Re: (OT) Rutan spaceplane

ias@sprintmail.com (Imre A. Szabo) wrote:
>If they can operate this vehicle cost effectively for suborbital
>experiments, they may be able to scale it up to an orbital system

Space Ship 1 is specificlly designed for experimental purposes and is
not a 
commercial model nor will it be used as such. According to the website
and an 
article in AWST.

On the other hand, Burt IS planning on using the White Knight to loft
small 
payloads into orbit. They will be Pegasus class micro-sattilites, not
manned.
They hybrid rocket motor is a poor choice for any type of orbital try,
and 
would/will have to be replaced, along with Space Ship 1, (probably so
called 
because he has plans for Space Ship 2 running around already :o) for any

orbital attempt.

>Sanger had the right idea decades ago.  A two stage fully reusable
vehicle.

Actually Sanger's idea was a captive sled booster, so technically it was
a 
stage and a half :o)

KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de wrote:
>Who says it isn't a government program ? The source of the funding
isn't
>stated.

It's an X-prize official entery so it, (according to the rules of the 
contest) can't be in any way shape or form funded by the government.
(Burt does follow SOME rules :o)

>What is the cost of Rutan's program ? 

He won't say and it will in all likely hood be quite a bit more than the

prize of $10million dollars.

>Accounting can be quite a creative art, so everything about this must
be
>taken with a grain of salt..

This is the main reason why they are silent on the cost. It is NOT a 
commercial, but a test vehicle. Maintenance, recurring, and other costs
will 
be closely tracked once the system starts testing to give a ballpark
figure 
for how much a commercial operator would need to charge to make a
profit. 
There is already a good amount of data on the White Knight, but till it
flys 
repeatedly, the operations cost of Space Ship 1 are all asumed.

On the converse side, it's been known for decades that what REALLY costs
for 
current flights is:
a. The requirement for high redundancy and reliability for launchers
because 
they are essentially "one-shot-must-work-the-first-time" vehicles.
b. The massive amounts of support and engineering staff required at
launch to 
support the above vehicle.

WK/SS1 does away with a majority of (b), but so did the Pegasus and 
Sea-Launch. They were still stuck with (a).

> This is generally not known until the program is complete, but
projections
> place it close to a Soyuz ride."

ias@sprintmail.com (Imre A. Szabo) wrote:

>That's only because Soyuz are done in Russia.  If the Russian's had to
pay
>the cost of American labor, then the Soyuz rides would cost much, much
more.

In actuallity flying in a Russian rocket or the Shuttle, a passenger
would 
have had to pay around the same price. The Russians agreed to do it for
money 
where as NASA won't take the liability. The Russians don't charge 'true'

prices either :o)

>This is what is significant about Rutan's spaceplane.  It is the cost
of a
>Soyuz ride, but is done in the U.S. with very expensive (in comparison
to
>Russia) labor costs, but it doesn't cost anymore.

Again that is because it doesn't require the amount of support team that
a 
'regular' rocket requires. And that's because of the principle rather
than a 
function of design.
I'd ALSO point out that we're talking a SUB-ORBITAL ride costing as much
as 
an ORBITAL ride and stay at the ISS :o)
This is not a good thing :o)
(Seriously? The AWST article and the Space.com article state that the 
'target' price is @ $50,000 per passenger :o)

>To win the X-Prize requires a two week turn around which implies (but
does
>not neccessarily mean) 25 flights a year.  

To be honest, it means exactly "two flights in two weeks" and nothing
more :o)

>The info on the Scaled Composite web site implies that most of the 
>down time is due to the rocket engine.

Actually it's also for full vehicle check outs and data gathering. But
Rutan, 
like most of the X-Prize designers expects the second flight within ONE
week, 
rather than two. But the plan is for less than 20 flights with SS1. 

>There is no reason why an improved engine of much lower maintence can't
be
>developed, possibly an areospike engine.

The engine 'maintenance' is not the problem. The engine can be
'refueled' 
within a few days, and the Lox tank filled in less than an hour. In fact
the 
"good" thing about the Hybrid solid/liquid engine is that the entire
empty 
solid engine casing can be removed and replaced with a full solid in
less 
than a few hours and then topping off the Lox tank and your ready to go
again.
To get an ORBITAL craft though, would require a much more powerful
engine and 
a VERY different vehicle design. (Larger at least)
The SS1 'should' be able to take Mach 3, and up to 6 plus G's on entry
and 
climb out, but it is not well designed for orbital reentry or heating.

yh728@victoria.tc.ca (Brian Burger) wrote:
>It's still a significant achievement - AFAIK all the USAF/NASA X-planes
>have been retired, so Rutan's is the only vehicle working this sort of
>mission. 

Just an FYI, undergoing current testing are several "X" craft from the
X-40a 
to the X-50. Out of the 10, only two, (the X-44 and the X-48) are
supposed to 
be Manned vehicles. (The X-43 Hyper-X MAY turn into a manned craft
someday :o)
The rest are ALL prototypes of Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles. (UCAV)
The X-44 is to be a 'stealth' bomber version of the F-22, and the X-48
is a 
"Blended Wing/Body" idea for a new transport aircraft.
(As a note, the X-41/X-42 are "black" projects so noone is really sure
WHAT 
they are :o)

>Likewise the first private venture of this sort to get this far

Technically? The Thunderbird team has all thier gear tested and ready,
they 
just need the funds for assembly and launch :o) The DiVinci team is
awaiting 
a balloon and funds. So though Rutans is the only one that has parts
actually 
flight tested, one of the other teams COULD jump ahead if they got a
sudden 
influx of funds :o)

>The X-Prize doesn't require actual orbital flight to win, just
suborbital
>to (I think) 300 SM with two people on board, and a 2nd flight within
two
>weeks of the first

Just a correction or two :o)
1. The goal to win the prize is 62 miles. (100km)
2. They craft must carry and return 3 people or one crew and the
equivilent 
mass of two more people.
3. The craft must be capable of flying again within two weeks.
4. The craft must use the same cabin and @80% of the vehicle again for
the 
second flight.

There are several other 'rules' to the prize. It's on the X-prize
website.

Randy