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...
368,000 ft, not 328,000 (Score:2, Interesting)
According to those numbers, the first flight was several kilometers lower than the number given by the Mojave radar. i.e. The X-Prize foundation says that SpaceShipOne only went ~102 km, while the unofficial numbers has said ~117 km. This time SpaceShipOne only went to 368,000 (~102km) according to the unofficial numbers. (CNN said that 328,000 is the cutoff point, not the altitude) Given how much lower that number is, I'm sweating bullets until I get the numbers from the X-Prize foundation.
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.
Passengers (Score:2, Interesting)
I wonder... (Score:3, Interesting)
END COMMUNICATION
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
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.
Thanks X-Prize (Score:2, Interesting)
Now at least my children can have that dream again.
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.
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:Congratulations to private industry (Score:2, Interesting)
- Was enormously more expensive (especially by the dollars of the 1960s);
- Was hideously dangerous;
- Nearly dropped dead after the Apollo flights;
- Did not provide a reusable spacecraft (in fact, they've only just recently recovered the one Mercury capsule they lost).
That said, I do wish that Burt Rutan had admitted more of the debt he owes to the research (however overpriced and inefficient it might have been) NASA has done over the decades. Instead, he put words in the mouths of NASA: We are screwed.
Summer Vacation In Outer Space As a CORPS (Score:1, Interesting)
Yes, the Government is no longer able to keep us from killing ourselves in the name of adventure. Truthfully, a lot of these X-Prize contestans remind me of the guy who attached weather baloons to his lawn chair. Is it any wonder that Scaled won it? Not really, they where the only contender.
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:A little disappointing - Not really (Score:1, Interesting)
NASA Trashing (Score:3, Interesting)
Furthermore, this is a far cry from orbit. This was just lifting something into the sky. (Potential energy, which is equal to mass * grav. constant * height.) To reach orbit, you have to hit a really high rate of speed, which is kinetic energe:
So Scaled Composites was a great achievement, but it stood on the backs of giants. It's rocket will not scale to orbit, either, nor would that craft survive orbital reentry.
Re:extra weight (Score:2, Interesting)
Though apparently much of this extra mass was in memorabilia, apparently the Scaled Composite employees and pretty much anybody donating large sums of money got to put stuff on this flight. Apparently one of the other test pilots got to put his moms ashes on this flight. Creepy.
Re:Binnie has to survive for 24 hours (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:368,000 ft, not 328,000 (Score:1, Interesting)
As an aside, for anyone who missed "Black Sky" (part 2 being shown on Thursday), I suggest you watch your local listings to see when it airs again. It was a very good documentary that shows a lot of the human side and inner workings of the Scaled team and their efforts to reach space.
Re:Figures (Score:3, Interesting)
>Boy, private industry picking up and popularizing a government service
I'm glad you two both agree with me! Or put another way, duh! That's what's supposed to happen! Pure research (which especially these days, is mostly funded by the gov't) comes up with things that US businesses can then bring to market and profit on.
Pure research drives industry. The US Gov't (through military and non-military programs) is the biggest sponsor to pure research. And US industry grows. See a connection?
Oh, wait... neither of you are socialists who want the gov't to actually _compete_ with business, are you? I hope not.
For those living in the long island/nyc metro area (Score:2, Interesting)
Sky cycle (Score:3, Interesting)
Let us not forget that he also built Evil Knievel's Sky Cycle in the 70's. Did you see some of the exotic aircraft flying with SS1. They were his too. The guy is amazing.
just a reminder (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Summer Vacation In Outer Space As a CORPS (Score:3, Interesting)
Some of the others were serious contenders. Unless you research the "wacky" theories as well, no one will find some new rules. Submarines: Huh, everyone knows metals sink in the water. Heavier than Air travel: Duh, of course impossible (according to much reowned Lord Kelvin, discoverer o many thermodynamic rules).
Flying from baloons is quite viable, especially when you are talking about really big payloads. I hope daVinci team will manage to get to space, eventually.
Purpose of X Prize (Score:3, Interesting)
sorry ... (Score:2, Interesting)
timothy
Re:John Carmack's team... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Um no Re:WTF!!?!! (Score:3, Interesting)
"...reaching space, on a budget embarrassingly smaller than NASA's.."
My point stands. I maintain that Rutan and others in the private space club have benefitted handsomely from the aeronautical research conducted by governmental space agencies. Individuals whose posts are generally of the vein "gee, Rutan did with $25M what it would take NASA billions of dollars to achieve" is bullshit. The data produced as a result of fifty years of NASA research, as well as research by the Russian and European space agencies, are now taught as foundation coursework in aeronautics courses. The posts that proclaim that Rutan and the private industry are going to do what took governments billions to do is a false economy.
The textbooks that these aerospace engineers are using to calculate the design parameters of their space craft were written by the engineers and scientists of people who worked for NASA and other governmental space programs.
To claim that private companies will invest the money necessary to generate a similar body of data making the next leap in space commerce possible is foolish. Business will need to be convinced that they can make a profit for their investment.
Re:Summer Vacation In Outer Space (Score:3, Interesting)
Getting a pilots license is a lot more work and a greater financial commitment than getting a drivers license, and accordingly, only people who are willing to take on that greater responsibility are flying.
I have a non-commerical drivers license and a motorcycle endorsement. I spent a total of maybe 10 hours working on the drivers license, and maybe 15 on the motorcycle. After realizing how much I ride my motorcycle, and how dangerous it is (the other morning I had two quick stops required due to deer), I decided, what the hell, I might as well go get a pilots license too (I have an interesting view on my own abilities to increase personal growth).
The sheer ammount of study required is astronomical. And that's just for operating under Visual Flight Rules, which do not allow operation during poor weather conditions. I can see how flying can be safer, only from a standpoint of pilot certification.
If they adopted similar rules for driving, I'm sure the accident rating for automobiles would be decreasing instead of increasing. If you want to look at it from the most sane point of view, by overall percentage, the number of accidents that occur with automobiles has risen every year for 40 years. The number of accidents that occur with airplanes, by overall percentage, has lowered every year for 40 years, AND, there are more pilots in the sky than there were 40 years ago by a long shot.
Given that, I can safely say that exposure in this case is overrated. If the accident rating remained consistant to the number of pilots, it would be a valid argument.
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!
The launch isn't the whole vacation (Score:3, Interesting)
A ray of hope (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Microsoft Money & social engineering (Score:1, Interesting)
1) NPR basically stopped doing anti-microsoft news;
2) Blacks groups started supporting microsoft (the foundation targeted africa, etc).
This knocked the legs out from under the liberal/democrat fight for software freedom via the law.
it's called social engineering, and they did a textbook job...they spend a fraction of their wealth on liberal/humanitarian causes and effectively end all criticism of the company from either side of politics.
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.
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.
Re:Summer Vacation In Outer Space (Score:3, Interesting)
I mostly just post to get people laughing, not to troll. I also kinda like that you don't get karma for funny mods... I'm an attention whore, not a karma whore.
Re:Summer Vacation In Outer Space (Score:3, Interesting)
The Roomba is great as it can adjust its vacuuming pattern to avoid obstacles, but not only does it similarly not know if it's being effective at cleaning the areas it covers (will it re-do a spot if it didn't pick up all the dirt on the first pass?), it also doesn't guarantee that it will cover an entire room. The patterns it follows as it spirals and sweeps around don't guarantee 100% coverage. And there's also the possibility of it getting stuck.
I wouldn't really call either of these robotic, in the classic sci-fi sense of the word. However, I'm not sure where the threshold is -- why one particular device can be considered robotic whereas another is just electro-mechanical.
Re:Summer Vacation In Outer Space (Score:2, Interesting)
"Let me say I thank God that I live in a country where this is possible," Mr. Binnie said after landing and receiving a hug of congratulations from his wife. "And I really mean that. There's no place on Earth that you can take this flag and take it up to space."
Re:Summer Vacation In Outer Space (Score:3, Interesting)
No odds are it would have been an even bigger response since.
1. It would have been an underdog team that had won. Rutan was always the favorite.
2. It would have been the first Canadian manned space craft with a Canadian crew. Canada would have gone nuts and put there picture on a postage stamp already.
3. The US would have gone nuts since we love the under dog.
4. The EU would have gone nuts since it was a none US team that won.
No it is not being blown way out of proportion at all. It is way cool and a good Aerospace "hack" if there ever was one.
Re:Summer Vacation In Outer Space (Score:3, Interesting)
Whilst it's true that you need a lot of energy to achieve orbit, a rocket is actually one of the least efficient ways of accomplishing orbit; the reason they're still used is they're proven technology; this is the mayor one: space tech is some of the most conservative I know of. The stuff works, the tech/science is a knowwn quantity and rocket scientists are very resistant to change.
Anyway, Rutan's approach is quite efficient: launching an aircraft isn't that energyhungry, and getting something from cruising altitude to orbit is also not to bad. In terms of energy, it's actually more effiecient to do it in these two stages than in one single go...one reason being that a rocket goes STRAIGHT UP, instead of conserving energy by developping lift by going forwards (like an airplanes wing does).
And the best thing about Rutans approach? It's scalable
Re:Summer Vacation In Outer Space (Score:1, Interesting)
Plus, you also have the problem of building a hotel in space. Where do the materials come from? Earth. Your loads will have to be light and numerous to get enough materials up there using this method.
Also, you have to take into consideration the costs of developing new aircraft to accomodate more people. Remember, it was much cheaper to develop the Sopwith Camel than it was to develop the 707. Also, since you're using two aircraft, instead of one, you'll need a plane that is capable of carrying your 707.
I'd love to think that all of the problems encountered by the US space program could have been solved if they had opened up the space community to include private firms. However, these X-Prize contestants are standing on the shoulders of the proverbial giants before them. They are able to compete cheaply, because they aren't innovating from scratch. They don't have to pay for the mistakes that were made in pursuit of the knowledge they are building upon. I think that once these private entities are forced to innovate, they will realize that there is no cheap solution, and will adjust ticket prices accordingly.
Considering the great costs and safety risks inherent in space travel, I HIGHLY doubt that space tourism will be the driving force in space exploration. Perhaps people with hugely expendable incomes like Richard Branson and Paul Allen are willing to blow tons of money on such trips, but I don't think they realize they're a very small minority. If we are going to push towards the stars, we need a real life/liberty/pursuit-of-happiness reason. Until that happens, most of us will put those space dreams back in the same drawer we've put our rocket packs and our tours of the Marianas Trench into.
Re:Summer Vacation In Outer Space (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, I am sure you would, which is why you will be sitting at home when it DOES happen, and you will be the one yelling at the TV, saying how stupid they are to take such a risk.
Not everyone is afraid to dream. I have spent my entire adult life taking risks (although nothing like space travel). The risk takers either reach the moon or die young. Old, crotchity people like you just sit on the sidelines, telling the rest of us everything is impossible, and that we are stupid for trying.
I guess it takes all kinds.
I guess going to the moon, breaking the sound barrier, and flying solo over the Atlantic were stupid, too, huh? I am sure others said it was stupid to even DREAM of flying in an aeroplane across the country, or the ocean, and even if we could, only the rich would ever be able to afford it.
I guess the key to being a successful dreamer is to understand that to obtain your goal, you will have to use inventions that do not exist, find money that you don't have, take risks you don't even understand, but have the vision to see it through.
But you're right, its much easier to simply say that it is impossible, and eventually watch others prove you wrong, on TV, from the comfort of your rocking chair. Thank god we are not all as smart as you are.
Re:Nope you are wrong too (Score:3, Interesting)
On the other hand, we allow vehicles with the word "sport" in them to enter the market, and don't bat an eye at the horrendous fatality statistics on our freeways.