"SpaceShipTwo could be single stage to SUBorbit"
in [Physics]
|
Prev: O/T: Will Google Groups ever fix its search function?
Next: Chapt 3, can the Hubble Space telescope see #74; ATOM TOTALITY
From: Robert Clark on 13 May 2010 07:25 On May 12, 4:25 pm, Rick Jones <rick.jo...(a)hp.com> wrote: > In sci.space.history Robert Clark <rgregorycl...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > This is for the *suborbital* XCOR flight which does cost half as > > much per passenger as the two-stage Virgin Galactic system. > > Do you have actual XCOR and VG cost figures or are you going by price > paid by the consumer? > > rick jones > -- It was based just on the consumer price. But we can conclude that having to make that larger carrier craft adds significantly to the development cost based on the example of the shuttle system where a heavy carrier ship in the original design was so expensive it threatened to derail the program. Judging by the development expense of the orbiter itself and of the semi-reusable system now used, that carrier craft must have incurred significant expense. Bob Clark
From: LSMFT on 13 May 2010 13:10 Robert Clark wrote: > Interesting article here: > > SpaceShipTwo could be single stage to suborbit says ESA firm. > By Rob Coppinger > on April 29, 2010 4:24 PM > "Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo could be a single stage to suborbit > vehicle using liquid chemical propulsion according to independent > research carried out by a company that has been contracted by the > European Space Agency for suborbital and hypersonic transport > studies." > "... the UK firm came to the conclusion that the volume within which > SS2 carries its solid rocket motor and nitrous oxide supply could > equally hold a liquid chemical propulsion system capable of providing > enough thrust for long enough for a horizontal take-off and ascent to > 50,000ft and above without the need for WK2." > http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyperbola/2010/04/spaceshiptwo-could-be-single-s.html > > If you also filled up the passenger compartment with fuel leaving only > a pilot's cabin could it even become orbital? > > > Bob Clark > What happened to the X-30? -- LSMFT If I wasn't me I wouldn't like me either..........
From: J. Clarke on 13 May 2010 14:45 On 5/13/2010 1:10 PM, LSMFT wrote: > Robert Clark wrote: >> Interesting article here: >> >> SpaceShipTwo could be single stage to suborbit says ESA firm. >> By Rob Coppinger >> on April 29, 2010 4:24 PM >> "Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo could be a single stage to suborbit >> vehicle using liquid chemical propulsion according to independent >> research carried out by a company that has been contracted by the >> European Space Agency for suborbital and hypersonic transport >> studies." >> "... the UK firm came to the conclusion that the volume within which >> SS2 carries its solid rocket motor and nitrous oxide supply could >> equally hold a liquid chemical propulsion system capable of providing >> enough thrust for long enough for a horizontal take-off and ascent to >> 50,000ft and above without the need for WK2." >> http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyperbola/2010/04/spaceshiptwo-could-be-single-s.html >> >> >> If you also filled up the passenger compartment with fuel leaving only >> a pilot's cabin could it even become orbital? >> >> >> Bob Clark >> > > What happened to the X-30? Clinton.
From: Pat Flannery on 13 May 2010 18:50 On 5/13/2010 9:10 AM, LSMFT wrote: >> "... the UK firm came to the conclusion that the volume within which >> SS2 carries its solid rocket motor and nitrous oxide supply could >> equally hold a liquid chemical propulsion system capable of providing >> enough thrust for long enough for a horizontal take-off and ascent to >> 50,000ft and above without the need for WK2." >> http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyperbola/2010/04/spaceshiptwo-could-be-single-s.html >> >> >> If you also filled up the passenger compartment with fuel leaving only >> a pilot's cabin could it even become orbital? >> >> >> Bob Clark >> > > What happened to the X-30? And since when did 50,000 feet become outer space? I like the part about it using a "liquid chemical propulsion system", without specifying what those chemicals are exactly. You could certainly make a ground takeoff rocket plane that could climb to 50,000 feet, but since numerous types of jet aircraft are capable of flying to 50,000 feet also, what would be the point of doing this? Pat
From: Bob Myers on 13 May 2010 15:52
On 5/12/2010 3:24 AM, Pat Flannery wrote: > On 5/11/2010 12:20 PM, Bob Myers wrote: > >> thumb its nose at gravity and come down as quickly or slowly as you >> want? >> I'm even more disappointed that I can't yet go out and buy a >> Jetsons-type >> Rosie the Robot or a flying car that folds up into a briefcase once I >> get to >> work. > > But things are much more futuristic for cats, as Scott Lowther found > on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQ-jv8g1YVI > You just know that sooner or later the tail is going to go under the > Roomba, and then the cat will never try that again. Having both a cat and a Roomba, I can attest that that's less of a problem than you might think. The real problem is the cat wanting to ride the damned thing, sitting on top - which, unfortunately, is right where the power button is. Bob M. |