More SpaceShipTwo Details

Anonymous Coward from Manitoba writes "BBC news is reporting more details about Burt Rutan's proposed SpaceShipTwo. Apparently the new flyer will include five to eight passenger seats and have the 'same diameter crew cabin as a Gulfstream V business jet'. It will fly much higher than SpaceShip One - up to '135-140 km' that will permit an additional 90 seconds of microgravity. This will be important, since 'we want this roller coaster-type bar that you fold out of the way and you can float around'. They are also planning to 'have the option of landing in a different place from where they took off'. I can't wait until we can ride SpaceShipThree across the Atlantic in 20 minutes!"

Comments

an extra 90 seconds

[roseblood]

... my husband could take a hint from spaceship two.

Re:an extra 90 seconds

[Anonymous Coward]

If he needs to go up 135-140kms i can understand why he'd want to be out of there as soon as he could be.

Re:an extra 90 seconds

[Anonymous Coward]

...at a time when reading a post like that, I wish I had a moderation point.

Re:an extra 90 seconds

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're saying he should be charging $200,000 a ride?

Re:an extra 90 seconds

[Viceice]

this must be the first time i've seen the phrase "my husband" used on slashdot.. ever....

Re:an extra 90 seconds

[puzzled]

'too quick' is a common complaint, but what does one do about 'too long'?

Re:an extra 90 seconds

[Anonymous Coward]

but what does one do about 'too long'?

I think Laurena Bobbit figured out the answer to that one.

Re:an extra 90 seconds

[caino59]

christ - this is all geeks have to look forward too. we land a gal - and here she goes, emasculating YOU on YOUR turf.

Re:an extra 90 seconds

[pete-classic]

Try Kegel exercise. It'll be better for both of you, and quicker too.

-Peter

Re:an extra 90 seconds

[puzzled]

Quick is *NOT* on my list of objectives :-) I think Kegel was dead right, but I'm sworn to secrecy on the details :-)

Re:an extra 90 seconds

[pete-classic]

From context you seemed to mean "long" in duration.

If he is too long try asking for consideration.

You can also try modifying the missionary position by putting your legs on the inside. Or if you are on top you can have greater control over depth of penetration. Try crossing your feet/ankles over his legs for added control.

You can also get the sense of him being "behind" by facing his feet, with you on top, standing on the balls of your feet and holding his ankles for balance. Everyone, especially your cervix, wins with this one.

Somehow this has become Pete's Sex Column.

-Peter

Re:an extra 90 seconds

[Anonymous Coward]

You are making no sense. This is about winning at Twister, right?

Cool. Very cool.

[polysylabic psudonym]

All they need now is to reach orbit and offer some serious microgravity.

Re:Cool. Very cool.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm all for that, but it's a significant additional development. To achieve orbit takes far more energy, since one must arrive at the altitude with thousands of km/hr speed, instead of just enough speed to get there and fall down again.

just how many..

[gl4ss]

ss's you would need to transfer all the people in a jumbo over the atlantic?

quite friggin many.

Re:just how many..

[snake_dad]

Just how many jumbos would you need to transfer all the people on a big cruiseliner over the atlantic?

quite friggin many.

Re:just how many..

[Lucidwray]

I think that this is going to be the biggest push for sub orbital flights.

Can you imagine SS3 taking people from Mojave to Japan in 2-3 hours? Or what about the US govt/DoD using it to deliver specalized troops anywhere in the world withing 4-5 hours. Hostage situation in Africa? SeAL's on the ground from the US to the target in 3 hours. Earthquake in Iran? Specalized rescue teams on site in hours and not days. It makes sense to send people around the globe just like you send ICBM's.

Imagine a first class airline service for people to needed to get from NY to London quickly (or just didnt want to sit on a long airline flight.) Sure, the flight would cost more, but its the same economics as first class compared to coach. If people are willing to pay more for faster speeds then eventually someone will find a way to make it financially viable.

Re:just how many..

[Ulven]

If people are willing to pay more for faster speeds then eventually someone will find a way to make it financially viable.

Tell that to Concorde. It never made a penny.

Re:just how many..

[troc]

Yes it did. Initially it didn't but then someone had the bright idea of asking the regulat passengers how much they thought they were paying (these being the CEOs etc, not the pencil-pushers who booked the flights....) and they all mentioned amounts 2-3 times what they/their companies were being charged. So BA raised the cost of the flights by 2-3 times. They also started running gift flights which would go out over the Atlantic, go supersonic, pop champagne and then head home. This combination made the Concorde profitable.

Now it's probable that had BA etc had to shoulder the full cost of designing and building the thing, they'd never have made anything.....

In the late eighties there was a recession in the UK and this reduced the number of regular passengers and Concorde started becoming less viable. The combination of 9-11, the French Concorde explosion and general world angst finally killed it.

But in the Eighties it made BA and Air France lots of cash.

Troc.

Re:just how many..

[gl4ss]

* Just how many jumbos would you need to transfer all the people on a big cruiseliner over the atlantic?*

ah.. but a jumbo gets over in a day.
cruiseliner is for having fun in this day and age. nobody uses them for just transporting themselfs unless they fear flying for one reason or another. ...and besides. the point is that a single jumbo actually WOULD transfer more people over the atlantic in a weeks time perioid than a cruiseliner ever would be able to.

(and "An advanced one-class layout would accommodate a maximum of 600 passengers." I'd expect the cruiseliners you're referring to take maximum of 2000 people in them at a time. a concorde took 100 people for comparision, and took 3.5h for new york to london, and wasn't commercially viable route for MASS TRANSPORT, which means transport for common folk like us).

Re:just how many..

[Gordonjcp]

the point is that a single jumbo actually WOULD transfer more people over the atlantic in a weeks time perioid than a cruiseliner ever would be able to.

But it will use disproportionately more fuel to do so.

Re:just how many..

[gl4ss]

..but in the end the supersonic fast flights gave way to humongous subsonic planes.

else they would have designed another concorde..

Re:just how many..

[Anonymous Coward]

But isnt launching something like ss3 chucking out masses of polloution? i'd rather have the people of this planet waiting an extra few hours on a plane than destroying it.

Re:just how many..

[dmadole]

the point is that a single jumbo actually WOULD transfer more people over the atlantic in a weeks time perioid than a cruiseliner ever would be able to.

But it will use disproportionately more fuel to do so.

I think you're wrong.

The Queen Mary 2, which is a modern and fuel-efficient cruise ship, moves 50 feet per gallon, which is about 0.01 miles per gallon. At 2,712 persons (which includes 921 crew, by the way), that's 25.8 person-miles per gallon. Source data.

A Boeing 747-400, which is a modern and fuel-efficient jumbo jet, moves 666 feet per gallon, which is about 0.13 miles per gallon. At 524 persons (not including crew), that's 66.3 person-miles per gallon. Source data.

That makes the jumbo-jet nearly three times more fuel-efficient than the cruise ship. I realize that they don't use the same types of fuel so a real efficiency comparison might require some additional correction factors, but I bet the jumbo jet still comes out way ahead. Especially if you didn't give the cruise ship the unfair advantage of counting the crew in the calculations.

Re:just how many..

[Ulven]

I stand corrected.

Re:just how many..

[Malc]

Supersonic flight is for an exclusive club, not the masses. Nobody wants to stump up the development costs for something that won't have an economy of scale. BA and AF didn't have to cover those costs, although they certinaly profitted in the end - directly through premium rates and indirectly through the prestige factor. They also didn't have to buget for upgrades to newer models as nothing was going to replace Concorde.

Re:just how many..

[Malc]

This book -- The Backroom Boys: The Secret Return of the British Boffin -- has a great section on Concorde. It explains the whole thing.

Re:just how many..

[Anonymous Coward]

A boat vs. airplane debate... This can only happen on slashdot.

Re:just how many..

[Anonymous Coward]

If you apply the same packing density to the QM2 it would be MUCH more efficient. Suspended animation would allow even more pax under both scenarios.

Re:just how many..

[snake_dad]

Right, thank you. Now conclude that line of reasoning, and you'll end the history of aircraft with the Wright Flyer. Because, it could only fly what, 100ft? How frigging many of those would you need to carry the people on a moderate sized sailship over the ocean? Why would we keep developing those moneysucking aircraft?

It was a pointless comparison.

Re:just how many..

[troc]

Take no notice of the book behind the curtain.

Bah, that's right, just as I am starting to look intelligent, someone goes and blows my source :)

It's a good book.

Troc :)

Re:just how many..

[turgid]

As technology improves over time, it will become cheaper to design new supersonic planes (and subsonic ones).

I think, however, we might miss out supersonic altogether now, and go for hypersonic sub-orbital or even orbital craft.

Re:just how many..

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget the cargo carrying capacity of each. There's more than bipedal organic lifeforms to move about the planet.

Of course there is often more than efficiency or economy to moving those pesky humans. Sometimes they just want to get "there" in a hurry.

Re:just how many..

[mikrorechner]

A Boeing 747-400, which is a modern and fuel-efficient jumbo jet,

I'm no expert in this field, but I really don't think the 747 is a "modern" jumbo jet, with the basic design being several decades old.
The Airbus A380, on the other hand, is of a more recent design, and its target mark is 81 person-miles per gallon.

Re:just how many..

[JoneK]

Ok it gets 666 feets per gallon.. In optimal flight altitude? Yes? Correct if i'm wrong here...

And when you add the ascent and descent. What do you get?

I don't know =) but i bet less than 666 feet/gallon.

Agreed that it might not turn the taples, but you need to check these numbers too.

And besides, if you calculate that crue to 747 the fuel consumption will be mutch greater. Cos not only you need to carry that passenger but you need to carry the weight of the fuell in air.

But as i said, i cannot calculate it cos i don't have all the variable's.

Re:just how many..

[Jamesie]

Does it pollute the atmosphere?
The products of combustion are mostly benign (water vapor, carbon dioxide, hydrogen and nitrogen and some carbon monoxide) and certainly much more friendly than any other class of rocket propulsion.

According to scaled composites it doesn't produce much polution. Any rocket scientists out there want to comment?

Re:just how many..

[Oktober Sunset]

but you get to take more luggage on a ship.

Re:just how many..

[mwood]

So, will we be seeing Heinlein's mail rockets too?

I wonder if the additional speed will really be worth the additional cost. If I need to be somewhere else for business purposes, the only important parts of my presence can arrive in milliseconds via telephone, or even television if someone can think of a convincing reason to see me.

To me, travel itself is painful and boring, and I don't see much difference between being subjected to transportation for 12 hours or three. Let me know when I can step into a transfer booth, insert coin, dial a number, and step out in Düsseldorf.

I'm far more interested in riding SS3 to some orbital facility of interest, since there's no other (affordable) way for me to get there.

Re:just how many..

[arivanov]

If you accommodate them at the same relative level of discomfort you can fit 6000+ in the QM or only 100-150 in the Boeing.

Re:just how many..

[LWATCDR]

A ship can haul more tonnage per pound of fuel than an airliner. That is why things like grain, cars, and clothes tend to go by ship. The problem is when that tonnage is people you have to work time into that equation. When it takes days to travel you then need to provide food, entertainment, space to move, and medical services. All that takes fuel to move as well. For commercial grade travel a jumbo jet wins. Now if you got back to WWII the original Queen Mary once carried 10,000 troops. If the QM2 could do the same it would then beat the jumbo jet. However very few people would ever want to travel that way.
All in all a modern Airliner and yes while the 747 first flew over 30 years ago the -400 has many improvements and very state of the art engines are truly marvels of mass transit. Very fuel efficient, clean, and safe.

Re:just how many..

[Anonymous Coward]

So, why not convert it to the typical way of seeing things: Money.

How efficient is it in person-miles per $ ?
[specifying which currency is involved of course]

Re:just how many..

[ghjm]

Why do you need to ride SS3 to the orbital facility, since "the only important parts of [your] presence" can also arrive there in milliseconds?

I have a job where I provide IT services in my own building and in another one 800 miles away. Invariably, when I physically go there, I find out about things and get stuff done that would have taken orders of magnitude more effort, and/or never gotten done at all, by phone or even videoconference.

Like it or not, we are great apes, and our capabilities are limited. We are not able to relate to each other "over the phone" in the same way that we can in person, because we posess millions of years worth of evolutionary adaptations geared towards physical presence. As a result, we need to be there when anything genuinely complex or worthwhile is on the line (which includes most significant business negotiations, but does not include, for example, a tech support call).

-Graham

Re:just how many..

[cosmo7]

And when you add the ascent and descent. What do you get?

Most of the energy you expend lifting the plane to its cruising altitude is stored in the plane. When you descend you get the energy back, so except for friction, there's no extra energy used to go up and down.

Re:just how many..

[tjw]

... and certainly much more friendly than any other class of rocket propulsion.

Well, at least that statement seems false. I don't know what Scaled Composites uses for fuel, but it doesn't sound like that most environmentally friendly propellant I know of.

Re:just how many..

[mwood]

Yes, relating to one another "over the phone" is different. Unless I actually wish to touch someone, it is *better*. Email is better still since I can go back and edit stuff before sending it. I really like the way that electronic communication pares away so much of the junk that I don't use anyway, but which would demand brainpower regardless.

I provide IT services too, and 99 times out of a hundred what I do works as well from home or my desk as it would onsite. Obviously we can't install equipment over the phone, but much is so doable remotely that I'm lazy enough to ssh into a server that's just across the hall rather than get up and go tickle its actual keyboard. We've got other people in place to do the hardware stuff. (I've actually used rdesktop to work with a Windows box that's less than 2m away, rather than shift my chair. The wheels are bad, okay? :-)

Re:just how many..

[JoneK]

So what you are saying is we have A.

perpetual-motion machine =) i had to look that word up.

Ok =) lets not diviade from the subject. Anyway, you can't calculate it either. And please show me the proof on that.

Re:just how many..

[LWATCDR]

Hypersonic is a LOT harder than supersonic. What would have really made the Concorde would have been greater range. It could not make it across the pacific or over the pole to Rasia. I would bet if you take a look at the ratio of Business passengers to tourists the Asia routes have a higher percentage of business flyers than the Atlantic routes. When they started the Concorde Asia was not seen as an important market. Boeing's 747 with it's low costs and very long range really cleaned up in that market.

Re:just how many..

[gl4ss]

...the submitter was saying this along the lines that he's actually waiting for it to happen already, that those 5 person planes would be within reach of masses.

the point being that it's not going to be viable means for masses for another few decades probably, just a very short expensive joyrider.

and in current state quite useless for the big money - launching satellites.

Re:just how many..

[Anonymous Coward]

feets? taples? crue? mutch? Are you high or something?

Re:just how many..

[Anonymous Coward]

with it's low costs

"its".

It seems counterintuitive

[gaber1187]

It seems like they are making the thing bigger, but at the same time, suddenly they can go higher... it must mean there will be more than one engine or a much longer burning engine. It seems like if they put the same engine on the same ship they have now, they could go even higher... like for instance to the space station... I still wonder if they could ever pack enough fuel to go into orbit then have enough to deorbit so they don't have to use the heat-shield method of returning.

Re:It seems counterintuitive

[ColaMan]

This is still pretty much a straight up and down operation. Perhaps with a bigger/longer burning engine, you could reach the height of the ISS, but it would whiz by at 7000km/hr. Bit hard to dock with at that speed :-)

Re:It seems counterintuitive

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, doesn't seem counterintuitive to me at all. The Space Shuttle is bigger than the model rockets I launched as a kid; and it goes higher too.

You did RTFA where they said it would look nothinig like SS1, didn't you? As you guessed it probably has either "more than one engine or a longer burning engine" or, less likely, a stronger engine.

Re:It seems counterintuitive

[Malc]

I think a small increase in size and payload lift capacity results in a huge increase in the amount of fuel required. Fuel and the tank to hold it adds weight too. I think it's something insane like less than 5% of a rocket is payload.

Re:It seems counterintuitive

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that a euphemism for zero gravity sex?

Re:It seems counterintuitive

[Spy Handler]

"I still wonder if they could ever pack enough fuel to go into orbit then have enough to deorbit so they don't have to use the heat-shield method of returning."

If you're talking about a tail-first reentry that relies on rocket thrust slowing down the craft to avoid overheating, I wouldn't think so... at least not with a hybrid engine. Maybe with cryogenic fuel.

Does the shuttlecock feather design work at high speeds? When it comes down from orbit and hits the atmosphere it'll be going like 17,000 mph. I wonder if the feather can slow it down fast enough to avoid sustained high temperatures.

In any event the orbiter will have to be made out of something more heat tolerant than epoxy composite.

On the other hand, the Discovery Channel program showed a brief glimpse of a Tier Two mockup on Burt's computer screen (a Mac)... it looked like a SS1 on a big stick, feather and all. I guess Burt's got it all figured out already.

Re:It seems counterintuitive

[Nerull]

Closer to 3%, at least for the SatV and recent Delta IV Heavy.

A SatV weighs 3,038,500 kg, and can launch 118,000 kg to orbit. Lunar weight/payload ratios are even worse, at 47,000 kg to the moon, its about 1.5%.

I thought some of that might be for outdated technology (and some of it is, i'm sure, we could save structural weight now, not sure how much fuel requirements could change though) so I compared it against the Delta IV Heavy:

733,400 kg launcher.
25,800 kg payload to LEO.
3.5%

Don't whine about units, 'rocket science' generally uses metric, so thats what I found units in. I'm too lazy to convert them, use google calc and do it yourself. :)

Re:It seems counterintuitive

[Nerull]

They were worried about passing the heat tolerances of the SS1 materials at Mach 4. At near mach 25 it wouldn't stand a chance.

I'd like to see Rutan go orbital, but anyone who thinks it will be the small, light, inexpensive (for a space ship) craft it is today is fooling themselves.

Re:It seems counterintuitive

[greulich]

You must work for Lockheed. ;)

Re:It seems counterintuitive

[Anonymous Coward]

Like 17,000 mph? Or really at 17,000 mph?

Sorry, the poor use of "like" is one of my pet peeves.

Re:It seems counterintuitive

[jimbro2k]

Not a problem on ascent - most liquid-propellant boosters are almost flimsy - little more than balloons. They avoid heat problems by getting above as much of the atmosphere as possible as soon as possible (which is why rockets launch straight up instead of almost horizontally - to reach orbit the horizontal component of the vector is the only thing that contributes. The vertical component of the vector is just to get you clear of skyscrapers, mountains, and of course, the atmosphere).
Re-entry is the problem, but the "shuttlecock" design of Rutan is a partial solution, combining that with better heat shielding might be enough.
Take a look at old plans to turn the old Saturn S-IVB stage into a Single-Stage-To-Orbit Space vehicle - The numbers seem right:
http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/a_single_stage_ to_orbit_thought_experiment.shtml

Re:It seems counterintuitive

[Anonymous Coward]

Get over it -- this sort of usage in an informal context has been dictionary-sanctioned for years.

Re:It seems counterintuitive

[Nerull]

Ascent isn't what they were worried about. When in space, gravity accelerates things very quickly, and there is no such thing as terminal velocity (well, until you get near light speed, then relativity does Wierd Shit(TM)). They came down faster than they went up.

Ascent has problems of its own, but heat is never really a problem, they tend to worry about the pressure exerted by the air as they pass Mach 1. This is almost always (Possibly just always, but I don't know the specifics for every rocket in existance, so i'm not sure) the most stressful portion of the launch, termed 'MaxQ' (You'll hear it called out if you ever listen in on flight controllers during a launch, NASA TV (DirectTV and Dish Network both have it, as well as streaming from nasa.gov) is a good place to watch one, if you can find one, I'd almost garuntee Deep Impact will be shown.)



Slowing down too fast in reentry has its own nasty problems. When you slow down, gravity pulls you deeper into the atmosphere, and the heating gets worse. Reentry vehicles are designed to fly a certain profile through the atmosphere, deviations can be deadly. Too steep is certainly bad, as is too shallow. You won't skip out into space, you'll go up and come back down, except this time you'll be much steeper, which, as I said before, is bad for your health.

I'm sure Rutan will come up with something, but I wouldn't be all that surpised to see the feathering taken out, and lots of shielding put in. The composite materials may pose a problem even then, though. The heat shielding takes the brunt of the heat, but all of it gets quite hot, possibly more than they can take.

And there is no need to explain orbital mechanics to me, see my .sig :P

(And i'll shamelessly plug Orbiter for other space geeks, its a great sim, and free)

Re:It seems counterintuitive

[Muhammar]

the composites Ruthan is currently using are not heat-resistant at all. Going to ceramics and carbon-carbon would add a lot of weight. And, they would need to use about 10times more fuel to reach the orbit.

Since you are in space

[eclectro]

Will they be able to hear you scream???

Re:Since you are in space

[Anonymous Coward]

If the cabin is pressurized, yes. If not...well your probably dead anyway.

Re:Since you are in space

[Anonymous Coward]

your probably dead anyway

"you're".

Bravo!

[helioquake]

This is the kind of "kick in the butt" that NASA has been needed. Bravo to the SpaceShip team for the continuing development of their fleet.

I'm still waiting for it to grow and to become capable of reaching 500 km in altitude. If it can reach the altitude with a small payload launching capability, then a on-the-cheap space experiment becomes possible in future. I think that could change the way we think about space research.

Re:Bravo!

[Max von H.]

Reaching orbital altitude isn't the problem. After all, the ISS is cruising at around 200km altitude or so.

To put something in orbit you need speed. Lots of it. A helluvalot faster than what Rutan's SpaceShipOne (and Two) can ever get to without disintegrating, which I believe isn't on their agenda. They don't have to surpass NASA in every domain after all.

You may want to whip your favourite search engine, or even wikipedia, for something called "liberation speed" and stuff relating to re-entry speed and heat too. Hint: SpaceShipOne doesn't have any heat shield - guess why ;)

Those vehicles are for sub-orbital flights and don't even reach hypersonic speeds. The Space Shuttle does Mach 30 or so at re-entry, SpaceShipOne barely Mach 3 (if that fast even).

Re:Bravo!

[zepi]

It doesn't matter how high it goes unless it can achieve orbital velocity. At 200km orbital velocity you need to achieve in order to stay in orbit is 7.78 km/sec or if you prefer 28 008 km/h, 17403 mph or ~22 Machs. SpaceShipOne only reaches about 2.9 Machs.

Re:Bravo!

[Wirr]

You may want to whip your favourite search engine, or even wikipedia, for something called "liberation speed"

I did, there is nothing usable whatsoever with this search.

Re:Bravo!

[l0b0]

*crackle* This is your captain. We will now be deploying the new ComSatLink 14 communications satellite and the Hawking probe, which will be doing some of the first tests on the famous "string" theory. Mechanical sounds you may hear will be from the robotic arms handling the equipment, and are nothing to worry about.

The altitude is now 500 kilometres, or some 325 miles. As we have no wind *passengers chuckle*, we will be reaching Bangladesh on schedule, in just 21 minutes.

Please continue to observe the "no floating" sign. We will have zero gravity in about three minutes. Thank you! *crackle*

I can't wait!

Re:Bravo!

[tftp]

Just use a different whip.

Re:Bravo!

[serutan]

This is exactly the type of bold innovation more of our techno-billionnaires should be doing instead of buying football teams.

For years we've been reading about the idea of suborbital airlines that could take you anywhere in the world in 45 minutes or less. If we have to wait for Boeing or Lockheed to wait for the airlines to wait for their marketing experts to cost justify it, it won't happen in our lifetimes. But someone like Rutan with vision, money, and technical skills could bring us this type of technology before we know it.

Too rich for my taste

[wcitechnologies]

Until they get somewhere in the neighboorhood of SpaceShipTwentyEight, its still gonna be too expensive for me!

Re:Too rich for my taste

[Savage-Rabbit]

Until they get somewhere in the neighboorhood of SpaceShipTwentyEight, its still gonna be too expensive for me!


And with a bit of luck by the time SpaceShipOneThousandTwentyFour leaves the orbital shipyard we will be able to afford a vacation in another solar system.

Re:Too rich for my taste

[Anonymous Coward]

And with a bit of luck by the time SpaceShipOneThousandTwentyFour leaves the orbital shipyard we will be able to afford a vacation in another solar system.

You'll be even luckier if you're still alive.

This is really cool,

[basvdlei]

Initially, the cost of the flights will be too high for most people to afford. However, within 10 to 12 years, suborbital spaceflight would be a real option, Rutan said.

I think they need to find a better way of launching those things into space. Because the amount of fuel they require now is unbelievable and I don't believe the oil price will drop within 10 years.

Re:This is really cool,

[adeydas]

May be they will use some alternative cheaper form of energy in the near future.

Re:This is really cool,

[mbrx]

Forgive if I'm ignorant... but what does the oil price have to do with spaceship{1,2,3}? I thought their fuel was based on hydrogenperoxide and even *if* oil is involved in the current manufacturing process it's not neccessarily so in the future.

Re:This is really cool,

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't use oil based fuel.

Rocket fuel is usually liquid oxygen in one tank, and liquid hydrogen. There are several other fuels used, one of which is derived from kerosene and is not used often anymore.

Spaceshipone uses "hydroxy-terminated polybutadiene (HTPB), a common ingredient in tire rubber" as the fuel, and nitrous oxide (laughing gas) as the oxidizing agent.

Because they are common and not explosive in and of themselves, they are much easier to transport and use.

Oh, and they don't use much oil, AFAIK, either.

But, YMMV because IANARS.

Re:This is really cool,

[basvdlei]

Their are 2 sources for hydrogen:

• electrolyse of water
• reforming fossil fuels (oil)

The electrolyse is very inefficient, you have to put in more energy to create it then the hydrogen will provide. To create electricity there are multiple sources:

• natural energy (solar, wind, etc)
• nuclear
• fossil fuels (eg. oil)

The first option is not used a lot at this time because is does not create enough energy to be profitable. Nuclear energy may be the real answer for the near future but as we all know there is a lot of international debate about it's safety. And then we get to the last one, our primary electricity sources of this time: oil and gas.

Re:This is really cool,

[Anonymous Coward]

Again, spaceship one doesn't use hydrogen.

I'm sure petrolium products are used in the creation of the rubber ingredient used in the SS1/2 fuel, but it's no different than making a couple hundred thousand tires. Something that happens every hour of every day, anyway.

And to get slightly off topic, the only type of nuclear energy that looks to be truly safe is gravel-pit systems, which really aren't in use today (I think someone in china is developing them atm, or something)...

I'm actually happier that my electricity comes from nuclear power than anything else. Yeah, the stuff is going to be put into a pool under five miles of mountain somewhere out in the middle of nowhere. But at least there's no soot lining my house, no mercury in my water.. oh wait, there's a coal plant eighty miles upriver from me. There -is- mercury in my water.

Re:This is really cool,

[Anonymous Coward]

The engine manufacturer is actually looking into recycling tires for use as a fuel.

Re:This is really cool,

[Dr. GeneMachine]

Err... where exactly do you think HTPB, a polymerized hydrocarbon does come from, from rubber trees? It's made from oil.

Re:This is really cool,

[Ironsides]

May be they will use some alternative cheaper form of energy in the near future.

it's called nuclear fission. see here for details: http://nuclearspace.com/a_liberty_ship.htm

And no, this does not involve blowing up atomic bombs beneath the ship.

Re:This is really cool,

[johannesg]

That paper, while interesting, badly understates the dangers of nuclear rockets. For reference they mention Chernobyl as "40 people killed". Well, it turns out this is a little on the low side, with the real number closer to 15,000, with an additional 50,000 ill. But I guess that number would make it a bit too hard to sell nuclear rockets...

And no, I'm not one of those people who freak out when they hear the word "nucular", in case you were wondering.

Re:This is really cool,

[Will_Malverson]

Fuel is one of the smallest costs associated with launching things into space.

If you use a Kerosene / LOX rocket to put things into orbit, when sitting on the pad, your rocket will be about 93% fuel, 4% rocket and 3% payload. That fuel will be about 7 parts oxygen to one part kerosene. LOX is one of the cheapest industrial chemicals available, at something like a penny per kilogram. If you can burn Jet-A fuel in your rocket, it runs something like $US0.40 / kilogram.

So, for each kilogram of payload for your orbital rocket, you need about 32kg of fuel, which will consist of about 4kg of kerosene at $1.60, and 28 kg of LOX at about $0.28 -- for a total fuel cost-to-orbit of less than $2/kg.

Re:This is really cool,

[mwood]

Here we go again.

Reforming fossil fuel also puts in more energy/mole than the hydrogen will give back. The energy you could've gotten by burning the fossil fuel goes in, and the energy you can get from burning just the hydrogen comes out. Also subtract process energy and minor inefficiencies. Unless you also burn the carbon, you are throwing a lot of the original energy away. (Remember, burning carbon is evil.)

Please think twice the next time you want to write "create energy". There's a conservation principle which says we can't do that. We can liberate energy bound in various systems, that's all.

Re:This is really cool,

[BradleyUffner]

"Please think twice the next time you want to write "create energy". There's a conservation principle which says we can't do that. We can liberate energy bound in various systems, that's all."

It's quite possable to refine fossile fuel and produce more energy then was used to refine it, without breaking conservation. It's the same thing with a nuclear bomb. It's takes a reletivly small amount of energy to cause the release of a alrge amount. Of course fossile fuel will eventually run out, which is where conservation of energy evens the books.

Re:This is really cool,

[Muhammar]

no, it just involves a bloody nuclear reactor flying over my head.

Re:This is really cool,

[Chris Y Taylor]

The cost of fuel is insignificant compared to the other costs associated with space flight.

http://www.jupiter-measurement.com/research/jpc_ 04 _talk.ppt

The most important cost to get down is the amortized development cost, followed by hardware costs, risk, and operations. (Being basically reusable the hardware cost problem for SpaceShip 1 might not be a problem depending on how many flights the airframe can take.) Fuel cost is the last thing to worry about.

Re:This is really cool,

[Moofie]

Do you know what H2 and O2 are? Hint: They're not petroleum products.

They're also really, really good rocket fuel.

Re:This is really cool,

[Moofie]

Why is Chernobyl, the benchmark for Really Bad Engineering, always trotted out any time people start talking about nuclear stuff?

Look: Chernobyl melted because the technicians actively disabled every safety interlock on the plant, because the safety interlocks were installed by Georgian farm boy conscripts and were therefore interfering with power generation. It did not melt because nuclear energy is bad and scary.

You say you're not one of those people who freak out when they hear the word nucular, but isn't that just what you're doing?

For the record, I don't think nuclear rockets in the atmosphere are a good idea. But a safed nuclear rocket being launched into LEO, and then lit up there? No problem.

Re:This is really cool,

[Moofie]

Ever heard of the Sun?

Re:This is really cool,

[Anonymous Coward]

The Sun doesn't "fly over my head".
Rather, the rotation of the Earth causes the illusion of the Sun moving in the opposite direction.
Are you sure that you're a rocket scientist?

Re:This is really cool,

[Anonymous Coward]

IIRC(BIPD)(If I Recall Correctly(But I Probably Don't)), SpaceShip 1 used recycled car tires as its fuel. Now that they have a billionaire financing them, they can probably afford new tires.

Re:This is really cool,

[Anonymous Coward]

about it's safety

"its".

Re:This is really cool,

[johannesg]

Why is Chernobyl, the benchmark for Really Bad Engineering, always trotted out any time people start talking about nuclear stuff?

Because the article I was responding to specifically uses it to demonstrate the safety of nuclear rockets. It says, "only 40 people were killed by Chernobyl so how bad can a nuclear rocket possibly be?".

You say you're not one of those people who freak out when they hear the word nucular, but isn't that just what you're doing?

No, that is not what I am doing. I think the risk of such rockets exploding in the atmosphere and releasing their nuclear fuel is too high to be acceptable. That's not freaking out, that's looking at the history of rocket science.

But a safed nuclear rocket being launched into LEO, and then lit up there? No problem.

The fuel does not teleport into orbit, it is carried from the ground. Accidents with conventional rockets show that this stage of the flight is not without risk - just think of the Challenger accident, for example.

Re:This is really cool,

[Moofie]

OK, that's a fair cop. The article was all melty when I tried to read it...hence the jerking of my knee.

There's no reason to fear a nuclear rocket with a properly contained fissile core. It's happened before, and there's no reason it shouldn't happen again. The risk is not zero, but it's also not overwhelming.

Translation please?

[Filiks]

"This experience is going to have very few restrictions on what you can do because these payloads are doing it for fun and every person has a different idea of what fun is.

Floating in space (Ansari X-Prize)
The X-prize vision is about to be realised
"Does that mean that some guy and his girl might want to take the whole ship? OK!"

Is that a euphemism for zero gravity sex? It'll be one of the few times when being quick is actually good! Also, with presumably multi-year waiting lists, it'll take performance anxiety to new high.

Re:Translation please?

[helioquake]

And that'll give "celibacy" a whole new meaning.

Re:Translation please?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not the mention the odd questions from the doctors after you don't finish early enough and are coupled together forcibly at something like 6Gs.

Re:Translation please?

[Spy Handler]

honestly, I can't imagine anybody actually doing it on SS2. I'll bet all carnal desire just completely disappears when the rocket motor lights up and the passengers are crying death screams resulting from 5 G's of acceleration.

Zero G is no picnic either, they don't call it the Vomit Comet for nothing. It would feel like you're falling off a cliff, just continually falling.

Now people do get used to zero G and can have fun, but it will probably take days or weeks of being in space, like shuttle astronauts.

Re:Translation please?

[Kn0xy]

Translation = 'Mile High Club' will no longer be inpressive.

Re:Translation please?

[Foddrick]

For too much information about the topic of zero gravity sex, click here

Re:Translation please?

[CrackedButter]

I was wanting pictures, PICTURES!!!! Not CGI renderings of plastic tranparent models standing on Mars damnit! I wanted a first hand look at a zero gravity moneyshot or at least a creampie! :)

Re:Translation please?

[Anonymous Coward]

The award winning movie The Uranus Experiment: Part 2 has Sylvia Saint an Nick Lang doing a weighless moneyshot in a zero-G trainer like those that X-Prize founder Diamandis's company offers.

Shaped and deflected explosions

[Filiks]

What alternatives exist to combusting various gasses and solid fuels? Do explosives like TNT pack more potential energy if it could just be exploited usefully? Some sort of series of shaped, small, explosions every tenth or every second? With some sort of backplate to protect the ship?

Re:Shaped and deflected explosions

[rmitz]

See also: Jules Verne

Re:Shaped and deflected explosions

[Anonymous Coward]

No

Re:Shaped and deflected explosions

[Anonymous Coward]

No, explosives don't have more energy per kilogram than rocket fuels: they just go off all at once.

Some sort of series of shaped, small, explosions every tenth or every second? With some sort of backplate to protect the ship?

Yes, but no pussyfooting with chemical explosives. Nukes are the way to do it. Google for "project Orion";Here's the first of many links that turn up:

N.B. Not recommended for regular use on the surfaces of inhabited planets. You thought diesel fumes were bad?

Re:Shaped and deflected explosions

[spectrokid]

TNT carries much less energy per kilogram than a simple candlestick. Its strength comes purely from reaction speed. The Russians fill up their rockets with ordinary Diesel fuel. Now that is what I call bang for the buck. I don't know how traditional dry fuels like AlCl3 compare though, anybody any figures on that?

Re:Shaped and deflected explosions

[Filiks]

Thanks, I had no idea. It's wonderful to think about the day when shaped fusion reactions will propel ships between the planets.

Re:Shaped and deflected explosions

[craXORjack]

What alternatives exist to combusting various gasses and solid fuels? Do explosives like TNT pack more potential energy if it could just be exploited usefully? Some sort of series of shaped, small, explosions every tenth or every second? With some sort of backplate to protect the ship?

One method which hasn't been tried yet but which is theoretically possible is to use the law of Conservation of Momentum to affect a change in velocity for mass M1 by ejecting a mass M2 from the rear of the spaceship at high speed. For example, using the Poo Flinging Monkeys system a quantity of monkeys would be trained to wait patiently inside the rocket holding chunks of their own feces and clinging to each other until a hatch is opened below them at which time those at the bottom would hurl their dung as hard as they could toward the earth. After they had performed their duty they would then let go of the spaceship thus decreasing its mass and increasing the efficiency of their fellow monkeys impending throws. Hopefully they can also be trained to enthusiastically leap downward to their deaths pushing off from the ship as they go giving a resultant increase in thrust. Of course to get the smooth ride which paying passengers might insist on, poo and monkeys would need to be ejected in a continuous stream. This could be accomplished by using very small animals such as Capucin monkeys or monkeys genetically engineered specifically for this purpose. Going a step further and actually using a shrinking ray to reduce the monkeys to microscopic or quantum size might be overkill but it certainly would give a smooth ride!

Re:Shaped and deflected explosions

[Charcharodon]

That's not to far from the latest research into pulse engines they are developing that use detonation (supersonic combustion) rather than deflageration (sub-sonic combustion) to get thrust from fuel.

Check out this site for more info

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse_detonation_engi ne/

Re:Shaped and deflected explosions

[Moofie]

I think you misspelled "After they had performed their doodie". Apart from that, you're spot on.

Humm...

[kataflok]

So they are gonna pay how many tens of thousands of $$$ for exactly how many SECONDS of something close to weightlessness???

A half hour flight I could see...

This??? A classic example of early adopters getting royally screwed?

Re:Humm...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that a euphemism for regal zero gravity sex?

Re:Humm...

[Kierthos]

Hey, if the insanely rich want to blow large whacks of cash on something like this... let them. It only increases the chance that someone like Paris Hilton could be involved in a tragic sub-orbital accident.

Kierthos

Re:Humm...

[TheLink]

Why would Paris Hilton dying be such a good thing?

Has she really been that evil or mean to lots of people?

Re:Humm...

[Anonymous Coward]

She hasn't had sex with the grandparent, that's why she deservers to die.

Re:Humm...

[jthayden]

Law of dimishing returns $1 to homeless man = $1000 to you = $10000 to my rich cousin = $1,000,000 to some ripe bastard like Gates. The fact is, they don't value money the same as you. It's the same reason that I'll neve be truly rich despite how much money I'll make in my life. I'm always giving it away to family and friends who seem to value it more than I do. $1,000 to my mom who only makes $20,000 a year is alot more valuable than it is too me.

Re:Humm...

[Teancum]

Of course, that means that Paris Hilton getting royally screwed has multiple meanings... espeicially if a Saudi Prince is involved.

The website says that individuals can book entire flights..... the implication certainly is there for such activities.

*Ahem* I just got to get my head out of the sewer now.

Re:Humm...

[Xepherys2]

I'm not entirely sure how anyone is getting screwed...

a) New things always take time to come to fruition, whether it's the wheel or spaceflight.

b) The first people to fly will be the wealthy who can afford it... who cares if they have to pay $10,000 per flight?

c) You're just jealous (so am I).

Home built?

[Anonymous Coward]

Like SpaceShipOne, the homebuilt rocketship that claimed a £5.2m cash prize for twice reaching suborbital space,

Eh, I wouldn't exactly call it homebuilt.

In the year 2028...

[Albinofrenchy]

Can you imagine how much more that baby behind you is going to cry when it starts floating around?

Re:In the year 2028...

[ShadowBlasko]

Can you imagine how much more that baby behind you is going to cry when it starts floating around?

Depends on the age I would think.
I'm not a psychologist, but I work with two, and they seem to think that up to about 18 months, the baby would be quite comfortable floating. After all, it was their natural enviroment for quite some time. (cognitive reasoning age/issues aside)
They may very well be more distressed when the microgravity experience is over than when it starts.

Re:In the year 2028...

[johannesg]

Can you imagine how much more that baby behind you is going to cry when it starts floating around?

Hey, if it is over in 20 minutes I wouldn't mind! Long flights with annoying people are so bad because you cannot get away from them for long periods of time.

During long flights I have pondered the possibility of transporting people in stacked coffin-like caskets (i.e. lying down). Yes, it would be awkward to get in and out, but climbing over people is awkward too and at least these things you can close off... And who knows, the two-person version may actually become quite popular.

Or perhaps using a mild sedative to make everyone sleep through the flight? At least if the plane goes down you won't know about it until you wake up dead...

In case you hadn't realized, I don't really like flying ;-)

Re:In the year 2028...

[mwood]

The difference is that an unborn baby can't *see* that he's floating. I recall an experiment which showed that quite young infants had an apparently wired-in fear of drop-offs (put the baby on a table with a half-glass top and see him scramble for the other half).

This would seem to require a sense of which way is down, so maybe they would be *less* upset than older passengers when there isn't any "down".

Re:In the year 2028...

[darrylo]

Can you imagine how much more that baby behind you is going to cry when it starts floating around?

I'd be more worried about leaky diapers. ;-)

Re:In the year 2028...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm more concerned with the cat reference in the article. If you payed $200,000 to listen to a stupid animal hiss and cry the whole time I bet you'd be pissed. Or, have it scratch your eyes out when you drift into it while you're weightless. I'd either have to 1) snap the cat's neck followed shortly by snapping the owner's neck, or 2) demand a refund.

Re:In the year 2028...

[Anonymous Coward]

This sense of drop off is exibited after some months and not at birth. The younger babies would have no problem crawling or walking (with help) off a ledge. Then babies who were only one month older were tested and they had learned that drops aren't good and wouldnt cross. The interesting part is that babies learn these things (stuff like using tools and adding) at around the same age regardless of the different envrionments they were raised in.

Yeah...

[plj]

I can't wait until we can ride SpaceShipThree across the Atlantic in 20 minutes!

...and imagine still wasting one hour travelling to the air/spaceport, three ours in check-in and security lanes, half an hour on the other end to get your luggage back, and yet one hour travelling off the port.

Re:Yeah...

[asliarun]

Hmmm, i'll take your comment as is, and not as a rhetoric one.

"...and imagine still wasting one hour travelling to the air/spaceport"
Perhaps. Spaceport commute time would completely depend on your proximity and capability of transit transport infrastructure. By the same argument, commuting to the office everyday takes as much time.

"three ours in check-in and security lanes"
Three hours is a tad high, IMHO, except in rare situations. Check-in time, even for international travel usually takes an hour, in my experience. Airport security check in Israel is an exception though.

I agree with the core point of your comment though. However, in spite of the non-travel time lossage, one would save bigtime on travel fatigue. After say a 12 or 20 hour flight, one needs to be a superhuman to not take a day off. However, a total travel time of say 6 hours is not too bad, except for the jet lag.

Re:Yeah...

[MindStalker]

How bout a new system, and hour spent being locked down in a little personal crate where you can do no harm, and shipped overnight express with no delays as all paperwork is prehandled.

Re:Yeah...

[mwood]

"three [h]ours in check-in and security lanes...."

I don't know where that airport is. Last time I flew, I obediently arrived 90 minutes before boarding and spent 80 minutes in the departure lounge. I think it's just a scam to sell more cheesy paperbacks and oversized sweet rolls.

Re:Yeah...

[1,$d]

Is 3 hours long enough for a security check for ballistic style flights? Maybe if you are stripped, x-rayed, evacuated, and enclosed in very tough fabric or metal.

Compared to a measly 500-MPH airplane, a terrorist who takes over or blows up a piloted ballistic missle can attack many new targets with new methods.

I want to fly that flight, and I want to float around and have fun. But until the world returns to a politically stable state, I want passengers in the spaceship locked down and/or checked out for 3 days, not 3 hours.

Re:Yeah...

[smithmc]

...and imagine still wasting one hour travelling to the air/spaceport, three ours in check-in and security lanes, half an hour on the other end to get your luggage back, and yet one hour travelling off the port.

It would still be worth it. I hate being in an airliner - no room, stale air, crappy food, can't walk around, etc. Even first class is barely tolerable.

Re:Yeah...

[Anonymous Coward]

You'd have a sort of fast super-premium check-in like Concorde.

Re:Yeah...

[Moofie]

Who said anything about piloted?

The only thing the "pilot" does on spacecraft launches is refrain from pulling the abort lever. Shuttle actually takes a human to land it, but again the pilot's regimen is basically "Don't do any of the million and six things that will result in you and your crew being scattered over a substantial fraction of your home country".

Pilots are good for slow airplanes. Computers are good for rockets.

Impact on the ozone layer?

[jlar]

I think it is absolutely amazing that ordinary people will be able to experience space and zero gravity. But I also think that we need to look into the environmental aspects of this development.

If we will come to see daily flights of maybe hundreds of planes it might have a significant impact on the ozone layer and thus our health. It is therefore important to get an estimate of the impact on the ozone layer so that cleaner fuels and other measures can be taken to prevent this.

Here is a bit of background info on the ozone layer and the impact of the space shuttle and high flying aircraft and rockets on it:

http://www.aero.org/publications/crosslink/summe r2 000/01.html

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/ozone-depletion/intro/

Re:Impact on the ozone layer?

[drivinghighway61]

While we're working on cleaning things up, maybe the Slashdotters can contribute by taking showers. Use stick deodorant, of course, we don't want to deplete the ozone layer.

Re:Impact on the ozone layer?

[Nerull]

The development of all chemical rockets (like the Delta IV Heavy) will help. Hyroden and Oxygen only produce one byproduct...water. Its about as clean as it gets.

The Space Shuttle's engines are quite clean, its those SRBs (Solid Rocket Boosters) that are dirty.

If the use of SRBs on rockets starts to decline, pollution from them won't be as much as a problem. (For LH2/LOX rockets, at least)

I doubt their effect is much worse than millions of cars anyway.

Re:Impact on the ozone layer?

[AdamTheBastard]

"I doubt their effect is much worse than millions of cars anyway."

Is anyone else really sick of this argument? Just because thing X is worse than thing Y doesn't make thing Y any better. It's even worse when we have the bad stuff from X as well as the bad stuff from Y adding together to make a super bad.

Even though we have millions of cars polluting the skies it does not mean we should ignore the fact that SRBs are dirty polluters as well.

Re:Impact on the ozone layer?

[Ironsides]

Even though we have millions of cars polluting the skies it does not mean we should ignore the fact that SRBs are dirty polluters as well.

Then by that logic. Stop breathing. No, seriously. You are poluting this world with the greenhouse gas Carbon Dioxide. So stop breathing and stop poluting.

Re:Impact on the ozone layer?

[Nerull]

I never said we should ignore them, the efforts to get rid of them were the point of most of my post.

Hydrazine rockets are pretty nasty things as well.

On a larger scale, however, they are just a drop in the bucket, and we shouldn't just stop using them before we have good alternatives.

Energia was capable of lifting 150000kg (Buran + 30000kg payload) to orbit, and made use of all chemical boosters. It can be done, it just needs to be improved. Russia has never liked solid rockets, so they have some of the best technology in this area.

I think the main hurtle to overcome is that SRBs are cheap. Designers see little reason to design complex systems of chemical rockets when they can use one engine and strap 9 SRBs to the side that produce more thrust and don't cost as much.

Re:Impact on the ozone layer?

[tftp]

Designers see little reason to design complex systems of chemical rockets when they can use one engine and strap 9 SRBs to the side

They got a better reason on 1/28/1986 ...

Re:Impact on the ozone layer?

[b-baggins]

You do realize, of course, that ozone is an unstable molecule created by the impact of short-wave ultraviolet light on oxygen molecules in the upper atmoshere.

The Earth was not provided with a fixed amount of ozone at its formation. Ozone formation is an equilibrium reaction. The only way to completely destroy the ozone layer is to remove all molecular Oxygen from the atmosphere.

Re:Impact on the ozone layer?

[ckaminski]

Are humans not net consumers of CO2?

Re:Impact on the ozone layer?

[Anonymous Coward]

it has already been proven that normal passenger plane's contrails affect local weather patterns...

we need a planet-wide shield like they had is spaceballz

Re:Impact on the ozone layer?

[alunharford]

That's not the only way. If you get rid of the UV radiation by, for example, putting the earth in a big box, then that would completely destory the ozone layer.

Re:Impact on the ozone layer?

[juhaz]

Then by that logic. Stop breathing. No, seriously. You are poluting this world with the greenhouse gas Carbon Dioxide. So stop breathing and stop poluting.

BZZT!

You're only increasing CO2 amount in atmosphere if you're somehow breathing without having to EAT.

Plants you and animals eat take in the carbon you're breathing out, give it back to you in solid form, and you exhale it again. Balanced loop, no net increase of atmospheric CO2.

Re:Impact on the ozone layer?

[Teancum]

The Concorde was a more reasonable machine to gripe about with the "ozone layer" and its environmental impact.... because that is precisely where it flew and it was in the direct path of the ozone region. In fact, the air intake valves that helped to pressurize the cabin had to decompose ozone so it wouldn't make the passengers sick. Other high-flying aircraft also have to worry about this same issue.

In the case of SS2 and spacecraft, they are merely punching through that altitude with only a brief period of time that they are actually going to be able to do any damage to the environment at that part of the atmosphere. I would dare say that cleaning agents and activities on the ground are going to be doing far more damage to the ozone layer than anything that occurs during the flight itself. Really. This issue is a moot point in regards to spacecraft, and there are many other environmental issues that need to be dealt with instead.

High level release of H2O (depending on fuel used) could be interesting, as it would create clouds that would be up considerably higher than normally exist from troposphere activity. Also, these clouds would take quite a bit longer to dissapate than even conventional contrails of high flying jets. By far and away this is a more serious and pressing issue to be dealt with than worrying about ozone depleation.

Once mass surface to LEO programs occur, the issue of space junk will be an even bigger issue, and have a more direct impact on LEO space activity. Even now there are thousands of pieces of fairly large junk that is being tracked, and the prospect of dozens or hundreds of rockets going up every day adding to this mess is a sobering thought to what happens when a bolt or screw comes loose. When that happens with commercial aircraft (yes, it does happen) there is usually enough open space that the loose part lands without incident. In space it either burns up eventually in the atmosphere or runs into something else. You just hope that you are not that something else it runs into.

Re:Impact on the ozone layer?

[DM9290]

We suggest we should determine how much environmental damage is caused by extracting/processing/burning fuel and that cost should be applied to the sale of each gallon of fuel at the time of sale in the form of environmental levies. (or at least some reasonable approximation of that cost)

Until we know that cost and start applying it our children and grandchildren are subsidizing the fuel expenditures by consumers and industry (as it is they who will be paying for the environmental clean up job). Isn't it bad enough that we are not going to be leaving future generations with any fuel? We re sticking them with the clean up tab as well.

This should be done for all industries, not merely space travel.

20 Minutes?

[thelizman]

Not including the two to two and a half hours it takes for the mother ship to climb to release altitude, and the flight itself takes more along the lines of a half hour to descend. Still faster than anything short of the concorde, but you'll still have to wait eight hours for your luggage - SS2 is designed for you and enough oxygen to keep you pink on the ride.

Re:20 Minutes?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Wright Flyer wouldn't haul your luggage either. They worked that problem out within 20 years.

Re:20 Minutes?

[t_allardyce]

Don't forget the 2 hour drive to the airport through heavy traffic and the 5 hour security screening, and if its the US you're entering there will be another 3 hours at the end for finger-printing and the pledge of allegence.

Not at all.

[Benm78]

It seems somewhat counter-intuitive, but the energy density of high explosives such as TNT is much lower that that of, say, a mixture of gasoline or hydrogen and the oxygen required to combust it. TNT is used as an explosive not because of its high energy density, but because of its ability to release this energy very rapidly.

TNT has an energy density of around 4.6 MJ/kg, a 1:8 H2/O2 mixture achieves 13 MJ/kg. Hydrogen has little density however (even the liquid), so volume is a major problem there.

Much higher energy densities require more exotic techniques, with Uranium (235) fission at 90 TJ/kg. This is 6 magnitues beyond regular fuels.

Antimatter/matter annihilation is the most energy dense fuel possible so far, and would be 1000 times denser in energy compared to U235.

Re:Not at all.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. Is that true? I find it interesting that U235 is 6 magnitudes beyond chemical fuels, while Antimater is only 3 orders of magnitude beyond that.

Other fun high-energy-density-materials include Hafnium nuclear isomers, though that's even harder to use and more expensive than uranium.

Re:Not at all.

[Yazeran]

Wow. Is that true? I find it interesting that U235 is 6 magnitudes beyond chemical fuels, while Antimater is only 3 orders of magnitude beyond that.


Well not exactly surprising. The fission of one U235 atom liberates approx 200 MeV which corresponds to roughly the mass of 1/5'th of a proton so the anihilation of one U235 Atom to pure energy would liberate roughly 1000 times more energy than fission..

Yours Yazeran

Plan: to go to Mars one day with a hammer.

Long Haul Flights

[digitaltraveller]

I'm a North American, currently living in Australia. The flight seems to take forever when you factor in the inevitable layovers and flights on each continent to the final destination. As a general rule I won't pay for first class service, but I would pay at least twice my usual amount for 'fast' class. Maybe Concode should have tried the LAXSydney route.

Re:Long Haul Flights

[Sircus]

This was one of the problems with Concorde - the amount of fuel it consumed limited its maximum flight. It could do LHR->JFK, CDG->JFK, etc. - the Atlantic crossings. But LAX->Sydney was out of its range - despite doubtless being an ideal route for it in other respects.

Re:Long Haul Flights

[turgid]

They could have refitted it with more modern, efficient engines to make it a bit quieter and extend the range. There was also a plan for a successor to Concorde that would have much better range, efficiency, capacity and noise :-) Like everything else, it never went anywhere, due to politics.

Re:Long Haul Flights

[Anonymous Coward]

As a general rule I won't pay for first class service, but I would pay at least twice my usual amount for 'fast' class.

Don't worry, even if you were willing to pay twice the cost for First Class service, you wouldn't get it. First Class costs more than twice of Business Class. Business Class in turn costs 3 to 5 times the cheap deal Economy Class tickets. (Tokyo - New York is what I'm quoting.)

Since I've personally experienced all three classes on this particular flight (don't ask...), I would agree that First Class isn't really worth it. Business Class, however, is well worth it. If I can't fly any faster, I would prefer to fly with more comfort, meaning I waste fewer days after arriving. In a business scenario, that's well worth the extra cost.

While I'm on the topic, I would also like to point out to the cheapskate whiners complaining about the cost on something like SS3. Even today, the very few people that fly First and Business class are footing most of the bill for each flight. The only reason the masses can travel via air on Trans-Atlantic/Pacific flights is because First/Business customers are willing to pay the non-proportional premium. Business Class seats take up a little less than twice the space of an Economy Class seat. First Class takes up a little more than 3 Economy Class seats. The cost, however, is MUCH higher than the equivalent number of Economy Class seats. Ex.: Tokyo Int'l to JFK round trip, All Nippon Airways: Economy = roughly US$1,000; Business = roughly US$5,000; First = roughly US$13,000. I quoted the going rate for Economy, while Business and First do NOT have discount tickets like Economy does.

If space was the only consideration, First Class should be around US$3,000. I hope no one seriously thinks that the extra hospitality, better dishes, and slightly better food is worth US$10,000.

For those that don't believe me that Business/First foots the bill for the flight, let's do some math. On a Boeing 747 flight, there are about 10 first class seats, 75 business class seats, and 180 economy class seats. At the rates given above, assuming an 80% booked flight, First Class (which in reality is usually booked 100%) costs US$104,000. Business class is US$300,000, and Economy Class is US$144,000. First and Business combined grosses US$404,000. That's almost 3 times economy. Business and First Class were pretty easy to estimate, since there are no significant discounts, but I am assuming that some people pay more than US$1,000, yet others pay less, and it averages out to be about US$1K.

So next time you see someone boarding Fist/Business class before you, or getting priority service elsewhere, you may want to consider thanking them for footing part of your bill before you curse under your breath. Same goes for SS2 and the rich assholes that will fly in it. If they weren't around, it's unlikely that development of SS2 would happen as soon as it is.

Re:Long Haul Flights

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember one of the curious aspects of Concorde was that fuel management was extremely important. On the LHR to/from IAD runs you only had 15 seconds of afterburner on takeoff and 30 seconds on the sub to supersonic transition.

The Braniff pilots (you remember Braniff don't you) who flew Speedbird to/from IAD/DFW didn't get to go supersonic over the continental US so they got to sit on the afterburner on takeoff longer.

They always were a bunch of cowboys ;-)

But

[Anonymous Coward]

Will it have bad food, grouchy flight attendants and lose your luggage?

Whatever happened to...

[Spy Handler]

the Canadian Brian Feeney and the da Vinci guys? Last I heard they were going ahead with their October launch even after Burt&crew won the X-prize.

Re:Whatever happened to...

[Nerull]

They had to delay the launch to wait for needed parts. I havn't heard anything about them since, but I doubt they would drop out without saying anything.

Of course, there is always the chance that I missed it.

I want to be the first

[Anonymous Coward]

to barf in SS2 while weightless. That would rock!

Re:I want to be the first

[Nerull]

You'd best hurry. Motion sickness is a very common effect of weightlessness. It takes some astronauts days to get used to it. :)

Can you afford $2,950.00 + Tax?

[jeti]

If so, you may want to consider to book a parabolic flight with ZERO-G.
John Carmack has taken the ride and seems to have liked it a lot.

Re:Can you afford $2,950.00 + Tax?

[NardofDoom]

More like $2,950 + airfare + hotel + transportation to facility + tax + missed work + opportunity cost of spending all that money on a temporary experience.

Re:Can you afford $2,950.00 + Tax?

[FleaPlus]

Ever been to Disney World?

Cheaper Alternative

[MeridianOnTheLake]

If you want to experience freefall its going to be much cheaper to take a ride on the "Vomit Comet" or just spend fifty bucks at an indoor skydiving facility for a go in the vertical wind tunnel. But I guess the views and bragging rights wouldn't be anywhere near as good. experience is similar

Re:Cheaper Alternative

[HuguesT]

It is not the same thing. In the vertical wind tunnel you don't have this impression of constantly falling, because you are not experiencing micro-gravity, you are static in the 1.0g Earth gravity field.

The few initial seconds of freefall before reaching terminal velocity in true skydiving are more like it, but we are talking seconds, not minutes.

On the other hand freefall is reputedly not particularly pleasant to newcomers.

Re:Cheaper Alternative

[FleaPlus]

That, and there's that whole "seeing Earth from space" thing, which is supposed to be a very profound experience.

Anyways, X-Prize head Peter Diamandis's new company Zero G is now offering a weightless flight with 15 parabolas for $3000 - $4000 a ticket.

SpaceShipX doesnt sound very catchy

[mrjb]

Maybe they should rename them to 'Thunderbirds' or something.

Re:SpaceShipX doesnt sound very catchy

[PridIdOct]

You don't want suborbital space craft and open source email clients to be mixed up, do you?

Investment money

[standards]

Can or do people (individuals or VCs) invest in Rutan's company? I mean other than P. Allen and Virgin?

They get a shitload of press, both here and on TV. I figure they must be trying to build recognition. And from what I see, they're doing a kick-ass job at it.

Re:Investment money

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, they are not a public company so you need to talk to them directly. If they wanted to let common people invest a few thousand or even tens of thousands, they would be going public. But if you've got a good ten million dollars to spare, go ahead, I'm sure they would at least call you back...

However...

[sczimme]

wasting one hour travelling to the air/spaceport, three [h]ours in check-in and security lanes, half an hour on the other end to get your luggage back, and yet one hour travelling off the port

The ground travel is an unavoidable item of overhead (unless you live at the [space,air]port). The security lines for international flights (including customs) are also unavoidable. Travel light and you won't have to worry about the baggage claim; check-in is usually faster when you are not checking luggage.

Anyway, I think you are missing the bigger picture: if I could fly from Europe to the US in twenty minutes - instead of 7+ hours - I would happily do so riding in the overhead bin. Drawbacks include getting delayed on the runway and the difficulty in receiving beverage service in the bin, but overall the time savings would be worthwhile. YMMV.

Re:However...

[NeMon'ess]

Bring your own beverage in this. If you have to wait on the runway for a while and need to relieve yourself, drink what your brought, unscrew the cap, and make absolutely sure what you're about to do will go in the bag and nowhere else.

Re:However...

[MindStalker]

Of course with the small amount of flights, this would be more similar to a chartered flight than a typical airline, I'd be willing to bet security check time would be less as well.

OK, smart guy...

[Junior J. Junior III]

How's that jumbo airliner come out against a schooner?

Re:OK, smart guy...

[krymsin01]

A lot faster.

Re:OK, smart guy...

[Anonymous Coward]

hehe

"its not a schooner, its a sailboat."
"a schooner is a sailboat, stupid-head."

90 more seconds = bigger space sickness bags...

[Anonymous Coward]

Zero gravity can play havoc with peoples stomachs,
I hope they remind future passingers to skip eating the gumbo special
at the spaceport before launch...

Re:taking showers?

[zmollusc]

You foolish fool! We have to conserve water too! If you want a group of people to do something for the environment, mass suicide is the way to go.

Try "Escape Velocity"

[PWT-Development]

It works better

Intercontinental Hops

[mcraig]

Out of interest what altitude would you need to reach before you could feasibly perform ballistic intercontinental hops. I would have thought that this is the most practically useful direction for sub-orbital flight to take rather than just being a glorified rollercoaster for the rich ??

Re:Intercontinental Hops

[FuturePastNow]

IANARS (I am not a rocket scientist), but my very quick and cursory search online found that an ICBM with a 5000 mile range reaches an apogee of about 500-600 miles; I'm assuming that's an optimal course. SpaceShipTwenty is going to have to go a lot higher than SpaceShipTwo, and it'll need a heat shield, too.

A bit tricky ...

[A nonymous Coward]

... either in zero gravity or under acceleration or deceleration.

make absolutely sure what you're about to do will go in the bag and nowhere else

orbital requires heat shields

[peter303]

Sub-orbital reaches speeds of Mach-5, well within the capabilities of current aviation. Oribtal re-entry reaches Mach-20, requiring heat shielding which adds weight and expense.

Take part in building fullsize SpaceShipOne mockup

[FleaPlus]

I saw this over on X Prize Space Race News, and figured it might be of interest:

STUDENTS AND YOUNG PROFESSIONALS WANTED FOR THE CHANCE OF A LIFETIME

The X PRIZE Foundation is issuing out a call to arms for those interested in getting their hands dirty to further the cause of private spaceflight. In a tribute to the majesty of SpaceShipOne, the X PRIZE Foundation will be creating several full-size mockups of the historic private spacecraft to be used as early as this summer for outreach and education.

We are offering 10 students and young professionals the chance of a lifetime to come to the World's First Inland Spaceport at Mojave, California, to build multiple full-scale mockups of the SpaceShipOne.

This amazing opportunity is only open mainly for students and young professionals as an educational project. We are also looking for a project lead with experience in composites and/or fiberglass lay-up to oversee the project to completion.

Working at Scaled Composites' facilities, this team will dive in and get their hands dirty as they learn the spaceship building business.

Using the original tooling and methods employed in fabricating the actual spaceship, this will be an opportunity unlike any other. The project will take off in mid-January 2005 and continue throughout the spring semester. This highly competitive program could count for academic credit and will provide students and young professionals with the outstanding experience of working with composites, fiberglass lay-up and other processes associated with the building of a spaceship.

"This is an extraordinary educational opportunity to actually build a copy of SpaceShipOne using Burt Rutan's original tooling," said Dr. Peter H. Diamandis, CEO and Chairman of the X PRIZE Foundation. "The folks who get chosen for this project will work within the Scaled Composites facility and have the opportunity of a lifetime. In fact, I hope to get out to Mojave to participate when I can as well."

Project timeline: Mid January - Mid May
Location: Mojave, CA
Compensation: N/A
Other: Physical work required - must be able to lift more than 40lbs
Security: Background check will be performed
Transportation: You must provide your own transportation

Individuals who wish to be a part of this project should send a resume and cover letter describing why you would like to participate to:

Brooke Owens, Director of Team Relations & Special Projects at brooke@xprize.org. Deadline for application is January 10, 2005, however, we will fill available slots on a rolling basis so please apply as soon as possible. Interested parties should be advised that this opportunity is unpaid, but rich in opportunity.

Wired article on Richard Branson

[FleaPlus]

This month's issue of Wired has a cover article on Richard Branson's Virgin Galactic, which will be using SpaceShipTwo to run a commercial spaceflight service.

Some interesting quotes:

But look at the upside. The total price tag [of Virgin Galactic] is half the cost of a single Airbus A340-600 - and Virgin Atlantic ordered 26 of those last summer. In return, Branson gets bragging rights to one of the cooler breakthroughs of the early 21st century, with rocket-powered marketing opportunities that could fuel excitement - and sales - in his entire 200-company holding group. ...

SpaceShipOne's "shuttlecock" design adds an extra measure of safety. When the craft reaches its airless apogee, it hinges (feathers, in pilotspeak) into a broad V shape that automatically brakes the descent. "It lets you take an averagely competent pilot - like me - and throw anything you can think of at him, and still have everyone aboard get away safely," Tai explains. "The space shuttle does that with all sorts of fantastically complex systems. Burt's brilliance is that his ship uses smart design and the laws of physics. Which are, in fact, the only ways you can be truly drop-dead safe." ...

Why stop there? "I hope we'll get to the moon in my lifetime. The first baby born there - what country will it be a citizen of? Maybe we can put a Virgin bank in space, or maybe a Virgin tax haven. We could pay for all our people to go up there just by depositing their money." Now, that's adventure capitalism!

The simple fact is that going into space gives Branson a chance to do what a lot of massively successful guys wish they could do: grab the wheel of history and tug. Opening the final frontier to private citizens will ensure Branson's place in the human saga. And if that means fleets of Virgin spaceships soaring through the inky void, serving sip-packs of Virgin Cola on the way to the latest Virgin Clubhouse, so be it. "Space is virgin territory," Branson says, trying out a prospective marketing line and shooting another grin. "Is that 21st-century enough for you?"

values

[Geoff-with-a-G]

If by "getting royally screwed" you mean "making a conscious, unforced decision to purchase something, knowing fully ahead of time what they're purchasing, then getting it", then yes.

After the fact..

[cdelta]

This information was released back in October. http://www.spacedaily.com/news/xprize-04zo.html

Land somewhere other than the point of takeoff?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fine, I wanna go to Mars.

There are SOME CEOs I've always wanted ...

[Ungrounded Lightning]

I can't wait until we can ride SpaceShipThree across the Atlantic in 20 minutes!

There are SOME CEO's I've always wanted to stuff into an ICBM. B-)

TNT as a rocket Fuel?

[Alpharaptor2k4]

What someone was talking about above sounds like something they tried with Nuclear weapons in the 60's with that idea of a charge going off every so often and a backplate protecting the crew. Well that didn't work out, because the expsoion needed to lift off would destroy the launch site and anything there as well. With a Nuclear reaction you could have a nearly self susistaining launch vehical having the size to contain everything you would need (i.e. a whole barn yard for food and stuff) for a long term mission, like to say mars. Which would only take about 6months or less. or so they planned way back when this was a new idea. But of course that little bit about the Nuclear blast and the anti-nuclear movement killed the idea.

No kids

[TheAdventurer]

I have decided in advance to never have kids so that I will be able to save for a flight into space.

Before you laugh, know that I'm not kidding.

er...also, I don't want kids anyway so it's not a big sacrafice. It's just that now I have a more concrete reason to give my parents other than "I don't want kids".

Re:Take part in building fullsize SpaceShipOne moc

[Teancum]

Damn! I hope you tried to submit this as a story to the front page of /.

I wish they would have put some ages on the announcement, such as 18-25 or something along that line. Or can high school kids get involved?

Still, this would be a neat opportunity that I would have loved to be involved with, but my life has moved on. I have a son who would love to do this, but he is a little young (9 years old) and will have plenty of other opportunities as he gets older... especially if Scaled Composites actually goes anywhere with their projects or the X-Prize Cup turns out to be anything useful.

Odd comment...

[Anonymous Coward]

"...truly drop-dead safe"

I thought "drop-dead" and "safe" were mutually exclusive.

"Perhaps this is a new definition of the word safe I was previously unfamiliar with." - D. A.

Every new technology will be used for Porn.

[TheLoneCabbage]

Polymers, to the Internet, to Spaceships. The one thing that is absolutly universal about every new technology is that it's most profound use will be somehow related to sex.

'69 was the year they launched birth control. It's not hailed as the year of women's lib (where woman can get married, fall in love, and NOT have 20 kids), it's the summer of love.

The automobile, at least in America, is synonimous with sex.

The telephone, probably the greatest single invention of potential in the history of man since the wheel: Phone sex.

http://www.robrob8.com/rude_and_crude/barbie_sex.h tmSpeaking of the wheel

Not complaining mind you. No, not at all. Anything that can drive a geeks imagination to get us into space is fine by me.

Even smarter guy..

[adeyadey]

How's that jumbo airliner come out against a schooner?

About the same as it does against the hot-air balloon..

Re:Even smarter guy..

[Junior J. Junior III]

Unless you're heating that balloon passively via solar furnace, it's going to be using fuel to heat the air.