The 5-year-old space age

Posted: Friday, June 19, 2009 6:30 PM by Alan Boyle

Spaceport America

Virgin Galactic's White Knight Two carrier airplane flies over New Mexico's Las
Cruces International Airport on Saturday, showing off its dual-fuselage design.

Five years after the private-sector space age began, rocketeers are taking circuitous routes to turn their spaceship dreams into reality. And the pioneers of the age say that's just as it should be.

The Space Age, with capital letters, dates back more than 50 years to the Soviet Union's launch of Sputnik 1 on Oct. 4, 1957. That marked the first time an artificial satellite was put into orbit. The 5-year-old space age I'm talking about dates back to June 21, 2004, when the SpaceShipOne rocket plane became the first privately developed craft to carry a civilian astronaut into outer space.

When SpaceShipOne flew, some observers thought regular folks would be going on day trips to outer space within just a year or two. Indian-American millionaire Chirinjeev Kathuria, who helped extend the life of Russia's Mir space station in 2000 and now serves as chairman of the PlanetSpace rocket venture, certainly thought so.

"When the industry started out, I think everyone - including ourselves - were naive in saying we could do this in 12 months or 24 months," Kathuria acknowledged. "I think everyone's becoming more realistic. That's why no one is saying, 'OK, we're going to do it this year or next year' anymore."

Other observers were far less optimistic, even back in 2004. Millionaire investment adviser Dennis Tito, who became the first paying passenger to visit the international space station in 2001, told me five years ago that "it may take many decades" for private industry to create passenger spacelines.

Virgin Galactic

SpaceShipTwo designer Burt Rutan peeks out from one of the rocket plane's
windows during construction at Scaled Composites in Mojave, Calif.

The most realistic time frame for suborbital space tourism seems to have come from aerospace pioneer Burt Rutan, who famously designed SpaceShipOne on a restaurant napkin and is now leading the development effort for Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo at Scaled Composites in Mojave, Calif.

"We at Scaled are very aware and proud of what we did five years ago," Rutan told me in an e-mail. "Memory fails me of what I was predicting would happen, so I did a Google search and came up with a podcast that had a prediction."

Rutan pointed to a speech he gave at the Academy of Achievement in 2004, 10 days before SpaceShipOne's first sally into space. "At the end of the pitch I predicted that the public would be able to buy tickets for a spaceflight 'about 10 to 12 years from now.'"

Scaled Composites and Virgin Galactic are on track to beat that schedule, even if SpaceShipTwo's first commercial flight doesn't come until 2012 or later.

Virgin Galactic

Burt Rutan takes a seat inside SpaceShipTwo's fuselage during construction.

"There is a lot of activity at Scaled right now on manned spaceflight," Rutan said. "Not a large number of folk working, but very impressive hardware being developed and tested for Virgin. We all know how important the work is, and our team has a passion for the goal of providing public access to the black sky view of our planet."

Small steps
Some small steps were taken toward the fulfillment of Rutan's prediction on Friday: New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and other dignitaries gathered at Spaceport America to break ground for the multimillion-dollar space terminal that's being built for Virgin Galactic's operation. Richardson said the groundbreaking ceremony was "an important step toward our goal of being at the forefront of a vibrant new commercial space industry."

Virgin Galactic President Will Whitehorn provided the latest word on SpaceShipTwo's time line. After the ceremony, he told me in a phone call that the rocket plane would have its unveiling and first unpowered glide test in December. Dec. 7 has been reported as the target date, but Whitehorn said it's too early to pencil that into the appointment book.

He said he expected SpaceShipTwo's first rocket-powered test flight past the 100-kilometer-high space boundary to take place within 12 to 13 months after its unveiling. The test flights would be conducted in Mojave, but he expected the first $200,000-a-seat commercial flight to take place in New Mexico (with Virgin's billionaire founder Richard Branson on board). That milestone would most likely come in the 2011-2012 time frame.

Whitehorn emphasized that the schedule was dependent on how the test program proceeds. Unlike the superpowers who started the Space Age, the SpaceShipTwo team feels no pressure to run a space race. "We're in a 'race' with only one thing - a race with safety," Whitehorn told the crowd in New Mexico.

The safety theme was brought home when the carrier aircraft for SpaceShipTwo, known as White Knight Two, set out from its Mojave base to fly over the New Mexico ceremony. En route, an indicator light came on, forcing a diversion to the Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport for a safety check.

Scaled later reported that a speedbrake actuator had failed during the descent for the flyover. To make up for the no-show, White Knight Two flew over New Mexico's Las Cruces International Airport during the return trip to Mojave on Saturday. Even though it didn't turn out exactly as planned, the excursion marked White Knight Two's first round-trip, point-to-point journey.

Spaceport America

White Knight Two makes a pass over Las Cruces International Airport on Saturday.

The rocket report
Here's a fifth-anniversary status report on five other suborbital ventures that have been active in the "New Space" age. If I'm missing anyone, please feel free to fill me in by leaving a comment below.

Blue Origin: You don't hear much from New Space's most secretive player, but it's virtually certain that the venture - backed by Amazon.com billionaire Jeff Bezos - will start commercial spaceflights by 2010 as originally envisioned. In February, Bezos told talk-show host Charlie Rose that Blue Origin was working on its second test vehicle, and that there would be at least one more test vehicle after that.
PlanetSpace: Kathuria's venture lost out on NASA funding for a space station resupply rocket, and lost an appeal of that decision as well. But Kathuria told me PlanetSpace was still "looking for opportunities" at NASA, and is also seeking Pentagon funding for the development of an unmanned aerial vehicle. That vehicle would be a quarter-scale version of PlanetSpace's Silver Dart space glider design. "After the UAV is proven and built out, we'd eventually use that vehicle for point-to-point space tourism," Kathuria said. He's grown increasingly realistic over the past five years: "Building launch vehicles and spacecraft is not an easy process," Kathuria said. "It's a difficult process, and it a very capital-intensive process."
Rocketplane Global: The Oklahoma-based company says it has been hit hard by the current economic downturn but is still working out the plans for development of its rocket plane as well as spaceport arrangements. About $100 million is needed to turn the plans into reality, Rocketplane's Chuck Lauer has been quoted as saying.
Rocket Racing League: The league is working with Armadillo Aerospace to turn two airplanes into rocket-powered racers for a demonstration flight, most likely in November at the Aviation Nation air show at Nevada's Nellis Air Force Base. "We're looking at Nellis, and we have other options, too. We're just not in a rush," the league's co-founder and CEO, Granger Whitelaw, told me. The planes won't appear at September's Reno Air Races, as previously hoped. Whitelaw said the league will wait out the downturn before proceeding with plans for competitions. "When the market comes back to us, we'll be there. ... Had we been out there and starting to race right now, we probably would have been in a bad position," he said.
XCOR Aerospace: I've written quite a bit about XCOR's step-by-step approach to spaceflight. At last report, XCOR is still on target to begin flight tests of its Lynx Mark 1 high-altitude rocket plane next year. This month, The Globe and Mail quoted COO Andrew Nelson as saying about 30 people have paid part or all of the $95,000 fare for a Lynx flight. The Mark 1 is meant to blaze a trail for later flights that will go beyond the outer-space boundary.

Update for 7:20 p.m. ET June 22: I added pictures from Saturday's White Knight Two flyover and updated the text accordingly.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

"Once again, humanity's thirst for knowledge and "excitement" will be its undoing. They haven't even perfected the Boeing yet, or any other commercial jet."

And yet people ride them. I plan to be on a few this weekend. It's the only way to go where I want and back, in the time available. (And yes, the reason for my trip is arguably for purposes of 'knowledge and excitement' at the destination...though it happens that I enjoy the flying experience when things go well.)

"And we all know the big black mark that is on the safety record of most commercial and non-commercial jets around the world..."

Do we? And as compared to what? Driving? For whatever it's worth, I've personally observed more automobile accidents (maybe a half dozen) in my life than aircraft go down (none). I suspect that's true of most of us, and should give you a rough sense of which is more likely...

"And they can't make this thing 100% safe."

LOL! That's an absolute truth. Now, can you name even one thing that IS? (Do you drive at all?)

"They even said they hope to be using this several times a day, which brings the safety factor down a notch."

And yet trains, planes and automobiles (and more) are used 'several times a day.' Commercial transport vehicles that aren't being used aren't making money (and they most pay for themselves before there's any real profit) Do you think there's some law of physics that says a manned, rocket-propelled vehicle can't do that?

We can only hope that the demand for suborbital flight *will* be that great...

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY (Sent Monday, June 22, 2009 10:26 AM)

The Wright Brothers flew for the first time in 1903 but were still developing and demonstrating the technology in 1908. This is analogous to Burt Rutan's technology, because he's using an approach that's different from rocketry, just as the Wright Brothers' approach was different from hot air balloons. The development would probably go faster is there was economic demand for private space flight other than "space tourism"; however, that has not materialized yet. The industry will take off in a big way once there is an economic imperative for space flight. For example, if there was a natural resource that could be obtained elsewhere in the solar system and brought to earth, then true space flight would develop because you would make more by investing in the technology than by ignoring it. Meanwhile, government-sponsored space programs and space tourism are little more than publicity stunts. (By the way, there are apparently lakes of methane on Titan, and the atmospheres of Uranus and Neptune have large amounts of methane. The solutions to the technical problems of obtaining these resources and bringing them back to earth are probably foreseeable from the vantage point of current technology. More difficult is the economic problem: How do you encourage investors to put their money into a natural gas project where it take at least 60 years before pilot operations begin and where it could easily take 20 years to move the natural gas from the well head to the customer?)

Bob, Northern Virginia (Sent Monday, June 22, 2009 11:47 AM)

We have to leave this rock. We have used it up and will not support future generations. Time to leave the nest and fly to find new homes to expand our family, The Human Race.

Joe Martin (Sent Monday, June 22, 2009 12:59 PM)

Armadillo Aerospace?!? They'd be lucky if they could launch a flying patio chair into the air 100 FEET and have it come down in one whole piece.

Kenneth, San Diego, California (Sent Monday, June 22, 2009 7:09 PM)

"So these guys are lauded for doing nothing more than putting a guy up for a few minutes on a small airplane..."

One that goes into suborbital space, don't forget. Does anyone else offer that right now?

(sound of crickets)

It's a potential (in that I could, with enough money) choice I would have, that does not currently exist.

"...LOSING 10's of millions of dollars?"

Losing? If they don't make money, they fail. That's the incentive to do it right. That's how business works. From this, down to a mom and pop grocery store.

"If they ever DO get into space - it will be for PURE PROFIT."

Yeah, and? You say that as if it's a bad thing. In a few days I'm going to fly on a commercial airline that's giving me the service for the same reason. I get to Houston and back quickly, they get money. We both get what we want. Problem? Substitute 'suborbital flight experience' for 'Houston and back' and the logic plays the same way.

"The only "cargo" they will be lifting up will be you guinea pigs who choose to pay the HUGE costs."

The 'guinea pigs' were people like the brave X-15 test pilots that (among other advances in aeronautical development) showed humans can handle that kind of thing. And *I* won't be doing it, as $200k USD is slightly out of my price range. But God bless those that can. If enough of them do, it may work itself don to something I *can* handle.

But it never will, if it doesn't start somewhere.

"All the while NASA is plugging away - lifting 7 astronauts off regularly with payloads - ya know scientific experiments to better humanity - the size of school buses."

And I have *no* problem that they use my (involuntarily) tax money to do these things (though some do have one). They have my permission to continue, as long as they do it efficiently, and not just to keep jobs in one or two senators' states...

BTW, we *won't* be doing as many as 7 at one time, pretty soon...

"C'mon - let's get real. Why have such ZEAL and PASSION for an industry that is PROFIT DRIVEN?"

Because they will ultimately do things for us that NASA does not, and should not. (You think NASA owns and launches all the communications satellites in operation? That's a PROFIT DRIVEN space activity that's made money for years.)

If the above activity continues, ultimately people like us may be able to *buy* our way into space. We have a greater chance of making it big in professional sports than getting into space as a NASA astronaut. THAT is why the zeal.

"Will we ever be like Star Trek? We could be - if our "Federation" decided to spend more than LESS of 1%. I've got a great idea - why not give NASA the DOD budget for 5 years and give the DOD NASA's budget?"

A lot would probably happen (though to throw that kind of money at a small agency is just *begging* for waste), it would be cool to watch, I'd cheer every success...

...But it doesn't change the question: 'Can someone like ME get personally get into space?' My chances are still smaller than pro sports even in your scenario. Whatever NASA might do with that budget, selling rides won't be one of them. I'd still have to go to the Russians. Assuming I had $25 million USD to play with, of course, but NASA won't do it at ANY price...

And again, it really shouldn't. Go back to what I said about its charter. It's art of NASA's *JOB* to do aerospace research and development in *support* of private industry, not to *compete* with it.

"We'd be much closer to Star Trek than you think."

Are there no businesspeople in the Star Trek Universe? No 'passenger' spaceships? (Lord knows there are enough miners and ore carrying ships.) Don't private contractors build starships for Star Fleet, much as government agencies (and Star Fleet *is* one) buy systems today? (and *something* is exchanged in that world without money, trust me) Do you think Star Fleet accepts everyone who applies? Or that it even should?

If you're a good Trekker, you know that even Zephram Cochrane invented warp drive FOR THE MONEY.

And God bless that, too. If someone can create a true FTL drive, it'll be worth every damn cent.

"Or - we could simply have this "haliburton" of the sky nonsense......"

And you think a government agency can manage all space affairs better? Why isn't NOAA in charge of everything the US does at sea? (Oh, that's right, they're only a research agency too.)

Here's hoping that commercial manned space flight can *get* as big as Haliburton.

Frank Glover, rochestr, NY (Sent Tuesday, June 23, 2009 10:45 AM)

Hey Frank - you fail to see the point. I'm not against private spaceflight at all. But - they simply cannot do what NASA has done. Ask them. What is stopping you from going into space? Are you fat and lazy? They do have an Astronaut Training Program. Why not do it this way.

You might want the Government giving you health care -I prefer it finding new technological ways of understanding our world with the help of international partners. Never in the history of humanity has this been done - and quite succesfully I might ad. Healthcare? That's been done and failed countless times.

Private Space cannot do what NASA can do - and simply are "light years" away. If you're tax dollars will go for anything - think of the urine water recycler they are working on now - testing to perfection - so one day every man woman and child will have pure, drinkable water.
Now - snide remarks aside - my government could be building bombs - fighting wars - attempting social programs that never work - or they could be doing this. Hey - if the private space fliers would like to assist - that would be great!

I am glad to see we have such a supporter in you for our manned space program juding by your length in response. Good luck!

Jason F (Sent Tuesday, June 23, 2009 4:17 PM)

"Hey Frank - you fail to see the point. I'm not against private spaceflight at all. But - they simply cannot do what NASA has done. Ask them."

I don't have to. I *know* they're not trying to and they don't claim to. Thes guys are trying to provide a novel transportation service, not do basic science. (though NASA and others are considering using that service to do short microgravity research flights and I'm sure the providers are just as willing to sell flights to them as to anyone else...NASA might not try to develop what would be a manned sounding rocket but It would be foolish to not use one that someone else has developed and tested)

Why do you appear to have a problem with that which the private companies *are* trying to do?

"What is stopping you from going into space? Are you fat and lazy? They do have an Astronaut Training Program. Why not do it this way."

(LOL!) So, I should spend tens of thousands of dollars to get the necessary engineering and/or scientific degrees (and what if I just don't have the money and/or talent for that?), then somehow by plenty more hard work (and not a little luck) manage to get into the NASA astronaut corps, then wait years for a *possible* seat on a three man capsule that will (maybe) launch just a couple times a year? (some people in the corps *never* get to fly, you know) I guess I'm 'fat and lazy' because I won't learn to personally pilot a commercial airliner, just to have a chance to fly somewhere on one...

Again, I have a better chance of breaking into professional, major league sports.

I want a service to ultimately come into being, with the certainty that if I can afford a ticket, I can get into sub orbit, orbit and beyond, as the technology of the time permits, *without* having to join the government astronaut priesthood. (Again, the Russians are happy to offer it, to the extent they can.)

That kind of option exists on Earth in air land and sea travel. Paying passengers, as distinct from crews. There's no reason space need be any different.

"You might want the Government giving you health care -I prefer it finding new technological ways of understanding our world with the help of international partners."

'International partnerships' is sometimes like herding cats, but anyway...

"Never in the history of humanity has this been done - and quite succesfully I might ad. Healthcare? That's been done and failed countless times."

I don't see the relevance here. I don't know about health care and wether the Government should 'give' it to me but I did say earlier it isn't the province of government to just 'give' me a ride into space. Even the Russians don't do it for free. I believe it *is* its province to encourage technological developments of the kind that commercial entities can use to provide commercial spaceflight, however. (thereby increasing the tax base with new businesses, and maintaining overall US technological leadership)

"Private Space cannot do what NASA can do "

Again, I did not say it could. Not only am I in complete agreement with that statement but I claim that the *reverse* of it is *also* true.

"- and simply are "light years" away. If you're tax dollars will go for anything - think of the urine water recycler they are working on now - testing to perfection - so one day every man woman and child will have pure, drinkable water."

Including on a *privately* owned and operated space station. You see, this is precisely the kind of commercial-enabling R&D that I'm talking about. You think Bigelow Aerospace isn't paying attention to that very same development? And that it won't use it when they can? Yes, I most assuredly credit NASA for undertaking that kind of risky R&D. Now, entities *other* than NASA can use it in space.

"Hey - if the private space fliers would like to assist - that would be great!"

Just like anyone else who contracts to provide a product or service to the Government, why wouldn't they?

"I am glad to see we have such a supporter in you for our manned space program juding by your length in response. Good luck!"

I'm a 55 year old space buff ('cadet,' if you wish, I wear that description proudly) and have been, since my age was in the single numbers.

I'm for enabling and reducing the cost of human access to space for *all* reasons and purposes. Not just for (or through) one government agency. And not just for pure research and exploration. (indeed, this cannot help but make that easier) And opportunites to make money doing this, will get us out there faster than almost anything else.

(Even the so-called 'Age of Exploration' was profit driven. Columbus and Magellan were looking for better trade routes to Asia...and as badly as Magellan's voyage ended [he lost 4 of 5 ships and didn't make it home himself], they *still* made a profit on the voyage, with the spices they brought home...)

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY (Sent Wednesday, June 24, 2009 3:57 AM)

Jason F,

You raise some good points, and your support and enthusiasm for this nation’s space program is uplifting and inspiring, but I’m afraid I’m going to have to side mostly with Frank on this discussion.

Private industry can do FAR MORE than government ever can. Do you need an example? A small company founded by some California hippies in the family garage back in the mid 1970’s. Today that company is known as APPLE, and I hope I don’t have to go into a long list of all the very innovative products they’ve brought to market just in the last few years. Another small firm, Microsoft, was founded around the same time in much the same way. Today both companies are major multi-billion dollar entities that collectively have completely transformed the lives of everyday people in just about every corner of the globe. They design and market innovative products that everyone in the world is willing to pay good money for, and to the extent that they deliver on the promise of those products, they deserve every penny that they get. Their clients include everyday men and women, teenagers, pre-teens, school systems, universities, and every government on this planet that counts itself as part of the 21st century. That’s what private industry can do. That’s what private industry is supposed to do. And NASA, as part of its charter, is tasked with supporting private industry in any constructive way possible.

If that urine recycler is ever brought to market it will either be by the private contractor that developed it in the first place, or by some other firm licensed by NASA to do so. And if it is able to deliver on its promise of pure drinking water, then it can ultimately help people all over the world while at the same time making a profit for those who initially spent their time and personal assets in order to insure its success.

NASA is part of the government. It is not their purpose to go into business or to turn a profit. But the by-products of their research and development often do result in technical innovations that private enterprise can refine and enhance for the greater benefit of all of our lives. That’s a good thing.

And when a small group of people come together to create something the world has never seen before, whether it’s the first personal computer or the first commercial space plane, they’re merely following down the same entrepreneurial path blazed by countless others down throughout the history of this country. Whether they succeed or fail, at least they’ve got the guts to try. And sometimes when they do succeed, as noted above, they succeed big, and it changes the entire world.

BTW, SpaceX is a commercial company, and many people feel that their Dragon spacecraft will reach earth orbit long before NASA’s new Orion does.

Ron, New York, NY (Sent Wednesday, June 24, 2009 5:58 AM)

Jason F, the reason we're excited about commercial spaceflight is because we believe that, once the market gets underway, it will drive progress MUCH faster than government-run programs can do. Look at the history of computers, automobiles, and aviation for three easy examples of market forces successfully driving progress. Look at what NASA's done in the last 40 years for an example of what government programs typically do (i.e. not much).

This ties in nicely with P to D's comment about EADS/Astrium. Another government-run project, this one by a collection of governments that has no experience with manned spaceflight at all, no less. But the real proof is in the putting -- go to http://www.astrium.eads.net/ and look for any news. The last (and only) press release is from 2007 when they "unveiled" their space plane (by which they mean, distributed some computer renderings of an imaginary space plane). If they were really going to beat Virgin into space, you'd think they might have some more news to report since then. I highly doubt the EADS effort will ever produce any flying hardware at all.

Joe Strout, Fort Collins, CO (Sent Sunday, June 28, 2009 6:32 PM)

I would like to point out that while Armadillo Aerospace is indeed working with the Rocket Racing League, that effort is not strictly a sub-orbital vehicle, there are efforts by Armadillo to make a genuine sub-orbital spaceflight vehicle, including a vehicle to try and pioneer some extreme altitude skydiving, including skydiving from space. IMHO this development is going to have some profound implications for contingency plans for emergency re-entry of the atmosphere. I'm glad that you mentioned Armadillo Areospace, but there is much more work going on there than the rocket racing league.

Another interesting small start-up company that has been making quiet and steady progress on their vehicles is Paul Breed and Unreasonable Rocket. He is trying to get 2nd place in the Lunar Landing Challenge, and is certainly developing the equipment and skills necessary for some interesting rocket technology. While I don't expect this group to get into orbit any time soon, they are certainly somebody to watch even if they end up going somewhere else or merging their efforts with another group.

Robert Horning, Logan, Utah (Sent Saturday, August 22, 2009 4:43 PM)

<< Previous

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):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

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=1971623

More Cosmic Log

Recent Posts:

Archives:

Categories:

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:

ABOUT COSMIC LOG