Does Private Rocket-Planes has a chance?!!

[daniko]

Hi, this article raised a lots of concerns in me.<br />http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Rocket_Plane_Roulette_999.html<br /><br /><b><i><br />Rocket Plane Roulette<br /><br />Major Mike Adams pictured with his X-15A-3.<br /><br />The safety record of rocket-powered aircraft suggests that the suborbital tourism industry is headed for a crash - and a lawyer feeding frenzy that will wipe it out. I'm a supporter of private spaceflight projects. <br />by Jeffrey F. Bell<br />Honolulu HI (SPX) Mar 07, 2007<br />I’m a supporter of private spaceflight projects for the basic reason that Government space agencies have reached a state of total intellectual stasis with NASA’s plan to redo Apollo 50 years later, China's plan to redo Soyuz/Salyut at about 1/8 the pace managed by the USSR, and Russia's plan to redo Zond with billionares in place of turtles.<br />And at this very time of official stagnation, a variety of private firms have finally found a business model that is both within the financial capacity of private capital and attractive to the general public: Suborbital tourism.<br /><br />But there is a big problem with this nascent industry that most of its supporters are glossing over: Safety.<br /><br />The romantic half of my brain would really like to see these businesses succeed and prosper, but the rational half tells me that they are heading for a series of fatal accidents that will be financial and public relations disasters.<br /><br />To get a handle on how dangerous suborbital winged rocket flight really is, I have examined the safety history of research rocketplanes in the US and UK. That record is not very encouraging:<br /><br />Flight History of Experimental Rocketplanes<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> Military First Pwrd Date of Cause of<br />Name Serial # Flight Flts Loss Loss<br />------- ---------- -------- -- -------- ----------<br />X-1 46-062 25.0</i></b>

 

[no_way]

The X-planes, by definition, are eXperimental planes. This renders the whole argument void.<br />Take the safety data of ANY experimental vehicle vs. an operational one and you can draw just one conclusion: experimental vehicles are unsafe.<br /><br />Which tells you diddly squat about operational vehicles.

 

[holmec]

So what no_way is trying to say is: Yes, they have a chance.<br /><br />Actually if you get your hands on Discovery Channel's Black Sky DVD you can see the differences and the inovation and the risk taken by companies like Scaled Composites, because Burt kind of details that in the DVD.<br /><br />Even with the test flights, Melville says to the effect thet if NASA was doing it they would know exactly how it would fly before even the first test flight.<br /><br />But these companies take risks that NASA would not take for a manned operational vehicle.<br /><br />And that's how its done, 10% (an observed guess) of the decision making is by the seat of the pants. And that's a lot of risk when your talking about peoples lives. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

"But there is a big problem with this nascent industry that most of its supporters are glossing over: Safety. "<br /><br />The supporters may be glossing it over. But the designers are not. Safety is a key consideration to any of these manned commercial companies. The reason is not just because it will ruin them and kill people, but also that's part of selling the idea to the public. Safer and Cheaper than NASA. <br /><br />"Hybrids have a solid fuel neccessarily carried in the tail and a liquid oxydizer neccessarily carried in a pressure tank further forward. The hybrid rocketplane pilot faces the choice of dumping only the oxydizer and coping with a massive trim change or retaining it for a proper CG and landing extremely fast and heavy"<br /><br />This is really comparing apples and oranges. The X-15 did experimental runs, the SpaceShipTwo will do the same one over and over and over and over.....routine. Also the rocket is only used to go up. And it will use all of its fuel. If it doesn't then that's where the author may have a slight point. Now he solution is to make the solid part of the hybrid engine ejectable. I think this will cause the opposite problem of being too light in the back and hence the craft will still be unbalanced. Maybe, but I think that a parachute for the whole craft could be even better and safer. There was an effort a few years back to have small planes have parachutes for the whole craft.<br /><br />Otherwise you train your pilots for such an event. With SpaceShipOne there was one flight where this was brought up and they decided to fire the rocket and burn off the fuel. I think they might be able to land the plane but there would be damage to the plane but I don't think the crew would have been harmed.<br /><br />Another solution is to put some kind of skids on the bottom of the hull for such a fast landing. Then it would be minimal damage to the craft.<br /><br />There seems to be a higher risk with SpaceShipTwo than a commercial j <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[josh_simonson]

>The X-planes, by definition, are eXperimental planes. This renders the whole argument void. <br /><br />Every plane is an X-plane for it's first 100 or so flights.

 

[no_way]

>>Every plane is an X-plane for it's first 100 or so flights.<br />Thats why nobody is proposing to put paying passengers on board of any of these rockets for the first 100 or so flights.<br /><br />btw, there is a lively discussion going on over that same article over here:<br />http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/008611.html#008611<br />

 

[nyarlathotep]

No, Bell is simply an idiot. <br /><br />Trying to extrapolate the safety of a commercial suborbital vehicle like SS2 from X-plane flights is like trying to extrapolate the safety of a Boeing 787 from test flights of the Wright Flier.

 

[JonClarke]

As usual Bell has nothing postive to say. <br /><br />His history is as bad as his engineering. I can't say much about the the F-91, but the SR-177 was cancelled because of the double blow of changing operational circumstances and politics. It was nothing to do with safety concerns.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[no_way]

plus, most of his claims as "facts" were debunked in the thread i linked above. a post by "dave w"<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>So he's showing 4 "losses" for 3 airframes, 2 of which were still intact when the research program ended...<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />i mean, why do they even publish him at all ?

 

[bpfeifer]

The first fifty years of railroad travel in the US was filled with horrific disasters. Many passengers died in collisions and derailments. Eventually things improved. Many new signalling systems were created and installed. Design and construction of trains and track got better.<br /><br />The early days of flight were filled with accidents. There were even deaths in planes built by the Wright Brothers. Many things have contributed to the increases in aircraft safety, including radio, radar, navigation beacons, GPS, imroved materials sciences, a constant evolution in engines, and on and on...<br /><br />Both of these industries still see accidents and deaths even today. I don't think anyone is naive enough to think spaceflight, by any system, will be any different. Yes it's dangerous. Will we learn, and improve? Of course we will.<br /><br />Viewing the future through the lense of the past will tend to give you a more balanced perspective. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Brian J. Pfeifer http://sabletower.wordpress.com<br /> The Dogsoldier Codex http://www.lulu.com/sabletower<br /> </div>

 

[astronaut23]

"Every plane is an X-plane for it's first 100 or so flights."<br /><br />Well they declared STS operational after only 4 flights. Seems kinda silly doesn't it?

 

[no_way]

government operated trucking lines can do that. they can kill seven astronauts once in a while too, while flying a vehicle that doesnt adhere to their own "man-rating" standards. you see, they dont go bankrupt or anything, they are awarded next years budget increase to "fix the issues"<br /><br />

 

[rocketman5000]

correct me if I am wrong, but a derivative of the motors from the X-1 were reused in the X-15? <br /><br />Argueably the most successful expiremental airplane ever.

 

[rocketman5000]

expiremental planes are made to stretch the limits of what we know. The fact that something goes wrong should know be surprising then. If you don't know exactlyhow something will react then it is sometimes difficult to give the right imput to fix the situation. That is why the brave pilots were said to have " the right stuff"<br />

 

[j05h]

"Build it, fly it, break it."<br /><br />j <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[PistolPete]

(edit: thread title changed for syntax.)<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>correct me if I am wrong, but a derivative of the motors from the X-1 were reused in the X-15? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Yes, for the first few flights until the XLR-99 was ready. They were mainly used to test the flight characteristics of the X-15 at slower speeds. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><em>So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.</em></p><p><strong>-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai</strong></p> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">The X-planes, by definition, are eXperimental planes. This renders the whole argument void.</font>/i><br /><br />Also, one of the goals of an X-vehicle is often to discover boundaries by pushing until something fails.<br /><br />I too am concerned at how the entire market will react following one or more accidents (and I am sure there will be some). Does that particular operator recover? Will there be a serious spill over to other operators? Will the government move to effectively shutdown the operations?<br /><br />However, along with everyone here, I don't think this article provided any value.</i>

 

[rocketman5000]

Now that you have posted about Reaction Motors I remember a little of the story from the Simisonian A&S Museum. I found it interesting that they couldn't throttle individual chambers, but would vary the thrust by turning multiple chambers on and off.<br /><br />The exhibit is also where I learned about using x-rays to inspect the welds of the chamber. I believe this was a first in rocketry. <br /><br />I am stretching my memory which is should never be done on forums as it leads to glittering generalities, but....

 

[pathfinder_01]

I think private rockets have a chance, but risk is a big factor. With tourism bad foodservice much less one accident will hurt business. However if space flight is about travel(i.e. a quick sub orbital hop from New York to Tokyo) then people may be more tolerant of accidents(i..e. no way to get there faster and the airplane is too slow!)

 

[spacefire]

seeing the name Jeffery Bell made me not even care to read the article knowing from the beginning it is BS. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[josh_simonson]

>However if space flight is about travel(i.e. a quick sub orbital hop from New York to Tokyo) then people may be more tolerant of accidents(i..e. no way to get there faster and the airplane is too slow!)<br /><br />I think it's the other way around, people won't take a 2-.001% chance at death to save a few hours on a flight. The main customers will be thrill-seekers until the safety levels approach that of other modes of travel. Cargo may be a different story.<br /><br />I enjoy reading jeffrey's articles, it's always refreshing to see a different opinon/perspective. I actually thought this was one of his better ones - I have no doubt that there will be crashes and accidents in the development and operation of these vehicles, and quibbling about wether it's going to be a 2% rate or .01% rate doesn't matter because it'll still happen at the flight-rates they envision - placing suborbital tourism alongside cave diving in hazard levels for at least the next 15 years or so.

 

[trailrider]

Question: How many B747 flights were grounded after TWA Flight 800 blew up off Long Island? (I will NOT entertain conspiracy theories about the flight being shot out of the sky by terrorists, accidental military launches or an attack by Klingons!) Second question: When was the last B747 modified to eliminate fuel/air explosive mixtures in the centerline tanks?<br /><br />Answer to Q1: NONE! They kept flying. Answer to Q2: Don't know... It HASN'T BEEN DONE TO ANYWHERE NEAR ALL B747's YET!<br /><br />Yet people still fly, and the airlines keep flying the beasts!<br /><br />The early days of commercial aviation were by no means free of risk for passengers. But with time, improvements were made, and commercial aviation turned from a joy-ride for the rich and business people to a commonplace means of transportation.<br /><br />The FAA has cognisance over commercial spaceflight. They will, with bureaucratic inconsistancy make life painful for commercial entrepreneurs. But I suspect some good will come of it.<br /><br />Ad Luna! Ad Ares! Ad Astra!

 

[kdavis007]

Yes.....

 

[daniko]

O.k. - thanks for comments !<br /><br />What I'm left as last impression is that:<br />1) Private Rocket-Planes will make it - one way or another - there's no stopping for the progress of technology <br />2) Rocket-Plane Operators will mostly bite the dust - as a result they will change ownership - reshape and try again !<br /><br />So I'll just wait and observe ! I guess I'll try it after SP2 <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[rocketman5000]

I too believe that they will become as common as bizjets, but I think that they will rely on airbreating engines. Airbreathing engines will allow for less infersturcture and quicker turnaround time. One of those great technological advances would be a combines cycle turbo/scram or turbo ramjet. A second big advance would be a thermal protection system that was both light, reuseable and cheap enough to financially justify.<br /><br />conceptually in my head you would be able accellerate to supersonic speed using supercruise like on the F-22 Raptor, light off your (sc)ramjet and further accellerate in a parabolic path to your destination. A second flight path could be to perform multiple skips across the atmosphere like the WW2 German Antipodal Bomber <br /> concept or the Dynosaur. <br /><br />If you look at the overall speed of SS1 it really never exceeded speeds obtainable by turbojets. Mach 3.01 is listed in wiki SS1 <br /><br />