The V-Prize: one hour to Europe

[Boris_Badenov]

The V-Prize: one hour to Europe <br />by Paul de Brem<br />Monday, August 27, 2007<br />Soon, it may only take an hour to get to Europe. At least that’s what the initiators of the V-Prize are hoping, which is why they’ve invented this new prize for the first manned craft capable of crossing the Atlantic in less than 60 minutes. Even though the competition won’t officially be launched till the beginning of 2008, the organisers wanted to unveil the basic idea for an article, which I published recently in Le Journal du dimanche.<br /><br />“The craft will take off from the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport in the state of Virginia,†hence the “V†in V-Prize, explained Jack Kennedy, chairman of the V-Prize Foundation, the organisation running the competition. “But for the time being we don’t know in which European country they’ll land after crossing the Atlantic.†The organizers want to give all candidate countries the chance to compete for the right to host such an important event.<br /><br />The venture must be completed before July 1, 2013, the expiration date of the Spaceflight Liability and Immunity Act passed earlier this year by the state of Virginia to encourage the development of research on manned flights. According to this Act, a company organizing a space voyage cannot be held liable for personal injury to passengers who have signed a disclaimer.<br />As for the value of the prize, it will be “from $10 to $25 millionâ€, according to Kennedy. The V-Prize Foundation is currently consulting potential sponsors, manufacturers, and public bodies to raise the sum. “Things are moving very fast,†said Megan Seals, one of the people in charge of the project.<br /><br />The V-Prize was modelled on the Ansari X Prize, whose enormous success early this decade exceeded all expectations. Twenty-six companies in the aerospace industry took up the challenge. In 2004, SpaceShipOne, devel <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>

 

[thereiwas]

"like intercontinental missiles"<br /><br />A reason why this may never happen.

 

[no_way]

right.<br />i wonder if they'd set their aim a little lower, and tried some shorter route for starters, like Peenemunde to London ...<br />

 

[vogon13]

Wonder what the winner will have most likely 'borrowed' the most from:<br /><br /> * Redstone/Mercury<br /><br /> * SR-71<br /><br /> * XB-70<br /><br /> * X-15<br /><br /> * Dyna-soar<br /><br /> * Space Shuttle<br /><br /> * Soviet era 'Shuttle Killer' {sorry, I don't recall designation}<br /><br /> * Spaceship One<br /><br /> * Concorde<br /><br /> * V-2<br /><br /> * solid fuel SLBM (example: Polaris)<br /><br /> * X-3<br /><br /> * scramjet {various}<br /><br /> * Pluto (nuclear thermal ramjet)<br /><br /> * NERVA<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[j05h]

<i>> Wonder what the winner will have most likely 'borrowed' the most from: </i><br /><br />Prediction: the winning craft, if any, will use a propulsion system that is not scalable to reasonable transportation volumes. Not meant as pessimism, just that "what works" isn't the same as "what flies cheap and regular."<br /><br />j <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[ashish27]

wow!

 

[nexium]

In therory 43 minutes is possible. 300 seconds to reach 200 kilometers and about 1/3 circular orbit speed = 3.4 kilometer per second.<br />1000 seconds accellerating at 1 g (increasing speed) v = at = 9.6 times 1000 = 9600 meters per second = 13 kilometers per second total (up is away from Earth for the passengers, as we are traveling faster than orbital speed, but forcing the craft to follow a circular orbit path)<br />S = 1/2 gt squared = 4.8 million meters = 4800 kilometers = half way to the far side of Europe. We reverse for the next 1300 seconds to make a gentle landing at our destination in Europe. Total 2600 seconds = 43 minutes. We have some spare minutes as I did not allow for the horizontal distance traveled during the first and the last 300 second parts of the trip. Neil

 

[spacefire]

Scramjets? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[nuaetius]

Hell, now all we need is a transatlantic shuttle abort and NASA will win the prize.

 

[vogon13]

That TAL trajectory really heats up the thermal tiles, and no chance to do an inspection for launch damage.<br /><br /><br />Scary scenario in so many ways.<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[spacefire]

is 60 minutes the total time allowed?<br /><br />because if you plan to have a system that includes a carrier aircraft to take the hypersonic ship to altitude, then just getting up there to 60-100k feet would take you half an hour or more. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[thereiwas]

WK1 carrying SS1 took a whole hour just to get to 50,000 ft. Is WK2 that much more powerful that it could lift the heavier SS2 any faster?

 

[spacefire]

well rate of climb does depend on 'extra' power besides the part used to overcome drag...but SS2 is also heavier than SS1.<br />I think that if they stick with 60 minutes as the entire duration of the flight, it'd have to be rocket boost from the ground. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[docm]

Or have its own jets for initial ascent/landing like Astriums artwork. Might even want to make them retractable or in ducted pods. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nexium]

I agree the shuttle flight plan could be modified to land in Europe 59 minutes after liftoff. but it would run over 60 minutes in most abort senarios, and/or over shoot Europe. To reach 200 kilometers altitude in 300 seconds a craft needs to gain altitude at one kilometer per second over most of the assent. We can perhaps land in Europe in 59 minutes without climbing higher than about 100 kilometers, but the tiles would be white hot perhaps 2/3 ds of the flight path? Neil

 

[adrenalynn]

How shallow would that trajectory have to be to get it out of CONTUS airspace prior to it exceeding ~720mph? No running around shattering the sound barrier for us mere mortals... <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>.</p><p><font size="3">bipartisan</font>  (<span style="color:blue" class="pointer"><span class="pron"><font face="Lucida Sans Unicode" size="2">bī-pär'tĭ-zən, -sən</font></span></span>) [Adj.]  Maintaining the ability to blame republications when your stimulus plan proves to be a devastating failure.</p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000"><font color="#ff0000">IMPE</font><font color="#c0c0c0">ACH</font> <font color="#0000ff"><font color="#c0c0c0">O</font>BAMA</font>!</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[nexium]

Climbing vertically for 20 kilometers, means no more sonic boom, I think. 20 kilometers at 0.3 kilometers per second = 66.7 seconds = 1.1 minutes, so we may have to risk sonic boom to make total flight time 59 minutes. Our top speed at an altitude of 20 kilometers is about 4000 kilometers per hour (white hot) so we have to go higher and faster to get to Europe in less than one hour. The 300 seconds I suggested for climb and descent is optimistic. Neil

 

[PistolPete]

The problem with vertical takeoff rockets is that they don't lend themselves to airliner like operations. They require special facilities unlike spaceplanes which can takeoff from conventional runways. <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>

 

[nexium]

The B1 bomber is likely the closest to a space plane built to date. My guess is the top speed is less than 3000 kilometers per hour to avoid white hot, which would make it easy to track with an optical telescope. Even at 2000 kilometers per hour it would be easy to track in infrared due to air friction heating at an altitude of 20 kilometers = about 65,000 feet. Neil

 

[rubicondsrv]

the b1 is barely capeable of supersonic speeds. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[j05h]

<i>> The problem with vertical takeoff rockets is that they don't lend themselves to airliner like operations. They require special facilities unlike spaceplanes which can takeoff from conventional runways.</i><br /><br />As part of a transportation system, VTOL makes all sorts of sense for a suborbital or orbital rocket. Air traffic typically descends around an airport, which is why the tower will send general aviation planes right overhead. It's very open. Ballistic landing pads that are like much larger helipads (w/ prop storage) would be built in convenient parts of airports. The ballistic craft would come in with a known flight plan, engage local ATC when in range and commence descent. <br /><br />I'd actually put the risk with the spaceplanes, if they use cryogenics. Spills and accidents on a normal runway with hundreds of tons of LOX spread around wouldn't be fun. VTOL pads could be contained and placed in a safe spot. VTOLs would also give shorter trip times.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[PistolPete]

I just have a hard time believing that the FAA would approve mixing VTOL rockets and commercial airliners in the same airspace. As an example, The FAA's regulations concerning UAVs flying outside of specially set aside restricted airspace is incredibly restrictive because of the possibility that something might happen. UAVs are an unknown and unproven quantity in the Federal airspace. The bugs are far from being wrung out.<br /><br />Also bear in mind that rockets still have this tendency to up and explode without warning. If a VTOL rocket were to explode a few hundred or a thousand feet in the air, then the shrapnel would threaten the lives of everyone in the terminal. Airliners, on the other hand, don't normally explode. <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>

 

[PistolPete]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>the b1 is barely capeable of supersonic speeds.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />The B-1B yes, but the B-1A was much faster. The intake ramps on the B-1B have to be fixed to hide the engines from radar because the B model is "low observable". The A model, on the other hand, had variable intakes to optimise the airflow into the intakes during supersonic flight. The difference between intakes means that the B-1A can fly at Mach 2 while the B-1B can barely achieve Mach 1.25. <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>

 

[spacefire]

How about a solid, replaceable rocket module in the tail that can be exchanged after every flight and ejected in case of trouble. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[nexium]

The prize rules likely do not prohibit VOTL = vertical take off and land. It is not a problem for a crew of one or two. I suspect a solution can be devised for bording 100 plus passengers, but I don't have any good ideas at the moment. VOTL flights will likely only be allowed at airports which have 50 or fewer flights per day. That may accually be an impovement as the 200 flights per day airports are causing long passenger delays and adding several percent to aircraft fuel consumption. The first one hour flights to Europe will be dangerous, but I suspect the safety record of present aircraft can be matched, if we work smart. Neil