T/space Offers Earth Orbit CXV by 2008

[gunsandrockets]

I've read the t/Space CXV capsule is based on the Corona spy satellite film recovery capsule. I guess that explains the pill shaped spacecraft we see in the t/Space artwork. Does anyone know any more details about the t/Space CXV capsule or the history of the Corona capsule?

 

[SpaceKiwi]

On the face of it this seems an eminently good idea, almost too good to be true. Even if NASA doesn't come to the party, t/Space should investigate the private investor route. You have to think there would be a market for this sucker, regardless of whether governmental space agencies decide to get involved.<br /><br />With Rutan down to build the capsule, perhaps this was/is part of his company's medium-term vision anyway. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font size="2" color="#ff0000">Who is this superhero?  Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!</font></em></p><p><em><font size="2">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></em></p><p><font size="5">Bring Back The Black!</font></p> </div>

 

[nacnud]

I think this capsule design could well have come out of the Alternative Access to the Station program that I have mentioned before.<br /><br /><br />Especially HMXs proposal for a capsule.<br />

 

[spacefire]

if they can build it for 400mil and launch 4-5 people to LEO for 20million/launch, this opens up a lot of possibilities. I just hope the government will not interfere with private people using the system to get to LEO for vacations or commercial interest.<br />That's why I would not like this project to be funded by NASA entirely. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[jurgens]

Maybe t/space plans on joining with Lockheed? Kind of how Norhthrop and Boeing are working together?

 

[soyuztma]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>First of all I did not have time to read the last three pages. Second, essentially the brain behind Transformational Space ( TSpace ) is Rutan.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Rutan isn't the brains behind t/Space, it's Gary Hudson. Scaled Composites is just a contractor to t/Space. I like the overall t/Space concept but i do find it really annoying that they keep misusing Rutan's track record, in every article they refer to him, but he is only a contractor. The track record of Gary Hudson, who is the actual man behind t/Space, is a lot less impresive than Rutan's. Hudson has been involved in a lot of failed space start-ups like Rotary Rocket.<br />I also think that if they would award t/Space a contract to build a spacecraft, it should be just for there spacecraft, not for there air-launched rocket. The cost for there rocket sounds overly optimistic. They should design the spacecraft so that in can be launched on the Falcon V, Delta 4 or Atlas 5. And only if Airlaunch can prove with the contract from DARPA that they can build and launch a rocket for less money, they should get the contract to build their airlaunched vehicle that can launch their CXV. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow"> (t/Space) thinks it can help NASA close the gap between retiring the space shuttle fleet and fielding a Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) to carry astronauts beyond Earth's orbit.</font>/i><br /><br />The second bullet in t/Space's summary slide is: "<i>Commercial service can <font color="yellow"><b>eliminate the 2010-2014 gap</b></font>in U.S. human spaceflight</i>"<br /><br />This is interesting because the presentation was delivered on March 2nd, well before Griffin made this one of his top priorities.</i>

 

[wvbraun]

"The track record of Gary Hudson, who is the actual man behind t/Space, is a lot less impresive than Rutan's."<br /><br />But it wasn't Hudson's fault. The best example for this is the AAS program: NASA could have an operational manned ETO system (in addition to the Shuttle) right now if they had supported Hudson and his team at the time.

 

[wvbraun]

What I really want to know: Has t/space submitted a proposal on May 2?

 

[wvbraun]

No, that was the interim report dated March 2.

 

[gladiator1332]

Well I guess it is safe to say that if LM has praised the T-Space plan, then NASA has atleast seen it.

 

[gladiator1332]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> I also think that if they would award t/Space a contract to build a spacecraft, it should be just for there spacecraft, not for there air-launched rocket. The cost for there rocket sounds overly optimistic. They should design the spacecraft so that in can be launched on the Falcon V, Delta 4 or Atlas 5. And only if Airlaunch can prove with the contract from DARPA that they can build and launch a rocket for less money, they should get the contract to build their airlaunched vehicle that can launch their CXV. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />The air launch idea sounds like a good one. It is one of the reasons why I like this plan. And it isn't like the air launch plan is something new. Some of the most famous planes were air launched, like the X-1, X-15, Space Ship One, and the Pegasus launch vehicle. <br />And if they can man rate an airlaunch booster for less than a D4 or Atlas 5, then why not go for it. <br />

 

[gladiator1332]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> Rutan isn't the brains behind t/Space, it's Gary Hudson. Scaled Composites is just a contractor to t/Space. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />He might not be the brains (though he is a brilliant designer noetheless) he is the biggest name they have. Space Ship One was a big thing for the space community and Rutan is a hot name in the community. So they deffinatly can use him to attract some attention to their idea. <br /><br />

 

[spacefire]

here's a lot of info:<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T/Space<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[nacnud]

It looks like they have put a 747 on stilts to accomodate the air launched rocket slung underneath. I wouldn't want to have to park that at the airport <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />.

 

[gladiator1332]

Yeah I was wondering how they were going to accomodate the booster under the 747. Do you think they will stick with that plan, or do you think Rutan will build his own custom aircraft?

 

[spacefire]

the rocket has to drop from the plane so putting it underneath is a no brainer. But I'm sure a system can be devised such that it can be placed atop an aircraft with a double tail like the AN225.<br />The aircraft will pitch up at 45degrees and a parachute can pull the rocket away fast.<br />From there, the launch can continue as described: another parachute rights the rocket and then the engine is fired. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[nacnud]

Eh? Why go through at that when a pair, or three, of stilts would do?

 

[nacnud]

Depends which is cheeper and I suspect that a beged, borrowed or stolen 747 isn't too hard to come by. I wonder if it would be branded Virgin Galactic? <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/cool.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">No, that was the interim report dated March 2.</font>/i><br /><br />I think t/Space is focusing on the general architecture of the entire program (at least up to a full Lunar capability -- nothing about Mars). In many aspects, the t/Space report essentially says: <b>The NASA RFP for the CEV is wrong!</b><br /><br />Jeffrey Bell's latest op-ed "CEV: The Last Battlestar" basically comes to the same conclusion. While Bell works hard to be as irritating as possible, he does have some thought provoking points. In particular, he states, and includes a little "translation table" to illustrate, that the CEV RFP essentially described the Apollo program.</i>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">o, that was the interim report dated March 2.</font>/i><br /><br />Actually, I think it was the "Final Report". However, I believe t/Space has been given another $3 million or so to keep working until the fall.<br /><br />By the way, reading t/Space's slide presentation, I felt I was reading a business plan.</i>

 

[gladiator1332]

The T-Space plan calls for the use of a 747. I'm sure this won't be a hard find, but why not just use the existing SCA? After 2010, the SCA won't be needed to carry shuttles anymore. I guess we can reserve a nice spot in a museum for it, but why retire a perfectly good 747, when it can still have some more use for NASA.

 

[gofer]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> So the quote notes the model is the washtub sized ballistic capsule from Discover/Corona. I wonder what shape that makes the vehicle? Ballistic capsules? would they be the same shape as warheads? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Basically, a bucket with a rounded bottom. Bottom left corner in this photo (yes, they caught them by the 'chute in the air!):<br />http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/115a/militaryintelligence/corona_catch1.jpg<br /><br />Quite a difference from the 'headlight' shapes of Mercury/Gemini/Apollo to be sure. I'm curious as to why they (t/Space) went that way. It's one thing to return small spy sat film reels which you DO want to get down as fast as possible and another to return a human crew. The air-launch is also strange given that Falcon-V flying in the next 5 years is a better bet and is based on a more proven technology (vertical rocket launch). Frankly, I'm puzzled by the technical side of their approach esp. given the $400 mil figure (the air-launch and the non-lifting capsule shape are the biggest unknowns). Although, I do like their architecture conceptually. <br />

 

[gladiator1332]

I honestly think they are just trying to break from the norm. The whole stack up a vehicle on a huge rocket and shoot it to the Moon has been done before, and it was only done in the first place because it was the only way we knew how. <br /><br />I think it's good T-Space is breaking from the norm and proposing a different way of launching the vehicle.

 

[gunsandrockets]

That's a nice photo of a Corona capsule recovery you found there gofer. The image of the capsule is kinda small, but the resemblance to the CXV capsule depicted in the t/Space artwork is clear. The Corona capsule looks stubbier than the CXV, but the CXV appears to have a larger 'skirt' than the Corona capsule.<br /><br />"The air-launch is also strange given that Falcon-V flying in the next 5 years is a better bet and is based on a more proven technology (vertical rocket launch). Frankly, I'm puzzled by the technical side of their approach"<br /><br />I entirely agree. Though t/Space wants air launch for crew safety reasons supposedly. They claim bailing out at altitude is safer and simpler to accomplish than crew escape during pad launch. I can see their point. <br /><br /> I haven't seen anything from t/Space yet about the method of crew escape. I suspect it may be as simple as Gemini style ejection seats. That's at least a very light weight style of crew escape if nothing else.