Author Topic: Space tourism by EADS (Read 43254 times)

savuporo · « **Reply #80 on:** 06/21/2007 02:10 pm »

Quote

The elevator approach of course is the Armadillo / Blue Origin / TGV

Add Masten and for example Japanese RLV followon to that list, plus basically all the other teams competing for this years Lunar Lander Challenge, if any of them plans to follow up with higher performance versions.
http://space.xprize.org/lunar-lander-challenge/teams.php

hektor · « **Reply #81 on:** 06/21/2007 07:41 pm »

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/06/21/215010/space-jets-turbofans-can-cope-with-vacuum-says-eads.html

Ventrater · « **Reply #82 on:** 06/22/2007 07:30 pm »

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/06/22/215142/astrium-space-jet-technical-detail-revealed.html

hektor · « **Reply #83 on:** 07/02/2007 07:58 pm »

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/900/1

CentEur · « **Reply #84 on:** 07/02/2007 09:08 pm »

Quote

hektor - 2/7/2007 9:58 PM

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/900/1

Yet 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.

publiusr · « **Reply #85 on:** 07/02/2007 09:42 pm »

Reminds me about how some folks thought NASP was supposed to be this super-Concorde Orient Express whatsit....

pippin · « **Reply #86 on:** 07/03/2007 02:01 pm »

Pure BS.
The EADS spaceplane does not help anybody to get that super-bomber.
Nobody in Europe wants or needs one.
There ist no "Europe" if it comes to military aviation.
Galileo wasn't made of envy, but to be independent. Galileo has no business case, but it worked, it ensured open access to and improvement of the civil GPS segment. PDA navigation users in the US please remenber that it was also European pressure (and the Galileo thread, then not decided) that made the US switch off SA.
The spaceplane projetc is just what it was first stated to be in the article: A try to get subsidies (just my oppinion). And then I don't see why there should be any for a rich' boys tools that others (Branson+Scaled) can develop without.
[EDIT] typos

meiza · « **Reply #87 on:** 07/03/2007 04:37 pm »

Quote

CentEur - 2/7/2007 10:08 PM

Quote
hektor - 2/7/2007 9:58 PM

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/900/1

Yet 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.

Yeah, weird how many americans seem to be so bitter and hostile about almost anything happening in Europe. I guess it's similar the other way around.

Regarding military aviation, there actually are and have been programs with many European countries involved, for example the Tornado, Eurofighter or A400M.

pippin · « **Reply #88 on:** 07/03/2007 06:52 pm »

Programs, yes.
But currently there is nothing like a long term European strategy.
And it's always been different partners involved.

pippin · « **Reply #89 on:** 07/03/2007 06:55 pm »

Programs, yes.
But currently there is nothing like a long term European strategy.
And it's always been different partners involved.

CentEur · « **Reply #90 on:** 07/03/2007 08:00 pm »

Quote

meiza - 3/7/2007 6:37 PM

Yeah, weird how many americans seem to be so bitter and hostile about almost anything happening in Europe.

Take subsidies for example. Every time the word Airbus appears, you can hear whining about evil subsidies. You could think Verheugen's strong opposition against subsidies for EADS spaceplane will be praised by our friends from America. And what do you get - it's also evil, because his reasons are socialistic. You just can't please them.

Quote

Regarding military aviation, there actually are and have been programs with many European countries involved, for example the Tornado, Eurofighter or A400M.

Don't forget SEPECAT Jaguar. Did a good job during Gulf War.

pippin · « **Reply #91 on:** 07/04/2007 02:04 pm »

I don't understand all this fuss about subsidies. They take MY tax money to subsidize Airbus, so that Americans can buy cheaper planes. So it's ME who should complain (and in fact I do).
Don't mix this up with companies complaining. That's just show and part of the business: Boeing complains about Airbus' subsidies and Airbus complains about Boeing's. They do that to get subsidies of their own, which is rational from their point of view. It's not rational, to give in to that, however...

Danderman · « **Reply #92 on:** 07/04/2007 03:35 pm »

Discussions about European or US subsidies are not too interesting. What is interesting is news about whether EADS is actually going to move this concept beyond a study proposal.

pippin · « **Reply #93 on:** 07/04/2007 05:19 pm »

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...

Danderman · « **Reply #94 on:** 07/04/2007 06:28 pm »

Quote

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.

Space Lizard · « **Reply #95 on:** 07/09/2007 09:07 am »

ESA and CNES are not targetted by this preliminary study. It's been made clear several times since the project was unveiled.

The situation is simple: EADS is currently discussing with private investors to set up a private venture by year end. If they cannot raise the money, they'll give up.

publiusr · « **Reply #96 on:** 07/13/2007 07:15 pm »

I don't have any problems with Gov't subsidies going to aerospace myself. Without that, you just see tax break money go offshore, or you see it spent on Earned "income tax credits" that go straight to some meth lab. The VLJ and sub-charter air taxi services show what happens if you go the straight capitalistic route--

--venture capitalists feed you tiny amounts of seed money and want immediate returns--forgetting that aerospace needs a lot of overhead and money up front, where venture-vultures would rather invest in internet start ups with little overhead--just so they can get something in a box and out to market.

pippin · « **Reply #97 on:** 07/13/2007 07:21 pm »

You are free to take your money and do otherwise...

Seattle Dave · « **Reply #98 on:** 07/20/2007 03:16 am »

I'd of thought EADS had enough on with the IXV.

CentEur · « **Reply #99 on:** 07/20/2007 07:21 am »

Quote

Seattle Dave - 20/7/2007 5:16 AM

I'd of thought EADS had enough on with the IXV.

I'd think a 11,000 employees company has an appetite for more than a single reentry demonstrator to be built in cooperation with another company.