I was just wondering on your views about this:

we are still living in the wake of the Columbia disaster, yet private companies are being offered prizes to send people into space?
is there not some sort of contradiction here....

is there not just some accident waiting to happen, especially on the second run?

should this not be delayed until NASA has finished the studies and reports about safety problems, so that small companies NOT backed by the government on astronomical budgets wont make a similar mistake?
or am i missing something here?

I thought NASA had finished the columbia report. Anyway, I think that it's about time for a private space industry.

really? to do what?

and i thought it was finished as well, but i read an article online that said they are now recieving compplaints and problem reports that are usually brushed off, because of columbia. so the wake of it is still here, and should be for ever.

NASA's space shuttle is obsolete, old and basically a piece of junk.
I speculate that most of the x-prize craft is much more advanced tech.
Besides as stated in this thread ..-> what does a government company have to do with private enterprise? Reject everyone to fly to space? :D Russia or any other country will be more than willing to offer their spaceyards for liftoffs.
Come to think of it, Brasil would be ideal, Europe would do too.

The X-Prize is entirely a private venture. It is nothing to do with NASA.

Shuttle safety issues in the wake of Columbia are also irrelevant to the X-Prize, as no X-Prize contender is using a shuttle orbiter. NASA's findings with regard to the Columbia accident are relevant to that system only. Soyuz flights were not cancelled because of Columbia because Columbia was not relevant to the operation of Soyuz spacecraft.

The problem with Columbia was its heat shield failed while re-entering the atmosphere from orbital velocity. The velocities attained by X-Prize contenders will be substantially less than this (in most cases, by an order of magnitude) so sophisticated, re-usable heat shields are not required.

I think thats the smartest way to do it: near the equator, no one around, surrounded by ocean, and almost no regulations.

The equatorial location may be beneficial to what Interoribital Systems wants to do, but this is not beneficial to X-Prize contenders as they are attempting sub-orbital spaceflights. They are required to reach an altitude of 100km, so the velocity gain from an equatorial launch site will not assist them in any way.

I was just wondering on your views about this:

we are still living in the wake of the Columbia disaster, yet private companies are being offered prizes to send people into space?
is there not some sort of contradiction here....

is there not just some accident waiting to happen, especially on the second run?

Really? I hear you asking, "If the old way doesn't work, why dare to try a new way?" (I'm paraphrasing what you've said, correct me if i'm wrong here). That seems even more ridiculous that quitting.

If mankind had held this view from the start, we'd still think fire was magic.

dont take me wrong, i think the X prize and so forth is excellent, its just on one side of... things are people crying "oh my god its terrible" after columbia,
and on the other side there are people from small countries trying to do... go into space.
from what ive read i was gibberishing.

nasa sucks? you know how much a space suit costs? in the range of millions per suit. How much pressure? about 8 psi for the newer suits. Am i mistaken or could some guy make a way cheaper version of this in his garage for a few hundred or thousand bucks?

that's sounds cool, but what about radiation?

Both of the Orbiters and crews NASA has lost in the Shuttle program were not entirely caused by design flaws, but by a lack of concern for the crews of the orbiters. While it's true the O-Ring design of Challengers booster joint had issues, it didn't help that NASA left Challenger out in sub-freezing temperatures the night before the launch. Norton-Thiokol designed the SRB join for use above 40F. Challenger was out in 24F weather.

Have any of you wondered why what happened to Columbia hadn't happened to before to any of NASA's orbiters? Clearly something was changed, and of course, it was the insulations. New EPA regulations objected to some of the chemecles used in the tank so of course, NASA had to redesign. The new insulation was the problem, but that wasn't the crux of it. Columbia was not examined via sattilites despite concerns from both Commander Husband, and ground control.

If SpaceShipOne can do what NASA does with higher degree of safety, more power to them. People die all the time in car accidents, plane crashes, ect. Space Travel won't be any safer in the long run. Right now, it's just seems like a more exotic way to die.

NASA is a highly inefficient, under paid agency. With there present budget and bureaucracy they can’t do much, Private enterprise though far from ideal is are least best hope now, either that or china,

Russian is broke, Russia had Energia and Buran those would have been much better then the shuttle, but Russia does not have the money to support such a thing anymore.

NASA is a highly inefficient, under paid agency.

it's inefficient because they're under paid.

They are basically being asked, "solve all the problems of physics and mankind's sociologically issues. Oh, by the way, do it by next week and stop whining that your budget is $200."

At least when kennedy asked for such ridiculous results he gave nasa some cash to try.

I completely agree! Back in the 1960's NASA did some amazing things: to think the Saturn V could support a launch price of $4-8 thousand per lbs and was non-reusable and out of date with the space shuttle that ended up costing over $10 thousands per lbs put in orbit!

but as it is no politician in there right mind would double or triple NASAs budget to what they really need.

I completely agree! Back in the 1960's NASA did some amazing things: to think the Saturn V could support a launch price of $4-8 thousand per lbs and was non-reusable and out of date with the space shuttle that ended up costing over $10 thousands per lbs put in orbit!

but as it is no politician in there right mind would double or triple NASAs budget to what they really need.

awesome point, by today's standards the shuttles are a joke. But where does that leave us now? Nasa made the unbelievable leap to the moon (in an era where most people seriously believed aliens made canals on mars)... that was followed by the shuttle.

In my opinion, the shuttle gets too much flack, it's an amazing piece of engineering. The problem is it's an amazing piece of 1970's engineering being critiqued by 2000 engineers.

The forward inertia has stopped in the space program, it's not NASA's fault. There is just no political incentive anymore.

Oh I got it!!! Lets stick our head between our legs, raise a white flag, and cry for help! Then, in 2010, we can finally get back to space travel because thats how long its gonna take the political engine to get back up to speed (space wise).

Seriously, Astronaughts know the risks, we all do. To have so few disasters with so many launches, on such a risky undertakng (and yes, traveling to space on a giant firework is risky), is absolutely amazing. Did anyone actually ever think there was never going to be a loss of life/accident involved with space?

Columbia was sad and a great loss. But thats that, and nothing is going to change it. We know what went wrong, lets correct our mistakes, become a little wiser, and push forward. After all, about 90% of the original guys who helped create rockets wanted to go to the a.) the moon and b.) mars. I dont know about you guys, but I think we NEED to go to mars, and soon.

Before the Chinese get there, how that for political incentive? :D

Space ship one is a joke. Its not space flight. Until a private organization can deliver two or more orbits ill continue to LOL at the so called space faring civilians... I wish I had 10 Mil to put up as the prize, or should that be 100 Mil.

The Xprize was suppose to carry 3 but that was not done instead they carried the weight of 3. Haaaa they should not get the prize, don't they trust the hardware.

Spaceship one would be useful if you could take of from New York fly to 64000f launch and then land in england one and a half hours latter. Or better Hong Kong to New York in an hour.

when you consider what was asked of them, I think they deserve the 10 mil (it had to cost more than that to achieve what they did). On the other hand you're right, it doesn't really advance manned space flight very much. It doesn't change/improve international transport, it can't dock with satellites or space stations and it can't go to other bodies (the moon, mars, etc.). It's an impressive but ultimately useless achievement (aside from bragging rights).

The flaw isn't with "space ship one" though, the problem was in the contest itself. The X-prize's goal should have been redesigning the shuttle, and since that requires serious advancement it needed a serious prize. 10 mil sounds like a lot if you are raising a family but fundamentally changing the way we escape earths gravity is about as expensive a proposition as one can imagine. They needed a 100 million or a billion dollar prize before anyone could reasonably invest the time and manpower necessary for such a difficult challenge. I say take nasa's budget for 1 year and devote it all to this, I guarantee that'll get a result.

The irony is, the shuttles' maintainance alone could probably pay for this. I used to have a 1976 bobcat (I paid $300 for it) and I ended up putting $2800 of repairs into it before I woke up and bought a new car, I can't think of a better analogy to the shuttle program.

The shuttle was a piece of crap even by 1970's technology, it was suppose to be a all liquid fueled fully reusable vehicle, but budget cuts forced major compromises.

Space ship one is a joke. Its not space flight. Until a private organization can deliver two or more orbits ill continue to LOL at the so called space faring civilians...

On the other hand you're right, it doesn't really advance manned space flight very much. It doesn't change/improve international transport, it can't dock with satellites or space stations and it can't go to other bodies (the moon, mars, etc.). It's an impressive but ultimately useless achievement (aside from bragging rights).

You guys just dont get it do you?! This is why SpaceShipOne is such a huge historical achievement. #1 flying up in the spaceshuttle is incredibly expensive, so much so only the government can afford to do so. Thus most of the funding, if not all, is from the government. THIS MEANS THAT NASA has to beg, plea, and ass kiss for money. They have to get the public involved to influence politics so they can get money.

With SpaceShipOne, the cost is Considerably lowered. Lowered to the point where its pocket change for a millionaire to take a ride. This means that people are going to invest in the companies, new companies will spring up. All of the sudden it will be a profitable buisness, money, greed.... and before you know it, the technology will FAR EXCEED the technological development capabilities of NASA.

This is a stepping stone. SpaceShipOne may not be a great technological feat in itself...however the technological advancements it will create can be described by one word: Incredible.

I guarantee it. I plan on getting into the field now, in its infancy (astronautical engineering/astronaught)

Later
T

With SpaceShipOne, the cost is Considerably lowered. Lowered to the point where its pocket change for a millionaire to take a ride. This means that people are going to invest in the companies, new companies will spring up. All of the sudden it will be a profitable buisness, money, greed.... and before you know it, the technology will FAR EXCEED the technological development capabilities of NASA.

It doesn't lower the cost of anything and I don't see people lining up to spend a few minutes in low orbit, the vomit comet has more potential as a recreational thing. If all you want is a cheap high altitude ride they did that in the 50's with balloons, spaceshipone has about equivalent usefulness as far as manned space flight go. No advancements were made and as of now they can't even carry more than the pilot so the balloon beats them there too.

Don''t get me wrong, I think it's cool, very cool in fact that a "space ship" was made by civilians but it didn't change anything. It'll have about as much impact on private investment in aerospace as new breakthroughs in kite technology.

It's very simple, the problem (the only one that really matters) is finding a way to carry heavy loads into space cheaply.

Before the Chinese get there, how that for political incentive? :DWait, we're supposed to hate the Chinese now instead.

Shit, I missed the memo.

As far as I'm concerned the method of reentering the atmosphere is a good enough excuse for SpaceShipOne. NASA would have spent double the amount testing the wing configuration (although it would likely have been safer).

SpaceShipOne does get things into space for a much lower cost then the Shuttle.
Even thought its not at a high orbit.
SpaceShipOne costs far less then refulling a single Shuttle for a single mission.

I don't count that for space, it's not even low earth orbit!

getting "things" up there isn't the hard part, I wasn't being facetious when I mentioned the early tests using balloons they can carry about the same amount. It's all about weight. Getting the equivalent of three people (mass) up is just not useful for anything and their design can't be modified for larger cargos. Persol made a good point about reentry but thats a minor issue in the grand scheme. To be useful we need to get tons of material into high orbit (at the very least) and do it cheaply.

Again, it's cool and novel but doesn't offer much over all. I'm not taking a piss out of the designers I think they did a great job, I just think the contest asked for too little and offered too little as incentive. A novelty is all that could have been expected.

To be useful we need to get tons of material into high orbit (at the very least) and do it cheaply. I think that eventually it will be cheaper to take materials up and construct once up there.

We don't build skyscrapers in iron mines and then transport the skyscraper.... why should we do that for space?

But you're right... 400 pounds isn't much material.

when I said tons I didn't mean millions of tons, just that even if 99% of any construction was done in space and all the materials (metals, oxygen, water and fuel) were mined from an amour asteroid (we're a hell of a long way from that but lets say we could do it today) the tools, manpower and food still need to get there, the tools alone would be a few tons at least. And like I said, access to high orbit is needed as well.

Do anyone have estimates/guesses on how commercial enterprise could do that cheaply? It seems that what is needed is a craft about the same size as a plane 9or the shuttle)... but one that can go 10 times higher. 90% of the way using something besides air breathing engines.

For getting into orbit I find it difficult to believe that you can get much cheaper than rocket.

I think the problem is stages and logistics, over lunch is only a few million dollars in fuel, what makes the price go up 10 times is building the rocket, setting up the launch pad, the hundreds of people needed the all the prep work. What is needed is a single stage to orbit vehicle that can take off from a cheap launch pad or runway, that needs a maintenance and flight crew in the dozens not hundreds. And with that prices can be drop down to a few hundred dollars a lb put in orbit.

you're right rockets are, compared to the shuttle, cheap and reliable but to really bring the price down reusability will eventually be necessary (not like the shuttle, that's sort of semi-reusable since they practically dismantle and rebuild them after a few flights). Other cheaper and safer fuels would be needed too.

If you google SSTO (single-stage-to-orbit) there's all kinds of proposals both government and private but it seems to be a pretty complex deal. There is also some argument within the aerospace community if it's the right way to go, some advocate sticking with two-stage (like the shuttle) but updating with new materials and safer fuels. I don't know enough to judge but the discussion and proposals are interesting. Hopefully we'll get passed the talk and move to real tests at some point.

I think nasa is a bit gun shy of SSTO after the x-33 proved too complex but other simpler designs are floating around (some from nasa contractors and some from private enterprises) so I guess we'll see.

What happened with the x-33 was they discover that composite fuel tanks could not take the cryogenic fuels temperatures and would rupture. Those tanks were suppose keep the weight down below the 10% structure weight to fuel ratio, without that single stage is not possible.

that particular single stage design isn't possible but there are TONS of alternatives floating around the net. As for how viable they are? like I said I'm not an engineer but one or two have had components successfully tested at least.

I think is possible, even without scram jet engines.

thats my point, the scram jet concept isn't the only single stage design being developed.

I'm not totally writing off scram though, it's a cool and efficient design. The material sciences are coming up with novel composites everyday so I imagine it's just a matter of time before they figure out the fuel tank issues you pointed out. Plus, if I remember its designed for a horozontal-take-off isn't it? that would solve a bunch of problems as well. It's just an elegant design all around (at least what I understand as an amateur).

Space ship one is a joke. Its not space flight. Until a private organization can deliver two or more orbits ill continue to LOL at the so called space faring civilians... I wish I had 10 Mil to put up as the prize, or should that be 100 Mil.

I just had to comment on that. Would you then, by your logic consider the Mercury Restone flights of Freedom 7 and Liberty Bell 7, the first two suborbital Mercury flights by NASA to be jokes? The flight of Freedom 7 lasted about 15 minutes, and Al Shephard barely saw anything. Yet if it wasn't for the Mercury Redstone missions, Project Mercury would never have been ready for the later Mercury Atlas missions of Glenn, Carpender, Scherra, and Cooper.

By your reasoning, the very foundation of the US Space Program could be considered a total joke.

I think the X-Prize was a huge breakthrough for space tourism. Not only that but it was a great example of the power of entrepreneurialism, that is, a small group of people achieving high risk goals with high risk capital. If you watch the three part doc on it all it is well worth it. It's called Black Sky: The Race for Space. The best example of high tech risk taking I've ever seen. They had very little confidence that they would make it up and back.

Burt Rutan and Co. did create a major technological breakthrough with the feathered re-entry concept. Without it nobody could have built a winged spacecraft that could have withstood the heat of a mach 3 or above re-entry. It won't revolutionize space exploration directly but will help out indirectly once Virgin Galactic begins taking five person crews up. Richard Branson is pumping $100M+ into it and once people start going up regularly then interest in all things to do with human space fight could reach an all time high in concert with the Moon to Mars initiative.

I just had to comment on that. Would you then, by your logic consider the Mercury Restone flights of Freedom 7 and Liberty Bell 7, the first two suborbital Mercury flights by NASA to be jokes? The flight of Freedom 7 lasted about 15 minutes, and Al Shephard barely saw anything. Yet if it wasn't for the Mercury Redstone missions, Project Mercury would never have been ready for the later Mercury Atlas missions of Glenn, Carpender, Scherra, and Cooper.

By your reasoning, the very foundation of the US Space Program could be considered a total joke.

though I agree that calling space ship one "a joke" is ridiculous I also think the missions you compare it to are a bit over the top as well.

The examples you mentioned were doing things never done before, as you said they were foundations. Space ship one is an impressive achievement certainly and it could be said they are refining older designs (by "older designs" I mean technology and engineering that is already reasonably well understood). This isn't really groundbreaking in the same sense as the mercury missions or early submarine prototypes were.

I guess my point is you're both exaggerating space ship one's significance, I think the reality is somewhere between your and blindman's extremes.

This isn't really groundbreaking in the same sense as the mercury missions or early submarine prototypes were.I'd consider the wing/stabilizer/drag design to be pretty groundbreaking...

As far as I know nobody has came down from that altitude without more heat panels, let alone by that method.

That said, the real reason this is groundbreaking is because it was commerical....

I agree. I didn't want to come off as anti-space ship one because you're right, directing space flight into the commercial sector really is where this is most significant. I just thought both blindman and xevious were a little over zealous in their points.

This isn't really groundbreaking in the same sense as the mercury missions or early submarine prototypes were.

By what sense, then? Recently, China launched it's own orbital manned mission - that countries first. It's easy to say that for Russia and the US it's nothing big. They've been doing that for 30 years. What makes it groundbreaking is that is being done in a new way by differnt people. They had to do most of their technological research on their own from the ground up. As far as I know, NASA played no part in the development of Spaceship One, and the designers of that ship did not have access to NASA's research. In other words, they had to retrace from scratch all of what NASA accomplished with the national GDP behind them. As I recall, President Eisenhower gave the Army 437 billion dollars just to get the Jupiter C operational in 1958. NASA had no budget ceeling in the early 1960's.

Spaceship One by contrast was on a fixed budget that could be considered a shoestring budget by NASA's standards. Furthermore, it could not use NASA's technology. From this perspective then should we say that the CSS Hunley, which was built out of a scrapped locomotive boiler on a shoestring budget be compared to the thousands of dollars spent on Holland's early prototypes?

It should be noted that technologically the Mercury Redstone, The Space Shuttle, and Spaceship One have little in common. In that sense, Spaceship One is doing something completely significant and totally differnt. If by the same you mean it goes the same place that Mercury Redstone did, sure I'll give you that. Then again, it's always easy to say that.