That's an interesting idea. I'd feel more confident in the future of commercial projects like Dream Chaser if there were multiple revenue options beyond a small number of trips to the ISS for NASA.
transcontinental to a real destination at high-speed
I've previously suggested powered sub-orbital hops from WK2 - offered at a premium over SS2 tickets since DC is a 'real' spacecraft.
Quote from: adrianwyard on 06/26/2012 05:17 pmtranscontinental to a real destination at high-speedNo business case for that.
Quote from: Jim on 06/26/2012 05:52 pmQuote from: adrianwyard on 06/26/2012 05:17 pmtranscontinental to a real destination at high-speedNo business case for that.Unfounded speculation
Quote from: adrianwyard on 06/26/2012 05:17 pm I've previously suggested powered sub-orbital hops from WK2 - offered at a premium over SS2 tickets since DC is a 'real' spacecraft.Not really, the flight profile would be the same for either spacecraft.
Re "no business case"Well if we want to follow this general idea forward and get to real-world operational and regulatory details, then I could well believe the business becomes iffy. Predicting the future in detail is hard.I thought you were saying that there's no case for high-speed travel per se. I personally paid the big bucks to travel on Concorde, and definitely felt as though I got my money's worth. As you say, the first hurdle is the oft-quoted assessment that you need near-orbital velocity to get any useful (marketable) distance. If that's derived unambiguously from the physics, then that would a good reason to move on.
Quote from: Jim on 06/26/2012 05:54 pmQuote from: adrianwyard on 06/26/2012 05:17 pm I've previously suggested powered sub-orbital hops from WK2 - offered at a premium over SS2 tickets since DC is a 'real' spacecraft.Not really, the flight profile would be the same for either spacecraft.What's the proposed duration of a sub-orbital flight ? Any more takers for anOrbital flight that does 2-3 full orbits before landing fairly close to the launch site ?
Quote from: adrianwyard on 06/26/2012 06:19 pmRe "no business case"Well if we want to follow this general idea forward and get to real-world operational and regulatory details, then I could well believe the business becomes iffy. Predicting the future in detail is hard.I thought you were saying that there's no case for high-speed travel per se. I personally paid the big bucks to travel on Concorde, and definitely felt as though I got my money's worth. As you say, the first hurdle is the oft-quoted assessment that you need near-orbital velocity to get any useful (marketable) distance. If that's derived unambiguously from the physics, then that would a good reason to move on.It is. Orbital velocity is around 25.8 kfps; a transatlantic flight requires about 18.4 kfps (see, for example, the STS-135 3-engine-out TAL boundary, below). SS2/WK2 will be in the 3-4 kfps range.
. I personally paid the big bucks to travel on Concorde, and definitely felt as though I got my money's worth.
Quote from: adrianwyard on 06/26/2012 06:19 pm. I personally paid the big bucks to travel on Concorde, and definitely felt as though I got my money's worth. Joyride and not a business decision