Spaceship 1 - going for it

Palomar · 2004-06-22 14:21:38

*Thank you for answering my question.

--Cindy

clark · 2004-06-22 15:08:24

Anytime.

Rxke · 2004-06-23 08:45:15

So much for hourly transcontinental flights

Worst. Comment. Evar?

Whaddayamean? It's a prototype for chrissake!

Err... Oh yea: nice article, about Melvill's 'deathly fears', his age, his relation with Rutan, and his wife -no... Melville's wife, not Rutan's! )

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/23/natio … LE]NyTimes (no registration)

DERF · 2004-06-23 08:58:32

*In a couple of months? ??? According to the news I heard last night, they've got 14 days.
Can't recall the specifics of the X-Prize (I'm information overloaded as it is).
--Cindy

You also need to send up 3 people on the flight, and they only used one (Melville) this time. I'm not exactly sure if it is the "weight" of 3 people or 3 actual people. The former seems like cheating to me.

clark · 2004-06-23 09:08:44

It's weight.

These are experimental afterall. No sense in killing 3 people when 1 will do.

dicktice · 2004-06-23 09:48:53

CGNR: Your pitiful "So much for hourly transcontinental flights" comment is so typical of you, when kudos are due something you've previously hit out at as being trivial and unimportant. I really don't know where you're coming from when you pop off with a cheap shot like that. Credit Burt Rutan with the guts and honesty to be entirely transparent, and quick, to speak up about the hardware "glitches" that occurred--in this first officially recognized private spaceflight. Every previous flight leading up to this one, has uncovered something new that had to be done to be done before taking the next more ambitious step. The process is called innovation, man. Here's a little item to bear me out, which I came across while Googling just now:

Kudos to innovators
I would give a great deal to see our small world with my own eyes. But not too many years ago, I reconciled myself to an Earthbound existence for all my days. I didn't have the imagination or the resourcefulness of people like Allen, Rutan, Melvill and their colleagues and competitors.
Congratulations to all of them. But as they're the first to admit, they've just gotten started.

How about you and me, and anyone else who resents having to remain Earthbound, come up with a scheme that allows one to see the Earth from space, and zoom-in to see local conditions wherever they wish on a dedicated TV channel (something Al Gore talked about, I seem to remember)--as a means of gaining "virtual access" to near-EArth space for anybody in realtime, in order to help keep their interest up, between each new space-shot attempt by the real innovators on the planet? Care to brainstorm?

clark · 2004-06-23 09:53:54

I have a globe.

Here is your million dollar idea:

Take said globe, make it a digital projection that allows you to touch anywhere, and it will zoom to any level you wish- all the way up to a view from space where you would see the continents.

nah, it's silly.

John Creighton · 2004-06-23 10:01:00

I have a globe.
Here is your million dollar idea:
Take said globe, make it a digital projection that allows you to touch anywhere, and it will zoom to any level you wish- all the way up to a view from space where you would see the continents.
nah, it's silly.

Sure beats looking out a window. I wonder what is going on in Iraq. Let me get my globe.

dicktice · 2004-06-23 10:18:34

I'd want a realtime, satellite view, not geostationary, going from day to night, showing weather clouds when sunlit and lights when dark, and ability to zoom-in right down to airline height, and zoom-out to include the stars--for that fragile looking, "Island-Earth" view the Apollo crews spoke in awe of, as they went away from Earth. I'd leave that constantly changing view on, as the untimate screen-saver.

GCNRevenger · 2004-06-23 10:47:30

Calling it like I see it... Burt & Co have accomplished much on the scale of aircraft, but essentially nothing in the way of space travel, which is the ultimate goal. SpaceShip1 is little more of a spacecraft than the anticent Bell X-2, and I think the hysteria over it somehow cheapens what has already and will be accomplished.

A tourist rocket plane system has to be reliable, and if SS1 is going to risk falling apart like that on a regular basis, then it doesn't matter if it can reach 100km or not - it will have failed in its purpose to be a reuseable vehicle if it cannot maintain a reasonably high level of reliability.

As for a view of the Earth like that, you can already get contiguous archived images like that from Microsoft or nVidia, its simply that our computers and internet connections aren't quite up to the task yet. For a streming, real-time view of the Earth then you are talking needing a constellation of satellites, a bare minimum of three with substantial power for high-bandwidth traffic, and substantial downlink infrastructure to pull that off. $$$!

Ian Flint · 2004-06-23 12:52:34

GCNRevenger...

Ever the pessemist.

clark · 2004-06-23 14:13:58

. SpaceShip1 is little more of a spacecraft than the anticent Bell X-2, and I think the hysteria over it somehow cheapens what has already and will be accomplished.

Umm, well, I think it's rather grand that a private interest, a few engineers, have done what few nations have done. If you don't see the value in that, well, you're justing being obstinate. Rutan and company have brought us closer to the stars by demonstrating that individuals, and not big government, can succeed at these highly technical and challenging feats.

A tourist rocket plane system has to be reliable, and if SS1 is going to risk falling apart like that on a regular basis, then it doesn't matter if it can reach 100km or not - it will have failed in its purpose to be a reuseable vehicle if it cannot maintain a reasonably high level of reliability.

You're being silly GNC, this was their first attempt. This isn't supposed to be ready for tourists quite yet. Give them some time (which they say will be about 5-10 years) from completion, and then you can pout. Hundreds of proto-type planes were tried out before Wright got it right. Dozens of proto-types were tried before commercial airlines started to take off with passangers. It's all part of the process, and it takes time. What's your problem with that?

Rxke · 2004-06-23 15:46:59

SS1 isn't even meant to be a tourist joy-ride thing, it's just bein built for:
1) Win the Ansari X-Prize
2) Show people that it can be done with minimal investment, compared to Government ("NAySAy" in Burt-speak...) operation.

SS1 is part of Tier One, whatever that means, but Rutan is talking about a six(?) seater to be used as tourist-launcher (Tier Two?),
SS1 will be primary experimental. Of course, if all goes well, and SS1 turns out to be both reliable and sturdy enough to be used semi-routinely, there will probably be *some* paying launched by SS1, but i don't think there will be many.

jpeachman787 · 2004-06-23 16:53:41

Paul Allen and Burt Rutan formed a company, Mojave Aerospace, which owns the intellectual property rights of SS1, and will own, I believe, those of the next generations of rocketplanes. Given that Paul Allen is the world's fourth richest man, and that so far SS1 has been a hell of a PR boost for him personally, I don't think it will run into many funding problems. Mr Rutan does have a reputation for being fiscally efficient. I think we're finally in the rocket business, people.

Also note that Jeff Bezos (founder of Amazon.com) is now in the game with Blue Origin, and that his company is working on a reusable suborbital vehicle as well. It is highly doubtful that he seeks to build a vehicle for just a stunt (especially since the X-Prize is essentially Burt's, also because he's a space enthusiast) so it's possible that Mojave Aerospace will have some competition in the market to keep prices down. Capitalism works! (Did anyone notice that having NASA run space transportation is a socialistic practice?)

It's hard not to be excited. I know hundreds of Americans within a few miles of my home that would pay at least $10,000 for a trip (tier 3?), especially if they could get halfway across the world in the process (though not possible with SS1). So why is there any pessimism here at all? Hello guys, we're the space geeks of the world!! We should be celebrating!! Hurrah, and congrats burt!

Rxke · 2004-06-24 00:10:19

But i do understand GCNR's standpoint, in a way...

If you *objectively* look at SS1, it's... nothing that spectacular...

Going 100km straight up, and fall back down immediately is not exactly something very useful, now is it?

OTOH, i *do* love all the 'ooh-aah' around it, it has changed the alt.space crowd from 'a bunch of lunatics, tinkering with life-threathening explosives', to internationally acclaimed 'innovators'

And *that* is good for finding investors, inspiring people, changing the psychology of 'only for government' to 'hey, i can do this, too'

99% of all the startups will collapse, eventually, but at last there will be more than a hundred startups, so one *will* succeed!

(I know, math on crack, just a manner of speaking!)

Rxke · 2004-06-24 02:48:06

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/73/1]Nice Article from thespacereview...

Discussion pro-conta the merits of the suborbital approach.

esp. page 2 has some good points, like:

-100km. does not have to be the limit. Incrementally raising height-horizontal distance *will* be researched.

-A company that has an operational suborbital launcher can test hardware for orbital in its *intended milieu*, even if it's for mere minutes... Now you have to hire/buy payload space from 'the big guys' for $$$$, wich makes this an option only for the richest companies... So R&D will arguably be much cheaper in the near future, leading to faster evolution of hardware.

Imagine an SS1"B", outfitted as a lab, you can do *a lot* in there, or on the outside (add a 'rack' for external hardware)

Palomar · 2004-06-24 07:48:07

http://www.spacedaily.com/2004/04062316 … ml]Melvill admits he was "deathly afraid"

*Also says he's "South-African born." Didn't know that, but then I don't know much about him.

Oh well, it's so UNcool to be an American today anyway...gotta get away from that "guilt by association" nastiness.

--Cindy

Rxke · 2004-06-24 12:20:16

"Being An American is UNcool"

You mean... United Nations-cool ???

This very lame joke, brought to you by a piece of veritable Euro-Trash!

GCNRevenger · 2004-06-24 14:31:00

Yes yes i'm the evil Anti-AltSpace guy...

Take a minute and stop rah-rah-ing for a minute and look at what AltSpace & Co actually have versus what they need to reach the final goal (competitive orbital launch).

So, we've got a few startups coming online for small X-Prize class suborbital tourist vehicles. Each of these will probobly have cost a few tens of millions of dollars to develop and reach a reasonably high level of reliability. Their money will be coming from private tourists or small university-type payloads or overflight survey missions.

Suborbital cargo or passenger delivery is a fantasticly silly concept, because the vehicles themselves cannot fly often enough nor safely enough nor be readied fast enough (lead time) for such missions. The Concorde operated much like a regular jet liner, and held about 100 people, but it still failed economicly. And you want to try and make money with a vehicle only a little faster, can't fly often, can't fly safely, and carries only a 10th of the cargo?

How much money is this? Is this enough to pay off the tens of millions needed to develop the original vehicle, and pay for all overhead & expenses, and still have million upon million more to develop a multibillion dollar orbital vehicle? I very much doubt it, especially when the X-Prizers' are slashing ticket prices and profit margins competeing for this tiny market.

Because that is how much it will cost, a very small orbital vehicle doesn't make much fiscal sense (see Pegasus XL) because it cannot access GEO. Whatever orbital vehicle is built, it must be able to get a multi-ton satellite to GEO, this is a minimum profitable capacity. Deviding up satellites into pieces multiplies the cost of the satellite, waiting on an ion tug will crush your effective launch rate, and making a fuel platform on orbit is impractical (docking concerns, storage).

If your vehicle cannot do this, then nobody will pay enough to make any money to fly on it. Now, such a vehicle must at least a hundred times bigger than a minimal suborbital vehicle. This is a consequence of the atomic weight of chemical fuels themselves, and cannot be "innovated" around without exotic technology (scramjet, metastable fuel).

There are no profitable things to do between modest suborbital and orbital flight, no incriments, no steps, no milestones that anyone will give you money for to advance to the next. Its either big and expensive, or its not going to fly.

No 100x bigger rocket, no orbit, no money... no "AltSpace industry"

Rxke · 2004-06-24 16:10:36

Ze big question is: how deep are those alt.space guys' pockets?

SS1= Paul Allen (Third richest guy in the world, i've heard...)

"After winning the X-Prize, Rutan will quickly move on to other challenges. During press conferences leading up to Monday's flights, he dropped hints about "going to orbit sooner than you think," an apparent allusion to the Tier 3 orbital space-vehicle program that he is reportedly involved in. The SpaceShipOne program is known as Tier 1, and Tier 2 would probably be a tour-bus-like version of the same concept, a vehicle capable of carrying up to 10 passengers on suborbital space flights. Under his contract with Allen, Rutan is required to deliver data on how much such a vehicle would cost to build and fly. Mojave Aerospace--a new company jointly owned by Allen and Rutan and disclosed this week--will own the rights to SpaceShipOne technology and would oversee future franchising and commercialization efforts for the system. Details will remain secret, said the cagey Rutan, "until we're ready to push something out of the door."

Grypd · 2004-06-24 16:23:24

Concorde failed because it was not realised when designed that the effect of sonic booms would not be acceptable to the countries that its market was to cover.

The concordes where never empty when they flew, They where not an economic success as they did not sell enough planes. They where a niche plane that was only allowed to operate in a few areas. The Boeing 747 did open the plane market commercially though even if airports had to increase the length of their runways as they used a different commercial idea and they SOLD.

Spaceplanes taking passengers would not suffer the noise pollution laws as they will be operating OUT of the atmosphere. So it is possible the buisness class flights from london to australia in 90 minutes will come.

With more and more media attention to deep vein thrombosis and the horror stories a reasonably non expensive alternative which meats the buisness class needs will be looked at a lot favourably.

Ian Flint · 2004-06-24 18:24:28

The concordes where never empty when they flew, They where not an economic success as they did not sell enough planes. They where a niche plane that was only allowed to operate in a few areas.

I always knew the Concordes were more restricted than subsonic planes, but I didn't know they were never empty. I assume this means always full -- a.k.a. unsatisfied demand. If this is true then I have even more reason to believe that sub-orbital planes will make money.

ANTIcarrot. · 2004-06-24 18:46:03

Though I can't help but wonder if the an American Made sonic boom would have been more acceptable to the American Congress... Because that rejection of an 'foreign' sonic-boom is what preceeded all the orders being suddenly cancelled.

Hence Congress was wrecking engineering projects long before the Shuttle or ISS. Nice hobby of theirs.

At present this is the biggest risk to Alt-Space. The technology is there. The money is there, but if congress outlaws such activity it will kill alt-space dead. At which point the Canadians and British teams would take over. And wouldn't that be delightfully ironic? ^.^

ANTIcarrot.
Written with maybe a little sour grapes.

dicktice · 2004-06-25 11:16:58

I remember when the sort of sonic-booms being experienced, due to Concorde at the time of its introduction, were deemed unacceptable over land (however unpopulated) as an environmental hazard. The latest sort of sonic-booms (see Boeing, et al) may turn out to be less so, but now that sub-orbital transport has been demonstrated to be at least as feasible as Concorde was at the time of its conception, I truly believe that to develop a 2nd-generation commercial supersonic system of transport today would be like kicking the proverbial dead horse.

ANTIcarrot. · 2004-06-25 15:51:21

The B-1B is a supersonic bomber that while shorter, weighs more than concorde, goes as fast and has roughly the same wingspan in super-sonic configuation. Funny how the USAF is allowed to run them at concorde speeds over land.

Mayhap they have 'go quieter' stripes.

ANTIcarrot.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-06-22 14:21:38

Re: Spaceship 1 - going for it

#27 2004-06-22 15:08:24

Re: Spaceship 1 - going for it

#28 2004-06-23 08:45:15

Re: Spaceship 1 - going for it

#29 2004-06-23 08:58:32

Re: Spaceship 1 - going for it

#30 2004-06-23 09:08:44

Re: Spaceship 1 - going for it

#31 2004-06-23 09:48:53

Re: Spaceship 1 - going for it

#32 2004-06-23 09:53:54

Re: Spaceship 1 - going for it

#33 2004-06-23 10:01:00

Re: Spaceship 1 - going for it

#34 2004-06-23 10:18:34

Re: Spaceship 1 - going for it

#35 2004-06-23 10:47:30

Re: Spaceship 1 - going for it

#36 2004-06-23 12:52:34

Re: Spaceship 1 - going for it

#37 2004-06-23 14:13:58

Re: Spaceship 1 - going for it

#38 2004-06-23 15:46:59

Re: Spaceship 1 - going for it

#39 2004-06-23 16:53:41

Re: Spaceship 1 - going for it

#40 2004-06-24 00:10:19

Re: Spaceship 1 - going for it

#41 2004-06-24 02:48:06

Re: Spaceship 1 - going for it

#42 2004-06-24 07:48:07

Re: Spaceship 1 - going for it

#43 2004-06-24 12:20:16

Re: Spaceship 1 - going for it

#44 2004-06-24 14:31:00

Re: Spaceship 1 - going for it

#45 2004-06-24 16:10:36

Re: Spaceship 1 - going for it

#46 2004-06-24 16:23:24

Re: Spaceship 1 - going for it

#47 2004-06-24 18:24:28

Re: Spaceship 1 - going for it

#48 2004-06-24 18:46:03

Re: Spaceship 1 - going for it

#49 2004-06-25 11:16:58

Re: Spaceship 1 - going for it

#50 2004-06-25 15:51:21

Re: Spaceship 1 - going for it

Board footer