Slashdot Mirror
Europe Unveils New Space Plane for Tourist Market
mrminator writes to tell us Space.com is reporting that Europe's largest space contractor, EADS, has just announced their plans to build a new space tourism vehicle. The new rocket, powered by liquid methane and liquid oxygen will carry passengers on a 90 minute round trip flight for somewhere in the neighborhood of 200,000 euros ($267,000).
$200,000 isn't that much to many people, so a target of 4,500 customers per year by 2020 seems reasonable.
On top of that, by 2020, many more "poor" people might also be able (and willing) to save up $200K for a taste of pseudo-space.
More importantly, no businessmen will allow one company to tap into this multibillion-dollar industry unchallenged, which means ticket price can only go down.
Virtual Betting on Facebook for non-geeks.
$267,000 is a lot of cash. Why right now you can get a seat on one of those 727s that can simulate zero Gs for a mere $3,675.00. Thats affordable for almost anyone who really wants to experience it. http://www.gozerog.com/
Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
Cost issues aside, I think that 90 seconds of weightlessness in a 90 minute flight is rather lame. Aside from the nice view, wouldn't it be better to just rent out a stripped-down 747 and go into repeated dives, like they do to train astronauts for zero-g?
For me, anything that gets people investing in space is a good thing.
IMHO, and this does sound a bit corny, but there are two technologies that are the key to the survival for humans long-term... Energy and space, so people can get self-sustaining colonies on the moon, Mars, and outwards.
At about 18 Million per flight they would have to fly 55 flights to break even on their investment. Add on the maintenance cost they will incur and this looks like it will end up being AirBus space a 'company' which constantly has to be subsidized by European governments.
This also caught me "He said Astrium has surveyed other space-tourism projects, mainly in the United States, and found most of them lacking in engineering or business-model seriousness. "There are those who think you can design a rocket plane in a garage," Laine said. "Suffice it to say that that is not our niche."
Hello SS1? how many projects from Europe were serious contenders for the X-Prize? I would be willing to be that Virgin / SS1 is up in the air before this pipe dream..
That that just mean landing on Earth? How about they throw in a landing zone in Texas so that people can get an intercontinental flight out of it?
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
What so special about htis one, other than being six or seven years behind the crowd and just as expensive?
Seriously, look it up, its science. Thank God they used a different, imaginary technology in Star Wars.
C-3PO: Sir, it's quite possible this asteroid is not entirely stable.
Han Solo: Not entirely stable! I'm glad you're here to tell us these things.
[The Millennium Falcon, under siege, won't start]
Princess Leia Organa: Would it help if I got out and farted?
Han Solo: It might.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Or does this thing look too much like the Planet Express ship for comfort.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
Right now, the focus should be on exploration and discovery, rather than interspace joy rides. Scientists and governments should begin focussing on manned missions to Mars and the like, rather than tourism. Will Space become another touristy area? With a price that most fairly well off bussiness people and the like may afford, that may well be the case. I, for one, think that our focus and money need be on exploration and discovery, rather than tourism.
To answer the posted question of "what's so special", it's the methane motor. NASA tested one, but nobody's flown with one yet.
. html
All the major hydrocarbon fuels are within about 3% of each other in specific impulse. Methane, being readily available via natural gas, is very handy. However, it's a gas, compressed to liquid. That means its density is less than a liquid. The major liquid fuel (RP-1; pretty much JP-4/Jet A kerosene) is 22% more dense since it's a liquid. To make a methane engine worth putting into a human-rated craft will require a major step in pressure tank development. They'll need to cram a lot of gas in, and it'll have to fail safe (ie. not explode if it leaks). I suspect EADS made this part of their R&D for the project, or they'd have just gone with RP-1. For a comparison of fuels see http://yarchive.net/space/rocket/fuels/fuel_table
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
Virgin Galactic: "Work on the SpaceShipTwo design and construction is well advanced. Testing of the SpaceShipTwo prototype is likely to start in 2007 with commercial flights on the maiden Virgin Galactic craft, the VSS (Virgin SpaceShip) Enterprise, commencing early in 2009." Rutan usually delivers on his promises and that being the case.. Other hurdles Virgin Galactic has gotten over "NASA and Virgin Galactic announce a ground breaking and exciting agreement between the two parties to collaborate in future manned space technology. In particular, NASA confirms its willingness to make available to Virgin Galactic the unique capabilities and world class facilities within the NASA Ames Research Centre in California." 2-22-07
You're hoping for a happy ending? I believe that's 50 grand extra.
I do not get why would anyone be willing to pay so much for a "extended" airplane trip. Riding a rocket to space and to the orbit is one thing. It takes bravery and provides an opportunity to live in really an outside world. But just to fly a bit higher then normal planes yet far far slower then what's needed for entering an orbit...? I just do not get it. Must be for people who really do not know what to do with their money. Some people think that private companies like that will eventually be able to fly into Earth orbit and beyond, but I think there is no reason to believe that it will happen anytime soon. Private companies can't brake laws of physics and are absolutely terrible with investing in fundamental physics research (the thing that costs tons and tons of money just to run an experiment that disprove a theory). So this is just a waste of money plain and simple.
I'm not sure this is really a company chasing after anything. This kinds seems like a "oh yeah? we can do that!", and is being thrown together purely for prestige. The best part is this line:
:P
"Astrium President Francois Auque said one side benefit of the project is to shatter the cliche that established aerospace giants like EADS have lost their imagination and sense of daring."
Their imagination is to copy someone else.
Their daring... I guess that's trying to find investors for a $1,000,000,000 investment.
--Jimmy
How much for one way?
Property is theft.
I think some people here are missing part of the draw of such a venture as this. People aren't interested in spending the money just for a minute and a half of weightlessness... they're interested in considering themselves astronauts. Once you break the 100km altitude mark--the Karman Line--you're in outer space. If you're in outer space, you're technically an astronaut. People want the title, as it is still somewhat exotic and mysterious.
If you think about it, space exploration is turning out to be just like the development of powered flight. It starts with a handful of daring, adventurous explorers, followed by governmental applications and novelties (like barnstorming and such), leading to common use by a large portion of society. Right now, we're moving through that second phase.
Of course, you can glide for 90 minutes using no fuel whatsoever. Once you spend a relatively small amount of deltaV to put yourself into a ballistic trajectory that takes you up 100 Km. 2 Km/s or so should be in the timezone of enough. Then glide for the best part of 90 minutes at mach 2+....
It's not like hovering gives you zero-G or anything - if you were to hover for 90 minutes, you'd experience zero seconds of zero-G
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Throughout another article, they look down their noses at the efforts being undertaken referring to the engineering behind it all. We have ruled out the idea of a simple rocket, which can not be used again, or of a small vessel attached to a large plane, the idea chosen by Virgin Galactic of Richard Branson, but which seems to us less safe IOW, they knock spacex, t-space, and scaled composites. This is the SAME group that is taking forever to do the A-380, which is poorly engineered and in trouble due to nationalistic politics. In addition, they had to obtain more funding from EU to do another aircraft to compete against the 787. But they promised that the 380 would be the last.
Now, they say that Burt Rutan has horrible engineering. Burt's multitudes of aircrafts have set a number of records. Even later in that article, they speak of using hamocks which is straight out of one of the poor American companies (t-space). Spacex is looking at having rockets launch at a fraction of the price of the ariane V with slightly more payload due to "poor" engineering (and that is without the rocket re-use that they will employ). And all of that is without any gov. subsidy.
As to the design behind Scaled's work, it has been the EXACT same idea that NASA wanted in the 70's (but nixon killed). In addition, so did EU, at first, before settling on Ariane's design. The idea being to not carry the jets and their covers to space. By taking the approach that they suggest, they will either have to take 3 tanks to space or use a dropped fuel tank. IOW, they have not learned the lessons that the American Shuttle vs. The Russian Shuttle (a theft, but better designed by moving the engines off the shuttle). Scaled did. They will be able to get to space MUCH sooner than EADS just due to this one item. Scaled's WK II will be used to carry not just the sub-orbital rocket (SS1.5), but will also carry SS2. It will be far easier to convert the SS1.5 to SS2. And they will not have to worry about WK.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.