The X Prize
milton_friedman
Join Date: 2004-08-11 Member: 30535Members
Join Date: 2004-08-11 Member: 30535Members
<div class="IPBDescription">Rutan wins</div> I’m sure most of you already heard this as it happened yesterday, but the media attention in my opinion was scarce due to many other events occurring (debate, Iraq etc.) Never the less, I believe this is an important story
Yesterday, Space Ship One reached space without the backing of any world government. This is simply astonishing in that,
1. At a total cost of 26 million (including the developmental process), a small company with a supped up garage created a vehicle made of composites, held together with glue, powered by laughing gas and tire parts achieved what only 3 of the worlds most powerful countries have done with billions of dollars in research
2. The space shuttle cost about 500 million per flight, 50 million to get it off the ground. To build Rutan’s ship, it cost currently 20 million dollars
3. Space Ship one controls are nearly all mechanical requiring brute force. Mind you that this spacecraft travels at subsonic speed, thought as impossible. The space shuttle needs computers control the spacecraft.
While it is hard to compare the space shuttle to space ship one (Shuttle travels 400 miles off earths surface, Space ship one 60. Space shuttle can carry 27000lbs of payload, Space ship one can carry 750), it is still an great accomplishment. If you were to take the costs, accomplishments to scale within a given timeframe (Spaceship one i believe took 6 years to develope), Rutan wins hands down.
I’m glad they succeeded. In an age where it everyone seems to think that you need government funding every type research to acheive huge guals or a multi-billion corporation to do anything of this scale, I believe these guys proved them wrong. It is great that in this country, we let people like these do what would be discouraged in others with miles of red tape and this entitlement mentality. The free-market with a little governmental oversight can achieve a lot of things.
Oh and BTW, if you haven't noticed, I'm no fan of NASA
Yesterday, Space Ship One reached space without the backing of any world government. This is simply astonishing in that,
1. At a total cost of 26 million (including the developmental process), a small company with a supped up garage created a vehicle made of composites, held together with glue, powered by laughing gas and tire parts achieved what only 3 of the worlds most powerful countries have done with billions of dollars in research
2. The space shuttle cost about 500 million per flight, 50 million to get it off the ground. To build Rutan’s ship, it cost currently 20 million dollars
3. Space Ship one controls are nearly all mechanical requiring brute force. Mind you that this spacecraft travels at subsonic speed, thought as impossible. The space shuttle needs computers control the spacecraft.
While it is hard to compare the space shuttle to space ship one (Shuttle travels 400 miles off earths surface, Space ship one 60. Space shuttle can carry 27000lbs of payload, Space ship one can carry 750), it is still an great accomplishment. If you were to take the costs, accomplishments to scale within a given timeframe (Spaceship one i believe took 6 years to develope), Rutan wins hands down.
I’m glad they succeeded. In an age where it everyone seems to think that you need government funding every type research to acheive huge guals or a multi-billion corporation to do anything of this scale, I believe these guys proved them wrong. It is great that in this country, we let people like these do what would be discouraged in others with miles of red tape and this entitlement mentality. The free-market with a little governmental oversight can achieve a lot of things.
Oh and BTW, if you haven't noticed, I'm no fan of NASA
Comments
The significance of this is that space flight is looking to become cheaper as private advances are made. Inexpensive space flight/launches brings a whole new universe to us. Private industry can do everything the government can, and usually do it more efficiently.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I’m glad they succeeded. In an age where it everyone seems to think that you need government funding every type research to acheive huge guals or a multi-billion corporation to do anything of this scale, I believe these guys proved them wrong. It is great that in this country, we let people like these do what would be discouraged in others with miles of red tape and this entitlement mentality. The free-market with a little governmental oversight can achieve a lot of things.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Couldn't agree more.
In the 1950's, they were asking for composite materials that did not exist, technology that did not exist, and the most ultra powerful computers they could get on hand at the time.
Space ship one may have done an incredible thing but it still borrowed extensively from the successes of the governmental space program that developed the composites, the technology and the technical knowhow to make it all possible.
Thats the equivalent of putting a bunch of cavemen in the starship Enterprise and telling them to lay in a course for the third star on the right, BEFORE they've developed language or advanced social skills, and then comparing it to Enterprise D with trained staff and personell.
Space Ship One had all the technology they needed, all the brains they needed, and all the necessary materials they needed because of the space program.
Now, if they did this and had to develope all the technology on their own, all the technical knowhow on their own, and the composites required to do this, then it would be a good deal more impressive and THEN you could compare the shuttle to Space Ship one.
Dont get me wrong though, it is an impressive achievement in and of itself, but if your going to compare the shuttle and Space Ship One and say that Space Ship One wins hands down, you have to realise that the brains, the technology and the materials that made Space Ship One possible most probably came directly from NASA's efforts over the last 30 - 40 years.
1. Spaceshipone cannot reach the escape velocity, and cant have orbital flight as a result.
2. Spaceshipone doesn't have any resistance to thermal energy because it doesn't go fast enough to generate any.
3. Nitrous oxide and rubber are too lame. Liquid hydrogen and LOX are teh bomb!
4. Spaceshipone has a skid for a front wheel.<i>(OMG a skid?<--------WTH)</i>
5. Spaceshipone doesn't do it like the big boys do, it needs to use whiteknight as a crutch.
6. Spaceshipone was built by a monopolistic organization, not a monopolistic space program. <i>can u say Microsoft? *wink *wink</i>
7. Spaceshipone can't even blow up. <i>Where's the fun in that?</i>
8. That guy from Microsoft shouldn't have funded spaceshipone. He should've bought the Buran russian space shuttle.
Escape velocity is defined to be the minimum velocity an object must have in order to escape the gravitational field of the earth, that is, escape the earth without ever falling back.
The object must have greater energy than its gravitational binding energy to escape the earth's gravitational field. So:
1/2 mv2 = GMm/R
Where m is the mass of the object, M mass of the earth, G is the gravitational constant, R is the radius of the earth, and v is the escape velocity. It simplifies to:
v = sqrt(2GM/R)
or
v = sqrt(2gR)
Where g is acceleration of gravity on the earth's surface.
The value evaluates to be approximately (ignoring air friction):
11100 m/s
40200 km/h
25000 mi/h
So, an object which has this velocity at the surface of the earth, will totally escape the earth's gravitational field (ignoring the losses due to the atmosphere.) It is all there is to it.
Escape velocity is defined to be the minimum velocity an object must have in order to escape the gravitational field of the earth, that is, escape the earth without ever falling back.
The object must have greater energy than its gravitational binding energy to escape the earth's gravitational field. So:
1/2 mv2 = GMm/R
Where m is the mass of the object, M mass of the earth, G is the gravitational constant, R is the radius of the earth, and v is the escape velocity. It simplifies to:
v = sqrt(2GM/R)
or
v = sqrt(2gR)
Where g is acceleration of gravity on the earth's surface.
The value evaluates to be approximately (ignoring air friction):
11100 m/s
40200 km/h
25000 mi/h
So, an object which has this velocity at the surface of the earth, will totally escape the earth's gravitational field (ignoring the losses due to the atmosphere.) It is all there is to it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
IOW, escape velocity isn't relevent to craft that are still accellerating at high altitudes?
I'm glad this happened though. Maybe it will finally start encouraging people to go off into space as opposed to thinking of space as an unachievable task needing billions of dollars. If we could get off this planet, I'd feel much better about the survival of the human race. I want Nasa to start doing research on converting Mars into an earth replica NOW so we can have it ready in the future.
It would take a long time, but I feel it would take minimal resources. You'd need to send a "farmer" robot that would plant plants suitable to iron-rich soil into the ground and supply a steady amount of water and carbon dioxide to keep it alive. Do this for several acres, and you have what will be an entire forest growing within a matter of years. The robot would only have to have the ability to extract water from the atmosphere and condense it or create carbon dioxide from water and the ground.
You get 100s of these all over the planet, and a true atmosphere starts to form. Do this enough, and you have a planet capable of sustaining animal life.
I'm not saying this can be accomplished within the next 10 years. In fact this is why I recommend we start thinking about this sort of thing now. We can't live on mars in a bubble of some sort. <!--emo&::marine::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/marine.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='marine.gif' /><!--endemo-->
In the 1950's, they were asking for composite materials that did not exist, technology that did not exist, and the most ultra powerful computers they could get on hand at the time.
Space ship one may have done an incredible thing but it still borrowed extensively from the successes of the governmental space program that developed the composites, the technology and the technical knowhow to make it all possible.
Thats the equivalent of putting a bunch of cavemen in the starship Enterprise and telling them to lay in a course for the third star on the right, BEFORE they've developed language or advanced social skills, and then comparing it to Enterprise D with trained staff and personell.
Space Ship One had all the technology they needed, all the brains they needed, and all the necessary materials they needed because of the space program.
Now, if they did this and had to develope all the technology on their own, all the technical knowhow on their own, and the composites required to do this, then it would be a good deal more impressive and THEN you could compare the shuttle to Space Ship one.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Don't get me wrong, NASA has had huge successes (i.e. moon), but like every burocracy, over time, it deteroriates. What I object to is NASA's squandering of funds. It worked fine for a short Moon-race, but we made the mistake of thinking, in utter defiance of our nation’s tradition of individualism and free enterprise, that this could be a successful model for opening a new frontier. BTW, could someone please explain me the purpose of the International Space Station?
The problem with NASA in my opinion is that it hasn't pushed private industry to get involved in space, instead focused on doing all the research and development of space urging congress for a bigger budget if they we want to go to mars adding more to their 15billion dollar budget.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Dont get me wrong though, it is an impressive achievement in and of itself, but if your going to compare the shuttle and Space Ship One and say that Space Ship One wins hands down, you have to realise that the brains, the technology and the materials that made Space Ship One possible most probably came directly from NASA's efforts over the last 30 - 40 years.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree. NASA has been using the space shuttle that was developed over 20 years ago. Why hasn't NASA developed a far more inexpensive craft? In about 5 years, Rutan developed a craft that can go suborbital with a budget of 26million while NASA spent nearly 1 billion dollars on the X - 33 project which never left the ground (canceled in 2001). I could be wrong but I don’t recall NASA developing many of the composites that spaceship one used. Could you point out some of the technical know how NASA provided in the development of space ship one?
Over the past 40 years, with the exception of the moon race, I am not impressed with many of NASA's achievements giving the amount of recourses they had. It was a huge blunder in our part for expecting that government would be a viable way of opening a new frontier.
What NASA should be doing encouraging more private development of spacecraft (i.e. prizes) having private industry do all the research and development, instead of directly engaging in research and using the old model of contracting 1 company, essentially creating a monopoly in spacecraft development.
The New Atlantis did a really good article on this matter. It is a long read, but very informative
<a href='http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/6/simberg.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/6/simberg.htm</a>
Don’t get me wrong, there is still a role in government in space, such as the exploration of new planets and frontiers, not monopolizing the means to do so
Has NASA become so commercial that it's more about tourism and selling souvenir freeze dried ice cream than space flight? Are we even planning anything at the moment?
I heard that spaceone asked for some infos from NASA regarding heating temperatures upon re-entry, but NASA replied nothing. Then they tried asking how much rocket fuel it would take to cook a hotdog, and again, they replied nothing. Seems like somebody's a little jealous. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Has NASA become so commercial that it's more about tourism and selling souvenir freeze dried ice cream than space flight? Are we even planning anything at the moment?
I heard that spaceone asked for some infos from NASA regarding heating temperatures upon re-entry, but NASA replied nothing. Then they tried asking how much rocket fuel it would take to cook a hotdog, and again, they replied nothing. Seems like somebody's a little jealous. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nasa can't take a walk down the street without spending a couple billion dollars, consequntly they have nowhere near enough money to do anything intresting in terms of space stuff.