Burt Rutan to build orbital "SpaceShipThree"

[shuttle_rtf]

No.

 

[wvbraun]

I very much doubt that Rutan is working on SS3. He has his hands full with SS2 and Eve/WK2.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

>My understanding and observation has been that Burt Rutan does not announce something unless he's figured out how to do it and is in fact already in development. <<br /><br />That's not my point, although it helps what I said, because Rutan hasn't announced it.<br /><br />I noted that this is Virgin's PR machine.<br /><br />Nothing on the Scaled site, for example. Maybe something to do with Virgin PR thinking mentioning SS3 it was a good idea, that's all.

 

[ronatu]

One smal and simple comment:<br /><br />There is HUGE techincal difference between SubOrbital and Orbital flight.<br /><br />And this not only speed which is necessary to achieve (8 km/sec), but more important the speed which is necessary to return back in form of heat energy.<br /><br />SS1 was build from conventional materials because it is never reached barrier when special protection is required. Speed was slow, temperature was low.<br />It was simple and effective.<br /><br />Anything above SS1 will push for completely different design. <br />Like transforming X-15 to R7... <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> if you know what I mean...<br /><br /><br />

 

[vt_hokie]

Exactly! Heck, SS1 didn't even endure the type of thermal stresses that an SR-71 Blackbird has to endure at Mach 3.5. I think SS1 maxed out at Mach 3.3 (relative to sea level standard conditions, I assume?), but only for a brief period of time.

 

[wvbraun]

Burt will figure something out...

 

[mikejz]

You have to remember that SS1 was only done for about $20 Mil. It was made to get the job done, which it did. Of course a orbital is a big deal in terms of the challenges. However, if you think about it the time period from which government space programs went from suborbital sounding rockets to orbit was about 12 years or so.

 

[mikejz]

Well if you think about it the suborbital boosters of the time were also developed by the mil, so the comparison seems approprate.<br /><br />Viking which was modified to Vangraud (which orbited a few sats with about 50% reliablity)

 

[spacester]

<font color="yellow">I noted that this is Virgin's PR machine. </font><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> Precisely why I limited my comments to that statement. I was counting on you to remind us all of that. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />***<br />Some part of Burt's Brain is working on SS3 at least some of the time. IIRC he said at one point that he had a solution to orbital flight, but I may not remember correctly.<br /><br />We can assume air launch, and therefore a large carrier aircraft. It would be Burt's (Scaled Composites) greatest project to date. <br /><br />t/space has the trapeze air drop, so they need a big rocket to drop from the big plane and they can get up there. As noted, however, that's not the hardest part.<br /><br />Is it entirely inconceivable that the shuttlecock configuration would work for LEO re-entry? In principle, it might be as easy as adding TPS to the shuttlecock configuration. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

Spacefire, you do really seem like a good hearted individual, but your lack of information on the technical and even historic side of the aerospace industry sometimes simply amazes me.<br /><br />NO, supersonic craft, either military or civilian has EVER even come close to carrying the several hundred tons that both a rocket booster, and an orbiter would need. What you are evidently talking about is some kind of super NASP. As the NASP project itself was far too expensive for even the military or NASA, do you really think that pure private interests are going to be able to come up with that kind of funding?<br /><br />While the orbiter itself may very well be a lifting body, the booster IS going to have to be a conventional rocket for some time to come. I am certain that the amount of time that Rutan is going to want to invest is far shorter that the time it would take to build such a system. The Antonev 225 Russian giant six engined carge plane is the only plane now flying that would even stand a chance of carrying the weight needed for such a system. By the way the Antonev 225 (of which there is only one in existance, I think) IS subsonic!

 

[gunsandrockets]

"Any capsule type of system such as the CXV, or even the much beloved soyuz, MUST have a very powerful booster rocket. Any aircraft capable of handling such a rocket would have to have far greater carrying capability than the 747, the big Russian job just MIGHT be able to handle it, but I think there is only one in existance."<br /><br />Well t/Space seems to think the 747 has enough lift for the job. The launch vehicle is smaller because of air launch. One of the proposals for the Very Large Aircraft drop ship is a 747 with modified (probably fixed) landing gear so the t/Space propane fueled launch vehicle can fit underneath.<br /><br />"The only pure private effort that misght be sufficient to handle this would be spacex's Falcon series, but they have not even launched Falcon I yet, let alone come close to even the Falcon V. And even the Falcon V is going to be only in the Delta II throw weight class. It is going to be quite awahile before spacex can develope a booster capable of the necessary throw weight to put such a capsule into orbit."<br /><br />The Titan II, a Delta II throw weight class launch vehicle, was plenty for launching the Gemini spacecraft into orbit. And the t/Space four man reusable capsule has the remarkably low weight of only 8,100 pounds. Well within the payload capacity of the SpaceX Falcon V launch vehicle.<br /><br />"So, I would think that right now the CXV is indeed aimed at NASA, and only NASA!"<br /><br />I think this news from Virgin indicates exactly the opposite. t/Space hopes that NASA will fund the CXV but isn't counting on it. The (hopefully) success of Space Ship Two will fund the development and eventual flight of the CXV. It will just take longer than if NASA was involved. <br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br />

 

[frodo1008]

While I would be more than happy if t-space can really do what you are saying here, there ARE a whole lot of very heavy ifs that you are bringing out here. Even if that is not your goal at all. Getting into orbit and then back again isn't quite the same as a sub orbital flight, but I really think that Burt Rutan is at least aware of that. Also, what makes you think that he is going to get millionairs to become passengers in such craft as a capsule such as the CXV?<br /><br />Yes, the Russians have done it, but only if you can add two weeks abord the ISS, which most of the pure private industry types seem to hate anyway! So. unless you can offer something like Bigelow's inflatable space stations to go to, you are going to have to offer two very important things to your passengers, and neither of then can be done very easily in a capsule type of space craft! One, is comfort, and the other is view! And not just some kind of LED screen from a camera outside of such a ship, a window where people can see well, is almost a must for such ships. Remember for the first time you are going to be trying to sell something and make a profit. This means pleasing ordinary rich people.<br /><br />This is perhaps the real reason why the CXV is really aimed at NASA, astronauts go where they are told to go, on whatever NASA gives them to go on. This is NOT being negative towards the courage and fortitude of NASA astronauts, it is that very fortitude however that doen't make them customers, but workers. NASA isn't going to worry about whether the flight of the CXV is at some 4 g's for some minutes, they know their people are capable of such human extremes. But, rich paying customers?<br /><br />These are the kind of things that nobody has ever had to worry about for space craft before. Actually, I really think that Burt Rutan would rather go with a lifting body design, as the factors of comfort and view are going to be much better in that kind of vehicle than a 40 year old capsule d

 

[gunsandrockets]

frodo1008<br /><br />Have you seen the mockups of the CXV? There is very large window in the hatch which looks like it would give the CXV a better view than any other capsule ever flown.<br /><br />And I think you seriously underestimate the market for orbital tourism. An amazingly large number of people have already signed up for suborbital tourist flights on Space Ship Two.<br /><br />And I think it would be a mistake to build a large spacecraft for orbital tourism. Rather than build a big 7-9 man lifting body spacecraft which would require a monster rocket to send into orbit each time, much better to build a permanent orbital habitat which only needs to be launched once. The t/Space CXV four man capsule as the taxi and the Bigelow Nautilus 20mt orbital habitat as the hotel seem a perfectly matched pair for orbital tourism.

 

[gawin]

just a quick statement here 24 months prior to SS1 first flight no one had thought that a space ship could or would return to earth from a sub obital flight like a badmittin birdy. <br /> if some one would have posted that idea on a board such as this people would have said you were crazy, thier would have been more then one "educated person in the know" to say its impossable.<br />I for one have great confidence in Rutan. I belive that when and if we see somthing capable of reaching LEO from him that it will be truly revolutionary and not just some reworked capsul or any form that we have not seen or eaven thought of yet.<br /><br />gawin

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"24 months prior to SS1 first flight no one had thought that a space ship could or would return to earth from a sub obital flight like a badmittin birdy."</font><br /><br />Your statement is patently false. For one, what is the essence of shuttlecock shape? It's aerodynamically stable ie. orients automatically without active guidance, and produces high drag. Pretty much <i>any</i> capsule design fits the bill. And second, take a look at the other X-Prize candidates, there are many who expressed desire to use <i>ballute</i> technology for reentry. If you make your spaceship to take the shuttlecock form by inflating some gasbags around it instead of tilting wingtips, the difference is in technical details but the basic principle remains the same.<br /><br />I don't mind the blatant Rutan-mania (much) but please base it on what he really accomplished: succesfully rehashed age-old concepts and actually <i>build</i> something. That is an excellent feat nobody should deny. It's high time to build things instead of rotating CAD-designs for latest scramjet-RBCC-SSTO-wonders having just a little bit of unobtainium in their materials manifest.

 

[no_way]

BTW, this is somewhat off-topic but check out this Hobbyspace posting ( from aug 23, 2005, the permalinks dont work too well )<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>there will be another test of the inflatable reentry system by the IRDT (Inflatable Reentry Descent Technology) project...<br />The system could provide a low cost way to return cargo from space. (How about products from the Moon like platinum?) Also, their light weight makes them suitable for sample return missions from Mars and elsewhere. Crew rescue is another target application. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />There are a lot of other untested concepts for reentry ( perspiration cooling for instance ) that dont require cutting-edge materials or anything insanely difficult. Those are just untested this far. <br />Im sure Scaled's designers ( which, BTW, include other people than mr. Rutan ) will choose and test whatever is suitable with their plans.<br /><br />And, its actually a damn shame that we dont have a large pool of _tested_ concepts to choose from, some half a century after we begun mucking about in space.

 

[tomnackid]

Time to copy the Russians. Soyuz, carefree reentry since .. 1971.<br />-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />Actually, like Apollo the Soyuze depends on a sophsiticated computer program to control reentry (ok, maybe not so sophisticated by today's standards--but its still a computer controlled reenty.)<br /><br />About a year or so ago a Soyuze coming back from the ISS experienced a computer glitch and defaulted to a full ballistic reentry rather than its normal semi-ballistic mode. The two occupants (one Russian and one American I believe) experienced god-awful g-forces and landed some 50 miles or so off target and had to wait several hours for recovery teams to find them. There were no serious injuries and everything turned out all right in the end, but Soyuze cannot do a "carefree reentry" in the sense that Spaceship One, T/Space's CXV, or a Corona capsule do "carefree reentries".

 

[jhoblik]

My guess that Burt Rutan is working in full speed on orbital version of SS1(SS3). <br />SS2 will be indeed upgraded version of SS1, every major issue with suborbital flight were solved. Yes there is issue with guiding space plane during ascent but I think that Burt will be involve only on aerodynamic improvement of that part, but system that will play role of autopilot to guide it during ascent will be work of his engineers.<br />I am sure that he is also lit a bit involve in bigger version of SS1 and White Knight, but I don’t think so it will be for him place to spend time to invent new break through ideas.<br />My guess is also that new White Knight could be platform for SS3, or at least lay role of test for WK3..<br />I have to disagree with couple points in this discussion:<br />- I don’t see thermal protection as problem, Space shuttle approach is very interesting but final design is a problem. Same with X-15 was interesting project, but they have lot of problem with temperature and stability. <br />Both issues were excellently solved by Scaled composite. <br />Why SS3 could not use same protection as Space shuttle, tiles in less expose places and RCC in more expose places. As somebody pointed they probably planned also to cool the surface of space-plane during descent. SS1 released nitrogen during test flights probably to test this approach.<br />Thanks these improvement(high drag, cooling surface) maybe SS3 will not need RCC and will be able to use tiles LRSI(Low-temperature Reusable Surface Insulation 700-1200 F ) or HRSI(High-temperature Reusable Surface Insulation 1200-2300F). Tiles will be not damage during ascent no falling debris, there will also no problem with body extraction(space shuttle has aluminum frame), tile could be apply directly to the body of spacecraft. <br />SS1 could be modify to the orbital plane. It needs TPS, and life-support. Actual hybrid engine could give thrust to reach orbit and also de-orbit back to Earth.<br />SS1 weight is 3,6 t

 

[shuttle_man]

I thought Branson's comparision of the Shuttle to the SS1 was an error on his part.

 

[tomnackid]

I don't see any way in which an orbital vehicle can be an outgrowth of SS1. I agree with others on this board who say that SS3 will be t/space's CXV with "Virgin Galactic" painted on the side. <br /><br />SS1 was design for one thing--to fulfill the requirements of the x-prize. It cannot be scaled up to a fully orbital vehicle any more than Lindberg's Spirit of St. Louis could be scaled up into a trans-Atlantic airliner.<br /><br />Rutan is already working with t/space to build what they consider to be the simplest, cheapest, most robust earth to LEO vehicle they can think of. Why woould he go off in a completely different direction?

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"Soyuze cannot do a "carefree reentry" in the sense that Spaceship One, T/Space's CXV, or a Corona capsule do "carefree reentries""</font><br /><br />Hmm, Soyuz makes succesful reentry despite computer glitch, resulting purely ballistic trajectory just like Corona does. Soyuz 5 started reentry the wrong way due to service module detachment failure. After things were getting really got the module detached and the capsule automatically reoriented the right way saving the cosmonaut's life. Imagine the Shuttle doing reentry upside down or computers out.<br /><br />I call it carefree if the spacecraft brings you down alive despite severe technical malfunctions. AFAIK Soyuz chute deployment is automatic so you´ll be saved even if you´re temporarily unconscious after rougher than usual ride. SS1 is in wrong category and hardly carefree because shuttlecock wingtips don't fly you all the way down to airstrip, piloting is required. CXV is the closest to Soyuz. It too requires computer control to provide lesser g reentry and probably does the ballistic version if that fails (this assuming it will have axisymmetric heatshield).

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"Actually, like Apollo the Soyuze depends on a sophsiticated computer program to control reentry...<br /><br />Soyuze cannot do a "carefree reentry" in the sense that Spaceship One, T/Space's CXV, or a Corona capsule do "carefree reentries". "</font><br /><br />The 'computer control' you speak of is used to target the landing site. Without the computer program, Apollo and Soyuz will simply perform a ballistic re-entry -- just as your example stated. By contrast -- if the computers on the shuttle fail during re-entry -- it will perform some tumbling, followed by considerable breakage and an uncontrolled descent and impact over a broad area. This is what is meant by care-free -- the capsules are capable of a landing without active controls. When Rutan speaks of carefree re-entries, he's comparing his craft to that of the shuttle orbiters, not that of semi-ballistic or ballistic re-entry vehicles.<br /><br />An equivalent failure on SS1 to what you described for the Soyuz incident would be if the pilot were to lose consciousness. In this event, SS1 would have fared considerably worse on reaching ground-level than the Soyuz capsule did. Corona capsules used completely ballistic re-entries. They had zero guidance, and were set to release a parachute at a given altitude, at which point a plane would intercept and recover them. If you think t/Space's CXV will have no computer guidance system to target its landing point, then I'd like two of what you're smoking, please.<br /><br />In short -- I'm not really sure what your concept of a care-free re-entry is, but none of the three examples you give have anything over the Apollo or Soyuz capabilities.

 

[mrmorris]

Tap_Sa -- you must type slower. <br />And stop reading my mind... it's a sewer in there!

 

[tap_sa]

Cesspool to sewer, didn't read your mind but stated the same obvious. And used shorter paragraphs <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">" Same with X-15 was interesting project, but they have lot of problem with temperature and stability.<br />Both issues were excellently solved by Scaled composite. "</font><br /><br />Yeah, 'solved' by going mach ~3 instead of mach ~6 <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br />Such solution isn't available if shooting to orbit.