It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A Year After SpaceShipOne

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2005 @ 10:18 PM
link   
Well today October 4th makes one year seince the launch of space ship one and the wining of the X prize. What major advances do youfeel have been made in the relem of private space exploration?




posted on Oct, 4 2005 @ 10:23 PM
link   
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I know it may not seem like it's a boon for private space exploration at first glance, but it does bring the Space Elevator closer to reality.

As well as the FAA just gave Liftport clearance to test it's current lifters

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Not much in the Private Rocket realm yet, but I expect that within the next few years more and more launches will happen. Maybe even within the next couple weeks a few more rockets could go up.



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 03:51 AM
link   
Just as a note to this thread, this is what the founder of the X Prize is up to now.

www.spacedaily.com...

Sounds very very dangerous, but then people like danger, so if this ever gets off the ground, I would expect large viewing figures



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 01:31 PM
link   
Virgin Galactic says it is planning for it's first flights in 2008

You also havn't heard of the X-prize cup which is happening this sunday

I really think waiting for something to happen after a year of a prize that took over 8 years to finally win, not to metion it was over 46 years after the first US astronaut reached orbit until there was enough insentive for the same thing to be done in the private sector is a little premature. wait a few more years and you will see the results of the second push as the apparent affordability of space tourisum becomes profitable



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mizar
What major advances do youfeel have been made in the relem of private space exploration?

Zero. All that has been made possible are a few measily suborbital jumps. Most of the technology and components that the private sector uses is either directly or indirectly originating from the enormous budgets pumped into rocketry and aircraft by states. People like Paul Allen just make it possible to get those components together so a few rich people can make a few meaningless trips to the edge of space.



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Simon666

Originally posted by Mizar
What major advances do youfeel have been made in the relem of private space exploration?

People like Paul Allen just make it possible to get those components together so a few rich people can make a few meaningless trips to the edge of space.


Meaningless? Well if it leads to a self-sustaining business model then it's hardly a meaningless step, more like a baby-step towards fully fledged orbital vacations. It could be the second profitable private space industry(the first would be telecomunications)

I say let the rich risk their lives, if it wasn't for the Rich who risked their lives(and some lost) at the dawn of Aviation we wouldn't have the extensive airtavel that we have today.

Technology wise SS1 was completely irrelivant. Economically it will be huge in the long run IMO.



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000
Meaningless? Well if it leads to a self-sustaining business model then it's hardly a meaningless step, more like a baby-step towards fully fledged orbital vacations.

And exactly how would this benefit mankind? I just see more pollution as only effect.



It could be the second profitable private space industry(the first would be telecomunications)

At least that has a meaningful use.



I say let the rich risk their lives, if it wasn't for the Rich who risked their lives(and some lost) at the dawn of Aviation we wouldn't have the extensive airtavel that we have today.

Aviation we know today was made possible because military planners saw the value of the airplane. Military research (= state funded) is what really made modern air travel feasible. Private research is just how it often got started (Goddard). I agree with you that they can have it, but in terms of benefits I don't see any. Spacetravelling already exists and the measily private budgets for space tourism are pretty unlikely to make a contribution to it.



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Scaled compsites has shown a much more affordable way to get into space ($20 million for SS1, compared to an average $1.3 billion for the shuttle, and about 40 million for a Soyuz launch), which was the whole point of the ansari X-prize. disregarding the brute force approach that the governemnt uses and can afford, you now have something the commercial sector can use. with a very low per mission cost



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 07:23 PM
link   
What major advancements came a year after the Wright brothers first private flight?

You cant expect major advances in such a short peroid of time



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Simon666
Aviation we know today was made possible because military planners saw the value of the airplane. Military research (= state funded) is what really made modern air travel feasible. Private research is just how it often got started (Goddard). I agree with you that they can have it, but in terms of benefits I don't see any. Spacetravelling already exists and the measily private budgets for space tourism are pretty unlikely to make a contribution to it.


Actually after the ortieg prize state funds to develop aviation pretty much dried up its all in the history books.



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Simon666

Originally posted by sardion2000
Meaningless? Well if it leads to a self-sustaining business model then it's hardly a meaningless step, more like a baby-step towards fully fledged orbital vacations.

And exactly how would this benefit mankind? I just see more pollution as only effect.


make life more fun and exciting, and get to experience something new.

Pollution??? Rockets dont (relatively) produce much pollution, and the rockets are non-toxic.

Your probably someone who believes that us humans are destroying the earth...those crazy people are just laughable. There no proof that we have effected the earths climate at all.



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 12:45 AM
link   
Yeah that's why there are traces of rocket fuel in cows milk near launch sites in both America and Russia.

As for your comment at the end of your ill-thought out statement well do some research(and reading the anti-enviro pundits do not count as "research") I know you're a smart guy Murc, the propoganda is very easily seen through when you pick through the evidance with a fine toothed comb. This is the wrong thread to discuss this though.



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 04:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jehosephat
Scaled compsites has shown a much more affordable way to get into space ($20 million for SS1, compared to an average $1.3 billion for the shuttle, and about 40 million for a Soyuz launch), which was the whole point of the ansari X-prize.

Scaled Composites got nowhere near to getting into orbit, all they did was make a short ballistic trajectory with a rocket plane. As a ballistic orbit is absolutely useless - unless for studying or training for the effects of weightlessness, for which there are already planes like the "Vomit Comet" commercially available - it continues to surprise me that many people think a "major leap" in anything has been made. It is also doesn't require solving the reentry problems associated with returning from Mach 25 into the atmosphere, so the price comparison isn't remotely fair.

How about this for price comparison? If you want to see the border of the atmosphere and the curvature of the earth, buy yourself a ticket in Russia to a MiG 25, if you want to be weightless for a minute, buy yourself a ticket to a Vomit Comet or equivalent. This thing by Scaled composites is merely an expensive means of realizing both these things at once. It just offers a spectacular couple of minutes of weightlessness at the border of the atmosphere for rich people, at a price of a few million dollars per minute, or around a few hundred -one thousand times more than to experience each of those effects seperately.

Regarding pollution, hydrazine derived fuels and others are quite toxic, in Kazakhstan for example, there are birth defects, cancers and other health issues due to the space launches from Baikonur. SS1 fortunately uses a more "environmentally friendly fuel", at least as far as you can call burning rubber - which is their fuel - environmentally friendly, but there's no way of telling what future such craft will use in order to achieve trajectories that last longer.

[edit on 20-10-2005 by Simon666]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join