Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: kellyspace.com

Stories and comments across the archive that link to kellyspace.com.

Comments · 8

  1. Re:there is a company with an interesting design by WhiteBandit · · Score: 4, Interesting · on Orbital Space Plane Problems

    That company is Kelly Space and Technology based in San Bernardino, CA. (Which is right down the street!)

  2. Re:Imagine if NASA spent some of their cash on thi by Johnny+Vector · · Score: 3, Insightful · on Launching Spacecraft From Aircraft
    NASA has absolutely no incentive to reasearch alternative (and cheaper) launch methodologies because they are politically committed to the space shuttle (another massive boondoggle).

    Half true. The shuttle is a huge political stone around NASA's neck, but there is still a strong desire in most of the agency to get launch costs down and reliability up.

    The simple reality of the situation is that rocketry is hard. Here's a partial list of commercial enterprises trying to get in on it:

    And of course the big boys like Boeing, Lock-Mart, and all the various non-Amurrican folks like Russia, China, Japan, and the EU.

    Any of these enterprises would be, er, on top of the world if they could develop a low cost launch vehicle. It's much easier to grumble about how expensive access to space is than it is to actually do something about it. Whether NASA is going about it in a sensible way is a separate question, but it's not like all they're just sitting on their duffs waiting for the right incentive.

  3. Re:Urgh. by brucehoult · · Score: 3 · on X-33 Shuttle Problems
    The big problem of a vertical launch is that 80% of what you lift is fuel, and is spent on the way up. Why not put an SSTO craft like the Venture Star as a second stage on the back of a big and fast aircraft, a modified 747, 777 or Beluga for example? Simply fly that aircraft as high and as fast as it goes, maybe stick a rocket on it to gain some extra height and velocity at its ceiling to launch the second stage.

    It's a good idea, but it has problems. You're severely restricted in the size you can make the spacecraft by all sorts of things. You've got to be able to support the fully-fuelled spacecraft on top of an aircraft not originally designed for that, which means extensive modifications. Look at how much trouble NASA had to go to with the Shuttle transporter aircraft, and the Shuttle rides empty. As well as structure, that impacts takeoff speeds and runway lengths. Note also that tthe maximum takeoff weight of aircraft such as the 747 is far more than the maximum landing weight -- if they have to abort early in the flight then they normally have to dump lots of fuel. That's tricky if the weight is in a spacecraft.

    There are also operational problems. It takes time and special equipment to mount the spacecraft on top of the carrier aircraft, which means expense. You've also got to be careful not to land the spacecraft anywhere that the carrier can't fly out of.

    If you possibly can fly SSTO -- even with a very small payload -- then you're probably better off to do that than to use a piggyback carrier aircraft. See however Len Cormier's Space Van concept, which looks quite interesting.

    Other alternatives for a 0th stage include KellySpace's concept for using a 747 to tow a spacecraft (already tested by towing a jet fighter), and Pioneer Rocketplane's concept of the spacecraft and a tanker taking off seperately (possibly from different locations) and doing aerial refuelling.

    Both these concepts have advantages over a piggyback arrangement, through reducing the loading on the 0th stage aircraft's structure. I think the Pioneer proposal is the best. It allows a lightly-loaded spacecraft to take off from almost any commercial runway where the payload is, while the tanker takes off from a longer strip possibly hundreds of miles away. The undercarriage of the spacecraft doesn't have to carry the fully fuelled weight (giving a weight saving) and the wings only have to be big enough to carry the fully-fuelled vehicle when travelling at 500+ mph, not when at a 100 - 150 mph takeoff speed, for a huge weight saving.

    Pioneer have done detailed design of their intitial aircraft, right down to the point of getting fixed price quotes from the likes of Boeing to actually build it. What they haven't been able to organise is the funding. I don't think anyone seriously doubts that their idea will work, the question is whether an investor will make money in the current environment, especially with Iridium having gone bust and Teledesic cutting back their plans drastically.

  4. Re:The World Won't Wait For NASA by Wigs · · Score: 1 · on NASA Will Have To Wait For Mars
    Our space agency has become an outdated dinosaur, capable only of ponderous movement, when it isn't mired in the swamp of bureaucracy.

    One problem for NASA is the current demand for it to launch satellites. It's rocket science, which makes it a difficult and expensive mission. Currently NASA's manned vehicle program includes the Space Shuttle. For interplanetary space travel, NASA needs a new vehicle. Unfortunately this just isn't included in the current budgets. The demand for NASA to assist in sattelite launches and other earth bound tasks with the Space Shuttle is big. This costs NASA money, movey that could be spent elsewhere.

    Hopefully some of the other companies that have been mentioned(Cerulean, Pioneer, Kistler) will help lift this burden. The other company mentioned, Kelly, is one that I think has the greatest chance for success. Their website demonstrates their towing concept. This has many great advantages over traditional launch methods. For one, the craft can carry a payload approximately 7 times greater than one carried in a rocket. The cost to get that same payload up in the air with the 747 isn't that expensive either. Kelly has realistic goals to be flying their first craft in a few years.(There are three crafts, each becoming progressivly larger.) I only glanced at the website, but I believe it fails to mention that this is a proven concept. They successfully modeled a test and then actually had several test flights. A C-141 towed an F-106. I was fortunate enough to see a video of this. It was pretty impressive.

    Wigs
    --Why do you press harder on a remote-control when you know the battery is dead?

  5. The World Won't Wait For NASA by meckardt · · Score: 3 · on NASA Will Have To Wait For Mars

    Our space agency has become an outdated dinosaur, capable only of ponderous movement, when it isn't mired in the swamp of bureaucracy. A number of up and coming private companies (including, but not limited to Cerulean, Pioneer, Kistler, and Kelly) are working on inexpensive launch systems. One or more is certain to manage it in the next few years.

    Once we have this cheap access to space, there are any number of Entrepeneurs waiting to exploit it. Most well known is Bigelow, but there are others.

    Space, and our activities therein are popular with a lot of people. The growth of such private organizations as Permanent, The Mars Society, and Artemis is strong evidence of this.

    NASA may not be prepared to go fetch some rocks from Mars anytime soon, but they may find others already there when they do.


    Gonzo
  6. Re:Delay Causes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1 · on Discovery Launched, Hubble to be repaired soon

    Or Pioneer Rocketplane, Kistler, Kelly, and others, for that matter. But the key word here is equal capabilities: AFAIK, none of the aforementioned projects envision 25 tons to LEO with 7 people aboard...

    Not that I would mind missions to be redesigned to use a smaller payload/crew capacity, maybe with multiple launches.

  7. Re:How long 'til private business can do space exp by Darth+Yoshi · · Score: 1 · on Petition for Human Exploration of Mars

    They're trying, not enough investment money yet. Checkout:

    Rotary Rocket
    Kistler Reusable Rocketships
    Kelly Space and Technology

    to name a few. Unfortunately the big companies that afford to self-fund a project like this are severely risk-adverse and the small companies can't get enough investment capital. Maybe someone can figure out how to cross an internet IPO with Rotary Rocket.

    In my crazier moments, I imagine Bill Gates wanting to diversify his investments by dropping a few hundred million on two or three of the more promising small companies (LOL).

  8. Schedule delays can be expected by ikluft · · Score: 1 · on NASA's X-37
    In most previous X-planes, they've been testing primarily one new technology per plane. The X-33 selection process was muddied by politics and now they're re-learning why they used to do that. They bit off more technology than they can easily chew... aerospike engine, large internal fuel tanks, large-scale lifting body, and tests applicable toward a future single-stage to orbit reuasable launcher. None of these things have been done before.

    Expect delays. Unless NASA cuts off the funding, don't lose hope that they'll get X-33 off the ground eventually and learn something from it. But also don't forget there are other reusable launcher developments in the industry...

    And even a few ambitious projects by amateurs (non-government, funded out-of-pocket)...