Scaled's plan for orbital flights revealed!

Status
Not open for further replies.
W

wvbraun

Guest
There is a t/space-presentation of their plans for manned lunar missions. In it there is a picture of a craft very similar to White Knight but apparently (judging from its landing gear) much bigger carrying a rocket. It's a small and blurry picture but it's *something*. <br /><br />Man, I really, really hope that t/space is selected for the planned CEV fly-off in 2008. They will kick Boeing's/LockMart's ass.<br /><br /><br />From hobbyspace.com:<br /><br /><i>The ETO (Earth-to-Orbit) system includes a White Knight type of first stage to launch S1 CSX modules, which can be configured to launch crew, cargo, or fuel. (See page 8 - Pictorial Taxonomy of Transportation Elements.) The S1 is also shown riding on top of other vehicles including the SpaceX Falcon V and a Kistler K-1.<br /><br />The ETO second stage is called the Common Core Booster (CCB). The CCB is an expendable. Engines on the S1 provide the third stage boost.<br /><br />A triple CCB second stage would be required to launch the much larger S2-CEV module that provides transport from LEO to the lunar surface for crews, cargo, or fuel. Though the CEV/Triple CCB combo is much larger than the S1-CCB (see page 13), the report indicates that the same aircraft (to be built by Scaled Composites) could be used for both. (Drop occurs at 25K ft.)<br /><br />Multiple S1 flights would bring propellant to LEO for transfer to the CEVs, which would provide repeated trips to the Moon and back.</i>
 
W

wvbraun

Guest
Hmm, from what I read here a single lunar mission with two CEVs (lunar landers) will require about <b>60</b> flights to LEO (White Knight 2 with CCB)...Isn't that excessive? They would have to launch once a week to fly one lunar mission per year. There would have to be launches every day to carry out a more robust expolration program. And the launch costs would obviously have to be *very* low.
 
N

no_way

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>single lunar mission with two CEVs (lunar landers) will require about 60 flights to LEO<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />I didnt get that number, but , high flight rate = good. Only high flight rate can bring the costs down and reliability up for spaceflight to become commonplace.<br />Remember that A Rocket a Day Keeps the High Costs Away ?<br />
 
R

rocketwatcher2001

Guest
Now my computer won't load past page one. I'm going to keep trying! Is there another site that has it in html? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
S

scottb50

Guest
Some very could ideas and some very bad ones.<br /><br />First we need a dedicated vehicle that goes from Low Earth Orbit to Lunar Orbit on a regular basis, then, all you have to get to LEO is what you want to get to the Moon, or Mars, for that matter.<br /><br />Lunar based, and maintained, vehicles dock to orbiting vehicles and transfer passenger up and down. Propellant is transfered to the Moon, or, if water become available, used from Lunar resources. <br /><br />As far as using a larger White Knight I doubt it is the preferred method. To take a vehicle, that could reach orbit with an appreciable payload, to 50,000 feet and Mach.8 would take a pretty hefty airplane. Then, the advantage that provides over a direct launch is questionable.<br /><br />With a six passenger vehicle, or a 20,000 pound cargo or propellant payload, something like the Falcon V makes a lot more sense. Built and flown on a regular bases they could be as dependable as current airliners, especially with escape provisions for passengers at every stage of a launch. <br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
R

rogers_buck

Guest
Is there just the one White Knight super? A fleet of 5 could whack the time to just 3 months @1 launch/week each.
 
N

nacnud

Guest
Its an airplane, why fly only once a week? You could fly as often as you liked, its multiple first and second stages that you need. ie try this as a guestimate<br /><br />vehicle............turn around<br /><br />white night....12 hours<br />1st stage.......1 week<br />2nd stage......1 month <br /><br />So for a launch a week you would need 1 white night, 1 first stage, and four 2nd stages.
 
R

rocketwatcher2001

Guest
Interesting-<br />I like it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
C

crix

Guest
Hells yeaaahhh!<br /><br />t/space members brought us SS1 and they are definately the right guys to tackle the moon as well. <br /><br />Will this actually happen? Will NASA be willing to give up so much control to t/space? Wow, reading that PDF was more exciting than seeing Star Wars! (Well, maybe that's too far.)<br /><br />Go t/space! Yes, they would totally kick Boeing/Lockmart's asses and I can't wait to see t/space bring us back to the moon.
 
M

mrmorris

Guest
<br />It's a set of Powerpoint slides, people. Yes, it's pretty, but that's why poeple use PP. There's no numbers of *anything* in there to indicate this is anything more real than... well Star Wars. I have no love for the status quo or for the Bo-Lock-Mart domination of space contracting. However -- I'd be a lot more impresed by a presentation from t/Space that contained more numbers than pictures. For three million dollars -- I'd like to see much more from them than a .ppt file -- especially since they're claiming that they'll return a heckuva lot more value for the dollar than the biggies.<br /><br />Incidently, the CXV looks a whole heckuva lot like the HMX AAS proposal.
 
N

nacnud

Guest
Well to be honest its only a power point proposal because that is all they have been asked to do so far, come up with an initial architecture for the CEV and associated craft. The small manned craft does look a lot like the HMX AAS proposal, I really liked that proposal, it seemed to make a lot of sense but it doesn't have to be exactly like that craft your Gemini X3 would work equally as well.<br /><br />Also the concept of using space based tugs to get a craft to the moon and use aero-braking to go back to LEO is not new. NASA had this idea with the turtle space tug back in the 80s.<br /><br />The thing that is most interesting about this concept is the small is beautiful and flotilla ideas. Also having all the tugs refuel in LEO instantly creates a need for low cost delivery of fuel to LEO, just the sort of need which would help create CATS which could possibly be the lasting legacy of this scheme.<br /><br />I’m sure the numbers have been calculated but I don’t see why t/space should make them public just yet. In fact I think that they are been brave to even release this much considering that Lockmart and Boeing have not even produce this much yet.<br />
 
C

crix

Guest
Yeah, but I have faith in these guys. Burt Rutan KNOWS how to build air vehicles. And I think he will quickly adapt, especially working with other smart people, in creating innovative, out-of-the-box-thinking, space craft. <br /><br />It's the innovative and non-beurocratic aspect of this group that makes me excited about their ideas.
 
M

mrmorris

Guest
<font color="yellow">"Well to be honest its only a power point proposal because that is all they have been asked to do so far, come up with an initial architecture for the CEV and associated craft. "</font><br /><br />Yes -- well I'm not saying the presentation is a load of horse flops -- just that there's little actually <b>said</b> in it to get excited about. Having spent the past several weeks researching Gemini-X3 -- and especially now that I'm starting to compile a paper on the results of my research and design specs -- the lack of actual <font color="orange">data</font>in the proposal is very obvious to me. A brief section of the paper I'm writing up on Gemini-X3 follows (very much a draft right now):<br /><br /><br /><i>"...In designing Gemini-X3 -- there are numerous differences in the mission goals that will drastically alter the vehicle specifications. It will share little in common with the original beyond a similar size, shape and mass; cabin design (crew remains seated throughout the flight); de-orbit philosophy (an expendable de-orbit stage powered by SRMs), and re-entry guidance (offset c.g. used to correct targeting errors). The lineage of Gemini-X3 will be clear to anyone, but it's the changes from the original that make Gemini-X3 an economically efficient manned spacecraft.<br /><br />The mission goals of Gemini-X3 include the following:<br /><br />- Short duration flights (<24 hrs total, <12 hrs up & down. Target of <16 hrs total)<br />- Extremely precise ballistic re-entry (<4 mi2 footprint. Target of <1 mi2)<br />- />85% reusability (only de-orbit module is expendable)<br />- 100% autonomous operation. Humans in the mix only as emergency backup.<br />- Flight-specific expenses (excluding launch costs) under $5,000,000.<br /><br />The Gemini-X3 will consist of two modules -- the Crew Module (CM) and De-Orbit Module (DM). The crew module will contain all of the functional elements of the spacecraft *except* for the s</i>
 
W

wvbraun

Guest
"However -- I'd be a lot more impresed by a presentation from t/Space that contained more numbers than pictures. For three million dollars -- I'd like to see much more from them than a .ppt file"<br /><br />In the presentation it says "Edited for Public Release"! The version NASA got was full of numbers I'm sure. They probably just don't want Boeing and LockMart to know what exactly they're up to.<br /><br /><br />"Incidently, the CXV looks a whole heckuva lot like the HMX AAS proposal."<br /><br />Well, t/space is a consortium that includes HMX...
 
N

nacnud

Guest
Nice paper <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />, I'm not sure about the APAS-89 over probe and cone docking mechanism but I'll post that in the G-X3 thread later. <br /><br />However the ppt file is for a presentation, NOT for reading. I know from experience that a visual presentation is to give a general understanding of the concept under discussion and to act as a prompt for the speaker. It is too much to ask the viewer to cope with that detail and still pay attention to the speaker, who describes the concept in more detail as the presentation is given.<br /><br />Unfortunately it looks as though we will have to wait for the white paper in order to get the real details we both would like to see.<br />
 
R

rogers_buck

Guest
It's just parallel vs. serial. Depends on where the bottle neck is. If it takes a week to install the CCB on the White Knight then more White Knights processed in parallel could solve that. If it is the production of the CCBs and their processing or the on-orbit operations, then no joy.
 
R

rogers_buck

Guest
I wonder who the intended audience at NASA is for this presentation. The best guy to sell in business is the boss. If its going through the rank and file then the statements along the lines of "If you don't do what you do for a living with us, we can pull this thing off" might not be so well received. I would guess the rank-n-file might be inclined to think of SS1 as a stunt and not put so much stock in the superiority of an undocumented process hostile to their culture.<br /><br />If lock-mart gets the gig, it seems this bold initiative might still be doable as a parallel development. An open P.O. to buy the completed systems if they meet the specs would let them borrow the money to realize the systems. Alternatively, a series of cash prizes for each of the milestones might likewise do the trick.<br /><br />I liked their proposal, it gave me sweet dreams last night. Thanks for posting it.
 
A

arobie

Guest
This is good news. I love seeing these plans being built. Man what a nice early birthday present! My birthday was the day after it was released, and that was the day that I spotted this thread. I hadn't had time for this meager reply untill now. I've been busy lately.<br /><br />mrmorris,<br /><br />I'm also looking forward to the numbers behind this plan. I hope they are released to the public eventually.<br /><br />BTW, Very nice paper on your Gemini-X3!! I can't wait to see more when it's finished. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />
 
M

mousebot

Guest
"A sub-system can't break if it doesn't exist"<br /><br />My new favorite quote for the week
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts