Commerical Suborbital Point-to-Point

[Jim]

Regarding (1) I've heard the Shuttle Orbiter double boom over the SF Peninsula, and I think it was at 200K ft. 

Long Beach for me.  Tampa heard it too.

[pathfinder_01]

Regarding (1) I've heard the Shuttle Orbiter double boom over the SF Peninsula, and I think it was at 200K ft. 

Long Beach for me.  Tampa heard it too.

Once Chicago. If it were not for the fact that it was very early morning and the fact that I knew it was incomming, would not have heard anything.

[Garrett]

Somebody mentioned that the applications of point-to-point suborbital flight will probably first be utilized by the military. But surely if it could be of any use to them, then they would have done it already. I mean, it's not as if they don't already have the capability. After all, isn't an ICBM a type of sub-orbital p2p vehicle?

You could argue they don't have the landing vehicles necessary, but if you just want to send extremely important cargo to a specific destination, then a Soyuz style ballistic capsule should do the trick.

To me, the military has already solved the problem of p2p transport: by placing army bases and aircraft carriers in strategic places around the world before a conflict situation arises.

[go4mars]

Somebody mentioned that the applications of point-to-point suborbital flight will probably first be utilized by the military. But surely if it could be of any use to them, then they would have done it already. I mean, it's not as if they don't already have the capability. After all, isn't an ICBM a type of sub-orbital p2p vehicle?

You could argue they don't have the landing vehicles necessary

As I understand it, G-force would be too high.  Aborts trickier with solids too.  Whole mode of thought is "expendible" as opposed to "reusable".     

[RanulfC]

Couple of quick semi-technical notes

1) Any "sonic-boom" above 100,000ft never touches the ground, ie is not an issue.

2) At one point it was figured for the suggested V-Prize, (P2P America-to-Europe) that an average speed of around Mach-6 was the minimum requirement to meet the time suggested.

3) A "Skip-Glide" trajectory can get you the same range as a ballistic trajectory with less "initial" Delta-V required as you can use external burning along the fuselage using internal fuel but external oxidizer (air) to extend each "skip" step which requires less overall propellant than pileing on all the delta-V at that start of the flight.

4) While the interval between "skips" means that individual zero-gee portions are shorter the overall total zero-gee time is about the same if not longer than for a pure ballistic trajectory.

5) There are questions of passenger comfort for the multiple positive-g/negative-g portions of the flight.

Randy

Regarding (1) I've heard the Shuttle Orbiter double boom over the SF Peninsula, and I think it was at 200K ft.

Regarding (1) I've heard the Shuttle Orbiter double boom over the SF Peninsula, and I think it was at 200K ft. 

Long Beach for me.  Tampa heard it too.

Once Chicago. If it were not for the fact that it was very early morning and the fact that I knew it was incomming, would not have heard anything.

Now that's quite ineresting as the "no-sonic-boom-above-100K" was directly quoted from several NASA/DoD reports I've read...

Hmmm...

Regarding (5), Arthur Clarke had an amusing line about sub-orbital P2P: "Half the time the toilet is out of order and the other half the time it is out of reach."

Depending on who I was reading at the time the skip/glide segments (peak-to-peak) can be up to a half hour long depending on how much of a "skip" is being performed. From what I gathered this can be a "good" thing for the "view/zero/micro-gravity" passengers and just damn annoying for those trying to sleep

Considering "I" tend to get a little green just looking at a roller coaster these days I somehow don't think this is going to work for me but I figured I'd put it out there

Randy

[RanulfC]

Somebody mentioned that the applications of point-to-point suborbital flight will probably first be utilized by the military. But surely if it could be of any use to them, then they would have done it already. I mean, it's not as if they don't already have the capability. After all, isn't an ICBM a type of sub-orbital p2p vehicle?

You could argue they don't have the landing vehicles necessary

As I understand it, G-force would be too high.  Aborts trickier with solids too.  Whole mode of thought is "expendible" as opposed to "reusable".     

The military has "thought" about it before, there was a nice article on types planned in one of the more recent "Aerospace Project Review" e-pubs. The considered "off-the-shelf" (at the time) redstones and such for rapid delivery of troops and/or supplies as well as "specialty" vehicles such as Icarus SSTO troop transports.

The main sticking point is the same as today: How do you "tell" if it's a troop/supply rocket of a nuclear warhead...

The Marine SUSTAIN program was looking at pretty much the same thing, but you have to figure you are pretty limited to what and how much you can deploy by this method along with other issues involved. How do you land? (Many methods) How does the landed "force" get back out again? (Many issues) Does the capability land enough "force" to have at least a reasonable chance of accomplishing the mission? (Large capabilty question) Most importantly how does everyone who CAN "see" the mission KNOW it's a squad of Marines and not a nuclear or other warhead?
(Same as above )

One of the reasons that SUSTAIN mandated an "orbital" loiter capability, (could manage to sustain several orbits) was that by going into orbit you sorta of "prove" it's not a nuke because that would violate the OST, and because it is a really, really lousy way to "attack" with an ICBM.
(Too much exposure, to much time between launch and impact, etc)

Of course that's NOT going to really "reassure" anyone as the Soviets actually developed and deployed a system using "orbital" nuclear weapons platforms called a "Fractional Orbital Bombardment System":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_Orbital_Bombardment_System
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_weapon

(They avoided "violating" the OST by testing the system with no warhead, and the system was "operational" until directly addressed in the SALT-II treaty and dismantled in 1983)

Of course even so the ability today of tracking and monitoring any orbital body means that there is going to be no "surpise" as was envisioned when he system was developed. (Putting the warhead platform in orbit for a time allowed the "attack" to develop from the Southern Hemisphere instead of the North Pole where the majority of warning systems for the US are pointed) Still...

ICBMs make lousy passenger vehicles, (and not-so-good orbital ones BTW) because their trajectories and accelleration rates are optimized towards staying as "low" as possible for the majority of their flight. (While they fly outside the atmosphere they use a "powered" trajectory to keep their path as low as possible to stay below the "sensor" horizion of the target for as long as possible so as to give the minimum warning/reaction time. This leads to high "power" but also fast burn rates on the motors)

The military is still working on "P2P" delivery systems of course the latest being manuvering Reentry Vehicles and Knetic-Kill Vehicles but the problem remains for them as well as P2P personnel delivery; Everything pretty much LOOKS like an "attack" trajectory when it first comes over the horizon and the only way to be "sure" is to wait till it hits and/or lands and by then it's "too-late" if it WAS an attack. With the ABM treaty no longer in effect the world is going to a more aggressive "anti-missile" stance and that's going to be a serious issue AGAINST any type of P2P market.

I'll recommend a story again for those interested called "The First Cup of Coffee War"
http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?966303
by James Cobb about a near-future terrorist attack on the US.

It's a good read and it tends to point up the coming issues of "easy" Sub-Orbital access and security.

Randy

[douglas100]

From RanulfC:

The main sticking point is the same as today: How do you "tell" if it's a troop/supply rocket of a nuclear warhead...

Good point.

[go4mars]

The main sticking point is the same as today: How do you "tell" if it's a troop/supply rocket of a nuclear warhead...

It seems to me that each country (if indeed it was an international route) could have an invigilator at the launch point, and they guys on the receiving end could check their schedule.  Airplanes could deliver something nasty too, yet international flights happen all the time. 

[mrmandias]

A write-off doesn't mean its free, it means the cost is reduced by the business' marginal tax rate.

Depending on where you are, it can be an expense directly subtracted from revenue.  There are various categories here anyways.   For example, "meals and entertainment" can only be deducted at 50% (eats into profit directly).  Transportation is 100%. 

A 100% deduction still only reduces the costs by the business' marginal rate of taxation.

Scenario 1: Business has $200 in profit, pays 30% marginal rate on that amount.  Profit after taxes equals $140.

Scenario 2:  Business has $200 in profit, but buys a $100 flight to Andromeda.  The $100 flight can be written off entirely (100%), so  profit is now $100 for tax purposes.  Marginal rate is still 30%.  Profit after taxes equals $70. 

In Scenario 2 the business netted $70 less, so that's the net cost of the transportation.  The $100 flight cost the business $70.

[mrmandias]

The main sticking point is the same as today: How do you "tell" if it's a troop/supply rocket of a nuclear warhead...

It seems to me that each country (if indeed it was an international route) could have an invigilator at the launch point, and the guys on the receiving end could check their schedule.  Airplanes could deliver something nasty too, yet international flights happen all the time. 

This adds a lot of cost and takes the point out of point to point.  Its now ID2P--inspection depot to point. 

[Robotbeat]

A write-off doesn't mean its free, it means the cost is reduced by the business' marginal tax rate.

Depending on where you are, it can be an expense directly subtracted from revenue.  There are various categories here anyways.   For example, "meals and entertainment" can only be deducted at 50% (eats into profit directly).  Transportation is 100%. 

A 100% deduction still only reduces the costs by the business' marginal rate of taxation.

Scenario 1: Business has $200 in profit, pays 30% marginal rate on that amount.  Profit after taxes equals $140.

Scenario 2:  Business has $200 in profit, but buys a $100 flight to Andromeda.  The $100 flight can be written off entirely (100%), so  profit is now $100 for tax purposes.  Marginal rate is still 30%.  Profit after taxes equals $70. 

In Scenario 2 the business netted $70 less, so that's the net cost of the transportation.  The $100 flight cost the business $70.

I think his point is that high-class transportation is a kind of executive compensation that isn't taxed. It's a status symbol, so having a high price isn't necessarily a huge drawback (otherwise no one would buy Rolexes). Stop thinking like a little person, and start thinking like a CEO.

Of course, safety is a huge priority. You need thousands of consecutive safe flights to prove it's safe enough for CEOs for business transportation. It'll be quite a while.

[douglas100]

From RanulfC:

The main sticking point is the same as today: How do you "tell" if it's a troop/supply rocket of a nuclear warhead...

RanulfC's point was about military p2p. An unannounced ballistic flight might look very similar to an ICBM launch to infrared warning satellites under certain circumstances. This could have unfortunate consequences.

As far as commercial p2p is concerned, I would expect a flight plan to be filed before the flight to avoid such difficulties. There seems no reason to have inspection at the launch point for commercial flights.

[go4mars]

his point is that high-class transportation is a kind of executive compensation that isn't taxed.

Exactly right.  Shareholders put up with paying for executive business jets for essentially the same reason.  Same with "company cars" that say Escalade, or using a limo service, or booking your conference at outrageously priced facilities.  There are much cheaper, less luxurious options.  But if the MO is to ride bikes to Denny's, or chat on the phone instead of face to face doing fun stuff, then clients are a lot less likely to call you back.

[grr]

This was tried by Concorde.  The aircraft was only sold to British Airways and Air France.  After the crash it normally flew half empty.

No,  Concorde experience says you are wrong

Face the facts.  Concorde is not very relevant to this discussion.

A_M, Jim and Mars:

At full capacity Concord could carry 120 passengers. Before the crash, Concord flew nearly full every flight, averaging 85 to 90 passengers each flight. At half-full after the crash that means that Concord routinely carried 60 passengers on a regular basis. It is unlikely that any P2P suborbital passenger spacecraft could carry that many. Stretching it I would imagine it to top out at 20 passengers fully loaded. That means that the P2P would have to fly 3x as often just to keep up with the normal demand that was being filled by Concord. 27 years gentlemen of everyday flights. And now all those people, who preferred to cross the Atlantic quickly, are stuck with the much slower commercial jets. I think a significant number of them would fly P2P suborbital if it were offered.

The market is definitely there, otherwise Concord would not have been able to fly every day for 27 years carrying at least 60 passengers each time. Of those of those 60 passengers for each Concord flight I would not be surprised to see 1/3 to 1/2 of them fly P2P suborbital on a daily basis.

Mars: Concord is very relevant to this discussion. The Concord passenger list would form the core of the P2P commercial market. On a related note I just asked my wife, who is British, if she would fly P2P suborbital when she goes home to visit. She thought about it for a minute and said "they wouldn't fly it if it wasn't reasonably safe so yes, as long as I could afford the ticket I would do that". And trust me guys. This lady is really conservative with sa

Edit: Added comment to Mars

First off, flying 85-90 with a capacity of 120 is a load factor of less than 75%.
For the last 20 years, the airlines have flown loads greater than 90%. And these days, the airlines are pushing it up to 96% (actually, pretty disgusting).

The last time that an airline could fly less 80% and be profitable, was when fuel on both sides of a trip is regulated and cheap. IOW, prior to Carter deregulating the airlines and oil. After deregulation, you need greater than 85% and normally more than 90% to be profitable. That is due to competition and the inability to charge what is needed to fly with lower loads.

IOW, concorde was NOT profitable at 75, let alone 85%. The reason is that the fuel costs were too high and ticket prices too low.

Now, if SS3 does PTP and there is minimal competition on a route within this class, then it is likely that it will be made profitable. Why? Because the craft will normally carry several passengers and loads of cargo. There are still plenty of cargo that NEEDS to transport in as short of a time as possible. The ppl that will take this will be executives, envoys, etc. They will do a day trip between London to Japan AND BACK in the same day.  They might even do London to LA to Japan to London, again, all in the same day. As such, I will be surprised if load factors are more than 50%.

BTW, somebody earlier mentioned customs. That is a NONE issue. The reason is that if somebody is paying 100-200K a ticket, then the space line will likely pay customs at each location to have a person available to them upon the flight landing or taking off. The spaceline will no doubt be ran the way I remember American Airlines back in the 60's. And coach in the 60's was about equal to business or even first  class today.

[Chilly]

As always, it comes down to whether there will be a market for it. The fact that  proposed supersonic bizjet projects have yet to succeed suggests that presently there is not enough demand for personal high speed travel. This may change of course.

I think commercial suborbital point-to-point is more likely to succeed starting small and targeting niche markets (as was suggested on the XCOR thread.) I think 777 sized vehicles are a completely unrealistic starting point.

Suborbital mass passenger travel also could potentially face serious competition in the medium term from hypersonic vehicles like LAPCAT if they are ever developed.

I work for a rather large business-jet operator, and believe there's plenty of market for an SSBJ. Bizjets that cruise in the M.90 range are quite popular. The potential customer base is big enough, but not if the bird can only fly certain routes.

So the long-pole-in-the-tent problem is regulatory. No matter how good a design concept might be (i.e. Aerion), if there aren't serious changes in airspace restrictions ahead of time, no one in their right mind will sink the development money into such a project in the hopes that overland supersonic flight will be allowed later. Otherwise any SSBJ will suffer the same fate as Concorde.

[Chilly]

On a side note, Virgin Galactic's expressed desire for suborbital P2P was in fact the inspiration for a novel I wrote titled Perigee. There were a couple of assumptions that seemed reasonable enough to satisfy the "willing suspension of disbelief".

First: If wealthy people are willing to pay almost a quarter-million bucks for a quick joyride in and out of Mojave, wouldn't they be willing to pay for a suborbital flight that actually took them somewhere?

Second: As someone posted earlier, the required d-V would be getting awfully close to what's needed for LEO. So, what's the worst that could happen?

I figured a really good story lurked somewhere therein.

Perhaps I'm being naive, but it may in fact be more sensible than an SSBJ (all things being equal - which they aren't yet). If the climb and descent sonic booms would be fairly localized, those issues can be dealt with through airspace design (launch/entry corridors). For the enroute segment, just get the thing up above the atmosphere and remove the issue entirely.

FAA is already studying P2P operational concepts: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/media/point_to_point.pdf

[A_M_Swallow]

{snip}
Perhaps I'm being naive, but it may in fact be more sensible than an SSBJ (all things being equal - which they aren't yet). If the climb and descent sonic booms would be fairly localized, those issues can be dealt with through airspace design (launch/entry corridors). For the enroute segment, just get the thing up above the atmosphere and remove the issue entirely.

As in both New York and Los Angeles are near oceans.

[ChefPat]

  There was never a personal supersonic jet. 

Aerion Supersonic Business Jet

[A_M_Swallow]

  There was never a personal supersonic jet. 

Aerion Supersonic Business Jet

That aircraft is still being developed.  $80M each.  I wish them luck.

[Chilly]

That aircraft is still being developed.  $80M each.  I wish them luck.
[/quote]

Boeing's done pretty well with bizjets near that price range, as has Gulfstream. I expect that the uber-wealthy buyers will pay another 10M or so for Mach 1+ speeds.

Not to mention the fractional-ownership companies will be all over this like flies on you-know-what. That'll sell a lot of them, if they ever get built.