Rocketplane XP

[Jim]

zealot - 13/3/2007  5:43 PM

Screw 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?

Great idea and you can never fly it in the US.   Great business decision, make your largest market unavailable

[gladiator1332]

Jim - 14/3/2007  4:39 PM

zealot - 13/3/2007  5:43 PM

Screw 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?

Great idea and you can never fly it in the US.   Great business decision, make your largest market unavailable

I agree with Jim, you can't say screw you to the FAA. While the rules in place do make it difficult for the Rocketplane XP to operate from point to point, you have to remember, right now the airlines hold the priority at the major airports. Until point to point space travel becomes more popular, airports will become spaceports. For now, however, there is no way that the FAA will budge on this, and it is better for Rocketplane to work around it and operate out of established spaceports.

[zealot]

that bit about legging it for venezuela quite obviously wasn't serious. That's what these little smily faces tend to signify.
The bit about obsession, that I ment. And not because you don't get to share priceless technologies with less advanced nations in some generous spasm of charity, but because you don't get to SELL them. The price for being able to operate on the largest market that is USA is being cut off from so many others.
For example, you are stuck with space tourism as a main source of revenue on which to start your bussiness. What if instead you could open a production line for XP's or any other of the new designs and make your profits from selling them? Impossible with current regulations.
Allso, you are cut off from many convenient launch sites.
Offering payload launch services, should you develop them, to many foreign customers-restricted.
Cooperation with foreign engineers -restricted.
 And what about foreign financing, joint ventures and such?
You can't get away from beurocratic restrictions, launchers like kistler or spacex are forced to rely for bussiness on the government programs, with all their whimsy, And you can't escape from the unfair competition from nasa or govt favorites like Lokheed or Boeing. So yes, you can't afford to make off in the middle of the night, but don't you sometimes wish you could ?

[zealot]

gladiator1332 - 14/3/2007  5:40 PM

Jim - 14/3/2007  4:39 PM

zealot - 13/3/2007  5:43 PM

Screw 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?

Great idea and you can never fly it in the US.   Great business decision, make your largest market unavailable

I agree with Jim, you can't say screw you to the FAA. While the rules in place do make it difficult for the Rocketplane XP to operate from point to point, you have to remember, right now the airlines hold the priority at the major airports. Until point to point space travel becomes more popular, airports will become spaceports. For now, however, there is no way that the FAA will budge on this, and it is better for Rocketplane to work around it and operate out of established spaceports.

Agreed. But I was actually thinking ahead, about eventual payload launch services. That must be their ultimate goal, because the tourist market won't last long (untill the novelty wears off or untill the first accident, whichever comes first).

[zealot]

gladiator1332 - 14/3/2007  12:03 PM


I'm thinking of an idea for orbital (and I'm sure the great people at Rocketplane are doing the same)...why not launch it piggyback on the K1. Not only is this good for orbital tourism, but it would be used for sub-orbital as well. The military was also looking at similar idea with a X-37 like vehicle mounted piggyback on a DC-X like launcher.


And for those interested, here is an interview that the Space Review Conducted awhile back:

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/343/1  

Still would like to have a Q & A on here if it is possible. But we know everybody at RP is really busy right now...keep up the good work guys, and we're pulling for you all!  

Problem would be  with adapting XP for reentry at orbital speed.
By the way, to engineers out there, would fitting a regular aircraft, or something like XP, with a disc shaped reentry shield  on something like a boom protruding from the nose have any chance of solving that problem? The shield could tilt edge on for atmospheric flight to keep it aerodynamic, and 'flat side' on for reentry.  
A spaceplane would re-enter like a capsule, nose first, hiding in the wake of the shield.
  Thats my own half-baked idea, so no one says I don't fit in

[AntiKev]

So now you want to put a big, draggy heat shield out in front, not only that, on a locking gimbal?  Just purpose-build a spacecraft if you want to go to space.

[zealot]

AntiKev - 15/3/2007  12:48 PM

So now you want to put a big, draggy heat shield out in front, not only that, on a locking gimbal?  Just purpose-build a spacecraft if you want to go to space.

Well, that told me.

I did say it's a half-baked idea, my engineering knowledge is on the discovery channel level, plus heaps of zeal and enthusiasm.
 As for aerodynamics, i was inspired by the AWACS radar. That flies, so I tought, maybe?
Why do you think gimbal makes it worse? If a hinge was built within the aerodynamic structure of the shield, it should be fairly streamlined. And perhaps you could even get some lift out of it by tilting it at the right angle?
Anyway, you wouldn't need the complicated shielding that a winged craft like the shuttle requires, so maybe it could be even considerd for the purpose built space-planes. The discussion here was about XP, which is a converted aircraft, and about using that experience to convert larger aircrafts. If you think that's a generally bad idea, objection noted. Now let's see what comes out of it in practice. I'm not going to pretend to know how it's going to end.

[Danderman]

GF3 - 13/3/2007  9:34 AM   why do you think we aren't mentioned in the media at all?? Our competitors realize this and pay to keep us out.

I would love to learn how to do that!

 

[GF3]

its quite easy actually.... You have to talk to like the associated press and when they are doing article that would have you and your competitors in it for some money they can leave them out.

for example you will get a sentence like this.

Obviously, experience with the Japanese system will be extremely useful when the time comes to use SpaceX’s or similar COTS-derived systems.

But I am not making accusations at any specific company. I don't know who does this type of strategy.  But this is a dead subject, its a alternate way for the media to make a little extra money.

[AntiKev]

zealot - 15/3/2007  7:21 PM

AntiKev - 15/3/2007  12:48 PM

So now you want to put a big, draggy heat shield out in front, not only that, on a locking gimbal?  Just purpose-build a spacecraft if you want to go to space.

Well, that told me.

I did say it's a half-baked idea, my engineering knowledge is on the discovery channel level, plus heaps of zeal and enthusiasm.
 As for aerodynamics, i was inspired by the AWACS radar. That flies, so I tought, maybe?
Why do you think gimbal makes it worse? If a hinge was built within the aerodynamic structure of the shield, it should be fairly streamlined. And perhaps you could even get some lift out of it by tilting it at the right angle?
Anyway, you wouldn't need the complicated shielding that a winged craft like the shuttle requires, so maybe it could be even considerd for the purpose built space-planes. The discussion here was about XP, which is a converted aircraft, and about using that experience to convert larger aircrafts. If you think that's a generally bad idea, objection noted. Now let's see what comes out of it in practice. I'm not going to pretend to know how it's going to end.

This thing would not even be in the ballpark of the AWACS dome.  This has to cover the ENTIRE structure of the vehicle.  So even something as small as a Learjet would require the ENTIRE wingspan to be covered.  You're better off to invest in heat-shield material for the airframe and a strengthened wing spar.  You want to swing this huge hemispherical shield about while flying at mach 0.9 or some such, so you need a hydraulic system to go with it.  Then you need the gimbal to lock, and you're now balancing the entire mass of an airliner and betting that the gimbal won't fail under the stresses.  As far as getting lift from it, yeah you'll get lift, but DEFINATELY not enough to counteract the drag.  Not to mention the absurdity of the whole idea.  Sorry, I don't mean to shoot you down as harsh as I'm sounding, but this has half-baked written all over it.  But in writing this response I'm not 100% sure that I have your concept understood as well as I think I do.

[kevin-rf]

GF3 - 16/3/2007  10:29 AM

its quite easy actually.... You have to talk to like the associated press and when they are doing article that would have you and your competitors in it for some money they can leave them out.

for example you will get a sentence like this.

Obviously, experience with the Japanese system will be extremely useful when the time comes to use SpaceX’s or similar COTS-derived systems.

But I am not making accusations at any specific company. I don't know who does this type of strategy.  But this is a dead subject, its a alternate way for the media to make a little extra money.

So you forgot to pay this guy I take...

http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/1867

(For the satired impared, it's ment to be read by the tin foil hat crowd only)

I would never assume it is media payola as much as the company answered the reporters questions when asked, and therefore the reporter was familar with them and knew how to spell SpaceX.

[zealot]

AntiKev - 16/3/2007  11:05 AM


This thing would not even be in the ballpark of the AWACS dome.  This has to cover the ENTIRE structure of the vehicle.  So even something as small as a Learjet would require the ENTIRE wingspan to be covered.  You're better off to invest in heat-shield material for the airframe and a strengthened wing spar.  You want to swing this huge hemispherical shield about while flying at mach 0.9 or some such, so you need a hydraulic system to go with it.  Then you need the gimbal to lock, and you're now balancing the entire mass of an airliner and betting that the gimbal won't fail under the stresses.  As far as getting lift from it, yeah you'll get lift, but DEFINATELY not enough to counteract the drag.  Not to mention the absurdity of the whole idea.  Sorry, I don't mean to shoot you down as harsh as I'm sounding, but this has half-baked written all over it.  But in writing this response I'm not 100% sure that I have your concept understood as well as I think I do.

As for gimball having to withstand stresses-agreed, it would.

as for balancing, I did consider that, and thought that the surface of the wings and tail stering surfaces, being LARGER than the surface of the shield, could act like quill on the arrow. Since that is a stretch, I was thinking about something like a drag ballute or some other 'drag'
 
And as for the size of the shield, do you realy think it would have to be this big? I really was  thinking of something on the scale that compares to the craft like the awacs radr compare to its carrier. The wings, I thought, would be encompassed by the wake spreading connicaly behind  the shield, which would be punching a hole in the air. That was a purely intuitive idea, based on what it looks like in the simulations, but that's how I saw it.
However, the best proof for me that my idea may not carry much water is that no one else got interested in the topic .

[zealot]

Its 'hold water' isn't it? and the spelling!

[gladiator1332]

I was wondering, is the decision to move Rocketplane XP ops to Hawaii final? Why not just use the Shuttle Landing Facility...as of 2010 there won't be any use for it, why not turn it into a Commercial Spaceplane Landing Facility. Virgin Galactic could also put this to use and open up an East Coast operation in addition to their West Coast operation.

[Danderman]

gladiator1332 - 1/4/2007  8:14 AM  I was wondering, is the decision to move Rocketplane XP ops to Hawaii final? Why not just use the Shuttle Landing Facility...as of 2010 there won't be any use for it, why not turn it into a Commercial Spaceplane Landing Facility. Virgin Galactic could also put this to use and open up an East Coast operation in addition to their West Coast operation.

I was under the impression that Rocketplane XP would operate out of Oklahoma, when did they change to Hawaii? 

[NotGncDude]

Danderman - 1/4/2007  11:39 AM

gladiator1332 - 1/4/2007  8:14 AM  I was wondering, is the decision to move Rocketplane XP ops to Hawaii final? Why not just use the Shuttle Landing Facility...as of 2010 there won't be any use for it, why not turn it into a Commercial Spaceplane Landing Facility. Virgin Galactic could also put this to use and open up an East Coast operation in addition to their West Coast operation.

I was under the impression that Rocketplane XP would operate out of Oklahoma, when did they change to Hawaii?

Maybe Rocketplane Kistler out of Oklahoma, Rocketplane XP out of Hawaii?

[GF3]

ianmga - 1/4/2007  6:09 PM

Danderman - 1/4/2007  11:39 AM

gladiator1332 - 1/4/2007  8:14 AM  I was wondering, is the decision to move Rocketplane XP ops to Hawaii final? Why not just use the Shuttle Landing Facility...as of 2010 there won't be any use for it, why not turn it into a Commercial Spaceplane Landing Facility. Virgin Galactic could also put this to use and open up an East Coast operation in addition to their West Coast operation.

I was under the impression that Rocketplane XP would operate out of Oklahoma, when did they change to Hawaii?

Maybe Rocketplane Kistler out of Oklahoma, Rocketplane XP out of Hawaii?

We are intending to be flying out of Oklahoma. We are always looking at operating out of many other spaceports around the globe.

To help straighten this confusion out. Rocketplane Inc is the parent umbrella company. Rocketplane Global is the XP sub orbital side of the company. Rocketplane Kistler is the orbital K-1 side fo the company.

[bad_astra]

Is Mitchell Burnside Clapp still working with Rocketplane?

[GF3]

bad_astra - 3/4/2007  5:39 PM

Is Mitchell Burnside Clapp still working with Rocketplane?

No

[chicco]

I believe that safety of passengers will play a key role in the development of suborbital space tourism market.
Some suborbital players are building their spacecarfts with built-in safety modules or escape systems (Blue Origin, Canadian Arrow just to name few of them).
What about Rocketplan XP? Is there any specific safety modules present on the XP (maybe I'm too curioius...)?