I don't know if XCOR's Lynx will take to the air next year or not; but it looks promising.That said, I have to ask if XCOR's management have posted any design fora true spacecraft that could be called?.....(example) SuperLynx?Superlynx: (hypothetical description) A larger, heavier, more powerful version of the Lynx, perhaps with THREE rocket motors; able to carry at least four passengers and two crew upto 100km altitude and higher....perhaps higher than 100 miles up per suborbital flight.
.. Granted i only calculated revenues and not expenses, which I also admitted, and didnt go into detail on them because I dont have any hard fast numbers to guesstimate on so anything I said there would be pure WAG.
Quote from: mlorrey on 10/11/2011 01:14 am.. Granted i only calculated revenues and not expenses, which I also admitted, and didnt go into detail on them because I dont have any hard fast numbers to guesstimate on so anything I said there would be pure WAG.My point was more towards the likelihood of any operator of theirs having a steady and long backlog of customers, and being able to service them on a continuous basis without major interruptions. Regardless of market research left and right, i have a hard time believing that large amounts of people will show up with that much cash in hand to fly on something that can be compared to an experimental airplane, safety wise.I would think that once such a service starts, there will be initial bunch of enthusiasts showing up for tickets, but i'm thinking it will taper off fairly quickly after that.Probably the closest analog to the experience offered with a well established market is tandem skydives, and that market is not really enormous, although pretty steady in most dropzones now, weather permitting. The ticket price is far, far smaller though.Not sure why you felt the need to make any assumptions about my experiences with servicing airplanes ? ( As it happens, i have performed ad-hoc electronics repairs on a certain twin engine turboprop, which is not at all relevant in this context )
I actually agree that Lynx should be able to make a good profit (at suborbital tourism). And I think it could do so even when the ticket price gets down to only $10k-$20k, and at that price level, there are a LOT of (regular, middle-class) people who would put riding into space on their bucket list. I mean, just look at how many people go on cruises, who go skydiving, etc. By being able to hook into the middle class, suborbital tourism could become big business, really big. Tens of thousands of flights per year (if the price can get down below $20k) isn't unrealistic, IMHO.
Quote from: Moe Grills on 10/11/2011 07:49 pm I don't know if XCOR's Lynx will take to the air next year or not; but it looks promising.That said, I have to ask if XCOR's management have posted any design fora true spacecraft that could be called?.....(example) SuperLynx?Superlynx: (hypothetical description) A larger, heavier, more powerful version of the Lynx, perhaps with THREE rocket motors; able to carry at least four passengers and two crew upto 100km altitude and higher....perhaps higher than 100 miles up per suborbital flight. Lynx Mark II will reach 100km thanks to performance improvement. Pretty much the same airframe, so only 1 passenger + pilot. Is that what you mean, or something bigger?
>A multi-passenger spacecraft (Mark III? Super Lynx?) with three LH2/LOX engines delivering a total 90,000Ibf thrust?Is that a possibility?
I think their main targeted customer base is research, if that changes your analysis.
It kind of reminds me of Sofia, except would likely be much cheaper.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 10/12/2011 05:08 pmIt kind of reminds me of Sofia, except would likely be much cheaper.Yeah, don't count on it. Sofia didn't get as expensive as it did because of the airframe, but rather the instruments and optics. The cost of an aerometry/plasma physics driven Lynx would be driven by the experiments (and the team of scientists and engineers to support them and analyze the results). It would be definitely more productive per grant dollar than sounding rockets, but energy barrier of the high initial cost will be hard to overcome.
There's more to an instrument than the size of the optics. Their quality, construction, being above the atmosphere and the sensors count for a helluva lot.
Quote from: docmordrid on 10/15/2011 12:24 amThere's more to an instrument than the size of the optics. Their quality, construction, being above the atmosphere and the sensors count for a helluva lot.Well, yeah, of course. If you think I was saying otherwise, you misunderstood what I said.But Sofia is big. For a similar quality and sensor type, a much smaller telescope (two orders of magnitude less area) or similar instrument would be considerably less expensive.
Lynx would necessarily have much smaller (and thus likely much cheaper) instruments, no bigger than high end amateur telescopes.
What i'd really like to see with Lynx's astronomy missions would be two Lynx in formation with telescopes operating together as an interferometer.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 10/14/2011 10:24 pmLynx would necessarily have much smaller (and thus likely much cheaper) instruments, no bigger than high end amateur telescopes.Nope. The size of the instrument counts not much for the cost. The fact that they have to be precise, reliably calibrated (not easy at all on a flight vehicle), and custom-built with expensive custom components all drive the hardware cost massively up....