t/Space Demonstrates New Air-Launch Method

FleaPlus writes "Last month t/Space, an organization with plans for constructing a simple, low-cost successor to the Space Shuttle, was mentioned on Slashdot. Recently t/Space used a portion of the concept study funds it had been awarded by NASA to also build and test actual hardware. They performed three weeks of drop tests of a 23%-scale model from a Scaled Composites Proteus carrier aircraft to demonstrate the feasibility of a new air launch method they had devised, dubbed 'Trapeze-Lanyard Air Drop.' The new method eliminates the need for wings on air-launched rockets, potentially leading to improved safety and cost-effectiveness. Last month at a space conference they also displayed a full-scale model of their vehicle. Unfortunately, with the recent selection of Boeing/Northrop-Grumman and Lockheed-Martin as the two competing teams for the contract to build the Shuttle's successor, t/Space's future path is somewhat uncertain."

Comments

'Trapeze-Lanyard Air Drop.'

[ShaniaTwain]

..dubbed 'Trapeze-Lanyard Air Drop.'

..I'm pretty sure I saw this on Jackass..

Re:'Trapeze-Lanyard Air Drop.'

[Rei]

And the abort mode for a stuck cable or bad chute is....? :)

Not that it's not an interesting deployment concept, mind you. There are lots of interesting airbreathing assisted methods, although none of them scale up to very large orbital craft. In addition to this and standard belly-dropped rockets, there's also wing-dropped (doesn't usually need a custom aircraft, but is geometrically constrained and offbalances the craft), roof-launched (the whole "tail" thing tends to get in the way unless you have a custom craft, but you can handle almost any geometry), tow-launch (you pay a penalty in carrying heavy landing gear, but the modifications to the towing craft are minimal), unfuelled tow launch (you fuel midair from lines attached to the craft at liftoff), docking and fuelling (taking off with just enough fuel to get to altitude - allows for multiple reentries and possibly powered landing), and carrying the craft inside the carrier, launching with a drogue chute (very geometrically constraining, but almost no modifications to the carrier needed).

The problem with scaling up is that airplanes get tougher to scale up beyond a point. It's really only realistic for small satellites and humans to LEO.

Re:'Trapeze-Lanyard Air Drop.'

[Gary W. Longsine]

It's really only realistic for small satellites and humans to LEO.

Human craft tend to be relatively big and heavy? Did you mean to implyl "and small humans" to orbit?

I seem to recall reading some speculation that a spacefareing race would evolve to be smaller.

Re:'Trapeze-Lanyard Air Drop.'

[Rei]

?

No. I didn't think my phrasing was hard to understand, but let me rephrase:

It's really only realistic for humans and small satellites to LEO

A craft carrying, say, three people will have only, perhaps, 300kg of human cargo (plus life support, backup systems, supplies, etc). Many satellites are even smaller than the human portion of the mass alone. Large satellites, probes, and modules for things like ISS, however, are often measured in metric tonnes and are physically quite large.

Re:'Trapeze-Lanyard Air Drop.'

[MichaelSmith]

tow-launch (you pay a penalty in carrying heavy landing gear, but the modifications to the towing craft are minimal)

The spacecraft does need some kind of landing gear, unless a disposable sled is used for takeoff. Consider a cart strapped to the vehicle and dropped at liftoff

But the real problem is that the spacecraft has to fly from the word go, and (unless we assume your next option) needs to do so fully fuled.

This works surprisingly well for sailplanes but spacraft have the opposite problem. They are much heavier than the carrier vehicle.

How about a "sandwich" design: Towed spacecraft with disposable launch cart and wings. At altitude the system splits into three parts with the wings being (possibly) recovered by parachute.

Re:'Trapeze-Lanyard Air Drop.'

[Rei]

The heavier the craft at takeoff, the stronger (and thus heavier) the landing gear that you need. The big mass elements of a spacecraft are its tanks and any structural support; the landing gear is a critical structural support. When you factor in that even a couple kilograms extra mass at takeoff will cost you dozens of kilograms of payload, it makes a huge difference.

Re:'Trapeze-Lanyard Air Drop.'

[Gary W. Longsine]

My normally keen sense of comic timing must be off kilter today. I'll just go out and come back in.

Re:'Trapeze-Lanyard Air Drop.'

[SEWilco]

'Trapeze-Lanyard Air Drop.'

Famous last words: "Hey, guys, watch what I can do!"

Re:'Trapeze-Lanyard Air Drop.'

[SEWilco]

It's really only realistic for small satellites and humans to LEO.

And a net in LEO to catch the humans.

Re:'Trapeze-Lanyard Air Drop.'

[BlowChunx]

Redneck's second to last words:
"Hold my beer..."

Re:'Trapeze-Lanyard Air Drop.'

[geekoid]

And the abort method for a cracked wing on the space shuttle is...?

Re:'Trapeze-Lanyard Air Drop.'

[Rei]

In the old days, "Abort To Orbit". Nowadays, it is "Abort To ISS".

Re:'Trapeze-Lanyard Air Drop.'

[Retric]

You don't need landing gear in orbit hell you don't need them above 50 feet so you could easly have 2 sets the "fuel tank empty we are back from orbit type" and the "we need to get off the runway type" which could fall off. Using a system like this much of the weight at takeoff need not go above 50 feet in the air which means the fuel costs are vary minimal.

Down with combustion!

[mister_llah]

If we could just get rid of combustion and the need for incredibly expensive fuels... we'd be set.

Elecromagnetism? Superheated water / water reclamation?

===

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/news/backgrou nd/facts/vcd.html

Re:Down with combustion!

[Neuropol]

... and hopefully the rockets would ignite after the drop.

What's the guarantee they'd gain the amount of thrust necessary to obtain and maintain a trajectory suitable for the general target area. It seems that it would take a huge amount of thrust to over come what is happening from gravity doing its job. Which is different when launching on the ground, because you're just fighting the momentum to gain upward motion, add a freefall at 28 fps, and you have a whole different situation to account for.

Re:Down with combustion!

[Slurgi]

Both of which would require the same amount of energy as just burning the fossile fuels to begin with. From where would you get that energy? A power plant that burns fossil fuels?

Fossil fuels are the cheapest way to go. If they weren't, we'd be using electromagnetism to fling ships into space (but we dont).

Re:Down with combustion!

[mister_llah]

As we learn how to make lower and lower temperature superconductors, the need for fossil fuel use in propulsion will slip away.

We need to realize this, however, in order to try to develop that technology...

===

Fossil fuels are cheapest because we've already got it, but it may be cheaper in the long run to research something else, not to mention there are speed limitations to combustion (which they try to work around by make the spacecraft lighter and lighter) ... [not that there wouldn't be limits to other methods of propulsion, but they might be able to take us faster than combustion]

Re:Down with combustion!

[ckaminski]

What do you think Gravity is? A free fall at 9.8m/s^2. Doesn't change whether from the ground or midair, you're still fighting the same force.

However, the dynamic forces exerted upon the vehicle are MUCH different than if it was sitting on a solid concrete pad. Something for the computers to account for....

Uncertain future.. but not in space tourism..

[guyfromindia]

t/Space's future path is somewhat uncertain."
Given the possible boom in space tourism, I dont see t/Space going out of business anytime, especially if they have a viable technology.

Re:Uncertain future.. but not in space tourism..

[Rei]

I'm not sure how much of a boom one can expect for 200,000$ hops for 3 minutes of weightlessness... the combination of "affluent", "thrill-seeker", and "finding 3 minutes not to be a bit low" doesn't seem like you'd have a "boom" market. Sure, you'll find customers, and it's great for promotional contents... but it's still niche. Picture even your average wealthy thrillseeker - if it's 3 minutes of weightlessness, or a 10,000$ ride on a vomit comet plus one or two uber-nice sports cars, what do you think they'd choose?

Re:Uncertain future.. but not in space tourism..

[thegamerformelyknown]

Actually, they could quite possibly contract out to another country, or group of countries, such as Europe, Japan, or China.

Re:Uncertain future.. but not in space tourism..

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be a bad idea. Your launching million/billionaires into orbit and your going to do it with 2nd rate parts from third world countries. Let put it to you this way, NASA take 20 minutes to screw in a screw. Just to make sure its supper tight and done perfectly. Otherwise one loose piece that rattles too much and falls off could cause a catastrophe. This is one of those things where China and India just don't cut it. Europe could do it but you wouldn't get the economical benefits of say slave labor in China.

Re:Uncertain future.. but not in space tourism..

[aussie_a]

What he meant was that t/Space could work for another country, such as Japan. It would be Japan outsourcing to t/Space.

Re:Uncertain future.. but not in space tourism..

[fermion]

There is enough money around for space tourism to be at least a short term fad, leading to some significant technical developments. It does seem thar bigelow will launch something by the end of the year. It also seems that Virgin air has has several million dollars in sales for it sub orbital flights. The Hilton people have some far fetched plan to build space hotels in the next decade.

What Rutan did was admirable, but it was really less than the soviets did 44 years ago,about equal to what the US did a month later. What is going to be interesting is see who can actually reach a real orbit with real people that could concivable be used to deliver the customers to the product.

The market for people going up and down is small. Basically a 100K or so to buy astronaut wings. Io would do it if I had the money. But I would much rather pay multiples of that to spend a few days in space. If I had then money.

Re:Uncertain future.. but not in space tourism..

[Warlok]

Remember that PC's started as very VERY expensive and very VERY weak pieces of hardware with not much software that retailed for lots of money. Now I've got more computing power in my handheld than I could have had in a desktop machine 20 years ago.

More on topic, how about air travel in the 40's and 50's? Look at the cost and technology at the time, and compare it to modern jet technology. Sure, it started as an affluent method of travel for the "jet-setters", but now, anyone can travel by air from LA to NYC for less than $500.

Give commercial space travel it's start, and see where it leads us in the next 20-50 years. For something of this scope, nature, and magnitude, you have to have patience.

Re:Uncertain future.. but not in space tourism..

[TheKidWho]

Except US arms embargos wouldnt allow that to happen. You do know that a missile with a capsule designed to send humans back and forth into space can also easily carry WMDs right?

Re:Uncertain future.. but not in space tourism..

[Rei]

Computers have been halving in cost for the same power every 3 years for most of the past century. Rockets have hardly dropped in price since the 1960s, *despite* the increased amount of private industry development. Despite the satellite boom of the 1990s. Etc.

PCs kept dropping in price because simpler (and higher power) manufacturing techniques kept being developed - and there was a clear path layed out for the next decade at almost all times, with research laying clear foundations for the every-three-year doublings of the next several decades. Nothing even close to this exists for rocketry. The only major thing that can do an order-of-magnitude reduction in prices are huge materials leaps forward (we'll get incremental improvements, of course - there's some nice ones due soon).

How about air travel in the 40's and 50's?

Driven almost entirely by people who needed to travel, paying the equivalent of several thousand dollars per ticket (not several hundred thousand), and getting to a destination that they had a strong need to arrive at. Very little of it was "joy riding", even if travelling places by plane was somewhat of a status symbol.

Give commercial space travel it's start

Private industry developed almost everything NASA ever built. Private companies like SeaLaunch and Orbital successfully built their own privately funded rockets; there was no leap forward, just incremental improvements. Several dozen companies outrght failed. It's not a "private industry" thing; it's a "technology thing". And no, a rocket that goes a tiny fraction of orbital velocity isn't a step forward; it's a big leap backwards. If you're going to hawk a "private enterprise" technology with promise, you should be hawking SpaceX or whatnot. The "100km straight up and then down" companies are as close to real space travel as a person who makes a go-cart out of a lawnmower engine is to making a car to race in the Indy 500. Seriously. The ISPs are awful, the payload fractions are awful (because of the low ISP engines and high tank/structural masses), they don't deal with much TPS if any, etc. I.e., they don't deal with the real engineering problems of spaceflight, and thus aren't advancing anything. Cheer for those who are actually advancing technology.

And no, before you state it, let me head it off: they're not helping parts be "mass produced" and thus cheaper. The materials that they use are generally all wrong (far more in common with aircraft) and the low performance engine designs share little to nothing in common with real rocket engines, which are more like jet engines. And of course, since they don't need much of any TPS, they don't advance TPS research/costs (most of which are labor, anyways)

Re:Uncertain future.. but not in space tourism..

[ozmanjusri]

You do know that a missile with a capsule designed to send humans back and forth into space can also easily carry WMDs right?

So can a freighter or container ship. Which do you think would be easier to get to America?

Re:Uncertain future.. but not in space tourism..

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Yes, but PC's and Jet aircraft solved problems everyday people had.

I can't think of the last time I, or anyone in my family, have needed to get into LEO.

In fact, after 50 years neither the Soviets nor NASA have been able to come up with a "Killer Application" for space. There are some nifty pure science items for sure, but nothing that is going to make Joe Sixpack want to be there or buy something from there.

You gotta think, nobody bothered with the Americas until there was money involved. Well, except for those escaping persecution and were willing to live out in the wilderness to get away from it.

Space will be "Conquered" only after someone figures out how to make money off of it, or after the technology is sufficiently advanced for some cult to create a sustainable community away from us unwashed masses.

Re:Uncertain future.. but not in space tourism..

[TheKidWho]

I don't think anyone is going to be getting a freighter or container ship into US ports during a time of war buddy.

Re:Uncertain future.. but not in space tourism..

[Usaflt2003]

Rockets have hardly dropped in price since the 1960s, *despite* the increased amount of private industry development.

What are these privately funded rockets of which you speak? I work with OSC on a regular basis and have evaluated SeaLaunch capabilities in an AF source selection and neither have "privately funded" development on their rockets. Perhaps you allude to Pegasus who's motors are derivative of the Minuteman upperstage motors. SeaLaunch uses derivatives of the Russian Zenit rocket. This of course means that a lot of the major development costs were shouldered by the Gov't... albeit about 20-30 years ago. There is also the fact that most companies take a huge amount of oversight "help" from the Aerospace Corporation (a Govt funded research/design house) as they are designing rockets.

The problem right now is not the tech its the money. Most of the costs that go into the $10K/lb is not materials its triple redundant oversight and required tolerances of 99.999999%. Any established rocketry firm right now has lost its ability to be agile (though OSC is getting back to that with the Minotaur IV). Its up to the new up and comers (SpaceX, Space Vector, Microcosm) to take on the high risk, low cost mantle and prove that you don't need quadruple redundant systems to have consistant success. They also have to grow a market for this new fly by the seat of your pants rocketry and they will have a hard time finding it in the govt.

Yes, with the award of the RSS (Responsive Small Space) contract from the AF a few months ago we are aiming to drop the launch time from 18 to 12 months and get costs under $10M its a small percent of the govt that will use this capability as everyone is terrified to lose their satellite. It will be up to universities and small companies that are willing to take the risk (because they can't afford a "safer" vehicle!) to go to these start ups and give them their early early chances. Luckily, with the increase in micro, nano and, pico sats that only cost a few 10s of thousands rather than the multimillion dollar projects of established space firms these small companies will find a market.

The bottom line is that the tech right now is not all that bad. If we actually get into true economies of scale which rocketry has never had before the costs will go down. At the sametime space tourism is not a viable thing for atleast a decade because its going to take those economies of scale and increased launches to build the infrastructure to support such an industry. We are getting there and I think you are going to see some dramatic changes in the next few years (especially when SpaceX finally launches TacSat I) but most of them will be business changes first and then there will be a tech revolution driven by the influx of cash. (Yes, I realize here on /. thats a dirty concept since technology is king and MBAs are the devil but in this case the ball is luckily in the hands of some very skilled and tech savvy MBAs, like me!)

Re:Uncertain future.. but not in space tourism..

[1u3hr]

I don't think anyone is going to be getting a freighter or container ship into US ports during a time of war buddy.

Nobody declares war any more. The first you hear about it is after you've been attacked.

You most certainly will not be stopping freight shipping. Wars are often fought to keep trade going. The US isn't going to blockade itself.

Ballistic weapoons are only useful against an opponent with no nukes of their own; or if you have an overwhelming first strike and are confident of knocking out all their nukes. Even so, it's likely to be suicidal. Otherwise, I'd go for a cruise missile delivery solution myself, slow, low and hard to track.

Re:Uncertain future.. but not in space tourism..

[ArsonSmith]

You can't think of even one time that you've wanted to put a member of your family in LEO?

Re:Uncertain future.. but not in space tourism..

[Rei]

Perhaps you refer to the Pegasus, whose motors are derivative of the Minuteman engine.

I do. By the way, my home computer is an Athlon XP, which is a derivative of the Athlon, which is a derivative of the Pentium, which is a derivative of the 486... (etc). The fact remains that Pegasus was funded by private development dollars, and not a dime of government funding.

SeaLaunch uses derivatives

I think stopping that quote right there says it all. "Derivatives". I.e., changes to an extant system. Did they reinvent computing from scratch with each successive chip release? Modern technology invariably involves standing on the shoulders of giants if you want to go anywhere. The hope is that you become a "giant" yourself. Even SpaceX, which has done a lot of original work, based their engine designs heavily on a long line of US kerosene rocket engines and NASA research, for almost every aspect of them (everything from Kestrel's niobium alloy and electromechanical actuators to Merlin's pintle injector and turbopump design)

$10k/lb is not materials its triple redundant oversight and required tolerances of 99.99999%

1) Materials tech is directly tied into launch costs because it is directly tied into payload fraction. I'm not talking about "cheap materials" - the raw material costs are not what matters (usually - some superalloys can get pricey if used in bulk). I'm talking about materials with leaps forward in their properties: tensile/shear strength at high temperatures, low density, corrosion resistance, low fatigue, etc, are what matter. A leap forward in materials automatically means that the next generation of rockets gets a free leap forward in payload fraction. No other tech can promise this.

2) Yes, rocketry is precision science. But it is *necessarily* precision science. If you rush rocketry, you destroy multimillion dollar satellites and take lives.

It's up to the new up and comers (SpaceX, ... and prove that you don't need quadruple redundant systems

Apparently you've never read over the technical details of the Falcon. It is designed around redundant systems; in the case of Falcon V, its engines are more "redundant" than most other rockets on the market today (as it is designed to be able to lose one, like the Saturn V). It has dual-initiated stage separation bolts. It has triple-redundant avionics computers. Etc.

What keeps it cheap is not cutting corners, but a very nice, simple design that merges the advantages of both pressure stabilization and structural support, without the complexity of strap-on boosters, many stages, or other such issues.

its a small percent of the govt that will use this capability as everyone is terrified to lose their satellite

My sentiments exactly. Not that we can't make shorter times be more reliable; it's just that it is critical in an application like rocketry that everything work just right. The rupture of a single critical part, among hundreds of thousands, can doom a mission - and parts are in anything but a low-stress environment.

It will be up to universities and small companies that are willing to take the risk (because they can't afford a "safer" vehicle!)

I assume, then, that you are not talking about going to the "100 km high" club, because

A) those are not going to orbit, just a quick low delta-V hop

B) you don't put paying human cargo on a poorly-inspected craft.

If you're not talking about the "100km high" rocketry companies, then I agree with you. I'm a big supporter of private companies *actually* going to orbit (and have been looking forward to seing whether SpaceX can actually keep their target prices when in full production). I take issue, however, with people who think that a 100km hop is worth much of anything as far as advancing rocketry goes, or that a low ISP/heavy tank rocket can scale to orbit, or that rocketry being taken over by private industr

Re:Uncertain future.. but not in space tourism..

[ZeroGee]

USAflt2003, I'm hesitant to post my email address out for public consumption, but you and I need to talk. Any suggestions?

Re:Uncertain future.. but not in space tourism..

[ckaminski]

Recent episodes of 24 aside, the real answer is driving up to your target in a Ford Taurus. Small, inconspicuous, and such a low-tech solution as to almost guarantee success.

Re:Uncertain future.. but not in space tourism..

[Usaflt2003]

There was no direct public money spent on the development of the Pegasus (or the SeaLaunch Zenit for that matter) but that doesn't mean there was no public money spent on the rocket. I assure you that Aerospace support is not free and while it is technically an independant corporation the public money that supports it does mean that public money did support development. At any rate its getting into splitting hairs now so lets agree to disagree. Actually, I was involved in going over the technical details of Falcon for the RSS contract and yes I realize that they have redundant systems. My point is that it is not the super redundancy of rockets like Delta IV/Atlas V or the shuttle. I was not contending that SpaceX cuts corners just that they have realized that there is diminishing returns after a certain point of redundancy. Also considering their internal manufacturing and QA program if you build the primary and first back up well (and they do!) you can do without a second, third, fourth, etc. backup. As far as the Falcon V goes it is still heavily dependant on technology still under development for Falcon I and the success of those technologies so not to poop on their efforts but I will put stock in that design after Falcon I has flown. Perhaps my choice of "safer" vehicle was poorly choosen as I was not saying that SpaceX or anyone else for that matter has an unsafe vehicle. Specifically in the case of SpaceX they have gone to tremendous lengths to ensure that they have the safest possible vehicle, for which I applaud them. And yes, throughout I was refering to companies that can actually put payloads into a LEO orbit. The mass production of Soyuz, Proton (or any fielded ICBM for that matter) is still very much a custom process as far as I am aware(and I could easily be wrong) where each rocket is built either in a specialist workshop the same way cars pre-assembly line were or in a quasi assembly line still requiring super-specialists where you do not get the cost benefits of mass production costs. Like I said though I could be wrong and would much appreciate an education on the topic. Finally, the 90s satellite boom was not as boom as you might think. There were only 2 periods where there were yrs of back to back growth and between them there were 3 yrs of shrinkage. The market over the next 10 yrs looks to do much the same thing. As I said though with the increasing ability of micro, nano and pico sats we may start getting more launches and satellites/launch to the point where the smaller rocket companies can really make their mark.

Re:Uncertain future.. but not in space tourism..

[Usaflt2003]

Now why would I want to talk with you? You could be some yahoo wanting to send me odd emails?

Re:Uncertain future.. but not in space tourism..

[ZeroGee]

Fair enough. Nevermind.

Re:Uncertain future.. but not in space tourism..

[1u3hr]

Well, it's widely believed that the Russians had smuggled in several small nukes and had them nestled in Washington. Equally, the US was supposed to have some in Moscow. With nukes, really, there is no defence, no "missile shield" will guarantee safety. Looking at some of the other articles on space.com, just one military program, for aerial tankers, has twice the funding of Nasa's entire Moon and Mars program. Not to mention one year in Iraq is costing about 5 times that. Throwing a few billion into space is easy to ridicule, but the payoffs, perhaps a few decades off, will be huge. Most defence spending might as well be used to stuff mattresses with for all the good it will do.

Re:Uncertain future.. but not in space tourism..

[bigpat]

"...how about air travel in the 40's and 50's? Look at the cost and technology at the time, and compare it to modern jet technology. Sure, it started as an affluent method of travel for the "jet-setters", but now, anyone can travel by air from LA to NYC for less than $500."

And while technology has gotten better, there are now far fewer private aircraft in the Untited States. I suspect this has more to do with "safety" regulations and licensing requirements than with economics.

Truth is that aircraft and more so spacecraft provide such a tactical advantage and ability to deliver bombs to any stationay above ground target. So, any future economic growth in the industry will be restrained by the need to maintain very tight control over the airspace.

Hopefully someday everyone will realize that accepting increased risk means greater economic opportunity and we will unleash a new era of free air travel and economic prosperity.

Re:Uncertain future.. but not in space tourism..

[Usaflt2003]

I was trying to be clever, sorry. I can be found at usaflt2003@yahoo.com. Get it? You might be a yahoo... :)

Re:Uncertain future.. but not in space tourism..

[ozmanjusri]

I don't think anyone is going to be getting a freighter or container ship into US ports during a time of war buddy.

The US is at war now. Is it blockading ports?

Re:Uncertain future.. but not in space tourism..

[TheKidWho]

lol I don't think the insurgents are attacking US soil...

Re:Uncertain future.. but not in space tourism..

[ozmanjusri]

lol I don't think the insurgents are attacking US soil.

Wasn't the threat of that used as the justification for the war?

No future ?

[McGiraf]

If NASA will not fund it , they can find private investors and start the private space industry ...

Re:No future ?

[/dev/trash]

until it's banned.

Re:No future ?

[Black Tezcatlipoca]

until it's banned.

Only in the US. If they want to live in the dark ages, the rest of the world is happy to let them.

Remember, we (rest of world) will at that stage have a cheap, reliable nuke delivery system. Not wise to be making threats.

Re:No future ?

[mollymoo]

The private space industry is alive and well. Did you really think the government was providing the satellites you use to receive The Cartoon Network?

Oops wrong link.. check this...

[mister_llah]

Damn it, Beautrice... that's something different :)

http://www.eng.titech.ac.jp/jyosei/t_yabe.pdf

That is more along the lines of what I meant!

Re:Oops wrong link.. check this...

[eobanb]

1. Intentionally post wrong link 2. Reply to oneself with correct link 3. ???? 4. Karma!

Although...

[TheKidWho]

Although Boeing-Northrop-Lockheed are the big boys right now, I dont see why one of thsoe teams wouldnt be capable of choosing t/space for crew-space transfer =) Then again Boeing-Northrop probablly wouldnt since Northrop is only involved in spiral 1, but Lockheed might.

Also, Griffin has made it quite clear that he wouldnt probablly fund t/space, BUT if they do get a vehicle built and it is cheap, he will gladly use it for crew and cargo transfers to the ISS.

Re:Although...

[TheKidWho]

Also, I personally would definetly invest in this company if such an opportunity arose =)

Re:Although...

[TheKidWho]

Also AFAIK T/space never submitted a proposal for the CEV, they have been talking with NASA about the CXV instead =)

NASA is planning on spending around 400-500million over the next 4 years for cargo transportation capabilities for the ISS... Guess how much the t/space guys need to build their whole system? Thats right, 400million.

Starcraft?

[SignalFreq]

Was it just me, or did anyone else read that as a Scaled Composites Protoss Carrier aircraft? I guess we better start building our Science Vessels!

Re:Starcraft?

[FleaPlus]

Was it just me, or did anyone else read that as a Scaled Composites Protoss Carrier aircraft?

Funny thing is, now that I think about it, just about all of Burt Rutan's designs actually end up looking like Protoss aircraft. ;)

Mmm war

[RickPartin]

This gradual progression of space technology is ok, but we really need to step it up a notch. And we all know the coolest tech is made during times of war. So how about it? How can we start this space war we so desperately need? Hell I will have no problem joining the army if I get a space fighter.

Re:Mmm war

[TheKidWho]

Nor do I =)

Which is why the dark part of me WISHES for a war with China, in SPACE!!

Of course its just a foolish thought, but wouldnt it be awesome, I mean after all the death and destruction, just think of all the new technological advancements that would come! Heck, even a Cold War would be good. Very few die, and we still get the good tech!!!

Re:Mmm war

[Anonymous Coward]

What the false economies generated by the "war on terror" and the "war on drugs" are not good enough for you ???

Re:Mmm war

[Millard Fillmore]

Which is why the dark part of me WISHES for a war with China, in SPACE!!

Or possibly on top of very tall mountains.

Re:Mmm war

[Infinityis]

Heck, I don't even need a space fighter, just an R2 unit will do for me...

Re:Mmm war

[InfiniteWisdom]

The "war on drugs" and "war on terror" are against targets that are too technologially inferior to generate significant research. Compare to the developements during the cold ware and WW-II

Re:Mmm war

[saleenS281]

that's because they're both just clever guises for the government to funnel money into side projects to make senators/congressmen/presidents/staff and relatives of all of the above rich.

Re:Mmm war

[InfiniteWisdom]

Yes, that's why the ancestor was half-wishing for a real war.

Re:Mmm war

[Anonymous Coward]

Or on Mars.

Missiles

[Renraku]

Missile technology is basically a guided, long range bullet.

Re:Missiles

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Er, no.

Yes, there are ballistics involved, but Missile technology is a helluva a lot more complicated because you are accellerating a mass that is constantly shrinking through an atmosphere that is constantly thinning to a speed that is so fast that the "bullet" enters a state of perpetually falling.

New branches of mathematics and numerical analysis have been fleshed out just to describe the problem properly. You know all those Differential equations you High School math teacher told you were impossible to solve. Well, that's not true. And while I'm at it, electrical engineers regularly work with sqrt(-1).

Saying a missile is just a guided long range bullet is like saying biology is just chemistry on a nanotech level.

loo training??

[viva_fourier]

i wonder how many days (weeks?) are spent on training astronauts to use this throne?

What you saw was a weather balloon!

[Dasher42]

Whatever happened to launching from lighter-than-air platforms? With conventional rockets, so much weight goes into fuel to move the fuel you'll burn later to move the fuel that comes even later. Surely someone's doing something with a straightforward idea like this?

Re:What you saw was a weather balloon!

[FleaPlus]

Whatever happened to launching from lighter-than-air platforms? With conventional rockets, so much weight goes into fuel to move the fuel you'll burn later to move the fuel that comes even later. Surely someone's doing something with a straightforward idea like this?

That's pretty much what JP Aerospace is doing, "airship to orbit." RLV News has some additional info and news items on them.

Re:What you saw was a weather balloon!

[DerekLyons]

Whatever happened to launching from lighter-than-air platforms? With conventional rockets, so much weight goes into fuel to move the fuel you'll burn later to move the fuel that comes even later. Surely someone's doing something with a straightforward idea like this?

It's one of those ideas that seems straightforward... Until you do the actual math.

It turns out that it only takes about 5% of the fuel (or less) to get to the altitude that a typical airship flies - and that a reasonable size payload requires an airship twice the size of the Hindenburg to carry it. Given that a) fuel costs are down in the noise and b) the (extremely fragile) airship costs hundreds to thousands of times more than is saved in the costs of tankage - it suddenly seems like a much less nifty idea.

Anyhow, the main problem in getting to orbit isn't about altitude, it's about speed.

Re:What you saw was a weather balloon!

[Breakfast Pants]

If the main problem is speed, then what the hell good is launching from an extremely slow (relative to orbital speed...) aircraft? Also why is it more expensive to launch into high orbits, those require less orbital speed, more altitude.

Re:What you saw was a weather balloon!

[radtea]

It turns out that it only takes about 5% of the fuel (or less) to get to the altitude that a typical airship flies - and that a reasonable size payload requires an airship twice the size of the Hindenburg to carry it.

But reducing fuel mass by 5% allows you to increase your payload mass by at least a factor of two for many launch vehicles. I'm not sure balloon-launch is the way to go, because as you say speed is the issue, but rockets are so enormously inefficient that relatively small percentage savings in fuel mass translates into very substantial increases in payload mass.

Re:What you saw was a weather balloon!

[forkazoo]

But, you do get a major savings. No need for the first stage rocket motor. The first stage is designed to fly through the thick atmosphere. The upper stages are designed to fly through thin atmosphere or space. So, a four stage design can become a two stage design. That makes it easier to engineer, and the fuel saving from not having to lug two rocket motors are certainly not in the noise.

Another idea is to strap an ion engine to your blimp. In the high altitude you may actually be able to get to orbit with an ion engine. Nobody has done it. Some people have math conclusively saying you can't. But, a few people are pretty sure that it just might work. It would wind up taking afew weeks to get from airship release at high altitude up to orbital velocity, rather than a few minutes for a launch, but could wind up being an extremely fuel efficient way to do a SSTO, and put a significant payload there.

Personally, I just want to see a manned "Dark Sky Station" as a tourist destination. Not quite in space, but you see the night sky during your whole stay, and get to look down at the curved earth far below you. Not having zero-G also means that you can attract a very broad range of potential customers, no worries about space sickness among your elderly millionaires. Would be a fun place to spend a week.

article

[Anonymous Coward]

If I read the article correctly, tspace and scaled composites are after the crew transport vehicle portion of the new nasa vision. That is, the capsule to get to the crew exploration vehicle or the iss space station. The sole purpose of the ctv is to get people in low earth orbit from an in atmosphere launch using a pre-existing capsule design.

I think the contracts for cev were awarded to northrop/grumman and boeing for a 2 party competition. That is, the crew exploration vehicle which resides in space.

Though, nasa might fund them $400m for a alternate/creative role in the process. Who knows, now wouldn't be funny if they could pull it off with the limited funding? That would prod the bigger companies which would be good.

The beauty is if they can get rid of shuttle the savings will pay to get to the moon. The moon has its own resources which could be used to create launches/refueling from the moon and not earth.

rockoons

[nounderscores]

http://www.hobbyspace.com/NearSpace/index.html#Roc koons

I think you're thinking of these. They do work, it's just that you have to deal with the time and danger involved with a baloon ride before firing the rocket, while going up in a powered aircraft like a plane gives you more control.

A blimp like thing (lighter than air, powered and with a lifting body profile) that might be nice. That's a whole nother aerospace engineering project in itself.

Re:rockoons

[sakusha]

Yep, that was the first thing I thought of. Why bother sending up a complex piloted aircraft to lift a rocket into the upper atmosphere? All you need is the altitude. Just float it up on a baloon, when it gets up high enough, blast off.
I poked around the research papers and it doesn't look like anyone's launched any serious rockoons since the first 1957-60 experiments by Van Allen. I guess baloons don't have enough Right Stuff compared to piloted aircraft and air-launch platforms.

Takes much less energy

[Anonymous Coward]

Both of which would require the same amount of energy as just burning the fossile fuels to begin with. From where would you get that energy? A power plant that burns fossil fuels?

The overwhelming majority of fuel used to launch spacecraft is spent accelerating the rest of the fuel. If you don't carry the fuel with you, it will take much less energy to reach orbit. Consider the European Union's Hopper which will accelerate spacecraft on magnetic rails. They already have a prototype.

Google Add

[McGiraf]

Google Add on top of page:
________________
Space Ship
Save on new and used items. Search for space ship now!
www.ebay.com
_________________

eh eh they think they have everything ...

Re:Google Add

[McGiraf]

oups I ment ad not add. why do they keep moving the preview button? :)

Re:Google Add

[m50d]

That ad cracks me up all the time, with things like the infamous "new and used japanese sushi", or "new and used linux news". Can be scary on occasion though, while doing some research I saw an ad for "new and used W80 warhead on ebay". I certainly hope not.

Re:Google Add

[Breakfast Pants]

"Can be scary on occasion though, while doing some terrorist research I saw an ad for "new and used W80 warhead on ebay". I certainly hope not."

Fixed.

Re:Google Add

[Council]

I remember when I could search for "slaves" and get an eBay ad. Buy and sell slaves on eBay, huh?

(It might have been some similar word and not "slaves", but I think it was.)

Re:Google Add

[Council]

And wanna see a ridiculous number of ads? Try "boxes". Apparently a popular word.

The t/Space solution is clear...

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

"Unfortunately, with the recent selection of Boeing/Northrop-Grumman and Lockheed-Martin as the two competing teams for the contract to build the Shuttle's successor, t/Space's future path is somewhat uncertain.""

All t/Space needs is to get a couple dozen congressmen in its pocket and boom! ...in like Flint.

Let's face it...the manned space program is a slush fund for well-connected defense contractors.

P.S. Did I mention the "word in image" thing still sucks donkey balls?

Re:The t/Space solution is clear...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's "in like Flynn" goofball... Boom goes the dynamite.

Re:The t/Space solution is clear...

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

Ah shit, he's right. [Q] From Gustavo Bruckner: "What is the derivation of in like Flynn?" [A] Reference books almost universally assert that this set phrase, an American expression meaning to be successful emphatically or quickly, especially in regard to sexual seduction, refers to the Australian-born actor Errol Flynn. His drinking, drug-taking and sexual exploits were renowned, even for Hollywood, but the phrase is said to have been coined following his acquittal in February 1943 for the statutory rape of a teenage girl. This seems to be supported by the date of the first example recorded, in American Speech in December 1946, which cited a 1945 use in the sense of something being done easily.

Exactly

[zippthorne]

Just because space travel is costly for NASA doesn't mean it must be for the rest of us. As soon as it's profitable to do without NASA level budgeting, companies will scoop up the benjamins like there's no tomorrow.

The question is: was that 23% the size or 23% scale model, because those are two vastly different volumes.

And the corollary question is: was it an empty shell? or did it have the same mass distribution that the rocket will have?

Re:fuck space

[sp0rk173]

agreed.

Other Uses for Air Launch

[roughapprox]

"Unfortunately, with the recent selection of Boeing/Northrop-Grumman and Lockheed-Martin as the two competing teams for the contract to build the Shuttle's successor, t/Space's future path is somewhat uncertain."

That's baloney. The US military loves the air launch thing. Back in the '70s there was a pathfinder-type mission that air launched a Minuteman. And the MDA is heavily invested in air launched targets for the various interceptor programs. There was the LRALT program and a newer target launched by Orbital Sciences. And, of course, there's also Orbital's Pegasus space launch vehicle.

The benefit of the type of air launch method that t/Space is showing is that the LRALT and MRT programs require the extremely heavy sleds that they sit on and that they are limited by the cargo capacity of a C-17. And Pegasus has to carry that enormous wing and tail structure (not to mention its failures, such as the first X-43A flight).

I think if t/Space can show superiority over the existing air launch methods (which doesn't seem to be difficult), they will definitely fill a demand in both the small space launch and targets markets.

Re:Other Uses for Air Launch

[mpapet]

Spoken like someone who has -never- tried to land a gov't contract.

In the usual scenario, innovation gets purchased, but not without the Northrop-Grumman getting a big, no -giant-, chunk of the contract.

If you only had the slightest idea exactly how RFP's and RFQ's get written you would understand the powerball-lottery-like odds of the entrepreneur landing the big contract.

Don't B.S. me about company X or Y who did it either. They had to make a big deal with the bigger guy to be a small part of the project. (which has it's advantages) Either that or they paid the lobbyists like the big guys do and were there writing the RFP with the agency issuing it -and- simultaneously buying off the big contractors one way or another. Net gain is about equal in either case.

Winning contracts is no-holds-barred, no trick too dirty kind of business. My hat is off to the guys/girls who are good at it.

full scale

[Pierre]

Not sure if this is routine but apparently it's been done on a larger scale

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=16610

wonder how hi proteus was when it dropped the capsule

Re:fuck space

[Anonymous Coward]

If nobody fucked the space between our mothers' legs, none of us would be here.

not entirely new

[Chris Y Taylor]

That trapeze system looks like something used in the 50s and 60s for large missle launches off USAF jets. I think the Genie used a trapeze to launch from an F104.

Re:fuck space

[J05H]

wow, you're intelligent. That is what it boils down to with the anti-space, anti-progress, anti-tech crowd. Fuck space, right? Go live in a cave, AC. You are in the "get out of the way" part of LEAD, FOLLOW OR GET OUT OF THE WAY!

OMG! It's 2am and I fell for a troll.

23% scale model

[blckwidow]

now if they could only design some 23% scale modeled astronauts t/Space would be in business.

Gary, Burt and a long way from here...

[J05H]

Gary Hudson, the chief scientist at t/Space, has been trying to spark the spaceflight revolution for 30 years. He had a rocket called Conestoga in the 80s that ran into the infamous "brother-in-law problem" at NASA. He was also the driving force behind another Mojave airport first: the Roton demonstrator. Now he's back with the world's most famous aircraft designer and a bunch of other people from the space activist community.

Burt needs no introduction: he's da man. Burt builds the coolest planes in the world and has finally started building spaceships.

So, t/space has been doing droptests, excellent! They have a great capsule demo and seem to be trying to stretch their funding as far as possible. I'm pretty sure they said that the "CXV" was proposed specifically outside the CEV RFP, because they refuse to fill out that much extra paperwork. You can see what Mr. Hudson was working on in the early 00's here: http://hmx.com/ The pdf is his proposal for a capsule (manned/cargo) for the old Alternative Access to Station program, gives a good idea of where the CXV's heritage is.

t/space is an amazing team. If they can keep the funding coming, they will deliver on this craft.

Josh

Re:Gary, Burt and a long way from here...

[Breakfast Pants]

Do you work for t-space? Christ did I just read a press release?

Re:Gary, Burt and a long way from here...

[J05H]

No, just a huge fan. I've met Gary at a conference and followed his career. I was at the September SpaceShipOne launch, too. That was FREAKING AWESOME.

I am what you might call a space advocate. Space freak? Space geek! I'm for space development and colonies and all that. I just think that companies like t/space, SpaceDev, SpaceX etc are going to get us there while NASA spins their wheels.

Whore for the private spaceflight industry? Yes, please.

Josh

No wings...

[utnow]

is MORE safe? Personally I like my aircraft to have wings thankyouverymuch.

Re:No wings...

[rufty_tufty]

Not always needed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifting_body
I like the idea of not having these things strapped to the side that can break off, they always looked flimsy - maybe it'll save weight.
My! This armchair is comfy!

I would be far more impressed if...

[advocate_one]

the tether held on to the package until after the motors had achieved sufficient thrust and then released it... that way, if the engines don't make it, they can be shut down and the very expensive package retrieved by means of a winch... if needs be, jettison the motor bit and just retrieve the payload.

I got an idea

[Anonymous Coward]

we could have this "rocket" thats being dropped have a canon on it that shoots astronauts into space from a high altitude.

Space elevators

[Hal XP]

If at all plausible from a technical standpont, space elevators are probably the most sensible way for sending humans or loads to space. If you can't beat gravity, use it. Armchair engineers can send in their entries.

scaleing

[LWATCDR]

You can air launch a pretty good sized vehical. A 747-400F can lift over 120,000kg A mission specific aircraft could probably do much better.
I don't know about manned but for sats it may be the way to go.

Path is clear

[slapout]

Unfortunately, with the recent selection of Boeing/Northrop-Grumman and Lockheed-Martin as the two competing teams for the contract to build the Shuttle's successor, t/Space's future path is somewhat uncertain.

I would think their path is clear: Get one of those other two to buy them!

nuclear launch vehicle

[inertialFrame]

If only we could figure out how to build a safe nuclear launch vehicle. The energy density of nuclear fuel is something like a thousand times larger than that of chemical fuel.

Maybe you could put a reactor into an upper stage and heat something like water in a closed cycle for launch. Steam would power turbofans for vertical or horizontal liftoff. At say 50,000+ feet or so, the first stage with turbofans separates exposing nozzles for the fluid to be ejected as rocket exhaust. Now the reactor cranks up the heat higher on the working fluid and uses it directly as propellant.

I don't know. Are there any actual good designs for nuclear launch out there? I saw something about RITA, but it didn't have many details.

Re:nuclear launch vehicle

[cheesybagel]

There was lots of work on Nuclear Thermal engines in the 1960s. Google Dumbo and NERVA. There were later studies in the 1990s. Google for Timberwind.

These are solid core designs, sort of like a nuclear power plant which vents the heated fluid out to the back, so theoretically you could make the exaust pretty clean of fissile elements and radioactivity.

The problem is despite having a high ISP, their thrust to weight ratios are lousy. This means they cannot be used as a first stage engine for launching from Earth. Only second stages. They cannot lift their own weight, only useful when in space already.

Then there are the fancier designs, like Project Orion (basically lobbing nuclear fission bombs out of the back of the rocket to provide thrust). Theoretically, if you can find a way to use nuclear fusion bombs instead *and* ignite them somehow without using nuclear fission bombs as a trigger like ICBM warheads have (e.g. using innertial containment fusion with lasers, using matter/anti-matter reactions to catalyze the fusion), you could get something which would be reasonably clean. But still nothing you would want to launch near any populated areas. Some people also fear this sort of technology because it could be used to make cleaner and possibly smaller nuclear weapons. But if we ever want to reach other stars, we will need something like that eventually.

Nuclear rockets reduce the amount of fuel you need. The other alternative is to *not* carry as much fuel with you. Which is what solar sails or beamed power launch are all about.

I think beamed power launch will be the thing to get us out of the gravity well on this rock for good, unless someone can get the space elevator or reasonable tethers working.

Myrabo

[krysith]

I'm sure you are already familiar with the work of Leik Myrabo , but in case you aren't, you ought to check out his stuff. He is the big pioneer in this area (ref. 3 on your correct link).

You are right that huge savings can be had by separating the power source from the vehicle - Myrabo was writing about this 20 years ago. Most of the energy used by a rocket is used to elevate the fuel to the altitude at which it is burned. If the energy is supplied to energize a propellant (such as vaporized water as suggested in your link), the amount of propellant can be much less than the amount of burning fuel would be. Unfortunately, Myrabo has focused his more recent efforts on rather weak air propelled engines which haven't had much punch.

Because the real limit in terms of how much propellant is needed depends upon the specific energy (and thus the temperature) to which the propellant is energized, it is best if the propellant is heated to a very high temperature. For these purposes, an concentrated ultraviolet light source would work as well as a laser, and would likely be much cheaper than a fairly efficient laser of high power. Also, if a laser is used, the best case scenario would be if the photon energy corresponded to a particular energy jump in the target propellant, similar to the way an excimer laser is used. In the case of simply heating the propellant, material considerations will limit the amount you can heat the material (i.e. at some point, your water vapor will melt the nozzle). However, in the case of the excimer laser, a solid propellant could be used which would not suffer from heat transfer from the solid/gas interface, which means really high specific energies could be used.

Re:scaling

[everphilski]

Which means you can put 5-10,0000 kg in LEO, depending upon how good your rocket guys are. Which is decent. But chances are you are going to have to structurally reinforce that 747-400F to carry the rocket, which will reduce the weight, etc... its a system of trades. But even still no reason it couldn't be used as a launch platform for an ISS ferry vehicle.

The downside is, now you are launching from a moving platform. And the savings, while there are some, arent **that** great... IE, you aren't going to be able to pull off a single stage rocket unless you have some amazing rocket guys working for you and you are putting a very minuscule package in orbit. 2 stages from the earth's surface is easy enough, if you are adding the complexity of an air launch you would want to get some benefit of complexity reduction out of it (And staging is a good source of failure...)

-everphilski-

t/Space's future - licensing

[JLavezzo]

> t/Space's future path is somewhat uncertain

If the idea is that good, one or both of the contractors could license it from them. Could be very profitable for t/Space. Also likely: they get bought up by one of the big guys.

Paper with more details

[FleaPlus]

t/Space recently released a paper with more details of the air-launch method and the flight tests here:

http://transformspace.com/document_library/media/t LAD_Test_Program.pdf

How about an unmodified C5A?

[leonbrooks]

Should be able to put it into a relatively gentle parabola and simply kick your 56.7t load out the tail.

Small disposable drogue goes first to make sure payload points the right way throughout (would be the world's most expensive air-air missile if it destabilised and happened to point the wrong way when it went whoosh), slide out back end, (roll and?) send C5A into negative gees to miss the payload, light blue touch-paper, home time.

Hmm. The 56.7t load was over 8000km...

[leonbrooks]

...'tis supposedly able to do 110t over shorter distances - but I don't think it says anywhere "in one lump". (-: