SpaceShipOne Captures the X Prize 896
I got to Mojave yesterday evening (it's a long way from El Paso), slept in my car, and got to the airfield itself just before 4 a.m. Traffic on state highway 58 was brisk already, though not clogged (which it later became), and nearly every car was turning onto the two-lane entrance heading for acres of packed-dirt parking spaces near the runway from which SpaceShipOne would take off.
The crowd which built up in the following hours was surprisingly quiet on takeoff, which happened right at 7:45 local time. Not exactly hushed -- perhaps "hesitant" is a better word, or maybe just waking up. Only scattered clapping (guilty!) as the White Knight / SpaceShipOne piggyback duo lifted off, followed shortly by two chase planes, an AlphaJet and a Beechcraft Starship. The enthusiasm grew, though, as the flight progressed; a P.A. system kept the spectators informed of the trip's progress.
When SpaceShipOne finally separated and fired upward ("Good release, good release!" over the P.A, followed by enthusiastic cheering), it was after three separate two-minute warnings, then for one-minute and 30-second intervals. After an 84-second burn followed by a clean shutdown, SpaceShipOne coasted to its final altitude. At 90 seconds into the flight, the ship was well past 100,000 feet, and out of sight to the unaided eye. At 7:51, an altitude of 328,000 feet was reported, but the ship was still climbing for the next 40,000 feet under its own momentum. The reported peak altitude is enough to top the previous record, set by an X-15 at 354,200 ft. in 1963.
The descent was happily uneventful. At 60,000 feet, Binnie experienced "slight oscillations" -- consistent with previous flights, according to the announcer, who continued to count down the altitude. At approximately 45,000 feet, the conditions are right for contrails, and more cheering erupted when those popped into view. The crowd perked up and cheered even more with the first of two sonic booms audible on the ground (the booms that occur during ascent aren't), pointing and shading their eyes from the sun, following the ship as it traveled in wide arcs to bleed off the energy of the ascent, followed by a smooth 3-point landing.
(Special thanks to the members of the Foothill High School band who traveled the three hours from Orange County to watch the flight and play both before and after the flight. The launch itself was surprisingly low on ceremony, and their playing provided a bit of well-deserved pomp.)
Summer Vacation In Outer Space (Score:5, Interesting)
After the first several dignitaries and rich adventurers (and probably pile of useless pop stars and actors/actresses) the thing will probably be booked solid with geeks with telescopes.
i wonder if William Shatner can get me cheap tickets through Priceline...
Re:Summer Vacation In Outer Space (Score:5, Funny)
"I'm sorry sir, your bags went to Uranus."
"D'Oh!"
Re:Summer Vacation In Outer Space (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Summer Vacation In Outer Space (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, and cost US$200,000
And have a non-trivial chance of killing you
Other than that, I'm totally there dude!
--
Free gmail invites [slashdot.org]
Re:Summer Vacation In Outer Space (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, and cost US$200,000
And have a non-trivial chance of killing you
Other than that, I'm totally there dude!
It's space exploration... to the max!!!!1!!!
Re:Summer Vacation In Outer Space (Score:5, Funny)
This post is about SpaceShipOne, REAL SpaceShipOne. This post is awesome. My name is James and I can't stop thinking about SpaceShipOne. This ship is cool; and by cool, I mean totally sweet.
Facts:
1. SpaceShipOne is a spaceship
2. SpaceShipOne flies into space ALL the time.
3. The purpose of SpaceShipOne is to flip out and do barrel rolls
Weapons and gear:
Rubber powered rocket
White Knight mothership
Floating M&Ms
Testimonial:
SpaceShipOne can fly anywhere it wants! SpaceShipOne sonic booms ALL the time and doesn't even think twice about it. This ship is so crazy and awesome that it barrel rolls ALL the time. I heard that this guy was flying SpaceShipOne. And when some dude launched the rocket the SpaceShipOne started oscillating like crazy. My friend Chico said he saw M&Ms totally float inside SpaceShipOne just because it was in a parabolic arc.
And that's what I call REAL ULTIMATE POWER!!!!!!!
If you don't believe that SpaceShipOne has REAL ULTIMATE POWER you better get a life right now or they will win the x-prize. It's an easy choice, if you ask me.
SpaceShipOne is sooooooooooo sweet that I want to crap my pants. I can't belive it sometimes, but I feel it inside my heart. SpaceShipOne is totally awesome and that's a fact. SpaceShipOne is fast, cool, strong, powerful, sexy, and 31337. I can't wait to start watching my Star Wars DVD next month. I love SpaceShipOne with all of my body (including my pee pee).
Re:Summer Vacation In Outer Space (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, and cost US$200,000
And have a non-trivial chance of killing you
One day this will all be routine and our children's children will be fascinated that people went into space on those Saturn V powered mostrosities or even the space shuttles. You have to look past the present and visualize the future. After a few crotchety space stations, what's to stop someone from building a hotel/resort/convention center in space? Money. Practicality? Don't talk to me about practicality, I've been to enough convention centers and you oughta know people go there to get away, shoot some golf, etc. All of which and new entertainment possibilities be made possible in Zero G. The only concern I'd have about such a thing is radiation and stray space garbage smacking into it, but I think they could get that sorted out too.
Dream a little.
we've got another broken window, cruise over to the space K-Mart and get a space scooter full of whoever is hanging around to work on it.
Re:Summer Vacation In Outer Space (Score:5, Insightful)
I can (and do) dream a lot, and I'm looking forward to a day when parabolic descent lasts for more than a few brief seconds, but the parent poster extrapolated from today's events into "Suddenly that old commercial advertisement for a Hilton Hotel in space doesn't sound so wacky anymore" and I disagree.
I think it still sounds as absurd as it did when it first aired, perhaps more so now, because I now have a more educated appreciation for just what it takes to get into space, let alone orbit.
Today is a watershed event in human history.
Today does not herald in the age of zero-G convention centers.
--
Free gmail invites [slashdot.org]
Re:Summer Vacation In Outer Space (Score:4, Interesting)
I would argue that the first manned flight in space was the first step toward zero-G convention centers. Today is just one rung of a very tall ladder.
A very important rung, because it is civilian, privately funded, done on the cheap, was done on the first attempt, has attracted more venture capital, uses a safer fuel, and more importantly it sparks the imagination of millions of kids, of all ages.
Space hotels (of some sort) are not likely in the next 5 years, but as a 40 year old, they just MIGHT be in my lifetime. I had not thought so until recently.
The future is getting closer all the time.
Re:Summer Vacation In Outer Space (Score:4, Insightful)
My robotic vaccumm cleaner arrived today.
Bruce
Re:Summer Vacation In Outer Space (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Summer Vacation In Outer Space (Score:5, Insightful)
Reality check.
According to the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association [aopa.org], your chances of dying or being seriously injured in an airplane are about 1:4.3 MILLION.
Your chances of dying or being seriously injured in a car, by comparison, work out to about 1:125.
I would say that right now, space flight has a higher than 1:125 chance of serious injury and/or death, but not substantially, and not as the technology matures. I think it will evolve to being quite safe, personally.
Re:Summer Vacation In Outer Space (Score:5, Insightful)
The risk for an incident involving a car is much higher than that involving an airplane because most people's exposure to cars is far higher than airplanes. I interact with cars as a driver, passenger, or pedestrian every day. I might fly, as a passenger in an airplane, once or twice a year.
Your comment is simply wrong (Score:5, Informative)
Some car crashes should count on the airline side (Score:4, Interesting)
I've seen that claim often. And suspect it's true. (I was in a plane, for instance, that blew ALL the tires on one side when it touched down - due to improper maintainence. I'm afraid I wrecked the captain's day when I congratulated him on the landing - he'd just bet another crwe member that nobody noticed anything.)
But I'd trust it a LOT more if any auto fatalities of auto passengers in the horrendous traffic near airports (where you WOULDN'T have been driving if you didn't have to go there to transfer to/from the plane) were counted toward the air travel, rather than car travel, totals.
Nope you are wrong too (Score:5, Insightful)
The factor that makes all the difference between accidents from flying verses driving is based on training, currency, and type rating. You only need one generic license to drive any passenger vehicles and in most states there are never any requirements other than paying a fee to get it renewed. Also the requirements to show driving profficiency are so pathetically low and the odds of ever lossing your license even more so when compaired to that of a pilot's license.
Essentially if they held drivers to the same standards as they did pilots right off the bat at least 25% of the population would never be allowed to drive, ever. 75% of the remaining population would not be allow to drive anything but a 50hp compact car at speeds less than 40MPH during the day and only on nice clear weather free days. Also nearly anyone involved in an accident where they were at fault or illegal activity would loose their license until a governing board could review the discretion and then most likely if they were found to be negligent loose it for several years if not permanently.
For some odd reason I see the number of auto accidents being greatly reduced if that were the case.
Re:Summer Vacation In Outer Space (Score:4, Informative)
According to the Research and Special Programs Administration Office of Hazardous Materials Safety (who said our government is bloated?) here are the stats:
Motor Vehicle
-General population risk for accidental death: 1 in 6,300 per year
-1.7 deaths per 100 million veh. miles
Commercial Air Carriers (Includes large and commuter airlines)
- General population risk for accidental death: 1 in 1,568,000 per year
- 0.19 deaths per million aircraft departures
To compare trip by trip risk, I'll estimate an average car trip at 20 miles. That yields 1.7 deaths per 5 million car trips, compared to about 1 death per 5 million airline departures. So using this estimate of car trip length, taking a car ride is almost twice as risky as taking a flight.
For some more perspective, I took a class on health care two years ago that spent a lot of time on an Institute of Medicine report [nap.edu]. The report is famous for showing that preventable medical errors in hospitals are responsible for more deaths every year than motor vehicle accidents.
And the industry that health care experts often use as a model for improvement? The airline industry.
So you're healthiest in a plane...if you can't afford to fly all day, then a car will do. But don't go to a hospital!
Re:Summer Vacation In Outer Space (Score:4, Informative)
It only takes 15 hours of instruction until you can solo under the new Sport Pilot rules, full license can be obtained in as little as 20 total hours (minimum).
Private pilot certificate is 20hrs to solo and 40hrs total (minimum).
It takes absolutely no permits or instruction for you to legally climb into your very own (single-seat) ultralight... though you'd be very silly to do it that way. Even if you wanted to get training, you're only looking at 10-15 hours of work before you're on your own.
Re:Summer Vacation In Outer Space (Score:4, Insightful)
1) You are over 25;
2) OR you are not male;
3) AND you travel mostly on divided highways as opposed to secondary roads;
4) AND you travel in the daytime or early evening, rather than late at night when drunk people are driving;
5) AND you yourself are not drinking or smoking or pill popping or talking on the phone or otherwise not paying attention;
6) AND you're actually wearing your seat belt;
7) AND the car you're driving has good brakes (preferably anti-lock brakes);
8) AND it has good tires;
9) AND it's not some junker with bad shocks and loose steering;
10) AND you're driving in decent conditions, not when it's snowing or icing up
THEN what is the probability of dying in a car crash? It's basically the chance of being hit by or running into a random nut. Which is very very low.
If on the other hand you are under 25, driving too fast with your friends, out late at night and drunk/driving with drunks, cruising secondary roads, not wearing your seat belt, driving an old junker with crappy brakes and shitty tires, then I guess you'd be safer strapped to an airline seat.
Which is why statistics suck. Throw all the above variables into a multiple regression, then show me airplanes are "safer," and I'll believe. It won't happen, because the airlines would never fund such a study. Drunk teenagers keep the road death statistics high, and the airlines in business.
Bigelow's inflatables and the next prize (Score:5, Informative)
Bigelow has recently announced the logical follow-up to the X-Prize: America's Space Prize [space.com], a $50 million prize to build a vehicle capable of taking 7 people to an orbiting space habitat and back before the end of the decade.
Bigelow actually denies any plans for an orbital hotel, but with his background everyone keeps assuming that's his intention anyway.
Re:Summer Vacation In Outer Space (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Summer Vacation In Outer Space (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Summer Vacation In Outer Space (Score:5, Informative)
Pilot bios: http://scaled.com/projects/tierone/info.htm [scaled.com]
Re:Summer Vacation In Outer Space (Score:5, Funny)
Do you jump in your car and innovate home?
If I built the car from parts I mostly designed myself, then yeah, I innovate to work and back.
Re:Summer Vacation In Outer Space (Score:5, Insightful)
This is being blown way out of proportion.
Re:Summer Vacation In Outer Space (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a rather silly thing to get worked up about, IMHO. Bottom line, yes, anyone can compete, but yes, an American team *did* win it.
It's like rants about what "could have" happened if the quarterback had thrown for 2 more touchdowns, or if Lee had flanked instead of going up the middle at Chancellorsville, or whatever. Does it really matter what "coulda/shoulda" happened? No. Does the fact that an American financier, designer, and builder won the prize? Sort of. Does it mean noone else could have done it? Of course NOT.
There's nothing wrong, inaccurate, about doing it first; but there's no claim that only Americans can do it, or "could have" done it first. There is *something* to be said about doing it first, and I like to think that's all the original poster was driving at. First in Flight, and all that (and please, PLEASE don't turn that into the conspiracy theory of the day as to who REALLY flew first).
After all, this is about privatized, commercial access to space. We should all know that first in buys you something, doing it better and/or cheaper and/or cooler can ALSO mean something, when it comes to commerce. Apple didn't invent the portable music player, Betamax came before VHS (right?). Paraphrasing Churchill, this isn't the beginning of the end, but rather the end of the beginning.
Xentax
Re:Summer Vacation In Outer Space (Score:5, Insightful)
Sometimes I think America's achievements are in the same category as the old saw about marriage...what's yours is yours and what's ours is yours.
Whatever, man. Obviously nothing good has ever, ever come out of the US, so your bias is totally justifiable.
Americans aren't too proud.... (Score:4, Insightful)
The US sometimes isn't the leader in Aerospace but give them credit when it's due. Russians and Canadians bet them in the sattelite race--the Canadians also beat the Americans to Mach 2 flight speed. And the REALLY big, complicated projects are the result of collaberation between all three of those nations among many others. However one thing the US consistently tops the world in is national pride and the associated amitious goals they have set. Only Amercans had the balls to reach for the moon and actually REACH it. When they win they win BIG.
Thank God rocket scientists don't get into pissing matches like the ones here or nothing would get done.
Re:Summer Vacation In Outer Space (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Summer Vacation In Outer Space (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Summer Vacation In Outer Space (Score:5, Insightful)
Walk before you crawl, padawan.
The difference is, this is a bottom-up approach to space travel, with much larger socio-economic implications. What's the incentive for the government to go to space? Exploration, a little research, mostly the "because it's there" argument. That doesn't generate much initiative. What's the incentive for a private company to ferry tourists to sub-orbit? $200,000. Each. As more people make the trip, the companies will get better at their craft, building more efficient, higher-performace vehicles. Pretty soon, people will be going to orbit for the same price they went to sub-orbit, and the price will be going down all the time. Cargo capacities will increase, and the cost-per-pound to high Earth orbit will decrease dramatically. At that point, it's economically viable for a large corporation to purchase vehicles that would allow them to grow near-perfect crystals in microgravity, for instance, to be used in optics or timepieces or jewelry. Hotels WILL be built in space. Industries will be born that we can't even imagine right now. Think about what the internet/home computing did as far as creating industries. No one in the 1960s would have even dreamed of the industries we have now. And most of it was due to a small company mass-producing a computer that fit on a table. Everything this private company did had already been done, by the government, and many other small companies followed suit. There were no computing advantages to making a computer fit on a table, since it was slower than the best room-sized computers of the day. There were only economic advantages.
The bottom line is that this is a window to getting thousands of people into space, and many more thousands working on ways to do it cheaply, efficiently, and safely. Once those pieces are in place, we will finally see the *real* space age. For a parallel, please research the rise of the desktop computer, the history of the automobile, and the entire airline industry.
Re:Summer Vacation In Outer Space (Score:5, Insightful)
I will say it again, since apparently it didn't register the first time: we need both. Private enterprise provides innovation, competition, and efficiency. Government provides money -- money which industry could supply, but won't until profits are closely in sight -- infrastructure, and long-term planning. Neither is inherently superior to the other, and both work better in an environment of cooperation than in one of mutual ignorance.
Anti-government ideologues never seem to realize how much they sound like Marxists
Re:Summer Vacation In Outer Space As a CORPS (Score:5, Insightful)
This statement would only make sense if you think the government should own your life. If, on the other hand, you believe individuals own their own lives, you'd be glad the government stayed out of the way.
Some other contenders:
* American Astronautics
* Acceleration Engineering
* American Advent
* ARCA
* Armadillo Aerospace
* Bristol Spaceplanes
* Canadian Arrow
* Da Vinci
* Discraft Corporation
* Fundamental Technology Systems
* High Altitude Research Corp.
* Interorbital Systems
* ILAT
* Lone Star Space Access
* Micro Space
* Pablo de León & Associates
* PanAero, Inc.
* Pioneer Rocketplane
* Mojave Aerospace Ventures, LLC.
* Space Transport Corporation
* Starchaser Industries LTD
* Suborbital Corporation
* TGV Rockets, Inc.
* Vanguard Spacecraft
A little disappointing (Score:5, Insightful)
What do you think will happen to the other projects? I suppose they must have been funded well enough to not depend on receiving the prize.
Re:A little disappointing (Score:5, Informative)
A little disappointing, but predictable! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A little disappointing (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A little disappointing (Score:5, Insightful)
Binnie has to survive for 24 hours (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Binnie has to survive for 24 hours (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, but bullets generally come in boxes of 10 or 20.
Recalibrating prices (Score:4, Interesting)
Based on the fact that this was an order of magnitude or two cheaper than comparable NASA missions, anyone care to extrapolate a Moon or Mars mission if NASA is just turned into a clearing house for prize money? I'm guessing that Zubrin's crazy estimates of less than $25 billion seem a lot less crazy now.
Re:Recalibrating prices (Score:5, Informative)
sub-orbital Mercury missions went nearly twice as high, and the rest
were all orbital. This is closer to the X-15 project: carried up by a
plane and dropped and then firing a rocket engine to just reach the edge
of space. There is a big difference.
Re:Recalibrating prices (Score:4, Insightful)
The X-15 (Score:5, Informative)
If you assume that a 1960 dollar is worth 4x of what it is today, then SS1 cost 1/4 of the X-15.
Well done Scaled!
myke
Re:The X-15 (Score:4, Insightful)
Not to say SS1 isn't a teriffic accomplishment, but it's not fair to compare the costs of these projects so directly!
=Smidge=
Re:The X-15 (Score:5, Informative)
The X-15 program cost a heck of a lot more than $25,000,000... though it did make nearly 200 flights, rather than three.
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4219/Chapter6.html:
'The program's total cost, including development and eight years of operations are usually estimated at $300 million in 1969 dollars. Each flight is estimated to have cost $600,000.'
So that would put X-15 development cost at about $180 million in 1969 dollars vs about $25 million in 2004 dollars for SS1. Whether it's a fair comparison is debatable, however, since the X-15 had to make high speed flights as well as high altitude flights.
Re:Recalibrating prices (Score:5, Interesting)
I knew I would find posting like this one ;-)
No they were not. Early Mercury missions were flying the ballistic trajectory. All the equipment (except the booster) was identical to the later orbital flights. The only different thing to do to a Mercury capsule to go orbital instead of ballistic was to push it harder with a more powerful booster.
As such, SpaceShipOne flights (which go straight up) are NOT sub-orbital in a Mercury sense.
Re:Recalibrating prices (Score:5, Informative)
No, no it doesn't. It doesn't encounter any heat whatsoever. It's quite cold in the upper atmosphere. The Shuttle generates a lot of heat upon re-entry, though. That heat is created by the friction of doing an atmospheric entry at a low angle and with high speed.
The genius of SpaceShipOne is that it essentially tumbles back into the atmosphere at a high angle of attack, with a high drag configuration, and very low speed. The low speed entry generates very little friction and therefore negligable heat.
Re:Recalibrating prices (Score:4, Insightful)
That's not genius. That's the happy byproduct of not going into orbit. SpaceShipOne is in no way capable surviving reentry from orbital velocities. Not even close.
If you look at an orbital craft's launch profile, you see 90% of the energy goes into horizontal motion, not vertical. All that energy gets dumped on the return trip. The most tricky part of any orbital craft is dumping that reentry heat, and the X-prize simply didn't require that kind of sophistication. The shuttle would have been orders of magnitude cheaper and safer except for that pesky little detail.
Burt Rutan (Score:5, Insightful)
Congrats to Paul Allen as well, for his vision and support.
Old News. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Old News. (Score:5, Funny)
At least we got the news today instead of next week. Although we'll probably also get this report next week.
WTF!!?!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course Rutan didn't perform any of the fundamental research that lead to the first manned flights, so his efforts are piggy-backing on those of NASA.
What a bullshit comparison.
Re:WTF!!?!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:WTF!!?!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, NASA did much of the basic research.
But that was all done decades ago.
Does that mean they should have a permanent monopoly on space?
If this had been a NASA mission, would it not have cost ten times as much? And that makes it pretty much impossible to go to space for any reasons other than big-time investments like satellites.
I thought How the West Wasn't Won [spacefuture.com] was a very nice parable on this subject.
D
Re:WTF!!?!! (Score:5, Informative)
Rutan uses an engine of a very different design than anything used by NASA (Nitrous Oxide and rubber), and the re-entry configuration (feathering the wings to maximize drag)is totally new AFAIK. Think about it - the skin of this spacecraft is constructed of fabric and glue!!!
I would love to learn more about how Scaled was able to be so succesfull on such a limited budget using a completely new and radical desgn. There is probably a lesson here applicable to just about any engineering endeavor.
Um no Re:WTF!!?!! (Score:4, Informative)
Let's see fundamental research:
- flying (see Wright brothers- not NASA)
- rockets in general (see Chinese/Goddard/Germans)
- reentry feather tail (Rutan- not NASA)
- jet engines (Whittle- not NASA)
- hybrid rocket motors (irc Bevin, not NASA)
- supersonic flight (X1-US Airforce- not NASA)
In fact, I can't think of any technology on SS1 or WhiteKnight where the fundamental research was by NASA. Anyone?
Re:Um no Re:WTF!!?!! (Score:4, Insightful)
So you are saying that the X-prize that generated SS1 was foolish? But it has worked!
Business will need to be convinced that they can make a profit for their investment.
Apparently you missed the announcement. Funnily enough, a few days ago, Branson just announced that he had agree to pay for the R&D of the passenger version of SpaceShipOne, Virgin Galactic [virgingalactic.com].
Looks like the X-prize has worked. That's exactly the situation that it was intended to create. The whole point is to improve the confidence factor for businesses to invest in space tourism. If suborbital is even halfway successful, orbital should be right behind it.
In some ways it is cheaper than suborbital- you get orders of magnitude more zero-gravity time per dollar.
Re:WTF!!?!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, they are piggy backing on NASA.
But I guess that NASA developed a number of things.
BTW, I have done work for NASA and it will always remain one of my favorite entities. But NASA did not stand alone. They stood on the shoulders of other giants.
Re:You are an idiot. (Score:3, Insightful)
Different than what?
Oh, you mean the one that worked for 40 years?
The fact that you have a comparison to make only reinforces my point.
How many hours of Rutan's work was spent on failed attempts to achieve space flight?
Wow, he didn't have to spend any because it had already been done.
Re:You are an idiot. (Score:5, Insightful)
None of this takes away from Rutan et al.s fantastic achievement. But let's keep a little perspective : NASA has problems, but it still has achieved an incredible amount, and it (and the smart people who work there) deserve a bit more respect from the slashdot crowd.
Re:You are an idiot. (Score:3, Informative)
OK so a shuttle goes into orbit for how long and supports life and experiments for that duration. How long did SS1 stay up for? Not that long (just a couple mins). They didn't even do one orbit.
Not that I am trying to take away from what they did. I shed a tear as I watched this morning.
Watched it live.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to say, it brought a tear to my eye when they did it. Yo, America - you guys have something to be proud of today!
Actually they have not won yet. (Score:4, Funny)
Even as we speak Spaceship ones competitors are arranging a hit......
Today is a great day (Score:3, Insightful)
Next step: orbit [space.com].
I wonder... (Score:3, Interesting)
END COMMUNICATION
Re:I wonder... (Score:3, Informative)
Also, everything's not lost, there still is a $50 million prize offered by Robert Bigelow, for building a spacecraft that can bring 5-7 astronauts in orbit.
Microsoft Money does something cool for a change. (Score:5, Interesting)
I just hope these guys didn't use Microsoft Space Management to run the thing, although I have a nasty feeling that they had to
Well, it worked. And today, that's all that matters. I lift a glass of metaphorical champagne. For today, a truce -- at least until I see my next Windows meltdown here on the ground.
(Come to think of it, though, I believe Paul Allen has very little to do with Microsoft nowadays -- right?)
D
Re:Microsoft Money does something cool for a chang (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Microsoft Money does something cool for a chang (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Microsoft Money does something cool for a chang (Score:4, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceShipOne_flight_
http://scaled.com/projects/tierone/logs-WK-SS1.ht
extra weight (Score:5, Funny)
Re:extra weight (Score:4, Informative)
Budget embarressingly smaller? (Score:5, Insightful)
now today will forever be a dual anniversary (Score:5, Funny)
Soviet Russia and Capitalist America, forever entwined by space history.
budget embarrassingly smaller than NASA's (Score:5, Insightful)
>embarrassingly smaller than NASA's.
Let's see them reach orbital velocity and then I'll be impressed by the budget difference.
It is not that I am unimpressed by the flight, but I'm not really impressed by comparing the budgets of two totally different projects with totally different goals.
Shwaaa? (Score:5, Interesting)
That is the point - to 'technically" do it. Sure the X-prize is won, but like a first in anything this is a starting point not a finish line.
I'm sure more technically minded will discuss practial applications and new limits to be beaten. But I'm glad I was here to "witness" this. I imagine in 100 years when people will talk about this like they talk about kittyhawk now.
next stop: orbit (Score:3, Insightful)
This is an exciting time to be alive.
This Space Available (Score:3, Informative)
And incidentally, it's been a long time since Paul Allen was "Microsoft's own" - as a major shareholder not employed at the company for decades, it's more like Microsoft is Paul Allen's own, to some degree. More appropriate is to say that the money invested in winning the X-Prize was "our own" before we paid the Microsoft tax.
Great job scaled composites! (Score:5, Interesting)
it will win the $10 million purse, and more importantly attain the prestige of repeatably (if only technically) reaching space, on a budget embarrassingly smaller than NASA's
Although this is a great feat for a privately funded venture. This is only equivalent to NASA's first manned suborbital flight which happened in 1961. NASA has still put many people in space for extended periods of time, including 12 manned flights to the moon. And for all practical purposes, NASA started this adventure with no prior experience or knowledge of space flight. Also, a good portion of NASA's budget is for the first "A" in the acronym.
Again, this is a great feat, and its a first, but this is only the very beginning of private space flight.
Historical moment (Score:5, Funny)
Lighting a lot of fires... (Score:5, Insightful)
Congratulations are particularly in order for Anousheh Ansari's family [girlgeeks.org] without whom the X-Prize would not have been funded.
Hopefully guys like Paul Allen and Bill Gates will get the idea they can do a lot more with their philanthropy money if they put up prize awards than if the schmooze it up with toadies. If they do they will start making major advances not just in space migration but in life extension, intelligence increase and fusion energy [geocities.com] which will finally embarrass the government into doing what it should have been doing all along the right thing as well:
Fund prizes, not proposals.
Now Only US Way Into Space (Score:4, Insightful)
So basically, the ONLY way that the US can send anyone into space right now is with SpaceShip One - making it one of 3 vehicles, including Russia's Soyuz and China's Soyuz-esque rocket, that can go into space with people in it.
Its also significant that I think this is the only completely reusable vehicle to ever go into space, as being able to do a one-week turnaround shows, having this capability has some pretty big benefits.
Tim
Thinking about it... (Score:5, Insightful)
After I watched it I was thinking about who it really shows as being behind the ball. Well NASA is the obvious choice, but NASA made an investment from the 70s on into Shuttle and with the tangled web they have to tread with Congress and internal inertia, I don't think we can say "Look, NASA sucks!"
Who it really makes look foolish, in my opinion, is the Chinese space program.
They have been ramping up for thier space program for decades, and thier way of doing it was to buy Russian hardware, reverse engineer it and then build it again. No one knows how much that cost the Chinese, but look at Scaled. 250 people and about 25 million in venture capital is running a space operation out in the desert. Yea they haven't orbited yet. But they will, I've read it costs about $80,000 in fuel and prep.
Frustrated by the (lack) of coverage. (Score:5, Interesting)
I was bebopping from one news channel to another (no, I don't get CNN), looking for coverage of the flight. About 7:30-ish, NBC said they were going to have the seperation live in about ten minutes. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Lots of blather about how Mt. St. Helens could erupt at any time, much blather about Hollywood news, politics, and/or both, but naft on Space Ship One.
Then I caught mention that it had hit the mark, and would soon be landing. Again, live coverage of the landing coming up on MSNBC. Again, nothing. Nothing. More Mount St. Helens blather, more Hollywood, more people selling unsound "treatments" for non-existant "diseases",, then, finally, on Fox, a shot of SS1 landing.
Total coverage, from 6 different networks' news shows? Under a minute. For an event that could well have a major impact on humanity for generations to come. Not even 60 whole seconds of air time. Compare this to Lindberg's landing, and the hullabaloo that caused.
I'm steamed. As NBC claimed they were going to have live coverage, and didn't, and NBC is now MSNBC, I really hope that Paul Allen will raise the roof about this. After CBS' fake memos, and NBC dropping the ball here, I REALLY hate to point out that the place that had the most coverage, and the timeliest, was Fox News.
Scary.
Re:Frustrated by the (lack) of coverage. (Score:4, Informative)
Fox News actually had quite a bit of coverage. They only cut away during the (fairly) boring hour when the White Knight was still ferrying SpaceShipOne to 50,000 feet. Once it got close to separation, Fox stayed with it until well after landing, interviewing Walter Cunningham (Apollo 7 astronaut), Peter Diamandis (X-Prize founder), Eric Anderson (President of Space Adventures), and George Whitesides (National Space Society Executive Director). Their footage of the flight was not first-hand (it had another logo in the corner, so it was being rebroadcast), but it was quite good.
Remember, MSNBC (and Newsweek, owned by them) were the ones who saw China become only the world's third spacefaring nation and say, "so what?" Even if we end up with "The World's Craziest Rocket Explosion Videos", at least Fox is looking spaceward, while the rest of the (national) media has their heads in the proverbial sand.
On a related note, local coverage was really good. I was at the first launch last Wednesday morning, volunteering in the parking lot. Approximately 3 hours after the local Tuesday evening news coverage in L.A., traffic got really heavy. Seems the news coverage was compelling enough to make people drive through the night to get to Mojave. Even if the talking heads don't care, America apparently does.
from the it-takes-2-to-make-a-thing-go-right dept. (Score:3, Funny)
In a rare break of Microsoft solidarity, Steve Ballmer says most people flying to space are stowaways and Microsoft will lead the way to space. "There is no way you can get there with NASA. The critical mass has to come from the PC, or a next generation lift-off device."
Food for thought (Score:5, Insightful)
Second, I notice Rutan did NOT go on the second flight. In fact, from the fact that the two "passengers" were balast (again!), I'm concerned that Scaled Composites were more concerned about the rolls in the first flight than they let on.
Remember, Rutan was all dead-set on going into space on the second flight, and the spirit of the X-Prize rules was that the vehicle was to carry passengers. The fact that only the pilot was on the second flight indicates that the potential publicity coup of being on the second flight was outweighed by the risks.
The only risks we're aware of are the "bang" heard on the first sub-orbital flight, and the propensity for SpaceShipOne to lose control on the edge of the atmosphere. The first problem was likely overcome, which means that the second problem likely has not.
Whilst I certainly applaud Scaled Composites for what they have achieved, I think it's worth stressing that they will need to achieve a lot more (on the technical front) before the technology becomes viable.
Hmmm... (Score:4, Funny)
-Fight Club
John Carmack's team... (Score:5, Informative)
They are continuing work, albeit at a slower pace.
Re:John Carmack's team... (Score:5, Interesting)
Perspective (Score:4, Insightful)
But I must object to "embarrassingly smaller budget than NASA's." NASA had to do their first manned suborbital flight with 1950s hardware borrowed from the artillery boys, and without 40 years of prior experience to draw on.
The X Prize contestants are, in Newton's words, standing on the shoulders of giants. They're doing great things, and I applaud them, but there's no need to tear down other pioneers to build these guys up. The present work is quite impressive enough as it is.
just a reminder (Score:4, Interesting)
Space Station Reaction to the news (Score:5, Interesting)
One of the ground controllers told Mike and Gennady the news about the flight. Mike's statement was moving (hopefully I don't screw up his quote):
"It's nice to know, if only for a few minutes, that we're not the only two people up here."
That's how all of us engineers at NASA feel, as well. Most of us are here because we Believe in spaceflight, and it is a relief when some of that pressure gets taken off our shoulders.
More the merrier. Great job Scaled!
Re:368,000 ft, not 328,000 (Score:5, Informative)
Besides, 368,000 feet is also higher than the X-15 altitude record (roughly 355,000 feet).
Re:368,000 ft, not 328,000 (Score:3, Informative)
I checked NASA TV first, which is where I watched last week's flight - and there was nothing.
In fact, I couldn't find any live feeds, although the 'News Multiscreen' thingy on BBC News 24 on Freeview was showing the launch. Yes, a tiny quarter-screen, silent view from a ground
Re:368,000 ft, not 328,000 (Score:5, Informative)
SPACESHIPONE WINS THE $10 M ANSARI X PRIZE [xprize.com]
(apologies if slashcode mangles the above link)
Re:368,000 ft, not 328,000 (Score:3, Informative)
The first flight was 338,000 feet. This one was 30,000 feet (or ~10 km) higher.
They made this one far easier than the one before.
Re:Obligatory.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Holy shit... (Score:3, Funny)
There's actually going to be a company called "Virgin Galactic" in my lifetime.
Who else was disappointed after mistakenly reading about this new "Galactic Virgins" company?