STOP PRESS: Scaled announce launch date

Algol · 2004-06-02 08:52:31

http://www.scaled.com/projects/tierone/ … m]Historic Space Launch Attempt Scheduled for June 21

Looks like the X-Prize is in the bag for scaled.

Im looking forward to the documentary mentioned at the end of the press release.

Algol · 2004-06-02 09:04:22

hmmmmm

Anyone want to place a bet that the second flight will be on the 4th of July? ???

Bill White · 2004-06-02 09:34:58

hmmmmm

Anyone want to place a bet that the second flight will be on the 4th of July? ???

Media savvy? Nah! Not these guys. :;):

Its gotta be July 4th!

= = =

Edit:

Is it 2 weeks by the hour or by the day?

If Rutan flies on June 27th at 6:30 am local time but on July 4th weather delays him until 1:00 pm that afternoon, does that count as a win under X-Prize rules?

clark · 2004-06-02 09:40:55

He just has to do it sometime on July 4th before midnight. July 5th 11:59 PM is the cut off date for a first launch of June 21st.

One the bright side, if things go south on the second run, we will all be treated to a spectacular fireworks display... (sorry for the morbid humor in bad taste)

Bill White · 2004-06-02 10:08:32

He just has to do it sometime on July 4th before midnight. July 5th 11:59 PM is the cut off date for a first launch of June 21st.
One the bright side, if things go south on the second run, we will all be treated to a spectacular fireworks display... (sorry for the morbid humor in bad taste)

D'uh got my dates wrong again. (Dang multi-tasking. . . )

June 21st gives a day wiggle room. Yup, July 4th it is.

Rxke · 2004-06-02 11:25:47

Got the update in my mail too, but puzzled...

Read somewhere the rules had been changed, that advance warning had to be 2 months in advance, so commentators said it couldn't be july 4th... (or june 21st...) :hm:

Rxke · 2004-06-02 12:09:23

So, who's going to Mojave?

ManmanmanmanmanMAN!

This is it, They're going to pull it off, and some time later the Canadians...

I can already see people standing in line for a ticket for a ride.

Mad Grad Student · 2004-06-02 16:29:58

So, who's going to Mojave?

Well, this is extremely tentative, but I think that I might be able to. I'm going on "vacation" with my family (It's essentially just us sitting around doing absolutely nothing at my grandparents' house) from the 10-18. Because of this trip, I'll be forced to miss the June 8 Venus transit :angry: . However, I might be able to stay for an extra week (Grandarents keep asking me to do it), and, if so, I might also be able to see the launch. That would at least make up somewhat for missing the transit.

Josh Cryer · 2004-06-02 16:36:39

Dang, that could be fun, especially if someone set up a fireworks display (not in the vain of clark's joke) so that celebrations could occur after the launch.

dicktice · 2004-06-03 08:06:18

This could succeed . . . but too much hype in case of some kind of failure could be detrimental in the long run . . . so, cool it, and cross fingers and toes--it can't hurt.

GCNRevenger · 2004-06-03 08:17:59

I can't help but feeling pretty underwhelmed by SS1/WH etc... I mean, its a great thing and all, but its still a toy rocket. A cause for celebration will be the first 100% private manned flight to orbit.

dicktice · 2004-06-03 08:48:31

I can't help but feeling pretty underwhelmed by SS1/WH etc... I mean, its a great thing and all, but its still a toy rocket. A cause for celebration will be the first 100% private manned flight to orbit.

Boy, are you wrong: Toy rocket? Getting out beyond the atmosphere and back, aerodynamically (you know--by flying?) without busting your butt, and doing it repeatedly and economically with the exact same hardware, is the big accomplishment. I would draw your attention (again!) to the Wright Brothers, and the unenthusiastic response of the U.S. Army to their offer, when what they did was to prove the possibility of controlled flight by humans, where only uncontrolled one-off flights were contemplated by other experimenters for various prizes, such as one figure-eight, etc. Boosting into orbit simply entails the addition of brute force, plus life support and re-entry--both of which have been done, ad nauseum, by state-subsidized taxpayers' funding. I'm shocked and dissapointed with you, by such uncritical negativism. Where the hell are you coming from to be so "underwhelmed" by honest step-by-step spaceship development, taking place right before your eyes? Gr-rr.

GCNRevenger · 2004-06-03 10:03:14

Oh thats simple, because its a step-by-step progression to nowhere...

SS1/WH are roughly two orders of magnetude too small for practical orbital flight. Several hundred times too small. How long do you think it will be until Burt makes a vehicle thats hundreds of times more powerful than SS1? Right now, if you wanted to put somthing into orbit with the same engine as a payload kick stage and no SS1, you could get about 10 kilos into orbit. Wow-whee.

Making an airplane re-enter from Mach-25 of horizontal velocity is a somewhat bigger deal than I think you give credit for, Shuttle and Bruan being able to do it at all is a testimant to our technological skill. Ain't ever going to happen privatly for the forseeable future. Adds vehicle weight too.

The Wright Brothers little motor-powerd glider simply didn't have to compete with conditions or achieve performance so extreme relative to our current technological level. No way in heck will Burt & Co pull it off profitably. Elon Musks' little rocket, which is the only one I consider half-way credible as an orbital launcher, is still four or five times too small too, and its upper-stage engine is a copy from the NASA LEM nor has it flown even once months after "completion" of the prototype.

clark · 2004-06-03 10:19:01

Today's planes really don't look much like what the Wright Brothers did to start flying.

So too with orbital.

The entire plane dosen't have to get into orbit- it just has to get close enough for the important portion to get there. The same way that SS1 uses two seperate vehicles to attain sub-orbit.

Think about this set-up: a reusable lower stage rocket ala Elon Musk, and an upper stage ala DC-X. Both are reusable, and the DC-X showed promise of being a quick turn around for flight.

Guess who helped design DC-X... Scaled Composites. After sub orbital, orbital is next.

Ian Flint · 2004-06-03 11:04:01

GCNRevenger,

I can see why your so unimpressed with SS1/WH. I think it's a little dinky myself. But let's look at other projects Rutan has done. I think he is most famous for Voyager. I think it made it 'round the world in 8 days, or something like that. I read just a few months ago that he is building a plane to fly around the world in 80 hours. That is quite the improvement in my book.

SS1/WH is suborbital. Assuming this one works, his next vehicle could very well be orbital. And he's an airplane guy, so I'm sure it will carry people.

This is just the tip of the iceburg!

Bill White · 2004-06-03 11:08:00

Today's planes really don't look much like what the Wright Brothers did to start flying.
So too with orbital.
The entire plane dosen't have to get into orbit- it just has to get close enough for the important portion to get there. The same way that SS1 uses two seperate vehicles to attain sub-orbit.
Think about this set-up: a reusable lower stage rocket ala Elon Musk, and an upper stage ala DC-X. Both are reusable, and the DC-X showed promise of being a quick turn around for flight.
Guess who helped design DC-X... Scaled Composites. After sub orbital, orbital is next.

The proof will be in the execution.

Once again we can revert to the whole DH-1 argument. Would DC-X have ever actually worked? Low cost RLV to orbit would be awesome if it happens but I won't hold my breath.

In the meantime, the X-prize is way cool if nothing else.

GCNRevenger · 2004-06-03 11:24:04

As said previously, the Wright Flyers' decendants didn't have to achieve orbital velocities or altitudes of hundreds of kilometers against our pretty modest gravity well... Trying to get this concept accross, but its difficult to put into words.

That the difficulty of getting into space at all is very great, and that right now we can just barely get there using the best of all materials, the best of practical rocket fuels, the best of engineering... things that are nearing their limits. The RL-60 rocket will operate above 90% of the theoretical maximum impulse for LOX/LH fuel for instance, and it is not possible to make it much better simply because the fuel won't burn any faster no matter what. Same deal with construction, that aluminum, magnesium alloy, titantium, engineering polymers etc. are as good as it gets, and aren't going to improve substantially... all this adds up to a fundimental limiting of the payload fraction of the vehicle.

And this is why comparisons with the Wright Brothers are innapropriate, because airplanes have a much higher practical payload fraction, so a space vehicle must be much larger to deliver a similar payload, and beyond a certain point it is not possible to engineer a bigger vehicle and be profitable.

And this is why I don't have much faith in Burt doing orbit, because he would need to make a vehicle that is so much bigger and has so much higher performance and so much more complexity that I think its beyond him and Scaled. The DC-I rocket, the fruition of the DC-X program, was still a mostly Nasa/USAF deal and still used lots of gov't tech, for the possibility of delivering Delta-II sized payloads for a launch market that doesn't exsist.

Elon's rocket is still too small to be practical, and we haven't seen anything about it other than a few engine firings and a supposed "prototype" (which copies some Nasa engine designs) in Washington. He needs to at least launch the thing a few times before i'll take him seriously.

clark · 2004-06-03 11:59:52

The DC-I rocket, the fruition of the DC-X program, was still a mostly Nasa/USAF deal and still used lots of gov't tech, for the possibility of delivering Delta-II sized payloads for a launch market that doesn't exsist.

Who cares who it was for, think of it as a proof of concept. The launch market exsists for people, which is the point.

The reason Shuttle sucks is the overhead costs prior to any launch. The reason throw away rockets suck is because you have to build a new one each time you want to launch again.

If these problems plagued the airline industry, than yeah, people would still be travelling by steamer or train.

So what's the friggin solution? Low overhead costs so that fuel is the main cost factor. Instead of an army of 20,000 technical experts, you use 12-50. Instead of throwing away your rockets each time, you re-use.

We can get to orbit. We can return from orbit. The technology is there, the skill base is there. We just can't get to orbit in the manner we have done before, we have to do it differently.

Two reusable portions of the same orbital system means you can cut down on the production overhead. You can pay for the darned things over years, instead of up front for a one time shot. Smaller groups (as was possible with DC/X and with SpaceX's setup) of technical support staff cut overhead.

We can do the ISP- hell, we could have done SSTO in the 80's. After 20 years, materials HAVE become lighter, and stronger. We've developed new techniques to handle the reentry.

We also don't need to be "better", we just need "good enough". It dosen't have to be 100 people going into space- just get three. Then five. Then 10. Then 20. Then, maybe 10 years down the line, 50 at a time.

Phoneix was a good example of what might be done. DC-Y was even better.

Yes, it is hard, but it is not impossible. Paul Allen was the angel investor for this sub-orbital adventure. All you need it a couple more Paul Allen's for an orbital one (DC-X was done on less than a billion dollar budget, over a couple years).

Remember, it normally takes 10 billion dollars to develop a new plane, and ten years. The opportunites for orbital are only increasing.

GCNRevenger · 2004-06-03 12:37:57

Ah but how much of a market? In dollar value per year? For suborbital tourist flights? I doubt that there is enough to go around between the various X-Prize people to support a real orbital program among any of them, a chicken/egg problem... and I don't place any faith in any so-called "angel investors" coughing up that kind of multi-billion dollar money.

Oh I agree that operational costs are a big impediment to orbital spaceflight on the cheap, the question is... how will you do this profitably? There aren't any satellites for the DC-I to launch weekly to justify the cost of the composit structures, the radial aerospike LOX/LH engine, and the other not-cheap aspects of such a program.

And I agree that we can do orbital flight... the trouble is, we just can't do it easily, and definatly not easy enough for a small-time private outfit on a shoe-string budget. The size and complexity of the vehicle required is simply too big. The technology is there, but it comes at too high a price... the technology for orbital travel is there, but not cheap orbital travel. "Good enough" unfortunatly is too far from where we are now to reasonably achieve without "synthetic" funding.

And I reject this notion that the "opportunities in orbit" are increasing or whatnot... I see no evidence of this. The launch market isn't growing, and it is served well enough by the vehicles we have already. Boeing is even axing commertial launch of the Delta-IV. With nothing to carry, then you have no income to pay for the vehicle. You cannot offer a vehicle "incrimentally" either, it must either be big enough to carry useful payloads (~10MT) or useful crew sizes (4-6) to orbit, or else no one will pay for the vehicle. This is realy far from what is possible to do ATM with Scaled Composits' sized budgets, even augmented with tourism dollars or idiot-erImeanAngel-investors.

clark · 2004-06-03 12:53:55

I love people like you GNC. Maybe I'll talk you down from the ledge, maybe I won't. But as always, it's fun to try.

Familiair with the SSX concept proposed in the late 80's? Familiar with the actual flight results of DC-X, which became the DC-XA? Okay, so the DC-X was a 1/8th scale model SSTO that was developed ahead of schedule, under budget. It had a turn around time of 72 hours, and needed about 12-20 people to operate. Fully reusable, fully savable. Oh yeah, these things were being designed to fly on environmentaly friendly fuel, engine out/abort capability.

Actual development costs for a full sized one? 2-4 billion dollars. It would cost less than the R&D for todays commerical planes. Oh yeah, it was designed to take 10,000 pounds to LEO. Launch costs were figured around 20-30 million. I don't know how much you weigh, but it looks like a set up like this could lift a fair number of people to orbit.

Also, if the launch costs are low for something like this, then you send one up with people, so that it ends up empty of fuel, and another one with a fuel payload- put the fuel payload in the one with the people, and off to higher orbiots you go.

This is SSTO, and there are other options with TSTO as well. It is possible, and it can be done within a commerical setting.

Bill White · 2004-06-03 14:32:20

GNCRevenger's basic argument, converted to an http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2004/6 … 7#27]ASCII cartoon.

dicktice · 2004-06-03 16:12:04

Burt Rutan's spaceship launching scheme has been proven to work reliably with crew members aboard, with the launcher flown back to base. The space vehicle has topped the atmosphere, been reconfigured and then redirected, in vacuum, to gradually reenter without overheating, and then flown back to base. That has never been done before--ever. His designs have always met their objectives, profitable or not: in this case, a specified mission with a token prize, not to mention World acclaim. He's not going to live to continue this work indefinitely but, if he represents the Wright Brothers, potential Bleriots, Sopwiths and de Havillands are waiting in the wings ("wings," get it?) to follow his lead. Not to mention the Douglases, Boeings and Lockheeds. Profits and markets are nothing to aspire to, for true innovators, except to pay for the next stage of development. Ask yourself what you can realistically hope to witness (or participate in) regarding space travel, before you die. Then, compare that with what you can earn in the time given you, in some sort of established line of work, for profit alone. How futile, and--what is worse--how boring. Now, about the next stage in this line of development: I've got a few ideas, next post.

Ian Flint · 2004-06-03 16:26:36

It's interesting that GCNRevenger and other skeptics seem to be saying that after the X-prize, its Orbit or Bust. Let's not forget all that middle ground.

This is one way that private industry can incrementally move into space profitably:

1. Once an X-prize class vehicle exists, the company can sell tourist rides on it to help pay for what comes next.

2. The next step is to develop a suborbital spaceplane that can transport travellers across continental sized areas faster than conventional jets. New York to London in 3 hrs? If it can get them there faster they will pay top dollar. This will help pay for R&D for the next spaceplane.

3. Next comes a suborbital spaceplane that can travel halfway around the world. New York to Anywhere in 2 hrs? And, this of course, would help pay for the development of an orbital spaceplane.

Why does nobody mention the travel industry? There is a very strong demand for better, faster business travel. And, if anybody mentions teleconferencing, they'll get one of these -- ! People still like to meet face to face, believe it or not.

Ian Flint · 2004-06-03 16:30:02

How boring indeed, dicktice!
How do people live?

Euler · 2004-06-03 16:43:16

2. The next step is to develop a suborbital spaceplane that can transport travellers across continental sized areas faster than conventional jets. New York to London in 3 hrs? If it can get them there faster they will pay top dollar. This will help pay for R&D for the next spaceplane.

That was the reasoning behind Concorde. Sales were lower than expected, and Concorde was not profitable. The space plane would probably be much more expensive and dangerous than Concorde, and only a little faster.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-06-02 08:52:31

Re: STOP PRESS: Scaled announce launch date

#2 2004-06-02 09:04:22

Re: STOP PRESS: Scaled announce launch date

#3 2004-06-02 09:34:58

Re: STOP PRESS: Scaled announce launch date

#4 2004-06-02 09:40:55

Re: STOP PRESS: Scaled announce launch date

#5 2004-06-02 10:08:32

Re: STOP PRESS: Scaled announce launch date

#6 2004-06-02 11:25:47

Re: STOP PRESS: Scaled announce launch date

#7 2004-06-02 12:09:23

Re: STOP PRESS: Scaled announce launch date

#8 2004-06-02 16:29:58

Re: STOP PRESS: Scaled announce launch date

#9 2004-06-02 16:36:39

Re: STOP PRESS: Scaled announce launch date

#10 2004-06-03 08:06:18

Re: STOP PRESS: Scaled announce launch date

#11 2004-06-03 08:17:59

Re: STOP PRESS: Scaled announce launch date

#12 2004-06-03 08:48:31

Re: STOP PRESS: Scaled announce launch date

#13 2004-06-03 10:03:14

Re: STOP PRESS: Scaled announce launch date

#14 2004-06-03 10:19:01

Re: STOP PRESS: Scaled announce launch date

#15 2004-06-03 11:04:01

Re: STOP PRESS: Scaled announce launch date

#16 2004-06-03 11:08:00

Re: STOP PRESS: Scaled announce launch date

#17 2004-06-03 11:24:04

Re: STOP PRESS: Scaled announce launch date

#18 2004-06-03 11:59:52

Re: STOP PRESS: Scaled announce launch date

#19 2004-06-03 12:37:57

Re: STOP PRESS: Scaled announce launch date

#20 2004-06-03 12:53:55

Re: STOP PRESS: Scaled announce launch date

#21 2004-06-03 14:32:20

Re: STOP PRESS: Scaled announce launch date

#22 2004-06-03 16:12:04

Re: STOP PRESS: Scaled announce launch date

#23 2004-06-03 16:26:36

Re: STOP PRESS: Scaled announce launch date

#24 2004-06-03 16:30:02

Re: STOP PRESS: Scaled announce launch date

#25 2004-06-03 16:43:16

Re: STOP PRESS: Scaled announce launch date

Board footer