Don't believe he said the shuttle was so extraordinary. In fact, I think that's probably the point he was making - that while spaceship one is an interesting achievement it's still a very long way from even the shuttle's mundane capabilities. Rutan's made a cool achievement for a private (although well funded - thanks to Paul Allen) enterprise, but it should be noted that calling spaceship one's trip "suborbital" is in the same vein that a Concorde flight was suborbital. And calling it a "spacecraft" is a bit overstating the case. It's more like a very high altitude aircraft than a spacecraft. It's max altitude is only about 1/3 the altitude achieved by Alan Shephard's Freedom 7 flight. Which means, it's not in any material way "carrying passengers into space". It's cargo carrying capacity is extremely limited - couldn't get a modest satellite into an ultra-low orbit. And it's not outfitted for any meaningful time in space - shielding, air, water, waste disposal, etc. It's cool and in the short term Branson might be able to transform it into a neat novelty for people with a quarter million dollars to burn, but as Burtakus said, it's a long way from even the shuttle's pitiful capabilities. It's more likely transformation will be not into a real spacecraft but into a suborbital transglobal aircraft - kind of a next generation SST that could fly you from New York to Tokyo in a couple hours. It might not be the "many decades" Burtakus suggests for private development to catch up with the current mundane shuttle, but at least one decade seems a reasonable guess.
Once again not to discount Rutan for his acomplishment is truly special and he is one of the brightest minds in aviation but comparing space ship one to the the Space Shuttle is like comparing a bicycle to medivac helicopter. Two totally diferent operational concepts and capabilities capabilities. Some may think that going to space is mundane and that the shuttle performs a rather mundane task however just as an example of the engineering that is required, the turbo pumps that feed liquid hydrogen to the main engines have enough force to put a stream of liquid hydrogen 20 miles high, you dont get that with legos. Despite being designed and built in the 80's the main engines are still the most effecient rocket engines ever built. As far a capability, Space Ship one can put a couple of hundred pounds to about 65 miles wheras the Shuttle can place 40,000+ poinds into a 220+ mile orbit. That in itself is a very large difference. Do the physics and you will see how much more energy the Shuttle needs. Space Ship One can support 2-3 people for its 90 minute sub-orbital flight where as the Shuttle can support a crew of 7 for up to 16 days in orbit and perform a variety of science experiments. Also keep in mind the shuttle was designed adn built using late 70's and early 80's technology. The list of differences is too long to list in this forum. I suggest you do some research on what the Shuttle capabilities are and then you might have a better appreciation as to what it can do.
Add to all the major differences already mentioned, that in spite of it being based on 20-30 year old technologies, being designed by committee, having to satisfy manufacture/production schemes dictated by politicians rather than engineers, and having taken design and technology shortcuts because of funding cuts the shuttle is one of the most complex machines ever built with over 100,000 different parts built by the lowest bidder with government employee involvement and supervision. It's a freaking engineering miracle that it flies at all.
I want to go on that ride!! Think of the view! 4 minutes of weightlessness is what I think I read, not like being in orbit but hey, weightlessness + view = once in a lifetime experience. Max
step 1: spaceshipone step 2: larger vessel that can carry a couple of thousand or tenths of thousands of pounds. Sure, SS1 can't make a 20 mile fountain. That would be neat. But what it _is_, is the first step towards a greater goal. Call it a dirsuptive technology if you will. Appears that to travel to the edge of space you do NOT have to burn 100 mln or whatever worth of fuel, that would be a waste of resources. I agree, it's a miracle the shuttle flies at all, considering its complexity. No wonder two of them have blown up. All it takes is one lousy bad component and you've lost a couple of hundred million worth of equipment. I think simplicity is the way to go. Based on the technology of your small and reliable vessel you can make a bigger one. Why is the SS1 taken to 37k ft by the white night? So that it does NOT have to have the kind of power of the shuttle. Why not be a little creative? Now is there a huge problem adding to the capacity of the SS1? Come oooon, I don't believe these ppl or Branson for that matter will settle for a three-man vessel. Try to look beyond the current paradigm, be a little visionary. Is there a problem developing a small reliable engine that's 10 times as powerful as spaceshipone's? I'm sure it's not easy, I wouldn't know where to start. But that's what we have R&D organizations for, i.e. spacedev and its competitors. This I believe is also a reason why NASA grants these small companies contracts. BTW what is the shuttles' power to weight ratio relative to SS1 ? I bet the latter beats the shuttle.
same old story - Columbus couldn't get private backing either, he had to turn to the state for funding.
falling 100 miles and (usually) landing in one piece is pretty extraordinary in my book. private companies have had 40 years to get on this train, to date they've accomplished sweet FA.
SS1 has also 'fallen' some 60 miles and landed in one piece, does that count for something? So if I understand you correctly you're saying the shuttle is the way to go from here. And you're supposed to be a money manager or what? Good luck, see you after having spent another 3 bn, blown up 3 more shuttles and killed some 30 more kinda valuable people. There are a couple of small differences between 1964 and 2004 when it comes to investor maturity, the technology and the commercial opportunity. 1. Visionaries like Allen and Branson, the former has invested already and Branson has publicly stated that he will invest. Does this indicate something? 2. Scaled has spent just peanuts, and successfully developed a craft that sent man to the edge of space. Mankinds technological prownes is somewhat better today than 40 years ago. 3. Business opportunities. A) Tourism, ppl are willing to pay a premium for an extraordinary experience. B) Mini/micro satelite launch and possibly repair (industries that do not yet exist) at dramatically lower cost points than existing alternatives (US, Russian or Chinese government launches). And of course, all other opps that I am just too dumb to spot. Am I the only one seeing this as an inv opp?
I think that the SS1 concept is a good long-term investment opportunity. However even with the advancse in technology a private venture could not build a space shuttle counterpart without being subsidized by the government. Now, I do agree that a smaller less capable craft that is only marginally better than the SS1 could be built by private industry. And yes falling form 65 miles like the SS1 is drastically different than falling from 220 miles like the shuttle. Without trying to sound condescending, have you ever taken a physics class?