To all those dissing Rutan and his bird--get a clue. He designed to the task at hand, not some uber-geek definition of what they would like to see. The man is brilliant at designing to the task at hand on a controllable budget--much like Kelly Johnson of the Skunkworks fame. If he didn't know his shit and have the dynamics right it wouldn't have worked.
I think you're the one who should get a clue. Have you listened to Rutan rant about "Naysay?" Have you heard his claims that his machines will be 100x safer? He neglects to mention that they're going to be at least 100x less capable.
Clearly he is claiming his craft is more than it is, if only to feed the media's attention for sensational stories.
Anything non-rocket on the drawing board? All this chemical propulsion stuff is good at putting stuff into orbit but how about beyond orbital ventures? A swing around the moon perhaps?
Eh. SS1 is a proof of concept project that worked. I think the enthusiasm and elation is justified. I mean, this is just the first step for a private sector space endeavour. NASA does the heavy lifting. SS1 and their offshoots will cater to ordinary folks (OK, OK at this point, REALLY rich folks but one day... you know?) and do the space tourist thing for now. Baby steps, man. Baby steps.
Even if this design proves to be a dead end in the long run, at least it was tried and built and successfully executed within the parameters set forth in the X competiton. If nothing else, it may spur the next level in creative thinking for a more elegent solution. You know the next team will raise the bar and try to beat Rutan. Well, I hope so anyway.
As for me, one day I hope to practice architecture on Mars. But that's another story...
Anything non-rocket on the drawing board? All this chemical propulsion stuff is good at putting stuff into orbit but how about beyond orbital ventures? A swing around the moon perhaps?
Have you seen that PBS doc where someone was trying to use a laser to propel a spacecraft out of the atmosphere? He would spin a disk to create stability and blast laser pulses at it. It did go up a fair height but wasn't stable. That was the only one that I can recall that used a non-chemical solution.
I think that right now it is a matter of just getting into orbit and that means chemical propulsion. Once in orbit / or out of the steeper "slope" of the gravity well, other forms can be utilized. They have already tested an ion engine - what was that probe? Deep Space One? Can't remember now. They had tried a solar sail but last I heard the fabric ruptured and could not be deployed. These method sound like they'd be great for long haul journeys because they depend on building up speed slowly. Actually thinking about it now, maybe an ion engine would be feasible... imagine a shuttle that continually loops between us and the moon maintaining a constant rate of speed with low energy (would take a while to get to cruising speed); mini-shuttles catch up with it to take on or unload passengers. Heck, to follow this line of thinking, the shuttle would be a moving hotel like a sea-borne cruise liner. I used to day dream this stuff... what's next?
There's project Orion but that used the explosions of atomic bombs to propel it forward....
Of course, there that whole space elevator concept that was mentioned earlier in the discussion. Frank Lloyd Wright once imagined that we'd develope
"atomic powered elevator cabs" (?!) These were to have been installed in his Mile High Tower project. Those would be the elevator cars for the space elevator...
OK, babbling now. I'll stop... its starting to go off topic.
Meaningless didn't want to go off topic. I'll take a chance here.
On Jon Stewart's show tonight (one of my favorites!) they covered the flight in their usual irreverent style. I know you guys are going to think this is weird and overly sensitive.
I really do feel that if you don't have something positive to say about this incredible achievement then STFU. Particularly an influential show like Stewart's. I'd like to know how many AI'ers caught the show tonight. These kinds of scientific achievements need to be lauded on popular and influential shows. I know Stewart lays it on everyone equally, for the most part. The Rutan team seem to be doing things in the very best apolitical scientific spirit. Ehh, maybe I'm being too sensitive, I admit it.
This is a baby step. But, it is a great achievement. In the future I personally forsee private industries leading space exploration while governments spend trillions in killing each other and waging wars.
The first privately funded self-powered airplane (also the first ever self-powered airplane) flew less than the length of a football field and had to take off from a rail to minimize drag ... that was 1903.
In 1927 Charles Lindberg flew non-stop from Long Island to Paris... only 24 years later.
Rutan's work goes a lot further towards sub-orbital passenger transport than anything NASA has done.
To put that in perspective: A Boeing 777 takes 16 hours to fly from NYC to Hong-Kong. A Sub-Orbital flight (simiar to Rutans profile) could cut that down to fewer than 4 hours.
(If they can do it in the NEXT 24 years, I'll get to fly it !)
Rutan's project is not meant to be anything more than a proof-of-concept ... and at that, it has exceeded all expectations.
Kickaha and Amorph couldn't moderate themselves out of a paper bag. Abdicate responsibility and succumb to idiocy. Two years of letting a member make personal attacks against others, then stepping aside when someone won't put up with it. Not only that but go ahead and shut down my posting priviledges but not the one making the attacks. Not even the common decency to abide by their warning (afer three days of absorbing personal attacks with no mods in sight), just shut my posting down and then say it might happen later if a certian line is crossed. Bullshit flag is flying, I won't abide by lying and coddling of liars who go off-site, create accounts differing in a single letter from my handle with the express purpose to decieve and then claim here that I did it. Everyone be warned, kim kap sol is a lying, deceitful poster.
Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.
Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
Meaningless didn't want to go off topic. I'll take a chance here.
On Jon Stewart's show tonight (one of my favorites!) they covered the flight in their usual irreverent style. I know you guys are going to think this is weird and overly sensitive.
Hardhead has cojones. I saw the daily show too but it was a bit of fun "The Nerds Won!!"
Outsider: Maybe this link could answer you question regarding non-chemical propulsion - clicky . If you read down a bit you all can see that laser propulsion idea I alluded to previously.
Around the anniversary of the Wright Brothers 100 foot first flight, the Lightcraft folks celebrated the fact that their pulsed laser propulsion craft flew farther than the Wrights (admittedly without pilot) .
Older pages from Rensselaer seem to have lost their link structure, but additional info and search suggestions might be available.
While this technology is currently impractical for living payloads (rotational stability of the lightcraft requires more than 5,000 rpm spin... a bit high gee), and faces challenges in atmosphere in keeping the craft centred over its propulsive laser (plus decreasing power as the laser has to fight through more atmosphere as the craft rises) it does hold promise for mass lifting in thinner atmospheres and might make an excellent lunar demonstrator technology.
Even if it will not be in my lifetime or my children's lifetime or even if it is impossible, I am firmly convinced that we as a society will gain far more from trying to make such breakthroughs happen than if we didn't. This is a noble and honorable cause, and I find it much more gratifying than designing weapons.
I think Allen is in it for the dream. Rutan is in it for the glory. The X-Prize was just a convenient opportunity.
Quote:
Rutan used shape, material and flight profile to overcome many of the X-15 obstacles. The X-15 flew parabolic profiles and had a very fast re-entry profile as we all agree. The vertical climb completely eliminated that component which could have added a mach or two to SS1.
The X-15 had 2 different trajectories. High altitude ones and high speed, lower altitude ones. The high speed Mach 4+, lower altitude flights were the ones that necessitated ablative and "exotic" materials to be able to handle the heat of hypersonic flight. For the high altitude flights, the X-15 took about the same trajectory that SSO did.
Quote:
While in agreement with your observation, it's still a learned point. Weight, weight, weight. It's much easier to change the energy state of something light and therefore the forces and generated heat are both lessened.
I'll have to reiterate that SSO doesn't get above Mach 3. That eliminates many heat issues, and allowed the SSO skin to be made of Scaled's typical composites with just a little bit of ablative materials for the nose. He could of have used aluminum if he wanted to. That was the ingeniuty in the system and saved him many design issues with hypersonic flight. Unfortunately, it also could be what leads the SSO concept to be a dead end.
We'll see what happens when Rutan scales the concept to Mach 3+ flight. The only ace in the hole I can think of is an inflatable heat shield that'll keep the vehicles ballastic coefficient low.
NASA's problems, I'm an actual civil servant, are all directly related to the Shuttle Program and Space Station Program. Both programs are bureaucratic monstrosities with their designs done by politics, not engineers. Retiring those would go a long way in fixing its problems.
I really do feel that if you don't have something positive to say about this incredible achievement then STFU.
It's fortunate that I don't really have to care about your feelings.
The problem is really simple in my mind. For chemical propulsion, every pound that gets into orbit, requires 9 lbs of fuel. That's like having a car with only the driver seat, and everywhere else, every spare little cubic inch of volume, is filled with gas, and it takes all of that gas to get across town.
I don't forsee a time when a trip to orbit will cost less than 6 figures because 90% of the vehicle is fuel and oxidizer. The cost in fuel alone is prohibitive. Maybe everyone will simply be rich enough to afford a trip to space in the future, but if it is chemical propulsion, it is going to be a 6+ figure cost for a person to get into orbit.
Both have technical challenges but don't pay the fuel-lifting penalties once the underlying structures are in place (admittedly a big issue with the elevator).
Xprize foundation and World Technology Network just announced a pending series of prizes
Quote:
According to the X Prize Foundation and the World Technology Network, examples of privately-funded solutions in scientific and social fields might include the following:
1.______ Transportation: Demonstration of a 4-seat vehicle able to achieve 200 miles per gallon in a cross country race
2.______ Nanotechnology: Construction of a pre-determined molecule by an assembler
3.______ Aging deceleration: Extension of mammal life, or demonstrated evidence of aging reversal
4.______ Education: Demonstration of a self-sufficient education facility able to operate independently and educate villagers anywhere on the planet
Both groups are looking to identify Fortune 500 companies interested in assisting in the creation of the prizes by funding the purse in turn for title sponsorship rights._
The first WTN-X Prizes are expected to be announced in six months.
The WTN and X Prize foundation have developed a website to court competitors and attract sponsors: http://www.wtnxprize.org/
Go to the website and recommend a challenge worthy of prizes.
Meanwhile, the Bigelow prize for orbit gains credibility.
But I think there's already a Methuselah prize for extending the life of lab mice.
Disclaimer: I don't think we have the maturity to deal with nano-technology. Since the playing field for science is no longer restricted to the G7 and global corporates are leading the effort, you can never be too sure of the motives. Read the "Why the Future Doesn't need Us" article for a view point on why it is risky. I don't like technologies we don't have a defense against.
Amended bill said to carry ?poison pill? for spaceflight
...Just days after SpaceShipOne's prize-winning flight opened the world's eyes to the prospect for private spaceflight, legislation that might have opened the way for paying passengers to get on board has sunk into a congressional black hole ? at the urging of space entrepreneurs who were once its biggest supporters.
advertisement
Those one-time boosters say the compromise version that emerged Thursday from a House-Senate "preconference" would actually kill off private spaceflight by holding the industry to an unmeetable safety standard for passengers and crew members.
Comments
Originally posted by AirSluf
To all those dissing Rutan and his bird--get a clue. He designed to the task at hand, not some uber-geek definition of what they would like to see. The man is brilliant at designing to the task at hand on a controllable budget--much like Kelly Johnson of the Skunkworks fame. If he didn't know his shit and have the dynamics right it wouldn't have worked.
I think you're the one who should get a clue. Have you listened to Rutan rant about "Naysay?" Have you heard his claims that his machines will be 100x safer? He neglects to mention that they're going to be at least 100x less capable.
Clearly he is claiming his craft is more than it is, if only to feed the media's attention for sensational stories.
Even if this design proves to be a dead end in the long run, at least it was tried and built and successfully executed within the parameters set forth in the X competiton. If nothing else, it may spur the next level in creative thinking for a more elegent solution. You know the next team will raise the bar and try to beat Rutan. Well, I hope so anyway.
As for me, one day I hope to practice architecture on Mars.
Originally posted by Outsider
Anything non-rocket on the drawing board? All this chemical propulsion stuff is good at putting stuff into orbit but how about beyond orbital ventures? A swing around the moon perhaps?
Have you seen that PBS doc where someone was trying to use a laser to propel a spacecraft out of the atmosphere? He would spin a disk to create stability and blast laser pulses at it. It did go up a fair height but wasn't stable. That was the only one that I can recall that used a non-chemical solution.
I think that right now it is a matter of just getting into orbit and that means chemical propulsion. Once in orbit / or out of the steeper "slope" of the gravity well, other forms can be utilized. They have already tested an ion engine - what was that probe? Deep Space One? Can't remember now. They had tried a solar sail but last I heard the fabric ruptured and could not be deployed. These method sound like they'd be great for long haul journeys because they depend on building up speed slowly. Actually thinking about it now, maybe an ion engine would be feasible... imagine a shuttle that continually loops between us and the moon maintaining a constant rate of speed with low energy (would take a while to get to cruising speed); mini-shuttles catch up with it to take on or unload passengers. Heck, to follow this line of thinking, the shuttle would be a moving hotel like a sea-borne cruise liner. I used to day dream this stuff... what's next?
There's project Orion
Of course, there that whole space elevator concept that was mentioned earlier in the discussion. Frank Lloyd Wright once imagined that we'd develope
"atomic powered elevator cabs" (?!) These were to have been installed in his Mile High Tower project. Those would be the elevator cars for the space elevator...
OK, babbling now. I'll stop... its starting to go off topic.
On Jon Stewart's show tonight (one of my favorites!) they covered the flight in their usual irreverent style. I know you guys are going to think this is weird and overly sensitive.
I really do feel that if you don't have something positive to say about this incredible achievement then STFU. Particularly an influential show like Stewart's. I'd like to know how many AI'ers caught the show tonight. These kinds of scientific achievements need to be lauded on popular and influential shows. I know Stewart lays it on everyone equally, for the most part. The Rutan team seem to be doing things in the very best apolitical scientific spirit. Ehh, maybe I'm being too sensitive, I admit it.
In 1927 Charles Lindberg flew non-stop from Long Island to Paris... only 24 years later.
Rutan's work goes a lot further towards sub-orbital passenger transport than anything NASA has done.
To put that in perspective: A Boeing 777 takes 16 hours to fly from NYC to Hong-Kong. A Sub-Orbital flight (simiar to Rutans profile) could cut that down to fewer than 4 hours.
(If they can do it in the NEXT 24 years, I'll get to fly it !)
Rutan's project is not meant to be anything more than a proof-of-concept ... and at that, it has exceeded all expectations.
Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.
Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
Originally posted by hardhead
Meaningless didn't want to go off topic. I'll take a chance here.
On Jon Stewart's show tonight (one of my favorites!) they covered the flight in their usual irreverent style. I know you guys are going to think this is weird and overly sensitive.
Hardhead has cojones.
Outsider: Maybe this link could answer you question regarding non-chemical propulsion - clicky . If you read down a bit you all can see that laser propulsion idea I alluded to previously.
Around the anniversary of the Wright Brothers 100 foot first flight, the Lightcraft folks celebrated the fact that their pulsed laser propulsion craft flew farther than the Wrights (admittedly without pilot)
Older pages from Rensselaer seem to have lost their link structure, but additional info and search suggestions might be available.
While this technology is currently impractical for living payloads (rotational stability of the lightcraft requires more than 5,000 rpm spin... a bit high gee), and faces challenges in atmosphere in keeping the craft centred over its propulsive laser (plus decreasing power as the laser has to fight through more atmosphere as the craft rises) it does hold promise for mass lifting in thinner atmospheres and might make an excellent lunar demonstrator technology.
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/PAO/warp.htm
Quote from the site:
Even if it will not be in my lifetime or my children's lifetime or even if it is impossible, I am firmly convinced that we as a society will gain far more from trying to make such breakthroughs happen than if we didn't. This is a noble and honorable cause, and I find it much more gratifying than designing weapons.
Originally posted by AirSluf
Glory.
I think Allen is in it for the dream. Rutan is in it for the glory. The X-Prize was just a convenient opportunity.
Rutan used shape, material and flight profile to overcome many of the X-15 obstacles. The X-15 flew parabolic profiles and had a very fast re-entry profile as we all agree. The vertical climb completely eliminated that component which could have added a mach or two to SS1.
The X-15 had 2 different trajectories. High altitude ones and high speed, lower altitude ones. The high speed Mach 4+, lower altitude flights were the ones that necessitated ablative and "exotic" materials to be able to handle the heat of hypersonic flight. For the high altitude flights, the X-15 took about the same trajectory that SSO did.
While in agreement with your observation, it's still a learned point. Weight, weight, weight. It's much easier to change the energy state of something light and therefore the forces and generated heat are both lessened.
I'll have to reiterate that SSO doesn't get above Mach 3. That eliminates many heat issues, and allowed the SSO skin to be made of Scaled's typical composites with just a little bit of ablative materials for the nose. He could of have used aluminum if he wanted to. That was the ingeniuty in the system and saved him many design issues with hypersonic flight. Unfortunately, it also could be what leads the SSO concept to be a dead end.
We'll see what happens when Rutan scales the concept to Mach 3+ flight. The only ace in the hole I can think of is an inflatable heat shield that'll keep the vehicles ballastic coefficient low.
NASA's problems, I'm an actual civil servant, are all directly related to the Shuttle Program and Space Station Program. Both programs are bureaucratic monstrosities with their designs done by politics, not engineers. Retiring those would go a long way in fixing its problems.
Originally posted by hardhead
I really do feel that if you don't have something positive to say about this incredible achievement then STFU.
It's fortunate that I don't really have to care about your feelings.
The problem is really simple in my mind. For chemical propulsion, every pound that gets into orbit, requires 9 lbs of fuel. That's like having a car with only the driver seat, and everywhere else, every spare little cubic inch of volume, is filled with gas, and it takes all of that gas to get across town.
I don't forsee a time when a trip to orbit will cost less than 6 figures because 90% of the vehicle is fuel and oxidizer. The cost in fuel alone is prohibitive. Maybe everyone will simply be rich enough to afford a trip to space in the future, but if it is chemical propulsion, it is going to be a 6+ figure cost for a person to get into orbit.
Both have technical challenges but don't pay the fuel-lifting penalties once the underlying structures are in place (admittedly a big issue with the elevator).
According to the X Prize Foundation and the World Technology Network, examples of privately-funded solutions in scientific and social fields might include the following:
1.______ Transportation: Demonstration of a 4-seat vehicle able to achieve 200 miles per gallon in a cross country race
2.______ Nanotechnology: Construction of a pre-determined molecule by an assembler
3.______ Aging deceleration: Extension of mammal life, or demonstrated evidence of aging reversal
4.______ Education: Demonstration of a self-sufficient education facility able to operate independently and educate villagers anywhere on the planet
Both groups are looking to identify Fortune 500 companies interested in assisting in the creation of the prizes by funding the purse in turn for title sponsorship rights._
The first WTN-X Prizes are expected to be announced in six months.
The WTN and X Prize foundation have developed a website to court competitors and attract sponsors: http://www.wtnxprize.org/
Go to the website and recommend a challenge worthy of prizes.
Meanwhile, the Bigelow prize for orbit gains credibility.
But I think there's already a Methuselah prize for extending the life of lab mice.
It's all good.
Originally posted by curiousuburb
It's all good.
Yup!
Disclaimer: I don't think we have the maturity to deal with nano-technology. Since the playing field for science is no longer restricted to the G7 and global corporates are leading the effort, you can never be too sure of the motives. Read the "Why the Future Doesn't need Us" article for a view point on why it is risky. I don't like technologies we don't have a defense against.
Suborbital legislation suddenly sinks
Amended bill said to carry ?poison pill? for spaceflight
...Just days after SpaceShipOne's prize-winning flight opened the world's eyes to the prospect for private spaceflight, legislation that might have opened the way for paying passengers to get on board has sunk into a congressional black hole ? at the urging of space entrepreneurs who were once its biggest supporters.
advertisement
Those one-time boosters say the compromise version that emerged Thursday from a House-Senate "preconference" would actually kill off private spaceflight by holding the industry to an unmeetable safety standard for passengers and crew members.