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

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

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..

[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.

No future ?

[McGiraf]

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

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: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.