Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

SpaceshipOne's Control Problem Fixed 230

Posted by simoniker from the wind-shear-will-be-banned dept.
Baldrson writes "Wired News reports that Rutan's team says they have gotten to the bottom of the June 21 flight anomalies that affected the first SpaceShipOne sub-orbital flight: 1) A control surface actuator had run against a stop limiting its movement, and 2) Wind shear caused the 90-degree roll shortly after rocket ignition. Rutan also said with the problems now identified, the next time SpaceShipOne flies, it will be to win the prize."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SpaceshipOne's Control Problem Fixed More

SpaceshipOne's Control Problem Fixed

Comments Filter:
  • So Carmack and the Armadillo gang are out of the running?

    • Re:JC (Score:5, Informative)

      by MrBlue VT ( 245806 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @02:42AM (#9639707) Homepage
      It's doubtful that they could get their big vehicle together and working by the end of the year. John has said if Rutan fails they might make a push (ie, work on it more than the current 2 days a week and evenings) to get done by the end of the year for an attempt.

      According to John there is no other team even close, and I believe him.

      • Impressive (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Mark_MF-WN ( 678030 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @03:21AM (#9639838)
        The fact that there are TWO teams within striking distance of the prize is pretty impressive. These are interesting times we're living in.

        Between the private space-flight, a entire space station (built internationally no less), and the possibility of a space elevator, humankind really is heading for the stars!

        • Re:Impressive (Score:5, Interesting)

          by EnglishTim ( 9662 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @04:28AM (#9640043)
          I wouldn't really class Jon's team as close. Sure, they're definitely getting there, but the highest controlled flight they've done was only 131 feet high with a subscale model. Several of the other teams could have done the same thing and we'd never know about it - its just that Armadillo are very open about their progress.

          Actually, that's one of the things I really admire about Armadillo Aerospace - they've kept very little to themselves - anybody with some money, patience and skill could get going quite quickly by learning from the Armadillo website.

          • Re:Impressive (Score:4, Informative)

            by grozzie2 ( 698656 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @05:11AM (#9640169)
            I wouldn't really class Jon's team as close.

            Nobody considers Armadillo anywhere near close. The other team that's close is Da Vinci project. They are the only other team that's actually got hardware constructed with any amount of testing (photos) [davinciproject.com] done on it. Thier schedule calls for the first sub-orbital test flights in august of this year, and they are the only X-Prize team other than scaled actually planning to fly this summer. they are also the only other team that has minor details like launch permits etc all wrapped up.

          • Re:Impressive (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Rei ( 128717 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @12:17PM (#9643446) Homepage
            I have to concur. Armadillo is way off - reading their test diary makes this quite clear. I really have to question their design philosophy. While I'm not fond of cryogenic fuels (especially LOX/LH), peroxide as an oxidizer is no simple task. The stabilizing chemicals tend to ruin your catalysts. The way to get around this is what the Germans did - inject ample liquid catalysts into the fuel that you burn with peroxide as the oxidizer.

            Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, Armadillo isn't even using a fuel - it looks to be a straight peroxide rocket, as I haven't seen them mention a fuel since May 2003. So, not only do you have a chemical that's hard to work with, you have a very low ISP, too. I'd never dream of going that route. Not that I think that Rutan's choice of fuel and oxidizer are all that incredible (why on earth NO3 as an oxidizer???), but they're better.

            Also, vaned thrust deflection instead of gimballing, while it may look great on paper, just seems like a problem waiting to happen, as far as rockets go. It's no shock that they've been having big problem with that system... it's fine for jet engines, but with rocket engines, you're dealing with far more intense, far hotter exhaust in a high vibration environment. Also, vaned thrust deflection loses more energy than gimballing due to drag, which is something that they just can't afford, especially with a monopropellant rocket.

            In short, I don't much care for their design.

            • Re:Impressive (Score:4, Informative)

              by georgewilliamherbert ( 211790 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @05:47PM (#9647387)
              General comment: Please read more before posting.

              I have to concur. Armadillo is way off - reading their test diary makes this quite clear. I really have to question their design philosophy. While I'm not fond of cryogenic fuels (especially LOX/LH), peroxide as an oxidizer is no simple task. The stabilizing chemicals tend to ruin your catalysts. The way to get around this is what the Germans did - inject ample liquid catalysts into the fuel that you burn with peroxide as the oxidizer.

              Armadillo was using high purity non-stabilized peroxide up until roughly a year ago. It does not need injected liquid catalysts: just using silver and platinum, or various other solid catalysts, works just fine.

              Now, Armadillo is using a mixture of 50% unstabilized peroxide and methanol. It has about the same energy per unit mass/volume as 90% peroxide does, but is a fraction of the cost and handling issues of 90% plus unstabilized peroxide. Still a monopropellant, but very much simpler and cheaper.

              Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, Armadillo isn't even using a fuel - it looks to be a straight peroxide rocket, as I haven't seen them mention a fuel since May 2003. So, not only do you have a chemical that's hard to work with, you have a very low ISP, too. I'd never dream of going that route.

              Please read harder. Armadillo has been describing their rocket motors in detail repeatedly.

              Isp is not everything. For a first stage, density impulse is much more important. And for a non orbital rocket vehicle, handling and ease of design and construction are also very important.

              Amateurs talk Isp; Professionals start with density impulse and then system design tradeoffs on the overall vehicle; Experts talk development cost and timeline to get vehicles that meet the minimum requirements flying successfully.

              Not that I think that Rutan's choice of fuel and oxidizer are all that incredible (why on earth NO3 as an oxidizer???), but they're better.

              Not NO3. N2O; Nitrous Oxide.

              Why? It's not a bad oxidizer, that's why. It has less oxygen than LOX or peroxide or nitrogen tetroxide or nitric acid, true. But like peroxide and hydrazine, it's got internal energy, so when it starts to react the dissassociation adds energy to the reactions. That evens it out. Nitrous is decent overall performance and self pressurizing, which none of the other oxidizers are.

              Also, vaned thrust deflection instead of gimballing, while it may look great on paper, just seems like a problem waiting to happen, as far as rockets go. It's no shock that they've been having big problem with that system... it's fine for jet engines, but with rocket engines, you're dealing with far more intense, far hotter exhaust in a high vibration environment. Also, vaned thrust deflection loses more energy than gimballing due to drag, which is something that they just can't afford, especially with a monopropellant rocket.

              Again: Specific Impulse is not everything. It's a lot simpler, safer, easier to develop a vanes system than a fully gimballing motor. Less mass is moving, no propellant lines are moving.

              Real rocket innovators have been looking at jet vanes on and off continuously for the last decade. Most chose to go another direction, but they are not a bad choice for certain sets of vehicle design and development assumptions. Carmack's group called that one right: it is a good choice for their vehicle and their development program.

              In short, I don't much care for their design.

              Well, fine, but at the very least you could read up on the actual details and see what other people who actually know something about rocket design think about it.

              I would never have developed exactly their vehicle, however, Armadillo are making incremental good choices and have a clue about both ultimate performance and doing development on

    • Were they ever in the running ?

  • I don't know what their problem is. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 08, 2004 @02:25AM (#9639643)
    MY spaceship wasn't affected by wind shear.

  • I don't get it ... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Tensor ( 102132 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @02:27AM (#9639652)
    The article says that the problems were caused by:
    "the actuator delayed moving one of the ship's flaps because it "had run against a stop," limiting its movement."

    Isn't the WHOLE purpose of the stop to limit movement? or was the stop jarred loose and was stopping movement when it wasn't supposed to ?

    • Re:I don't get it ... (Score:4, Informative)

      by RollingThunder ( 88952 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @03:21AM (#9639836)
      That could mean that it whacked into the stop pretty hard, and then couldn't return. They're not saying which direction the movement was limited in. :)

    • Re:I don't get it ... (Score:5, Funny)

      by frankmu ( 68782 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @04:12AM (#9639996) Homepage
      Rutan probably had to change the dial from "10" to "11"

    • Control Limiting is a Serious Problem (Score:5, Informative)

      by Goldenhawk ( 242867 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @09:55AM (#9641624) Homepage
      A few months ago, I took a class on Pilot-Induced Oscillations (PIOs). As an aerospace engineer who works on military high performance aircraft, I know how bad PIOs can be, and just how deadly a problem they can be. This looks like a classic PIO, triggered by a control problem.

      To summarize the two-day class into one paragraph, a PIO is an oscillation that is generally sustained by pilot inputs, is usually triggered by some external event, and has at least two common causes: rate-limited control actuators, or so-called "phase lags" (lag between input and output).

      Relevant to this case, then, is the roll actuator (the hydraulic device responsible for moving the roll control surfaces). It sounds from the non-technical answer in the article "the actuator delayed moving one of the ship's flaps" like a rate-limited actuator. The pilot demanded a larger input faster than the system was able to provide, so the control surface hit its stop.

      What ends up happening, in such a case, is that the pilot doesn't get the overall response he expects, so he puts in MORE input. But then it turns out to be too much, so he puts in a response the other way - but it takes a while to start reacting, so he puts in MORE input... etc. etc. etc..

      Also, the "external event" in this case was probably a wind shear. You can have a PIO-prone system and it will fly just fine - right up until you hit that trigger event which is just large enough to throw you into a PIO - and then you're basically hosed. Nothing you can physically do will stop the PIO - OTHER than just releasing the controls and letting everything stop naturally - because it's the inputs that drive the oscillation. And you can bet that's quite frightening for a control-freak pilot who's afraid he's about to lose control. Takes a LOT of training in how to recognize it for what it is; stopping it is easy (if you have time or altitude) - just let go.

      To fix a control system that has PIO problems, you can (a) increase the authority of the control device, (b) increase the response speed of the device, or (c) decrease the phase lag so it responds more quickly. None of those fixes are trivial, unless they're caused by a broken component.

      I'm quite sure Rutan, of all people, is intimately familiar with this issue, and I have no doubt that he and his team will address it appropriately.

      • This looks like a classic PIO....

        Knowing a bit about Mike Melvill's attitude, capabilities, skills as a test pilot, and previous flight test responses to unpredicted situations, I think you're barking up the wrong tree with this theory.

        ...the "external event" in this case was probably a wind shear.

        The wind shear induced a 90 degree roll to the left, followed by a 90 degree roll to the right. That doesn't sound at all like a pattern of pilot induced oscillation, characterized by overcontrol wi

      • Re:Control Limiting is a Serious Problem (Score:5, Funny)

        by Dun Malg ( 230075 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @09:48PM (#9648956) Homepage
        Nothing you can physically do will stop the PIO - OTHER than just releasing the controls and letting everything stop naturally - because it's the inputs that drive the oscillation. And you can bet that's quite frightening for a control-freak pilot who's afraid he's about to lose control. Takes a LOT of training in how to recognize it for what it is; stopping it is easy (if you have time or altitude) - just let go.

        I remember an Air Force F-15 pilot telling my father a couple stories about training fighter pilots in some Islamic Persian Gulf state (dunno - I was only 8 years old then). He said the students had an alarming habit of reacting to control difficulties during training flights by letting go of the stick, throwing their arms in the air and shouting "Allahu Akbar". This reaction worked when the trouble was PIO, but he frequently had to take control because the students would simply let go and trust Allah to fly the plane out of trouble for them! One time, shortly before returning to the US, the training aircraft suffered some sort of serious failure and the student pilot shouted "Allahu Akbar" repeatedly as the plane spun out of control. He (the instructor) yelled at him to eject, but he just kept saying "Allahu Akbar". So the instructor ejected and landed without serious injury, while the student rode the plane all the way into the ground.

  • Good idea (Score:3, Interesting)

    by no1here ( 467578 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @02:28AM (#9639657) Homepage
    Rutan's plan to have 3 flights within 2 weeks is a good idea. That way they have an even better chance of winning the prize. It's something I never thought of before.

  • And without co-op students, no less! (Score:5, Funny)

    by westendgirl ( 680185 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @02:28AM (#9639658) Homepage
    According to Scaled's Careers page [scaled.com], "We are sorry but Scaled is unable to hire Summer interns or Co-op students." I didn't think any high tech companies could cope without co-ops and interns!

  • Simple Process (Score:4, Funny)

    by nasor ( 690345 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @02:30AM (#9639665)
    "1) A control surface actuator had run against a stop limiting its movement, and 2) Wind shear caused the 90-degree roll shortly after rocket ignition. Rutan also said with the problems now identified, the next time SpaceShipOne flies, it will be to win the prize."

    So I guess it's:

    1. Fix control surface actuator
    2. Fix wind shear problem
    3. Profit!

    • Re:Simple Process (Score:5, Funny)

      by SlashdotLemming ( 640272 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @02:55AM (#9639760)
      Reminds me of how I write software

      1. Write code
      2. Proclaim success!
      3. Prof... err, wait, some bugs
      4. Fix code
      5. Proclaim success!
      6. Prof... err, wait, some bugs
      7. Fix code
      8. Proclaim success!
      9. Prof... err, wait, some bugs
      ...

      • Re:Simple Process (Score:5, Funny)

        by el-spectre ( 668104 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @03:49AM (#9639919) Journal
        I've often defined programming as the process of thinking "Oh, I am a GOD!!" and then "Jesus, how stupid can I be", several times an hour :)

      • Re:Simple Process (Score:5, Interesting)

        by zuzulo ( 136299 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @04:01AM (#9639960) Homepage
        I think you forgot the most important part of the development process. So my general software development proceedure tends to look more like -

        1. Write code
        2. Proclaim success!
        3. Prof... err, wait, some bugs
        4. Fix code
        5. Proclaim success!
        6. Prof... err, wait, some bugs
        7. Customer or Management changes requirements
        8. goto 1.
        9. Profit!

        Maybe I should debug my development methodology, seeing as I never seem to get to step 9.

        The cool thing about the xprize is that it provides a fixed milestone for private companies to shoot for in a fixed timeframe.

        I am a big fan of the private 'prize' process, and think that with the success of the xprize we should figure out how to offer a slew of additional prizes to continue to stimulate private space efforts.

        I am somewhat surprized that there are not more prizes offered for solutions to hard problems in other areas. Seems like a cheap way for folks to get researchers motivated.

        Why not start a non-profit foundation whose sole purpose is to offer bounties with well defined acceptance criteria for a whole range of technical challenges? Any philanthropic and technically oriented billionaires up for the challenge? ;-)

        • Re:Simple Process (Score:5, Interesting)

          by FireFury03 ( 653718 ) <slashdot@NoSPAm.nexusuk.org> on Thursday July 08, 2004 @04:49AM (#9640113) Homepage
          I am a big fan of the private 'prize' process, and think that with the success of the xprize we should figure out how to offer a slew of additional prizes to continue to stimulate private space efforts.

          I think (hope?) that once the X-Prize has been won, there will be another prize put up for the first private flight into orbit, since that's the next big milestone in commercial spaceflight. Or maybe a prize for the first suborbital space flight to the other side of the planet - there are big applications for suborbital space flight as a replacement for normal air travel since once you get our of the atmosphere going hypersonic is much easier.

          I must admit that I didn't realise the prize expired at the end of this year though - that kinda puts a lot of pressure on everyone.
    • c/Profit!/Get Laid/

  • See headlines now... (Score:5, Funny)

    by eamacnaghten ( 695001 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @02:30AM (#9639667) Homepage Journal
    I can see the headlines - SpaceShipOne flies into space - passenger lands safetly near launch site...

    His luggage lands in Africa somewhere...

    • Looks like someone got modded by a humorless baggage handler for one of the airlines.
      Lighten up people, some jokes I can see getting down modded by mistake or for mentioning proffit or russia, but this one was obviously enough a joke that you'd have to be minus a few clue points to miss.

      Mycroft

      • Re:See headlines now... (Score:5, Funny)

        by bsartist ( 550317 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @02:49AM (#9639737) Homepage
        The modders are trained to mod down posts that vibrate. They ignore posts that tick; modern trolls vibrate. They're careful never to imply ownership; in the case of a troll they refer to it as "a troll", never "your troll".

  • Passengers (Score:5, Interesting)

    by femto ( 459605 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @02:31AM (#9639674) Homepage
    I reckon Scaled Composites could almost make more than the value of the X-Prize if they offered those two empty seats for sale. It's almost worth starting a fake ebay auction just to see what price is reached!
    • They probably can't. I suspect there would be a whole other set of FAA hoops they'd have to jump through to take paying 'passengers'. Not to mention insurance issues.

      • Re:Passengers (Score:3, Interesting)

        by EABird ( 554070 )
        IANAL but... I think the closest applicable set of regulations would be within FAR (US Title 14) Part 135 and 91. If the service was provided under either part, the regulations are not extreme, and as I see it, could be construed to allow a part 135 or part 91 operator (with a commercial certificate and currency requirements) to provide the service with minimal hoops. As I see it, the most difficult parts would be the clearance to climb through the Class A airspace between 18,000 and 60,000 ft, the waiver

  • Chaos and Unpredictability (Score:5, Interesting)

    by KitFox ( 712780 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @02:37AM (#9639693)
    Nothing is really guarenteed to be perfect. The fact that there are factors that are beyond our control and completely unpredictable means that there is always a chance that something will go wrong. Fixing it and trying to make sure it doesn't go wrong again is all fine and everything, but there is always that probability factor that we cannot detect, calculate, or control.

    I am just quite glad that they had the backup system, because that is what prevented a catastrophy. If there is a x% chance that the primary system will fail, and x% that the backup will fail, combined it makes the chances of a catastrophy much lower.

    I believe that if we are going to be successful at a private space race, or even any other high-risk things (Even lacking risk to human life), then redundancy and backup is definitely critical. If a few failed heat tiles can destroy a space craft and kill people, and there is no contingency plan for failed heat tiles, that is a problem. If a computer miscalculation in Metric vs English measurements can completely throw off a multibillion-dollar space probe, and there is no way to recover when the error is first detected and has not yet caused problems, then that is just not right.

    I look forward to seeing if they win the prize, and I applaud them for having contingencies. If more systems had contigencies for the most critical failures, we'd possibly be much further ahead in various technologies. Let's see how this space race goes.

    • Re:Chaos and Unpredictability (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      There is a lot to be said for redundancy. There is a lot to be said for redundancy. [duplication intended...]

      But I think there is even more to be said for simplicity.

      Fortunately both are signature attributes of Burt Rutan.
    • Metric vs English measurements

      You mean Metric vs Imperial or American measurements don't you? Here in England we use metric a lot (pretty much 100% of the time in engineering although there's probably a 50:50 split between metric and imperial outside of engineering circles). I honestly couldn't tell you how many yards in a mile, but I know right off the top of my head that there are 1000 metres in a kilometre and that 1 litre of water has a mass of 1 kilogram.
    • What happened with the loud bang the pilot heard during the last flight? It had looked like some of the composite material near the engine had buckled. I wonder if that is something they addressed, or if it is just a case of using more duct tape???

    • Re:Chaos and Unpredictability (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MadCow42 ( 243108 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @08:44AM (#9640972) Homepage
      Redundancy also has a cost - added cost, added weight, added complexity, added development time.

      The X-prize competitors probably will have SIGNIFICANTLY less redundancy than any NASA craft would ever have (triple redundancy is normal in spaceflight), but they'll also be cheaper, lighter, and faster-to-completion. The associated risks are ones that government-run institutions just wouldn't take.

      So, by putting the competition to the public instead of trying to achieve the same thing through NASA/etc. they're able to test riskier technologies quicker and cheaper - resulting in more significant technological advancement.

      The risks are great... but they're being taken by individuals that have weighed them and accept them, not a government that's accountable to it's populace.

      My meaningless 0.02.
      MadCow.

  • some questions (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BelugaParty ( 684507 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @02:53AM (#9639748)
    Paul Allen is worth more than a small country and he is funding Scaled Composites. If SC actually wins the X-Prize, will it really be a spectacular gain for space flight?

    NASA, on some level, is really an organization for several major and minor companies, why would it be ruled out of the prize?

    Will commercializing spaceflight be a step forward for space research? Why is it that when companies step into public domain scientific fields the results are inevitably viagra when there is still no cure for cancer, aids... etc. Public grants and public institutions (Nations and Universities) are still the bedrock for pure scientifc research. I only see economic and superficial consumerism inspired by the x-prize.

    What do you think?

    • Re:some questions (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ron_ivi ( 607351 ) <sdotno@cheapcomp ... s.com minus poet> on Thursday July 08, 2004 @03:08AM (#9639795)
      "Will commercializing spaceflight be a step forward for space research? ... when companies step in...the results are inevitably viagra when there is still no cure... etc. "
      Because recreational drugs like viagra and alchohol are more valued (practically by definition - they measure this value with their paychecks) by people than the hard-to-make-and-not-very-effective treatments for difficult to cure diseases.

      Similarly, Space Tourism has the potential to benefit many many people compared to the handful of astronauts who got to golf on the moon so far.

      " Public grants and public institutions (Nations and Universities) are still the bedrock for pure scientifc research. I only see economic and superficial consumerism inspired by the x-prize. "
      Public grants fund wierd artwork too. The outcome of both efforts (pure research and wierd artwork) is of direct interest to a pretty small class of people. I'm not saying it's a bad thing; just not wide-reaching.

      "NASA, on some level, is really an organization for several major and minor companies, why would it be ruled out of the prize?"

      Because NASA is doing it by taking other people's money. If NASA needed 10 more million, they have channels to ask for it. Scaled is doing it with their own.

      • Re:some questions (Score:3, Interesting)

        by BelugaParty ( 684507 )
        I really don't agree with you at all.

        Viagra is of almost no social benefit. Treatments for cancer save millions of lives around the world each year. Yes they are hard to make (at the moment) and are not always effective and have side effects, but this is exactly why money and effort should be put in this direction. While it may not reap huge economic benefit in the short term, saving lives will help the economies in the long term.

        I don't see how pure research is related to "weird artwork". Pure rese

        • Re:some questions (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Viagra is of almost no social benefit. Treatments for cancer save millions

          Both contributed a certain number of man-hours-of-happyness to the world. I'd say that's a social benefit.

          While it may not reap huge economic benefit in the short term, saving lives will help the economies in the long term.

          I bet more healty productive lives were created by Viagra than were saved by cancer drugs. But to me the long term economic benefit seems such a wierd way of measuring the social good of Viagra vs Gemzar I'

      • Re:some questions (Score:3, Insightful)

        by dpilot ( 134227 )
        >viagra vs cancer drugs...

        When you discover you've got cancer, which are you going to want to buy?

        >Space Tourism ... benefit

        Watch the word 'benefit'. Space tourism itself will have little benefit to society, other than to make a few people happy. It's merely a bigger handful than the really small handful of astronauts. The 'benefit' of space tourism to society will be in opening up economy-of-scale for space travel, so that in time we can actually DO something up there. For one, perhaps move enviro
        • I think this has great potential with the overweight 'epidemic' happening in the developed world as well. Instead of counting calories, Atkins, Hershey's Syrup & mashed potato diet, etc., we can ship the fat people to the moon or other low gravity settlement and they can live like Baron Harkonnen from Dune.

        • Re:some questions (Score:4, Insightful)

          by jdavidb ( 449077 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @09:59AM (#9641677) Homepage Journal

          Space tourism itself will have little benefit to society, other than to make a few people happy.

          On the contrary, space tourism is an excellent way to transfer money out of the hands of those rich enough to afford it and pump it into the economy. It's like a voluntary tax! If this industry takes off it could create many new jobs, technical jobs like we slashdotters like, here on our shores. How exactly is this a problem?

          Besides, we (virtually) don't get a say in it, anyway. Frankly, people have the right to spend their money on what they want to. If they want to blow $20 mil on a few moments in space, that's their prerogative. If an insanely rich person wants to fund expeditions into space with new equipment in addition to what NASA is already doing, it's his money, and what could be wrong with that? If you saved for something you really wanted that was expensive, how would you like it if suddenly the world was trying to tell you what you were spending was a waste?

          I'd rather see that money go to NASA than many of the things it does go to.

          I'm sure both NASA and the SpaceShipOne project would happily accept any private donations you have to offer, if you believe in it that much.

    • I think that it's much easier to fix a malfunctioning pecker than to hold back a life-threatening disease. However, I would assume that Pfizer's plan runs as follows:

      1. Identify impotence as a problem
      2. ??? (i.e. R &amp: D, and manufacture Viagra)
      3. Profit!!!! 4. Once you're bored of making loads of money off viagra, and you've got loads of competitors and are lying in oodles of money, devote your attention to fixing some of the world's real problems, like AIDS, cancer, and George Bush.

      Will comme

      • Re:some questions (Score:3, Informative)

        by AGMW ( 594303 )
        Identify impotence as a problem

        Actually, you are doing Pfizer somewhat of a disservice here. They were actually looking into drugs to be used during heart surgery, specifically drugs to be used to lower blood pressure during same.

        During some trials an interesting side effect was noticed. I expect there were some happy happy people.

        FYI & FWIW For those interested, high blood pressure is often a cause of impotence (though many might incorrectly argue that a higher pressure might be useful!). Of cour

    • Re:some questions (Score:2, Insightful)

      by amcox ( 588540 )
      Why is it that when companies step into public domain scientific fields the results are inevitably viagra when there is still no cure for cancer, aids... etc. Public grants and public institutions (Nations and Universities) are still the bedrock for pure scientifc research. I only see economic and superficial consumerism inspired by the x-prize.

      This is why it's so distressing that the research aspect of major universities has recently been driven more and more toward economic gain. Presidents and boards a

    • NASA is ruled out. (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      NASA is ruled out because that's what it says in the rules. This is to encourage private spaceflight. The main reason for that is efficiency. NASA can't screw in a light bulb for under $1M.

      Yes, Paul Allen paid a lot for this. He paid $20M. But as Rutan (I believe Dick) said at the SSOne launch, Paul Allen could have bought a flight to the ISS with that money (Tito paid $10M), but instead he bought an entire space program. So others will be able to go to space (for short periods) for a whole lot less than t

    • Re:some questions (Score:2, Interesting)

      by ocelotbob ( 173602 )
      Of course, you realize that viagara was a side effect of heart research, right? Seems that medication that was intended to help an ailing cardiovascular system also managed to give men's little friends a little pick me up, and the rest is history. Just because something is marketed doesn't mean that a corporation is all about making money.

    • Re:some questions (Score:3, Informative)

      by 59Bassman ( 749855 )

      Will commercializing spaceflight be a step forward for space research? Why is it that when companies step into public domain scientific fields the results are inevitably viagra when there is still no cure for cancer, aids... etc. Public grants and public institutions (Nations and Universities) are still the bedrock for pure scientifc research. I only see economic and superficial consumerism inspired by the x-prize.

      Cancer and aids research is ongoing. It hasn't stopped. But it's a tough nut to crack, o

    • Will commercializing spaceflight be a step forward for space research? Why is it that when companies step into public domain scientific fields the results are inevitably viagra when there is still no cure for cancer, aids... etc.

      If I'm not mistaken, Viagra was originally a blood pressure drug. Do you really believe that the major durg companies aren't spending millions every year on cancer, aids, etc.? Obviously, they are. It may not be for the altruistic reasons we would like them to, but they are. L

  • Space age (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ottffssent ( 18387 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @02:59AM (#9639766)
    Best of luck to all involved, Scaled Composites and others. I would love to see the Information Age give way to the Space Age and humanity crawl from the cradle of Earth.

  • Great, but... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by 91degrees ( 207121 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @03:32AM (#9639874) Journal
    This just an altitude record. Not a space flight! There's only so much you can do in suborbital. If you just want to get up there to launch a satellite, then you might as well simply use a big missile, and put the effort into recovering the lower stages.

    When they manage to get to 3 times that altitude, then its time to be impressed.

    • Re:Great, but... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by FleaPlus ( 6935 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @04:14AM (#9640000) Journal
      Even when one ignores the potential billions of dollars in the suborbital tourism market, this also opens the door for intercontinental spaceflights. Even if they don't go into orbit, it still lets people get around the globe quite fast ("one hour from New York to Tokyo") without having to worry about things like sonic booms along their path. Such intercontinental spaceflights are a nice transition to orbital flights.

      Even if that's not enough to impress you, it certainly fills me with amazement.
    • Its an aircraft with a rocket motor attached. Real spaceships can't use wings to slow themselves down and manuouveaure because there is no air to do it in! I'm sorry if I sound churlish but this whole enterprise to me smacks more of someones ego than anything practical. When they've solved the problems of manourveuring in a vacuum , long duration human life support (an O2 cylinder doesn't really count) , proper re-entry from near orbital speeds (which are required for any useful flights other than just oooh
      • Mediocre Troll. Rather than trying to judge their efforts by your own (inaccurate) personal definition of a spaceship, how about you try seeing it for what it is?. I am sure there are folk here who wouldn't consider it a spaceship unless it had Federation markings... "Its an aircraft with a rocket motor attached" - You mean like the space shuttle? "Real spaceships can't use wings to slow themselves down and manuouveaure(sic) because there is no air to do it in!" - Wow, the things you learn... You don't th
      • Man, you're head is shoved so far up you must not even need a heater in the winter.

        It has maneuvering thrusters, it has an O2 cannister because they have to carry their oxygen somehow. The cabin is pressurized however. If it were a bigger ship on a longer mission, of course it would be different. And finally, reentry. We've been re-entering the earth at breakneck speeds because it's the simplest physically (although not technically). Who's to say it's right? If someone can design a ship that can slow
        • "It's a spacecraft"

          Is it? Well in that case they won't need to modify it at all to into orbit will they? Whats that? It can't do it? But you just said its a proper spacecraft. So its a spacecraft that can't stay in space. Make your mind up.
          • Do you actually have a point or would you just like to argue semantics? It made it to space, it survived re-entry. For what, $20 million as the total cost of their research? Maybe for another $10 million they would have been able to provide something that could stay in space, but that wasn't their goal (and even then it would still be cheap).

            What is your definition of a spacecraft? Would not being able to enter and exit space be the main requirement? By all acounts, staying in space is among the easie
          • Would you agree that the capsule on the top of a Saturn V is a 'space craft'? 'cos it sure as hell couldn't make it into space without a whole bunch of help from the rest of the Saturn V.

      • We can build rockets and we can build aircraft. Getting rockets into space is expensive, and what we really need is to build 'spaceships' in orbit, and travel to them in some sort of 'shuttle'. Now a 'shuttle' is going to be, give or take, an aircraft with a rocket motor attached..

        This is why it is useful.

    • Re:Great, but... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by foniksonik ( 573572 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @06:01AM (#9640275) Homepage Journal
      "If you just want to get up there to launch a satellite" which has been done to death if you ask me.... I mean how many countries and companies already do this regularly, OH WAIT!

      The prize is for Manned Flight.

      Speaking of which, isn't "Space Flight" an oxymoron? Flight implies flying, movement through a medium using lift mechanisms. I was under the impression that generating lift required a medium a little more dense than the vacuum of space. Anyways... I don't see your Sub-Orbital Rocket Plane or Missile on the X-Prize list of contenders.. so that makes you:

      a hater, don't hate.

  • They will have to fly twice to win the X-Prize. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Thag ( 8436 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @10:13AM (#9641826) Homepage
    To win the X-Prize, you have to do two flights within a 14 day period.

    It's an important detail, because it means the vehicles have to be reusable with minimal refitting.

    The Space Shuttle could never win the X-Prize, even if it were flying and qualified for the contest, because its turnaround time is too long.

    Jon Acheson

  • 175 days left to win prize (Score:3, Insightful)

    by peter303 ( 12292 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @10:50AM (#9642317)
    The X Prize Web Site says its "fully funded until Jan 1, 2005", or 175 days from now. I presume some of the prize money or insurance behind it has time limits. That may be a reason why we are seeing a fair amount of activity in late 2004.
    • The X-Prize Foundation originally tried to raise all fo the funding to make the prize essentially open-ended. They got to about $5 million before they hit close to a brick wall in raising much more money other than nickle and dimes that the occasional space enthuisist was sending forward. That was when they "bought" an insurance police to get the rest of the money, on the condition that it had to be won by the end of 2004.

      This is why there is a time limit. It wasn't there originally, but once there were

Slashdot Top Deals

Math is like love -- a simple idea but it can get complicated. -- R. Drabek

Close