X-Prize WON!!!!

[Wilber_Stool]

Spaceship One 180,000 ft.

http://www.space.com/

[tridim]

1. Awesome

If I had any money I'd be investing in Burt Rattan right about now. You know, this is about the first good news in about 4 years.

[bill]

2. 360,000 +

They had to break 100 km (62 mi). Looks like they did it

[Wilber_Stool]

3. Oops.___n/t

[Jack from Charlotte]

10. How do these compare with Shepard/Grissom sub orbital flight?

Also, I'm not clear on the "WHY" here. It seems like putting someone in orbit and then repeating it would have been significant.

However...... Congrats to Burt Rutan.

[GliderGuider]

16. Shepard and Grissom flew higher

116 and 118 miles respectively, compared to the 70 miles SpaceShipOne attained today.

The "why" is that this was a purely private venture, with no government resources involved. As such it demonstrates that space is attainable for less than the govenrment has to spend to do it.

And yes, putting someone in orbit would have been significant. By the same token it would have been significant if the Wright Brothers' Flyer had flown across the Atlantic Ocean. First we walk, then we run. Unlike being George W. Bush, flying into orbit actually IS hard work. Don't worry, we'll get there. :-)

[Emperor_Norton_II]

29. Let's also not forget Lucky Lindy

The good old Spirit of St. Louis was in no means a commercial-ready aircraft. All it did was prove that crossing the Atlantic nonstop by air was possible.

SS1, likewise, isn't quite ready to be a regular passenger vehicle (though I imagine Branson's going to try for it, and he may even pull it off), but it proves that it can be done.

Next up in terms of proof-of-concept in civillian spaceflight is, I think, John Carmack and his team of flying armadillos. They're planning on making a suborbital hop from a standing start.

So all you space geeks go buy Doom 3 and help get them off the ground. ;-)

[LastDemocratInSC]

41. Shepard and Grissom flew in a spacecraft not an aircraft.

The Mercury spacecraft was designed for orbital flight and re-entry. That means more than 5 times faster than SpaceShipOne and much, much higher altitudes.

The sub-orbital flights of Shepard and Grissom were proof of concept missions, just as today's mission of SpaceShipOne was, but the Mercury spacecraft was ready for orbit ... SpaceShipOne is not.

[Dudley_DUright]

4. Another feather in the cap of Burt Rutan (EE),

(EE)=engineer extraordinaire.

[MsUSA]

6. That's great, now how can he engineer a car

that'll get fantastic millage on anything other then GAS??? ;-)

[GliderGuider]

5. It even beat the X-15 flight altitude record!

The X-15 piloted by Joe Walker made 354,000 feet in 1963. Today Brian Binnie in SpaceShipOne made 368,000 feet unofficially. Not bad for a plastic rocket plane powered by rubber and laughing gas :toast:

If I had the bucks I'd buy a ticket from Richard Branson in a New York minute :headbang:

[LastDemocratInSC]

37. Apples and oranges compared

SpaceShipOne rose to 368,000 feet at about mach 3. The X-15 achieved about 350,000 feet and over mach 7, although never at the same time.

SpaceShipOne can go very high and relatively slow, because it's made of plastic. The X-15 could go equally high and much, much faster (not at the same time), because it was made of titanium and inconel.

Two different craft, built for different purposes.

SpaceShipOne is a proof of concept vehicle designed for a few short, relatively slow, high-altitude flights. The X-15 was designed for many, many high-speed flights at extreme altitudes, with an eye for orbital speeds, eventually.

SpaceShipOne has flown 3 flights with 2 of these going into dangerous spins ... the Rutans admit it is unstable in the roll axis. The X-15 flew 99 flights at extreme altitudes and, on each flight, far faster than SpaceShipOne, with only 1 fatal accident. I'm not sure that SpaceShipOne could ever achieve that record, but then, that's not its purpose.

[LisaM]

7. Okay, I have questions about this

Regarding noise level, pollution, and safety of people on the ground. How do they monitor all that?

Also, it was lifted up on the engine of a jet plane. Why didn't it need to take off on its own?

Sorry, I just can't get excited about this. The idea of anyone who wants to flitting around space without regulation seems worrisome to me.

[daleo]

8. I suppose this is just proof of concept

But I agree with all the points that you make. This is a nice little fantasy, but now we have to begin considering the political, environmental, economic, military, etc. consequences of this becoming in any sense numerically common.

So far it is nothing much more than a free flying roller coaster ride for millionaires. If it develops past this stage, all of those hum-drum matters that you mention will come into play.

For example, imagine if a 2015 version of Ossama (who is/was supposed to be extremely rich) could get his hands on one of these.

[GliderGuider]

12. OBL?

I think there are a lot more effective ways of scaring people than with a little fiberglass glider...

If these go commercial, the FAA will have their hand in the operation right up to the shoulder as usual. If it flies, someone will regulate it - regulating things seems to be the American national sport.

[daleo]

18. Whether or not the risk is reasonable is a moot point, nowadays

Little old ladies are denied entry on flights because they forget to mention their nail clippers. So, a craft like this would certainly be considered a potential danger these days.

Bear in mind that this is essentially a ballistic missile, and has a payload capacity of "the weight of two adults". So, between its innate kinetic energy (which would be tremendous) and the 400 to 500 pound payload it could carry, it will certainly be of interest to military forces around the world. I would guess its potential as a terrorist weapon is not lost on government agencies such as U.S. homeland security.

I agree that the danger is hypothetical, and terrorists do not have to resort to exotic technology such as this anyway. Nonetheless, governments will be extremely wary of how widespread possession of this craft becomes, in my opinion.

[GliderGuider]

20. A Cessna 172 has a bigger payload

requires much less ground support and attracts a lot less attention. I think any "terrist" that got interested in such a vehicle would be so seduced by the idea of space flight that he'd probably abandon his nefarious plans and enroll at Caltech. ;-)

[GliderGuider]

11. Here are a few answers

About the noise level - the main noise comes from the mother-ship, which is powered by a couple of small jet engines. All in all, it is much quieter than a commercial jetliner. The rocket plane itself starts its engine only when it's 10 miles up, and that engine is even smaller and fires for less than a minute. Also, the flights are conducted over a desert, and noise pollution is only a problem if there are people (or at least wildlife) nearby. So, IMO noise isn't an issue.

Pollution isn't an issue, because it's just one very small plane. By all means worry about the tens of thousands of large commercial flights happening routinely throughout the world every day, or better yet the millions of tons of automobile exhaust. One tiny plane flying twice doesn't present a pollution problem.

Safety likewise isn't an issue, for two reasons. One is that the flights are conducted over a desert, with nobody below except observers who aren't under the flight path. And if the rocket plane were to crash, it wouldn't present a risk of explosion - the fuel and oxidizer aren't mixed, so they can't catch fire. Once the engine has been fired the fuel is used up, and the rocket plane is really just a fiberglass glider. The only potential victims in a crash would be the crew.

The main reason for having a mother ship lift it up is to reduce the amount of fuel required to boost the rocket plane through the thick, high-drag lower layer of the atmosphere. Not having to take off under its own power also reduces the size and complexity of the rocket plane. This increases its reliability and safety, and makes it cheaper to operate.

Now about regulations - in fact, there was substantial government regulation involved with these flights. The company that built and operated the plane had to go to great lengths to prove to the FAA that both the rocket plane and ther mother ship were safe and airworthy. Don't worry, Big Brother was watching over the pilot's shoulder all the way up and down :-)

[Massacure]

26. Rockets are designed so in a way that the thrust is used to maximum extent

However the thrust pattern changes as the pressure lowers. By skipping a majority of the atmosphere you can build a rocket designed to be efficient at high altitude without using fuel unefficiently at lower altitudes.

[tinrobot]

32. Answers....

<Regarding noise level, pollution, and safety of people on the ground. How do they monitor all that?>

It's way out in the desert, for one thing. Pollution is not that big of an issue, SS1 puts out far less than an airliner on a cross country trip. The rocket fuel itself is rubber and laughing gas, so it's very safe when the craft is on the ground.

<Also, it was lifted up on the engine of a jet plane. Why didn't it need to take off on its own?>

Almost every rocket has 'stages' including the space shuttle, which jettisons it's fuels tank and solid boosters. Using a jet plane to help lift the craft saves fuel and weight.

Unlike most rockets, which dispose of 90% of their weight, SpaceShipOne keeps 97% of it's weight, which saves resources.

< Sorry, I just can't get excited about this. The idea of anyone who wants to flitting around space without regulation seems worrisome to me.>

It's highly regulated. It took them months to get past the FAA red tape for the launch. Burt Rutan is a true professional, and he's not just flitting around, he's very serious about safety and reliability.

[RadioFlyer]

33. This is wonderful

Burt Rutan and crew have been innovators for a long, long time. And I think it's great that they retrieved the craft with a pickup truck. Now, THAT's real Mojave!

[kemche]

9. Mass Produce NOW.

We need to get him to mass Produce SS1 so everyone be able to go to Space as cheap as an international plane ticket.

KG

[GliderGuider]

13. Buy stock in Virgin Galactic airways!

Richard Branson rocks! :party:

[Ohio rules]

36. the plan is a $200,000 ticket can be purchased in 3 yrs

So I heard on the radio this afternoon.

[LastDemocratInSC]

40. You might want to wait and find out the odds of your survival

In 2 of 3 flights SpaceShipOne has gone into dangerous rolls. Each flight recovered from the problem, but you wouldn't want that on a commercial flight. Do you tolerate an out of control situation on 2 out of 3 commercial airline flights now?

SpaceShipOne is made of composite materials and is, therefore, very light and prone to instabilities. It can go very high and at relatively slow speeds ... straight up and straight down. It is a wonderful proof on concept vehicle but there is work to be done, obviously, before anything real happens there.

Going into space means, in any real sense, going very, very fast and very, very far, and being able to return safely while going very, very fast. SpaceShipOne is not a craft for that purpose although a variant might be one in about 5 or 10 years.

There's a reason that real space programs cost a LOT of money.

[HereSince1628]

14. Glad I am alive to see this...

They did something that NASA has had trouble with, turning around the _SAME_ vehicle.

The x-prize money means much less than the technology applications that made this work. MUCH cheaper space access is going to become available.

All I can add is HOO HA!

[LastDemocratInSC]

42. Apples and oranges ... redux

Not to take anything away from the Rutan team, but turning around a plastic airplane, than can carry at most 1000 lbs, designed to fly straight up and down at relatively slow speeds is drastically different than turning around a spacecraft that can loft and land many tons of payload at orbital speeds, and remain at orbital altitudes with large crews for weeks at a time.

For all the death and destruction we have seen during the space shuttle era, I think that MUCH cheaper space access, as you put it, might just put us into the equivalent of the Chevrolet Corvair era of space travel ... "Unsafe at Any Speed", as Nader once wrote.

There is a reason that access to space is expensive and a reason that it is never safe.

[HereSince1628]

43. Yes but its more like comparing pick-up trucks and trains

Trains still haul a lot of freight...something cars can't do but millions of us travel tens of thousands of miles a year, and traveling 500 miles directly to the driveway of your destination in less than a day is something that was impossible little more than 75 years ago and completely taken for granted.

If you are hauling 2 satellites the size of say a washer and a dryer you don't need a freight train. If you can make such deliveries every week you could be placing 100 satellites into orbit a year...at a profit, and the year's load might exceed customer demand.

As a nation we have accepted 30,000-50,000 highway fatalities routinely. The space shuttle deaths were tragedies for the nation not because of the size of the crews that died but because of the high profile and prestige that goes with NASA.

If industry builds a fleet of privately owned and operated SUV's "space utility vehicles," vehicle and crew losses will happen. But if the suv's are flying as a matter of routine those losses will be absorbed much like truck crashes, and I suspect the industry will be regulated and the accidents investigated in much the same way.

[Mr.Green93]

15. Great

more ozone depletion and air pollution.

[MUSTANG_2004]

19. Don't you find it ironic

that someone typing a message on a computer is complaining about new technology?

[daleo]

21. Not really

That would imply that it was impossible to make value judgments between different forms of technology - a "take one and you have to take them all" mentality.

If this really did become common, the implications for ozone depletion would become important to understand.

[GliderGuider]

23. I don't think we need to worry

about sub-orbital three-passenger rocket planes becoming common. :-)

Of course there's no way of telling where the technology will go, but frankly none of this is really new technology. Any problems it might present are already with us in one form or another.

[daleo]

24. That's what I thought about SUV's at first

They will never become popular. Once someone figures out how to turn this thing into an SUV, they will be all over the place, orbital, sub-orbital and on the ground. :tinfoilhat:

[Mr.Green93]

25. ouch

[Jacobin]

31. I read something on this yesterday

The fuel they are using is non-toxic. The oxygen catalyst is actually nitros oxide...laughing gas for cryin out loud.

Don't underestimate Burt Rutan. He's a very clever guy, very inventive and turning him loose on things like this could be a lot better than the military doing it, as they don't give a rats ass about using poisonous stuff.

Overall, I'd say this is a good accomplishment.

[Jacobin]

17. Burt Rutan is a national treasure

A brilliant iconoclast willing to take risks and be innovative.

Incredible achievement.

:toast:

[Ohio rules]

35. His home built aicraft industry reached the ultimate height

His designs have always been radical going back almost 30 years already.
Some of his shared jet designs, along with Jim Bedee, were featuered in James Bond Movies of the 1980's

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Worst Username Ever]

30. EXACTLY!!!

Awesome!

[Greyhawk]

27. This is very, very cool...

I can see that an alternative to NASA can't help but be good. Imagine someone creating a space station that is privately run, forays to the moon, using solar energy or whatever..... It's just an awesome development that will expand the mental bounds we have set up...

[GliderGuider]

28. IMO this is even cooler...

The Space Elevator

I saw Dr. Brad Edwards speak this summer, and he figures the Space Elevator is about 15 years out. Now if the people who are concerned about our interference with the earth want something to get exercised over, this is it. A 100,000 kilometer long carbon nanotube ribbon extending from the surface of the Earth straight out into space, with solar power satellites on top of it, and cargo climbing up and down...

[LastDemocratInSC]

39. Apples and oranges ...

When a private company achieves the goals of launching citizens into Earth orbit we will see them have the same problems NASA has.

SpaceShipOne is made of plastic ... because it can be. It never goes very fast (mach 3 at the most) and never gets very hot (a few hundred degrees).

To get to orbit a craft must go 5 times faster than SpaceShipOne and more than twice as high ... and it must be able to enter the atmosphere at speeds 5 times faster than Rutan's plastic plane. Hot, hot, hot.

NASA flew the X-15 rocket plane in the 1960s. Those craft went very high (as Rutan's) but also much, much faster and farther. They weren't made of plastic and, thus, cost lots more.

You really do get what you pay for.

[Ohio rules]

34. NASA's Space Shuttle is a cash cow

I say it's time to start the countdown clock on that dinosaur and grant private enterprise greater access.

[LastDemocratInSC]

38. NASA never wanted the shuttle to become the beast it is

Nixon and the military married the military and NASA together to create the shuttle. NASA wanted a small, very reliable winged craft but the military wanted something different ...

The military foresaw the need, probably correctly at the time (1970s), to be able to launch a craft into a polar orbit, capture a Soviet spy satellite that was a threat to the US national interest, and return it to Earth in one orbit, before the Soviet government knew what had happened. This would have happened only if a grave political crisis was underway, but then, that's what we pay military thinkers to think about.

The current space shuttle was designed to accomodate the size of, and land with the mass of, the largest Soviet spy satellites known during the 1970s. The shuttle has large delta-shaped wings to enable it to launch into a polar orbit and land, one orbit later, at a nearby airfield (Vandenberg AFB and Edwards AFB). That requires a 1200 mile cross-range ability. Ergo, really big craft with really big wings.

If NASA's vision of the shuttle had won the day, our history would be very different ... and much happier, besides.