Swiss Space Systems - reusable air-launched vehicle

[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