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!"

9 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. 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.

  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. 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

  8. 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.