(OT) Rutan spaceplane

> ias@sprintmail.com (Imre A. Szabo) wrote:

Space Ship 1 is specificlly designed for experimental purposes and is not a
commercial model nor will it be used as such. According to the website and an
article in AWST.

On the other hand, Burt IS planning on using the White Knight to loft small
payloads into orbit. They will be Pegasus class micro-sattilites, not
manned. They hybrid rocket motor is a poor choice for any type of orbital try,
and
would/will have to be replaced, along with Space Ship 1, (probably so
called because he has plans for Space Ship 2 running around already:o) for any

orbital attempt.

> Sanger had the right idea decades ago. A two stage fully reusable

Actually Sanger's idea was a captive sled booster, so technically it was a
stage and a half:o)

> KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de wrote:

It's an X-prize official entery so it, (according to the rules of the
contest) can't be in any way shape or form funded by the government. (Burt
does follow SOME rules:o)

> What is the cost of Rutan's program ?

He won't say and it will in all likely hood be quite a bit more than the

prize of $10million dollars.

> Accounting can be quite a creative art, so everything about this must

This is the main reason why they are silent on the cost. It is NOT a
commercial, but a test vehicle. Maintenance, recurring, and other costs will
be closely tracked once the system starts testing to give a ballpark figure
for how much a commercial operator would need to charge to make a profit.
There is already a good amount of data on the White Knight, but till it flys
repeatedly, the operations cost of Space Ship 1 are all asumed.

On the converse side, it's been known for decades that what REALLY costs for
current flights is: a. The requirement for high redundancy and reliability for
launchers because
they are essentially "one-shot-must-work-the-first-time" vehicles.
b. The massive amounts of support and engineering staff required at launch to
support the above vehicle.

WK/SS1 does away with a majority of (b), but so did the Pegasus and
Sea-Launch. They were still stuck with (a).

> This is generally not known until the program is complete, but

> ias@sprintmail.com (Imre A. Szabo) wrote:

> That's only because Soyuz are done in Russia. If the Russian's had to

In actuallity flying in a Russian rocket or the Shuttle, a passenger would
have had to pay around the same price. The Russians agreed to do it for money
where as NASA won't take the liability. The Russians don't charge 'true'

prices either:o)

> This is what is significant about Rutan's spaceplane. It is the cost

Again that is because it doesn't require the amount of support team that a
'regular' rocket requires. And that's because of the principle rather than a
function of design.
I'd ALSO point out that we're talking a SUB-ORBITAL ride costing as much
as an ORBITAL ride and stay at the ISS:o) This is not a good thing:o)
(Seriously? The AWST article and the Space.com article state that the 'target'
price is @ $50,000 per passenger:o)

> To win the X-Prize requires a two week turn around which implies (but

To be honest, it means exactly "two flights in two weeks" and nothing more:o)

> The info on the Scaled Composite web site implies that most of the

Actually it's also for full vehicle check outs and data gathering. But Rutan,
like most of the X-Prize designers expects the second flight within ONE
week, rather than two. But the plan is for less than 20 flights with SS1.

> There is no reason why an improved engine of much lower maintence can't

The engine 'maintenance' is not the problem. The engine can be 'refueled'
within a few days, and the Lox tank filled in less than an hour. In fact the
"good" thing about the Hybrid solid/liquid engine is that the entire
empty solid engine casing can be removed and replaced with a full solid in
less than a few hours and then topping off the Lox tank and your ready to go
again. To get an ORBITAL craft though, would require a much more powerful
engine and a VERY different vehicle design. (Larger at least) The SS1 'should'
be able to take Mach 3, and up to 6 plus G's on entry and climb out, but it is
not well designed for orbital reentry or heating.

> yh728@victoria.tc.ca (Brian Burger) wrote:

Just an FYI, undergoing current testing are several "X" craft from the
X-40a
to the X-50. Out of the 10, only two, (the X-44 and the X-48) are
supposed to
be Manned vehicles. (The X-43 Hyper-X MAY turn into a manned craft
someday:o) The rest are ALL prototypes of Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles. (UCAV)
The X-44 is to be a 'stealth' bomber version of the F-22, and the X-48
is a
"Blended Wing/Body" idea for a new transport aircraft.
(As a note, the X-41/X-42 are "black" projects so noone is really sure
WHAT they are:o)

> Likewise the first private venture of this sort to get this far

Technically? The Thunderbird team has all thier gear tested and ready, they
just need the funds for assembly and launch:o) The DiVinci team is awaiting a
balloon and funds. So though Rutans is the only one that has parts actually
flight tested, one of the other teams COULD jump ahead if they got a sudden
influx of funds:o)

> The X-Prize doesn't require actual orbital flight to win, just

Just a correction or two:o) 1. The goal to win the prize is 62 miles. (100km)
2. They craft must carry and return 3 people or one crew and the equivilent
mass of two more people. 3. The craft must be capable of flying again within
two weeks. 4. The craft must use the same cabin and @80% of the vehicle again
for the second flight.

There are several other 'rules' to the prize. It's on the X-prize
website.

Randy