Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

More SpaceShipTwo Details

Posted by michael on from the flight-of-fancy dept.

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!"

16 of 212 comments (clear)

  1. It seems counterintuitive by gaber1187 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:It seems counterintuitive by jimbro2k · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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

      --
      There is not nearly enough love in the world, but there is far too much trust.
    2. Re:It seems counterintuitive by Nerull · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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)

  2. Bravo! by helioquake · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Bravo! by Max+von+H. · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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).

      --
      -- It's always darker before it goes pitch black.
    2. Re:Bravo! by zepi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

  3. Shaped and deflected explosions by Filiks · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?

  4. Humm... by kataflok · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?

    --
    Mod me up, mod me down, flame me, praise me -- whatever you do, you help prove I exist...
  5. Impact on the ozone layer? by jlar · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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/

  6. Not at all. by Benm78 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    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.

  7. Re:Yeah... by asliarun · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  8. Cheaper Alternative by MeridianOnTheLake · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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

  9. However... by sczimme · · Score: 2, Interesting


    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.

    --
    I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
  10. Re:This is really cool, by Dr.+GeneMachine · · Score: 3, Interesting

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

    --
    This comment does not exist.
  11. Re:In the year 2028... by johannesg · · Score: 2, Interesting
    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 ;-)

  12. Take part in building fullsize SpaceShipOne mockup by FleaPlus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.