meiza - 6/3/2007 7:45 AMGF3, would it be possible to get a Q&A with some Rocketplane engineers?
stefan1138 - 10/3/2007 7:38 AMSorry, a bit off topic, if Rockteplane is successfull, would it be (economically) practical to convert an even bigger aircraft from jet to suborbital spaceship (for example a small airliner like a CRJ or even a B737)?Stefan
bad_astra - 10/3/2007 11:21 AMQuotestefan1138 - 10/3/2007 7:38 AMSorry, a bit off topic, if Rockteplane is successfull, would it be (economically) practical to convert an even bigger aircraft from jet to suborbital spaceship (for example a small airliner like a CRJ or even a B737)?Stefan Maybe a Concorde?
GF3 - 6/3/2007 3:20 PMQuotemeiza - 6/3/2007 7:45 AMGF3, would it be possible to get a Q&A with some Rocketplane engineers?Its possible. We setup a web cast 3 weeks back with Microsoft for the Vanishing point game. We had a few engineers and the Dave Faulkner take part in it. I will see what I can do. Right now I can tell you we can do it but it depends on time. Everyone is pretty busy lately so when I can get some people to free up some time we can do it.
bad_astra - 10/3/2007 1:03 PMI can't see any use for a very large suborbital. The market for $200,000 joyrides is never going to be that great, and isn't going to be composed of the type of people who enjoy sitting in coach.
simonbp - 11/3/2007 6:02 PMQuotebad_astra - 10/3/2007 1:03 PMI can't see any use for a very large suborbital. The market for $200,000 joyrides is never going to be that great, and isn't going to be composed of the type of people who enjoy sitting in coach.The market is for trans-atlantic and -pacific flights, replacing the 0.8 mach airliners of today. If you can get a sub-orbital passenger/mail flight for only slightly more than an airliner flight, the market for very large suborbital aerospacecraft will open right up. The problem is finding a way to get there...Simon
zealot - 13/3/2007 5:23 AMthe cost of arianne 5 launch, cant remember what was the exact payload mass, but i guess it must have been comparable to that of arianne. there were different options considered, some of them not very realistic, this one was deemed realistic. here'swhat it looked like: sometihing like two arianne 5 core stages, with the engines adapted for reusability, lying side by side, with a cylindrical cargo bay, also more or less A5 sized, lying on top, crossection would look something like a clover leaf. all that 'wrapped' in a lifting body craft. (by the way, they decided core stage is too large for parachute recovery, so all designs were winged or lifting bodies). It would take of horizontally from coururoa and land somewhere across the atlantic. which, I guess, would mean a logistical nightmare of getting it back. the non reusable orbital stage would be ejected at the top of the arc, through the hatch IN THE BACK of the cargo bay. the paper was from the nineties, 94 or so and the plan was to start implementing it in...wait for it... 2007. but i found their another quite recent paper, which i didnt even bother to read, dealing with the same stuff. in other words, they only order them to keep their guys employed, just like nasa. but that doesnt mean that the findings are wrong.now, since rocketplane is now working with kistler, i think using the experience from XP to stuff some K1 engines and other systems up an airliner's or cargo's butt is the logical next step. and you could, after landing, just turn it round and cruise back to lounch site like a normal jet, so better than ariane project. rocketplane man, what say you?
zealot - 13/3/2007 3:43 PMScrew FAA, go abroad. There must be a country with more cooperative attitude, and after all the beauty of most of the new space systems is that they are easily 'portable', that definitely includes you.That thing with the media looks like a sentence too far, unless you can back it up.As for the 'who first' ranking, what about this: public.blueorigin.com/index.html -impressive, huh?
zealot - 13/3/2007 1:43 PMScrew FAA, go abroad. There must be a country with more cooperative attitude, and after all the beauty of most of the new space systems is that they are easily 'portable', that definitely includes you.
zealot - 13/3/2007 6:23 AMthe cost of arianne 5 launch, cant remember what was the exact payload mass, but i guess it must have been comparable to that of arianne. there were different options considered, some of them not very realistic, this one was deemed realistic. here'swhat it looked like: sometihing like two arianne 5 core stages, with the engines adapted for reusability, lying side by side, with a cylindrical cargo bay, also more or less A5 sized, lying on top, crossection would look something like a clover leaf. all that 'wrapped' in a lifting body craft. (by the way, they decided core stage is too large for parachute recovery, so all designs were winged or lifting bodies). It would take of horizontally from coururoa and land somewhere across the atlantic. which, I guess, would mean a logistical nightmare of getting it back. the non reusable orbital stage would be ejected at the top of the arc, through the hatch IN THE BACK of the cargo bay. the paper was from the nineties, 94 or so and the plan was to start implementing it in...wait for it... 2007. but i found their another quite recent paper, which i didnt even bother to read, dealing with the same stuff. in other words, they only order them to keep their guys employed, just like nasa. but that doesnt mean that the findings are wrong.now, since rocketplane is now working with kistler, i think using the experience from XP to stuff some K1 engines and other systems up an airliner's or cargo's butt is the logical next step. and you could, after landing, just turn it round and cruise back to lounch site like a normal jet, so better than ariane project. rocketplane man, what say you?
