New Space - In 20 Years Will Old Space Matter?

[hop]

Also I am not sure if they can use the same feathering system to re-enter if its orbital

You can't. Some kind of variable geometry may be useful, but no matter what you do, it won't reduce the loads to the point where you can use ordinary materials with minimal TPS. That's one of the major reasons I believe SS1/SS2 are irrelevant to orbital vehicles.

Point to point makes much more sense from a technical and business perspective here. Seems like SS3 would be that.

I'm skeptical that something like SS1 can be extended to useful distances for point to point. Intercontinental suborbital is much closer to orbital than it is to 100km vertical hops.

[savuporo]

Who said they want to go Hypersonic?  Maybe they will do some neat orbital rendezvous with a propulsive module and do a big burn to decelerate? Maybe they will launch a skyhook/rotovator/momentum exchange tether to accelerate and decelerate to/from orbit?
Both are far fetched, but not out of the realm of possibility. We just don't know what the future orbital RLVs will be like, noone has yet built one.

[mr. mark]

ah...no. No tethers no anything except what they have stated with is point to point suborbital spaceflight. That's it and that's that. Rutan and officials from Virgin Galactic have already spoken on this issue. It is not a rumor. Now, of course, they will have to design SS3 to meet point to point suborbital travel and who knows what it will have in common with SS2.   One more thing for the 200,000th time NO ORBIT for SS3!

[savuporo]

We aren't having an argument over SS3. We are arguing over whether technologies developed for suborbital manned spaceflight will have applications for orbital versions.

IMO it's pretty naive to say that they wont..

[hop]

Who said they want to go Hypersonic?  Maybe they will do some neat orbital rendezvous with a propulsive module and do a big burn to decelerate? Maybe they will launch a skyhook/rotovator/momentum exchange tether to accelerate and decelerate to/from orbit?
Both are far fetched, but not out of the realm of possibility. We just don't know what the future orbital RLVs will be like, noone has yet built one.

Wow. I thought you were arguing that the technology of SS1 type vehicles was somehow relevant to building the kind of orbital vehicles we actually know how to build.

If the concepts you mention actually come about, then the problem is solved, but it is the existence of rotovators or miracle rockets (propulsive deceleration ? seriously ?  ) that solves it. In that situation, SS1 type vehicles would still be a footnote.

[Jorge]

Who said they want to go Hypersonic?  Maybe they will do some neat orbital rendezvous with a propulsive module and do a big burn to decelerate? Maybe they will launch a skyhook/rotovator/momentum exchange tether to accelerate and decelerate to/from orbit?
Both are far fetched, but not out of the realm of possibility. We just don't know what the future orbital RLVs will be like, noone has yet built one.

And maybe they will use a transporter to beam the crew down first.

Rutan's philosophy is to favor designs that can be incrementally flight-tested. An orbital RLV without the capability to survive entry on its own, and that relies on orbital rendezvous to survive the return trip, pretty much by definition can't be tested incrementally: it's all or nothing. I really don't seen him going for a design like that.

Even if Rutan were to get comfortable with the idea, I'd put the over/under on this type of re-entry at 25 years. That's almost certainly beyond Rutan's lifetime. You can wave this prediction in my face if I'm wrong, but it's probably beyond my lifetime as well.

[Hotdog]

I think the significance of the suborbital market, and Virgin in particular, is underestimated. Sure, in terms of the energy required and complexity, orbital flight is in a different league. The SS1/SS2 design is pretty amazing though. Orbital chemical rockets are evolutionary not revolutionary. When SpaceX developed their rockets, they specifically kept it simple and chose the simplest and most successful elements from previous rocket designs. A great strategy but Burt Rutan's design on the other hand is something completely new and innovative. Who knows what he can come up with when his focus is on orbital. Maybe they will fail if they ever attempt orbital flight but this guy certainly thinks out of the box.

The big affect that SS2 and SS3 (if it materialises) will have is not in technology. It is in making the average guy on the street believe that space travel is possible for them in their lifetime. If Virgin even just clear their current orders it will have a massive effect on public perception. This public enthusiasm will feed into budget for governmental space and market for commercial orbital space.

Now Branson, love him or hate him, is good at PR. Maybe, as somebody stated above, half his companies have failed but that is not the impression that the average person gets. The perception is that he is a great forward-thinking businessman. Maybe it is all garbage but it works. Who better to be a PR man for popularising space than this guy? Maybe he is out of his depth technically and makes stupid statements comparing SS2 to the shuttle but I bet there will be a net benefit from his input into this industry.

Also I am not sure if they can use the same feathering system to re-enter if its orbital

You can't. Some kind of variable geometry may be useful, but no matter what you do, it won't reduce the loads to the point where you can use ordinary materials with minimal TPS. That's one of the major reasons I believe SS1/SS2 are irrelevant to orbital vehicles.

Point to point makes much more sense from a technical and business perspective here. Seems like SS3 would be that.

I'm skeptical that something like SS1 can be extended to useful distances for point to point. Intercontinental suborbital is much closer to orbital than it is to 100km vertical hops.

[Cinder]

I think someone said above that SS3 wouldn't be a simple evolution of SS1/2.  This is what I remember hearing or reading too, IIRC from Rutan.

[savuporo]

And maybe they will use a transporter to beam the crew down first.

Rutan's philosophy is to favor designs that can be incrementally flight-tested.

Look : the point is not to claim or guess what Rutan or any other current suborbital builder will end up building. We just dont know, its very early in the evolution.
I did not toss the examples up to claim that this is what he WILL be doing, just to show that there are OTHER ways of achieving things than is the current paradigm.

How hard is it to accept the fact that we just don't know all the solutions at present ? And hence, we also don't know the components of the potential solutions, or whether they will be borrowed from SS2 or a modified Coupe de Ville.

[mrmandias]

Let's hope Old Space matters.

An industry where there are behemoth established companies that write big checks to buy up successful start-ups is an industry where you get lots of start-ups and lots of innovation.

[beancounter]

Let's hope Old Space matters.

An industry where there are behemoth established companies that write big checks to buy up successful start-ups is an industry where you get lots of start-ups and lots of innovation.

Wrong.  Time and again the large established companies have bought out the smaller innovative ones simply to protect market share, profit and executive bonus.  Look at the political lobbying going on to protect the existing orbital interests and keep out the likes of SpaceX by maintaining the status quo.

[mrmandias]

Let's hope Old Space matters.

An industry where there are behemoth established companies that write big checks to buy up successful start-ups is an industry where you get lots of start-ups and lots of innovation.

Wrong.  Time and again the large established companies have bought out the smaller innovative ones simply to protect market share, profit and executive bonus.  Look at the political lobbying going on to protect the existing orbital interests and keep out the likes of SpaceX by maintaining the status quo.

Initial investors in the start-up don't care why the big companies will be writing the check.

[bad_astra]

Wrong.  Time and again the large established companies have bought out the smaller innovative ones simply to protect market share, profit and executive bonus.  Look at the political lobbying going on to protect the existing orbital interests and keep out the likes of SpaceX by maintaining the status quo.

NG bought Scaled. Have they shut it down to protect market share? The truth is, the big three aren't stupid, though due to inertia they may have been slow to react at times. They want the business, if they see there is a market. For instance, if SpaceShip 3, if it gets built, would put NG back in the launcher market again.

[Lars_J]

Let's hope Old Space matters.

An industry where there are behemoth established companies that write big checks to buy up successful start-ups is an industry where you get lots of start-ups and lots of innovation.

Wrong.  Time and again the large established companies have bought out the smaller innovative ones simply to protect market share, profit and executive bonus.

Indeed. Just look at the history of the aerospace industry in this country.  30-40 years ago, a myriad of aerospace companies existed. 30 years of merging have left essentially two giants - "McBoeing" and "Lockmart. Is the aerospace industry better off like this? I'd say not... Innovation is certainly hampered as the ever growing giants become more cautious, and if it doesn't happen due to shareholder fixation then organizational inertia takes care of the rest.

I certainly hope that newer upstarts like SpaceX and others do not get bought up by these giants. Because that will be the end of their rapid progress and innovation.