Airbus suborbital "Spaceplane"

[docmordrid]

http://m.space.com/24901-europe-space-plane-drop-test.html

European Commercial Space Plane Prototype Set for May Drop Test

A European space plane project will take to the skies a few months from now for a crucial test.
>

[Falcon H]

Is this the same as the old EADS Astrium spaceplane from 2007?

[manboy]

Is this the same as the old EADS Astrium spaceplane from 2007?

From the article

"Spaceplane’s design has two turbofan engines, located on either side of the rear of the fuselage, like a business jet. These engines power the first part of its ascent before the vehicle's rocket motor is ignited. This is unchanged from the 2007 design, as is the rocket motor, which is being designed by Airbus Defence and Space and uses a combination of oxygen and methane.

Changes to the suborbital Spaceplane design since 2007 include the removal of its canard, a small winglike structure on its nose, that can aid lift on takeoff and help with in-flight maneuvering. For Spaceplane, the canard was also designed to aid the atmospheric re-entry. The exact re-entry and descent profile of Spaceplane has never been revealed, and Chavagnac declined to give Space.com flight profile details.

Spaceplane’s wing has also changed, with a slender design being replaced by a more conventional style. Chavagnac described the new Spaceplane design as looking "heavily" like French business jet manufacturer Dassault’s Falcon 7X."

[Oli]

Any indication this has gone into full-scale development? To me it looks like its being kept alive until the market has been tested by others.

[MickQ]

I vaguely  remember a similar project some years ago with a Lear 25 but that's all I know.

Mick.

[Ben the Space Brit]

This has the feeling of a 'feeler' being extended to see if anyone in the market is interested in funding development.

In some ways, it's a shame that it has happened at a time of an economic downturn and a general retreat from ambitious R&D by aerospace companies. I can see that this could be useful as a super-fast courier for small governmental cargoes and ultra-priority personnel insertion/return.

[Lars_J]

In some ways, it's a shame that it has happened at a time of an economic downturn and a general retreat from ambitious R&D by aerospace companies. I can see that this could be useful as a super-fast courier for small governmental cargoes and ultra-priority personnel insertion/return.

Not really. Suborbital does not translate to point-to-point travel. In order for that to be possible, the vehicle would need much closer to orbital speed to be able to cover any decent distance. (I.e. LA to NY) You need the delta-V equivalent of a intercontinental ballistic missile.

Suborbital craft like SS2 or Lynx could never hope to cover those kinds of distances.

[Robotbeat]

No, but a (much bigger) hydrogen-oxygen Lynx /might/. Heck, if the orbital 2-stage ultra-Lynx (not talking about the tiny Mark III Lynx with the pod) is cheap enough, that should do the trick.

[yg1968]

I vaguely  remember a similar project some years ago with a Lear 25 but that's all I know.

Mick.

Yes, it's the same one. It was never cancelled. It was just put on the back burner.

[a_langwich]

Odd that the prototype is being built and tested in Singapore.  Is the Dassault 7X manufactured there?

[rusty]

... Suborbital does not translate to point-to-point travel. ... Suborbital craft like SS2 or Lynx could never hope to cover those kinds of distances.

Yes, this is a roller coaster for the uber-wealthy just like SS2 and Lynx, but I'd disagree with the blanket statement "Suborbital does not translate to point-to-point travel." The term is currently used for zoom and balloon flights, but can also mean intercontinental flights at extreme altitudes.

[a_langwich]

No, but a (much bigger) hydrogen-oxygen Lynx /might/. Heck, if the orbital 2-stage ultra-Lynx (not talking about the tiny Mark III Lynx with the pod) is cheap enough, that should do the trick.

Bigger, with thermal protection, and a different aerodynamic design since Mach 1 to Mach 3 isn't the dominant flight regime.  Which requires bigger engines and bigger tanks, which feeds back and increases everything again.

Point-to-point is a long way off, if the suborbital companies are struggling to field even the first operational suborbital plane.  I agree with Lars_J:  the deltaV requirements for point-to-point are much larger.  It certainly would seem easier for an orbital launch company to drop back to suborbital point-to-point...Boeing, for example, could be a fierce competitor.

[a_langwich]

I vaguely  remember a similar project some years ago with a Lear 25 but that's all I know.

Mick.

Is that Generation Orbit?

[dcporter]

... Suborbital does not translate to point-to-point travel. ... Suborbital craft like SS2 or Lynx could never hope to cover those kinds of distances.

Yes, this is a roller coaster for the uber-wealthy just like SS2 and Lynx, but I'd disagree with the blanket statement "Suborbital does not translate to point-to-point travel." The term is currently used for zoom and balloon flights, but can also mean intercontinental flights at extreme altitudes.

Whatever the meaning of the words, the point is that dV difference between small, local, suborbital joyride space-plane and something that can go ballistically from LA to NY is enormous and prohibitive. Going from LA to NY is much closer to going to ISS than it is getting six minutes of parabolic weightlessness over New Mexico. If you start with an SS2 or a Lynx or an Airbus Spaceplane, that doesn't translate into point-to-point travel.

[MickQ]

I vaguely  remember a similar project some years ago with a Lear 25 but that's all I know.

Mick.

Is that Generation Orbit?

No. The one I saw was a plan to fit a rocket motor in the rear fuselage of a Learjet, in the same configuration as the Airbus craft.

Mick.

[Kryten]

No. The one I saw was a plan to fit a rocket motor in the rear fuselage of a Learjet, in the same configuration as the Airbus craft.
Mick.

That sounds like Rocketplanes' original XP design; there's a picture of it here about mid-way down the page. They went bankrupt in 2010, but there's clearly something left of them, or their site wouldn't still be up.

[rusty]

Whatever the meaning of the words (suborbital), the point is that dV difference between small, local, suborbital joyride space-plane and something that can go ballistically from LA to NY is enormous and prohibitive. ...

Agreed, but suborbital needn't suggest ballistic either. A hundred years ago mankind discovered flight. Eighty years ago they suggested skip flight and fifty years ago revisited it. Recently the notion has been returned to.

SS2, Lynx and these zooming business jets may be "suborbital" as are balloons and ICBMs/RCBMs, but so is extreme altitude skip flight. The latter the only real "spaceplane" with transportation capabilities.

[Lars_J]

Whatever the meaning of the words (suborbital), the point is that dV difference between small, local, suborbital joyride space-plane and something that can go ballistically from LA to NY is enormous and prohibitive. ...

Agreed, but suborbital needn't suggest ballistic either. A hundred years ago mankind discovered flight. Eighty years ago they suggested skip flight and fifty years ago revisited it. Recently the notion has been returned to.

SS2, Lynx and these zooming business jets may be "suborbital" as are balloons and ICBMs/RCBMs, but so is extreme altitude skip flight. The latter the only real "spaceplane" with transportation capabilities.

There is nothing about extreme altitude skip flight that saves any of the delta-V required. You still have to spend the energy to get you there, *and* you have to deal with more atmospheric friction.

Sure, if you have some sort of fancy air-breathing engine, like a scramjet or what the Skylon people are promoting, then it is plausible. But that would be a very different type of vehicle than what the current suborbital players are proposing. And significantly larger as well.

So I reiterate - The current suborbital "joyride"/pop-up designs do not lend themselves to point-to-point transportation.

[rusty]

SS2, Lynx and these zooming business jets may be "suborbital" as are balloons and ICBMs/RCBMs, but so is extreme altitude skip flight. The latter the only real "spaceplane" with transportation capabilities.

1) There is nothing about extreme altitude skip flight that saves any of the delta-V required.

2) You still have to spend the energy to get you there, *and* you have to deal with more atmospheric friction. Sure, if you have some sort of fancy air-breathing engine, like a scramjet or what the Skylon people are promoting, then it is plausible.

3) But that would be a very different type of vehicle than what the current suborbital players are proposing. And significantly larger as well. The current suborbital "joyride"/pop-up designs do not lend themselves to point-to-point transportation.

Re1) Compared to what? Yes, it requires more energy than zero transit, but a lot less than ballistic flight.
Re2) You appear unfamiliar with the concept, much less the specifics.
Re3) Yes, no, and thanks for agreeing with me.

[Lars_J]

If you consider a high altitude balloon as "suborbital" as "suborbital" is used in this context, I don't think we are agreeing on much at all.