Good news.
Posted by Nim the Fanciful (Member # 205) on :
Yippee. *blows partywhistle*
Posted by Capped in Mike (Member # 709) on :
no one has posted an exclamation mark yet.
!
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
!! Posted by WizArtist (Member # 1095) on :
But were Geordi and Riker aboard? Oh wait, the warp engines come later.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
I'm happy it's being done, but I'm not happy in the method. SS1 came out of nowhere a couple years ago, and basically left all the much longer-running and public programs sitting in the dust - including the Canadian teams, which were out in front at the time. Some people are saying that the financier is bascially just throwing money at it to get it done first. Articles have revealed that the program has cost $20M, while the X Prize itself is worth $10M.
Bleh.
Mark
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
I heard about this project on NPR last week, I think, and then they had a piece on the successful flight. I guess I don't know enough about the funding methods to have an opinion, though I know the co-founder of Mike Roe Soft is bankrolling it.
I think it's really cool. The description of the flight from the pilot on the radio sounded really really cool.
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
Mark: To be fair, they did keep it under wraps for a long time before they went public. And if anyone can do this (and did!), it would be Burt Rutan. As for the prize money, it's been pointed out that these teams aren't in it for the money. If you can't understand why, then you obviously shouldn't be in the competition. For a comparison, I read an article today about the prize Lindbergh collected after crossing the Atlantic. He spent $15K to win a $25K prize, which is the equivalent of spending $163K today to win $271K. He wasn't in it for the money, either.
B.J.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mark Nguyen: I'm happy it's being done, but I'm not happy in the method. SS1 came out of nowhere a couple years ago, and basically left all the much longer-running and public programs sitting in the dust - including the Canadian teams, which were out in front at the time. Some people are saying that the financier is bascially just throwing money at it to get it done first. Articles have revealed that the program has cost $20M, while the X Prize itself is worth $10M.
Bleh.
Mark
Consider it a $10M kick in the ass to start a real space race.
Companies often spend more on just advertising of a new product with no direct results.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
I understand it isn't about the money. What I'm trying to get at is that everyone ELSE was following along the lines of doing it slow, cheaper, and very publically. Then suddenly a new guy comes out of nowhere (at least in the public eye) and does it relatively quickly. I don't think the other guys were looking to spend well over the $10M prize purse in order to do it - wasn't the point of the prize amount to be able to do it for about that amount of money anyway?
Mark <--- was a fan of the Canadian Arrow, at least...
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Well, I'm sorry the "Canadians are supposed to win" clause was somehow overlooked.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Canadians: When will you learn?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
OK, that sounded way more snarky than I meant it to.
But I guess I'm at a loss. The whole point of the X-Prize was to encourage private sector competition, and that's exactly what happened.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Snarky fun!
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
On another note, SS1 is rather ugly. Just thought I'd throw that out there.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I don't know...I think it sort of has a neat retro look. But that paint job is a bit of a horror.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Retro? For something to be "retro", doesn't there have to have been something else that looked like it before?
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
No, the opposite in fact. It has to look like something that existed before - or be reminiscent, in terms of design features, of previous artefacts.
That said, I haven't actually seen a picture of this craft to tell if it deserves an adjective like "retro."
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Well, you could always clicky the linky.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
What? A historic event like this and you haven't seen the craft that made it possible yet? Oh, what is this world coming to?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"No, the opposite in fact. It has to look like something that existed before..."
Erm... That's the same as what I said, only with the words rearranged.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
No, actually, you didn't. You said "something else that looked like it before." That implies the entire design is reminiscent of a previous design, which it isn't, and isn't necessarily a definition of "retro" either."
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
relating to; reviving; or being the styles or the fashions of the past. nostalgic.
it has the Stratofortress...or late 40s-50s sci-fi look to it...
Posted by MarianLH (Member # 1102) on :
I can't say I was surprised when I heard Rutan was behind it. I was very disappointed, though, to find out his design isn't a single-stage vehicle. More piggyback on a jet crap. Boo!
I miss the Clipper.
Marian
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
From the last picture, it *does* look like an otter with wings.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Lee: I said that there had to be something old that looked like the new thing. You're saying that the new thing has to look like something old. Those are the same. "Looking like" is commutative. If A looks like B, then B looks like A.
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
Like the Bell X-1. Only carbon-fiber composites. And with a gay paint-job. And a bunch of circular windows. And tiny reaction control thrusters. And a totally different wing and tail assembly. But, you know... other than that, just like the Bell X-1.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Mmmmmm, commutative.....I guess its associative too. Mmmm...
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
If (A looks like B) looks like C, then A looks like (B looks like C)? I don't think that works. It's transitive, though, if that helps.
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
![[Frown]](frown.gif)