X-Prize. Any Expected Winners?
Michael Walsh
no one would win it. At that time Burt Rutan had not
announced his intent to go for the prize (other than his
years earlier remark that when it was fully funded he
exected to win it within 18 months).
I assumed that Rutan had so many other activities on
his plate that he would not go for the prize, especially since
it would probably cost him more than the amount of the
prize. Of course, I was wrong and did not know that
Paul Allen was ready to risk significant millions of dollars
to finance Burt to attempt it.
I don't back off from predictions, so I continue to predict
that no one, including Burt Rutan, will accomplish the feat
before January 1, 2005.
However Rutan's Scaled Composites team has met the
criteria that I had set up in my mind that any competitor would
have to meet as of now to win the prize. I don't believe anyone
who doesn't have a completed vehicle ready for test at this
point has a real chance to win. Not necessarily an impossibility,
but not very likely.
I think it is very unlikely that John Carmack can pull all of the
many things he has to do within the rest of this year. He is
certainly the most forthcoming of the entire group of competitors.
If he does make great strides I am sure he will let us know and
he may very well get there eventually, I just don't believe he can
do it by the end of this year.
Burt Rutan is ahead of my milestone criteria, but is not a sure
thing. He still has a lot of incremental testing to do.
Maybe there is someone out there doing a very secretive job
of preparing for a run at the X-Prize. I read a few rumors, but
have not heard anything that sounds convincing.
I sure hope my prediction is wrong and it would be nice to
see one or more competitors come out of the woodwork and
make it a real race rather than just an attempt to get across the
line before elimination.
Any other views or information on competitors?
Mike Walsh
Rand Simberg
Walsh <mp1w...@Adelphia.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>I don't back off from predictions, so I continue to predict
>that no one, including Burt Rutan, will accomplish the feat
>before January 1, 2005.
That's a dumb reason to continue to predict something that looks
unlikely to happen.
When I'm confronted with new evidence, I sometimes change my opinion.
Are you saying that yours is set in stone, regardless of new
information?
gideon0223
If I remember correctly the goals are 3 humans- or at least one human
and enough weight to simulate two other people, have to be boosted
above 100km, and then the whole thing has to be done again within 2
weeks with the same vehicle. Also I believe 85-90% of the vehicle
must be reusable not counting fuel.
Something that might interest some of you is that you don t even need
a rocket to do x-prize. It could be done with existing retrofitted
jet fighters such as the F-16 or possibly a T-38/F-5. You just need
a way for the jet to keep producing thrust as you go up; a neat idea
is mass injection, which is simply injecting some type of
fuel/oxidizer into the free stream in front of the jet compressor.
DARPA s RASCAL uses ideas similar to this, the only things need to be
added to a fighter would be some type of ablative on hot spots and
some thrusters for exo-atmoshperic maneuvering. Seems silly to me to
invest tons of money into dangerous rockets and untested flight
vehicles when you don t have to.
Which brings me back to the point of why to do this? NACA/NASA did
this with X-15, but it was for testing the extremes of flight,
handling at hypersonic speeds, and all the nice little issues that
come along with it. I just think there could be a better goal other
than getting a 2 minute weightless ride strapped into a seat, what is
the point of that? Other types of experiments that could be
performed on a vehicle can be done with sounding rockets or even gun
launched probes. The differences in sub-orbital to orbital are huge
and as far as I can tell there are very few x-prize entries that even
have the possibility of going orbital. If people want to be
weightless you can get a ride on the Russian version of the vomit
comet for several 30 second periods of weightlessness. If you want
to see the edge of the atmosphere and a black sky guess what you can
do that in Russia too in a M-31 fighter at mach 3 at 80,000ft. Both
of these little rides cost $5k, just seems like a better deal to me.
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Joann Evans
>
> What is the point of X-prize?
> If I remember correctly the goals are 3 humans- or at least one human
> and enough weight to simulate two other people, have to be boosted
> above 100km, and then the whole thing has to be done again within 2
> weeks with the same vehicle. Also I believe 85-90% of the vehicle
> must be reusable not counting fuel.
> Something that might interest some of you is that you don’t even need
> a rocket to do x-prize. It could be done with existing retrofitted
> jet fighters such as the F-16 or possibly a T-38/F-5.
You left out this requirement:
2. Flight vehicles will have to be privately financed and built.
Entrants will be precluded from using a launch vehicle substantially
developed under a government contract or grant. Entrants will be
prohibited from receiving any direct funding, subsidies, and grants of
money, goods, or services from any government (or otherwise
tax-supported entity). Entrants will be permitted to utilize government
facilities if access to such facilities is generally available to all
entrants. Any such goods or services used in connection with the
competition must be available to other entrants on similar terms.
Entrants will be permitted to utilize subsystems previously developed by
a government agency that are currently available on a commercial or
equal-access government-surplus basis, or for which manufacturing rights
and specifications are available on an equal-access basis.
For all the rules, go to:
http://www.xprize.org/teams/guidelines.html
Any adaptation of military (is there any other kind?) fighter planes
seems to clearly constitute "a launch vehicle substantially developed
under a government contract or grant."
[snip]
> Which brings me back to the point of why to do this? NACA/NASA did
> this with X-15, but it was for testing the extremes of flight,
> handling at hypersonic speeds, and all the nice little issues that
> come along with it. I just think there could be a better goal other
> than getting a 2 minute weightless ride strapped into a seat, what is
> the point of that?
Novel experience. The reason theme parks exist. The reason the
Russians sell flights on MiG-25s. The reason Dennis Tito flew to ISS.
One of the reasons behind tourism in general.
No one was doing this with the X-15. But its primary reason for being
was to develop technologies that other craft could use. The time is
finally coming.
> Other types of experiments that could be
> performed on a vehicle can be done with sounding rockets or even gun
> launched probes. The differences in sub-orbital to orbital are huge
> and as far as I can tell there are very few x-prize entries that even
> have the possibility of going orbital.
You're certain of this because...?
If a profitable suborbital vehicle can be made, a better investor
argument can be made for going on to develop an orbital vehicle.
> If people want to be
> weightless you can get a ride on the Russian version of the vomit
> comet for several 30 second periods of weightlessness.
Yes. Now if you want more time, what do you do?
> If you want
> to see the edge of the atmosphere and a black sky guess what you can
> do that in Russia too in a M-31 fighter at mach 3 at 80,000ft.
Yes. Now if you want more altitude ("The view is tremendous!" - John
Glenn), what do you do?
> Both
> of these little rides cost $5k, just seems like a better deal to me.
Better than what? You don't know yet what a suborbital ride in an
X-Prize derived vehicle will cost yet. Yes, expect it to be somewhat
more, as you're *getting* somewhat more....
--
You know what to remove, to reply....
Joe Strout
Michael Walsh <mp1w...@Adelphia.net> wrote:
> I don't back off from predictions, so I continue to predict
> that no one, including Burt Rutan, will accomplish the feat
> before January 1, 2005.
Sticking to your predictions is good in general, but not in the face of
changed facts. I think this is a very unlikely prediction at this point.
> However Rutan's Scaled Composites team has met the
> criteria that I had set up in my mind that any competitor would
> have to meet as of now to win the prize. I don't believe anyone
> who doesn't have a completed vehicle ready for test at this
> point has a real chance to win. Not necessarily an impossibility,
> but not very likely.
I tend to agree.
> I think it is very unlikely that John Carmack can pull all of the
> many things he has to do within the rest of this year. He is
> certainly the most forthcoming of the entire group of competitors.
> If he does make great strides I am sure he will let us know and
> he may very well get there eventually, I just don't believe he can
> do it by the end of this year.
Probably true. He might surprise us, but I think more likely is that
he'll be flying to X-Prize heights sometime next year or 2006.
> Burt Rutan is ahead of my milestone criteria, but is not a sure
> thing. He still has a lot of incremental testing to do.
Only because he is doing very cautious (and slow) incremental testing.
If he felt there was any need, I'm quite sure the test schedule could be
accelerated substantially -- they could be in space within a month, if
necessary. Of course it isn't necessary since none of the competitors
are close. I predict they'll claim the prize in late summer or early
Autumn.
> Maybe there is someone out there doing a very secretive job
> of preparing for a run at the X-Prize. I read a few rumors, but
> have not heard anything that sounds convincing.
Agreed.
,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| j...@strout.net http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'
Dan Hanson
> a rocket to do x-prize. It could be done with existing retrofitted
> jet fighters such as the F-16 or possibly a T-38/F-5.
That's a pretty bold assertion. There's a BIG difference between even
100,000 feet and 100 km. You need thrusters to maintain attitude, and it's
a long drop back until there's enough atmosphere for the wings to become
effective again.
I think the notion that you could make some simple modifications to an F-16
and fly 100km up is a fantasy. Could you gut the airframe, build an
entirely new engine and fuel system, some sort of thermal control, add RCS
to the nose, and then do it? I doubt it, but then you'd have a mostly new
vehicle anyway, and a development cost probably greater than what Rutan has
spent.
And you still wouldn't win the X-prize, because an F-16 can only carry one
person, or two in some configurations.
Dan Hanson
> criteria that I had set up in my mind that any competitor would
> have to meet as of now to win the prize. I don't believe anyone
> who doesn't have a completed vehicle ready for test at this
> point has a real chance to win. Not necessarily an impossibility,
> but not very likely.
I agree with this. Anyone who isn't already flying a prototype has to be
considered a very long shot.
Rutan's program, however, is very advanced. Their spacecraft has already
been through initial drop tests, tests in all flight configurations,
supersonic test, and engine test. Basically, as I understand it the vehicle
is complete and they are in the process of opening up the flight envelope.
That means they could essentially fly any time they wanted to if they were
willing to take additional risk. Since they've got a year and no one else
seems close, they can afford to do it the slow, careful, safe way.
But I hope Rutan has it timed a little earlier, for a couple of reasons -
first, it would be nice to leave enough time for a second attempt if
something goes wrong on the first try (not necessarily fatallly wrong, but
landing damage, or a systemic flaw uncovered that needs some development
before another flight is made, etc).
Also, I'd like to see Rutan do it before the deadline gets too close, to
shut down thoughts any other teams might have of making a risky attempt with
an untested vehicle. I worry a bit that safety may take a back seat with
some teams if they are six months away from completing flight test but only
have two months left before the deadline. If Rutan does it in summer, it
will remove that temptation.
Len
> Back when the prize was announced I predicted that
> no one would win it. At that time Burt Rutan had not
> announced his intent to go for the prize (other than his
> years earlier remark that when it was fully funded he
> exected to win it within 18 months).
Mike, you may end up right--but primarily for regulatory reasons
rather than technical reasons. The way I read the regulations,
Burt will have to get a launch license, and, more importantly
from the delay point of view, to complete an environmental impact
statement, before he can do much more than he already has done.
As I read the October agreement between the aviation and
space launch parts of FAA, our latest Condor-X concept--perhaps
alone among the X PRIZE concepts--could be flown under experimental
aircraft rules that do not require an environmental impact
statement. Unfortunately, we have not been able to raise
any outside funds for our concept. Even my optimism runs
out with less than a year to build, test and fly. Accordingly,
we have withdrawn our "sports book bet" offer to accredited
investors under SEC Rule 504, which we had hoped would get us
$1 million of the $2 million we needed.
One side of me is cheering Burt on; the other side of me
is looking for a competitive advantage. However, the clock
keeps ticking. January 1, 2005 is too close for me from the
technical point of view. It may be too close for Burt from
the regulatory point of view.
PanAero is shifting our focus back to orbit--particularly
toward our post-RASCAL F-14 satellite launch vehicle. We have
an expendable upper stage concept that should be able to put
about 200 kg into an Iridium orbit for significantly less than
RASCAL's recurring cost goal for a 75-kg payload. We hope
to publish this concept on our web site in a few days; the concept
currently shown calls for a higher-risk, more complex reusable booster
launched from the F-14. The newer expendable upper stage appears
to be significantly more promising. Incidentally--while we had
been forced to postulate extensive changes to the F-14 to meet
DARPA/RASCAL goals, our post-RASCAL appproach is much simpler,
and requires only modest modifications to the F-14.
Methinks you worry too much about technical barriers--and not
enough about regulatory barriers. IMO, security regulations tend
to encourage ENRON's and WorldCom's. However, they stop
entreprenuers dead in their tracks. The emphasis should be on
prosecution of fraud, not the impossible task of never allowing
fraud to occur.
For one thing, I think our government should be able to trust
taxpayers to take the incredible risk of investing perhaps ten
percent of their tax bill in some crazy entrepreneurial space
launch system as an alternative to the almost sure waste of
collecting the money involuntarily to spend on something like
a Space Shuttle--which was prima facie fraud from day one with
respect to state cost goals.
Best regards,
Len (Cormier)
PanAero, Inc.
x...@tour2space.com (change x to len)
( http://www.tour2space.com )
gideon0223
> That's a pretty bold assertion. There's a BIG difference between
even
> 100,000 feet and 100 km. You need thrusters to maintain attitude,
and it's
> a long drop back until there's enough atmosphere for the wings to
become
> effective again.
>
Actually there isnt that huge of a difference between the two
altitudes. The test bed for most of X-15's flight control systems
for exo-atmospheric flight were done on the NF-104 (I believe thats
the number) which was a f-104 with a rocket hanging out the back end
above the jet engine. It "only" achieved altitudes of 120k/ft. The
additon of the H202 thrusters was seen as a minor modification in any
event. Also the raw data from these tests is readily available to
the public on the NACA server, this is also the same server where
Rutan is getting a lot of his experimental flight data to use on
Space Ship One.
As for wings, they are a necessary evil for almost every
horizontally landed X-prize contender and they all have to deal with
the thinner atmosphere. The Modified fighter would rely on pure
engine thrust above 90k/ft just like a rocket, the wings are just
dead weight, until you need to glide back (or better yet restart the
jet and fly back).
>
> I think the notion that you could make some simple modifications to
an F-16
> and fly 100km up is a fantasy. Could you gut the airframe, build an
> entirely new engine and fuel system, some sort of thermal control,
add RCS
> to the nose, and then do it? I doubt it, but then you'd have a
mostly new
> vehicle anyway, and a development cost probably greater than what
Rutan has
> spent.
>
I dont understand this point the F-16 would be mostly intact you are
only gutting the things you dont need; the engine would be
essentially stock with the addition of higher temp compressor blades
and a relatively simple addition of the mass injector in the main
intake. I dont know why you would think we would need to gut the
whole aircraft. It would not have to be an F-16 either I just
picked that fighter as an example because it has a very good thrust
to weight ratio. you could use a lighter fighter such as an F-5 or
T-38 and hopefully achieve the same results. The cost question is
hard to nail down but if we use RASCAL as a reference cost is not
determined to be a show stopper and better yet you are already using
a PROVEN flight vehicle with some modifications. Rutan has even said
himself that it would cost 10's of millions of dollars to certify
BOTH of his aircraft for the commercial market and he has no plans to
do so. SS1 is a one show deal, simply designed to win X-prize and
show it can be done but its already insanely expensive and not a
viable commercial vehicle for sub-orbital tourism, this, at least to
me, seem contrary to what X-prize is all about.
My major point was not the technology to achieve 100km altitude
but simply there is no viable reason to do so. As stated earlier you
can simulate weightlessness in a "normal" airliner like the
vomit-comet. It's probably better simulator than an X-prize vehicle
which will be small and you will necessarily be tightly strapped into
your seat with little room to move. And as for "the view" arguement
earth at 80,000ft looks remarkably similar to 300,000ft its dark and
you see a pretty blue atmosphere and some big land forms underneath.
And as stated earlier any experiments performed in a x-vehicle could
be done cheaper on sounding rockets or the vomit-comet. There is no
real market for this, no real economic vehicle that will accomplish
it--silly goal.
Michael Walsh
Rand Simberg wrote:
I don't believe my prediction is necessarily wrong as Burt Rutan has
not yet won the prize and I don't believe it is unlikely to happen.
I give Burt about a 50-50 chance of winning and I hope I am wrong.
As for predictions, I think it is unsporting to change relatively
close-in
projections based on new evidence. I think it is quite proper to leave
them "set in stone".
In this case I really hope I am wrong.
Mike Walsh
Rand Simberg
Walsh <mp1w...@Adelphia.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>> >I don't back off from predictions, so I continue to predict
>> >that no one, including Burt Rutan, will accomplish the feat
>> >before January 1, 2005.
>>
>> That's a dumb reason to continue to predict something that looks
>> unlikely to happen.
>>
>> When I'm confronted with new evidence, I sometimes change my opinion.
>> Are you saying that yours is set in stone, regardless of new
>> information?
>
>I think it is unsporting to change relatively close-in
>projections based on new evidence. I think it is quite proper to leave
>them "set in stone".
I think you confuse predictions with wagers.
Dan Hanson
"gideon0223" <gideo...@aol-dot-com.no-spam.invalid> wrote in message
news:401da1a4$1...@127.0.0.1...
> >
> > That's a pretty bold assertion. There's a BIG difference between
> even
> > 100,000 feet and 100 km. You need thrusters to maintain attitude,
> and it's
> > a long drop back until there's enough atmosphere for the wings to
> become
> > effective again.
> >
>
> Actually there isnt that huge of a difference between the two
> altitudes. The test bed for most of X-15's flight control systems
> for exo-atmospheric flight were done on the NF-104 (I believe thats
> the number) which was a f-104 with a rocket hanging out the back end
> above the jet engine. It "only" achieved altitudes of 120k/ft.
Exactly. It only achieved 120k/ft. The X-15, on the other hand, which was
a huge development program, managed to achieve these altitudes. It was a
custom built vehicle designed to do just that.
> The additon of the H202 thrusters was seen as a minor modification in any
> event. Also the raw data from these tests is readily available to
> the public on the NACA server, this is also the same server where
> Rutan is getting a lot of his experimental flight data to use on
> Space Ship One.
The thrusters were only a 'minor modification' from the perspective of a
major military program. For anyone else, it was a big deal.
> As for wings, they are a necessary evil for almost every
> horizontally landed X-prize contender and they all have to deal with
> the thinner atmosphere.
Yes, but they don't have to be as strong or as heavy as the wings of an
F-16, which can handle something like 9 positive G's. And you don't have
to horizontally land, either. And spaceships don't need hardpoints for
bombs, or wings sized for manoeverability. An F-104 is a better example of
what a winged rocket might look like, but as you pointed out, one of those
only made it about a third of the way necessary, and with only one person
instead of the required three.
> The Modified fighter would rely on pure
> engine thrust above 90k/ft just like a rocket, the wings are just
> dead weight, until you need to glide back (or better yet restart the
> jet and fly back).
Where does the engine come from? The rocket on the NF-104 was big enough to
get it to 120K. If you want to get to 100K, you need an engine like the
X-15 had, wouldn't you? That was a BIG engine. Where you gonna put it?
> >
> > I think the notion that you could make some simple modifications to an
F-16
> > and fly 100km up is a fantasy. Could you gut the airframe, build an
> > entirely new engine and fuel system, some sort of thermal control, add
RCS
> > to the nose, and then do it? I doubt it, but then you'd have a mostly
new
> > vehicle anyway, and a development cost probably greater than what
> > Rutan has spent.
> >
>
> I dont understand this point the F-16 would be mostly intact you are
> only gutting the things you dont need; the engine would be
> essentially stock with the addition of higher temp compressor blades
> and a relatively simple addition of the mass injector in the main
> intake.
Huh? A 'relatively simple' mod to an F-16 engine will allow it to fly to
100km? Any cites for this design?
> I dont know why you would think we would need to gut the
> whole aircraft. It would not have to be an F-16 either I just
> picked that fighter as an example because it has a very good thrust
> to weight ratio. you could use a lighter fighter such as an F-5 or
> T-38 and hopefully achieve the same results. The cost question is
> hard to nail down but if we use RASCAL as a reference cost is not
> determined to be a show stopper and better yet you are already using
> a PROVEN flight vehicle with some modifications.
You're only getting a vehicle PROVEN to fly in a very limited flight regime.
I think you greatly underestimate the effort it takes to make even simple
modifications to a design as highly optimized as an F-16. Fighter jets
cannot easily be turned into spacecraft.
> Rutan has even said
> himself that it would cost 10's of millions of dollars to certify
> BOTH of his aircraft for the commercial market and he has no plans to
> do so.
It costs 10s of millions of dollars to certify ANY aircraft. Hell, Porsche
spent 10s of millions of dollars certifying a piston engine with some
relatively small modifications.
> SS1 is a one show deal, simply designed to win X-prize and
> show it can be done but its already insanely expensive and not a
> viable commercial vehicle for sub-orbital tourism, this, at least to
> me, seem contrary to what X-prize is all about.
Since when is the X-prize about space tourism? The X-prize is simply about
invigorating private industry in space. The X-prize bears as much relation
to space tourism as say, the Orteig prize had to the 747. You walk before
you run.
> My major point was not the technology to achieve 100km altitude
> but simply there is no viable reason to do so.
That's like saying there was no reason for Orville and Wilbur to build the
Wright flyer because it had no passenger capacity or drink service.
> There is no
> real market for this, no real economic vehicle that will accomplish
> it--silly goal.
You're right - we should just skip this silly incremental approach and get
Rutan started on a space hotel.
gideon0223
it would not be necessary to have a large rocket engine to reach
100km. You could get there using a normal jet engine with minor
modification and some type of "mass injector" either water, H202,
oxygen, whatever makes sense. Get going fast enough high enough and
you can coast up to 100km without using a rocket. This different
then x-15 as a huge part of the flight plan was designed to gain
speed and alitutde where as the jet engine powered x-prize vehicle
would go nearly straight up into a large ballistic arc. Almost the
same profile as the first stage of the RASCAL project which was
already mentioned in this post.
In the end we both agree that the prize doesnt make sense, its not a
realistic proposal to lower lauch costs or jump start thje space
tourism industry. The prize of 10million is no where near enough to
cover even minimal start up costs of a commercail venture. Rutan has
realized that and thats why he only wants to win the prize not
develop a commercial sub-orbital vehicle.
Len
> Let me clarify here;
> it would not be necessary to have a large rocket engine to reach
> 100km. You could get there using a normal jet engine with minor
> modification and some type of "mass injector" either water, H202,
> oxygen, whatever makes sense. Get going fast enough high enough and
> you can coast up to 100km without using a rocket. This different
> then x-15 as a huge part of the flight plan was designed to gain
> speed and alitutde where as the jet engine powered x-prize vehicle
> would go nearly straight up into a large ballistic arc. Almost the
> same profile as the first stage of the RASCAL project which was
> already mentioned in this post.
>
just isn't enough atmosphere to use airbreathing engines--in any
practical scheme that I have been able to discover--to get to
anywhere near 100 km at speeds that are a lot less than orbital.
(And many of us in this news group have discussed many times the
lack of promise of airbreathing engines for accelerating to high
speeds).
Zoom climb also has its limitations, because the limited thickness
of the atmosphere does not appear to allow some reasonable physical
combination of pull-up speed, turning radius, and airbreathing
thrust. We looked at this thoroughly when PanAero had the lead
for the first stage as part of Coleman's DARPA/RASCAL contract.
It's much easier with rocket augmentation; however, judicious use
of mass injection can be quite beneficial--especially when staging
at moderatelly low dynamic pressure, rather than extremely low
dynamic pressure.
Our approach was to modify an F-14. However, the fundamental
physics apply almost as severely to a purpose-designed new
aircraft.
PanAero believes that our post-RASCAL F-14 SLV (satellite launch
vehicle) is very promising for low-cost launch of 200-kg satellites
into an Iridium-class orbit. One variation of this post-RASCAL
F-14 approach might use mass injection.
> In the end we both agree that the prize doesnt make sense, its not a
> realistic proposal to lower lauch costs or jump start thje space
> tourism industry. The prize of 10million is no where near enough to
> cover even minimal start up costs of a commercail venture. Rutan has
> realized that and thats why he only wants to win the prize not
> develop a commercial sub-orbital vehicle.
I won't disagree with this.
Joe Strout
gideo...@aol-dot-com.no-spam.invalid (gideon0223) wrote:
> In the end we both agree that the prize doesnt make sense, its not a
> realistic proposal to lower lauch costs or jump start thje space
> tourism industry. The prize of 10million is no where near enough to
> cover even minimal start up costs of a commercail venture. Rutan has
> realized that and thats why he only wants to win the prize not
> develop a commercial sub-orbital vehicle.
I couldn't disagree more strenuously. The X-Prize has *already
demonstrated* that it can do what it was meant to do: it has stimulated
development of not one, not two, but dozens of potential new, privately
developed suborbital vehicles. All right, so most of those dozens will
never make it, but at least one will and probably several.
The very first privately developed craft to break the sound barrier did
so just a month and a half ago. Do you not see the significance of that?
By the end of the year, we'll have at least one privately developed
craft that can reach space routinely, reliably, and most likely far
cheaply than any other craft ever has. Please name a craft with similar
capabilities. Then estimate its development costs. Compare this to the
$20M or so that's gone into SS1.
There are other firsts as well: SS1 is the first manned craft to use a
hybrid rocket motor. Armadillo's craft, if it succeeds, will be the
first suborbital VTVL rocket. And so forth. This is *innovation*
you're seeing, and if you can't see why that is important, I don't know
how to help you.
Yes, some of that innovation -- perhaps most of it -- won't lead to
anything commercially viable, but it's all important nonetheless, just
because SOME of it almost certainly will. We've tried government
programs picking winners and then pouring huge amounts of money into
them. We've been trying that for decades. It hasn't worked.
In addition to the great innovation and creativity that we're already
seeing, the X-Prize is resulting in a great deal of operational
experience among new companies that previously had little or no
experience in space. That experience increases the likelihood of their
success as they push the envelope, eventually reaching all the way up
into orbit. There are many challenges, both technical and regulatory,
and having dealt with them in the suborbital realm will not only
increase their skill and handling them, but also improve investor
confidence, helping them to procure the funds they need to go farther.
In fact, the very fact that a small commercial outfit can successfully
build and fly a suborbital craft will help the entire industry, not just
the company that does it. Perhaps you have forgotten the "giggle
factor" that made it difficult for any company proposing even suborbital
spacecraft to be taken seriously. Nobody's giggling now. When XCOR,
for example, goes to venture capitalists next year with a plan to build
a reusable craft for suborbital tourism, they'll have a much easier time
of it. They'll not only be able to point to SS1 as a technical and
regulatory success; in fact, the capitalists will probably have already
heard about it and some of them will be actively seeking a way to get in
on the action.
Finally, it's not up to Burt Rutan what happens to SS1 after the X-Prize
is won. He's not paying for it, Paul Allen is. Paul Allen hasn't made
any statements about what his plans for it are afterwards. Do you
really believe he's put $20M into winning a $10M prize just for the fun
of it? One of the most successful businessmen in the history of the
world is just pouring money into this project on a lark, with no plan to
capitalize on it? He only recently admitted to being the source of
funding for SS1; as far as I know he hasn't admitted anything at all
about his future plans, but that obviously doesn't mean there are none.
Unless you have some sort of private source of inside information,
please don't claim to know what will happen there.
Henry Spencer
gideon0223 <gideo...@aol-dot-com.no-spam.invalid> wrote:
> Something that might interest some of you is that you don’t even need
>a rocket to do x-prize. It could be done with existing retrofitted
>jet fighters such as the F-16 or possibly a T-38/F-5. You just need
>a way for the jet to keep producing thrust as you go up; a neat idea
>is mass injection, which is simply injecting some type of
>fuel/oxidizer into the free stream in front of the jet compressor.
As others have pointed out, mass injection isn't magic. It won't keep a
jet engine going without air, and that means you have to do all your
accelerating before leaving the useful atmosphere. It's hard to do that;
the useful atmosphere isn't all that deep.
Also bear in mind that mass injection currently is still mostly "viewgraph
engineering". It has been used for boosting takeoff thrust, yes, but that
is effectively a different application; there is little or no experience
with using it to keep a jet engine going at extremely high altitude.
>DARPA’s RASCAL uses ideas similar to thi...
Similar but not identical, and the differences matter.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. | he...@spsystems.net
Henry Spencer
Dan Hanson <danh...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>Rutan's program, however, is very advanced. Their spacecraft has already
>been through initial drop tests, tests in all flight configurations,
>supersonic test, and engine test. Basically, as I understand it the vehicle
>is complete and they are in the process of opening up the flight envelope.
That last step isn't trivial, though -- they've already had to stop and
make modifications once. They *are* ahead in terms of having flying
hardware, but the advantage isn't nearly as big as it might seem, because
in several respects, they're doing things the hard way and they can expect
to need rather more testing than a lot of their competitors.
Henry Spencer
gideon0223 <gideo...@aol-dot-com.no-spam.invalid> wrote:
>it would not be necessary to have a large rocket engine to reach
>100km. You could get there using a normal jet engine with minor
>modification and some type of "mass injector" either water, H202,
>oxygen, whatever makes sense.
That is an assumption, not a self-evident fact.
>Get going fast enough high enough and
>you can coast up to 100km without using a rocket.
Get going fast enough, high enough, *at a steep enough angle*, and you can
coast up. High horizontal speed in thin air can't easily be converted to
vertical speed. Doing a turn at high supersonic speeds takes a lot of
time and space under the best of conditions, and at high altitude you
don't have enough lift available to do a really high-G turn. At, say,
Mach 3, a 3G turn involves a turning radius of about 33km... so a 60deg
pull-up finishes nearly 20km higher than it started, meaning that you run
out of air for lift well before you can complete the pull-up. (Assuming
you have enough lift to even *start* a 3G pull-up, which is doubtful at
high altitudes.)
>then x-15 as a huge part of the flight plan was designed to gain
>speed and alitutde where as the jet engine powered x-prize vehicle
>would go nearly straight up into a large ballistic arc.
The X-15 "altitude" flights did go up at a steep angle. Don't confuse
them with the X-15 "speed" flights, which used a very different flight
profile and never went particularly high.
Don't forget that an aircraft-type vehicle doesn't want to go straight up
to such altitudes, because that means coming straight down, which gives a
very severe reentry. The X-15's altitude was limited not by propulsion,
but by the requirement to survive reentry... and the X-15 was vastly
tougher than a jet fighter.
>In the end we both agree that the prize doesnt make sense, its not a
>realistic proposal to lower lauch costs or jump start thje space
>tourism industry.
It wasn't intended to do either, by itself. It was intended to encourage
innovation and flight demonstrations, both of which are useful steps along
the way. Nobody used Lindbergh's aircraft for transatlantic passenger
service.
>The prize of 10million is no where near enough to
>cover even minimal start up costs of a commercail venture.
It was never intended to. Even the X-Prize designs which are aimed at
being usable for tourism would need commercial investment to actually get
them into operational service. However, that just might be a bit easier
to attract if you win the prize first...
>Rutan has realized that and thats why he only wants to win the prize not
>develop a commercial sub-orbital vehicle.
Rutan is not paying for it, so his intentions are not the main issue.
Michael Walsh
Rand Simberg wrote:
I was thinking that likening it to a bet was a good analogy.
Let me try to clear this up. I made my prediction at a certain point
in time and from that time on I wait to see if my prediction was true
or untrue. If I wanted to make a change based on new evidence I
would issue a new prediction.
I remember making three predictions in these newsgroups.
1. That no reusable launch vehicle would be flight demonstrated
by January 1, 2001. That was back in the days when some of the\
optimists in the newsgroup were claiming that it would happen
by January 1, 2000 and Kistler's schedule had there first flight
as earlier than that. Obviously, I was right on that one.
2. Probably no one remembers that at the same time I predicted that
a commercial reusable launch vehicle would be flight tested by
January 1, 2005. My prediction was almost certainly wrong, but
I won't note it until the time passes without anything like this
happening.
3. My prediction that no one would win the X-Prize by January 1, 2005.
I made that prediction back when the funding of the X-Prize and the time
limitations were announced. If I were still working in the aerospace
business,
I would of course, reschedule. Then I could always announce that we had
completed the job "on schedule".
Also, I am not giving financial advice where I would have an ethical concern
about not updating my advice based on the latest knowledge available.
You are correct. I am treating my prediction like a wager, but it isn't
one because I am risking no money.
Mike Walsh
Michael Walsh
Joe Strout wrote:
> I
>
> Finally, it's not up to Burt Rutan what happens to SS1 after the X-Prize
> is won. He's not paying for it, Paul Allen is. Paul Allen hasn't made
> any statements about what his plans for it are afterwards. Do you
> really believe he's put $20M into winning a $10M prize just for the fun
> of it? One of the most successful businessmen in the history of the
> world is just pouring money into this project on a lark, with no plan to
> capitalize on it? He only recently admitted to being the source of
> funding for SS1; as far as I know he hasn't admitted anything at all
> about his future plans, but that obviously doesn't mean there are none.
> Unless you have some sort of private source of inside information,
> please don't claim to know what will happen there.
>
Well, Paul Allen has also put money into a number of things that
don't look like good bets for an economic payoff. One of them is
one Seattle's sports teams (forget which). Could get him a return,
but quite iffy.
Paul Allen is a multi-billionaire. Not quite as much as Bill Gates
but he is still high on the list of richest people on earth.
He just might put over $20 million into SS1 for a lark.
I would be somewhat interested in just who owns what after the
X-Prize attempt. I do note that another aircraft developed by
Burt Rutan that was originally supposed to fly communcations
packages never did do that. The plane, Proteus, has since been
productively employed as a piloted unmanned vehicle. OK, the
way I phrased it is a contradiction. Pegasus can be flown unmanned
but carries a pilot as a safety measure.
Mike Walsh
Joe Strout
Michael Walsh <mp1w...@Adelphia.net> wrote:
> Paul Allen is a multi-billionaire. Not quite as much as Bill Gates
> but he is still high on the list of richest people on earth.
>
> He just might put over $20 million into SS1 for a lark.
Sure, he might. But he might not too. My point is, nobody knows. It
is premature to assume that he has no follow-up plans.
Cheers,
- Joe
gideon0223
> Also bear in mind that mass injection currently is still mostly
"viewgraph
> engineering". It has been used for boosting takeoff thrust, yes, but
that
> is effectively a different application; there is little or no
experience
> with using it to keep a jet engine going at extremely high altitude.
>
Mass injection has been used in several experimental flights.
Rudimentary "mass injection" of oxygen was used on some Soviet
fighters to enhance high alitude flight. With that said, I'm not
trying to dispute the technical merits of mass injection compared to
rockets. Personally i don't believe rockets are very "safe"
technology and the FAA is going to regulate that immensely in the
near future which will push the cost of certifing these x-vehicles up
even further. I'm simply saying that if you are already using a
proven flight vehicle for your flights it would make the
certification process "easier" and possible cheaper. For an example
it cost a fraction for the certification of the 747's new wing
structure w/ winglets than it did for the original aircraft.
As far as what Paul Allen is thinking I dont think any of us can
speculate but this current vision of SS1 isnt going to make him that
20+ million back by flying people. It's possible they could be
planning some kind of small orbital small-sat launching rocket to be
dropped like SS1 from the carrier craft which is the real innovative
design of the two.
I just dont think any vehicle that X-prize has birthed is using any
new ground braking ideas for going sub-orbital. It is sure as not
producing any economically viable ones, its great to say that these
things are innovative and all the like but people don't normally give
millions to an idea that won't make millions for them in return, Mr.
Allen being the only exception so far.
Seems to me a better idea would to be to open up some kind of Adult
Space Camp with high altitude high speed flights and a civilian
vomit-comet. I think a lot of people would rather do those things in
the US instead of heading over to russia to do them.
Just my 2 cents worth, take it or leave it.
Rand Simberg
gideo...@aol-dot-com.no-spam.invalid (gideon0223) made the phosphor
on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>Personally i don't believe rockets are very "safe"
>technology and the FAA is going to regulate that immensely in the
>near future which will push the cost of certifing these x-vehicles up
>even further. I'm simply saying that if you are already using a
>proven flight vehicle for your flights it would make the
>certification process "easier" and possible cheaper.
Apparently you don't understand the meaning of the word "certifying"
(assuming that's the word you mean).
The FAA is not currently in the business of certifying launchers, even
if they carry passengers.
Lawrence Gales
On Sun, 1 Feb 2004, Len wrote:
> Date: 1 Feb 2004 16:33:15 -0800
> From: Len <l...@tour2space.com>
> Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
> Subject: Re: X-Prize. Any Expected Winners?
----------------
Len, I was delighted to see that you had updated your web page, especially
the part about the Bear Cub. Could you possibly supply some more numbers
about it:
- At what speed and altitude do you release the rocket?
- When you mean space-staion orbit, do you mean ISS?
Thanks, --Larry
Len
A clean Tu-95 can get to over 12 km altitude and above
mach 0.8. With our 30 tonne load--but light fuel load
--we're hoping to able to launch at mach 0.6 at 10 km.
With its turboprops, the Bear can limit dynamic pressure
to restrain air loads on the upper stage package; aero
surfaces are also braced until reaching very low dyanmic
pressures.
We are not doing much with the Bear Cub concept right now,
since we are concentrating on the F-14 SLV with expendable
upper stages--which we hope to publish during the next week
or so. Payload would be a 200-kg satellite to about 800 km
at 60-65 degree inclination.
The next priority will be to define better our Space Van
2008, which draws from very low wing loading approach that
we had planned for our Condor-X X-PRIZE attempt. For
the Space Van 2008, we no longer have to get to 100 km,
but would still plan to launch from very high altitude
subsonically. This approach has been inspired by suggestions
by Pete and Robert Lynn. The upper--really lower--stage would
be powered by RL10A-4 engines (hence resurrection of our
Space Van series). Alternate engines include the Russian
version of the RL10, or the RL60, and the MB60.
The Tu-160 approach would be a potential follow-on to the
F-14 SLV--but would feature a manned, fully reusable upper
stage with a medium-size payload, instead of expendable
stages with a small payload. Most of the Tupolev
aircraft sit quite high off the ground, which is quite good
for carrying relatively large "upper" stage packages underneath
the aircraft. RL10A4's, etc. are appropriate for the Tu-160
approach as well as the Space Van 2008; however, the upper
stage package would likely be much more compact and rugged.
The Space Van 2008 and the Tu-160 Space Transport represent
two quite different approaches to the same class of payloads.
The Space Van 2008 advantages include a relatively gentle
exit trajectory and very relaxed constraints on the size and
shape of the upper stage package--plus the benefits of
staging at extreme altitude, albeit at subsonic speeds.
The Tu-160 advantage, of course, is the ability to launch
a sizeable package supersonically. We envisage a single
AJ26-NK33A to allow supersonic staging at moderately low
dynamic pressure and high flight path angle. We also plan
to use a derated, long-life version of the AJ26-NK33A for the
first stage of the Space Van 2008. Unlike the Condor-X, we
would no longer need to have distributed thrust, but we would
still probably use distributed load to reach perhaps 20 km
with a primarily lifting trajectory, followed by a rocket-
powered climb to perhaps 30 km--all at mach 0.5 or 0.6.
John Carmack
> As I read the October agreement between the aviation and
> space launch parts of FAA, our latest Condor-X concept--perhaps
> alone among the X PRIZE concepts--could be flown under experimental
> aircraft rules that do not require an environmental impact
> statement.
The only way this could have worked was if you flew a trajectory with
more aerodynamic lift than propulsive lift for the entire burn time,
and coasted all the way to 100km. Basically a really extended version
of Burt's last powered test flight. That would require over double
the delta-V of a purely vertical trajectory.
John Carmack
www.armadilloaerospace.com
Coridon Henshaw <(chenshaw<RE<MOVE>@(T
$1...@127.0.0.1:
> It's possible they could be
> planning some kind of small orbital small-sat launching rocket to be
> dropped like SS1 from the carrier craft which is the real innovative
> design of the two.
If the technology could be upgraded into a 500kg-class launcher then it
would be a shoe-in for DARPA's SLV fractional orbit bombardment system.
Allen would make another fortune if he got that contract.
--
Coridon Henshaw - http://www3.telus.net/csbh - "I have sadly come to the
conclusion that the Bush administration will go to any lengths to deny
reality." -- Charley Reese
Len
John, our trajectory for the Condor-X flies with lift
greater than thrust all the way up to 35 km (subsonically).
At extremely low wing loading, the basic problem of very
high altitude flight is one of lack of (airbreathing)
thrust, not lift. This trajectory results in lift being
greater than thrust for two-thirds of the powered flight,
and about 51 percent of powered flight with respect to
the altitude domain. Burnout is just short of 70 km in
the vertical mode. Supersonic powered flight occurs only
at very low dynamic pressure. Reentry speed does reach
mach 2.5, but the wing is used basically as a parachute
at this time. "Wing loading" is during reentry is down
to about 120 Pa (2.5 lbf/ft^2).
The Condor-X requires a rather inefficient mass ratio.
However this is manageable without beefing up the wing
truss structure much by distributing the load and
thrust. Condor-X is designed to address
the main problem of the X PRIZE trajectory--getting
back down again.
Dan Hanson
for "Funding of prizes similar to the X-Prize".
Does anyone know the details of this?
Dan
Rand Simberg
Hanson" <danh...@shaw.ca> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>On a related issue, NASA's new FY2005 budget contains $20 million dollars
>for "Funding of prizes similar to the X-Prize".
>
>Does anyone know the details of this?
McLean1382
normally work on NASA issues. Centential Challenges will be modeled on past
successes, including 19th century navigation prizes.."
Prizes will be offered for achieving a well-defined goal. When it is achieved,
the winner will then spend the next twenty years vainly trying to collect his
money.
Will McLean
Rand Simberg
mclea...@aol.com (McLean1382) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
>"NASA will tap innovators in academia, industry, and the public who do not
Yes, that's one of the biggest dangers, familiar to anyone who's read
Longitude...
Joe Strout
simberg.i...@org.trash (Rand Simberg) wrote:
Wow. I hadn't caught that before -- thanks to Dan for pointing it out,
and Rand for providing more material.
This seems really important. OK, it's only $20M, and we might wish for
more. But let's not kick the gift horse in the mouth -- $20M/year prize
money could go a long way, if set up for an achievable goal. Look at
what the X prize has done with only half of that (total, rather than per
year).
Who will be choosing the prizes, and when might they be announced
(assuming the budget is approved)?
Dan Hanson
say, 500 million without seeing the program work. So hopefully NASA will
establish a reasonable goal, and if there is a successful result, THEN we
will see the prizes get significantly larger. I hope.
"Joe Strout" <j...@strout.net> wrote in message
news:joe-514F49.2...@comcast.ash.giganews.com...
Rand Simberg
>I'd call the $20 million 'seed capital'. No one was ever going to commit
>say, 500 million without seeing the program work. So hopefully NASA will
>establish a reasonable goal, and if there is a successful result, THEN we
>will see the prizes get significantly larger. I hope.
I've got some thoughts on this, which will probably be Thursday's Fox
News column:
http://www.interglobal.org/weblog/archives/003426.html#003426
John Carmack
Ahh, I see your point -- providing aero lift for the "majority of the
flight", then going vertical in a distinctly different segment of the
trajectory. That might just sneak by... It would sound pretty
contrived for someone to require a "majority" to be defined in the
impulse domain, as opposed to time or altitude.
John Carmack
www.armadilloaerospace.com
Rand Simberg
jo...@idsoftware.com (John Carmack) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>> John, our trajectory for the Condor-X flies with lift
>> greater than thrust all the way up to 35 km (subsonically).
>> At extremely low wing loading, the basic problem of very
>> high altitude flight is one of lack of (airbreathing)
>> thrust, not lift. This trajectory results in lift being
>> greater than thrust for two-thirds of the powered flight,
>> and about 51 percent of powered flight with respect to
>> the altitude domain. Burnout is just short of 70 km in
>> the vertical mode. Supersonic powered flight occurs only
>> at very low dynamic pressure. Reentry speed does reach
>> mach 2.5, but the wing is used basically as a parachute
>> at this time. "Wing loading" is during reentry is down
>> to about 120 Pa (2.5 lbf/ft^2).
>>
>
>Ahh, I see your point -- providing aero lift for the "majority of the
>flight", then going vertical in a distinctly different segment of the
>trajectory. That might just sneak by... It would sound pretty
>contrived for someone to require a "majority" to be defined in the
>impulse domain, as opposed to time or altitude.
Well, I see it didn't take long for someone to game the new system.
;-)
Len
of the flight" as being in the time domain--where we qualify
easily. However, we qualify even in the delta vee domain
and the total impulse domain (I think; remember, our intial
climb is inefficient at low speed in order to accommodate
our fabric wing covering). We just squeak by in the altitude
domain. I've read the rule over and over,
and--except for wild interpretations of "majority of the
flight"--the rule seems to indicate that we would not even
have to talk to AST for an X PRIZE try with the Condor-X.
As I have noted, however, we are shifting our focus back to
orbital because of lack of timely outside funding for the
Condor-X. Orbital operations will require a launch license.
However, even here, we should be able to develop first stages
such as the F-14-SLV or Space Van 2008 first stage (derived
from the Condor-X) under experimental aircraft rules.
BTW, the rule clearly distinquishes between ground launch and
air launch. With air launch, the clock starts over. Hence,
my earlier comment on Space Ship 1. Also, BTW, I think that
FAA's rules, criteria and definition are quite appropriate
in this case. "Majority of flight" is a little fuzzy, however.
Best regards,
Len (Cormier)
PanAero, Inc.
x...@tour2space.com (change x to len)
( http://www.tour2space.com )
> John Carmack
> www.armadilloaerospace.com
Len
I'm not above gaming the system, Rand; I think it's fair game.
However, we were already considering the Condor-X for other
good reasons, when FAA came out with the October ruling.
Best regards,
Len (Cormier)
PanAero, Inc.
x...@tour2space.com (replace x with len)
( http://www.tour2space.com )
Vincent Cate
> of the flight" as being in the time domain--where we qualify
> easily.
Since SS1 takes a longer time to glide down, what keeps it
from qualifying under the "majority of the flight" qualification?
Like does it say "powered flight"? And if that is it, could
he add on a really tiny rocket (maybe under 1 lb thrust) for
the way down so he can claim they are "powered"? :-)
I keep thinking of the 1950 movie "Destination Moon" (on DVD now)
where the guys know the government is coming to stop them from
launching their rocket, and they hurry and launch anyway.
Since claiming the x-prize requires 2 flights, the strategy of
ignoring the government probably won't work. I can't imagine
anyone spending less than a day checking their rocket over
and going over flight data before launching again after their
first flight to 100 km. Plenty of time for the government to
grab the rocket. Although, if you had two rockets (and plenty
of pilots) and let the government find and take the rocket
that did not fly, you might just be able to pull it off. :-)
If it was December 2004 and I had been trying for 1.5 years
to get permission to launch, I would be really tempted to
try something. If Rutan does this he will be a hero, and
hard to lock up. As they say, "It is easier to get
forgiveness than permission."
-- Vince
John Weglian
>>
> Actually, most reasonable people would interpret "majority
> of the flight" as being in the time domain--where we qualify
> easily. However, we qualify even in the delta vee domain
> and the total impulse domain (I think; remember, our intial
> climb is inefficient at low speed in order to accommodate
> our fabric wing covering). We just squeak by in the altitude
> domain. I've read the rule over and over,
> and--except for wild interpretations of "majority of the
> flight"--the rule seems to indicate that we would not even
> have to talk to AST for an X PRIZE try with the Condor-X.
>
One key thing you seem to be missing is that the rule refers to the
majority of POWERED flight. If your engines are turned off, it doesn't
matter what lift is. And trust me that AST interprets "majority" to
mean time and not distance along a flight path or altitude.
You need to look at the time that you have any engine running (air-
breathing or rocket). If, for the majority of that time, you have
aerodynamic lift that is greater than total engine thrust then you do
not fall under their definition of a suborbital rocket.
-John Weglian
Len
> l...@tour2space.com (Len) wrote
> > Actually, most reasonable people would interpret "majority
> > of the flight" as being in the time domain--where we qualify
> > easily.
>
> Since SS1 takes a longer time to glide down, what keeps it
> from qualifying under the "majority of the flight" qualification?
> Like does it say "powered flight"? And if that is it, could
> he add on a really tiny rocket (maybe under 1 lb thrust) for
> the way down so he can claim they are "powered"? :-)
My mistake, I should have quoted the rule as the "majority of
powered flight." As for the tiny rocket on the way down, I
guess that would really be gaming the rule :-) I suspect that
this might cause the rule to be clarified. However, IMO, the rule
as written (and intended) was well thought through with respect
to what legitimately separates an experimental aircraft from
a launch vehicle.
> I keep thinking of the 1950 movie "Destination Moon" (on DVD now)
> where the guys know the government is coming to stop them from
> launching their rocket, and they hurry and launch anyway.
>
> Since claiming the x-prize requires 2 flights, the strategy of
> ignoring the government probably won't work. I can't imagine
> anyone spending less than a day checking their rocket over
> and going over flight data before launching again after their
> first flight to 100 km. Plenty of time for the government to
> grab the rocket. Although, if you had two rockets (and plenty
> of pilots) and let the government find and take the rocket
> that did not fly, you might just be able to pull it off. :-)
>
One of the rules in the X PRIZE Master Team Agreement requires
that contenders comply with all applicable government regulations.
> If it was December 2004 and I had been trying for 1.5 years
> to get permission to launch, I would be really tempted to
> try something. If Rutan does this he will be a hero, and
> hard to lock up. As they say, "It is easier to get
> forgiveness than permission."
>
As I said, one side of me would be cheering Burt on, while
the other side might be looking for a legitimate competitive
advantage.
Best regards,
Len (Cormier)
PanAero, Inc.
x...@tour2space.com (change x to len)
( http://www.tour2space.com )
> -- Vince
Vincent Cate
> powered flight." As for the tiny rocket on the way down, I
> guess that would really be gaming the rule :-) I suspect that
> this might cause the rule to be clarified.
If it took the government longer to post a change/clarification
than it took for Rutan's ablative to dry for his second flight,
he might not really care. :-)
-- Vince
Rand Simberg
vi...@offshore.ai (Vincent Cate) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
>l...@tour2space.com (Len) wrote
>> Actually, most reasonable people would interpret "majority
>> of the flight" as being in the time domain--where we qualify
>> easily.
>
>Since SS1 takes a longer time to glide down, what keeps it
>from qualifying under the "majority of the flight" qualification?
>Like does it say "powered flight"?
Yes.