Space tourism by EADS

[CentEur]

EE 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.

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.

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]

CentEur - 19/6/2007  6:42 AM

EE 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.

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.

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.

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; 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]

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.

 

[Danderman]

CentEur - 19/6/2007  3:42 AM  

EE 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.  

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.

 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.

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.

 

[CentEur]

EE Scott - 19/6/2007  4:51 PM

CentEur - 19/6/2007  6:42 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.

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.

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]

Danderman - 19/6/2007  4:56 PM

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?

To provide for his clients with a benign entry. SS2 reported 7g will hardly be fun (I guess).

[CentEur]

Danderman - 19/6/2007  4:58 PM

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.

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.

What's the use of a design that others can't use? Is Rutan building SS2 for himself?

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.

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.  

[EE Scott]

CentEur - 19/6/2007  2:48 PM

EE Scott - 19/6/2007  4:51 PM

CentEur - 19/6/2007  6:42 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.

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.

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.

I do understand what you are saying.  Perhaps it is not such a slap in the face as I had thought at first reading of the article/press release.  It will be interesting to see how it works out.

[Danderman]

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.

 

[CentEur]

Danderman - 19/6/2007  11:59 PM

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.

I'm sure SS2 will fly shortly (as opposed to EADS concept), but it doesn't mean it will be any better than any other suborbital tourism vehicle. No operational vehicle of this kind has been built, and none has been put into service. Therefore every estimate of the cost is ... just an estimate. I don't like the EADS estimate but I have to admit that it might be closer to actual costs than Virgin's. Even if it won't, let's not forget that so far no passenger was invited on board of suborbital toursim vehicle to evaluate the experience from everyman's point of view. It might be unacceptable in some vehicle leading to expensive redesign or replacement. This is why I call an act of faith the claims than nobody would want any other vehicle than SS2.

[meiza]

It's also true that Scaled Composites has not developed successful commercial craft in the past. For example I understand that the Beech Starship design had some maintainability problems where you have to cut through the composite hull with a saw to change some components.
These are all of course legends, but there might be some truth to it.
On the other hand, EADS has lots of experience in making many high-availability maintainable products that generate profit to to the operators.

Btw, I myself believe more in regeneratively cooled liquid rocket engines - they should be much lower cost per flight than hybrids. 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.

[Danderman]

The wonderful thing about commercial space is that if you have the money, you can design and build whatever system meets your own requirements (or what you perceive your customers' requirements to be). The not-so-good thing about it is, if you don't have the money, all you can do is write about how poorly those with the money are designing their systems.

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  

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.

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.

[chicco]

Some pictures of the EADS vehicle taken at Le Bourget airshow
http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/107/image037ly3.jpg
http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/9669/image038wc7.jpg
http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/8805/image039ey1.jpg
http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/8381/image040zf9.jpg

[meiza]

nobodyofconsequence - 20/6/2007  6:01 PM
As long as they don't destroy themselves every flight  How do you regard the operations cost of AirLaunch LLC against Virgin/SS2?

? Isn't airlaunch for LEO? Two stage pressure fed rocket from a C-17.
Very different capabilities.

meiza
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.

Since spaceshipone/two start off from altitude and some horizontal velocity, they use less rocket power / delta vee per passenger or can have higher ISP engines etc than those starting from sea level. The hybrid rocket's fuel is a rubbery cylinder. You have to re-cast it after every flight. So you have many fuel cases and some are in re-casting (takes a few days to cast a hybrid fuel grain?) while one is in flight. The throat and nozzle are ablative I think and have to be replaced. All these add to operations cost per flight.

The elevator approach of course is the Armadillo / Blue Origin / TGV one. You go straight up, you come straight down. Armadillo and Blue Origin at least have hovered their rockets just fine. Going up shouldn't take long. (It does take long to ascend with the White Knight) John Carmack said their current consumables costs per flight for Pixel are really low. I think the Helium pressurant is the most expensive part.
The aim is to just refuel and refly. The rocket of course needs more thrust than the one in spaceship two, but it's a liquid engine so it doesn't matter that much per flight, you just need more gas. (Oversimplified.) Also there are no heavy aerosurfaces. This is also potentially a useful road to a reusable first stage for orbital launchers. (Much later on, since they have to be much bigger and higher performance.) Armadillo at least uses pressurized tank methods still, no pumps. Blue Origin / TGV have not released info afaik.

Then there's the Rocketplane/EADS school of thought that you put a rocket in a bizjet and do a lot of other modding too. Rutan said the air breathing engines can't take the high heat of re-entry. (Or something in that vein.) He also said the vehicles will be heavy since they don't stage like the spaceship detaches from the knight. Thus the rocket engines are big and expensive. I think both are using turbopump regeneratively cooled liquid engines.

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.

[CentEur]

meiza - 20/6/2007  9:33 PM

Armadillo at least uses pressurized tank methods still, no pumps. Blue Origin / TGV have not released info afaik.

No pumps in TGV vehicle either. Simplicity is their virtue.

[Sirius]

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.

This 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

[CentEur]

Sirius - 21/6/2007  10:01 AM

This 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

How far along? Is the engine pictured the one that will be used? Is the vehicle total development cost estimated? How much?

[chicco]

I imagine that you know more from within the project, given that there are no public updates since last July 2006.