First private rocket ship goes supersonic

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » December 19, 2003, 10:28 am

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994499

Cool stuff.

Mak · Post by **Mak** » December 19, 2003, 11:44 am

10 million seems like an awfully low prize compared to the costs of R&D and production.

Still cool to see, however.

Deward · Post by **Deward** » December 19, 2003, 2:26 pm

I have been following this for years and the 10 Million is pretty much chump change. It has helped to spur media attention to the project though and it is good to see this happening. Ten years from now we should see a pretty steady tourism market for trips to space. This is very good for the space industry although it will be bad for NASA and their overbloated organization.

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » December 19, 2003, 3:04 pm

Deward wrote:I have been following this for years and the 10 Million is pretty much chump change. It has helped to spur media attention to the project though and it is good to see this happening. Ten years from now we should see a pretty steady tourism market for trips to space. This is very good for the space industry although it will be bad for NASA and their overbloated organization.

The absense of a more cost effective, streamlined model is what is bad for NASA. Any organization (governmental, corporate, private) that can demonstrate a plan for innovations that will reduce the overheads associated with a manned space project couldn't possible hurt NASA. In the long run, it will have a positive effect by showing them (NASA) ways in which they can improve if they intend to stay ahead. If that results in the NASA organization falling apart (which I am highly skeptical of, incidentally) and being replaced by more agile, smaller budget government sponsored sibling, the results would be the same (a rose by any other name...).

Salis · Post by **Salis** » December 20, 2003, 3:39 am

archeiron wrote:
Deward wrote:I have been following this for years and the 10 Million is pretty much chump change. It has helped to spur media attention to the project though and it is good to see this happening. Ten years from now we should see a pretty steady tourism market for trips to space. This is very good for the space industry although it will be bad for NASA and their overbloated organization.
The absense of a more cost effective, streamlined model is what is bad for NASA. Any organization (governmental, corporate, private) that can demonstrate a plan for innovations that will reduce the overheads associated with a manned space project couldn't possible hurt NASA. In the long run, it will have a positive effect by showing them (NASA) ways in which they can improve if they intend to stay ahead. If that results in the NASA organization falling apart (which I am highly skeptical of, incidentally) and being replaced by more agile, smaller budget government sponsored sibling, the results would be the same (a rose by any other name...).

Yes, because space exploration is all about streamlined corporate efficiency and we should all be looking at how we can apply the wonders of an efficient market to the obviously inefficient and exploratory endevours that man undertakes. Fucking idiot.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » December 20, 2003, 3:48 am

Careful, now he going to post about your vagina about twenty times.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » December 20, 2003, 7:39 am

Careful, now he going to post about your vagina about twenty times.

It's called a "Sporran"

Salis · Post by **Salis** » December 20, 2003, 7:47 am

jealousy!

and the world cup was a fluke

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » December 20, 2003, 9:44 am

kyoukan wrote:Careful, now he going to post about your vagina about twenty times.

Hmmm do I smell STALKER?

Jassun · Post by **Jassun** » December 22, 2003, 7:15 pm

Scientic American had a few articles on this over the past couple of years. One thing most people overlook is the fact that the X-Prize is focusing on a SUB-orbital vehicle.

The increase in cost and complexity is exponential when attempting to successful launch an orbital vehicle, such as NASA's space shuttle.

Still, it is quite an accomplishment.

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » December 23, 2003, 9:38 am

Salis wrote:Yes, because space exploration is all about streamlined corporate efficiency and we should all be looking at how we can apply the wonders of an efficient market to the obviously inefficient and exploratory endevours that man undertakes. Fucking idiot.

Would you please explain what is inherently inefficient about space travel that we cannot possibly overcome? Aside from refering to existing space travel technologies (the shuttle and the rockets used today by Russia, the EU, and the USA), I can't see how you are going to explain that it is impossible to make something more efficient and cost effective. I believe you are all talk and no trousers, there mate.

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » December 23, 2003, 11:09 am

Perhaps it's because we don't go to space often enough to test out more efficient products, therefor making a more cost efficient spaceship out of reach for several years? Not to mention in the wake of the Columbia tragedy, the risk of testing more efficient products is far too high and NASA does not need another shuttle crash on their hands. Note that I said shuttle, and not satellites. Those on the other hand could be made more efficient due to the rate of use and new satellites being put into orbit.

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » December 23, 2003, 11:31 am

Zamtuk wrote:Perhaps it's because we don't go to space often enough to test out more efficient products, therefor making a more cost efficient spaceship out of reach for several years? Not to mention in the wake of the Columbia tragedy, the risk of testing more efficient products is far too high and NASA does not need another shuttle crash on their hands. Note that I said shuttle, and not satellites. Those on the other hand could be made more efficient due to the rate of use and new satellites being put into orbit.

Absolutely, I will conceed that the path from our current practices to a hypothetical future in which space travel is inexpensive and commonplace will take a substantial investment and a significant period of time.

I believe that projects such as this are the first small steps along this path and that we will not necessarily see any significant impact soon, but that the long term ramifications could be profound.

It is inevitable that most technologies that we consider to be expensive today and exist at the edge of our capabilities will be smaller, more efficient, and substantially cheaper in the years to come. There is no reason that I can see why this is not true of space travel.