hektor - 7/6/2007 3:20 PMWith the nose and the beard of the German shareholders who would not be well-informed.
hektor - 7/6/2007 12:48 PMBy the way, Sir Richard Branson has already bought a lot of planes including Airbus A380 to EADS. Do you think Virgin Galactic could be involved ?
Selon La Tribune, "il s'agit d'un vieux projet allemand d'EADS, largement revu par le patron d'Astrium François Auque", qui a "été convaincu que ce projet serait rentable". L’avionneur tablerait sur 5 000 à 7 000 intéressés, pour un marché d’environ un milliard de dollars.
simpl simon - 10/6/2007 4:11 PMQuote from the article:"A spokesman for EADS Astrium said: “We are going to reveal a space tourism project next week for the Paris air show.” The scheme is thought to be the first step in a plan to take space tourists into orbit and even to dock at a “space hotel”."
02hurnella - 14/6/2007 6:11 AMI agree sub-orbital is fairly pointless. BUT... It might make money.....Hopefully it will generate interest and capital for real spaceflight. I can't say I would pay 200,000 euros for that but don't tell anyone...
nacnud - 14/6/2007 12:25 AM[...] with a methane rocket engine [...]
Ventrater - 14/6/2007 6:47 AMBetween 150 000 and 200 000euros in a first time and less than 50 000 later... and also:
bhankiii - 14/6/2007 4:59 PMQuoteVentrater - 14/6/2007 6:47 AMBetween 150 000 and 200 000euros in a first time and less than 50 000 later... and also: How does that compare to a climb on the Himalayas I wonder?
Danderman - 13/6/2007 7:04 PM"Until and unless Virgin Galactic is successful, I suspect that the money people will stand back and wait and see.
This morning Branson was green... and now he is red...
Danderman - 14/6/2007 11:06 AM My sources say it is merely an attempt to get study money from ESA. If you check back in a year, you might hear about the study, otherwise this will disappear. EADS/Astrium is not likely to actually float bonds to make this happen.
Correct.
Rutan and Allen proofed the concept. Branson is proving the market (enough). EADS is faking a slipstream of the venture, just to see if it can scare up interest.
At this point its more for show, not for revenue - way more better ways to do that.
Overall this is a good thing - inspirational. But don't bet money on anything being built.
Why does everything coming out of Euro and Russian aerospace have to be in reaction to something others (such as the US) are doing as opposed to being pro-active and leading the way?
EE Scott - 15/6/2007 11:28 AM ... To me I feel that Europe is loaded with talent and capabilities so I keep expecting/hoping for some new, innovative euro ideas/programs to push aerospace forward. ...
Europe (and Asia) are loaded with talent. But business is very cynical these days - they restrain that talent for good reasons. At this stage, its capturing public enthusiasm, which do to our "dumbed down" and "fear culture" doesn't respond as you'd like.
Vision isn't in. (VSE doesn't count here).
publiusr - 16/6/2007 1:35 PM This probably is a make-work project, but I would put them ahead of Rutan for the time being. Unless Branson buys an A380 and also uses that to launch a craft from it during a trip.
I am not understanding how you could put a concept that might possibly fly 5 years from now "ahead" of a system that is scheduled for roll-out within 12 months.
hektor - 18/6/2007 10:20 AM Why ? they can compete with Scaled and offer their vehicle to Branson ? Airbus is not competing with Virgin ... So far there was (nearly) only one game in town, so it was normal that Branson picks Scaled. Now there is EADS as well so maybe he can reconsider.
Are you suggesting that Branson might issue a "stop work" order for SpaceShip Two in favor of a system that is not scheduled to fly until 2012? What happens to the 100+ people who have bought tickets to fly on SpaceShip Two?
hektor - 18/6/2007 7:58 PMI am just suggesting that when the Astrium vehicle is available he could phase out his spaceshiptwos if the newcomer proves more profitable. He is the airline, not the airframe manufacturer.I think that the notion that Astrium is competing against Virgin is wrong. Astrium is competing against Scaled, or whatever is the name Rutan has given to the SpaceShipTwo manufacturer.
EE Scott - 19/6/2007 12:20 PMBut isn't EADS going to operate their vehicle?
They are not just going to manufacture a vehicle and hope that some other company buys it and builds the spaceport and operates it, etc.
CentEur - 19/6/2007 6:42 AMQuoteEE Scott - 19/6/2007 12:20 PMBut isn't EADS going to operate their vehicle?It'd be foolish of them to do so. Their competence is building spacecrafts, not operating commercial passenger lines.QuoteThey are not just going to manufacture a vehicle and hope that some other company buys it and builds the spaceport and operates it, etc.Their plan is more rational: "We are offering a profitable system and have given ourselves until early 2008 to find industrial partners to share the risk, private investment of around €1 billion and an operator for the journey. We will not do it without that," See here.
hektor - 18/6/2007 10:58 AM I am just suggesting that when the Astrium vehicle is available he could phase out his spaceshiptwos if the newcomer proves more profitable. He is the airline, not the airframe manufacturer. I think that the notion that Astrium is competing against Virgin is wrong. Astrium is competing against Scaled, or whatever is the name Rutan has given to the SpaceShipTwo manufacturer.
Why would Branson phase out SpaceShip Two if it were successful in favor of this new vehicle? This is like saying that 787 operators will phase out their vehicles in favor of the new Airbus 350 when it becomes available, as neither the Airbus or the EADS space tourism vehicles represent a major advancement over their American counterparts.
CentEur - 19/6/2007 3:42 AM QuoteEE Scott - 19/6/2007 12:20 PM But isn't EADS going to operate their vehicle? It'd be foolish of them to do so. Their competence is building spacecrafts, not operating commercial passenger lines. QuoteThey are not just going to manufacture a vehicle and hope that some other company buys it and builds the spaceport and operates it, etc. Their plan is more rational: "We are offering a profitable system and have given ourselves until early 2008 to find industrial partners to share the risk, private investment of around €1 billion and an operator for the journey. We will not do it without that," See here.
EE Scott - 19/6/2007 12:20 PM But isn't EADS going to operate their vehicle?
In other words, no bucks, no Buck Rogers. EADS is not saying they will go forward with this, they are offering a design that other companies may use.
The only "hook" I can see for EADS is if the EU somehow prohibits Branson from using SpaceShip Two in Europe, and so he is forced to go with the EADS design.
EE Scott - 19/6/2007 4:51 PMQuoteCentEur - 19/6/2007 6:42 AMTheir plan is more rational: "We are offering a profitable system and have given ourselves until early 2008 to find industrial partners to share the risk, private investment of around €1 billion and an operator for the journey. We will not do it without that," See here.Thanks, I should have read the article more carefully the first time. It does not change the fact that EADS is proposing to compete against Virgin for space tourist dollars. EADS is the motivator and organizer behind this entire effort -- it's EADS idea to create a competitor to Virgin;
CentEur - 19/6/2007 6:42 AMTheir plan is more rational: "We are offering a profitable system and have given ourselves until early 2008 to find industrial partners to share the risk, private investment of around €1 billion and an operator for the journey. We will not do it without that," See here.
the fact that they are looking for partners in the effort to operate the ongoing business does not change that. It would be different if a business had approached them with an RFP to build a sub-orbital spacecraft, but that did not happen.
Danderman - 19/6/2007 4:56 PMQuotehektor - 18/6/2007 10:58 AM I am just suggesting that when the Astrium vehicle is available he could phase out his spaceshiptwos if the newcomer proves more profitable. He is the airline, not the airframe manufacturer. I think that the notion that Astrium is competing against Virgin is wrong. Astrium is competing against Scaled, or whatever is the name Rutan has given to the SpaceShipTwo manufacturer.Why would Branson phase out SpaceShip Two if it were successful in favor of this new vehicle?
Why would Branson phase out SpaceShip Two if it were successful in favor of this new vehicle?
Danderman - 19/6/2007 4:58 PMQuoteCentEur - 19/6/2007 3:42 AM Their plan is more rational: "We are offering a profitable system and have given ourselves until early 2008 to find industrial partners to share the risk, private investment of around €1 billion and an operator for the journey. We will not do it without that," See here.In other words, no bucks, no Buck Rogers. EADS is not saying they will go forward with this, they are offering a design that other companies may use.
CentEur - 19/6/2007 3:42 AM Their plan is more rational: "We are offering a profitable system and have given ourselves until early 2008 to find industrial partners to share the risk, private investment of around €1 billion and an operator for the journey. We will not do it without that," See here.
CentEur - 19/6/2007 2:48 PMQuoteEE Scott - 19/6/2007 4:51 PMQuoteCentEur - 19/6/2007 6:42 AMTheir plan is more rational: "We are offering a profitable system and have given ourselves until early 2008 to find industrial partners to share the risk, private investment of around €1 billion and an operator for the journey. We will not do it without that," See here.Thanks, I should have read the article more carefully the first time. It does not change the fact that EADS is proposing to compete against Virgin for space tourist dollars. EADS is the motivator and organizer behind this entire effort -- it's EADS idea to create a competitor to Virgin;Nope. The operator they need to find may be Virgin too.Quote the fact that they are looking for partners in the effort to operate the ongoing business does not change that. It would be different if a business had approached them with an RFP to build a sub-orbital spacecraft, but that did not happen.It did in a way. Alex Tai's declaration was it.
CentEur - 19/6/2007 12:47 PM Are you aware you're comparing two non-existing spaceplanes? Yet you show no doubt that one will be a complete and utter success over another. I'm impressed by your faith.
SpaceShip Two is in the final stages of completion, so the odds of it flying are reasonably high. This EADS thing is a study proposal.
Danderman - 19/6/2007 11:59 PMQuoteCentEur - 19/6/2007 12:47 PM Are you aware you're comparing two non-existing spaceplanes? Yet you show no doubt that one will be a complete and utter success over another. I'm impressed by your faith. SpaceShip Two is in the final stages of completion, so the odds of it flying are reasonably high. This EADS thing is a study proposal.
meiza - 20/6/2007 5:58 AM It's also true that Scaled Composites has not developed successful commercial craft in the past....
Not exactly among Burt's strong points are manufactureability / maintainability. He's more "Mr. One-off".
... I myself believe more in regeneratively cooled liquid rocket engines - they should be much lower cost per flight than hybrids...
As long as they don't destroy themselves every flight How do you regard the operations cost of AirLaunch LLC against Virgin/SS2?
Although the airplane staging style with the Knight/Spaceship design helps make the hybrid motor quite small. You still need new castings, and possibly new cases and nozzles too. Vertical takeoff and vertical landing could be the best way to do it, an "elevator" approach to 100 km hops.
Please explain this more.
Danderman - 19/6/2007 4:59 PM QuoteCentEur - 19/6/2007 12:47 PM Are you aware you're comparing two non-existing spaceplanes? Yet you show no doubt that one will be a complete and utter success over another. I'm impressed by your faith. SpaceShip Two is in the final stages of completion, so the odds of it flying are reasonably high. This EADS thing is a study proposal.
There are other proposals being rumored as well. Would not be surprised if we got a half dozen by the time SS2 starts flight tests. Slap some kind of rocket assist on some kind of airframe, shades of the NF-104.
Don't get hung up on the early entries into this market - nobody has yet "cracked the code" on the best vehicle(s) and operations. It may never be optimized either, as the market may shift to orbital or ballistic (continent to continent transport absorbing the abandoned Concorde market).
But the memorial one already has been chosen, long before it's been flown - SS2. Will not be displaced. It gained this distinction with the flight of SS1. It will at least be the "Comet" of space tourism.
nobodyofconsequence - 20/6/2007 6:01 PMAs long as they don't destroy themselves every flight How do you regard the operations cost of AirLaunch LLC against Virgin/SS2?
Quote meizaAlthough the airplane staging style with the Knight/Spaceship design helps make the hybrid motor quite small. You still need new castings, and possibly new cases and nozzles too. Vertical takeoff and vertical landing could be the best way to do it, an "elevator" approach to 100 km hops.Please explain this more.
meizaAlthough the airplane staging style with the Knight/Spaceship design helps make the hybrid motor quite small. You still need new castings, and possibly new cases and nozzles too. Vertical takeoff and vertical landing could be the best way to do it, an "elevator" approach to 100 km hops.
meiza - 20/6/2007 9:33 PMArmadillo at least uses pressurized tank methods still, no pumps. Blue Origin / TGV have not released info afaik.
The third school is XCOR's purely rocket powered winged vehicles taking off from runways. IIRC Rutan said they will have fuel problems.XCor is really advanced with safe piston pump engines and composite tanks. They might be on to something.
http://www.talisinstitut.de/project_enterprise_engl_ie.htm
Sirius - 21/6/2007 10:01 AMThis project belongs also to the third group (and is in a more advanced stage of the development than the EADS toy):http://www.talisinstitut.de/project_enterprise_engl_ie.htm
The elevator approach of course is the Armadillo / Blue Origin / TGV
hektor - 2/7/2007 9:58 PMhttp://www.thespacereview.com/article/900/1
CentEur - 2/7/2007 10:08 PMQuotehektor - 2/7/2007 9:58 PMhttp://www.thespacereview.com/article/900/1Yet again Taylor proves he shouldn't write about Europe. I find ridiculous his suggestion of EADS spaceplane being a part of military plan to develop "hypersonic bomber and strategic reconnaissance vehicle". Neither motivation behind Galileo (European pride mostly) nor the one behind strategic transport aircraft (servicing troops on remote theaters we wish we weren't involved into) applies to "hypersonic bomber and strategic reconnaissance vehicle" of this kind.The funniest thing is how he builds his vision of subsidized suborbital trips omitting Verheugen's very strong words against it (how conveniently).He can't even guess why the methane-fueled engine. Oh well.
meiza - 3/7/2007 6:37 PMYeah, weird how many americans seem to be so bitter and hostile about almost anything happening in Europe.
Regarding military aviation, there actually are and have been programs with many European countries involved, for example the Tornado, Eurofighter or A400M.
pippin - 4/7/2007 10:19 AM No, it's about whether they get the funds to actually move this beyond the study proposal. They certainly will, if it is there and they did already state that they are not willing to spend their OWN money...
Actually, I am not sure if EADS has committed to doing anything about the concept, other than pitch ESA for study money. In other words, if ESA does not agree to give EADS some Euros for studies, then this project may be dead.
Seattle Dave - 20/7/2007 5:16 AMI'd of thought EADS had enough on with the IXV.
hektor - 20/7/2007 11:22 PMThe purchase of Scaled by Northrop Grumman, and EADS project, space tourism is now for large consortiums ?
hektor - 20/7/2007 10:22 PMThe purchase of Scaled by Northrop Grumman, and EADS project, space tourism is now for large consortiums ?
Ventrater - 14/6/2007 11:55 AM QuoteDanderman - 13/6/2007 7:04 PM "Until and unless Virgin Galactic is successful, I suspect that the money people will stand back and wait and see. No! No! No! François Auque says: """« Nous avons choisi ce concept d'avion autonome capable d'assurer les deux phases de vol, aéronautique et spatial, parce que c'est incontestablement la meilleure solution en terme de sécurité, de confort et de coût »""" http://www.lefigaro.fr/sciences/20070614.FIG000000110_astrium_devoile_son_projet_d_avion_fusee.html this concept is indeniably the best, indeniably a best safety, indeniably a best comfort and indeniably a best cost... This project is a killer! This morning Branson was green... and now he is red...
Danderman - 13/6/2007 7:04 PM "Until and unless Virgin Galactic is successful, I suspect that the money people will stand back and wait and see.
Do you think Branson is still red from this announcement of the EADS study?
meiza - 17/9/2007 9:46 PMI just wonder has EADS done any development?
CentEur - 17/9/2007 10:05 PMQuotemeiza - 17/9/2007 9:46 PMI just wonder has EADS done any development?No development before go/no go decision to be made by year's end. At least that was the plan.
hektor - 1/10/2007 1:02 PMIAC latest - there was a late breaking news presentation therehttp://www.iafastro.org/?id=484http://www.iafastro.org/fileadmin/template/main/Documents/Events/2007IAC/LBN5.pdf
meiza - 1/10/2007 3:07 PM Also, I think the canards are a potentially clever aerodynamic solution for a problem that has plagued high altitude zoom programs in the past: the elevators being left behind the airflow of the wing at some high angles of attack. For example the NF-104 tended to have pitch problems when coming down to the atmosphere after the high rocket boost. This was avoided in SpaceshipOne by putting the elevators entirely outboard of the wing with the twin booms extending rearwards from the wingtips. Clever solution.
Well... the NF-104 was basically a low-alpha airframe forced to commit unnatural aerodynamic acts... the Shuttle Orbiter solves the issue in a much more elegant and simple way.
Main reason for the SS1 config is the use of the "shuttlecock" mechanical arrangement to acheive an airframe that has two distinct and deep stable pitch equilibrium points: one at high angles of attack (with the wing angled) and another at low alpha (wing flat). Max Faget had a design that acheived the same effect without a moving wing (although the depth of the stability wells were shallower - give credit to Burt for that!)
The EADS design looks very passenger-friendly. The graphics are superb. It has a significant aerodynamic challenge, though: unswept, high aspect-ratio wings do not perform too well at high angles of attach. In particular, the resulting aerodynamic properties are "squirrely" (i.e., small changes in alpha and beta produce large changes in the geometry of the highly separated airflow, and therefore in the various pitch and yaw/roll moments). Short aspect ratio swept wings handle large angles of attack a lot more gracefully and robustly, (delta wings are particularly good). That's why SS1 has a very low aspect ratio wing with significant leading edge sweepback.
Burt accepts the resulting low subsonic L/D and steep approach angle (and clevery uses White Knight to simulate the steep approaches for pilot training... brilliant...)
nobodyofconsequence - 20/6/2007 10:01 AMQuotemeiza - 20/6/2007 5:58 AM It's also true that Scaled Composites has not developed successful commercial craft in the past.... Not exactly among Burt's strong points are manufactureability / maintainability. He's more "Mr. One-off".
MrTim - 4/10/2007 2:53 AM As for the Starship, there are many internet tales about it, but ultimately the problem was this: the FAA was simply not ready for it when it arrived on the scene. Unless you have been through the process of getting Level A cert on something you have designed, you really have no appreciation for the hurdles that Starship had to overcome before it could even attempt to be a commercial success. It was a learning process for all involved (including the FAA) and later designs from all vendors have benefitted but the Starship suffered from the process.
Well... I'm not sure Beechcraft/Raytheron could not have obtained FAA certification if it had retained the ORIGINAL Rutan "soft-shell", ambient-pressure-cured design approach. But they (Beech) decided that they just HAD to go to autoclave-cured processes to get certified, destroying many favorable characteristics of the original design in the process, including its original modest non-recurring (design and tooling) cost, compounded by a lower than predicted demand.
In addition, the pusher prop's dynamics were a nightmare; i've seen high-speed films of the props twisting and bending in the wing's wake, and I swore never to set foot on a Starship again...
Starship died from a thousand wounds, not just a single one (O.K., O.K., perhaps three or four major wounds...)
The company has continued to maintain spending to refine the concept at a relatively high level—around €10 million ($13.6 million) a year—since the spaceplane was unveiled in 2007. It has agreed to pursue funding at the same level this year, he adds.
A made-in-Singapore prototype of a space plane, which can take travellers to the edge of space 100km above earth, will take off for its maiden test flights in May.
