Tom Rexton Posted June 2, 2004 Report Share Posted June 2, 2004 You guys ought to read this. They are hoping it will spur a new age of affordable private space tourism. We can only hope, because those regulatory agencies will soon shackle the new space industries if they ever come to exist. Still, I hope they succeed spectacularly on flying the first privately developed and owned rocket-plane into outer space--they've come quite close on May 13, 2004. (see link) A quote from the article: “Since Yuri Gagarin and Al Shepard’s epic flights in 1961, all space missions have been flown only under large, expensive Government efforts. By contrast, our program involves a few, dedicated individuals who are focused entirely on making spaceflight affordable,” said Burt Rutan. “Without the entrepreneur approach, space access would continue to be out of reach for ordinary citizens. The SpaceShipOne flights will change all that and encourage others to usher in a new, low-cost era in space travel.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearmint Posted June 2, 2004 Report Share Posted June 2, 2004 I heard about this a month ago and thought it was incredibly cool. They managed to almost get into space back then, but I didnt know the actual space flight was going to be so soon. Hope they make it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadCap Posted June 4, 2004 Report Share Posted June 4, 2004 Wow - I live close enough. If Im feeling well enough by then, perhaps I will go watch the event. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AwakeAndFree Posted June 4, 2004 Report Share Posted June 4, 2004 Oh, man - you have to be there at 6:30 AM! Hey, wait a minute - I'm still in Israel! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckles Posted June 20, 2004 Report Share Posted June 20, 2004 I saw a poll somewhere on whether it will be a successful flight or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
order Posted June 20, 2004 Report Share Posted June 20, 2004 I've been following the exploits of Burt Rutan ever since I discovered a plane he designed called the "Starship," which became one of my favorites. He's ahead of his time, and I have no doubt he will succeed. The Starship was made its maiden voyage in 1986 and was terminated in 1995 due to lack of interest. The aircraft design was apparently so radical at the time that very few were sold due to customer skepticism. The aircraft's advanced features included: Variable Geometry Canard Foreplanes - these elevators could be swept back in cruising flight for increase speed. The forward placement of the elevators also made impossible a stall of the main wings during climbs. Aft Facing Twin Engines - Facing aftward, the engines were able to be placed close together, thereby reducing asymmetric thrust in the event of a single engine failure. All Glass Cockpit - Keeping in mind this plane made its maiden voyage in 86, the all glass cockpit rivals avionics in today's new planes. Composite Material Hull - Way ahead of its time. Boeing is just now designing its first composite jetliner, the 7E7. Only 53 Starships were ever made. A starship can be seen in the background of photos in the article referenced above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silent Bob Posted June 20, 2004 Report Share Posted June 20, 2004 That is extremely cool. Space travel becoming a regular event seems pretty far off though. But when it hits, the commercial appeal of it won't be able to be stopped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yes Posted June 21, 2004 Report Share Posted June 21, 2004 I think it's an even more giant leap for mankind that a totally privately funded venture sent this one off. I only wish they were more original with the name, though. I mean, "Space Ship One." Huh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msb Posted June 21, 2004 Report Share Posted June 21, 2004 (edited) I like the name, because of this-- http://raptor.slc.edu/~matt/pics/other/spaceshipone.jpg --a great zinger to top off an incredibly exciting day! EDIT: My server is a little overheated, but it'll be up in a 10-20 min. Edited June 21, 2004 by mattbateman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidV Posted June 21, 2004 Report Share Posted June 21, 2004 The Starship was made its maiden voyage in 1986 and was terminated in 1995 due to lack of interest. The aircraft design was apparently so radical at the time that very few were sold due to customer skepticism. Actually, the failure of Starship had more to do with draconian FAA regulations than lack of consumer interest. He was forced to remove seats, add over a ton of weight, and significantly raise the price (to over $5M) to pay for the design changes forced by the FAA. (It basically bankrupted the parent company.) The FAA is the reason why there hasn’t been a radically new commercial aircraft design in the last 40-50 years. The Starship is the only radical new design in that period, and you can see how far it got. The latest (composite) designs are usually sold as kits to get around the regulations. Imagine how bad auto regulations would have to be to force you to build your own car rather than purchase a 50 year old design. Now imagine the extra complexity of making that car fly. Check out this photo of this fantastic plane: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
order Posted June 21, 2004 Report Share Posted June 21, 2004 Actually, the failure of Starship had more to do with draconian FAA regulations than lack of consumer interest. He was forced to remove seats, add over a ton of weight, and significantly raise the price (to over $5M) to pay for the design changes forced by the FAA. (It basically bankrupted the parent company.) Interesting. I had always read that it had everything to do with consumer interest. Admittedly, in the past I've never been all that interested in researching the specifics of the failure, but I'd be grateful if you can point me to some sources where I can read about that. Aside from FAA regulations, there also happens to be an unfortunate "it's always been done this way" attitude in general aviation that has limited innovation (although some blame can be placed on runaway lawsuits against aircraft manufacturers). The most popular general aviation aircraft, the Cessna 172, hasn't changed all that much in the past 50 years. The same is true for other small craft, like the Piper line of Cherokees. The exception that comes to mind is Cirrus Aircraft, which produces a similar size plane with a composite material hull, staggered wing, glass cockpit, and airframe parachute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZiggyKD Posted June 22, 2004 Report Share Posted June 22, 2004 My brother wrote an interesting article on his site about Space Ship One, and I agree with his remarks. I do think this a pretty cool event, specifically because it's a private venture. But the media coverage I have seen regarding Space Ship One seems a bit out of proportion and exaggerated. The craft is clearly not designed for sustained earth orbit, as it does not have the elements required for such a task. This is key to acheiving commercial space flight, and because Space Ship One is not an orbital space craft, it is not (technologically speaking) the first step towards space tourism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Morley Posted June 22, 2004 Report Share Posted June 22, 2004 hello, can someone please into a simple question?whenever I read about the space shuttle or hear about it it seemed as if they're all these problems with the heat tiles, in fact I believe the last space shuttle that crashed, the crash was blamed on the heat tiles coming loose or something. This small plane or spaceship seemed very single and did not have any heat shield on that I could see, is it because this machine is so much lighter that comes down slower or is or some other reason Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
order Posted June 22, 2004 Report Share Posted June 22, 2004 hello, can someone please into a simple question?whenever I read about the space shuttle or hear about it it seemed as if they're all these problems with the heat tiles, in fact I believe the last space shuttle that crashed, the crash was blamed on the heat tiles coming loose or something. This small plane or spaceship seemed very single and did not have any heat shield on that I could see, is it because this machine is so much lighter that comes down slower or is or some other reason SpaceShipOne is able to feather its wings. This is a high-drag configuration that dramatically slows the ship and automatically orients it for re-entry. The Space Shuttle Orbiter, on the other hand, has no way to slow itself to such an extent. The orbiter re-enters the atmosphere at a much higher speed. The friction created by moving through the atmosphere at such a high speed is what produces the heat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles T. Posted June 22, 2004 Report Share Posted June 22, 2004 Best headline I've seen about the flight: "Starship Private Enterprise", Washington Post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidV Posted June 22, 2004 Report Share Posted June 22, 2004 The Space Shuttle Orbiter, on the other hand, has no way to slow itself to such an extent. The orbiter re-enters the atmosphere at a much higher speed. The friction created by moving through the atmosphere at such a high speed is what produces the heat. I would add that the reason for the higher speeds (~18,000mph) has more to do with the fact that the space shuttle must descend from orbital altitudes, not design differences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidV Posted June 22, 2004 Report Share Posted June 22, 2004 The craft is clearly not designed for sustained earth orbit, as it does not have the elements required for such a task. This is key to acheiving commercial space flight, and because Space Ship One is not an orbital space craft, it is not (technologically speaking) the first step towards space tourism. I think that’s really besides the point. If people pay money to fly into “space,” then how is it not commercial space flight? It may not work for space travel or going the moon, but it’s commercial space tourism nevertheless. I would also disagree with your brother’s claim that the design is not revolutionary – the feather mechanism is in fact a revolutionary new method of reducing re-entry heat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaloNoble6 Posted June 22, 2004 Report Share Posted June 22, 2004 The specific wing configuration Rutan used to achieve a shuttlecock reentry is new and unique, but not revolutionary, and the main idea behind it has been around since the coming of age of Aerodynamics (back in 19th century)--namely that lots of drag slows down traveling objects. As for application toward reentry, high-drag, shuttlecock reentry vehicles have been around since the 60's. Also, moving surfaces, as well as the capability to make folding wings have been around since at least the mid 70's, there's just never been a need for folding wings in horizontal flight. Furthermore, this particular shuttlecock technique is feasible only for sub-orbital vehicles, and I claim that these will not spur the creation of space tourism among wealthy, space-savvy individuals (I don't think I made that clear in my article, but I'll say it here: as the saying goes, one man's trash is another man's treasure). The best way of slowing down a formerly orbiting, now reentering, spacecraft has been known since the 60's: slow it down at as high an altitude as possible using as high a drag configuration as possible, and then shuttlecock it (the term shuttlecock is actually where the space shuttle got its name). Initially, early designs for spaceflight vehicles were very sleek and pointed--they actually thought low-drag configurations were best for spaceflight since back then planes that traveled at high speeds were avoiding what's called wave-drag in order to reach those speeds. They fortunately realized later on that the closer a shock wave is to a surface, the more heat it transfers to that surface. Thus, they developed the revolutionary "blunt-body" design, which moves the shock wave as far off the surface as possible, creating an extremely high-drag configuration that dumps most of the heat onto air instead of craft. The speeds at reentry from an orbiting object are so high that the bow shock that is formed highly conforms to the ship's body. Because of this, engineers were forced to discover a vehicle shape that would move the shock wave away from the vehicle surface. With SpaceShipOne, the speeds are not high enough that strong shocks are created. Therefore, they don't need the breakthrough understanding that a strong shock near a surface creates high heating, and they also don't need the revolutionary understanding of blunt-bodies. Still, SpaceShipOne is looking to slow down, and so even though theirs is a slightly different problem than with the orbiter or capsule, the same concepts of high drag at high altitude still apply. Rutan has created a very nice, simple and efficient way of achieving this high drag, shuttlecock configuration at high altitudes with his folding wing feather effect, but this capability and understanding is nothing new (though most rely on humans, computers or both for control, unlike Rutan's which is automatic). As an aerospace engineer, I'm really more impressed with the $20 million dollar price tag than with the folding wings that create an effect that's been understood for decades. As for whether or not a brief glimpse of the lower limits of space is enough for spurring space tourism, let's first understand that we're talking at least $100k per seat on one of these kinds of flights. I think there are many rich dopes out there that will likely get a kick out of this, but I for one (being familiar with the history of spaceflight and knowing the value of money) think that spending that kind of dough on a sub-orbital joy-ride lasting at most a matter of minutes would be a waist. However, for even just one orbit around the Earth, I think I would be willing to pay that much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Morley Posted June 22, 2004 Report Share Posted June 22, 2004 thanks for explaining my question all, in my minds eye I could never see why if I had somehow just been floating in space in an sircraft why when gravity started to pull me back that i necessarily needed to ttravel faster and faster except for maybe that originally the atmoshere was weak as to the amount of atoms per volume which to me sort of was like water that has been foamed by the propeller of a ship...when I awas in the navy many years ago, there always since there were so many young people, once a year or so some kid who would probably be calling for help by doing it - but he would jump off the fantail off the aircraft carrier which had a large ammount of foaming water in it's wake so inevitaly the saiilor would not be able to float immediatley because of the lack of density and would drown before they could find the body - if ever, the same thing somepeople think happens sometimes if there is a huge amount of methane released from methane hydrate's in the ocean....anywyas i have now more questions for your good minds - first anybody hwo lives in suburbia nowadays hates the traffic congestion and to me it is just a ridiculous symbol of lack of american ingenuity - so I look at all these peoiple who have personal jet packs or twin props strapped on their back as they try to make a personal flight device - the simple problem as i see it and of course SOME DAY plan to do it , is that all of the designs I see have the powering thrusting system too close to the body creating instability, just as the feathes on an arrow, the wire they used to put on musket balls or the tail of a kite creates stabilty, I envision my human helicopter of having a very long perhaps 20 feet or more shaft which is then attached to a prop - which would I think create a much smoother and safer stabilizing system, and maybe then we could all fly above the traffic? (finally) - 2nd non connected question, methanehydrates are located in an area where there is al;so a funneling of the gulf stream which as we know if one mile of it's energy could be harnessed could power all the worlds electrical needs.... it is an area right off the coast of north carolina, since the gulf stream funnells there and since it is also the area in ther continental shelf most abundent in methanehydrates, is this becaus eas the water speeds up it has pulled more of the hydrates to the surface where we are able to seee them or is it becasu4ee as it turns and heads towatds europe organism s from the guld fall down and oput of the river so to speak and thereby decay and create this situation and finally since this area is so rich in both methane and water power why the hell isn't somebody farming this valuable resource? sorry about spelling you get the drift Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Morley Posted June 22, 2004 Report Share Posted June 22, 2004 rereading my post next time i will preview sorry, i mean to say methanehydrates have an area of more concentration at that point off the coast of north carolina, there are other congested areas and it is found widely in general on the floar of the oceans/continental shelves, also since theer are planets that have enormous methane clouds (we think) it has been proposed that dep in the earths crust there may be non organically produced naturally occuring pockets of methane - a long time ago there was some place in finaland or like that that they were going to dsrill a super deep well for that reason to see if there was some - I never have been able to find out what happened to that experiment - anybody know that answer either...>? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Rexton Posted June 22, 2004 Author Report Share Posted June 22, 2004 William Morley, it would also help if you used periods. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nimble Posted June 22, 2004 Report Share Posted June 22, 2004 HAHAHHAHA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Morley Posted June 22, 2004 Report Share Posted June 22, 2004 thanks rex sorry just wanted questions answered, can't type too good have lost use of one arm/hand i shouldn't try to hurry so, what do you think about my questions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldsalt Posted June 28, 2004 Report Share Posted June 28, 2004 Here's an interesting article in New Scientist titled, "Anomolies" with the first private spaceflight. Rutan said that they won't be going back until the problems are fixed. Still, it was a marvelous thing to see! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidV Posted September 29, 2004 Report Share Posted September 29, 2004 The 2nd ever private space flight is a success! Who is getting a ticket with Virgin Galactic? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.