaled.com/ [scaled.com]
Jon Acheson
Re:Webcast? (Score:5, Funny)
BumperCam? (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe with the video slowed down so the flight will take as long as a drive to Oregon?
I say... (Score:2, Insightful)
This could be the beginning of the next Space Age.
Re:I say... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I say... (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps, although I'm not so sure we should be so happy about corporations owning the space.
Re:I say... (Score:5, Insightful)
We've already seen how the gov't owned it. Just how would "the people" own it instead of the gov't or a corporation?
Re:I say... (Score:5, Insightful)
Space vs. Weightlessness (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Space vs. Weightlessness (Score:5, Informative)
Weightlessness is not due to an increased distance to the earth: the acceleration due to gravity at a height of, for example, 100 km is only 3% less than at the surface of the earth.
Weightlessness means a zero g-force: acceleration is equal to gravity.
Re:Space vs. Weightlessness (Score:2, Interesting)
Actu
Re:Space vs. Weightlessness (Score:3, Insightful)
If there was no gravity (acceleration), you'd be "weightless", relative to the acceleration of the train. This is why it's harder to walk forward on an accelerating train than one that is moving steadily... you're not fighing the acceleration.
Re:Space vs. Weightlessness (clarification) (Score:5, Informative)
Yep, this is more or less correct, but let's clarify one point. The only significant difference between this attempt (or any similar 100km up-then-down mission) and an orbit mission is how far you fall.
You can go a thousand kilometers straight up, and fall straight back down, and never go into orbit. You never can "ignore" gravity - even out at the lunar orbit distance, at hundreds of thousands of kilometers, gravity is still a factor. Fact is, that's what keeps the moon nearby.
An orbit is, essentially, simply falling in an arc that never intersects the ground (or atmosphere). You have to get a whole lot more energy into the vehicle so that the trajectory falls past the planet's "edge" - at which point you end up "falling" forever around the earth. (And yes, for you rocket science purists, you also have to expend some additional energy to reshape the path through which you fall, usually at the highest point of your trajectory, to make the orbit more circular - that's called an "orbit injection maneuver".) So it's not a matter of HEIGHT, it's a matter of which DIRECTION you expend the energy.
As a matter of fact, if the atmosphere and terrain were not an issue, you COULD do an orbit a hundred feet off the ground. And you could enter this orbit by going straight sideways. It just requires moving a lot faster than a higher orbit. Our current launch profiles are designed to minimize the fuel (and therefore change in energy, a.k.a. "delta-V") required.
So to wrap up the thought here, weightless is BECAUSE the vehicle trajectory is a free fall (one that's not being modified by expending energy or using winged lift or drag). Doesn't matter whether it's a complete orbit or one that will hit the ground before going around one complete time.
And here's the most relevant point to SpaceShip One - to achieve true orbit (a true free fall all the way around the earth), quite a bit more delta-V is required - which requires more fuel, which requires more vehicle structure, which increases vehicle weight, which requires more fuel to lift, which requires more structure... etc. (And let's not even THINK about reentry heating yet...) So as neat as this trick is, SpaceShip One and any other X-Prize vehicles are a LONG way from a viable orbital launch vehicle.
Re:Space vs. Weightlessness (clarification) (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Space vs. Weightlessness (clarification) (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Space vs. Weightlessness (clarification) (Score:3, Interesting)
-Jesse
Re:Space vs. Weightlessness (clarification) (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Space vs. Weightlessness (clarification) (Score:4, Interesting)
First off, the reason we fly straight up and then sideways is that it's a lot easier to accelerate sideways at 70km than it is at 0km altitude, because of the thinner atmosphere. Since the only significant delta-V in an orbital launch is the tangential component, you can tune your ascent to minimize fuel requirements and save up for the big sideways burn.
Now, for the fun part: Orbiter [m6.net] is a free (as in beer + SDK for making your own ships) space-flight simulator that is both mathematically accurate and visually stunning. It includes the space shuttle Atlantis (don't even bother starting out with that one, as it takes practice to get to orbit) and some fictitious spacecraft capable of getting you to Mars or even beyond.
You can even look around online and find add-ons such as my latest favorite, an Apollo mission including a pretty realistic cockpit complete with the Apollo computer system. You even have to do your own LEM extraction and so forth.
Re:They are lying I guess... (Score:2)
Are not! (Score:5, Interesting)
The pilot (to be announced at a later date) of the up-coming June sub-orbital space flight will become the first person to earn astronaut wings in a non-government sponsored vehicle, and the first private civilian to fly a spaceship out of the atmosphere. SpaceShipOne then coasts up to its goal height of 100 km (62 miles) before falling back to earth.
Seeing as a) most people in the aerospace industry defines space as 'anything above 100km over SL (sealevel), and b) they havn't gotten any money from the big, evil goverment to build their vessel, this is correct. Off course, he won't be completly out of out atmosphere, but then the edge of that isn't a sharply defined line.
The pilot experiences a weightless environment for more than three minutes and, like orbital space travelers, sees the black sky and the thin blue atmospheric line on the horizon.
According to This New Ocean: A History of Project Mercury [nasa.gov] (freely avilable from NASA's website), this is a very good description of what Alan Shepard experienced on his suborbital flight on the 5th of May 1961 (see chapter 11-4 [nasa.gov] of the aforementioned bood, or see what Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] has to say on that flight).
Interestingly enought, when I first heard of the X-prize, I assumed it would be won by a reusable capsule modeled on the early american designs (Mercury [wikipedia.org], Gemeni [wikipedia.org] or Apollo [wikipedia.org]) launced by reusable solidfueled rockets. I'm happy a more inovative, less 'brute force' approach seems to be winning.
Re:Are not! (Score:4, Interesting)
assumed it would be won by a reusable capsule...solidfueled rockets
The X Prize requires a certain percentage of liftoff mass be re-used in the two flights. I would presume that liftoff mass means the mass at the time the craft touched the earth the last time before ascending (thus would count both SpaceShipOne and WhiteKnight (although WhiteKnight is an aircraft and is completely reused).
Technically, refilling a SRB (Solid Rocket Booster) with new fuel could be done and comply with ther requirements. However, I would presume there is a limit to the number of times this can occur due to dynamic airframe stress fractures and heat-induced stresses in the SRB structure. Anyone know of such limits? How often are the SRBs for the Space Shuttle reused? Is the SRB's exhaust nozzle replaced or is it reused as well? Is it complex or is it an open tube?
NOTE: Scaled has not released the reuse percentage for its flights. I would presume due to the design that their percentage is going to be very, very high, with only fuel / consumables being replaced and probably a couple of spare parts here and there.
NOTE: I am also presuming there is only one WhiteKnight aircraft; if they had to use two WhiteKnight aircraft then they would not comply with X-Prize requirements (methinks, IMHO), since it is part of the 'launch system'.
--Kevin at justanyone daaaaahhht cahhhhmm
Re:Space vs. Weightlessness (Score:4, Informative)
To be 100% correct, it is free-fall.
Gravity at 100km is ~0.97g - hardly "microgravity"
Re:Space vs. Weightlessness (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Space vs. Weightlessness (Score:2)
Flight Controller (Score:5, Interesting)
Bruce
Re:Flight Controller (Score:2)
That's interesting -- I'd never really thought about that before... has it been mentioned anywhere what kind of software this thing is running? I know the space shuttle has some custom, reliable, blah blah code and stuff, so... what do they use on this craft? Anyone?
Mike.
Re:Flight Controller (Score:5, Interesting)
The test pilot when the SS1 avionics required rebooting, Mike Melvill, is a VERY capable pilot. In short, he don't need no steenking avionics. All the Scaled team consists of interesting and capable people. They're the cream of the aviation crop.
I'm seriously thinking about flying my Long-EZ (another Rutan design) to Mojave to see the magic. This is going to be so cool.
Re:Flight Controller (Score:4, Interesting)
Might better plan ahead. From the FAQ:
Q: Can we fly our own airplanes in?
A: Due to expected congestion, the airport will be closed to transient aircraft starting several days before the event.
That said, though, I'd probably take a day off work to see it with the kids, if I lived within 300 miles. As it is, 1500 miles each way is a bit much for a long-weekend road trip. I'll have to wait for the Texas folks [armadilloaerospace.com] to try it.
Re:Flight Controller (Score:3, Informative)
I was planning on arriving a few days early and maybe seeing if I could get involved, even in a tiny way. If not, I could always soak up the environment. If you're an airplane nut, there's a lot of neat stuff in Mojave. For a canard aircraft enthusiast, it's sort of like Mecca.
I'd probably
Re:Flight Controller (Score:2)
From this Space.com article about the data from the May 13th flight [space.com], "During a portion of SpaceShipOne's boost, the flight director display did not function properly. Pilot Mike Melvill, however, continued the planned trajectory referencing the external horizon through cockpit windows."
Forget an artificial horizon, good thing SpaceshipOne had a window! If the cockpit had been purely computer generated (e.g. "viewscreen on"), the pilot wouldn't have had a clue where he was going.
Re:Chutes? (Score:5, Interesting)
One person has done balloon jumps from 110K feet in preparation for early manned space flight. A famous astronaut commented that he would not have wanted to try this. From the SS1 this would be worse than bailing out from a jet under power - which generally only is accomplished with powered ejection systems. All of these things add the weight that SS1 is designed to avoid.
Bruce
Re:Chutes? (Score:4, Informative)
In the words of my 6th grade English teacher... (Score:4, Interesting)
"GO baby, GO!"
I'll be counting down. Heck I might even break out the model rockets and find a big park to go 'celebrate' (course the biggest park is next to a gorge, we don't like strong winds...)
Hey no fair! (Score:5, Funny)
The Vulcans are helping them out. I wont be at all surprised if SpaceShipOne looks like a Zephram Cochran design.
BOOOOOOOOM! (Score:2, Insightful)
Does the Russian's new policy of sending up folks for big amounts of cash (the Japanese reporter, etc) not count as commercial flight?
Re:BOOOOOOOOM! (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, the Russian tourist flights were commercial flights, but they were done by a government. This is the first private venture into space. In a year or so, when the technology is more established, it w
more adds (Score:2, Funny)
Re:more adds (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason this is big is that this is private manned spaceflight. As long as the government has a stranglehold on who does and doesn't qualify for space, then there can be no real human expansion. The sooner private interests are getting into space (eventually it'll be orbit, then beyond) the sooner we'll have meaningful colonization of places like the moon and Mars. This is vital to the survival of the species, as long as we're all stuck on this rock, the next comet or solar flare can wipe us all out.
Re:more adds (Score:3, Funny)
Twinkle Twinkle little star
How I wonder what you are
A red giant, or a shooting star?
No, just an advert for a little blue car...
First pre-announced flight? (Score:5, Interesting)
Good luck to them in any case... I'm sure it'll be a heck of a ride!
Re:First pre-announced flight? (Score:2)
I doubt this will be their first X-Prize flight. This is just their first suborbital.
X-Prize requires two flights quite close together. I expect that after this flight is analyzed, they'll schedule a pair of flights for the X-Prize. Possibly in August or September.
Re:First pre-announced flight? (Score:2)
Re:First pre-announced flight? (Score:2)
Re:First pre-announced flight? (Score:2)
My point was that I'm surprised they're pre-announcing this flight... they must be supremely confident in their vehicle to go for 100km so publicly, after being secretive all the way up until this announcement.
X Prize Claimed on July 4th, 2004? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:X Prize Claimed on July 4th, 2004? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is still experimental flight and they're minimizing personel risks.
Re:X Prize Claimed on July 4th, 2004? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:X Prize Claimed on July 4th, 2004? (Score:3, Insightful)
They could (Score:2)
Seems like we'll have a winner soon... (Score:5, Interesting)
I think they'll manage to get over 100 km in their vessel. Then I assume we'll see them attemt the quick turnaround needed to win the prize and a new launch within two weeks. Then first, having proven their system, will they announce their officall attempt for the prize.
At least that makes sence to me - test that it work first, before they go for the big one. Just the same as NASA did with their first spacecapsules; unmanned ballistic flights first, then a ballistic flight with a monkey, then an unmanned orbital flight and a monkeyed orbital flight - and once they knew their craft would behave as expected under all phases of the mission, they did a couple of manned suborbital flights to prove that humans would behave as expected (they did better than expected AFAIK) before they launced a man into orbit. In fact, it's just the same these guys do; prove that the spacecraft can handle all aspects of the mission before they put three people into it and light the fuse ;)
Magic Carpet Ride (Score:3, Funny)
But can it go to plaid? (Score:4, Funny)
First Unofficial Commercial Vehicle in Space? (Score:4, Funny)
"This would make it the first commercial manned vehicle to officially enter space."
Which immediately makes me wonder which was the first commerical manned vehicle to unofficially enter space. Did this guy [snopes.com] finally get some larger balloons?
Best of luck, Space Ship One! May your design be sound and your crew be safe.
My favorite FAQ (Score:4, Funny)
A: Everyone, especially children. They will want to tell their children that they were there to see the event that triggered the industry of private space tourism.
RTFA (Score:2, Informative)
They will have to make 2 more flights later to win the X-Prize.
Within two weeks... (Score:5, Funny)
First commercial or private? (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe that distinction goes to the Russians, who are the first to fly a paying customer in the flesh. It would be more correct to say that Space Ship One is the first privately developed manned craft to reach space. Until they fly a paying customer, I don't count Space Ship One as a vehicle of commerce. Just splitting hairs...
Re:First commercial or private? (Score:2)
Re:First commercial or private? (Score:2)
Which is why I said "in the flesh". Most Shuttle payloads were military or government, and all payloads were so heavily subsidized that they were essentially free... no nongovernment customer could have paid the true cost of getting their payload to orbit.
Re:First commercial or private? (Score:2)
Just booked a room in Mojave ... (Score:5, Funny)
Is there some kind of geek accent I wasn't aware of?
Re:Just booked a room in Mojave ... (Score:5, Funny)
Now if you'll excuse me, I must get back to composing my internet rant about how funds for producing Doom 3 have been syphoned off and used to buy new A/D boards for Armadillo Aerospace.
Re:Just booked a room in Mojave ... (Score:5, Funny)
Perhaps you used the words "whoa-hai" or "glayven". That's usually a dead giveaway.
Retro (Score:2, Interesting)
Yeesh (Score:3, Funny)
-Erwos
Now that's what being a billionaire is all about! (Score:5, Insightful)
-Mark
Re:Now that's what being a billionaire is all abou (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Now that's what being a billionaire is all abou (Score:3, Interesting)
On the other hand, taking the first real steps into space will pay long term benefits to all humanity. And by "real", I mean economically viable, commercial ventures. Not some "what's
Re:Now that's what being a billionaire is all abou (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Now that's what being a billionaire is all abou (Score:3, Interesting)
and that says a hell of a lot of interesting things about what Allen thinks is the risk vs. reward ratio in this investment, doesn't it
SB
Yes, It's Impressive (Score:5, Interesting)
This would make an excellent crew transfer vehicle, but a poor 'space truck'. What's needed is a commercially produced heavy lift launch vehicle. 100 tons to LEO would provide the ability to send modular lab or manufacturing stations into orbit, with crews sent up by craft like SpaceShip One. It doesn't have to be totally reusable, just cheap enough that it won't cost ~$1 billion plus the cost of the material being launched. Lower this by half, and maybe large companies could use it as research or manufacturing stations, with the benefit of NASA being able to use them to mount high-quality manned missions to the Moon and Mars, and unmanned missions to deep space, powered by nuclear reactors that would increase the amount of data by increasing both bandwidth and mission length.
Re:Yes, It's Impressive (Score:2)
100t to LEO would be great, but odds are that if it got built, it still wouldn't see much use outside of government launch contracts at 500 mil per launch. On the other hand, if we can get 1 ton launches to LEO down to $50,000 incremental cost, odds are pretty good that a lot of people would start putting things into space.
It's like computers; we get a lot more done with lots of small PCs than with small numbers of hu
Re:Yes, It's Impressive (Score:3, Insightful)
It is a start. Once you have something like this, hopefully flying paying passangers on suborbital flights, you have proven that there is a marked for commercal, manned access to space (there allready exists commercal launcers for unmanned sattelites and probes - Sea Launch is one). Once you proven that, companies will start sinking real cash into it - perhaps taking the logical next step and build a 'space hotel' and a shuttle able to ferry more than three people up and down at a time.
One has to prove tha
Re:Yes, It's Impressive (Score:3, Insightful)
The big thing is not the winner of the prize. It's what happens *after* the prize. Most of the other plans for reusable boosters (Roton, Phoenix, etc) never got to suborbit.
The big potential here is that most of the big issues to make a pretty cheap booster for at least microsats have been solved and there's signifigant *new* engineering expertise
Re:Yes, It's Impressive (Score:2)
But does your comment really make a difference? I am certainly not knowledgeable enough to guess what the Rutan/Allen team's long-term goals are, but their efforts thus far seem to be more than adequately meeting their short term goal
Re:Yes, It's Impressive (Score:4, Interesting)
2) We've had the technology to go to space for forty years. We've had the technology to do suborbital flight for longer. Hell, we could have landed on Mars before I was born, but we didn't have the economic or political balls to do so.
3) I don't think tourism is really helping the economic situation in Africa. I'm sure they would rather have people invest in their infrastructure. Same thing with space: We need an infrastructure to make space more than an alternative to the safari. We can't do that launching ~500 kg at a time.
Re:Yes, It's Impressive (Score:4, Interesting)
It's the commercial version of Mercury (Score:5, Insightful)
Just like the beginning fo powered flight, governments have held all the cards and technology till now. What you are seeing is the highly efficent start of commercial space ventures. They will evolve through vehicles much faster than NASA did because they already have more knowledge to build on, and they also have the ability to make changes and adjustments faster and cheaper than a bureauracy like NASA. NASA isn't projected to have a new man-rated vehicle for another decade, and at the cost of BILLIONS. It is likely that before they accomplish that, the commercial industry will catch up and have a 4-man orbital vehicle by the end of this decade.
Finally, the dollars will be there. Right now, if you asked NASA to get you into a sub-orbital launch, it would probably cost them $100 million minimum in development to get you there. Your price tag might be as high as 10-15 million. Rutan is doing it for less than 5 million (that's including vehicle development) and your price (once operable) will be about $80-100K per launch. Once these cheap methods are solidified, I could see an orbital flight dropping down to a $10-12K price tag for 4-5 orbits. If they get it that low, then space tourism will be the economic demand this industry is hoping. Hell, I would pay $20k to go into orbit!
What I am saying is that you need to be a little patient. These companies will get you there far cheaper than NASA, and in a much shorter amount of time. This is just the beginning, but all things will come.
An old NASA saying is "space is difficult", it should really be "space is easy, bureauracy is difficult".
Re:It's the commercial version of Mercury (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm curious. Where did this number come from? I looked up and down their web site but couldn't find any numbers as to the cost.
To be honest, I have some trouble believing that this can be done for $5M. Why? Because it seems to me that the manpower cost alone should be more than that. However, I am very willing to be proven wrong
Re:It's the commercial version of Mercury (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It's the commercial version of Mercury (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It's the commercial version of Mercury (Score:5, Funny)
CONGRESSPERSON SKYPACK: My district has a company that makes winglets for aircraft, contributed $5000 to my campaign last election. I want winglets on the new orbital spaceplane.
NASA ADMIN: But congressman, we are currently looking at a more cost effective capsule design, there are no wings.
CONGRESSPERSON SKYPACK: Well you had better rethink your short-sighted design. My constituent told me winglets are the latest thing on my last junket to Barbados with them. You NASA people should know that winglets add efficency to wingtips! You should at least be looking at them.
CONGRESSPERSON SMOOT: Yes, winglets are a good idea REP SKYPACK, they sound sexy. I would also like to see them use landing gear from manufacturer X.
CP SKYPACK: Yes, Manufactuirer X is in your district right SMOOT? They make tires for cars. Why, they would need at least 15 million to develop an aircraft grade landing system don't you think? Good idea...if you'll vote for my winglets I'll....
SMOOT: Sounds great! OK!
NASA Administrator: Gentlemen, we will require neither winglets or landing gear for our capsule. We can make it safer and cheaper without them. Don't you understand?
SKYPACK: I understand that your system better have wings and tires ADMIN, or you'll get no approval from THIS committee. In addition, I am going to cut your development budget while adding these two features to your design to make me look fiscally responsible, and don't you dare go over budget!
NASA ADMIN: Where is a gun, I need to shoot myself immediately.
SMOOT: Theres a firearm manufacturer in my district ADMIN, if you could purchase....
And the stupidity continues.
Re:It's the commercial version of Mercury (Score:3, Informative)
That's great if so, I'm all for it. But I think you're underestimating the engineering difficulties involved.
SS1 is a great little craft and a tremendous technical achievement, but it is not even close to being an orbital vehicle. They are achieving a great part of the height necessary, but very little of the horizontal velocity. Orbital velocity is "[...] approx [howstuffworks.com]
Re:It's the commercial version of Mercury (Score:3, Interesting)
How exactly does that fit into the topic of discussion? We are all going to die anyway. The amount we spend globally on space exploration is not even 1% of what we spend on medical research.
I agree with you that we definitely should be spending more, but please don't dredge up that old argument that we should never leave the planet to help more starving people. People were starving before we had a space program, and they continue to starve and die from disease. I agree that we should be t
Commercial space craft? (Score:3, Insightful)
"Private space craft" would be a more correct term.
Sontarans next (Score:3, Funny)
It will be interesting to see... (Score:3, Interesting)
This launch, as I understand it, is just the first try. If it goes well they will prepare to do the 2 launches in 2 weeks. Still, the first manned commercial space flight is a momentous event. Go Scaled go!
Yay! (Score:4, Funny)
"Yet to be announced" eh? Cool, that means I'm still in the running.
Star Trek / Zephram Cockram moment (Score:4, Funny)
What I care about, or would if I was the pilot, is whether it has a slot loading CD player into which I can slap a CD in the last few seconds before launch!
Good Luck, But I Don't Think It Leads Anywhere (Score:5, Interesting)
First of all, this craft is at least 6 times to slow to achieve orbit. You can coast as high as you want, but without achieving orbital velocity, you'll fall right back.
Second, the craft's unorthodox reentry technique isn't amenable for use coming back from orbit. That means that this particular design probably doesn't lead anyplace useful.
Third,leaving the atmosphere isn't strictly necessary to achieve orbit. It's just a whole lot less messy. You could achieve orbit at one kilometer if you dealt with atmosphereic heating.
We should also remember that the private sector has had the capability of achieving orbit for decades. They built/build/launch the rockets that have been enterng orbit for more than 40 years. Two things have kept them from actually doing it: 1) A clear business case: Can you really make a profit selling tickets to orbit? 2) The fact that any rocket capable of putting a person in orbit is also quite capable of carrying a warhead to the next hemisphere. Governments tend to worry about, and regulate, those sorts of things.
Re:Good Luck, But I Don't Think It Leads Anywhere (Score:3, Insightful)
The pertinent point of the X-Prize efforts isn't putting people into space. We know how to do that. It's putting people into space at an affordable and profitable price, not for the tens of billions NASA spends to do it.
Tier Two (Score:3, Interesting)
Knowing Rutan he's probably already got the design figured out for an orbital vehicle and has been running simulations of it.
Who knows, maybe there is even a tier three... the moon.
You're absolutely right. (Score:3, Interesting)
Scaled Composites could work with Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works division and come up with a low cost vehicle that could be launched on top of a modified 747-200 to carry up to six astronauts and/or its equivalent in cargo to LEO. Unlike the unfortunate X-33 project, this project is probably going to be much cheaper to pull off since the vehicle that ac
Is there a next step? (Score:3, Informative)
One thing I've always wondered about SS1, the other X-prize entries, and the X-prize itself is whether there is a clear series of steps which lead to some goal like regular space travel.
By this I mean questions like: can the design used for SS1 (and the other X-prize teams) be scaled to orbital operations, more people/cargo, etc; or is it just a special purpose vehicle designed to win the X-prize?
Sure, it's inevitable that we'll learn something when doing a complicated engineering project like this. But at times it feels like the X-prize is being treated like an end goal instead of an early step on a journey.
Re:Is there a next step? (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me ask you:
Was the Wright brothers' plane a special purpose vehicle or a general lift vehicle?
Was the 'Spirit of St. Louis' scalable to larger flights with more people/cargo, or once it was proven that you could fly to France, did other people build craft that would do the job?
Was the Bell X-1 scaled up to accomodate more than just the test pilot?
Consider that breaking the sound barrier was first done in a rocket-plane, something that has NEVER been used for large passenger carrying craft. The Concorde flew Mach2 on jet engines, not rockets.
The purpose, as I see it, of SS1 and the X-Prize in general, is to spurr activity in this sector of engineering, which will hopefully lead to revolutionary new craft and even perhaps some new and exciting propulsion systems, advanced materials for absorbing and disappating heat, rapid prototyping, and more rugged avionics.
Once it's been proven that space can be reached relatively cheaply, it's only a matter of time before companies spring up to take advantage of this opportunity.
This vehicle is a test-craft, much like the original Wright-flyer. It's a proof of concept. It's the next step in aviation.
And if nothing else, imagine if Rutan offered a kit version, like the Long EZ, that you could purchase for
I'd start saving my pennies if I were you.
Also please remember that once upon a time, flying by jet was horribly expensive compared to prop-aircraft, hence the term "jet set" to describe rich people.
Eventually, development in this area reduced the cost of flying by jet, and now, you can hop a plane to just about anywhere in the world for a reasonable amount.
Space travel or Suborbital travel will start out expensive, but over time, as there is more development, it will eventually get cheaper.
I think FEDEX will invest in such a system before airlines do, but if you can get a package from NYC to Hong Kong in 3 hours, it's only a matter of time before companies start trying to get their executives from NYC to Hong Kong in 3 hours.
SS1 is the start of all this. It's not meant to be the final design of a larger craft any more than the X-1 was the final design for some larger supersonic craft.
Instead, SS1 is the stepping stone for design work to bring us that larger suborbital craft, that may be based on entirely different technology.
I hope this answers your question.
...and the Q&A (Score:4, Informative)
A: The launch is planned for June 21, 2004. We plan for very early in the morning. Currently we are planning to taxi out for takeoff at 6:30 a.m.
Q: Why so early?
A: Mojave is a windy place. It is less likely to be windy very early in the morning. That makes for better flying and launch conditions, and the low sun angle allows better spectator viewing of the high-altitude boost to space.
Q: Is there any chance that the flight would launch later in the day or be delayed a day or more?
A: Yes. As with any flight test activity, weather is a very important factor. High winds or very cloudy conditions could change our flight plans. In addition, flights can be delayed for technical reasons.
Q: What can we expect to see?
A: White Knight with SpaceShipOne slung underneath will taxi by right in front of the public viewing area. A few minutes later, you will see it take off. For a few minutes early in the flight, you can see them circling overhead as they climb. It takes the pair of mated vehicles roughly one hour to reach 47,000 feet a few miles to the northeast. That is where White Knight releases SpaceShipOne. They are generally easy to follow visually since the White Knight and its chase planes usually make contrails. SpaceShipOne glides for a few seconds, then the pilot lights the rocket and you'll be able to see flames and a rocket exhaust trail for about 80 seconds. There will be a public address system in the viewing areas which will carry the radio transmissions between Mission Control, the White Knight pilot and the SpaceShipOne pilot, so you'll know what is happening.
SpaceShipOne's flight lasts roughly 25 minutes. It will rocket to space, spend about three minutes weightless outside the atmosphere, then enter the earth's atmosphere in a high-drag configuration. It will glide back toward Mojave, circle overhead, then land directly in front of the public viewing area on the same runway on which it took off about 1 hour and 25 minutes earlier. SpaceShipOne's rocket is very loud but it can only be faintly heard on the ground in the best of conditions. If its reentry direction is aimed away from the airport, two soft sonic booms will be heard. After landing, SpaceShipOne will be towed by a truck to the media area for a brief photo opportunity, then moved to the adjacent public viewing area, then towed back to Scaled's facility. Thus, the media and the public will get to take their own close-up photos. White Knight takes longer to return. It usually lands a few minutes after SpaceShipOne.
Other aircraft which you may see during the flight include:
Robert Scherer's Starship (a Burt Rutan design). This plane flies high-altitude chase and carries our company photographer. This is a twin-engine turboprop airplane painted white with a canard near the nose.
An Extra that belongs to Chuck Coleman, one of Scaled's Design Engineers. This aircraft has been used to train our pilots/astronauts. It is a single engine aerobatic plane painted red and black. It flies very close chase toward the end of the flight to assist the SpaceShipOne pilot in landing.
The Alpha-Jet, a military-looking fighter aircraft painted olive green. The person in the back seat of this aircraft will have a video camera and will photograph the launch from a better position than we have on the ground. Some of this video footage will be used in preparing a documentary for the Discovery Channel.
Q: What services are available in Mojave?
A: Mojave is a small town with limited resources. Mojave's motels are listed below:
Bel Air Motel - 661-824-2350
Best Western Desert Winds - 661-824-3601
City Center Motel - 661-824-4268
Economy Motel - 661-824-2347
Econo Lodge - 661-824-2463
Friendship Inn - 661-824-4523
Mariah Country Inn and Suites - 661-824-4980
Mojave Travel Inn - 661-824-2441
Motel 6 - 661-824-4571
Twenty Mule Motel - 661-824-2214
White's Motel - 661-824-2421
Mojave also has several service stations, se
Re:Pilot? (Score:2)
Believe it or not, but there are people out there willing to risk their lives to further space exploration and I don't think you or anyone else has the right to say they can't pursue their dreams.
Sorry if this sounds harsh or directed at you, I'm just tired of people saying people can't risk their own lives for something great. We let you drive to work in the morning and that's alot more risky then flying an experimental ai
Re:Pilot? (Score:2)
Re:Pilot? (Score:2)
Because I don't think monkeys or meatloaf can actually *fly* a spacecraft.