Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space

More SpaceShipTwo Details 212

Posted by michael from the flight-of-fancy dept.
Anonymous Coward from Manitoba writes "BBC news is reporting more details about Burt Rutan's proposed SpaceShipTwo. Apparently the new flyer will include five to eight passenger seats and have the 'same diameter crew cabin as a Gulfstream V business jet'. It will fly much higher than SpaceShip One - up to '135-140 km' that will permit an additional 90 seconds of microgravity. This will be important, since 'we want this roller coaster-type bar that you fold out of the way and you can float around'. They are also planning to 'have the option of landing in a different place from where they took off'. I can't wait until we can ride SpaceShipThree across the Atlantic in 20 minutes!"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

More SpaceShipTwo Details More

More SpaceShipTwo Details

Comments Filter:

  • an extra 90 seconds (Score:5, Funny)

    by roseblood ( 631824 ) on Monday January 03, 2005 @05:06AM (#11243080)
    ... my husband could take a hint from spaceship two.
  • All they need now is to reach orbit and offer some serious microgravity.

  • It seems counterintuitive (Score:4, Interesting)

    by gaber1187 ( 681071 ) * on Monday January 03, 2005 @05:08AM (#11243089)
    It seems like they are making the thing bigger, but at the same time, suddenly they can go higher... it must mean there will be more than one engine or a much longer burning engine. It seems like if they put the same engine on the same ship they have now, they could go even higher... like for instance to the space station... I still wonder if they could ever pack enough fuel to go into orbit then have enough to deorbit so they don't have to use the heat-shield method of returning.

    • Re:It seems counterintuitive (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ColaMan ( 37550 ) on Monday January 03, 2005 @05:20AM (#11243125) Journal
      This is still pretty much a straight up and down operation. Perhaps with a bigger/longer burning engine, you could reach the height of the ISS, but it would whiz by at 7000km/hr. Bit hard to dock with at that speed :-)
    • "I still wonder if they could ever pack enough fuel to go into orbit then have enough to deorbit so they don't have to use the heat-shield method of returning."

      If you're talking about a tail-first reentry that relies on rocket thrust slowing down the craft to avoid overheating, I wouldn't think so... at least not with a hybrid engine. Maybe with cryogenic fuel.

      Does the shuttlecock feather design work at high speeds? When it comes down from orbit and hits the atmosphere it'll be going like 17,000 mph. I

      • Re:It seems counterintuitive (Score:5, Informative)

        by Nerull ( 586485 ) <nerull&tds,net> on Monday January 03, 2005 @06:08AM (#11243276)
        They were worried about passing the heat tolerances of the SS1 materials at Mach 4. At near mach 25 it wouldn't stand a chance.

        I'd like to see Rutan go orbital, but anyone who thinks it will be the small, light, inexpensive (for a space ship) craft it is today is fooling themselves.
        • Not a problem on ascent - most liquid-propellant boosters are almost flimsy - little more than balloons. They avoid heat problems by getting above as much of the atmosphere as possible as soon as possible (which is why rockets launch straight up instead of almost horizontally - to reach orbit the horizontal component of the vector is the only thing that contributes. The vertical component of the vector is just to get you clear of skyscrapers, mountains, and of course, the atmosphere).
          Re-entry is the prob
          • Ascent isn't what they were worried about. When in space, gravity accelerates things very quickly, and there is no such thing as terminal velocity (well, until you get near light speed, then relativity does Wierd Shit(TM)). They came down faster than they went up.

            Ascent has problems of its own, but heat is never really a problem, they tend to worry about the pressure exerted by the air as they pass Mach 1. This is almost always (Possibly just always, but I don't know the specifics for every rocket in exi
            • the composites Ruthan is currently using are not heat-resistant at all. Going to ceramics and carbon-carbon would add a lot of weight. And, they would need to use about 10times more fuel to reach the orbit.

  • Since you are in space (Score:5, Funny)

    by eclectro ( 227083 ) on Monday January 03, 2005 @05:09AM (#11243093)

    Will they be able to hear you scream???

  • Bravo! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by helioquake ( 841463 ) on Monday January 03, 2005 @05:13AM (#11243105) Journal
    This is the kind of "kick in the butt" that NASA has been needed. Bravo to the SpaceShip team for the continuing development of their fleet.

    I'm still waiting for it to grow and to become capable of reaching 500 km in altitude. If it can reach the altitude with a small payload launching capability, then a on-the-cheap space experiment becomes possible in future. I think that could change the way we think about space research.

    • Re:Bravo! (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Max von H. ( 19283 )
      Reaching orbital altitude isn't the problem. After all, the ISS is cruising at around 200km altitude or so.

      To put something in orbit you need speed. Lots of it. A helluvalot faster than what Rutan's SpaceShipOne (and Two) can ever get to without disintegrating, which I believe isn't on their agenda. They don't have to surpass NASA in every domain after all.

      You may want to whip your favourite search engine, or even wikipedia, for something called "liberation speed" and stuff relating to re-entry speed and

    • Re:Bravo! (Score:2, Interesting)

      by zepi ( 784314 )
      It doesn't matter how high it goes unless it can achieve orbital velocity. At 200km orbital velocity you need to achieve in order to stay in orbit is 7.78 km/sec or if you prefer 28 008 km/h, 17403 mph or ~22 Machs. SpaceShipOne only reaches about 2.9 Machs.
    • This is exactly the type of bold innovation more of our techno-billionnaires should be doing instead of buying football teams.

      For years we've been reading about the idea of suborbital airlines that could take you anywhere in the world in 45 minutes or less. If we have to wait for Boeing or Lockheed to wait for the airlines to wait for their marketing experts to cost justify it, it won't happen in our lifetimes. But someone like Rutan with vision, money, and technical skills could bring us this type of tech

  • Too rich for my taste (Score:5, Funny)

    by wcitechnologies ( 836709 ) on Monday January 03, 2005 @05:16AM (#11243115)
    Until they get somewhere in the neighboorhood of SpaceShipTwentyEight, its still gonna be too expensive for me!

  • This is really cool, (Score:3, Insightful)

    by basvdlei ( 844717 ) on Monday January 03, 2005 @05:19AM (#11243120)
    Initially, the cost of the flights will be too high for most people to afford. However, within 10 to 12 years, suborbital spaceflight would be a real option, Rutan said.

    I think they need to find a better way of launching those things into space. Because the amount of fuel they require now is unbelievable and I don't believe the oil price will drop within 10 years.

    • Re:This is really cool, (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      They don't use oil based fuel.

      Rocket fuel is usually liquid oxygen in one tank, and liquid hydrogen. There are several other fuels used, one of which is derived from kerosene and is not used often anymore.

      Spaceshipone uses "hydroxy-terminated polybutadiene (HTPB), a common ingredient in tire rubber" [space.com] as the fuel, and nitrous oxide (laughing gas) as the oxidizing agent.

      Because they are common and not explosive in and of themselves, they are much easier to transport and use.

      Oh, and they don't use much oil,
      • Their are 2 sources for hydrogen:
        • electrolyse of water
        • reforming fossil fuels (oil)

        The electrolyse is very inefficient, you have to put in more energy to create it then the hydrogen will provide. To create electricity there are multiple sources:

        • natural energy (solar, wind, etc)
        • nuclear
        • fossil fuels (eg. oil)

        The first option is not used a lot at this time because is does not create enough energy to be profitable. Nuclear energy may be the real answer for the near future but as we all know there is a

        • Here we go again.

          Reforming fossil fuel also puts in more energy/mole than the hydrogen will give back. The energy you could've gotten by burning the fossil fuel goes in, and the energy you can get from burning just the hydrogen comes out. Also subtract process energy and minor inefficiencies. Unless you also burn the carbon, you are throwing a lot of the original energy away. (Remember, burning carbon is evil.)

          Please think twice the next time you want to write "create energy". There's a conservatio

      • Re:This is really cool, (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Dr. GeneMachine ( 720233 ) on Monday January 03, 2005 @07:39AM (#11243530)
        Err... where exactly do you think HTPB, a polymerized hydrocarbon does come from, from rubber trees? It's made from oil.
    • Fuel is one of the smallest costs associated with launching things into space.

      If you use a Kerosene / LOX rocket to put things into orbit, when sitting on the pad, your rocket will be about 93% fuel, 4% rocket and 3% payload. That fuel will be about 7 parts oxygen to one part kerosene. LOX is one of the cheapest industrial chemicals available, at something like a penny per kilogram. If you can burn Jet-A fuel in your rocket, it runs something like $US0.40 / kilogram.

      So, for each kilogram of payload for

  • Translation please? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Filiks ( 578065 ) on Monday January 03, 2005 @05:19AM (#11243122)
    "This experience is going to have very few restrictions on what you can do because these payloads are doing it for fun and every person has a different idea of what fun is.

    Floating in space (Ansari X-Prize)
    The X-prize vision is about to be realised
    "Does that mean that some guy and his girl might want to take the whole ship? OK!"

    Is that a euphemism for zero gravity sex? It'll be one of the few times when being quick is actually good! Also, with presumably multi-year waiting lists, it'll take performance anxiety to new high.

  • Shaped and deflected explosions (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Filiks ( 578065 ) on Monday January 03, 2005 @05:36AM (#11243176)
    What alternatives exist to combusting various gasses and solid fuels? Do explosives like TNT pack more potential energy if it could just be exploited usefully? Some sort of series of shaped, small, explosions every tenth or every second? With some sort of backplate to protect the ship?
    • See also: Jules Verne

    • Not at all. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Benm78 ( 646948 ) on Monday January 03, 2005 @06:00AM (#11243246) Homepage
      It seems somewhat counter-intuitive, but the energy density of high explosives such as TNT is much lower that that of, say, a mixture of gasoline or hydrogen and the oxygen required to combust it. TNT is used as an explosive not because of its high energy density, but because of its ability to release this energy very rapidly.

      TNT has an energy density of around 4.6 MJ/kg, a 1:8 H2/O2 mixture achieves 13 MJ/kg. Hydrogen has little density however (even the liquid), so volume is a major problem there.

      Much higher energy densities require more exotic techniques, with Uranium (235) fission at 90 TJ/kg. This is 6 magnitues beyond regular fuels.

      Antimatter/matter annihilation is the most energy dense fuel possible so far, and would be 1000 times denser in energy compared to U235.

    • TNT carries much less energy per kilogram than a simple candlestick. Its strength comes purely from reaction speed. The Russians fill up their rockets with ordinary Diesel fuel. Now that is what I call bang for the buck. I don't know how traditional dry fuels like AlCl3 compare though, anybody any figures on that?
    • What alternatives exist to combusting various gasses and solid fuels? Do explosives like TNT pack more potential energy if it could just be exploited usefully? Some sort of series of shaped, small, explosions every tenth or every second? With some sort of backplate to protect the ship?

      One method which hasn't been tried yet but which is theoretically possible is to use the law of Conservation of Momentum to affect a change in velocity for mass M1 by ejecting a mass M2 from the rear of the spaceship at hig

  • Humm... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by kataflok ( 836910 ) on Monday January 03, 2005 @05:38AM (#11243182)
    So they are gonna pay how many tens of thousands of $$$ for exactly how many SECONDS of something close to weightlessness???

    A half hour flight I could see...

    This??? A classic example of early adopters getting royally screwed?

    • Re:Humm... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Kierthos ( 225954 )
      Hey, if the insanely rich want to blow large whacks of cash on something like this... let them. It only increases the chance that someone like Paris Hilton could be involved in a tragic sub-orbital accident.

      Kierthos
    • If by "getting royally screwed" you mean "making a conscious, unforced decision to purchase something, knowing fully ahead of time what they're purchasing, then getting it", then yes.

  • Home built? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Like SpaceShipOne, the homebuilt rocketship that claimed a £5.2m cash prize for twice reaching suborbital space,

    Eh, I wouldn't exactly call it homebuilt.

  • In the year 2028... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Albinofrenchy ( 844079 ) on Monday January 03, 2005 @05:46AM (#11243203)
    Can you imagine how much more that baby behind you is going to cry when it starts floating around?
    • Can you imagine how much more that baby behind you is going to cry when it starts floating around?

      Depends on the age I would think.
      I'm not a psychologist, but I work with two, and they seem to think that up to about 18 months, the baby would be quite comfortable floating. After all, it was their natural enviroment for quite some time. (cognitive reasoning age/issues aside)
      They may very well be more distressed when the microgravity experience is over than when it starts.

      • The difference is that an unborn baby can't *see* that he's floating. I recall an experiment which showed that quite young infants had an apparently wired-in fear of drop-offs (put the baby on a table with a half-glass top and see him scramble for the other half).

        This would seem to require a sense of which way is down, so maybe they would be *less* upset than older passengers when there isn't any "down".
    • Can you imagine how much more that baby behind you is going to cry when it starts floating around?

      Hey, if it is over in 20 minutes I wouldn't mind! Long flights with annoying people are so bad because you cannot get away from them for long periods of time.

      During long flights I have pondered the possibility of transporting people in stacked coffin-like caskets (i.e. lying down). Yes, it would be awkward to get in and out, but climbing over people is awkward too and at least these things you can close o

  • Yeah... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by plj ( 673710 ) on Monday January 03, 2005 @05:46AM (#11243208)
    I can't wait until we can ride SpaceShipThree across the Atlantic in 20 minutes!

    ...and imagine still wasting one hour travelling to the air/spaceport, three ours in check-in and security lanes, half an hour on the other end to get your luggage back, and yet one hour travelling off the port.

    • Re:Yeah... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by asliarun ( 636603 )
      Hmmm, i'll take your comment as is, and not as a rhetoric one.

      "...and imagine still wasting one hour travelling to the air/spaceport"
      Perhaps. Spaceport commute time would completely depend on your proximity and capability of transit transport infrastructure. By the same argument, commuting to the office everyday takes as much time.

      "three ours in check-in and security lanes"
      Three hours is a tad high, IMHO, except in rare situations. Check-in time, even for international travel usually takes an hour, in my

    • However... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by sczimme ( 603413 )

      wasting one hour travelling to the air/spaceport, three [h]ours in check-in and security lanes, half an hour on the other end to get your luggage back, and yet one hour travelling off the port

      The ground travel is an unavoidable item of overhead (unless you live at the [space,air]port). The security lines for international flights (including customs) are also unavoidable. Travel light and you won't have to worry about the baggage claim; check-in is usually faster when you are not checking luggage.

      An
      • Bring your own beverage in this. [rei.com] If you have to wait on the runway for a while and need to relieve yourself, drink what your brought, unscrew the cap, and make absolutely sure what you're about to do will go in the bag and nowhere else.
      • Of course with the small amount of flights, this would be more similar to a chartered flight than a typical airline, I'd be willing to bet security check time would be less as well.
    • How bout a new system, and hour spent being locked down in a little personal crate where you can do no harm, and shipped overnight express with no delays as all paperwork is prehandled.
    • "three [h]ours in check-in and security lanes...."

      I don't know where that airport is. Last time I flew, I obediently arrived 90 minutes before boarding and spent 80 minutes in the departure lounge. I think it's just a scam to sell more cheesy paperbacks and oversized sweet rolls.

  • Impact on the ozone layer? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jlar ( 584848 ) on Monday January 03, 2005 @05:55AM (#11243233)
    I think it is absolutely amazing that ordinary people will be able to experience space and zero gravity. But I also think that we need to look into the environmental aspects of this development.

    If we will come to see daily flights of maybe hundreds of planes it might have a significant impact on the ozone layer and thus our health. It is therefore important to get an estimate of the impact on the ozone layer so that cleaner fuels and other measures can be taken to prevent this.

    Here is a bit of background info on the ozone layer and the impact of the space shuttle and high flying aircraft and rockets on it:

    http://www.aero.org/publications/crosslink/summe r2 000/01.html

    http://www.faqs.org/faqs/ozone-depletion/intro/

  • 20 Minutes? (Score:4, Funny)

    by thelizman ( 304517 ) <[moc.oohay] [ta] [kcattaremmah]> on Monday January 03, 2005 @05:56AM (#11243237) Homepage
    Not including the two to two and a half hours it takes for the mother ship to climb to release altitude, and the flight itself takes more along the lines of a half hour to descend. Still faster than anything short of the concorde, but you'll still have to wait eight hours for your luggage - SS2 is designed for you and enough oxygen to keep you pink on the ride.
  • I'm a North American, currently living in Australia. The flight seems to take forever when you factor in the inevitable layovers and flights on each continent to the final destination. As a general rule I won't pay for first class service, but I would pay at least twice my usual amount for 'fast' class. Maybe Concode should have tried the LAXSydney route.

    • This was one of the problems with Concorde - the amount of fuel it consumed limited its maximum flight. It could do LHR->JFK, CDG->JFK, etc. - the Atlantic crossings. But LAX->Sydney was out of its range - despite doubtless being an ideal route for it in other respects.

  • But (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Will it have bad food, grouchy flight attendants and lose your luggage?

  • Cheaper Alternative (Score:4, Interesting)

    by MeridianOnTheLake ( 691931 ) on Monday January 03, 2005 @06:51AM (#11243399)
    If you want to experience freefall its going to be much cheaper to take a ride on the "Vomit Comet" or just spend fifty bucks at an indoor skydiving facility for a go in the vertical wind tunnel. But I guess the views and bragging rights wouldn't be anywhere near as good. experience is similar
    • It is not the same thing. In the vertical wind tunnel you don't have this impression of constantly falling, because you are not experiencing micro-gravity, you are static in the 1.0g Earth gravity field.

      The few initial seconds of freefall before reaching terminal velocity in true skydiving are more like it, but we are talking seconds, not minutes.

      On the other hand freefall is reputedly not particularly pleasant to newcomers.
    • That, and there's that whole "seeing Earth from space" thing, which is supposed to be a very profound experience.

      Anyways, X-Prize head Peter Diamandis's new company Zero G [nogravity.com] is now offering a weightless flight with 15 parabolas for $3000 - $4000 a ticket [nogravity.com].

  • SpaceShipX doesnt sound very catchy (Score:3, Funny)

    by mrjb ( 547783 ) on Monday January 03, 2005 @06:53AM (#11243406)
    Maybe they should rename them to 'Thunderbirds' or something.
  • Can or do people (individuals or VCs) invest in Rutan's company? I mean other than P. Allen and Virgin?

    They get a shitload of press, both here and on TV. I figure they must be trying to build recognition. And from what I see, they're doing a kick-ass job at it.

  • Take part in building fullsize SpaceShipOne mockup (Score:3, Interesting)

    by FleaPlus ( 6935 ) on Monday January 03, 2005 @01:12PM (#11246113) Journal
    I saw this over on X Prize Space Race News [xprizenews.org], and figured it might be of interest:

    STUDENTS AND YOUNG PROFESSIONALS WANTED FOR THE CHANCE OF A LIFETIME

    The X PRIZE Foundation is issuing out a call to arms for those interested in getting their hands dirty to further the cause of private spaceflight. In a tribute to the majesty of SpaceShipOne, the X PRIZE Foundation will be creating several full-size mockups of the historic private spacecraft to be used as early as this summer for outreach and education.

    We are offering 10 students and young professionals the chance of a lifetime to come to the World's First Inland Spaceport at Mojave, California, to build multiple full-scale mockups of the SpaceShipOne.

    This amazing opportunity is only open mainly for students and young professionals as an educational project. We are also looking for a project lead with experience in composites and/or fiberglass lay-up to oversee the project to completion.

    Working at Scaled Composites' facilities, this team will dive in and get their hands dirty as they learn the spaceship building business.

    Using the original tooling and methods employed in fabricating the actual spaceship, this will be an opportunity unlike any other. The project will take off in mid-January 2005 and continue throughout the spring semester. This highly competitive program could count for academic credit and will provide students and young professionals with the outstanding experience of working with composites, fiberglass lay-up and other processes associated with the building of a spaceship.

    "This is an extraordinary educational opportunity to actually build a copy of SpaceShipOne using Burt Rutan's original tooling," said Dr. Peter H. Diamandis, CEO and Chairman of the X PRIZE Foundation. "The folks who get chosen for this project will work within the Scaled Composites facility and have the opportunity of a lifetime. In fact, I hope to get out to Mojave to participate when I can as well."

    Project timeline: Mid January - Mid May
    Location: Mojave, CA
    Compensation: N/A
    Other: Physical work required - must be able to lift more than 40lbs
    Security: Background check will be performed
    Transportation: You must provide your own transportation

    Individuals who wish to be a part of this project should send a resume and cover letter describing why you would like to participate to:

    Brooke Owens, Director of Team Relations & Special Projects at brooke@xprize.org. Deadline for application is January 10, 2005, however, we will fill available slots on a rolling basis so please apply as soon as possible. Interested parties should be advised that this opportunity is unpaid, but rich in opportunity.

  • Wired article on Richard Branson (Score:3, Informative)

    by FleaPlus ( 6935 ) on Monday January 03, 2005 @01:21PM (#11246206) Journal
    This month's issue of Wired has a cover article [wired.com] on Richard Branson's Virgin Galactic, which will be using SpaceShipTwo to run a commercial spaceflight service.

    Some interesting quotes:

    But look at the upside. The total price tag [of Virgin Galactic] is half the cost of a single Airbus A340-600 - and Virgin Atlantic ordered 26 of those last summer. In return, Branson gets bragging rights to one of the cooler breakthroughs of the early 21st century, with rocket-powered marketing opportunities that could fuel excitement - and sales - in his entire 200-company holding group. ...

    SpaceShipOne's "shuttlecock" design adds an extra measure of safety. When the craft reaches its airless apogee, it hinges (feathers, in pilotspeak) into a broad V shape that automatically brakes the descent. "It lets you take an averagely competent pilot - like me - and throw anything you can think of at him, and still have everyone aboard get away safely," Tai explains. "The space shuttle does that with all sorts of fantastically complex systems. Burt's brilliance is that his ship uses smart design and the laws of physics. Which are, in fact, the only ways you can be truly drop-dead safe." ...

    Why stop there? "I hope we'll get to the moon in my lifetime. The first baby born there - what country will it be a citizen of? Maybe we can put a Virgin bank in space, or maybe a Virgin tax haven. We could pay for all our people to go up there just by depositing their money." Now, that's adventure capitalism!

    The simple fact is that going into space gives Branson a chance to do what a lot of massively successful guys wish they could do: grab the wheel of history and tug. Opening the final frontier to private citizens will ensure Branson's place in the human saga. And if that means fleets of Virgin spaceships soaring through the inky void, serving sip-packs of Virgin Cola on the way to the latest Virgin Clubhouse, so be it. "Space is virgin territory," Branson says, trying out a prospective marketing line and shooting another grin. "Is that 21st-century enough for you?"

Slashdot Top Deals

If money can't buy happiness, I guess you'll just have to rent it.

Close