2008, The Year of the Spaceship 126
DynaSoar writes "2008 Could be a the year of the Spaceship.
Virgin Galactic intends to unveil White Knight 2 as well as Spaceship 2 during the next year, at this point planning for January. Burt Rutan, always reticent to comments on progress of any project, says nothing to support or contradict Virgin Galactic's announcement. However, the report states that Spaceship 2 is 50% complete and White Knight 2 is 60% complete. In addition, Virgin Galactic is considering using White Knight 2, or possible its successor White Knight 3, to put small satellites in orbit for a cost of US$3 million, less than half the current front runner in (projected) low cost orbital launches; SpaceX's Falcon at US$6.7 million. Tourism aside, this could be an extremely lucrative spin off of Virgin Galactic's original plans. If this turns out to be a profitable endeavor, the cost of tourism flights could drop significantly."
Year of the Spaceship? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Me, I'll wait for the year of the back-to-basics-keep-it-simple electronics, thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell me your not going to start up a religion based on back to the basics anti-complicated technology. Well, if you do, you can branch from the mennonite belief structure and create your own "Techish" (or would it be "Amnologist"?) society where you shun any form of complicated technology in favor of a simple life. You can solder your own boards, print your own chips and resolve to never use that confounded OLED technology
Re:Year of the Spaceship? (Score:5, Insightful)
My requirements are simple, I should, at most, have to hit one button, enter the time I wish to cook my food, and then hit start. It can have optional temp control, etc, and I'm fine, but some of the microwaves I saw had all kinds of complex and barely useful functions that I found unecessary, and the interface had simply putting in the time more complex than needed.
I had a similar experience with a blender - on, off, speed, that's all I need. I found several with different food type modes, but no specific speed control.
Analyzing all of their modes, determining what they mean (and if you agree with them, often they don't agree with other makes and models) gets incredibly annoying. I don't need someone to tell me how to cook my food.
I'm not saying that we should avoid anything complex, but we should keep things as simple as possible for the job at hand, and not add extra coplexity at the cost of simplicity. My microwave, for example, has all of those extra modes (which I don't use), but it didn't put them in at the cost of simplicity, it acts very straigthforward, unless I press one of the mode buttons.
Re:Year of the Spaceship? (Score:4, Interesting)
WHY?
I ask as I have been using Apple's front row to watch some dvd's on my comuter, and apple's 6 button remote is simple to use and I have used every button on the player. Add a power button and i would love to use it as my DVD player remote. Possily a separate eject button but even that isn't nessecary. You have to get up to get the disc anyways, leave the eject button on the drive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And the only extra feature I want in a microwave is an option to disable the beep that plays every time you press anything. If you li
Re: (Score:2)
It's the soap dilemma. i.e. It's astonishingly difficult to find plain soap. Manufacturers want to differentiate their products to justify above-commodity prices so they add all kinds of antibaterial agents, detergents, plant extracts, magical micro-scrubby bits, apple stems, etc. To the point that simple plain soap is almost nowhere to be found. (Typically I can only ever find Ivory)
Tacking on much beyond the ever-popular "Popcorn" preset button is just the manufacturers adding more bells and whistles
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Year of the Spaceship? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Year of the Spaceship? (Score:4, Funny)
How about waiting for something to actually happen before posting it 9on slashdot? I mean yeah, we all like science fiction but come on.
What university can I attend to get my PhD on Futurism?
-mcgrew (who has lived long enough to know that anyone who pretends to predict the future is a fraud, and anyone who asks "will the year [n] be the year of the [x]?" is ob crack.
PS: "reticent to comments"? I rest my case!
Re:Year of the Spaceship? (Score:5, Interesting)
says Whitehorn, adding that he wants to offer $3 million launches to low Earth Orbit for small satellites. This launch service could use WK2 or a larger successor in the 2015 timeframe, which Whitehorn referred to as White Knight Three, using in either case a two-stage rocket that would place the payloads into orbits.
And the actual orbital launch vehicle is...?
Don't announce non-news. Now, Virgin Galactic does have a couple rudimentary "orbital designs", if you can even call them "designs". You know what? So do I. So do hundreds of thousands of people and companies. Having a design is not the critical factor. Having something that you're actually building, that has a serious economic study behind it, is.
Incredible claims require incredible evidence. SpaceX's numbers are already an incredible claim (perhaps even justified; time will tell). But Whitehorn is talking about half that, with a so far mythical launch vehicle. Where's the evidence? Scaled is a company that's been building low-performance rocket planes -- a task a couple orders of magnitude less complicated than building actual orbital craft. Show us the evidence. Show us the designs. Explain how these designs are going to violate the economic principles that have held back the rocketry industry.
They mention a two stage rocket. Even with a carrier, a two stage rocket still requires significant ISP, *especially* when that small-scale (30,000 kg loaded; minimally bigger than a Pegasus, and that's a 3-4 stage vehicle), as theirs will certainly have to be. To put it another way, SpaceShipOne's entire propulsion system, from tankage to fuel and oxidizer to combusion and so on, is limited to an ISP of about 250 sec. Each stage of the *three to four* stage Pegasus has an ISP of almost 300sec. There's no way to pull it off without completely scrapping the only rocket design they have experience with and building a complex turbopump-driven LOX/LH vehicle. Scaled's experience with turbopumps: Zero. Their experience with LOX: Zero. Their experience with LH: Zero. Their experience with everything else to do with rocketry, from reentry TPS to gimbaled thrust to RCS to thermal management in a vaccuum environment? Zero. They've worked with the easiest and lowest performance of modern rocket systems, a design that doesn't scale to orbit at all. If they want to do this, they're going to be starting practically from scratch.
Once again: where's the evidence that this is remotely serious?
I know Scaled is everyone's darling, but as far as real, orbital rocketry goes, they're a joke. If you want to cheer for a relatively small private rocketry company, cheer for one that actually is seriously working on getting to orbit and has an actual serious chance of getting there -- SpaceX. Even with them, there are no guarantees, but at least they're building the right things, not joyrides with about as much relevance to orbital rocketry as me building a go cart would be to formula 1 racing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Michael Schumacher started out on go carts.
If you wanna do space tourism even on a semi-large scale then suborbital is the only thing feasible at the moment.
You're right that using WK as a first stage for orbital launches sounds dubious but don't belittle what they're doing.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"This is the year of the linux desktop"
"This is the year of the space ship"
"This is the year I lose my virginity"
As much as I want these things to happen, they wont come true.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
I'm tired of "This is the Year of..."
:(
"This is the year of the linux desktop"
"This is the year of the space ship"
"This is the year I lose my virginity"
As much as I want these things to happen, they wont come true.
For me, the year of the Linux desktop was 2002. From then on, it was easy enough for me to have a Linux desktop, and interoperate with only minor annoyances (much less time involved than increased maintenance involved with a windows desktop, at least in my case).
You are right about the spaceship, but with the other thing, it's a non issue. Eventually you grow up and get laid, or at least there's "the year of the hooker".
Here's how they should fund this... (Score:1)
Re:Here's how they should fund this... (Score:4, Interesting)
Virgin Galactic has been asking for deposits for tickets on a proven technology that should be able to be scaled up. It is not like they are taking a tenth scale model and trying to enlarge that. And if the scaling doesn't work, they can always go back to the White Knight One and SpaceShipOne plans and crank them out.
Phase 1: This is being done in a sense. Private investors, like Paul Allen of Microsoft and Richard Branson of Virgin are providing the sponsorship through direct infusion of cash. This doesn't prevent other groups from doing the small investment route. ("The Man Who Sold the Moon" by Robert Heinlein would fit this.)
Phase 2: The 'best' reusable craft is limited to three or so designs at the moment. (I'm basing this on American craft that have gone into space and returned to be reused again.) One is the original X-15. Another is the space shuttle. The third is SpaceShipOne. In time, as other groups successfully send people up AND get them back down, there will be others. Success in these areas will attract serious investment from institutions and not just rich people.
Phase 3: Bigelow Aerospace is already working with inflatable modules that can be used for a commercial space station. I seem to recall that samples are already in orbit. They'll provide habitable space that is more resistant to dings and bumps than hardshell modules and can be launched in a variety of vehicles. I predict that there will be other companies building a variety of modules that can be put into orbit WHEN we get cheaper launch capabilities. (And there will be maintenance companies that keep said modules functional once they are up there.) Sponsorships may not be needed here, especially if the modules are used for rich tourists and zero-G manufacturing.
Phase 4: Asteroid mining is one area where a company could make lots of money. Since businesses want to keep expenses low, they'll be designing and building lots of space-locked vehicles to do the job.
At the same time, accidents will happen and there will be instances where asteroids, cargo ships and cometary remains may be bound for very fast reentry into Earth's atmosphere. This is where having an emergency response team to prevent the reentry would be essential. While it could be supported via sponsorships, it would be better if it were a governmental agency like the Coast Guard.
This space based Coast Guard might even be able to pay for itself by doing asteroid and comet herding of natural threats.
Phase 5: The space farms will probably start happening in Phase 3. Water, nutrients, seeds and space farm equipment will be launched at much lower costs than the NASA standard of $10K and put into special modules that are as automated as possible. Other modules will handle sewage and air scrubbing, reducing but not eliminating the need for supplies. Eventually there will be enough space farm capacity to eliminate most food launches, with exceptions like beef, tree based spices and things that don't grow in space. (In time this could be replaced by vat grown meat and high quality synthetics, but that technology isn't quite here yet.)
There are all kinds of ways that this could be funded. While free enterprise can work, there will be governments that will design or buy space tech. And there is room for sponsorship based action too.
Cost of space tourism (Score:1)
Or not.
"space" vs space (Score:2)
Of course, unless they establish orbital flights sooner and the price for same comes down farther and faster than I think it will, it's probably a moot point for me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
But will the spaceship.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, if you have a spaceship on your desktop (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Go figure.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
White Knight 2 in orbit??? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, most people do that by using a first stage rocket to throw the second stage out of the atmosphere - because experimental rockets are cheaper to d
Re: (Score:1)
Re:White Knight 2 in orbit??? (Score:4, Informative)
Another possibility, as pointed out in some other posts, if you dont take passengers as payloads on SS2 but do take a payload, which is a third stage, and release it after SS2 motor burns out, you could reach orbit. Admittedly, having a special payload-carrying version of SS2 without a passenger cabin would make third stage separation easier, but there is a reason to suspect that something like that is being considered and built by Scaled. Rutan has hinted about Tier 3 project before.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Starting significantly closer to thinner air has its benefits. Also, Max-Q will occur at significantly different circumstances, providing for structural optimizations.
There is a reason why SS1 is so small and lightweight, and still could go up to 100km with a weight of three passengers. Same benefits, to lesser extent ap
Re: (Score:2)
And this has what to do with SS2?
Methinks you're mixing up SS2 with WK2.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh wait, that's all bollocks, isn't it. Hey ho, back to reality...
Re: (Score:2)
The article summary, as well as the article itself, mentioned that there could be a White Knight 3 for orbital launches.
Another person mentioned Pegasus, which has been used to put small payloads into orbit. Oddly enough, Rutan's company worked with Pegasus. But I believe that THOSE launches were off B52s.
A quick check of the www.scaled.com site links to the group that does the Pegasus launches. They are using a modified L-1011 for launches now and have over twenty successful launches.
Rutan might be able
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There are two real benefits to carrier craft for orbital spacecraft. The first, and lesser one, is that by g
Re: (Score:2)
risk in liquidity (Score:5, Interesting)
This whole space-tourism thing is at a precarious stage. Should there be just one freak accident, their revenue prospects would turn off like a Fossett.
Sorry, bad pun. In the 1970s, we seemed to be ready to do daring things even after lives are lost. Today, the public is far more risk averse. One more shuttle disaster and we'll be on the ground for twenty years. And I doubt a private company would fare much better than NASA in this regard.
Re:risk in liquidity (Score:4, Interesting)
The only way this would have a significant impact is on a political basis. That would be, some idiot of a bureaucrat who gums up the whole thing by holding hearings and stopping anybody in any situation from using a rocket of any design to get into space.
In fact, that is precisely the problem that the USA has been facing in manned spaceflight.... that there has been one "true" design of a spacecraft. When a major design flaw is found with that spacecraft design, it shuts down the whole "industry" and makes a huge mess of things.
If you make the comparison to commercial aviation, this would be like trying to conduct passenger air travel with everybody using the same type of airplane or even the very same (very large) airplane. Yeah, if there is a problem or an accident involving that design, perhaps a serious inquiry should occur and perhaps even shut down all of the airplanes of that particular design. Luckily, there are enough different kinds of airplanes flying with commercial aviation that passenger air travel would continue even if the FAA completely removed one type of airplane with a particularly fatal design flaw...or even removed all of the aircraft of a particular manufacturer (like Boeing, for instance). Would that put that particular manufacturer into bankruptcy if their aircraft were grounded for a significant amount of time? Yeah. No doubt. But it still wouldn't kill commercial aviation, and in the long run it would actually be healthier for the industry as others would try to fill the economic niche left by the removal of that company, specifically trying to overcome the problems discovered.
While nobody, and I mean nobody, really wants to see somebody die in space, and I'll admit that I really am concerned about commercial spaceflight safety, even having a full spacecraft of passengers dying would not necessarily be "the end of the world". People die in amusement parks, and fairly often on roller coasters. A curious thing happens when people die in an amusement park, however: The number of customers actually goes up! I'm not kidding here. And the lines to get on the ride where people died actually get longer (once, of course, the ride is fixed and the park officials claim to have fixed the problem).
If, when an accident occurs for the commercial spaceflight industry during actual operations of the spacecraft, there will be some very intelligent (they are rocket scientists, you know) people who will be able to calmly and completely explain where the safety protocols broke down, what was the real problem, and be able to honestly say that the problem has been corrected. This has been a pattern since the beginning of commercial aviation or even commercial shipping of any kind, and I simply don't see this one transportation method being openly dismissed to the degree you are suggesting if somebody dies. Do people still ride passenger cruise ships through the North Atlantic since the Titanic sank?
Re: (Score:2)
The function of the bureaucrat is to justify the job they hold. So this surprises you how? Don't make the mistake of thinking that the people who make the decisions have any more than their own interests in mind. It's nice to think so, but it's not
Re: (Score:2)
Wussies... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose that was probably inevitable, given human history, but it still should give one pause, and make one think that maybe, just maybe, the human race needs an entirely different individual paradigm than religion and greed?
Maybe. But one can dream.
SB
Re: (Score:2)
People really do join the military when they have college degrees. People really do drive Nascars. Some people are not driven by fear to avoid death - they are driven to embrace life to the fullest.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, bad pun. In the 1970s, we seemed to be ready to do daring things even after lives are lost. Today, the public is far more risk averse. One more shuttle disaster and we'll be on the ground for twenty years. And I doubt a private company would fare much better than NASA in this regard.
As another poster noted, we still have plenty of risk-seekers engaging in risky activities. To be honest, there will be fatal accidents. There's no reason not to expect it nor will they be "freak accidents". The people who actually fly on these will understand those risks.
US$3 million! (Score:5, Funny)
Interstellar domination is finally at reach.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I know your joking, but 3 million dollars is a significant reduction in launch costs.
The biggest hurdle I experienced in developing a low cost research satellite bus was the "impedance mismatch" between the cost of the satellite and the cost to launch it into orbit. It is almost impossible to sell a satellite that lowered costs by accepting some higher mission risks when you'll have to raise $30 million to put it in orbit. Even dividing this cost through multiple payloads is not always that great a deal si
Re: (Score:1)
Interstellar domination is finally at reach.
Re: (Score:1)
3,000,000*0.000020778855=62.336565
There is no cent value in that range, I'm hoping that the GP will explain this conundrum.
Re: (Score:2)
3,000,000*0.000020778855=62.336565
There is no cent value in that range, I'm hoping that the GP will explain this conundrum.
62.336565 US$ = 42.60 Euros.
Temporal link that will fail as EUR/USD fluctuates
Re: (Score:2)
Happy mugging.
Only sub-orbital? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
It may also involve a Spaceship 2.5 without the passenger capability that acts as a flyback second stage and releases a third stage at apogee.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure a carrier aircraft like the White Knight can't realistically scale up to a size capable of launching a manned capsule into orbit. The White Knight 2 is going to have about the take-off weight of a 737. That's for a suborbital rocket. The closest analog existing is the Orbital Sciences Pegasus rocket (incidentally, the aerodynamic parts of the Pegasus were designed by Scaled Composites under contract), which only has a 900 pound payload capacity and requires a DC-10 to loft it. This isn't an ideal comparison because the Pegasus is carried under one wing, so the weight is limited by the unbalanced load.
It doesn't look so bad to me. 900 pounds is enough for a couple of people and air, I think, if you can promptly link with something in orbit and have no provisions for anything other that survival for a limited amount of time. The space inside the Pegasus is very limited, roughly a cylinder more than a meter in diameter, and 2 meters long (according to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]). It would be pretty claustrophobic.
However, the smallest manned launch vehicle currently available, the Soyuz, weighs over 310 tons fully fueled, not counting the payload, and you actually only save a fraction (~10% I think) of fuel by performing an air launch. The main benefit Orbital Sciences achieved was reducing infrastructure cost, which they can do because the Pegasus is solid fueled...there's no cryogenic propellants requiring special handling equipment or requiring continuous top-off prior to launch. Even the mighty AN-225, the largest airplane ever built, can't lift 300 tons.
This is incorrect. The current AN-225 lifts 425 (metric) tons. 250 tons of cargo and 175 tons of fuel. One
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Another launch vehicle could be used at high altitude to boost a satellite into orbit.
obWho (Score:5, Funny)
remind me of a Mitch joke (Score:1)
what will this this spaceship be called...how about spaceship, no! spaceship two, hell yeah! Meeting adjourned.
They said lets call this hotel something tree, so they had a meeting, it was quite short. how about tree, no! double tree, hell yeah! Meeting adjourned. I had my heart set on quadruple tree. Well we were almost there.
Mitch Hedberg was a funny guy.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like they didn't waste any time or money at all. Keep in mind that launching people into space is much better advertising than coming up with a catchy name for a prototype. ESPECIALLY, if you don't want your prototype's name to steal the thunder from the more extravagant names that your paying customers will come up with.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Space Tourism != cheap (Score:1)
Re:Space Tourism = cheap (Score:4, Insightful)
Rutan's designs cost that much because he chose stage-and a half, HTHL approach, with hybrid motors. There is relatively high lower bar on flight costs for such thing, because you have to replace the motor for each flight, and thats expensive.
It made sense for winning the X-Prize, because Rutan is an expert of flying craft design, which involves wings etc. so thats what was fastest, lowest-risk development path. Whether it makes sense for really low-cost spaceflight is another matter.
VTVL vehicles, like the ones that Armadillo, Masten Space Systems, Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin and a few others are building can ( on paper, at least ) approach way lower flight costs in the future, which will remain a small multiple of liquid fuel costs. Expect to see prices in $10K range in less than a decade.
Re: (Score:2)
Time to Completion (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Convert to slavery, whip until your hands bleed. We'll have hotels on Alpha Centauri in no time.
How come we bypassed the year of the flying car? (Score:2)
Re:How come we bypassed the year of the flying car (Score:2)
Skip the frenzy, this time. (Score:2)
When you recognize serious danger, skip the usual enthusiasm [mydogshavefleas.com].
First flight (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget the rest of commercial spaceflight (Score:3, Informative)
SpaceX, or Space Exploration Technologies [spacex.com], the company started by Paypal founder Elon Musk, is scheduled to perform their final test flight for the Falcon 1 in January, 2008. If all goes well, they may even get a flight of their larger Falcon 9 spacecraft before the end of the year. This is particularly significant for manned spaceflight, as their Dragon spacecraft is reliant upon the successful launches of these vehicles. Unlike the Virgin Galactic spacecraft, the Dragon spacecraft is going to have the capabilities of sending as many as six passengers to the ISS.... or anywhere else in Low-earth orbit. In many ways, I think this is going to be far more significant than what Branson is doing with Virgin Galactic.
In addition, the Lunar Landing Challenge will likely be "won" this time next year with the nearly dozen rocket teams competing for the purse. My heart broke when Armadillo Aerospace crashed and burned this year and failed to win the price objectives, but they certainly learned from their experience and will roll those designs into the next generation of their spacecraft. This particular challenge is certainly breeding many future commercial spaceflight companies that are flying real hardware, and not just some imaginative designs on paper that will never see the light of day.
I also don't know what Blue Origin is doing, but that is certainly a company to keep a close ear to the ground and at least try to watch for developments over this next year. Unlike several of the spacecraft manufacturers, they are avoiding the appearance of vaporware by simply not really announcing anything other than the fact that they own one heck of a lot of real estate in Texas and that they have had several successful test flights of their rocketry hardware.... and a long term goal of also doing commercial passenger space travel. They also have some investors with some deep pockets that can help get them there without having to "go public".
I'm just scratching the surface here as well, but there are some amazing groups of individuals who have been devoting resources to commercial spaceflight, and 2008 really could be "the year of the spacecraft", at least in terms of headlines generated by the mainstream press. Virgin Galactic certainly isn't going to be the only one in the headlines here, although they may be the first to send paying passengers into space on something other than a Soyuz capsule.
White Knight? (Score:1)
It's only a Flesh Wound! (Score:2)
They are going to make a bundle. (Score:2)
What about the planet? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ob. skepticism (Score:2, Interesting)
Why SpaceShipOne Never Did, Never Will, And None Of Its Direct Descendants Ever Will, Orbit The Earth [daughtersoftiresias.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Of course they are also relying on more than a half century of manned spaceflight; the data from those flights hasn't exactly been kept a secret.
Your link assumes the companies won't advance their designs, as is common in engineering endeavorers. The person who wrote this has what I'd call an extreme amount of ignorance when it com
Apples and oranges (Score:2)
That's a bit of a nonsensical comparison. The small satellites White Knight will able to launch will be a fraction of the size of that which could be launched by Falcon. Kinda like saying "I'm going
Re: (Score:2)
yea, 2008. Sure. (Score:2)
Space? what space? orbit is not space!!! (Score:2)
Eh (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh really? "Air travel is the world's fastest growing source of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, which cause climate change. Globally the world's 16,000 commercial jet aircraft generate more than 700 million tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2), the world's major greenhouse gas, per year." And this was 2005, it is even worse today. Source [airportwatch.org.uk].
What's the relevance here? Air travel is a vital portion of humanity's travel infrastructure not rich people tooling around for their vacations. And it doesn't generate much CO2 compared to everything else out there. We can start by cutting less important sources of carbon emissions like deforestation and coal fires.
And now we are going to add space travel to that? You aren't very bright, are you?
What's the problem? Commercial space travel is a high value operation. Even putting rich people in space for a few days is more important that most of the stuff that money buys. I'm not inc
Re: (Score:2)