Spaceliner Business

[spacelifejunkie]

With the recent unveiling of Spaceship 2 and the upcoming X - Prize Cup I thought of a good question for the forum. What is the likelihood of technology created by these enterprises that would create a spaceliner business. Not just joyrides and tourism, I'm thinking of Las Cruces to Tokyo or Sydney in about an hour on sub - orbital rocketplanes carrying 25 - 50 passengers. They would of course pay a premium but with so many going the cost could be reduced. Here are the problems I see. <br /><br />1. The passengers would have to be trained. Unlike the airline business, you wouldn't be able to just buy a ticket and show up. Training may only have to be once, however. Good for repeat business.<br /><br />2. The overall trip would not be one hour just because your rocket plane can travel at Mach 10. If you live in New York, you have to fly to Las Cruces (a few hours if no layovers) plus it would require a White Knight like vehicle a couple of hours to reach altitude and be in a position to drop. <br /><br />3. Related to number 2, can a White Knight like vehicle be designed to pick up a space liner with all the necessary fuel, TPS, landing gear, etc. of that size? How else could it be done?<br /><br />4. By the time you reach the New Mexico Spaceport, load into the spaceliner, fly to altitude, rocket away, and land, would it be worth the $50,000 per person (even $25,000) spent to take a much more dangerous ride? I'm speaking of the general population (healthy of course) rather than the space freaks on this forum who would lop off body parts to take that trip (myself included).<br /><br /><br />SLJ<br />

 

[spacefire]

you'd have to be able to take off from and land at commercial airports for this to work.<br />but if you have to have a carrier aircraft anywhere you go...well you could have the carrier aircraft follow the sub-orbital second stage and that would give you a decent turn-around time without building hundreds of them.<br />but to make hypersonic, suborbital- let's not talk about orbital, no need to go to LEO just to fly from one place to another - transport a reality, you would probably need a single stage ship able to use existing airports.<br />I think if you plan to carry on the order of ten people, it is technically doable, but would be waay more expensive to operate than a business jet.<br /><br />Unless you were talking about lives at stake, there's really no need to go anywhere that fast. A business jet would take you fast enough. There are supersonic business jets on the drawing board though, so there is a trend in increasing speed for those who can afford it, but there is no rationale to go hypersonic. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[spacester]

As much as I hate to throw water on the flames of any endeavor which advances space flight, I have to point out that a suborbital rocketplane is going to be seen by the powers that be to be essentially the same as a weapons system. So unfortunately I see it as a non-starter. Another thing about which I hope to be proven wrong. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacelifejunkie]

Spacefire and Spacester, excellent points. What is the need? The only way I can see some viability in this (other than cost, of course) is people who simply don't want to spend 20+ hours on a plane. Anyone who has done that knows it's tough. Also, it is vital that the vehicle be large enough to hold many people. I threw out 25 - 50 just to get this discussion started. <br /><br />I've always believed that a space faring civilization starts with heavy lift rockets, advanced materials (nanotechnology applications), and modern avionics. STS, ISS, even Apollo is great but NASA has never built the giant heavy lifter needed for space infrastructure to thrive. Again, what has the need been? Given time, maybe space elevators and nuclear rockets can take us anywhere in the solar system. Even if all of these are a reality, hypersonic travel by rocket or advanced air breathers (SCRAM, PDE, MIPCC, MHD) will still be useful due to people's demand to travel here on earth. Faster and bigger will always be desired but practicality and market forces will always play a role.<br /><br />On a more practical note, Andrews Space has an interesting concept using a TSTO system. The first stage is a jet and rocket powered suborbital plane that takes off the runway and collects oxygen from the air for the engines and turning excess into LOX. The LOX is used for kerosene rockets that propel the craft to suborbital heights where a second rocket mounted on top separates and fires to LEO. That technology sounds useful in the spaceliner idea. Take off from a runway under jet power, collect LOX, then use the extra weight that would otherwise be used for the second stage rocket as extra rocket fuel and passengers for the trip. This thing is huge! It's called the Gryphon Aerospaceplane. Check out the video.<br /><br />http://www.andrews-space.com/content-main.php?subsection=MTA5<br /><br /><br />SLJ

 

[webtaz99]

Hello? Anyone home? <br /><br />Ever heard of the Concorde? It couldn't stay in business. And the tickets were orders of magnitude cheaper. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacelifejunkie]

The Concorde is 1960's/70's technology. It goes at Mach 2+. It doesn't go to space. It had limited airspace due to high speed in atmosphere. It only held about 120 passengers. It wasn't built for mass transportation. The Gryphon design could easily hold that many passengers. Since Concorde was not an American endeavor it was limited to flights to the US. The US, with oceans on either side, could have many more flight route options, especially to the far east.<br />Maybe the market isn't there. Maybe it's too complicated to pull off. Maybe this just isn't possible. I do think it is a worthy intellectual exercise on this site. Especially considering the amount of technological improvement in aerospace that is occuring.<br /><br />SLJ

 

[vogelbek]

I would say from a business perspective, the only way this notion will be interesting will be if supersonic business jets prove exceptionally popular, and business leaders start looking for even more exotic forms of transportation to allow them to make their tee time with their beijing partners, meet their wife/husband for lunch in paris, and still be in the office to meet with the board. <br /><br />Fanciful? Maybe, but so are business jets if you think about it. They wouldnt make sense in the 1950 business scene, where the pace was slower and corperations were less expansive. In the 2050's, who can guess what techniology and globalism will do to the business landscape?

 

[spacefire]

vogel, why is there a need for business leaders to meet face to face if time is critical? they can video conference, exchange emails, fax....so on.<br />Only reasoning for face to face meeting is if both parties are really paranoid for snoopers. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[spacelifejunkie]

The video conference is a valid point and thank you newsartist for specific information on the Concorde. If a hypersonic passenger spaceplane can be made reliable, safe and offer flights cheap enough, the wealthy would love to travel half way across the world in an hour for lots of reasons. Have you ever spent 20+ hours on a plane? Prestige means a lot in the world of the ultra wealthy. Not only could an American vacation in Sydney but they could also get the ride of their life. The market combination of destination vacationing and space tourism could be significant. Twenty years from now, will there be people willing to pay 5-10 times their far east vacation price for a hypersonic ride into space? You betcha.<br /><br />SLJ

 

[qso1]

The problem is one of cost.<br /><br />Development costs and recouping the expense of development. When the U.S. entered the race to build the SST, Boing, Lockheed, and North American Aviation (As it was known then) responded with sleek mach 2.5 plus proposals. The Boeing entry was even known as the 2707 because the number reflected the mach 2.7 speed they were shooting for and retained the Boeing tradition of 7s in their designations.<br /><br />The cost of development was much more than traditional jets for obvious reasons. The government was planning to subsidize the SST. This eventually resulted in taxpayers who would never be able to afford a seat on a 2707 to ask why? Then there were environmental concerns. Would regular SST flights destroy the ozone layer as some suggested? By 1971, the three U.S. contenders had built mockups only to see the government cancel their part of the subsidizing of the SST which of course, resulted in the SSTs cancellation that year.<br /><br />Kennedy promised the moon and supersonic commercial flight. His lunar promise was delivered. Reagan promised a space station and an Orient Express. His station promise was kept, albiet barely. Neither saw their promise of supersonic or hypersonic flights realized.<br /><br />Until some new technical development brings down the development costs of large supersonic or hypersonic commercial vehicles...the SST or HST will always be up against the cost barrier. With any luck, the private industry/enterprise space tourism efforts will eventually break this barrier. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[spacelifejunkie]

Here's the latest from Virgin Galactic. This is the first time I've heard of point to point travel ambitions for future Spaceships.<br /><br />http://www.space.com/news/061110_tai_galactic.html<br /><br />SLJ<br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[spacester]

Sweet! I love it when a plan comes together. Things are playing out pretty close to how many of us predicted.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">This is the first time I've heard of point to point travel ambitions for future Spaceships. </font><br /><br />Me too. This is great!<br /><br />It wasn't that long ago when it was commonly claimed that the market for space tourism was too small. I think we can put that idea to rest.<br /><br />It wasn't that long ago that a young person posted here as a newbie asking about their possibilities of becoming an Astronaut, and IIRC no one ever got around to mentioning the new emerging private sector. I trust we're over the hump on that misconception as well.<br /><br />IMO Sir Richard would not be announcing this if he didn't have some tacit agreements with FAA and Pentagon folks and others vis-a-vis the 'potential weapons capability' of his new transportation system. So that is awesome news, there are $Billions to be made in that market.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[docm]

Those pointing out that telecommunications could trump face-to-face meetings fail to take into account two things that made the 'jet age' take off;<br /><br />1. you can't shake someones hand and <i>really</i> look in their eyes to see their soul by teleconference, or long distance conference calls 50 years ago, and such direct contact is critical to many people and groups.<br /><br />2. rocket-setters, the direct descendants of the jet-setters, are a likely development. These affluent pleasure travelers provided much of the profits early on. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[scottb50]

I've never thought telecommunications could trump face to face meetings, where I have a problem is how fast do you want to set up the meeting and how much are your willing to pay.<br /><br />Is there an advantage going from LA to Paris in 3 hours instead of 12 hours? Maybe for business but pleasure travelers might not see the advantage. Riding an ICBM might be cool but is it practical? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[docm]

Riding luxury or chartered jets aren't necessarily 'practical' either, but lots of people use 'em every day. Many rode the Concorde just for the "cool" factor & speed. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mdodson]

Part of the rationale for Orient Express was the ability to get spare parts rapidly. If you're losing thousands and thousands each hour (I think that a printing press was the example) saving nine hours in getting a part from Peoria to Hong Kong would be useful.<br /><br />Thanks for bringing that link to our attention!

 

[mdodson]

"Sir Richard...the 'potential weapons capability' of his new transportation system. "<br /><br />We've seen that a common 757 and 767 can be used as potent weapons. I don't worry about a faster plane being more evil.

 

[spacester]

<font color="yellow">"Sir Richard...the 'potential weapons capability' of his new transportation system. " <br /><br />We've seen that a common 757 and 767 can be used as potent weapons. I don't worry about a faster plane being more evil. </font><br /><br />Agreed. Sub-Orbital craft are not going to have much crossrange capability anyway (no precision targetting), and you're not going to be able to sneak a large bomb on anyway. But it's always been an issue on the table until recently. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacelifejunkie]

Planetspace has plans for the spaceliner. <br /><br />http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/070214_techwed_planetspace.html<br /><br />It seems as though everyone is planning on 2010 to be a starting time for sub orbital flights. Virgin Galactic seems to be in the lead with possible 2009 flights and plenty of testing over the next 18 months. The competition is fun to watch. <br /><br /><br />SLJ

 

[docm]

2009/10 looks to rival the mid 60's rocket-jockey days if things go right <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nexium]

Take off from White Sands proving grounds seems acceptable to most potential customers, but landing near Tokyo or other big cities is a big problem. Perhaps the passengers and cargo could land by parachute and the craft crash into Mount Fugii or the East China Sea? If there is only one flight per week; only a narrow window is served quickly. Neil

 

[nyarlathotep]

<font color="yellow">Perhaps the passengers and cargo could land by parachute and the craft crash into Mount Fugii or the East China Sea?</font><br /><br />I'm sure they'd just make some quirky cartoon about it involving magical girls, powered suits, or possibly both.