27th July 2005<br /><br />Today at the EAA Oshkosh air show in Wisconsin, Sir Richard Branson and Burt Rutan announced their signing of an agreement to form The Spaceship Company — jointly owned by Virgin and Scaled.<br /><br />This new aerospace production company will manufacture launch aircraft, spaceships and support equipment and market them to spaceline operators, including the launch customer, Virgin Galactic.<br /><br />Virgin Galactic has placed orders for five spaceships and two launch aircraft with options on further systems, thus securing the exclusive use of the systems for the initial 18 months of commercial passenger operations.<br /><br />The Spaceship Company plan to make spaceflight affordable for the masses and to demonstrate the commercial viability of manned space exploration.<br /><br />Burt Rutan commented “I am very excited to have agreed terms on which we can now move forward to develop the world’s first commercial, passenger-carrying spaceships. Richard and I share a vision that commercially-viable and safe space tourism will provide the foundation for the human colonisation of space. I’m looking forward to working together with Richard on this next exciting phase.”<br /><br />Sir Richard added “I couldn’t be more delighted to announce the formation of this joint venture at the biggest private aviation event in the world. I never dreamed that one day I would form with Burt, the company which will build the world’s first commercial passenger spacecraft.”<br /><br /> <br />OSHKOSH, Wis. --July 27, 2005-- Today, Sir Richard Branson (Founder, Virgin Group of Companies) and Burt Rutan (President, Scaled Composites) announced their signing of an agreement to form a new aerospace production company to build a fleet of commercial sub-orbital spaceships and launch aircraft. The new company will own the designs of the new SpaceShipTwo (SS2) and White Knight Two (WK2) launch systems that are now in development at Scaled Composites. The SS2/WK2 system will use the '
- Status
Aside from the error in including Mercury with lifting capsules and stating that it was the change in mass of the Gemini heat shield rather than shape that was throwing off the reentry profile (which I freely addmited were errors on my part) I have shown references for everything I have stated. All this comes down to is a difference of opinion on what constitutes a care-free reentry. <br /><br />There is no simple black and white divide between care-free and not care-free. to my mind the ultimate in care-free is you fire your deorbit engine (or spring in the case of Corona/Dicovery) and do nothing else until the 'chutes deploy. In Rutan's usage for SS1 I assume he means you feather the wings then do nothing else until you go into your landing glide. <br /><br />For a lifting capsule you fire your deorbit engine. Activate your attitude control system to put you in the proper attitude for reentry. Continue to use your attitude control as you transition from hypersonic to supersonic to subsonic and to compensate for turbulence then open your 'chutes. Much simpler than reentry in a shuttle, but not totally care-free. You CAN land a Gemini with a non-functioning attitude control system. I don't know if you can do that with an Apollo. Maybe its possible but I would hate to try it. You CAN land a 747 with all engines out, that does not mean you can say that a 747 is a capable glider!<br /><br />I think you are under the impression that I am trying to slam capsules as being viable spacecraft form. I'm not. <br /><br />
<font color="yellow">"Aside from the error in including Mercury with lifting capsules and stating that it was the change in mass of the Gemini heat shield rather than shape that was throwing off the reentry profile (which I freely addmited were errors on my part) I have shown references for everything I have stated. All this comes down to is a difference of opinion on what constitutes a care-free reentry. "</font><br /><br /><b>Deity</b> you're stubborn!<br /><br />Here's your original statements that have factual errors:<br /><br /><font color="orange">"...Soyuze cannot do a "carefree reentry" in the sense that Spaceship One, T/Space's CXV, or a Corona capsule do "carefree reentries"."<br /><br />"Soyuze, Apollo, Gemini, Mercury are all inherently unstable. Without some reaction control during reentry they will tumble."<br /><br />"However Gemini and Apollo were cones with offset centers of gravity and a heat shield on the big end. They both had a tendency to flip over and reenter apex first."</font><br /><br />You've not explained how the CXV has a carefree re-entry whereas Soyuz does not. It's not a purely ballistic vehicle.<br /><br />The only error you have acknowledged making is with Mercury. However -- it has the same basic shape as the Gemini. Indeed, the Gemini was built by the same people, and was originally called the Mercury Mark II. If the Gemini is unstable, the Mercury is too. Neither is, and the post I'm replying to is the <b>first</b> in which you've acknowleged that the Gemini can land ballistically.<br /><br />Your quote about the Apollo apex-first problem was debunked as a re-entry issue. That was a problem strictly related to aborts. You have in fact provided nothing to back up your claim that Apollo has a tendency to flip over and re-enter apex-first.<br /><br />Your quote from Korolev assumes that he was correct. He was a genius, but not infallible. If he weren't fallible, then Mercury can't enter ballistically... which you've alr
Good god, this is the last post I'm making in this thread. I'm sick and tired of this kind of obnoxious message board behavior. What are you about 12 years old or something? Do you really need to have a point by point debate over this stupid matter? Are you that arrogant that you can't let someone else be right, or are you just incredibly insecure?<br /><br />According to T/space's literature their CSX is based on the Corona capsule. Just deorbit and sit tight until the 'chutes open. Go look it up, if you have any further problems take it up with T/space.<br /><br />The Apollo apex first IS NOT only a consideration for aborts since as far as I know the Apollo CM does not change its shape during a mission!! It is MOST DANGEROUS during aborts when there is little time for the RCS to compensate. Again go research this on your own time.<br /><br />Gemini has an offset CG allowing it to make lifting reentry, not as good as Apollo, but better than Mercury.<br /><br />I DID acknowledge making the mistake about the mass vs. shape of the Gemini heat shield. Go back and look it up.<br /><br />I'm sorry the the whole "care-free" reenty thing was ever brought up in the first place. For some reason know only to yourself it apparently triggers some kind of irrational response. It almost seams like you want to take the term "care-free" so literally that you can then easily go about poking holes in it. This is called a strawman argument.<br /><br />Let us not speak of "care-free" anymore. I can see that anything that is not a Soyuz or Gemini will not be to your liking anyway.<br /><br />Now, I have a life to get back to.
"Your magazine must be over a year old..... "<br /><br />????????????????????????????????????<br /><br /><b>27th July 2005 </b><br />
Ok not to stop your critical debate here but if I do recall correctly Burt was also doing drop tests for DARPA's X-37. The X-37 isn't dead yet!<br /><br />Ok maybe the X-37 shape is going to be the next flight vehicle shape or simular to the one that they would like to use. <br /><br />They could always build DC-Y with modifications...<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The Apollo apex first IS NOT only a consideration for abortssince as far as I know the Apollo CM does not change its shape during a mission!! It is MOST DANGEROUS during aborts when there is little time for the RCS to compensate. Again go research this on your own time<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />It doesn't change shape, but there is the Launch Escape Tower, which probably affects the centre of gravity and aerodynamic properties enough to cause the capsule to land apex-first.<br />Since the LET isn't present on reentry, it won't cause a problem.<br /><br />Of course, I'm not an engineer so I might be wrong.
From what I see the X-37 basic design has been designed and tested, by NASA, and represents a viable vehicle to reach orbit and, most importantly return. Why re-invent the wheel?<br /><br />This leaves getting it to orbital velocity the problem. Whether you could air-launch it, or not, becomes a big question, especially if it is scaled up to hold six or seven people. One possibility would be using 747 wings and engines and a new center section as the basis of a White Knight derivative, I believe there are a number of them sitting around Mojave anyway, might as well put them to use. That might work for the current size vehicle, with two or three crew members and a booster, but much bigger it would be a problem. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<font color="yellow">"Good god, this is the last post I'm making in this thread. "</font><br /><br />Cool -- then I'll just clear up the last couple of errors and we can be done with this.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"According to T/space's literature their CSX is based on the Corona capsule."</font><br /><br />Indeed it is. Except that this is the first time you have mentioned the CSX. You referred to the CXV before which is a completely different craft and is shaped like a gumdrop. You can see on their home page both vehicles. Under their ''Projects" section, the CXV has it's own section w/picture, and you can see a picture of the CSX under the 'Lunar Exploration and Development' project. I'll assume that you were simply confused about the TLAs.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"The Apollo apex first IS NOT only a consideration for aborts..."</font><br /><br />Both the quote you supplied and the one I supplied indicated this was an abort problem. You are simply assuming it is a problem at other times with no evidence. I've already researched it -- I'd read about the issue long before this thread, which is why I was able to rapidly re-locate the computer redesign document in my response on the issue.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"I DID acknowledge making the mistake about the mass vs. shape of the Gemini heat shield. Go back and look it up."</font><br /><br />I've never brought up that error in any of my posts because I consider it completely insignificant. Go back and look it up.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"This is called a strawman argument. "</font><br /><br />No -- this is not. Here is some info on strawman arguments for your erudition. I did not make a patently false and ridiculous statement and then tie it back to your claim about care-free re-entries (CFR). I have
"".......would be a 10 person or larger craft that would fly even higher than the SS1 allowing passengers to experience weightlessness for a period of time. "<br /><br />You can experience weightlessness on an amusement park ride. Height has nothing to do with it, aside from having enough of it to free fall for a short period. But I guess they mean they'll increase the length of time.
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>This leaves getting it to orbital velocity the problem.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Something like this (1971):<br />
ronatu,<br /><br />I am really looking forward to seeing Rutan's design for the carrier wing for SpaceShip Two. It will have to be considerably larger than the White Knight, and is almost certain to be a strange looking bird. He has repeatedly thrown the tried and true out the window, such as long fuselages. The White Knight is wing, and nothing else. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>ronatu, <br /><br />I am really looking forward to seeing Rutan's design for the carrier wing for SpaceShip Two. It will have to be considerably larger than the White Knight, and is almost certain to be a strange looking bird. He has repeatedly thrown the tried and true out the window, such as long fuselages. The White Knight is wing, and nothing else. <br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I appologize, but the shuttle was a cold was era monstr.<br />The shuttle program actually killed (or stop for time being) a lot of interesting directions in man space exploration in USSR and USA.<br /><br />It is great achievement but it is time for Shuttle to go.<br />
newsartist,<br /><br />Consider the take off roll of a fully loaded KC-135, which takes something like 9,000 feet. Compare that with the take off roll of a fully loaded C-5, which is something like 5,000 feet. The C-5 is lifting considerably more than the KC-135, yet it gets off the ground quicker, using the same number of engines. We also have that magic bullet called Boundry Layer Control, which can do amazing things to the stall speed of a wing. Then there is engine technology, with General Electric announcing the development of a turbofan engine which weighs about 700 pounds, yet produces about 118,000 pounds of thrust. I am not an engineer, but I think that we have not seen anything yet when it comes to large airfoils.<br /><br />And Rutan is the man who will make whatever record for maximum all-up weight currently existant become merely a footnote in aviation history. Look what the White Knight did with two small turbines. The rate of climb carrying SpaceShip One was about 1,000 feet per minute, if the White Knight could make it to 50,000 feet in 60 minutes. With two small executive aircraft engines! Give the guy some power, and the ability to FLY a certain way, and miracles happen. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>
that's gorgeous! The Mig P3 rocks! Only lifting body to have flown in space. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
<font color="yellow">"General Electric announcing the development of a turbofan engine which weighs about 700 pounds, yet produces about 118,000 pounds of thrust."</font><br /><br /><i>Qué?</i> A turbofan with thrust-to-weight ratio of ~169!? Links?
Tap_Sa,<br /><br />The engine is the GE90-115B, which currently holds the record as the most powerful commercial jet engine. I have not been able to find the site that I first came across, and the corporate sites I have looked at are not as technical as the first one that I saw.<br /><br />This engine has produced a steady-state thrust of 122,000 pounds, and I am certain that I read that it weighs around 700 pounds. It is to be used on the Boeing 777. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>
<font color="yellow"> can anyone explain the merits of the WK over such an approach</font><br /><br />The merits of a WK is burt knows it works and works well. No need trying a different approach when what you've got works. The old addage, if it aint broke, don't fix it.... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#ff0000"><u><em>Don't let your sig line incite a gay thread ;>)</em></u></font> </div>
Starfire,<br /><br />ASSET and PRIME were two American lifting body test vehicles that flew back in the 60s. <br /><br />
There was one X-Prize team that had a basic design for an orbital system...Vanguard or something like that was the team name. I'm too lazy to look it up right now. But I remember a capsule and a reusable two stage launch vehicle. Seems like the most logical approach for a basic, low tech orbital transportation system.
sorry, I meant in Orbit:<br />Asset was suborbital<br />http://www.astronautix.com/craft/asset.htm<br />Prime was still suborbital, albeit with an apogee of 1500km!<br />http://www.astronautix.com/craft/prime.htm<br /><br />Here...it's the BOR-4, a test vehicle in the shape of the Mig deisgn I mentioned. It completed 1.25 orbits<br /><br />http://www.astronautix.com/craft/bor4.htm<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 189
-
-
See a dead Chinese satellite burn up as a brilliant fireball across the night sky (video)- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
This Christmas Eve, humans will try to embrace a star
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 6
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 38
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram