Swiss Space Systems - reusable air-launched vehicle

[SebSeb]

Dear NASASpaceflight members,

I'm aware of a new endeavor, based in Switzerland and aiming to build a suborbital air-launched vehicle to deploy small satellites in LEO. The rumors are hinting that some huge aerospace stakeholders are behind them.

More information may be found on the website www.s-3.ch and there is a press-event scheduled for the 13th of March.

PS: I'm not part of the company, if you have any question, there is a twitter/facebook/contact page to reach them

PS2: I'm not sure its the right subsection of the forum, so administrators please move it if this topic belongs elsewhere

Ad astra,
Seb

[apace]

According to the register of commerce:
Swiss Space Systems Holding SA, à Payerne, Z.I. La Palaz A 3, 1530 Payerne, CH-550-1114368-0. Nouvelle société anonyme. Sta- tuts: 19 octobre 2012. But: la société a pour but l'acquisition, la détention, la gestion et la vente de participation dans des sociétés de tout type principalement Suisse et accessoirement à l'étranger, à l'exclusion de toute participation prohibée par la LFAIE (pour but complet cf. statuts). Capital-actions: CHF 360'000, entièrement libéré, divisé en 36'000'000 actions nominatives de CHF 0.01, avec restric- tions quant à la transmissibilité selon statuts. Organe de publication: Feuille officielle suisse du commerce. Administration: Jaussi Pascal, de Wattenwil, à Murist, avec signature individuelle. Selon déclara- tion du 19 octobre 2012, la société n'est pas soumise à une révision ordinaire et renonce à une révision restreinte.
Registre journalier no 15251 du 31.10.2012 / CH-550.1.114.368-0 / 06918054

Extract:
- One company holder: Jaussi Pascal
- Financial capital: CHF 360'000 (USD 400'000)
- Registered October 31st, 2012 in the french speaking part of Switzerland
- Based in Payerne (place of main swiss military airfield)

(Update 1)
Text on LinkedIn:
Swiss Space Systems Holding SA (S3) is developing a suborbital space system to launch small satellites.
S3 is headquartered in Switzerland with global presence.
More information coming soon, please visit our web page http://www.S-3.ch/ and signup for the newsletter.

(Update 2)
According to a report in swiss newspaper le temps, the company has 20 employes and is working on a airplane based launcher.

[apace]

From: http://www.millionaire-asia.com/the-space-race/

For investors who would like the chance to travel into space, but balk at Virgin Galactic’s US$200,000 price tag, S3, which stands for Swiss Space Systems, will soon be offering the chance to combine a suborbital space trip with an investment.

The company, which spoke exclusively to Millionaireasia ahead of their public launch in January, aims to become the world leader in manned suborbital flights and putting small satellites into orbit.

It also plans to offer so-called point-to-point flights, which will cut the journey time between London and Hong Kong down to just 90 minutes by travelling through space.

Although it is not actively looking for investors, people who are interested will soon be able to buy a small equity stake in the company, and as well as receiving investment returns linked to the firm’s performance, they will also be given a free space flight.

This strategy is aligned with S3’s objective of democratising access to space.

Richard Joye, global promoter of S3, said he thought investing in space offered “tremendous opportunity”. He said: “We are living in an era of the privatisation of space. We are switching from highly nationalised institutions to an industry that is going to be driven by the private sector. We believe it is a great opportunity for investors. The rewards could be extremely high.”

[Robotbeat]

Democratizing access to space by offering it to rich investors? A more accurate term would be "plutocratizing access to space."

At least with Virgin Galactic (or XCOR), a middle-class American could sell their house to buy a ticket to space.

[aquanaut99]

Democratizing access to space by offering it to rich investors? A more accurate term would be "plutocratizing access to space."

Well, we are talking about the Swiss here... 

[R7]

This is a great year, revolutionizing aerospace companies popping up like mushrooms after rain! 2018 will be a great year, Mars fly-by and Space For All! I'm stoked!¡!¡!

PS welcome to the forum SebSeb 

[IRobot]

Here is a video of a test 

[Oli]

2018? Tight schedule they have...

[simonbp]

It also plans to offer so-called point-to-point flights, which will cut the journey time between London and Hong Kong down to just 90 minutes by travelling through space.

Considering that that would require nearly as much delta v as an orbital flight, they either haven't done the math or have probably bitten off more than they could chew...

Also, love their timeline that seems to worship Lindberg and ignores the Wright brothers... 

[R7]

Also, love their timeline that seems to worship Lindberg and ignores the Wright brothers... 

Lindbergh had "intimate connections" in Switzerland. 

[Oli]

!

[Rocket Science]

It looks a lot like VEHRA...

http://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/aviation/innovation/a-technological-leadership/innovation-projects.html?L=1

http://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/aviation/press/press-kits/2013/dassault-aviation-and-the-s3-project.html?L=1

[Oli]

Nothing about suborbital tourism, so they're aiming at the small satellite market first. 250kg into LEO, what's their competition in 2018? LauncherOne from Virgin Galactic comes to my mind (225kg into LEO).

Anyway, it seems this is a serious effort, especially considering the partners involved.

As a swiss I find that rather exciting 

[Oli]

Some interesting parts from the press release:

Technological inputs from the Hermes and X-38 programs by ESA, Dassault and others allows S3 to save lots of time and R&D (it certainly looks like a somewhat modernized hermes).

The budget will be CHF 250m (~$250m).

25 employees at present, at least 50 by end of the year.

Based in payerne, where also the first spaceport for $50m will be built.
Plans for additional spaceports in morocco and malaysia.

$10m per launch (approx. the same as LauncherOne). Agreement signed for 4 launches.

[Robotbeat]

...
25 employees at present, at least 50 by end of the year.
...

They're serious!

$10m per launch (approx. the same as LauncherOne). Agreement signed for 4 launches.

Kind of steep... But good to hear they've already got launches lined up.

[simonbp]

So, from the video, it looks like the winged air-launch stage will fly a near-vertical pop-up trajectory, and then deploy an expendable upper stage to provide most of the delta v. Presumably that means they can have a lot of commonality between the crewed suborbital vehicle and the satellite orbital launcher.

I'm still not seeing how they would do crewed point-to-point with it; especially with the extra complication of the airliner first stage.

[QuantumG]

Democratizing access to space by offering it to rich investors? A more accurate term would be "plutocratizing access to space."

Maybe they meant American democracy?

[Oli]

So, from the video, it looks like the winged air-launch stage will fly a near-vertical pop-up trajectory, and then deploy an expendable upper stage to provide most of the delta v. Presumably that means they can have a lot of commonality between the crewed suborbital vehicle and the satellite orbital launcher.

I'm still not seeing how they would do crewed point-to-point with it; especially with the extra complication of the airliner first stage.

My french is a bit rusty but I will try to translate from this article

http://www.letemps.ch/Page/Uuid/393210da-8bf3-11e2-acd9-2548fd58d896|0#.UUEQTVeWeyA

For 2017 the plan is to have a launcher for payloads up to 250kg, at $10m (similar to Virgin Galactic which is explicitly mentioned) for the industry, less for academic institutions.

For 2019 and later they want to offer suborbital tourism flights. 8 passengers and two pilots.

From 2020 onwards the goal is a mach 10 suborbital point to point vehicle.
This is the actual end goal of the whole exercise, to offer suborbital transport, and the vehicle will be designed from the beginning for that final purpose (if I understand correctly)

Other than that, they're talking to the russians for engines.

Well at least they got plans 

[alexterrell]

Daily Mail is not noted for its deep scientific coverage, but has a wide readership. Some nice pictures here.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2293382/The-Swiss-space-shuttle-launches-plane-Pioneering-plans-low-cost-satellite-launches-revealed.html

It would be nice to have some space activity near where I live.

[R7]

Will be challenging to do orbital launches from Switzerland, hard to find safe enough corridors through neighboring countries. Even if they ferry elsewhere to launch the reusable shuttle part demands a landing strip somewhere downstream.

Pegasus has an airplane plus a rocket and it turned out to be one of the costliest LVs ever. S3 has an airplane, a suborbital shuttle and a rocket...

They may encounter some structural issues because everything appears to be constructed from polished black marble 

But the video soundtrack was awesome, got a strong déjà vu from Deus Ex - Human Revolution, but not quite the same though.

[Oli]

Some more details I found on the tourism version, "study" from EPFL and dassault:

http://sti.epfl.ch/webdav/site/sti/shared/sgm/masterprojects/Poster_Wiesendanger.pdf

Pegasus has an airplane plus a rocket and it turned out to be one of the costliest LVs ever. S3 has an airplane, a suborbital shuttle and a rocket...

Kind of depends on how big that remaining upper stage will be. I'm not sure at what speed they intend to release the upper stage when launching satellites.

Even if they ferry elsewhere to launch the reusable shuttle part demands a landing strip somewhere downstream.

Well I guess the landing strip would be at payerne.

[alexterrell]

From the Mail article:

The firm also plans to build its own spaceport in Payerne, although says in theory it could launch from any airport.

Other countries, such as Malaysia and Morocco, announced during the launch that they would be partnering with S3 in order to build spaceports in their countries too and discussions are under way with several other potential partners.

I suppose a runway nearer the equator would make sense. And in 20 years a large proportion of the world's satellites will be from Asian countries, so Malaysia to serve Asia and Morocco to serve Europe? 

[simonbp]

Will be challenging to do orbital launches from Switzerland, hard to find safe enough corridors through neighboring countries. Even if they ferry elsewhere to launch the reusable shuttle part demands a landing strip somewhere downstream.

I think that's the point of the pop-up trajectory; the first stage flies vertically to above the Von Karman limit, and then the upper stage(s) fly downrange technically in space. The first stage can then land at the same runway the carrier airliner used.

[joek]

Will be challenging to do orbital launches from Switzerland, hard to find safe enough corridors through neighboring countries. Even if they ferry elsewhere to launch the reusable shuttle part demands a landing strip somewhere downstream.

I think that's the point of the pop-up trajectory; the first stage flies vertically to above the Von Karman limit, and then the upper stage(s) fly downrange technically in space. The first stage can then land at the same runway the carrier airliner used.

Quite possibly.  Remember that RpK planned on flights from, and return to, the Northern Nevada test range, with "pop-up" (or "pop-down") high angle trajectories designed to make such a site acceptable.

[R7]

I think that's the point of the pop-up trajectory; the first stage flies vertically to above the Von Karman limit, and then the upper stage(s) fly downrange technically in space.

So? It still falls down if US fails. 

[FutureSpaceTourist]

It looks a lot like VEHRA...

Yes, I think clearly an evolution of that design and concept of operations:

http://www.hobbyspace.com/AAdmin/archive/RLV/2006/IAC-06-E3.4.07-Vehra-ACE.pdf
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyperbola/2010/04/dassault-gives-k1000vehra-subo.html

It certainly looks the part, but am I the only one worrying about how close the spaceplane was to the A300's tail on separation in their video?!

[guckyfan]

Looks good. A flying Orca, who would have thougt!

[FutureSpaceTourist]

http://www.s-3.ch/en/home/2013/06/14/swiss-space-systems-s3-renforce-son-réseau-de-partenaires-et-va-aborder-le-développement-de-transport-passagers-dès-2018

Swiss Space Systems – S3 is Strengthening its network of partners and
will start developing passenger transportation from 2018

Le Bourget, 17 June 2013. Swiss Space Systems – S3, the young Swiss aerospace company, was officially launched on 13 March this year. Its goal is to develop, manufacture, certify and operate unmanned suborbital shuttles to launch small satellites up to 250 kg by 2018.

With the development phase well under way, the firm is announcing today a new partnership - with Thales Alenia Space, a leading developer and manufacturer of pressurised modules, notably for the international space station. These partnerships will enable S3 to move ahead with the plan to launch small satellites and enter the next stage of developing a manned version of its suborbital shuttle. The latter will enable the company to offer a very high speed mode of passenger transportation.

Work is progressing to schedule

Following the official launch of the company in March, the development work is going smoothly and S3's 40 or so employees are making rapid progress with the help of their partners and technical advisers, whose specifications have been defined and complied with. The technical data relating to the shape of the shuttle, its trajectory and the physical and thermal constraints are being validated prior to the first wind tunnel tests which will take place at the Von Karman Institute in Belgium in July. The certification process has also been initiated with participation in working sessions organised by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), the body responsible for the drafting of and compliance with European aviation safety regulations.

A stronger international network of partners and advisers

To reach its goal of launching small lower-cost satellites so as to broaden access to space for companies, universities and countries that could not afford it hitherto, S3 already benefits from the valuable support of prestigious partners. The French Dassault Aviation, consultant aircraft maker for the shuttle's systems architecture, is one of them, as are the Belgian Sonaca for the external structure, Space Application Services for the flight software and the Von Karman Institute for the wind tunnel. Other partners are the Spanish Elecnor Deimos for the navigation, the Swiss Meggitt for the sensors and Spaceport Malaysia for the ground infrastructure. The technical advisers are the European Space Agency (ESA), the Swiss Space Center to which the EPFL belongs, and Louvain (Belgium) and Stanford (USA) universities. The main sponsor is Breitling, the Swiss watchmaker.

Today Swiss Space Systems is pleased to announce the creation of another powerful partnership with Thales Alenia Space, a global aerospace major specialising in particular in the development and manufacture of pressurised modules, including the Columbus module on board the International Space Station (ISS). The latter is one of the many achievements of this company that enable humans to stay alive in space.

Passenger transportation the goal of a new stage in the S3 project

The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Thales Alenia Space and Swiss Space Systems will enable the project to move ahead, so that academic clients can be offered micro-gravity and biological research applications. The collaboration that will then be initiated with the ESA Astronaut Centre will enable S3 to move on to the next stage in its development, i.e. very high speed passenger transportation, which will open the way to the transportation of the future. The satellite flight certification process will in fact enable a substantial body of knowledge to be established with respect to the development of a manned version of the SOAR suborbital shuttle. Thanks to this, and to the new skills that will have been learned from the best, S3 intends to write a new page in the history of aviation by making supersonic intercontinental travel possible. This new mode of transport will link continents at Mach 3 speed, or three times the speed of sound.

Pascal Jaussi, founder and CEO of Swiss Space Systems says : "Far from wishing to launch into the space tourism market, we want rather to establish a new mode of air travel based on our satellite launch model that will allow spaceports on different continents to be reached in an hour. Apart from Malaysia, discussions are well advanced with numerous other countries such as Morocco, Ecuador and Canada, all of which want to build the sort of infrastructure from which we will be able to operate satellite launches and later passenger transportation. The priority remains the launching of small satellites, with the development phase at the moment and then the construction of the life-size model, the goal being to carry out the first commercial launches in 2018." Manned flights on the other hand will be offered at a later stage.

[Oli]

Reaching spaceports on different continents in an hour is gonna be difficult with Mach 3 

As we all know almost orbital speed is required for that, so I'm not quite sure what they're up to.

[ChrisWilson68]

Reaching spaceports on different continents in an hour is gonna be difficult with Mach 3  ::)

As we all know almost orbital speed is required for that, so I'm not quite sure what they're up to.

It seems like their plan is to first build the Mach 3 system.  Then, if they can reach Mach 3, by induction they can reach Mach 25.  Because their system will magically evolve to that.  They're concentrating on the first step, so they haven't worked out the details yet of how to get from step 1 to step 3.

I've seen this plan before:

[simonbp]

Yeah, they seem to be implying that the transport vehicle is directly related to the suborbital vehicle. IMHO, that implies replacing the airliner with a supersonic carrier plane. That could work technically, but would be rather expensive for trans-oceanic flights...

[R7]

Reaching spaceports on different continents in an hour is gonna be difficult with Mach 3 

Travel between continents, experience the outer space and see the beautiful Mediterranean literally out of this world on our newly opened Gibraltar-Ceuta and Rhodes-Antalya routes!

[Kabloona]

It certainly looks the part, but am I the only one worrying about how close the spaceplane was to the A300's tail on separation in their video?!

That looks like an accident waiting to happen...expecting an unpowered brick with stubby wings to clear a massive vertical stabilizer? Wouldn't want to be the carrier aircraft pilot.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

http://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/dassault-aviation/paris-airshow/news-in-pictures/the-suborbital-vehicle-soar/

The suborbital vehicle – SOAR - 2013/06/21

Dassault Aviation is pleased to contribute to the S3 (Swiss Space Systems company) project, part of a Swiss and international cooperation involving partners as competent and prestigious as ESA (European Space Agency), the Von Karman Institute, Sonaca, Meggitt and the Stanford University.

Swiss Space Systems will benefit from our company’s expertise in the field of aerospace vehicle design and integration of complex systems. Based on the concept of the VEHRA airborne launcher, developed by Dassault Aviation, and with a rocket engine and equipment taken from modern aircraft such as the Rafale or the Falcon business jets, the S3 project borrows from space and aeronautical fields to provide a robust, flexible and secure system.

The S3 project is part of Dassault Aviation’s ongoing commitment to remain a major player in rising to major aeronautical challenges, including preparing for the future of aerospace transportation.

[ClaytonBirchenough]

It looks a lot like VEHRA...

http://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/aviation/innovation/a-technological-leadership/innovation-projects.html?L=1

http://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/aviation/press/press-kits/2013/dassault-aviation-and-the-s3-project.html?L=1

Damn near identical!

[FutureSpaceTourist]

S3 and Deimos have announced closer collaboration: http://www.newspacewatch.com/articles/swiss-space-systems-and-elecnor-deimos-strengthen-their-partnership.html

The press release includes this update on S3's progress:

Following the official launch of the company in March, the development work is going smoothly and S3's 40 or so employees are making rapid progress with the help of their partners and technical advisers, whose specifications have been defined and complied with. The technical data relating to the shape of the shuttle, its trajectory and the physical and thermal constraints are being validated through detailed numerical simulation by a team composed by S3, ESA and DEIMOS engineers, prior to the first wind tunnel tests which will take place at the Von Karman Institute in Belgium in July.

[Oli]

Orbital Cleanup Satellite to be Launched in Partnership with Swiss Space Systems

The CleanSpace One satellite has a new ally in its mission to clean up space debris. EPFL has entered into a partnership with Swiss Space Systems (S3). The company will invest CHF 15 million in the project and will launch the satellite into orbit.

http://www.s-3.ch/en/home/2013/09/10/orbital-cleanup-satellite-to-be-launched-in-partnership-with-swiss-space-systems

[Oli]

Swiss company Spacepharma SA signs a contract with S3 which plans the launch of 28 satellites, together

Delémont, 30 September 2013. The aerospace company S3 and the Spacepharma SA enterprise, specialised in solutions for medical experiments in microgravity, announce today the signature of a contract relating to the launch of four small satellites in 2018, followed by a monthly launch over two years, making a total of 28 planned launches.

http://www.s-3.ch/en/home/2013/09/30/swiss-company-spacepharma-sa-signs-a-contract-with-s3-which-plans-the-launch-of-28-satellites-together


28 launches  , well they certainly know how to sign contracts.

[ChrisWilson68]

Swiss company Spacepharma SA signs a contract with S3 which plans the launch of 28 satellites, together

Delémont, 30 September 2013. The aerospace company S3 and the Spacepharma SA enterprise, specialised in solutions for medical experiments in microgravity, announce today the signature of a contract relating to the launch of four small satellites in 2018, followed by a monthly launch over two years, making a total of 28 planned launches.

http://www.s-3.ch/en/home/2013/09/30/swiss-company-spacepharma-sa-signs-a-contract-with-s3-which-plans-the-launch-of-28-satellites-together


28 launches  :o, well they certainly know how to sign contracts.

In Silicon Valley, it's not unusual for a couple of start-ups to make an announcement about a deal they've signed.  They make it sound like one of the companies is buying a lot from the other, when in fact the actual contract is often just some sort of option.  In many cases, nothing ever happens because one or the other of the companies never gets the funding it needs, and the contract doesn't have any binding obligations anyway.

Is this that kind of contract?  There's no way to tell from the announcement.  Some of the wording used suggests there's no real substance, such as, "signature of a contract relating to the launch".  Maybe that's just poor translation into English from a non-native speaker, or maybe it's an indication the contract isn't a firm order with a deposit behind it.

This may be more like a letter of intent that a firm order with financing to back it up.

[R7]

28 launches  , well they certainly know how to sign contracts.

The satellites placed in orbit by S3 for Spacepharma will have a weight of 5 kg;

What's the rest 245kg of the predicted capacity? Have 28 primary micro/minisat customers signed up too?

[Oli]

This may be more like a letter of intent that a firm order with financing to back it up.

Its safe to say both companies have to survive and S3 has to be able to offer launch at the contracted price and date. Both are not given.

What's the rest 245kg of the predicted capacity?

Good point. I guess Spacepharma could launch 5kg for less than ~$10m on another launcher, so I doubt they'll pay for the full launch.

Personally of course I doubt the minisat business alone will pay for the development of that reusable shuttle and the required infrastructure. We'll see.

[Danderman]

In general, Europeans don't do many space projects unless ESA is behind it.

[Oli]

In general, Europeans don't do many space projects unless ESA is behind it.

Right, because the satellite industry has nothing to do with space at all. And of course, NASA is totally not financing Orbital's Antares or SpaceX's Falcon. If you take NASA and the DoD out of the equation there is not much of relevance left except Virgin Galactic (which is somewhat British) and XCOR.

That said, S3 is backed by relatively big players in the aerospace industry, otherwise I would not put much faith in it.

[holgar5]

It seems to be they are aiming now for spaceports in Canada, the US and Spain. Does this mean that launches from the Payerne airport in Switzerland are now ruled out?
http://news.yahoo.com/space-junk-cleanup-satellite-launching-swiss-space-plane-114452327.html

[fatjohn1408]

That said, S3 is backed by relatively big players in the aerospace industry, otherwise I would not put much faith in it.

Oh are they?
They could just be putting up a logo on their site as a technical advisor as soon as they had a phone conversation with someone in some institution are company.

[holgar5]

Swiss Space Systems plans to operate from the US as a MOU with the spaceport of Colorado was signed: http://www.s-3.ch/en/home/2013/10/08/spaceport-colorado-and-s3-sign-memorandum-of-understanding .

[jongoff]

Swiss Space Systems plans to operate from the US as a MOU with the spaceport of Colorado was signed: http://www.s-3.ch/en/home/2013/10/08/spaceport-colorado-and-s3-sign-memorandum-of-understanding.

While I'm glad to see the news, and would be stoked to see suborbital and orbital launches out of Denver, an MOU is only a very early step in the process towards a system this complex. Two risky (but hopefully successful) ventures signing MOUs with each other doesn't really reduce the riskiness of either of the ventures, unfortunately.

~Jon

[Lurker Steve]

What is it about Colorado that attracts so many aerospace companies ?

I know the weather is a bit milder than what we get in Chicago, but it's still a Northern climate.

[QuantumG]

What is it about Colorado that attracts so many aerospace companies ?

It's not California.

[Eric Hedman]

What is it about Colorado that attracts so many aerospace companies ?

It's not California.

That is probably reason number one if California is a bit much for you to take on a regular basis.  There are several others reasons including the cost of living being less..  I've been to Colorado many times and it is a beautiful state.  It also reached a critical mass with the number of aerospace workers.  There is a good local talent pool.  It also has the advantage that it isn't that far from California compared to anything east of there so it's not that difficult to work with California companies.    Denver is also a major airline travel hub so it is fairly easy to get anywhere from there.

[Lars_J]

So has there been any more information released about the technical aspects (like stages) of this? Putting a winged RLV on top of a commercial jetliner sounds great in theory, although you quickly realize that your orbital payload shrinks to something veeeery small - if anything.

[Rocket Science]

What is it about Colorado that attracts so many aerospace companies ?

It's not California.

That is probably reason number one if California is a bit much for you to take on a regular basis.  There are several others reasons including the cost of living being less..  I've been to Colorado many times and it is a beautiful state.  It also reached a critical mass with the number of aerospace workers.  There is a good local talent pool.  It also has the advantage that it isn't that far from California compared to anything east of there so it's not that difficult to work with California companies.    Denver is also a major airline travel hub so it is fairly easy to get anywhere from there.

The U.S. Air Force Space Command was the center of operations during the Cold War at Peterson Air Force Base. Convair built their missiles in the state bringing in a large talent pool.

[fatjohn1408]

where are they going to launch in Europe? Have they made that info public yet?

[R7]

So has there been any more information released about the technical aspects (like stages) of this?

Nothing much except the promo video and flight plan. The winged 'orca' is suborbital and deploys apparently expendable upper stage.

About the Colorado MoU, what are the chances that actual orbital launches are allowed from central US ? The danger zone paints across the continent, unlike up'n'down suborbital joyrides.

[RanulfC]

So has there been any more information released about the technical aspects (like stages) of this?

Nothing much except the promo video and flight plan. The winged 'orca' is suborbital and deploys apparently expendable upper stage.

About the Colorado MoU, what are the chances that actual orbital launches are allowed from central US ? The danger zone paints across the continent, unlike up'n'down suborbital joyrides.

Actually does it? You have a pretty postive "controlled abort" operation all the way to the expendable stage seperation point. Up then you can always "glide" back if there is a failure, and if the staging point/velocity/trajectory is right any failure of the expendable stage could dump in the ocean or away from populated areas so your risk is much less.

Randy

[Robotbeat]

What is it about Colorado that attracts so many aerospace companies ?

It's not California.

...and isn't Texas.

Colorado is a wonderful place. I recommend it.

Sunbelt states are over-rated.

[simonbp]

The U.S. Air Force Space Command was the center of operations during the Cold War at Peterson Air Force Base. Convair built their missiles in the state bringing in a large talent pool.

Martin, you mean. Convair Astronautics was in San Diego, and Atlas production didn't move to Denver until after Martin bought Convair Astro from General Dynamics in 1994.

[Lurker Steve]

I knew that LM has a large presence in the Denver / Boulder area. SNC is there also, correct ?

I was really wondering why companies like Altius Space Machines open shop there. Jon could have just opened up show down the road from Masten, and not needed to relocate, right ? What makes the environment attractive for startups like Altius and Swiss Space ?

[simonbp]

Getting way OT, but just to finish the thought. Denver was an aviation hub back in the pre-war era (more aircraft were built in Colorado in the 1920s than in the rest of the country), which led to Martin-Denver being a rather large concern after the war. When Martin-Marietta decided to focus on non-aircraft aerospace, Martin-Denver in turn focused on space stuff (e.g. Titan and Viking). Also, the USAF set up their Space Command just north of Denver. This then built up a supplier base, some which became prime contractors in their own right (e.g. Ball and SNC). Boulder has more traditionally focused on the space science side, because that's where the University is.

[Oli]

I've seen a presentation of S3's CEO on youtube (in German with thick French accent, ).

Shuttle will go to Mach 10.

50 employees in October 2013 (date of presentation), each month around 10% more. In addition 200+ employees at other companies. Also he showed which companies are working on which parts of the system. Seems like development is well underway.

[lucspace]

Would you have a link to that YouTube clip?

[Danderman]

Would you have a link to that YouTube clip?

Most of us will notice fairly quickly that their Airbus can't really have a vertical stabilizer as shown in the video, or very bad things will likely happen.

[Borklund]

That's a very well put together video, brilliant presentation.

Would you have a link to that YouTube clip?

Most of us will notice fairly quickly that their Airbus can't really have a vertical stabilizer as shown in the video, or very bad things will likely happen.

Care to elaborate?

[Elmar Moelzer]

Most of us will notice fairly quickly that their Airbus can't really have a vertical stabilizer as shown in the video, or very bad things will likely happen.

I had a similar feeling. You have a vehicle with a high lift to drag ratio trying to dive away underneath a vehicle with a low L/D before that second vehicle hits the rudder. That will be interesting.

[Oli]

Would you have a link to that YouTube clip?

Most of us will notice fairly quickly that their Airbus can't really have a vertical stabilizer as shown in the video, or very bad things will likely happen.

That's not the clip lucspace was asking for. Regarding that vertical stabilizer, I'm sure they know more than "most of us". It worked for the space shuttle after all.

[guckyfan]

Regarding that vertical stabilizer, I'm sure they know more than "most of us". It worked for the space shuttle after all.

Space Shuttle launched from a Jumbo? I must have missed the memo.

Yes, I saw that too and had grave doubts about it. Other air launchers are dropped from the bottom for a reason.

[rdiaz]

Space Shuttle launched from a Jumbo? I must have missed the memo.

...

Memo: Enterprise ALT

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/Enterprise_Separates_from_747_SCA_for_First_Tailcone_off_Free_Flight.jpg

[Oli]

Regarding that vertical stabilizer, I'm sure they know more than "most of us". It worked for the space shuttle after all.

Space Shuttle launched from a Jumbo? I must have missed the memo.

Yes, I saw that too and had grave doubts about it. Other air launchers are dropped from the bottom for a reason.

Not launch, but drop tests.

Other air launched vehicles are not designed as gliders, from what I can tell.

In any case, they wouldn't have 250 people working on the project if it would be likely the vehicle would hit the tail of the carrier aircraft. That's silly.

[guckyfan]

Not launch, but drop tests.

Other air launched vehicles are not designed as gliders, from what I can tell.

Thanks, so I missed the memo.

In any case, they wouldn't have 250 people working on the project if it would be likely the vehicle would hit the tail of the carrier aircraft. That's silly.

A good argument too. I use it sometimes for things SpaceX does.

[fatjohn1408]

Most of us will notice fairly quickly that their Airbus can't really have a vertical stabilizer as shown in the video, or very bad things will likely happen.

I had a similar feeling. You have a vehicle with a high lift to drag ratio trying to dive away underneath a vehicle with a low L/D before that second vehicle hits the rudder. That will be interesting.

Solution lies in shutting the engines of the airbus off or at a very low throttle prior to separation, no?
I bet the fueled shuttle has a larger ballistic coefficient than the airbus.

[fatjohn1408]

Deal made with Kuznetsov for spaceplane engine and with Energia for upper stage design.

http://www.24heures.ch/economie/Swiss-Space-Systems-va-acheter-des-moteurs-russes/story/15370383

[Borklund]

Not a strictly spaceplane related update, but S3 is now offering parabolic Zero G flights: http://www.zerog.s-3.ch/index.htm

[SwissCheese]

The CEO was just interviewed in an entertainment radio program (in French):

http://www.rts.ch/la-1ere/programmes/poyekhali/5936660-poyekhali-du-06-07-2014.html#5936659

It begins at 15:00.

There are some interesting bits:
- the project was actually launched undercover 6 years before the official launch, it was only announced when it was found to be (economically) safe enough
- he details how difficult it was to convince bankers, probably much more in Switzerland than in USA, because our bankers are quite conservative and fear unconventional start-ups.
- he describes strategies how to convince companies to sell them parts and partner with them
- he explains that companies and agencies from various countries trust them to integrate their hardware and technologies in the SOAR shuttle while ensuring that the other partners do not get access to the technologies (Russia/USA/...). Actually the Swiss reputation for secret here helps a lot.


On a side note, I know a little the CEO, he was my captain during military service in the air force


(I can put the mp3 in attachment if needed, just ask)

Edit: mp3 added

[Borklund]

(I can put the mp3 in attachment if needed, just ask)

Pretty please.

[Oli]

Engine will be NK-39

http://www.s-3.ch/en/home/2014/09/25/official-visit-to-jsc-kuznetsov-propulsion-systems-provider-of-the-soar

[R7]

Engine will be NK-39

Now there's a weirdo TPA to decipher! 

[Danderman]

Swiss Space Systems concludes first phase of drop-tests

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Swiss_Space_Systems_concludes_first_phase_drop_test_flight_campaign_in_North_Bay_999.html

Swiss Space Systems (S3) has concluded the first phase of a drop-test flight campaign with the help of Canadore College and its partners in North Bay. These first test flights were done with the purpose of testing and validating avionics systems, drone systems, Guidance-Navigation-Control instruments and various sensors.

[Danderman]

Engine will be NK-39

http://www.s-3.ch/en/home/2014/09/25/official-visit-to-jsc-kuznetsov-propulsion-systems-provider-of-the-soar

The knee-jerk decision by many startups to go with NK Engines may not continue much longer.

[MTom]

Engine will be NK-39

http://www.s-3.ch/en/home/2014/09/25/official-visit-to-jsc-kuznetsov-propulsion-systems-provider-of-the-soar

The knee-jerk decision by many startups to go with NK Engines may not continue much longer.

Because of the NK-33-story of Antares or are there other reasons for this statement? Only a question.

EDIT:
I read it: nearly the same situation as NK-33, isn't it?

Kuznetsov Lox/Kerosene rocket engine. 402 kN. N-1F stage 3. Development ended 1971. Isp=352s. Modified version of original engine with multiple ignition capability. Never flown and mothballed after the cancellation of the N1.
After initial failures of the N-1 Kuznetsov developed modified versions of engines for all 3 stages, with multiple ignition capability and increased operational lifetime. These engines were never flown and were mothballed after the cancellation of the N1.

http://www.astronautix.com/engines/nk39.htm

[TrevorMonty]

It is not very clear from article whether these are new NK39 or refurbished ones from 70s. Can't find anything on web about them still being manufactured.

[Danderman]

It is not very clear from article whether these are new NK39 or refurbished ones from 70s. Can't find anything on web about them still being manufactured.

These would be old engines in practice. Perhaps there is some arm waving about building new ones in the future.

[MTom]

It is not very clear from article whether these are new NK39 or refurbished ones from 70s. Can't find anything on web about them still being manufactured.

These would be old engines in practice. Perhaps there is some arm waving about building new ones in the future.

It could have also a meaning that this engine (like NK33) has never flown since it has been developed.

[Moe Grills]

It is not very clear from article whether these are new NK39 or refurbished ones from 70s. Can't find anything on web about them still being manufactured.

These would be old engines in practice. Perhaps there is some arm waving about building new ones in the future.

It could have also a meaning that this engine (like NK33) has never flown since it has been developed.

You can be sure they'll be "static test fired" when the time comes. But you leave the impression that the integration into the airframe and operation are not satisfactory to you. You are entitled to that view, just don't buy any passenger tickets to fly onboard the thing if you feel uncomfortable with it.

[MTom]

It is not very clear from article whether these are new NK39 or refurbished ones from 70s. Can't find anything on web about them still being manufactured.

These would be old engines in practice. Perhaps there is some arm waving about building new ones in the future.

It could have also a meaning that this engine (like NK33) has never flown since it has been developed.

You can be sure they'll be "static test fired" when the time comes. But you leave the impression that the integration into the airframe and operation are not satisfactory to you. You are entitled to that view, just don't buy any passenger tickets to fly onboard the thing if you feel uncomfortable with it.

You read a little bit more from my wiriting what I said.
Whether this engine will be ok for this purpose or not, is out of my informations.

I was thinking about things:
- There should be some reason why NK39 was never used after it was developed. This decision was made because of "something", that's not only "happened".
- NK33 seems to have some conceptual problem, see here.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35950.msg1284177#msg1284177
- NK33 was never used after its development too.

Maybe there isn't any dependencies, maybe there is. Time will show it.

And why did you feel necessary to reply with arrogant words to my post, I don't know.

[Moe Grills]

It is not very clear from article whether these are new NK39 or refurbished ones from 70s. Can't find anything on web about them still being manufactured.

These would be old engines in practice. Perhaps there is some arm waving about building new ones in the future.

It could have also a meaning that this engine (like NK33) has never flown since it has been developed.

You can be sure they'll be "static test fired" when the time comes. But you leave the impression that the integration into the airframe and operation are not satisfactory to you. You are entitled to that view, just don't buy any passenger tickets to fly onboard the thing if you feel uncomfortable with it.

You read a little bit more from my wiriting what I said.
Whether this engine will be ok for this purpose or not, is out of my informations.

I was thinking about things:
- There should be some reason why NK39 was never used after it was developed. This decision was made because of "something", that's not only "happened".
- NK33 seems to have some conceptual problem, see here.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35950.msg1284177#msg1284177
- NK33 was never used after its development too.

Maybe there isn't any dependencies, maybe there is. Time will show it.

And why did you feel necessary to reply with arrogant words to my post, I don't know.

  Arrogance?? ...Maybe my fault was pointing out obvious things to dump and load on to this internet site. Maybe I have too much time on my hands. Oh well...O guess we are all armchair enthusiasts with no real chance to fly in space in our lives.
But I think this Swiss project is rather interesting and promising; more so than Virgin Galactic. For those in the future who can afford to pay for the privilege.

[MTom]

If you don't find appropriate people discussing more about VG as S3, please post it directly.
Maybe you get also an anwer.
Maybe you can achieve more interest for this company.

But "attack" me because I wrote 3 sentences, nothing offending :
1. A simpe question:
"Because of the NK-33-story of Antares or are there other reasons for this statement? Only a question."

2. I made my question more precise, given a fact around this theme:
"I read it: nearly the same situation as NK-33, isn't it?"

3. A simple opinion about an other fact:
"It could have also a meaning that this engine (like NK33) has never flown since it has been developed."

 

P.S: (deleted as unnecessary)

[Lar]

Not deleteing, (yet)  but... increase excellence to each other, please.

[ChrisWilson68]

I think this Swiss project is rather interesting and promising; more so than Virgin Galactic. For those in the future who can afford to pay for the privilege.

Personally, I find Virgin Galactic more interesting and promising for the simple reason that they have a demonstrated source of funding and Swiss Space Systems does not.  Unfortunately, in the commercial space sector there are dozens of small companies that have popped up, failed to get anywhere close to the funding they needed, and disappeared.

Swiss Space Systems seems to be in the phase where they have some seed capital but they're looking for the big bucks it would take to actually fly to space.  Good luck to them, but I won't get very excited until they succeed in raising the money they need to actually put a person into suborbital space.

Virgin Galactic's funding is not unlimited and all their delays and the recent tragedy have made it unclear whether they'll be able to continue to commercial service; still, they're far closer to being able to do so than a company like Swiss Space Systems.

[Danderman]

Since the Nk series of engines has a track record of rapid disassembly during operation, using an NK-43 with passengers aboard could be problematic.

[ChrisWilson68]

Since the Nk series of engines has a track record of rapid disassembly during operation, using an NK-43 with passengers aboard could be problematic.

I doubt Swiss Space Systems has much invested in their engine choice at this point.  Recent events might cause them to change that decision.

[Danderman]

Since the Nk series of engines has a track record of rapid disassembly during operation, using an NK-43 with passengers aboard could be problematic.

I doubt Swiss Space Systems has much invested in their engine choice at this point.  Recent events might cause them to change that decision.

Any ideas on a replacement engine for NK-43 in the same class?

[simonbp]

2x Vikings? Sure, they would have to restart the production line, but that's effectively true for NK-43 too...

[Kryten]

2x Vikings? Sure, they would have to restart the production line, but that's effectively true for NK-43 too...

Isn't that basically Vikas? They're still in full-scale production.

[Vultur]

Apparently Swiss Space Systems will start offering 'vomit comet' zero-g flights in 2015:
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/11/25/s3-gravity-flights-switzerland/

[nimbostratus]

Since the Nk series of engines has a track record of rapid disassembly during operation, using an NK-43 with passengers aboard could be problematic.

Any ideas on a replacement engine for NK-43 in the same class?

You mistook NK-43 for NK-39, and started to question on that basis.

[Danderman]

Since the Nk series of engines has a track record of rapid disassembly during operation, using an NK-43 with passengers aboard could be problematic.

Any ideas on a replacement engine for NK-43 in the same class?

You mistook NK-43 for NK-39, and started to question on that basis.

Correct, I meant the 40 ton NK-39 vacuum engine. Is there some other similar engine that could be used in its place?

[fatjohn1408]

The company will IPO soon.
In addition you will be able to purchase zero g flights on their Airbus 300. Selling 4000 for about 1500$ for the early birds, later prices will rise to 2500$. Off course there are also first class tickets selling for more 

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/S3_offers_general_public_chance_to_be_part_of_the_Swiss_space_adventure_999.html

Edit: All packages (worth 11 M CHF) appear to have been sold out.

[Danderman]

In addition you will be able to purchase zero g flights on their Airbus 300.

Does Swiss Space Systems actually have an Airbus 300?

[SwissCheese]

In addition you will be able to purchase zero g flights on their Airbus 300.

Does Swiss Space Systems actually have an Airbus 300?

From what I heard, they are still negotiating, and they might actually need something bigger, such as an A340.

Also heard that one should not take every detail of the promotional video as a fact set-in-stone. In the video, they showed on purpose some differences from the actual design.

[SwissCheese]

Actually on S-3 zero G flights website, the french version of the "Medical and general Informaton for microgravity fights" specifies "Airbus A340":

https://zerog.s-3.ch/javax.faces.resource/docs/fr/s3-medical-info.pdf.htm?ln=default&v=2_4

The English version only states "Airbus"

https://zerog.s-3.ch/javax.faces.resource/docs/en/s3-medical-info.pdf.htm?ln=default&v=2_4

[ChrisWilson68]

The company will IPO soon.
In addition you will be able to purchase zero g flights on their Airbus 300. Selling 4000 for about 1500$ for the early birds, later prices will rise to 2500$. Off course there are also first class tickets selling for more  ;)

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/S3_offers_general_public_chance_to_be_part_of_the_Swiss_space_adventure_999.html

Edit: All packages (worth 11 M CHF) appear to have been sold out.

This is really strange.  Early-stage start-ups don't generally have IPOs, except for a brief period during 1999-2000 when we had a huge dot-com bubble and crash.  I would like to think we learned something from the dot-com crash.

Also from the article:

5% of the equity will be opened, with 1% to be distributed to its employees

1% of equity for employees is a very small portion by start-up standards.

[parabolicarc]

Swiss Space Systems has postponed zero gravity flights and IPO amid reports of financial difficulties

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2015/12/20/s3-postpones-flights-ipo-financial-trouble/

[gosnold]

Not surprising, they had trouble paying their interns last summer.

[Danderman]

https://zerog.s-3.ch/

it appears that all mention of a spaceflight system has been eliminated from the web site, in favor of atmospheric vomit comet flights.

[Rik ISS-fan]

https://zerog.s-3.ch/

it appears that all mention of a spaceflight system has been eliminated from the web site, in favor of atmospheric vomit comet flights.

You took the direct link to the parabolic flight page.
Here is the main page: http://www.s-3.ch/en/home

[Robotbeat]

Yeah, talked to someone on Twitter who said she worked for them until they stopped making payroll for a few months and closed up shop in Florida.

[Rik ISS-fan]

On the main website is a news article where the postponement of the (sub)orbital shuttle is announced.
My oppinion is that SOAR is not a good design. In the Aldebaran studies it was shown only a 20% lower GLOW is possible compared to ground launch. Launching from untherneath an airplane (pegasus /go to launcher) gives a 30% lower GLOW.
Besides this the rocket engines SOAR would use are from a russian company. Looking at the political situation between Europe and Russia I don't think SOAR will be developed. (It uses Hermes legacy)

[Oli]

In the Aldebaran studies it was shown only a 20% lower GLOW is possible compared to ground launch. Launching from untherneath an airplane (pegasus /go to launcher) gives a 30% lower GLOW.

There's the additional benefit of not having to boost or fly back your first stage. There might also be operational advantages from launching out of airports. If they ever do suborbital tourism, its easier to offer different views of the Earth. I think "localization" will be important for suborbital tourism.

The most obvious downside is the large upfront investment required for the airliner. I doubt zero-g flights are going to pay for it.

Besides this the rocket engines SOAR would use are from a russian company.

A problem only if they need government money.

[ChrisWilson68]

Besides this the rocket engines SOAR would use are from a russian company.

A problem only if they need government money.

Not necessarily.  Western governments might well ban any companies from buying from Russian aerospace concerns in future rounds of sanctions.  It may or may not happen, but it's a risk.

[Nibb31]

Switzerland is not part of the EU, or ESA, or NATO. They have a during tradition of neutrality, which means that they don't let politics get into the way of business.

[Oli]

Switzerland is not part of the EU, or ESA, or NATO. They have a during tradition of neutrality, which means that they don't let politics get into the way of business.

Switzerland is part of ESA and it followed the EU on most sanctions against Russia.

[Rik ISS-fan]

I wanted to point to the fact that launching from the top of an airplane brings less of a weight gain than launching from untherneath an airplane. I could also have pointed to the danger of the released soar hiting the tail of the A330, it wouldn't have a modified tail. This can't happen when the you drop from a plain.
This is the main reason I dislike SOAR that uses aerodynamic lift separation.
I also think a capsule is way cheaper to develop than SOAR. The airbus space plain (large lynx) could be something, because it could be used for fast business-travel. I prefer new shepard over lynx, virgin galactic and SOAR.

If they would develop SOAR, in my oppinion it should fly autonomaus/ unmanned on the first couple of flights. The risk Virgin Galactic is exposing there test pilots to, is in my oppinion unaccaptable.

[Rik ISS-fan]

Switzerland has a really special and complicated position in the EU. The Swiss people demanded the power to not put in force european laws. One of the reasons for this is their really expansive road infrastructue with many tunels.

[Oli]

The airbus space plain (large lynx) could be something, because it could be used for fast business-travel.

I don't think the Airbus space plane's shape is suitable for point-to-point travel (doesn't look like a large lynx by the way). You need to fly a skip-glide trajectory and I've only seen designs using delta wings for that purpose.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-20_Dyna-Soar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceLiner

[RanulfC]

I wanted to point to the fact that launching from the top of an airplane brings less of a weight gain than launching from untherneath an airplane.

Got any cites for that? I ask because that's not what I've seen from any air-launch reports due to the need for larger wings on the top-mounted launch vehicle or some other method of ensuring positive separation. Or is that backwards since you seem to indicate such later?

I could also have pointed to the danger of the released soar hiting the tail of the A330, it wouldn't have a modified tail. This can't happen when the you drop from a plane. This is the main reason I dislike SOAR that uses aerodynamic lift separation.

Most air launch concepts present difficulties in transitioning from horizontal flight to a more vertical orientation. Concepts like this use aerodynamic (wings) control to perform the translation function but those that are top mounted either have to have the carrier aircraft perform a very radical separation/dive maneuver or have enough lift to offset their own mass into a glide at altitude which usually means much larger wing area.

I also think a capsule is way cheaper to develop than SOAR.

This isn't clear as developing the whole launch system rather than JUST the "crew cabin" is what would be compared.

The airbus space plain (large lynx) could be something, because it could be used for fast business-travel.

Fast travel and suborbital flight are not synonymous and actually can be very different profiles and operational requirements. Just so you know.

I prefer new shepard over lynx, virgin galactic and SOAR.

Each has their own pros and cons and their own fans and detractors. Interestingly enough the average "Space Tourist" agrees with you, for take-off at least

If they would develop SOAR, in my oppinion it should fly autonomaus/ unmanned on the first couple of flights. The risk Virgin Galactic is exposing there test pilots to, is in my oppinion unacceptable.

The "point" is to proceed as if it were "any other" aircraft which would preclude unmanned testing, especially for something that indeed does in fact take off from and land on a runway It can, (and has IIRC) be argued that Blue Origin "obviously" doesn't trust its vehicle/capsule very much since they are testing them unmanned

Point-of-fact but I don't believe that Blue is going to be actually 'manning' their vehicle as the "pilot" is going to be there as a flight attendant rather than doing anything "pilot-y". VG, SOAR, and Lynx obviously can't do the same thing as they actually require a pilot to operate normally.

Randy

[simonbp]

I wanted to point to the fact that launching from the top of an airplane brings less of a weight gain than launching from untherneath an airplane.

Got any cites for that? I ask because that's not what I've seen from any air-launch reports due to the need for larger wings on the top-mounted launch vehicle or some other method of ensuring positive separation. Or is that backwards since you seem to indicate such later?

There's almost certainly some military research to that effect. The main argument I've header is that is gentler on the carrier to drop something than release it and get out of the way.

There's also the SR-71/D-21 experience that separating a top-mounted aircraft at high speed is deadly.

[Oli]

SOAR, and Lynx obviously can't do the same thing as they actually require a pilot to operate normally.

SOAR won't have a pilot.

[Rik ISS-fan]

@RanulfC
In my post previous (#106) to the one you reacted to (#111), I wrote that my source are the Aldebaran studies, that were run by CNES between 2007 and 2010. I'll post two links: [1] and [2].
This ones I could find fast, there are at least for presentations and document with about the same content. I want to point to page 23 of [2].
If you want to launch an 300kg satellite into a 300kg SSO orbit, what would be the takeoff weight of an launching system. With ground launch, the GLOW would be about 32mT. If you releas from an balloon at 20km altitude the GLOW is decreased to 21mT. This is a 34% decrease. When you launch from the top of an airplane (Shuttle) the GLOW is 25% lower compared with ground launch. When launching after an airdrop from an plain (Pegasus) the GLOW is 35% lower. (I posted 20% vs 30% because I didn''t look up the numbers.)
So SOAR is for the same performance 10% heavier than SpaceShip Two.

I think designing a gliding suborbital vehicle is inherently more difficult, also operationally.All the systems need a form of rocket propulsion this is a very expansive development. SOAR wants to use an Russian engine that already has been developed, but if they are allowed to buy the Russian engines remains to be seen. For the other vehicles new rocket engines have been developed.
 
With a capsule system you have two components the Rocket booster and the capsule. This rocket booster can relatively easily be used as first stage for a micro launch vehicle (Boeing & BO XS-1; Orbspace Infinity (nano) concept).
With a suborbital space plane (XCOR, Lynx / Airbus concept) in one system all the functions are packed, (takeoff, propulsive phase, pressurization and live support, reentry control and landing.)
With an orbital released system; a modified airplane and a suborbital space plane are needed. Only the takeoff function is removed from the function requirements of the suborbital plane, and a release function is added. The airplane has the takeoff and the release function to cope with.
My intuition tells me that developing a rocket booster and a capsule is the simplest and thus cheapest, (the booster recovery ads a lot of development but makes the operations cheaper.) A space plane that does all the functions comes next I think. SOAR is next because they use an commercial airplane, and Virgin Galactic took the most expansive approach; develop a dedicated airplane and a sub-orbital space plane. They cut back on automation to save development cost.

I agree that NS will not be piloted as will SOAR if Oli is right. I think it's the only safe approach, and you save about 100-200kg in system mass (one or two pilots)

To your comment of BO and not trusting their system. I think they want a safety level close to flying on an airplane. They have a system that is autonomous, so there is (rightly so) no requirement to carry a pilot on early flights. They might have a closed business case for suborbital payload flights, so they don't lose money on the dozens of unmanned flights. But they get the flight experience from all those flights. No competitor is around to steal from their potential client base. So I think it is a very wise and sensible decision to do looooooots of unmanned NS flight before manned testing takes place. They will know the cost of operating their system. And I expect that BO will only start selling rides after a (couple) successful manned flight.     

[Oli]

When you launch from the top of an airplane (Shuttle) the GLOW is 25% lower compared with ground launch. When launching after an airdrop from an plain (Pegasus) the GLOW is 35% lower. (I posted 20% vs 30% because I didn''t look up the numbers.)
So SOAR is for the same performance 10% heavier than SpaceShip Two. 

Pegasus doesn't need wings for horizontal landing. Not sure that is a valid comparison. Regardless, 10% doesn't sound like a lot if it allows you to use a modified airliner instead of building/maintaining your own carrier aircraft.

Personally I also like VTVL better, mainly because I think its easier to scale. An advantage of wings though is that it puts less stress on the engines and probably also performs better, at least for RTLS. Engine lifetime and maintenance is likely the biggest issue for first stage reusability.

[Oli]

Looks like they acquired an A340.

http://www.s-3.ch/en/home/2016/04/12/a-world-premiere-an-airbus-a340-300-for-zerog-flights

[RanulfC]

I wanted to point to the fact that launching from the top of an airplane brings less of a weight gain than launching from untherneath an airplane.

Got any cites for that? I ask because that's not what I've seen from any air-launch reports due to the need for larger wings on the top-mounted launch vehicle or some other method of ensuring positive separation. Or is that backwards since you seem to indicate such later?

There's almost certainly some military research to that effect. The main argument I've header is that is gentler on the carrier to drop something than release it and get out of the way.

Up to and including the last DARPA/NASA Air Launch study the "conclusion" was for a top mounted, liquid fueled "Super Pegasus" vehicle using Falcon-9 derived first stage, (single engine) and a RL10 powered Centaur "derived" upper stage with the carrier vehicle performing a high angle diving turn upon release.

Main (and about the only one listed) reason for top carry was the LVs were all to large to be carried under the airframe. Everything in the report gave the impression of reaching a pre-determined conclusion with details of the LV and carrier aircraft changed as needed to reach the "right" conclusion.

Seriously drop is easier AND safer by a huge margin but if you have certain "requirements" for the LV design then the it works out the "conclusion" for top carry and launch becomes the only "viable" option Almost none of the documented and known possible methods for allowing under-carry were addressed in the report such as over-filling the gear olios or using a T-LAD system and any type of 'non-single-stick' LV to name just a few.

There's also the SR-71/D-21 experience that separating a top-mounted aircraft at high speed is deadly.

Note that specifically that type of launch had been done before, successfully. The accident happened because the D21 control system malfunctioned and suddenly commanded a dive even before it had passed through the SR-71 mach-shock. The entire reason for launching that way was because the D-21 at that point in flight had a positive lift of its own so that separation would continue even if the ramjet stopped working and that the air flow above and aft of the SR-71 was very smooth. This condition was also the reason NASA did an extensive study for possibly launching large glide, ramjet, and rocket booster high-speed aerodynamic test vehicles from their SR-71s. Specifically citing the accident as the only one of it's type during the program and the exact cause of the failure they concluded that a more advanced and redundant flight control system, (the D21 had only a single control computer) would preclude any reoccurrence of the accident. (Which is what the flight safety review board concluded on the original accident but there was no budget, or really room to so upgrade the D-21 so M71 flights were canceled and the M21s reverted to SR-71s)

Top mounted launch IS in fact useful in some situations, however the standard "low-and-slow" subsonic launch is NOT one of those situations.

Randy

[RanulfC]

@RanulfC
In my post previous (#106) to the one you reacted to (#111), I wrote that my source are the Aldebaran studies, that were run by CNES between 2007 and 2010. I'll post two links: [1] and [2].

Thanks for those

This ones I could find fast, there are at least for presentations and document with about the same content. I want to point to page 23 of [2].
If you want to launch an 300kg satellite into a 300kg SSO orbit, what would be the takeoff weight of an launching system. With ground launch, the GLOW would be about 32mT. If you release from an balloon at 20km altitude the GLOW is decreased to 21mT. This is a 34% decrease. When you launch from the top of an airplane (Shuttle) the GLOW is 25% lower compared with ground launch. When launching after an airdrop from an plain (Pegasus) the GLOW is 35% lower. (I posted 20% vs 30% because I didn''t look up the numbers.)
So SOAR is for the same performance 10% heavier than SpaceShip Two.

That's actually why I was asking as your original statement was:

I wanted to point to the fact that launching from the top of an airplane brings less of a weight gain than launching from underneath an airplane.

Both according to the reports you cite and those I have a top-launched LV weighs more than one that is bottom mounted. (Hence the -25% for top mounted GLOW versus -35% for bottom. The former is heavier than the latter which is where I was confused by what you were stating )

I've a nit or two with some other assumptions in the study as well as they actually show the various factors relevant to air launch, (altitude, speed, and Angle-to-the-local-Horizon) but most of them are misrepresented in the comparisons. As an easy example the chart on page 23 the QuickReach launch vehicle is listed as "launched" at a 0-degree angle when it is fact launched at a 90-degree angle as stated on page 25, (and this being noted as a "problem" with no explanation as to why this would be) which according to the same chart on page 23 would indicate a significant "gain" n payload to orbit over the given launch angle of zero. And in fact this is so as the QuickReach, despite being a pressure fed, sub-optimal LV design due to constrained requirements lofts 150kg MORE than the baseline required "300kg". For (one of) the same reasons the last two carrier vehicles also show an increased payload in the fact the "launch angle" at engine ignition is over 70 degrees to the local horizon. This counts almost as much as added speed in an air launch scenario. The added speed at launch for those two carries adds about half again in GLOW reduction and payload to orbit.

I think designing a gliding suborbital vehicle is inherently more difficult, also operationally.

Historically the difficulty has been about the same with various factors highly dependent on operational and mission requirements as envisioned by the designers. (Which of course include significant bias' from those designers which effect the outcome of the trade studies )

Historically there is much more experience with gliding or powered landing like an aircraft and people are more comfortable with that method of landing. While the heating pulse of reentry is longer for a lifting vehicle it is most often lower as long as the vehicle has a good lift to mass factor. (The Shuttle Orbiter didn't have as good of one as it could have) Cross-range and landing options are easier to predict, understand and plan for with a lifting vehicle. Capsules on the other hand are very limited on ability to significantly adjust their landing area through internal control, however barring significant offset by some mechanism their flight profiles and trajectory are very easy to predict and understand. Capsules rely on deployed mechanisms for a safe landing where as lifting vehicles have inherent landing systems by design that are less prone to failure. (In general) Lastly in a situation like this (air launched, sub-orbital) the passengers in the lifting system remain pretty much at the same position throughout the flight where as the capsule occupants go from what amounts to a 'standing" upright position in their seats to one where they land on their back which can be annoying to do as well as to accommodate operationally.

Operationally, the capsule requires recovery, servicing,  and then re-mating to the booster section and then re-attachment to the carrier vehicle where as the lifting vehicle/crew cabin only requires servicing and then re-mating to the carrier vehicle. In most cases the winged vehicle can use it's own landing gear for towing from one place to another where as a capsule usually requires a dedicated pallet and transporter systems to move.

Now note that things change significantly once we go beyond simple sub-orbital and into orbital operations but overall for the lower requirements of sub-orbital operations the choice is not at all as clear as some think it is.

All the systems need a form of rocket propulsion this is a very expensive development. SOAR wants to use an Russian engine that already has been developed, but if they are allowed to buy the Russian engines remains to be seen. For the other vehicles new rocket engines have been developed.

SOAR according to what I read is using kerosene-lox and there's no obvious reason they HAVE to use Russian engines, the NK-33/39 is nice but you can work around it with other available or tested engine designs. Various designers have taken to designing and building specific rocket engines for perceived needs but really there are a lot of designs out there both legacy and prototyped that could be used as long as you don't bring to many bias' to the table in the first place.
 

With a capsule system you have two components the Rocket booster and the capsule. This rocket booster can relatively easily be used as first stage for a micro launch vehicle (Boeing & BO XS-1; Orbspace Infinity (nano) concept).
With a suborbital space plane (XCOR, Lynx / Airbus concept) in one system all the functions are packed, (takeoff, propulsive phase, pressurization and live support, reentry control and landing.)

Actually it's not at all that "easy" or simple as the stage has to handle both horizontal as well as vertical loading and transient stress' which they are not normally designed to handle at the sizes being discussed. The entire reason that the Pegasus is an all solid booster is they are more sturdy and capable of handling said stress' without extra reinforcement and support. The QuickReach booster was designed the way it was and had the support stand it does to reduce the amount of stress-points and shocks to the vehicle body in flight. Hanging (or mounting on top) a liquid fueled LV requires a great deal of attention to be paid to all the possible shock, loading, and transient loading factors which no vertically launched LV every sees or is designed to handle. Doing so significantly increases the difficulty in design and mass of the eventual LV. In a unitary design such as a 'spaceplane' the vehicle is already designed to handle both horizontal and vertical stress.
 

With an orbital released system; a modified airplane and a suborbital space plane are needed. Only the takeoff function is removed from the function requirements of the suborbital plane, and a release function is added. The airplane has the takeoff and the release function to cope with.

This is required for either system, unless you're talking avoiding air launch all together which isn't clear.
 

My intuition tells me that developing a rocket booster and a capsule is the simplest and thus cheapest, (the booster recovery ads a lot of development but makes the operations cheaper.) A space plane that does all the functions comes next I think. SOAR is next because they use an commercial airplane, and Virgin Galactic took the most expansive approach; develop a dedicated airplane and a sub-orbital space plane. They cut back on automation to save development cost.

Most of the concepts for suborbital travel are trying in various ways to reduce operational costs as much as possible and expand market applicability. In the case of Blue Origin they have their own dedicated launch site, but in VG and S3 they want to be able to embark passengers from a normal airport is at all possible to increase their ability to serve passengers. BO has an aggressive planned program but it's going to be limited by the turn-around time of the booster and capsule whereas VG and S3 for example are going to be limited by the turn around time of each spaceplane. With a highly reusable "booster" carrier aircraft they can (in theory) load another spaceplane within a few hours of the fist flight and fly again whereas BO has to have multiple boosters and capsules to do the same.

How well this will work out for each in actual practice is very much up for debate, specifically since a controlled area of flight (range) will be required for the actual suborbital flight and this will not be "near" the type of airports that VG and S3 are considering operating out of.

Note also that VG never "cut back" on automation as they have stated from the beginning that SS2 would be tested and flow in a similar manner to normal aircraft testing. BO on the other hand is not going that route but neither are they ever expecting to launch from anywhere but specialized locations. Launcher One, (should it ever actually fly) will be unmanned from the start as it's not a passenger launch vehicle of any type.

I agree that NS will not be piloted as will SOAR if Oli is right. I think it's the only safe approach, and you save about 100-200kg in system mass (one or two pilots)

SOAR is their nano-sat launcher so that's understandable, however it's ALSO supposed to be a prototype for a later manned sub-orbital launch vehicle which WILL require pilots.

To your comment of BO and not trusting their system. I think they want a safety level close to flying on an airplane. They have a system that is autonomous, so there is (rightly so) no requirement to carry a pilot on early flights. They might have a closed business case for suborbital payload flights, so they don't lose money on the dozens of unmanned flights. But they get the flight experience from all those flights. No competitor is around to steal from their potential client base. So I think it is a very wise and sensible decision to do looooooots of unmanned NS flight before manned testing takes place. They will know the cost of operating their system. And I expect that BO will only start selling rides after a (couple) successful manned flight.

I didn't say they didn't trust their system but that what they are doing has the appearance they don't Considering that the Blue Shepard vehicle has a proven abort system, working capsule, landing system and booster they have everything in place to start volunteer manned flights at any time. Considering how many people around here would volunteer to fly in a Dragon capsule WITHOUT an abort system I'm pretty sure they won't lack for volunteers willing to sign waivers to fly with very lax restrictions. But I don't expect that to happen because Bezo's has stated he wants a LARGE number of unmanned test flights first.
And no, they are not going to be at a safety level of an airplane, they can't, it's not one and it is in fact a Vertical Take Off, Vertical Landing, (parachute with rocket assist landing for the capsule) ROCKET launch vehicle. They are never going to be considered for, or given an aircraft flight safety certificate. VG and S3 in fact have stated that is what they were aiming or to arrive at "aircraft" levels of safety but in reality they won't be given such either, (though their "booster" carrier aircraft will in fact have them) despite testing as they are but that won't change their approach nor should it.

BO has a fully automated system and has never been planned to carry a "pilot" of any type as all functions are automatic other than a single on-board abort button. They believe they have a business case for suborbital flight, there is no way to know if they have one that actually works until they start flying paying passengers and commercial operations. In this they are no different than VG or any other suggested provider. Frankly I expect BO to probably fly passengers before VG does simply because of the highly different business models and plans. This was always VGs race to lose and many of the design and development choices show a distinct lack of flexibility and to question "common wisdom" handed to them. I would not be surprised to see VG fold if BO starts regular flights before they get going.

In S3s case they have a lot of assumptions that are not as solidly based as they seem to think and they are trying to claim cost advantages that are marginal at best. Again I'll be surprised if they go beyond the microgravity flight missions.

Randy

[Oli]

SOAR is their nano-sat launcher so that's understandable, however it's ALSO supposed to be a prototype for a later manned sub-orbital launch vehicle which WILL require pilots.

Smallsat launcher. The passenger version would have a pressurized module in the cargo bay instead of the upper stage. Why the requirement for a pilot?

[RanulfC]

SOAR is their nano-sat launcher so that's understandable, however it's ALSO supposed to be a prototype for a later manned sub-orbital launch vehicle which WILL require pilots.

Smallsat launcher. The passenger version would have a pressurized module in the cargo bay instead of the upper stage. Why the requirement for a pilot?

As I understood it the two would share basic design, but the passenger vehicle was going to be designed from the ground up AS a passenger vehicle. Pilot was included for safety and regulatory reasons. The wings-and-wheels vehicles all have pilots because they are working from the premise of appearing to follow airline/airplane safety and operations. They are not, but you (currently) can't have an unmanned "aircraft" taking off or landing at a regular airport. And in the end that is where the operators are seeing this going even if it's not going to happen.

Randy

[Oli]

SOAR is their nano-sat launcher so that's understandable, however it's ALSO supposed to be a prototype for a later manned sub-orbital launch vehicle which WILL require pilots.

Smallsat launcher. The passenger version would have a pressurized module in the cargo bay instead of the upper stage. Why the requirement for a pilot?

As I understood it the two would share basic design, but the passenger vehicle was going to be designed from the ground up AS a passenger vehicle. Pilot was included for safety and regulatory reasons. The wings-and-wheels vehicles all have pilots because they are working from the premise of appearing to follow airline/airplane safety and operations. They are not, but you (currently) can't have an unmanned "aircraft" taking off or landing at a regular airport. And in the end that is where the operators are seeing this going even if it's not going to happen.

Randy

It's from here:

http://spacenews.com/startup-spotlight-swiss-space-systems-s3/

“Instead of a third stage in the cargo bay, we implement a pressurized module we are developing with Thales Alenia Space,” Jaussi said. “As we will have covered the development costs of the shuttle with small satellites launches, the ticket price for the passengers will only have to cover the costs related to the shuttle modification and certification.”

[Borklund]

They appear to have a plane

[RonM]

S3 must be serious. An Airbus A340-300 is not cheap.

[Hauerg]

S3 must be serious. An Airbus A340-300 is not cheap.

It may be the cheapest option available, at least if they ordered before the Iranians ordered the stock of pre owned 340s.

[baldusi]

The A340 is a failed project that nobody wants due to the completely uncompetitive operating cost. Operators want B777 or, in the worst case, A330. I know because the corrupt laden prevous administration bought A340 and much was told regarding the competitiveness (or lack of there of).

[Lars-J]

The A340 is a failed project that nobody wants due to the completely uncompetitive operating cost. Operators want B777 or, in the worst case, A330. I know because the corrupt laden prevous administration bought A340 and much was told regarding the competitiveness (or lack of there of).

Wow, that's quite some exaggeration there... The A340 was eventually phased out from most airlines due to slightly higher cost than the 777 and A330, but it was never *that* un-competitive. The growing range of the A330 is what killed it, not disastrous economy. But A340 models have flown for two decades now and the many are still in service.

[Oli]

I'm sure acquisition cost is a lot more relevant for S3 than fuel consumption.

[Hobbes-22]

Up to and including the last DARPA/NASA Air Launch study the "conclusion" was for a top mounted, liquid fueled "Super Pegasus" vehicle using Falcon-9 derived first stage, (single engine) and a RL10 powered Centaur "derived" upper stage with the carrier vehicle performing a high angle diving turn upon release.

Main (and about the only one listed) reason for top carry was the LVs were all to large to be carried under the airframe. Everything in the report gave the impression of reaching a pre-determined conclusion with details of the LV and carrier aircraft changed as needed to reach the "right" conclusion.

Seriously drop is easier AND safer by a huge margin but if you have certain "requirements" for the LV design then the it works out the "conclusion" for top carry and launch becomes the only "viable" option Almost none of the documented and known possible methods for allowing under-carry were addressed in the report such as over-filling the gear olios or using a T-LAD system and any type of 'non-single-stick' LV to name just a few.

IIRC Orbital spent large amounts of money modifying their L-1011 to carry the tiny Pegasus. And the L-1011 has several factors in its favor: more ground clearance than e.g. the 747, and no keel down the middle of the fuselage so they could insert the slot for the Pegasus' top fin without major structural modification.
Despite this, Orbital was limited to a payload of about 400 kg to orbit. The Pegasus has a diameter of 1.2 m. There are no airliners with enough ground clearance to fit a Falcon 9-sized vehicle underneath (3.6 m diameter), and no amount of overfilling the gear oleos is going to get you there.
T-LAD does nothing to reduce the ground clearance needed.
The only aircraft that could possibly drop-launch a Falcon-sized vehicle are high-wing transports like the C-5 and the An-124. The last airliner to get close to 3 m ground clearance was the Tupolev 114.

[Kabloona]

IIRC Orbital spent large amounts of money modifying their L-1011 to carry the tiny Pegasus.

Since you mention it, here's the L-1011 story direct from Antonio Elias:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=3911.msg61342#msg61342

As for "large amounts of money," relative to what? IIRC, it was on the order of $5M-$10M, which was hardly a deal-breaker. The main challenge of the L-1011 was that the mods were done by Marshall Aerospace in England, and the coordination between them and the Pegasus team was rather painful and involved a lot of trans-Atlantic travel and some arm-twisting to get the project finished.

[Hobbes-22]

I may be misremembering things, the amount lodged in my memory is 10 times that.

[Kabloona]

I may be misremembering things, the amount lodged in my memory is 10 times that.

$50-$100 million for the L-1011 mods?? Oh, no. $50M was the entire Pegasus development budget, and the plane itself cost them only $10M.

[somepitch]

S3 must be serious. An Airbus A340-300 is not cheap.

I don't know if this is a -300 but it certainly seems like they're out there cheap. They would likely be fine with a high-time/high-cycle airframe given the relatively low usage rate of air launch (vs. airline ops).

http://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/1432897/1998-airbus-a340

[RanulfC]

IIRC Orbital spent large amounts of money modifying their L-1011 to carry the tiny Pegasus. And the L-1011 has several factors in its favor: more ground clearance than e.g. the 747, and no keel down the middle of the fuselage so they could insert the slot for the Pegasus' top fin without major structural modification.
Despite this, Orbital was limited to a payload of about 400 kg to orbit. The Pegasus has a diameter of 1.2 m. There are no airliners with enough ground clearance to fit a Falcon 9-sized vehicle underneath (3.6 m diameter), and no amount of overfilling the gear oleos is going to get you there.
T-LAD does nothing to reduce the ground clearance needed.
The only aircraft that could possibly drop-launch a Falcon-sized vehicle are high-wing transports like the C-5 and the An-124. The last airliner to get close to 3 m ground clearance was the Tupolev 114.

Falcon "derived" LV actually, as in "Falcon-1-ish" not an actual Falcon-9. See:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20130000446.pdf
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120000791.pdf

t/LAD was not about reducing the ground clearance it was about getting the LV to a "proper" launch angle without using wings which significantly reduces the actual LV payload unless significantly integrated with the LV. (Which is technically is in the SSS system, but is not with Pegasus or the DARPA systems, part of the reason they don't have the same payload capacity)

A good list of the 'issues' with top-launch is here:
http://mae.engr.ucdavis.edu/faculty/sarigul/papers/AIAA-2008-7835.pdf

As noted the cost of modification for the L1011 wasn't that much but you might be thinking of the cost of modification cited in the above study for the 747, (@20 million) which has been quoted here before. Pretty much the more the LV weighs the more systems conversion costs, and the more existing 'infrastructure' you can use the more you save. (IIRC VG is using the 747's "Engine Ferry" hard-point near the wing root for the basis of the Launch One carry point which actually should help since the 747 is designed to carry something there in the first place)

In the end S3 is going to have to modify the A340 to carry a significant amount of mass in a position that it was never designed to carry there and reinforce the airframe to stand loading and stress it wasn't designed to handle on a regular basis. IF their LV can actually "glide" off the top in a similar manner to the earliest Shuttle drop tests, (before they removed the tail-cone covering the engines) that will help a lot but it's still going to cost quite a bit. More than the L1011 but probably a bit less than the t/LAD projection, maybe.

Randy

[Borklund]

They posted another Zero G/watch ad:



Still no sign of SOAR

[SwissCheese]

Sad news from S3, the CEO was attacked and severely wounded:

http://www.tdg.ch/suisse/suisse-romandepatron-s3-sauvagement-agresse/story/26698862 (in French)
http://www.thelocal.ch/20160905/swiss-space-firm-boss-left-badly-injured-in-violent-attack (summary in English)

Looks like it's directly related to S3 activities. This follows the malicious flooding of their servers last year. Very strange things going on there...

[Rocket Science]

Terrible news... My hopes and prayers for a best recovery...

[Oli]

Sad news from S3, the CEO was attacked and severely wounded:

http://www.tdg.ch/suisse/suisse-romandepatron-s3-sauvagement-agresse/story/26698862 (in French)
http://www.thelocal.ch/20160905/swiss-space-firm-boss-left-badly-injured-in-violent-attack (summary in English)

Looks like it's directly related to S3 activities. This follows the malicious flooding of their servers last year. Very strange things going on there...

Totally crazy. Wtf did they get into?

[high road]

The French article makes it sound as if this would be an attack from competitors. Highly unlikely, considering the limited number of newspace startups, and oldspace having bigger enemies than some small startup that is a long way to proving itself. Shady funding methods, in a country where it's hard to make the distinction between good and bad money if you ask me. Or disgruntled employees. But that's less likely.

This is another example of a growing problem in Switzerland. Let's hope they find a way to stop these (sorry, need to stop here for a second and just say that I have to use stupid words to get my point across. I know that means I must have a weak argument, but that's why I use bad words). style tactics sooner rather than later. Every victim is a tragedy.

[jongoff]

Regardless of who did this or why (I do hope the illegitimi who did this get caught), this is horrific. I'm glad to hear the victim survived and sounds like he's recovering. Here's to a speedy recovery, and that whoever did this gets brought to justice.

~Jon

[Bynaus]

Yes terrible, and very surprising in its extreme violence - and definetly not the kind of assault people here have learned to expect around here. I hope he gets well soon.

The whole thing seems off on an high level. I agree it seems very unlikely that this event has anything to do with "strong competition" or the goal of "democratiziation of space", although Jaussi himself said that they were under a lot of pressure lately (from the article, in an interview given in April this year).

But, as the article says, there are other "strategically sensitive" companies in Switzerland - without this kind of thing happening to their leaders... It would either seem to be S3 being involved (somehow) with the wrong kind of people (which I sincerely hope is not the case) or a random crazy event that has just nothing to do with Jaussi, S3 and their plans.

[Oli]

Shady funding methods, in a country where it's hard to make the distinction between good and bad money if you ask me.

That is mostly a cliché, Switzerland is one of the least corrupt countries on the planet. I cannot remember a business leader ever being targeted by organized crime or similar.

That said, it's hard to find another explanation. According to the media the company has been subject to threats, espionage, wiretaps for a while. But who would do this?

An air-launched Mach 10 dynamic soar vehicle has potentially other applications than launching small satellites, but it's not like they have a huge budget and are doing something that couldn't be reproduced by others. Killing the CEO would also be a silly way to deal with it.

[SwissCheese]

Some more news:

Pascal Jaussi is recovering, so good news on this side.

http://www.tdg.ch/suisse/suisse-romande/Pascal-Jaussi-C-est-dur-Jai-mal-Mais-je-vais-continuer-a-me-battre/story/19683338
http://www.thelocal.ch/20160907/space-genius-jaussi-i-will-get-back-to-work

Btw, I know him a little, he was my first lieutenant in the military service 16 years ago.

Then, a newspaper (by far not the best in Switzerland I'll admit ) is speculating, with some good substantiation, that it may be related to a breach of contract by a Chinese company. Seems they did some business with the wrong people.

http://www.lematin.ch/faits-divers/trahi-groupe-chinois/story/22180392

[ringsider]

Then, a newspaper (by far not the best in Switzerland I'll admit ) is speculating, with some good substantiation, that it may be related to a breach of contract by a Chinese company. Seems they did some business with the wrong people.

http://www.lematin.ch/faits-divers/trahi-groupe-chinois/story/22180392

They also signed some contracts with Russian companies in Sochi in 2014 for various shuttle designs. I know S3 is involved in some contractual issues with various partners, I wonder if somebody wants their money back?

[Bynaus]

Some more news:

Pascal Jaussi is recovering, so good news on this side.

http://www.tdg.ch/suisse/suisse-romande/Pascal-Jaussi-C-est-dur-Jai-mal-Mais-je-vais-continuer-a-me-battre/story/19683338
http://www.thelocal.ch/20160907/space-genius-jaussi-i-will-get-back-to-work

Btw, I know him a little, he was my first lieutenant in the military service 16 years ago.

Then, a newspaper (by far not the best in Switzerland I'll admit ) is speculating, with some good substantiation, that it may be related to a breach of contract by a Chinese company. Seems they did some business with the wrong people.

http://www.lematin.ch/faits-divers/trahi-groupe-chinois/story/22180392

I have never heard of this company (Recon) before. But according to some of these articles, S3 has some financial problems - perhaps they were just grasping at all the straws they could get.

[ringsider]

Well it is a fact they increased capitalization from 100K CHF to a jolly 30M CHF in March 2016:

Dernières publications FOSC pour S3 Solutions SA
FOSC 65 / 2016 - 05.04.2016
Modifications

Numéro de publication: 2760545, 2 - Modifications, Numéro du registre du commerce: 550, Vaud

S3 Solutions SA, à Payerne, CHE-378.623.418 (FOSC du 20.05.2014, p. 0/1510511). Statuts modifiés le 30 mars 2016. Augmentation ordinaire du capital-actions par apport en nature selon contrat du 30 mars 2016: garantie bancaire établie par Axios Credit Bank, à Singapour (Singapour), portant sur l'obligation inconditionnelle de libérer et verser une somme de USD 30'000'000 et étant considérée comme un titre, pour CHF 28'900'000; en contrepartie, il est remis 2'890'000 actions de CHF 10. Nouveau capital-actions entièrement libéré: CHF 29'000'000, divisé en 100'000 actions nominatives de CHF 1, privilégiées quant au droit de vote, et 2'890'000 actions nominatives de CHF 10, toutes avec restrictions quant à la transmissibilité selon statuts. Communications aux actionnaires: par lettre ou par courriel.
FOSC 96 / 2014 - 20.05.2014
Nouvelles inscriptions

Numéro de publication: 1510511, 1 - Nouvelles inscriptions, Numéro du registre du commerce: 550, Vaud

S3 Solutions SA, à Payerne, Z.I. La Palaz A 3, 1530 Payerne, CHE-378.623.418. Nouvelle société anonyme. Statuts: 13 mai 2014. But: la société a pour but la commercialisation de produits de Swiss Space Systems comprenant le vol zéro gravité, la vente de lancement et tous autres dérivés de la marque S3 ou Swiss Space Systems (pour but complet cf. statuts). Capital-actions: CHF 100'000, entièrement libéré, divisé en 100'000 actions nominatives de CHF 1, avec restrictions quant à la transmissibilité selon statuts. Organe de publication: Feuille officielle suisse du commerce. Administration: Jaussi Pascal, de Wattenwil, à Murist, avec signature individuelle. Selon déclaration du 13 mai 2014, la société n'est pas soumise à une révision ordinaire et renonce à une révision restreinte.

[Oli]

Then, a newspaper (by far not the best in Switzerland I'll admit ) is speculating, with some good substantiation, that it may be related to a breach of contract by a Chinese company. Seems they did some business with the wrong people.

http://www.lematin.ch/faits-divers/trahi-groupe-chinois/story/22180392

Short summary:

Recon Group released a communiqué speaking of "vast perspectives for military applications" of its "strategic collaboration" with S3, hereby (according to S3) violating a clause in the contract. S3 claims it lost "dozens of millions" as a result and sued Recon Group for damages.

Looks like the company is walking a minefield with its international approach.

This must not be related to the violent attack of course, there are other (though less convincing) theories. Nothing official from authorities yet.

[ringsider]

This report from Swiss TV station SRF paints a pretty bleak picture about S3 (in German):-

http://www.srf.ch/news/schweiz/die-vielen-schulden-des-pascal-jaussi

But you don't need to understand German to get the gist. They show official lists of debtors chasing S3 for 6.6M CHF in debts, including 1.4M CHF to Qinetiq, 400K CHF to Deimos Space, amounts owing to AXA Winterthur Pensions, individual employees (their own in-house counsel, Ntorina Antoni is chasing them for  a 49K CHF payment) and even the Swiss state for unpaid employer social security contributions (AHV).

There is key board member discussing openly the dire finances, employees discussing being let go for lack of funds last year and showing reference letters that discuss the economics, and when the interviewer shows up at the main office there's nobody there, and nobody taking calls...

[Bynaus]

It's over: Swiss Space Systems has been declared bankrupt. See article (in German):

http://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/wirtschaft/unternehmen-und-konjunktur/waadtlaender-raumfahrtunternehmen-in-konkurs-geschickt/story/25630574

A court in the canton of Vaud (where S3 is domiciled) has declared the company bankrupt. They originally had an extension which would have allowed them to continue on until March, but that has been revoked as new claims have come up since September. S3 have 10 days to appeal the decision.

There is not more new info in the article (just rehashing the history of the company, its goals and the attack on founder Pascal Jaussi back in August).

[Robotbeat]

Does bankrupt mean they're being liquidated?

[Bynaus]

Just found this short article (use your chance to hear some Swiss German in the video... ): http://www.srf.ch/news/schweiz/schweizer-traum-vom-all-zerplatzt

It contains a statement by S3 (attached below). Translation: "S3 will challenge the court's decision, as it is false to claim that S3 is overindebted. In the near future, we will have additional captial of 30 million CHF at our disposal and will be able to serve the demands of our creditors."

So - perhaps it's not the end, after all.

[ringsider]

Just found this short article (use your chance to hear some Swiss German in the video... ): http://www.srf.ch/news/schweiz/schweizer-traum-vom-all-zerplatzt

It contains a statement by S3 (attached below). Translation: "S3 will challenge the court's decision, as it is false to claim that S3 is overindebted. In the near future, we will have additional captial of 30 million CHF at our disposal and will be able to serve the demands of our creditors."

So - perhaps it's not the end, after all.

Interesting the German word for creditor is "Glaubiger", which I think means  "believer" as well...

[high road]

Just found this short article (use your chance to hear some Swiss German in the video... ): http://www.srf.ch/news/schweiz/schweizer-traum-vom-all-zerplatzt

It contains a statement by S3 (attached below). Translation: "S3 will challenge the court's decision, as it is false to claim that S3 is overindebted. In the near future, we will have additional captial of 30 million CHF at our disposal and will be able to serve the demands of our creditors."

So - perhaps it's not the end, after all.

Interesting the German word for creditor is "Glaubiger", which I think means  "believer" as well...

Creditor comes from 'credere', 'to believe'. So it all means the same thing. You believe the debtor will pay you back later, or you would not have lent him the money/given him credit.

[Oli]

I think Mr. Jaussi is going a bit too far to fulfill his dream, given the shady company he had to deal with. I sincerely hope this new-found creditor doesn't fall into the same category.

It's just really difficult to get into this industry with zero capital and no government support.

[DatUser14]

S3 has declared bankruptcy http://www.thelocal.ch/20161216/swiss-space-firm-declared-bankrupt

[Bynaus]

S3 has declared bankruptcy http://www.thelocal.ch/20161216/swiss-space-firm-declared-bankrupt

This refers to the same event already discussed above. I have tried to find more info whether they actually appealed the decision within the 10 days, but haven't found anything so far. Website is still up (although that doesn't mean anything).

EDIT: Upon checking again, I found this.

http://www.blick.ch/news/schweiz/weltraum-pionier-jaussi-hofft-auf-neustart-ist-kroatien-die-rettung-fuer-swiss-space-systems-id6096020.html

According to that (tabloid) article, S3 appealed, but then retracted the appeal, and has been declared bankrupt last week. Now it seems they hope that the company can be re-incorporated by its dependency in Croatia (!?!). According to Jaussi, funding in Croatia is coming from "private sources" and "the state", as "in Croatia, they know that this bankruptcy was premature and mainly due to the court not allowing S3 to pay back its debts in due time".

[Bynaus]

Another article today (not directly related to S3 but indirectly via Jaussi): Swiss authorities are investigating whether the attack on Jaussi actually happened. After looking into mobile phone data, and talking to over 40 people, prosecution suspects the attack never happened, and are now charging Jaussi with intent to mislead, arson and forgery of documents.

http://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/panorama/vermischtes/hat-jaussi-den-brutalen-ueberfall-erfunden/story/14001366

Curiouser and curiouser...

[ringsider]

Another article today (not directly related to S3 but indirectly via Jaussi): Swiss authorities are investigating whether the attack on Jaussi actually happened. After looking into mobile phone data, and talking to over 40 people, prosecution suspects the attack never happened, and are now charging Jaussi with intent to mislead, arson and forgery of documents.

http://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/panorama/vermischtes/hat-jaussi-den-brutalen-ueberfall-erfunden/story/14001366

Curiouser and curiouser...

This is surreal. Was it maybe a suicide attempt when he knew the company was going under?

[LouScheffer]

Another article today (not directly related to S3 but indirectly via Jaussi): Swiss authorities are investigating whether the attack on Jaussi actually happened. After looking into mobile phone data, and talking to over 40 people, prosecution suspects the attack never happened, and are now charging Jaussi with intent to mislead, arson and forgery of documents.

http://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/panorama/vermischtes/hat-jaussi-den-brutalen-ueberfall-erfunden/story/14001366

Curiouser and curiouser...

This type of behavior is not unheard of.  At a company where I worked:

In this case, the CEO of Aptix, Amr Mohsen, forged a notebook in order to make the patent case stronger. When suspicions were raised, he staged a break-in of his own car to get rid of the evidence, resulting in charges of obstruction of justice. Trying to avoid this, he attempted to flee the country, only to be caught with an illegal passport and a pile of cash. While in jail for this offense, he was recorded offering money to intimidate witnesses and kill the judge.[20] In order to fight the new charges, he tried to feign psychological problems, but left a trail of evidence of his research into this defense, and how it might be done. He was charged with attempting to delay a federal trial by feigning incompetency,[21] but was convicted anyway.[22] According to the lawyers concerned,[19] the original notebooks were not needed for the trial. The patent filing date, which was not in dispute, would have sufficed.

Perhaps some CEOs get where they are by always fighting, not matter the odds.  It's a good strategy until it isn't.

[Bynaus]

Not sure if anyone is still following this (or interested, for that matter), but according to the following article (in french, the Tribune de Genève is a large news paper in Geneva), the furniture at the seat of the former company is going to be auctioned off in an attempt to recoup at least part of the losses, apparently that seat cost about 1 million Swiss Francs (about 1 M$)... one might question whether that was well-invested money for a start-up.

http://www.tdg.ch/economie/entreprises/reliques-aventure-s3-mises-vente/story/20154078

According to the article, the company is still not completely dead, at least on paper. So Jaussi still seems hopeful to re-start the company from its croation subsidy, but the former Sovjet military base on which the latter is, well, based, is now being set up - according to croatian media - to become a nuclear waste repository. Well then...

[ChrisWilson68]

Not sure if anyone is still following this (or interested, for that matter),

I'm still interested.  Please keep posting any additional info you find.

[ringsider]

Weird little piece about SSS - a complaint letter to a broadcaster about unfairness - that reveals some of the DNA and phone record evidence against Pascal Jaussi:-

https://www.srgd.ch/de/aktuelles/news/2017/03/10/schweiz-aktuell-vom-29-januar-2017-beanstandet/

(You will need to run it through Google translate and have a very free mind for the translation output....)

Still not sure if this is actually legally resolved, does anyone know?