Signals from SpaceShipOne

The Washington Times ^ | October 6, 2004 | Edward Hudgins

[Ed Hudgins]

Signals from SpaceShipOne By Edward Hudgins

On Oct. 4, 2004, the 47th anniversary of the launch of Sputnik, humanity again made spaceflight history. SpaceShipOne, designed by Burt Rutan and his company, Scaled Composites, and built with money from Microsoft cofounder Paul Allen, won the privately funded $10 million Ansari X Prize by becoming the first three-passenger private vehicle to fly into space twice in a two-week period.

SpaceShipOne's triumph teaches us four lessons:

[Joe Hadenuf]

The great state of California is once again the location of yet another history achievement in the field of aerospace and aviation. Congratulations to all involved!

[from occupied ga]

Call me back when they go a little higher than 100 km.

The longest journey begins with a single step.

[Ed Hudgins]

Actually, SpaceShipOne flew about 122km or or almost 70 miles with about 3 minutes of weighlessness. Branson wants to give tourists who fly about 7 minutes of weightlessness. Let's hope he succeeds!

Ed Hudgins

[Chemist_Geek]

Branson wants to give tourists who fly about 7 minutes of weightlessness. Let's hope he succeeds!

Don't get me wrong, it's great what they've done with SpaceShip One. The private satellite launches, off of ships for instance, are good progress as well. Branson... Well, shooting tourists into suborbital arcs will be nice for his wallet.

But, these steps aren't some sort of conclusive proof that NASA is a total waste of oxygen. For example, for those who see the Almighty Dollar as the be-all and end-all of motives, there isn't much reason to build and launch Voyagers or Martian probes... There were privately financed voyages of scientific exploration in Earth's past. Hopefully there will be again, and soon.

[from occupied ga]

For example, for those who see the Almighty Dollar as the be-all and end-all of motives, there isn't much reason to build and launch Voyagers or Martian probes...

For someone who scoffs at "the almighty dollar" you're awfully quick to advocate spending other people's dollars on NASA. What you're saying is that you're fairly certain that no one would voluntarily disgorage enough money to send probes to mars and venus because there isn't any monetary return to make it worth the cost. Therefore, your solution is to use the power of government to seize the assets of your fellow citizens and spend their money on something that you and a few others would like to see, but don't think is worth spending your own money on. Have I summarized your position correctly?

[Jonah Hex]

I downloaded SpaceShip One into X-Plane and took it vertical last month. I also spun like a top on the way up (right before I overstressed the airframe)!

[Chemist_Geek]

Nope.

[from occupied ga]

That's odd, since spending other peoples' money on NASA is what you've been cheerleading for in every thread on the subject.

[Ed Hudgins]

Science should be a matter for private groups like the National Geographic Soc., private foundations and universities. The Mt.Wilson observatory, where Hubble made his great discoveries, was funded by the Carnegie Foundation and the Mt.Palomar observatory, the largest for decades, was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. Cheaper assess to space will mean more opportunities for science. (I'm an amateur astronomer and I'd rather take a 2 hour trip to an orbiting observatory than a 2 hr. drive to the mountains outside of DC to do my observing.)

Robert Zubran's mission design in "The Case for Mars" would cost between $20-30 billion -- half the cost of the useless government space station and something a Gates, Allen and a few other rich guys could pool their money to fund.

Check out my piece on a privately funded Mars mission:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/980813paper.html

And on Martian law:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/980815paper.html