X-Prize Won! I said it wouldn't be done.

Back when the X-Prize was announced with a deadline of
January 1, 2005 I said it would not be won.

I also said that I thought Burt Rutan was too busy with
other programs and that he would not compete for
the prize.

I was utterly and completely wrong and
I am very happy that is true.

This mornings flight was absolutely beautiful.

Mike Walsh

On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 08:50:23 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Mike
Walsh" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Back when the X-Prize was announced with a deadline of
January 1, 2005 I said it would not be won.

I also said that I thought Burt Rutan was too busy with
other programs and that he would not compete for
the prize.

I was utterly and completely wrong and
I am very happy that is true.

This mornings flight was absolutely beautiful.

I guess that's the benefit of being a pessimist. All your surprises
are pleasant ones. ;-)

October 4, 2004

Mike Walsh wrote:

I was utterly and completely wrong and
I am very happy that is true.

You forgot 'absolutely' wrong, but thanks for trying.

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net

In article ,
Mike Walsh wrote:
Back when the X-Prize was announced with a deadline of
January 1, 2005 I said it would not be won.

I don't remember posting any specific prediction, but I'll confess that I
didn't think that anyone would win the X prize either. My thinking wasn't
really "optimism" or "pessimism", because I don't really care either way,
but it certainly was skepticism. I was also skeptical that Rutan would do
it, although it became clear last year that it was within reach for him.

One thing that made me skeptical was Rutan's braggadocio. To me it made
him seem like yet another space cowboy who "doesn't know or doesn't
care what the word 'impossible' means." But now I would say that his
braggadocio is a cover for a pretty good grasp of what is and is not
possible. More power to him for that!

One sign of sanity was that Rutan contracted with the space-industrial
complex (Thiokol and SpaceDev I think) for SS1's rocket engine. It may
be ungenerous to then portray the project as completely independent
of the space-industrial complex. But it makes more sense to rely on
its expertise than to try to invent a rocket engine and understand
supersonic flight all on your own. Moreover, even if Rutan's project
wasn't entirely independent of the space-industrial complex, it was as
independent as anyone could reasonably expect.

The "space tourism" deal with Branson is another story. First, it
is strange to call it space tourism. You can pay to fly in a MIG
jet (http://www.incredible-adventures.com/migs/), but that is called
joy-riding, not "high-altitude tourism". Second, flight safety is a
much more serious issue for joy rides than for test flights, no matter
what kind of indemnity they get on paper. SS1 could be no safer
than Russian roulette - the literal 1 in 6 kind, not the metaphor
that life is a gamble every day. That would bring the joy rides
to an end very quickly. But who knows; conceivably they will
make some money this way.

--
/\ Greg Kuperberg (UC Davis)
/ \ Home page: http://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~greg/
\ / Visit the Math ArXiv Front at http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/
\/ * All the math that's fit to e-print *

On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 16:50:09 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
(Greg Kuperberg) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

One sign of sanity was that Rutan contracted with the space-industrial
complex (Thiokol and SpaceDev I think)

SpaceDev is part of the "Space Industrial Complex"?

Who knew?

And what did Thiokol provide?

The "space tourism" deal with Branson is another story. First, it
is strange to call it space tourism.

It is called adventure tourism, or adventure travel.

You can pay to fly in a MIG
jet (http://www.incredible-adventures.com/migs/), but that is called
joy-riding, not "high-altitude tourism". Second, flight safety is a
much more serious issue for joy rides than for test flights, no matter
what kind of indemnity they get on paper. SS1 could be no safer
than Russian roulette - the literal 1 in 6 kind, not the metaphor
that life is a gamble every day.

It could be, but that's extremely unlikely.

In article ,
Rand Simberg wrote:
One sign of sanity was that Rutan contracted with the space-industrial
complex (Thiokol and SpaceDev I think)
SpaceDev is part of the "Space Industrial Complex"?

I agree that SpaceDev is not in the thick of it to the same degree as
Boeing, but still I think that these quotes from the SpaceDev site settle
the matter:

SpaceDev's background and expertise in hybrid propulsion technology
was derived from the knowledge base produced by American Rocket
Company (AMROC). SpaceDev obtained the technical rights, proprietary
data and patents produced by over $20 million worth of hybrid rocket
motor research by AMROC.

...

SpaceDev was recently awarded Phase I of a contract to develop a
Shuttle-compatible propulsion module for the Air Force Research Lab
(AFRL). Our previous work for the National Reconnaissance Office
(NRO) ...

http://www.spacedev.com/newsite/templates/subpage3.php?pid=185

And what did Thiokol provide?

According to the Flug Revue, Rutan had at least four standard
space contractors:

A new non-toxic liquid-nitrous-oxide/rubber-fuel hybrid propulsion
system was developed specifically for SpaceShipOne. Its unique design
simplifies mounting and reduces leak paths. The composite nitrous
tank and case/ throat/ nozzle components were developed at Scaled,
with Thiokol providing the tank's filament wound overwrap, and
AAE Aerospace supplying the ablative nozzle. Development of the
'rocket science' (fuel, bulkhead, controller, valve, injector,
igniter and ground test program) is being completed with two rocket
motor developers - eAc (Environmental Aeroscience Corp of Miami)
and SpaceDev of San Diego.

http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FRSSOne.htm

So it's not even just Thiokol and SpaceDev.

--
/\ Greg Kuperberg (UC Davis)
/ \ Home page: http://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~greg/
\ / Visit the Math ArXiv Front at http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/
\/ * All the math that's fit to e-print *

(Greg Kuperberg) writes:

In article ,
Rand Simberg wrote:
One sign of sanity was that Rutan contracted with the space-industrial
complex (Thiokol and SpaceDev I think)
SpaceDev is part of the "Space Industrial Complex"?

I agree that SpaceDev is not in the thick of it to the same degree as
Boeing, but still I think that these quotes from the SpaceDev site settle
the matter:

SpaceDev's background and expertise in hybrid propulsion technology
was derived from the knowledge base produced by American Rocket
Company (AMROC). SpaceDev obtained the technical rights, proprietary
data and patents produced by over $20 million worth of hybrid rocket
motor research by AMROC.

How does that settle anything, unless you are contending that AMROC was
part of the "Space Industrial Complex"? I, for one, would very much
dispute that claim.

...

SpaceDev was recently awarded Phase I of a contract to develop a
Shuttle-compatible propulsion module for the Air Force Research Lab
(AFRL). Our previous work for the National Reconnaissance Office
(NRO) ...

http://www.spacedev.com/newsite/templates/subpage3.php?pid=185

If getting a Phase I SBIR makes one a part of the "Space Industrial
Complex", then someone forgot to send me my membership card. And I
presume there was an invitation to the Inner Circle when we got the
Phase II?


Really, I think you're setting the bar so low for your "Space Industrial
Complex" as to be meaningless. Two-guys-in-a-garage startups can meet
your standards. Indeed, have. My company was two guys without even the
garage when we got our first Phase I; XCOR was I believe four guys and a
girl when they bought all of Rotary Rocket's old propulsion technology,
Rotary having been bigger than AMROC by the end.


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
* for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

In article ,
John Schilling wrote:
SpaceDev was recently awarded Phase I of a contract to develop a
Shuttle-compatible propulsion module for the Air Force Research Lab
(AFRL). Our previous work for the National Reconnaissance Office
(NRO) ...

http://www.spacedev.com/newsite/templates/subpage3.php?pid=185
If getting a Phase I SBIR makes one a part of the "Space Industrial
Complex", then someone forgot to send me my membership card.

Okay, "space industrial complex" is a loaded phrase that usually means
space contractors who can win NASA and DOD contracts largely through
politics. (It's not my neologism, though - it has been used on and off in
sci.space.policy for four years.) SpaceDev is not big enough to do that.

But it's not true that SpaceDev only has this one SBIR grant, or that it's
"two guys in a garage". It has around 30 employees and a market cap of
$40 million, and its business is almost exclusively government contracts.
Which you can see from its quarterly reports:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/sec?s=SPDV.OB

But I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with taking government
grants! After all, I have my own NSF grant.

My point is that describing SS1 as "completely privately built" is
technically true, but it's coy and ungenerous given where some key
expertise came from. Rutan and his people understand flight navigation
really well without any connection to NASA, I'll grant that. But what
about ablative nozzles and binary rocket fuels and supersonic CFD?
It takes more than moxie and a machine shop to master them. NASA, DOD,
and government-funded universities have all cultivated private-sector
competence in these technologies - the government shells out money for
this express purpose. And Rutan has made use of that competence.

I think that Rutan ought to thank NASA (and DARPA and AFRL) for sharing
its wisdom and grant money over the long decades. After all, NASA has
only said nice things about him. Rutan is correct that NASA's astronaut
program has stagnated; I would even say it's a fiasco. But that shouldn't
be his only word on NASA.
--
/\ Greg Kuperberg (UC Davis)
/ \ Home page: http://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~greg/
\ / Visit the Math ArXiv Front at http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/
\/ * All the math that's fit to e-print *

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 16:50:09 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
(Greg Kuperberg) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

One sign of sanity was that Rutan contracted with the space-industrial
complex (Thiokol and SpaceDev I think)

SpaceDev is part of the "Space Industrial Complex"?

Who knew?


Well, sort of, by definition.

Not to mention that other "Space Industrial Complex"
giant, Scaled Composites.

"Space Industrial Complex"

I like that. It is a catchy phrase.

(I believe that other complex is commonly described
as the "Milititary-Industrial Complex". Back when Ike worried
about it there was no NASA arround although there was a
NACA and JPL existed).

Mike Walsh

On 2004-10-04, Mike Walsh wrote:

(I believe that other complex is commonly described
as the "Milititary-Industrial Complex". Back when Ike worried
about it there was no NASA arround although there was a
NACA and JPL existed).

It was, I think, his last Presidential speech where the phrase is
remembered from... hmm...

http://www.eisenhower.utexas.edu/farewell.htm

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of
unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the
military-industrial complex."

January 1961... so, yes, there was a NASA.

/pedantry

--
-Andrew Gray