60 Minutes & Burt Rutan!

[holmec]

>The second, and much more likely, is that a profitable business is developed first, and the colony gradually grows up around it - to provide services - until it becomes bigger than the original business. Similar to the development of Las Vegas - first came the casinos, then services to people who worked in the casinos, then services to those who provided the services, and then people taking advantage of the population and skills etc. <<br /><br />Absolutely. If we could mine materials, and even better if we could fabricate materials in space (fuel, metals, etc) those are materials you won't have to launch from Earth, hence they could be cheaper. How about doing stuff (science) in the radioactive realm where it would be too toxic to do on earth?<br /><br />I almost think space stations might become more reliable than a colony of sorts on the moon or Mars. At least in a space station you can move it out of the way of prjectiles coming at you (if you can detect them in time).<br /><br />I envision robotic miners on asteroids and moon which robotic ships would transport the raw material to a space station or a hub closer to Earth to process the material. People like to be near Earth and like to be together. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

I missed it. Does anyone know if this is on the web somewhere? <br /><br />......time passes....keyboard key clicks....ding<br /><br />found it:<br />http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/28/60minutes/main1167418.shtml?CMP=ILC-SearchStories <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[josh_simonson]

>Also its no small potatoes that SpaceShipOne is the first space system that is 100% reusable.<br /><br />The x-15 was totally re-useable and it flew into 'space' many more times than SS1.

 

[mlorrey]

Uh, Josh, no, the X-15 did not fly to space 'many more times' than SS1. It had 199 flights. Less than a half dozen reached space (using the 62 mile boundary) and less than a dozen reached space by the weaker 50 mile USAF declared boundary. Don't believe me? Go to astronautix.com and look it up. Every X-15 flight is documented.

 

[josh_simonson]

Ok. The fully re-useable x-15 flew to space SEVERAL TIMES the number of sorties that the SS1 did. There. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />

 

[comga]

If you are going to be so picky, didn't the X-15 use drop tanks for its high altitude flights? That would make it less than 100% reusable.<br /><br />However, both points are well taken. This WAS done 50 years ago by the US Air Force. THe X-15 made it to space (100 km) a handful of times (50 mi almost a dozen) in a fully controled piloted fashion and landed on a runway. It was a good approach by a large, well funded government organization. There would have been much merit in continuing this approach to space flight.<br /><br />Here a private group follows much of that good approach, which was pretty much abandoned by the govenrment. They replicate much of this work for about $25M, even while having to build their own carrier aircraft. They incorporate some new and "appropriate" technologies like feathering and the hybrid rocket. It is undoubtedly pioneering. Burt Rutan deserves every bit of credit given to him.<br />

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">" didn't the X-15 use drop tanks for its high altitude flights? "</font><br /><br />Dunno about drop tanks but part of the lower vertical stabilizer was jettisoned before landing to allow shorter landing gear <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> I doubt the jettisoned part was recovered intact...

 

[drwayne]

Yes, drop tanks were added as the program went on.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[mlorrey]

I might also add that the X-15 program suffered a Loss Of Aircraft of one of the three aircraft, as well as a number of other minor crashes. One pilot died in a crash, another was crippled for life. SS1 only suffered one landing gear collapse with no injuries. None of the three X-15 aircraft went to space more times than the single SS1 vehicle did. So, for the same number of trips per plane, the SS1 had a significantly better safety record.<br /><br />It is true that SS1 had an advantage of much of the hypersonic and high altitude knowledge gained by the x-15 program, which itself was not tasked solely with getting to space. This saved the SS1 program from having to make the many flights that the X-15 program went through to test the full flight envelope. The SS1 was also never tasked with testing a full hypersonic envelope. It likely could have done much of what the X-15 experienced, given it did reach mach 3.5 on reentry, which was a common top speed for all of the RL-11 propelled X-15 flights (before the XLR-99 arrived).

 

[holmec]

>The x-15 was totally re-useable and it flew into 'space' many more times than SS1.<<br /><br />Ok, Ok, I made the correction. Though dorp tanks and pink foam (for a heat shield) was used for the X-15 to get to space. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[comga]

"Arguing with an engineer (or another type of techie) is like wrestling with a pig in mud. After a while, you realize that the pig is enjoying it." <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />