Slashdot Mirror


Excalibur Almaz To Offer Commercial Orbital Flights

xp65 alerts to the plans of an international consortium called Excalibur Almaz Limited to open up a new era of private orbital space flight for commercial customers. The group, consisting of Russian, US, and Japanese companies, will use a formerly top-secret Soviet re-entry vehicle called Almaz to carry paying research crews on one-week missions into Earth orbit by 2013. This ambition represents a large step beyond the sub-orbital flight market so far targeted by most other private space companies. "Excalibur has raised 'tens of millions of dollars' to initiate what will become a several hundred million dollar program, [CEO] Dula tells Spaceflight Now. He has spent more than 20 years eying this specific Almaz program... He also says 'the business plan closes' generating profits within a few years. His surveys have found research and science customers for space missions that are not tourist hops, but less demanding than ISS operations."

26 of 76 comments (clear)

  1. Excellent! by natehoy · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'll go buy myself a ticket as soon as the proceeds from my uncle's estate come in, which should be any day now. Who knew, I had a Nigerian prince for an uncle. Small world, eh?

    --
    "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    1. Re:Excellent! by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'll go buy myself a ticket as soon as the proceeds from my uncle's estate come in

      Why wait? I'm gonna book my flight now using my Visa card. Yeah, it's over my limit and I'll never be able to pay it back, but so what? It works for Washington and Wall Street ;)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  2. Gemini variants still exist by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Interesting
    A Gemini with a hatch in its heat shield is in the Air Force Museum in Dayton. At the Udvar-Hazy museum at Washington Dulles airport, there is a non-space-capable Gemini practice vehicle that was built to hang under a Rogalo wing and has runway landing gear. The intent was that they'd hang-glide the Gemini to a precision landing.

    Reviving a 30-year-old Russian capsule which lost out to Soyuz sounds risky.

    1. Re:Gemini variants still exist by FleaPlus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Reviving a 30-year-old Russian capsule which lost out to Soyuz sounds risky.

      If it's revamped and passes modern qualification testing, I don't see any reason not to reuse it. Also, unlike the Gemini, the tooling apparently still exists to construct new ones (unless I'm misreading). From what I've read, it seems that the reason the Almaz was ended didn't have anything to do with technical problems with the capsule, but more that the Soviet Union decided that having armed military space stations probably wasn't the best investment:

      http://www.astronautix.com/project/almaz.htm
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almaz

  3. MAKS by superphysics · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They're displaying their craft at the MAKS Air Show in Russia. They must be hoping to inveigle some multi-million dollar passengers. How many passengers do you suppose they need to break even with that price tag? Too bad they can't demonstrate it at the MAKS too.

    --
    Life is too good to waste... Read!
  4. Just curious... a question for space people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Is it easier to get something in a CIRCULAR orbit around earth, or is it easier to launch something to impact the moon.
    Getting to the moon seems like just getting escape velocity and proper aiming, but getting a proper circular orbit means achieving velocity AND THEN adjusting to get a proper orbit.
    If this is true, why aren't we seeing more moon shots?

    1. Re:Just curious... a question for space people... by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Informative

      Going to the moon is a big elliptical orbit. The Apollo missions had an abort of just letting the vehicle pass the moon and head back to earth. I think one of the early missions used it, and Apollo 13.

    2. Re:Just curious... a question for space people... by argent · · Score: 2, Informative

      Circular velocity is less than escape velocity.

    3. Re:Just curious... a question for space people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      As far as I know, you don't need anything close to escape velocity to get into a stable orbit (Circular or otherwise)

      LEO only needs a speed of ~7km/s, and GEO is only ~3km/s (but is much higher than LEO) - ES is more like ~11 km/s

    4. Re:Just curious... a question for space people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Is it easier to get something in a CIRCULAR orbit around earth, or is it easier to launch something to impact the moon. Getting to the moon seems like just getting escape velocity and proper aiming, but getting a proper circular orbit means achieving velocity AND THEN adjusting to get a proper orbit. If this is true, why aren't we seeing more moon shots?

      No, it's simply not true. The "skill" required to enter an orbit was mastered almost five decades ago. It's relatively negligible. The main restriction on going places in the solar system is fuel. It takes a lot more fuel to go to the moon.

      Here's the simplified picture of what goes on to get in a circular orbit around earth:
      1.) 1 burst of fuel to reach orbital altitude
      2.) 1 burst of fuel to reach orbital velocity

      Here's what it takes to land on the moon:
      1. and 2. from above
      3.) 1 burst of fuel to escape earth orbit
      4.) 1 burst of fuel to enter lunar orbit
      5.) 1 burst of fuel to land on the moon
      6.) 1 burst of fuel to leave the moon surface
      7.) 1 burst of fuel to leave the moon's orbit and return to earth


      Also keep in mind that fuel usage is exponential. i.e. you need to carry more fuel earlier in the trip to propel the fuel you will need later in the trip. Thus expense to Mars >> expense to Moon >> expense to Low Earth Orbit > expense to suborbital hop

    5. Re:Just curious... a question for space people... by natehoy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ridiculously oversimplified response:

      Once you achieve orbital velocity, you've "hit" orbit. If you have too much power, your orbit will be higher than you planned. If you have too little power, your orbit is lower than you planned (possibly not achieving orbit, of course). Your orbit will continue as long as you have momentum, which is eaten up by the miniscule amounts of atmosphere and space junk bouncing off you as you orbit. To come back to Earth, slow down and you'll fall out of orbit and end up on the planet somewhere. A Geosync circular orbit can be achieved approximately 26,000 miles up. So, roughly put, you figure out how much fuel you need to reach a given speed at 26000 miles, and you're largely good.

      To get to the Moon, you have to hit a moving target whose distance averages about 239,000 miles from Earth. Or, roughly put, you have to go nine times as far and you have to hit a teensy tiny little moving target at that distance.

      >>>>Getting to the moon seems like just getting escape velocity and proper aiming, but getting a proper circular orbit means achieving velocity AND THEN adjusting to get a proper orbit.

      Getting to the moon is achieving a lot more velocity than an orbit, THEN adjusting to get a proper orbit around the Earth to match the Moon's orbit THEN adjusting that orbit to achieve an orbit around the Moon so you can control the descent of your landing vehicle from a stable orbit (or maybe you meant "impact" literally - grin). THEN you can start working out the maths to land your instruments on the Moon.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    6. Re:Just curious... a question for space people... by 32771 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If you want to try it yourself check out orbiter:

      http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/

      At least getting into earth orbit is simple, especially with the high powered experimental rocket plane they have.

      You may actually need another burn to circularize your orbit if you want to get into earth orbit. It is called apogee burn.

      This is not quite child's play but they offer you some nice tools while flying to actually get to the moon and planets.

      --
      Je me souviens.
  5. Flights in 2013; astronaut Leroy Chiao is VP by FleaPlus · · Score: 4, Informative

    Nice submission, although here's a few more details from my own submission:

    Excalibur Almaz has come out of stealth mode and unveiled their reusable spacecraft capable of carrying a crew of three and/or cargo to orbit for up to a week. According to VP (and former NASA astronaut) Leroy Chiao, the spacecraft are designed to be launched on a variety of rockets, and are modernized versions of vehicles developed and flight-tested for the Soviet Union's military space station program (the company has also purchased some of the space stations for potential future use). EA plans to begin flight tests in 2012, with revenue flights starting in 2013. The company will likely be competing with the SpaceX Dragon and Bigelow Aerospace's recently-announced "Orion Lite" for a chunk of the emerging commercial orbital transportation market.

    An interesting bit of trivia is that the original Soviet Almaz space station carried a rapid-fire cannon and performed a successful test-firing on a target satellite. I'm assuming the space stations which Excalibur Almaz bought don't have the cannons anymore. :(

    1. Re:Flights in 2013; astronaut Leroy Chiao is VP by mrsquid0 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I suspect that there are people who would pay extra for a flight where they had the opportunity to shoot something down.

      --
      Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
    2. Re:Flights in 2013; astronaut Leroy Chiao is VP by moosesocks · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The USSR's later experiments in space-based weapons were even crazier, and looked incredibly badass when mounted on the rocket.

      Fortunately, a software glitch (probably intentional) prevented the spacecraft from making orbit.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    3. Re:Flights in 2013; astronaut Leroy Chiao is VP by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Funny

      Great kid! Don't get cocky!

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  6. Re:Nice if this was true by FleaPlus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Is there any particular reason though why it would need to take until 2015? I imagine the development process is much simplified since the basic hardware they're using has already been developed and flight-tested, and they're just inserting in modern electronics and redesigning the service module. I'm guessing they (like SpaceX's Dragon) will probably want a few cargo flights before manned flights, of course, but I can't think of any show-stoppers.

  7. formerly top-secret Soviet re-entry vehicle by icebike · · Score: 2, Funny

    How does a pathetic rip off of a Gemini design qualify as a top secret re-entry vehicle?

    What was secret about it? Which Nasa subcontractor they paid ?

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  8. More hype, look at the XPrize for other examples by fantomas · · Score: 2, Insightful

    More hype and a misleading Slashdot headline, what's new? How many of the X-Prize teams ever got a person more than 100 metres off the ground?

    "Excalibur Almaz To Offer Commercial Orbital Flights" - perhaps more like Excalibur Almaz *hopes* to offer commercial orbital flights. Early days of space exploration and all that but more hype than activity right now. Wake me up when they've done their first test flights with their own technical staff. I wish them and all the other commercial companies the best of luck - I so want it all to be successful and the prices to drop so an average guy like me might get up there one day - but it's mostly hype at the moment.

  9. Re:Nice if this was true by vlm · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Is there any particular reason though why it would need to take until 2015? I imagine the development process is much simplified since the basic hardware they're using has already been developed and flight-tested, and they're just inserting in modern electronics and redesigning the service module.

    Most "formerly top-secret Soviet re-entry vehicles" were designed to sit on top of ICBMs, and provide a ride that only a nuke would tolerate (heating, deceleration, no atmosphere, etc). On the plus side I heard some were lightly armored to discourage the star wars missile defense plan, provide some limited maneuverability on re-entry, and they are probably very reliable and stable.

    So, they don't have to bother with the aerodynamics, materials science, and control/navigation/guidance systems. Well maybe the guidance systems will need updating, unless you want to end every mission with a landing on the whitehouse lawn, downtown NYC, or Montana.

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  10. Re:More hype, look at the XPrize for other example by FleaPlus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Excalibur Almaz To Offer Commercial Orbital Flights" - perhaps more like Excalibur Almaz *hopes* to offer commercial orbital flights. Early days of space exploration and all that but more hype than activity right now. Wake me up when they've done their first test flights with their own technical staff.

    Excalibur Almaz has apparently already raised a significant amount of money, which they've used to purchase several Almaz reentry capsules and have contracted with the Russian manufacturer to make the necessary modifications. They're well past the vaporware stage by this point, with flight-tested hardware in their possession.

  11. Re:But what science? by FleaPlus · · Score: 3, Informative

    I wonder, what science do they think people will be using this for? I guess it could replace some of the Shuttle-only payloads we used to fly, but for anything else the ISS is a much more capable research laboratory. I should know, keeping them doing science is my job these days.

    I guess it might have better downmass? Usually, though, you only want to bring it home if you think the long term exposure effects are interesting. This won't be very long term.

    My understanding is that a large part of the problem is that it takes a terribly long time to get anything launched to the ISS and you have to go through a substantial amount of red tape. Currently, you need a lead time of years to fly an experiment on the ISS, which makes it really difficult to do meaningful science in the fast-paced scientific environment. Heck, a grad student putting together an experiment would be lucky to have the experiment results back before they finished their PhD. Hopefully the more rapid access from commercial providers (SpaceX Dragon, Bigelow Aerospace's Orion Lite, and now Excalibur Almaz) will help change that picture.

  12. Excalibur? by geekoid · · Score: 3, Funny

    Just because some watery tart lobs a spaceship at you is no basis for a space program.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  13. Deck gun by eples · · Score: 2

    Are they taking the deck gun off for the tourist flights? No, I'm serious - the Almaz had a 23mm aircraft cannon mounted to its underside to shoot at american targets (maybe the MOL?)

    A recent NOVA episode interviewed a couple of former cosmonauts who said the only time it was fired was a test just before they decommissioned (de-orbited) the last one.

    --
    I'm a 2000 man.
  14. Re:Nice if this was true by JAlexoi · · Score: 2, Funny

    Hm.. Nice final destination - The White House lawn

  15. Re:You Obviously Are Unaware Of by nedlohs · · Score: 2, Funny

    So you argument against soviet "tech" sucking is that they were dumb enough to not notice that one of their physicist/mathematicians had laid out a great way to do stealth and instead of doing it let the Americans stumble across his work 20 years later and do it.

    That seems like an argument against their "tech" if anything.