ABOUT COSMIC LOG

Quantum fluctuations in space, science, exploration and other cosmic fields... served up regularly by MSNBC.com science editor Alan Boyle since 2002.

Alan Boyle covers the physical sciences, anthropology, technological innovation and space science and exploration for MSNBC.com. He is a winner of the AAAS Science Journalism Award, the NASW Science-in-Society Award and other honors; a contributor to "A Field Guide for Science Writers"; and a member of the board of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing.

Check out Boyle's biography or send a message to Cosmic Log via cosmiclog@msnbc.com.



The X Prize's second stage

Posted: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 6:40 PM by Alan Boyle


Laura Rauch / AP file

Flash from the past: SpaceShipOne astronaut Brian Binnie waves the flag at
California's Mojave Airport after his X Prize-winning flight on Oct. 4, 2004.


It's been exactly two years since a privately developed craft last flew a human to space, on a mission that won the $10 million Ansari X Prize. At the time, the founder of the X Prize said SpaceShipOne's achievement on Oct. 4, 2004, heralded a "personal spaceflight revolution." To some, that climactic X Prize flight seemed to kick off a commercial sprint to space as captivating as the superpower marathon initiated by Sputnik's launch on Oct. 4, 1957.

But it's taking a while for this space race to get started - and the revolution's success is by no means assured.

One spectacular failure could conceivably slow down or even call a halt to the race. All this enthusiasm over low-cost spaceflight could end up as little more than a false start, as it did back in 1999. The X Prize's organizers are already turning their attention to other frontiers as well, such as the genetic challenge being announced today, or the automotive prize due to be announced next year. So two years after the last private space pilot finished his flight, what does the X stand for?

In the beginning, the "X" in X Prize stood for "experimental" - as well as the Roman numeral for 10, as in the $10 million purse awarded to the first team to send a privately developed, piloted ship past the 100-kilometer boundary of space twice within two weeks. That's what Peter Diamandis, founder and chairman of the X Prize Foundation, told Philanthropy magazine last year.

This week, that $10 million figure and the experimental thrills are popping up again, in connection with the genomics prize. So far there's nothing that rich being offered for private-sector space feats: Billionaire Robert Bigelow has essentially put a hold on his $50 million America's Space Prize for orbital spaceflight, deciding that no one could satisfy the prize conditions by the 2010 deadline. And NASA's Centennial Challenges are largely limited to earthly analogs, such as this month's $2 million Lunar Lander Challenge.

But Diamandis says the seeds have been sown for many more space challenges down the line - with a key backer of the first X Prize, Iranian-American entrepreneur and recent space flier Anousheh Ansari, playing a leading role.

"Space is first and foremost in my heart," he told me this week, "and if you look at Anousheh's blog, you can see her speaking about what we've been talking about ... X Prizes for orbital flight, for the moon, even for asteroids."

Since the X Prize was won, the foundation has added some high-powered board members, including Google co-founder Larry Page, SpaceX founder Elon Musk, genomics whiz Craig Venter and robotics whiz Dean Kamen. The foundation has added employees as well, boosting the staff to 40 people - which is more than it was at the height of the X Prize flights, Diamandis said.

He said the decision was made to devote one-third of the foundation's resources to space-related activities, such as this month's X Prize Cup in New Mexico, and the other two-thirds to other frontiers. The annual X Prize Cup was "really critical" to keeping the personal spaceflight revolution going, he said: "It's not enough to spark it. You have to keep the attention and the pressure on."

But an annual festival won't do much good if the personal spaceflight business isn't a real business. And even Diamandis admits that the past two years haven't quite matched his wildest dreams.

"I wish we had had additional flights to 100 kilometers by now," he said, "but of the 25 contenders, about seven or eight are still viable and moving forward. I've talked to some of the teams, and when it comes to raising capital and having suborbital flight taken seriously, there's a night and day difference between what it was before the X Prize and what it is now."

SpaceShipOne's flights definitely took the "giggle factor" out of the idea of private-sector spaceflight. More companies seem to be seriously trying to solve the puzzle of low-cost access to space - including members of the aerospace establishment such as Lockheed Martin.

"We have effectively credentialed suborbital flight as a new and viable industry, and we've attracted private capital to the industry," Diamandis declared.

But is it for real? There was much of the same feeling back in the mid-1990s, when the rise of companies such as Iridium, Teledesic and Globalstar created visions of a satellite bonanza for launch-industry entrepreneurs - people such as Gary Hudson, who has been working for nearly 40 years to stir up a revolution in the launch industry.

He recalled this week that it was "actually easy to convince people" to invest in space ventures back in 1969, when men first walked on the moon and Hudson began his own business quest.

  • But in 1979, after Apollo's end, "things had slipped around and it was really a hard sell."
  • Then, in 1989, in the midst of the space shuttle program, Hudson said there were heightened hopes that truly reusable, affordable rocket ships were just around the corner.
  • But in 1999, the bottom dropped out of the satellite telecom business, Iridium went bust, and the visions for entrepreneurial spaceflight began to look like an illusion.

"By 2009, it will become real," Hudson predicted. "And it's only taken 40 years."

Why is he so sure things will turn out differently this time?

"There's exactly one thing that's different," he said. "What that is, is that in the late '90s all of us were having to scramble for funding. Today, the bulk of the progress is being made by individuals or businesses that are spending their own dollars."

As examples, he listed Richard Branson's Virgin Galactic, Elon Musk's SpaceX, Robert Bigelow's Bigelow Aerospace and Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin.

"As long as they're persistent, there's little likelihood that setbacks or market twists and turns are going to dissuade these people, who have committed not only their fortunes, but also their egos, to this business continuing."

March's unsuccessful maiden launch of SpaceX's Falcon 1 illustrates the point, he said.

"It's not uncommon to lose two or three vehicles, or have less than optimal performance when you strike out and do something that's new," Hudson said. "I expect setbacks, but the real difference is that there are no investors to be deterred.

"Investors are easily spooked," he observed. "Zealots - and I mean that in the good sense - are not."

To be sure, the fact that high-profile billionaires and millionaires are spending their own money on space ventures also boosts the courage of angel investors, venture capitalists and government program managers who have less of a taste for adventure. "A rising tide lifts all boats," Hudson said.

You could argue that Hudson is riding one of those boats. He's currently the chief executive officer (and founder) of Air Launch, which is working on the Pentagon-funded Falcon project to develop a new breed of low-cost launch vehicles.

Hudson said Air Launch's QuickReach booster could have its first flight in late 2008, depending on the funding schedule. That's just about the time that Virgin Galactic, Rocketplane Kistler and other suborbital spaceflight ventures might be getting off the ground.

NASA's $500 million Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program, which aims to encourage the development of new spaceships to service the international space station in the 2010 time frame, provides another example of how things have changed in the past two years, Hudson said. Transformational Space, a consortium that includes Air Launch, lost out in its bid for COTS funding - but Hudson said he was hopeful there would be more opportunities coming up.

"The groundwork has been laid for so many years," he said. "It's just starting to bear fruit."

Back in 1999, Hudson bemoaned the fact that capital was being drawn away from space ventures to be put into seemingly cool dot-coms like pet-supply Web sites. This time around, he doesn't expect the personal spaceflight revolution to lose the spotlight. And the fact that rocket science is glamorous again could well be counted as yet another legacy of the X Prize race.

"There's no other enterprise out there right now that has the coolness factor of what we're doing, that's for sure," Hudson said.

Update for 6:40 p.m. PT: Folks like Diamandis and Hudson are naturally interested in preaching the gospel of the commercial space race, so I wanted to talk with someone who could serve as a devil's advocate. GlobalSecurity.org's John Pike, a longtime space-policy analyst (and a longtime skeptic about space tourism) returned my call this morning and agreed to take on his traditional role as "designated curmudgeon."

Here are some of Pike's piquant sound bites:

On suborbital space tourism: "This is what made this country great - the freedom to spend your money any way you want to. If some guy's got a quarter of a million dollars and thinks that when he's standing there in his spacesuit with a helmet in his arms, that photo in his reception area would make him look pretty good, then so be it. ... I just don't think it goes anywhere. These people who claim that this is going to open the universe to common citizens, it seems to me, have a different understanding of space than I do. ...

"These actually are, by American standards, flown astronauts. I will grant them that. But to say that this is on the pathway of humans to the moon, I think, is patently false."

On millionaires with space ventures: "They have failed to grasp the extent to which they have a physics problem, not an engineering problem. Particularly Musk ... He comes from the world of Moore's Law, where there is just continuous, explosive improvement. But spaceflight was just born full-blown from the brow of Zeus, like Athena. There's been no improvement in the specific impulse or the cost of getting to orbit since John Kennedy."

He acknowledged that some economizing was possible. For example, you can cut the cost of access to orbit in half by using "big rockets rather than little rockets," or by operating in a low-wage economy, such as China. But he doesn't subscribe to the idea that "New Space" mammals will be able to do spaceflight for dramatically less than the "Old Space" dinosaurs:

"I will tell you that I'm the last anarchist. I am unfit for working in any enterprise that has more than a dozen people in it. I hold no brief for big bureaucracies. But year in, year out, all across the planet, the answer keeps coming back - $10,000 per pound for access to orbit, more or less. I say maybe Mother Nature's trying to tell you something. I've been hearing this 'cheap access to space' crap for 35 years now, and it just never happens."

These quotes might make Pike sound like an old sourpuss, but he's actually a pretty funny guy when you talk with him - kind of a Lewis Black for the space set (or maybe the anti-Rutan). So my advice for the true believers of the personal spaceflight revolution would be not to get angry at John Pike, but to see if you can prove him wrong. In another two years, we should know.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

just some random questions... did SS1 astronauts use a spacesuit? ...must the SS2 passengers use a spacesuit? ...if "YES", must passengers be trained like real astronauts ...if "NO" how they can surive to a ship's decompression? I remind you that "decompression" was the cause of many airlines' accidents (like the one in Greece a few months ago) at less than 10 km. while the SS1/2 family goes to 100+ km. at near ZERO atmosphere!
No spacesuits. They would survive a decompression as well as one would on an airliner. In other words, they wouldn't. That's the risk of going.
There is no doubt that the new space age is here, and here to stay. We must also remember that this date- Oct.4, also marks the date that The first ballistic missile -the German A-4(or V-2 as it was later known) was first successfully launched in 1942, and the AVRO CF -105 Arrow was first unveiled in the same year that Sputnik flew. But there is a lesson from the Arrow. an advanced aircraft that never got the chance to prove it's worth. If governments- foreign or domestic, interfere or involve themselves too deeply or too soon it can destroy these efforts before the value can be totally shown, or even estimated. We have to invest in our futures.
Gaetano - They did not use a full-fledge spacesuit, although I know the pictures of Melville and Binnie used breathing tube. But I don't believe they had pressure suits (feel free to correct me if I am wrong) Concerning SS2 - The short answer is they haven't decided yet whether to use suits or not. From what I recall, the initail plan was 3 days of training, although somewhere I read that may be changing. As far as how they will survive decompression, the question is whether it is explosive decompression, or not. Thats the key point. In the case of a bad failure, and explosive decompression happens, the idea that a pressure suit will make a difference is probably wishful thinking - most likely the vehicle will be significantly damaged, if not destroyed. If NOT a case of explosive decompression, I am sure that there will be something similiar to the breathing masks that drop down in most airplanes.
As an X-Prize competitor, I can tell you that the real risk is not technical failure as stated here. The real problem is what it has always been throughout the competition...an inability to find courageous investors in sufficient numbers to finance the projects at a necessary and sufficient level. With sufficient capital, all technical problems can be dealt with in the same way they are dealt with for aircraft...through testing. I believe much of the failures are caused by cutting corners and rushing to get to market which is caused by these companies having to work on a shoestring. I know that in our case, we have had to redirect our efforts to subsystem technologies in order to make any progress as a company. It is still our long-term goal to build launch systems. However, every effort at financing has run up against timidity and lack of vision. We have had very promising talks killed by statements by NASA disparaging our efforts or investors telling us that it was just too risky. Now these same investors are wondering how they missed out. There just aren't enough Bransons in the world to achieve enough projects in order to make for a healthy competitive industry. The general implications to all bold, paradigm-changing efforts are clear...until investors rediscover their adventurous spirit and vision, good ideas and profitable ventures will die on the vine. We need to create new avenues of finance (outside of banking and venture capital) that will allow for these efforts to succeed. Our economic competitiveness depends on it.
brad (san jose, ca) said... "No spacesuits. They would survive a decompression as well as one would on an airliner. In other words, they wouldn't. That's the risk of going." ------------- not true, it's possible to survive an airliner decompression (if it's not too fast an passengers have the time to use the oxygen mask) while at 100+ km. there is the VACUUM so the problem is not only the oxygen since the ENTIRE body is "decompressed" like an astronauts that exits from the Shuttle in orbit without his spacesuit!
Brad, USAF Capt. Joeseph Kittinger, The first guy to break the sound barrier in freefall, did it with a leak in his glove that he first noticed an hour before he jumped.
NASA has taken a step in the right direction with COTS. But it is interesting that this initiative was taken only after the "Vision for Space Exploration" began straining NASA's resources. After all, that's the object of COTS - NASA will get to outsource the expenses of running LEO resupply to the ISS. (At least that's the plan.) NASA's predecessor, the National Advisory Council on Aeronautics, underwrote staggering amounts of basic aeronautical research and made that data public - jump-starting America's aeronautics industry and making a rich source of tax revenue in the process. I haven't seen much of this kind of thinking applied to space, sadly. But thank God Michael Griffin's at the helm; he might have to keep the dinosaurs flying to please BoeLockNor and its "constituents," but he's doing something worthwhile with the time he's buying. It may be that forcing NASA to re-evaluate the costs of its monopoly on space access, will turn out to be the most important consequence of President Bush's 2004 space exploration initiative.

No need to wait two years, Mr. Pike's quoted launch price is incorrect by a factor of at least four. The Soyuz, in production now and in service carrying cosmonauts to the ISS, has a quoted price of less then $2,500 to low Earth orbit. See:

http://www.futron.com/pdf/FutronLaunchCostWP.pdf

His real mistake, though, is to confuse economics with physics. A Toyota Corolla and a Lamborghini have similarly efficient engines but very different prices. The argument is this: the present high Earth to orbit launch cost is an artifact of using rocket artillery in a transportation role. Transportation to low Earth orbit is expensive because the rocket vehicles have been expendable. It is plainly impossible to reduce the cost of transportation below a few thousand dollars per kilogram if the discarded launch vehicle costs that much itself.

During the Cold War, rocket engines and structures were optimized to deliver the maximum warhead mass with a single use. The lack of time during the Cold War space race forced the conversion of intercontinental ballistic missiles into manned space launchers.

It is more expensive to design a spaceship that cannot be incrementally and repeatedly flight tested. Incremental flight test saves design engineering hours. Aircraft designers know that it is much cheaper to develop and flight test a piloted vehicle with all altitude save- the- vehicle capability than it is to build a series of vehicles that must be tested to destruction, or ascend flawlessly to orbit on first flight. Compare the six million dollar loss of the Falcon 1 twenty-eight seconds into its maiden flight, because of a minor fuel leak, to the uneventful landing of the piloted EZ Rocket following a similar minor problem.

Because test flight opportunities are expensive and hence few, design flaws may go undiscovered for years. The space shuttle's foam shedding problem is a case in point.

A corollary is that infant mortality of traditional launchers is high. Incremental flight testing prevents early mortality from faulty construction. Every commercial airliner is test flown to reveal manufacturing defects so that those can be corrected before the airliner enters passenger service. Expendable launchers cannot be test flown before their single mission; therefore, manufacturing defects must be inspected out. That strategy is expensive and doesn't work particularly well. Spaceships must be reliable to be cheap: if vehicles are unreliable, the replacement costs and insurance rates make them expensive. Ted Taylor pointed this out four decades ago.

The idea of separating cargo and people for safety's sake is nonsense; in the commercial world, cheap transportation must be safe transportation. The suborbital launch companies understand that the inexpensive development and high reliability enabled by incremental flight test are crucial to market success.

The design requirements for a mature space transportation system, in which each vehicle is to be used thousands of times, are much different from those of missiles. Rocket engine lifetimes until recently have been short, partly by design. Engineering a long lifetime in a missile really is undesirable since the increased weight needed to yield a longer service life reduces the warhead mass. And the rockets themselves are fragile for the same reason. The more robust structure needed for reuse would be uneconomical: they are throwaway articles designed to deliver a warhead and be destroyed in the process.

Present day rockets could theoretically be reused, if provision were made for recovery. Their fragile structure would limit their maximum service life to tens of flights. Engineering a duty cycle of thousands of flights, as opposed to the theoretical tens of which present expendable rockets might be capable, exacts a mass penalty of about 20%.

The Saturn boosters, I and V, were the first designed explicitly for reuse and they were designed to be reused fewer than 50 times. In that sense, they represent the pinnacle of reusable rocket engineering up to now. Rocket engines for cheap transportation must be designed for thousands of flights.

Rocket engineering has improved dramatically in the past five years. XCOR has designed and tested cheap, robust and reliable, high Isp rocket engines capable of thousands of full duration burns. The new engines have orders of magnitude better price performance than Cold War legacy engines. XCOR has also built a new composite LOX tank which is both stiffer and stronger than previous designs and capable of thousands of flights. The new composite LOX tanks weigh 65% as much as the best previously available tanks. Since the LOX tank is more than half the typical vehicle weight excluding the engines, the large weight saving means increased margin or increased payload. Adoption of this LOX tank design may increase the payload by a factor of as much as three. The new tank system is easily repairable, has a very low thermal coefficient of expansion and does not burn in high pressure oxygen.

The second major contributor to high space transportation costs is the low flight rate, since both labor cost and the capital cost of facilities must be amortized over a small number of launches. To achieve minimum cost, we need robust reusable vehicles and a high flight rate. Southwest Airlines makes money by keeping its airliners' wheels in the wheel well. Contrast a 747 which flies 500 flights per year and has a ground crew of twelve with the Space Shuttle which flies once a year and has a ground crew of twelve thousand.

Mature transportation technologies such as airlines, shipping lines or trucking companies have the peculiar characteristic that the transportation price is within a factor of three to five of the fuel cost. Design, construction, operator's wages, amortization, depreciation, profit and insurance comprise 60 to 80 % of the price. The Zenit booster has a propellant cost of about ten dollars per kilogram of payload orbited. The idea that the rocket equation and implied cost of propellant prohibit reducing launch costs is just false. A mature space transportation system might be expected to have a cost per kilogram to orbit of $100-160 since making the vehicles more robust may increase the required propellant to a quantity greater than today's most fuel efficient launchers. That is a fraction of one per cent of space shuttle costs and a just few per cent of the cheapest launch available today. It would be useful to point out that launch demand is predicted to become elastic at a launch price of $1200 per kilo.

Fermi's Paradox: where are they? The skeptic may say, "Well, if it is really possible, why hasn't the private sector done it already?" The new technologies are wonderful but not sufficient. A problem for companies planning to build reusable space transportation is that the present demand for space launch is only a few hundred tons per year. The greater demand necessary to justify a fully reusable launcher may not appear rapidly enough to amortize the development cost, and yield the necessary return on investment. It appears that the first vehicle will have to be small, to allow the market to grow, and cheap to develop and build, to give investors an adequate return on investment.

The demand for space flights must increase by orders of magnitude before the private capital markets will finance expensive new spaceships. The new launch companies understand this, too. Of course, a capitalist has to believe that there is a market for his product or service. Bankers have a fiduciary responsibility to their investors to avoid overly risky investments. Until Dennis Tito's flight and the successful flights of SpaceShipOne, few people believed there was a space tourism market. Luckily for would be space settlers, dynamic American entrepreneurs have increased the wealth of our society so that now many people now are able to afford the projected price of a suborbital flight. Market studies by the Futron Corp. and others project a vigorous suborbital space tourism market.

With an assured market and high flight rate, and free market competition, the heretofore glacial progress in reducing the cost of space transportation is likely to become rapid.

There are plenty of investors willing to invest in high risk ventures - if there is a reasonable possibility of a high profit return on investment. Investors were willing to fund communications satellites, as the profit potential easily exceeded the high launch costs. Results include DirecTV, Dish Networks, XM and Sirius satellite radio, and satellite transmission for TV, data, and telephone. "For Profit" investors do not see any profit potential in space tourism. The costs are too high, and there are far too few potential customers able and willing to spend multi-millions of dollars for a short space vacation to make "break-even". The only one who might possibly make money is Scaled Composits - if they can sell Spaceship 2 and White Knight 2 at a profit to Virgin Galactic. All of the investors in space tourism are "money to burn" philanthropists and wide eyed dreamers who don't expect a return on their investment. Except for the dream.
Raising initial investment for something really and truly new, like space tourism, is always difficult.To assert the contrary implies no firsthand knowledge of startup finance. Assessing valuation by historical criteria is impossible, so even red blooded capitalists turn pale. The situation is different than Chris Muir imagines; see Andy Pasztor's space tourism article in the WSJ last week for details. The money coming into the industry now is from serious and highly capable investors, such as XCOR investor Esther Dyson, who fully expect a rate of return commensurate with risk.
Wow, excellent discussion so far. I had thought that SpaceShipTwo/Virgin Galactic operations were currently envisioning the use of "disposable space suits" for their paying passengers, although of course they're probably still not done figuring out how that will work exactly. As others mentioned, the hardest part about getting the service going is simply having brave (and rich) adventurer-types who are willing to pay the R&D and startup costs. We basically need more people like Paul Allen and Richard Branson to invest for our future, and not to just sit there greedily going "excellent" to themselves as they watch their net worth rise while doing nothing for humanity. As for the space suit deal goes, I could really see it go in one of many directions; in the event of many catastrophic failure scenarios with one of these suborbital spacecraft, a space suit will not do anything for you other than perhaps allow you to remain conscious for long enough to watch the ground approaching you much faster than you'd like it to. Fot those severe accidents, that's basically the best one could hope for... in a more severe accident, you wouldn't even have time to feel pain, as the forces involved in a rocket powered craft at those speeds are indeed immense. The space suits really seem more so for more "minor" but still life threatening situations. Those could be quite common in the early models of the upcoming craft, as new composite materials may be used in novel ways that haven't yet seen enough rugged testing to verify the safety. We may run into a rash of window cracking after a certain number of duty cycles with certain materials for instance, and it would be shame if too many people died while paying passengers - which could scare off the continued development of the field. The pilots... well, they know they're in a dangerous business - they are essentially test pilots after all. But, we can't allow our fear of letting passengers die kill off the field - so I hope they find a happy medium; disposable suits. Current spacesuits are designed for semi rugged use with exceptional but also paranoid engineering standards... basically they're way too fault tolerant to be affordable as part of a several hundred thousand dollar travel fare. What may be perfect for the application would be the equivalent of a rubberized "dry suit", made of similar material to a diving suit, but sealed at the joints of the wrists, head and boots. If they used similar rubberized boots and gloves, these could be cinched tightly together with the main suit to provide a good pressure seal (especially if you used spirit gum or another airtight but people friendly adhesive in sparing amounts at the mating surfaces) - which only leaves the head. I think they could use a style of helmet base similar to what is used in some diving applications, with a hard metal collar ring (for the helmet proper) attached to a flexible base - which could be secured to the main body section in a similar way as to the gloves and boots are. The final piece would be the helmet proper, which could be designed for one use only, as a special souvenier for the "tourists" to take home with them - the air connection can connect right into the front of this unit, and the passenger name can be stencilled on the rim. All together, it would be a rather inexpensive design, and would be reusable from one customer to the next. Of course passengers would be required to wear adult diapers to reduce "soiling", since they may be in the suit for up to 6 hours from the time they get into it until they land again. This type of suit would help protect the passengers and crew from the more common type of "minor" incidents likely to happen - breach of pressure; and although it wouldn't help out in the event of a major accident, it would allow a safe return to Earth in the event of a pressure loss (other than a majure rupture of course) as well as provide at least a small window of safety in the event that there is a complete pressure loss within the cabin. As long as the pressure tanks and tubing that feeds cool (or hot) air to the passengers was still intact, they could likely survive a hard vaccuum with only minor frostbite... of course the pilots would need slightly more rugged suits with built in heaters and mask defoggers so they could remain in control of the vehicle in case this happened. If there's an accident, the idea is to keep the passengers alive... nobody says they have to be comfortable. ^^
RE decompression: If it is explosive decompression over the altitude of 75000 feet (forgive the lack of metrics -- I don't feel like doing the math right now) from 15psi (equiv sea level) the damage to the craft would probably not allow for reentry or landing. From 3psi (which is the more likely case), it would be survivable if the craft could get to around 20000 feet within 4 minutes. Aux air tubes probably wouldn't be helpful at high altitudes, as the risk of rupturing lungs and thorax increases with the pressure differential (in fact, many space scientists and writers claim that the best chance for survival a la Dave Bowman would be to exhale immediately). A slow depressurization would probably be no big deal -- a spray can of insulation foam from Home Depot would probably take care of the issue long enough to complete the flight normally. RE commercial space flight: I'm not really all that impressed with SS1 and SS2. Face it, these things don't get more than 80 miles from home (albeit straight up); my commute to work is longer than that. Whatever happened to the Orient Express? Now, THAT would have been real commercial spaceflight -- 15000 miles one way in one hour, with approx 20 min of weighlessness! If one would develop such a craft, you wouldn't have to worry about Branson and his $200k a flight tickets; FedEx and UPS would be real commercial customers, and their participation would drive down the cost for the rest of us.
re this quote by Peter Diamandis "Space is first and foremost in my heart," he told me this week, "and if you look at Anousheh's blog, you can see her speaking about what we've been talking about ... X Prizes for orbital flight, for the moon, even for asteroids." I can't find anything like that in the blog. Was it censored by NASA?
Of course, the lower orbital altitudes aren't all that high either, and some cars accumulate more miles on them than it takes to get to the Moon. Height alone isn't the deal, desirable as it is from a tourist viewpoint.

And air-breathing hypersonics have proven to be a harder nut to crack than many expected. The price of staying in the atmosphere (with the associated drag and heat) as you get closer to orbital velocity, just so as not to have to carry your oxidizer is barely worth it. Liquid oxygen, after all, is pretty cheap.

(One exception may be the 'Skylon' design, that doesn't try to push very far into the hypersonic regime before switching to rockets:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylon )

If commercial (as opposed to specialized military applications) hypersonic aircraft are ever built, according to an item in Aviation Week some time back, they probably won't operate over Mach 7 even if they can. Scramjets function best at specific crusing speeds, and not for constant acceleration. Over Mach 7, even over the longest Earthly routes, it would spend most of its time getting up to speed, and slowing down again, and little at cruise. If you need anything faster, it probably would be better to fly a long suborbital trajectory out of the atmosphere with rockets, not unlike an ICBM (without the spectacular arrival, of course...), and could more easily be used in a fully orbital mode.

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/pegvtovl.htm
http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/SpaceLVs/Slides/sld012.htm

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/ithacus.htm
http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/SpaceLVs/Slides/sld013.htm


Yes, Gaia, you're correct that the reference to orbital/lunar/asteroidal X Prizes is something of an eXtrapolation. If you look at the linked blog post on Anousheh's eXcellently eXecuted blog, you'll see that it's actually Peter Diamandis who refers to his discussion of future prizes with Anousheh. That's the closest reference I could find in the blog ... and it's something we'll have to ask Anousheh to eXpound upon when she's in New Mexico neXt week.


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=5475

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google