SpaceShipOne, Burt Rutan, etc.

[Anonymous No.3564242]

I feel like this doesn't get enough attention. With that ridiculous shuttle program finally ended, we can finally get into more efficient and practical alternatives for spaceflight.

It seems to me that Burt Rutan's technologies represent the best efforts so far to get people into space... but I was talking to coworkers a while ago and none of them had even HEARD of SpaceShipOne, or Rutan, or the X-Prize, or anything like that. One of them had heard of John Carmack / Armadillo Aerospace... which has done fuck-all, really, in comparison.

What does /sci/ think?

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.3564252]

Why not SpaceX? They've actually reached orbit, numerous times. Virgin Galactic has yet to.

[Anonymous No.3564266]

>>3564252

The point is to eventually offer spaceflight to the public, which is Virgin Galactic's focus. SpaceX is more of a partner for NASA.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.3564290]

>>3564266

Who is that the point for? It isn't for me. From my perspective SpaceX is more valuable as they have the means and intention to put bases on the moon and mars within 20 years. Sending tourists to suborbital space (which they haven't even done yet) cannot compare.

[Anonymous No.3564305]

>>3564290

Is there some reason we can't have both? After all, SpaceX and VG are both private enterprises. The scientific/military needs serviced by SpaceX are important, but so is improving the quality of life of the general public.

VG is focused on offering ME, some random asshole, the chance to experience space - which has been one of NASA's standing goals. But NASA is wholly unable to do this.

[Anonymous No.3564314]

>>3564290

I'll take zero-gravity sex over reading about some distant base I'll never visit.

[Anonymous No.3564322]

>>3564242

SpaceShipOne is just a glorified plane. Real spaceships fly much faster.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.3564326]

>>3564314

Realistically, only one of those is going to happen. I think we both know which it is.

[Anonymous No.3564329]

>>3564322

Who in the hell cares how fast it goes, as long as it gets you there? And yeah, SSO is only suborbital but that's Tier One of their program. Tier Two is low Earth orbit manned spaceflight which is what they're working on now.

[Anonymous No.3564334]

>>3564326

Sending people up just above Earth, versus establishing permanent bases on other worlds? Yeah, I think I know which one is more realistic too.

[Anonymous No.3564340]

>>3564305
>Is there some reason we can't have both? After all, SpaceX and VG are both private enterprises.

This is the key right here. As long as it stays in the hands of private companies, I have hope. If the government ever assumed control we would be fucked. Not that I'm some foaming-at-the-mouth anti-government crazy (I support government-run healthcare, for example) but I don't have any confidence in their ability to make space accessible to the public. NASA has been their way for decades and it's all they know.

[Anonymous No.3564363]

>>3564340
>NASA has been their way for decades and it's all they know.

NASA did quite well, given that sending people on fun trips to low earth orbit is by far not it's goal.

And they did even better when they had actual funding to do what they do.
You might have spent some money that was instead spent on the military on NASA, they delivered rather much for the money...

[Anonymous No.3564365]

>>3564329

Skylon >> SpaceShipOne

[Anonymous No.3564385]

>>3564363

What the fuck are you talking about? Getting the public into space has always been one of NASA's goals. Read up.

[Anonymous No.3564414]

>>3564340
> Implying social medicine has anything to do with space flight

[Anonymous No.3564425]

>>3564385
In the long run. Immediate goals mostly became something else when budget had to be allocated.

Can't very well be delivering absolutely no results for 10 years to get a suicidal mars mission (without having much base research covered) planned and financed and then fail.

So they did many useful smaller projects. Hubble, the mars rovers, various probes, a good part of ISS, ...

[Anonymous No.3564430]

>>3564242
Yes that ridiculous shuttle program, what's Spaceship One's cargo and crew capacity?

[Anonymous No.3564433]

>>3564425
Oh and Bush wanted to go back to manned space exploration again, congress crappily "financed" one year of space exploration... pure lip service of course, NASA's actual budget went down, and if you're surprised why NASA didn't make it happen, then you're an idiot.

[Anonymous No.3564467]

Personally I'm pinning my hopes on Skylon for getting the private spaceflight industry moving. SpaceX is just launching rockets which is what everyone else has been doing anyway, and VG is just seeing how fast they can lob space planes into the sky.

[Anonymous No.3564473]

>>3564329

if it only gets you there for five minutes there ain't much point, dumbass.

getting to space is easy. staying there is hard.

[Anonymous No.3564499]

>>3564467

>SpaceX is just launching rockets which is what everyone else has been doing anyway

Its HOW they do it.

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3564507]

Is it really more efficient? SpaceShipOne doesn't need external fuel tanks because it doesn't go into orbit. The falcon rockets that go into orbit don't seem particularly different from the Titan rockets NASA has been using since the 60's.

[Anonymous No.3564580]

>SpaceX is just launching rockets which is what everyone else has been doing anyway

But SpaceX figured out how to do it 6X cheaper than there best competitors and that's just the start.

The rockets aren't yet reusable but dragon is fully reusable and will be very cheap to recertify for flight readiness.

[Anonymous No.3564608]

Armadillo and Virgin are playing with toy rockets. Virgins rockets have 1/70 the amount of energy required to get to orbit. They are a joke and a fucking expensive amusement park ride.

Armidillo plans on using like 6 stages to get to orbit in some god awful pyramid orientation.

[Anonymous No.3564731]

>>3564242
> It seems to me that Burt Rutan's technologies represent the best efforts so far to get people into space...

SpaceShipOne is a toy which serves no practical purpose. It isn't even useful as a prototype or a stepping stone.

The issue isn't getting into space, it's getting into orbit. And the tricky part about getting into orbit isn't the height, it's the speed.

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.3564749]

>>3564242

SpaceShipOne and the other things they have planned are a good parabolic roller coaster, but they can't achieve orbital velocity.

SpaceX on the other hand, is our only hope.

OUR ONLY HOPE.

[Anonymous No.3564819]

>>3564749
> SpaceX on the other hand, is our only hope.
Whose only hope for what? America's only hope for avoiding the embarrassment of having to use Soyuz or Ariane?

[Anonymous No.3565087]

>>3564242

Folks want to go to space? For what? To feel zero G? Then go on one of those parabolic flights on an air transport.

If you really want to go in orbit, then pay $20-35 mil on Soyuz. Too expensive? Then pay $200k for a suborbital.

If you want to go around the moon, then Space Adventures might cost you $100 million.

If you want to stay in space for a little bit, proposals for space hotels would cost $60k a night (but transportation price not included).

Even with a compelling reason for fast air travel, the Concorde was not a civilian aviation success story (compared with the 747). Until there's a decent reason for going to space (other than the novelty of it), it's not going to escape from being a niche market.

[Anonymous No.3565107]

Reaction engines with their Skylon project has the best opportunity at providing cheap LEO transport to the commercial sector. And even some of the public.

[Anonymous No.3565756]

>>3564329
Tier 2 is commercializing the suborbital ride. Tier 3 is the orbital redesign. And it will be full redesign. Air launch can't lift enough propellant for orbital flight, and composites can't handle the extreme temperatures of orbital reentry.

>>3564608
>>3564731
>>3564749
these guys have it right. Musk is the real hero.

But also keep your eyes on Orbital's Cygnus, Dream Chaser, Boeing, and Blue Origin.

even captcha agrees: velocities lisearr

[Anonymous No.3566078]

>>3565107
Skylon was scrapped because they knew it was shit. Liquefying air and burning that in a rocket to save on oxygen transport for 1/3 of the flight. Srsly learn to think. I pointed out to them that they would have a problem with ice clogging the shit up a few years ago and they had not thought of it, they then went through a major design revision to handle that problem. They have nothing flight tested, they are going to use hydrogen slush at a few degrees above absolute zero in tanks with huge surface areas next to 1.2 k skin. Its a paper rocket and its less plausible than what most science fiction offers.

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.3566241]

>>3566078

Skylon was scrapped? What? What are you talking about?

[engineer !1BuTTsexks No.3566589]

>>3566241
Skylon has been scrapped and revived several times.

Using your fucking tripcode only when you feel like it is gay, using it at all is gay too.

[Anonymous No.3566592]

>>3566078

Rubbish. Skylon development is going fine and ESA has seen no problems with any of the tech they are using.

[Anonymous No.3566642]

>>3566589

using a tripcode is gay?

[engineer !1BuTTsexks No.3567711]

>>3566642
Yes very.