Could the SpaceShipOne fly again?

Question

A similar question to that one, but this one is concerning the suborbital SpaceShipOne spaceplane. Could it be reactivated for space tourism or other purposes? I remember in 2011 some sources stated that the SpaceShipOne also was to be used for tourism flights, along with the SpaceShipTwo or something like that.

@Moo Thank you. I can't ask on meta because I'm unregistered. Just one more question: why do you lose two reputation points for that? Isn't it considered something good which, if anything, should gain you reputation? — Giovanni, Sep 26 '20 at 11:01
Its more likely you attracted a downvote, which will cost you 2 reputation. I havent seen any evidence normal SE network actions have an associated rep gain or loss. — Moo, Sep 26 '20 at 11:05
@Moo This happened when a question got tweeted. I don't think anyone downvoted any of my questions just when the tweets occured. I'm pretty sure it was because of the tweet. — Giovanni, Sep 26 '20 at 11:44

Organic Marble · Answer 1 · 2020-09-24T17:10:24.567

15

There is absolutely no reason to ever even conceive of flying it again. It was retired because it successfully did the sole task it was designed to do.

SpaceShipOne was unsafe¹, barely met its requirements² (which was certainly good enough) and was designed specifically and solely to win the prize.

The tiny crew compartment meant that there was zero incentive to certify it for passengers; it would certainly have not been economic for tourist flights.

I wouldn't call it a prototype since it was designed to meet certain requirements, met them, and was retired before it killed anybody.

¹ "SpaceShipOne had lost control. It spiraled up, making twenty-nine rotations."

² "To solve the problem that SpaceShipOne barely reached space even when much lighter than it would have been for an Ansari X Prize attempt..."

Source: Burt Rutan's Race to Space, Dan Linehan, 2011

edited Sep 24 '20 at 17:10

answered Sep 24 '20 at 13:12

Organic Marble

181,413
9
626
815

Brian Binnie's flight went more smoothly. As written, one could have tested it extensively, and its successor doesn't surpass the FAI's 100-km-border anyway. In 2011 some (obviously then-outdated) sources stated that SS1 is to be made ready for tourism flights. Another question is whether the SS1 and its White Knight carrier plane could fly again (the same model that was retired). – Giovanni Sep 24 '20 at 13:21
2

@Giovanni the point is that there is absolutely no reason to ever even conceive of flying it again. – Organic Marble Sep 24 '20 at 14:47
Why not? One reason would be space tourism. There's not so much space like onboard the SS2, but the SS1 goes higher. – Giovanni Sep 24 '20 at 14:59
Space tourism requires enough paying passengers to make the system economical and an excellent chance that they will survive the experience. Do you think Paul Allen wouldn't have taken a spaceflight if he thought it was reasonable to do so? – Organic Marble Sep 24 '20 at 15:05
This is why I wrote that the SS1 has to be tested extensively, and it would have to be modified anyway (or one could build a new one). – Giovanni Sep 24 '20 at 15:38
4

Sure, one could build a new one that might, maybe, be economical for tourism. It's called SpaceShipTwo. – Organic Marble Sep 24 '20 at 15:53
5

@Giovanni: you said 'it would have to be modified anyway (or one could build a new one)'. Organic Marble has pointed out that that's what they did and the heavily modified new one they built is ... SpaceShipTwo. – Sep 24 '20 at 16:09
@tfb I meant a new SpaceShipOne model. One that would have seats for tourists. – Giovanni Sep 24 '20 at 16:10
5

@Giovanni for more seats they need more cabin space, which means expanding the cabin, which means changing aerodynamics, weight balance, centre of gravity etc, which means corresponding accommodations elsewhere... Which brings us, as others have said, back to SpaceShipTwo. – Moo Sep 24 '20 at 21:32
I believe it's also now a museum piece. – Davidw Sep 25 '20 at 02:30
@Moo I remember from 2011 some sources stated that the SpaceShipOne is planned to be flown with 4 passengers on board (the SS2 flies 6 passengers) or something like that. – Giovanni Sep 25 '20 at 05:32
2

@Giovanni the X-Prize requirements were “ build and launch a spacecraft capable of carrying three people to 100 kilometers above the Earth's surface, twice within two weeks”, and SpaceShipOne did this with a three person cabin, but each flight made was done with just the pilot and some representative ballast for passengers. There was absolutely no space in the cabin for any more seating. Scaled Composites project then became a follow on craft to carry passengers. They could never have carried four passengers without expanding the cabin, and I refer to my previous comment on that. – Moo Sep 25 '20 at 09:15
1

@Giovanni SpaceShipOne was retired in 2005 and there were never any plans to bring it out of retirement. – Moo Sep 25 '20 at 09:23
given that xprize was created to encourage developing new and WORKING space technologies, this answer makes no sense. I am quite sure the engineers were not "just trying to win the prize"; they were (as any engineer) building know-how. – jumpjack Sep 26 '20 at 08:44
2

@jumpjack it doesnt matter what the perceived intent of the xprize was, the goal was to build a craft that could carry three people above 100KM twice within 2 weeks - multiple teams worked to that goal. There was no requirement for an ongoing usage component of the successful craft, so any team that built more than what was needed to win the prize was going to lose. Here we are, 15 years later, and SpaceShipTwo has yet to meet the original criteria set by the xprize... (all flights thus far have been short of the 100KM altitude). – Moo Sep 26 '20 at 10:56

score 9 · Answer 2 · answered Sep 24 '20 at 12:44

9

SpaceShipOne was retired so quickly because it was a prototype.

One of the key lessons-learned over the last seventy-plus years was that the waterfall model does not work when applied to creating something that is substantially new.

Another of the key lessons-learned in the same timeframe was that prototyping is a very good way of what I call "debugging the blank sheet of paper", as in "this blank sheet of paper is supposed to contain the design of a spacecraft. Fix it!"

A final key lesson-learned is that prototypes should be tossed. The purpose of building a prototype is to start solving the blank sheet of paper problem. In doing so, many of the rules regarding what constitutes good engineering judgment oftentimes were ignored.

Not all organizations have learned this lesson. Scaled Composites apparently has. They built a functional prototype, gained some knowledge from that endeavor, and then they threw it out. They then built another prototype and they threw that out, too.

There is nothing wrong with throwing out a prototype. Nothing at all. On the other hand, there are many things wrong with not throwing out a prototype. Throwing out a prototype is not a sunk cost. The prototype did its job, and far more cost effectively than a waterfall model based approach possibly could.

answered Sep 24 '20 at 12:44

David Hammen

74,662
5
185
283

1

Your answer is rather an opinion. Which one is the other prototype you're referring to? – Giovanni Sep 24 '20 at 13:00
1

I cannot agree with this answer. Prototyping is extremely common in all development methodologies, you are making huge assumptions. You are also pushing agile software development thinking where it doesn't belong. – GdD Sep 24 '20 at 13:27
2

@GdD: I think you may be misreading the answer he is arguing that prototyping is good, and the idea of a prototype which you plan to throw away dates back, at least, to The Mythical Man-Month in 1975, long before any idea of 'agile' was invented. – Sep 24 '20 at 16:07
1

@tfb - It goes much further back than that. – David Hammen Sep 24 '20 at 16:21
1

@GdD The Space Exploration Technologies Corp (aka SpaceX) has succeeded so well because it understands the concept of prototyping, and not just software. The Falcon 1 was retired because it was a prototype. – David Hammen Sep 24 '20 at 19:16
@DavidHammen The Falcon 1 failed in most tests. Story similar to the Soviet N1 rocket I would say. – Giovanni Sep 25 '20 at 05:33
1

@GdD But in all fairness I think being more agile (compared to a classical government administration) is exactly what the space newcomers wanted to bring into the equation. The application domain still puts severe limits to the agility (and let's see how their rapid deployment and test strategy works once they routinely have human payloads) but it's a key ingredient nonetheless, and they are much faster in comparison ("look! the glacier is moving at an astonishing speed!") – Peter - Reinstate Monica Sep 25 '20 at 11:16
1

@Giovanni The Falcon 1 succeeded in its last two attempts. SpaceX could have continued to build and fly Falcon 1 rockets, but they didn't. The Falcon 1 was a huge success -- as a prototype. Since it was a prototype, it was time to move on once SpaceX had learned that initial lesson and made the Falcon 1 a success. Musk's ultimate goal was not to fly tiny rockets. He used tiny rockets as a starting point toward achieving that final goal. – David Hammen Sep 25 '20 at 11:38
@GdD While agile was initially explicitly developed for software development, it is now being used well outside the software development environment. Multiple companies are using Kanban boards, scrum, and other agile tools for projects that have zero software content. – David Hammen Sep 25 '20 at 12:17
@GdD Moreover, Elon Musk had his roots in software development. He made himself a twice-over multimillionaire by being very agile (as opposed to Agile). That freed him to pursue his heart's desire. If applying those agile concepts to his heart's desire had failed, he would have marked himself as yet another person who extended his knowledge base to areas where it did not apply. It did apply, as is obvious from SpaceX's successes. – David Hammen Sep 25 '20 at 12:35

Could the SpaceShipOne fly again?

2 Answers2