Rutan plans commercial tourist spacecraft

In article , Joe
Strout wrote:

I like the idea of lots of video cameras though -- when paying $20K (or
whatever) for three minutes of weightlessness and a great view, you'll
want to have as much to take with you and share with your family as
possible.

There was a great TV commercial a while ago about a space tourist going
to Mir, taking a lot of video with a ?Sony? camcorder. The tag line
was 'When they ask where their inheritence went, you can show them.'

--
David M. Palmer (formerly @clark.net, @ematic.com)

Earl Colby Pottinger wrote in message ...
"Jeff Findley" :

If we're talking about the same flight profile (carrier aircraft lifts
hybrid powered spacecraft which is dropped and ascends to 100 km), what
would need to be different, aside from scaling the design up by a factor of
two?

Jeff

Call me dumb if you want as I am no R.B. but I think/feel that some changes
in the carrier craft will be needed to carry a heavier craft. Most aircraft
design can not be simply scaled up without changing something. A large craft
will need more powerful engines or more of them for example. More engines
means changes ofcourse, more powerful engines probably will not find an exact
scaled up match so some changes there.

Besides it still is R.B., why scale up when he can design a newer better
machine to blow our minds I don't know how he does it, my best guess we
live on Earth, He lives in a world of flight and hydrodymanics.

Earl Colby Pottinger
Hmm ... a bigger carrier craft, you say ? Like something that could
perhaps loft a smallish orbital rocket too, in addition to suborbital
passenger bus ?

-kert

In article ,
(Henry Spencer) wrote:

Lose the stupid portholes, so you don't need a chase aircraft as an escort
because of lousy cockpit view.

Actually, I understand the portholes give a surprisingly good view of
the outside. There's a chase craft because these are early test
flights...if something goes wrong, they have someone who saw it go wrong.
Aside from the looks, big single windows probably bring more strength
problems.

--
Christopher James Huff
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG:
http://tag.povray.org/

(Alan Anderson) writes:

"Jeff Findley" wrote:

If we're talking about the same flight profile (carrier aircraft lifts
hybrid powered spacecraft which is dropped and ascends to 100 km), what
would need to be different, aside from scaling the design up by a factor of
two?

Refinements for even faster turnaround than SS1. A significantly upgraded
passenger cabin, with "comfort" features (like a vomit vacuum system) and
lots of video cameras.

More windows.

I think I'd want to switch from hybrid rockets to a liquid-fueled
system, but that's just my prejudices.

--
pgf

In article ,
Phil Fraering pgf@AUTO wrote:
I think I'd want to switch from hybrid rockets to a liquid-fueled
system, but that's just my prejudices.

Hybrids are not an unreasonable choice. The one limitation, for an
operational vehicle, is that loading a new fuel grain -- inherently a
large, clumsy object -- is distinctly less convenient than just pouring
one more fluid into the appropriate tank, and that's going to slow down
turnaround.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

Henry Spencer wrote:

In article ,
Phil Fraering pgf@AUTO wrote:
I think I'd want to switch from hybrid rockets to a liquid-fueled
system, but that's just my prejudices.

Hybrids are not an unreasonable choice. The one limitation, for an
operational vehicle, is that loading a new fuel grain -- inherently a
large, clumsy object -- is distinctly less convenient than just pouring
one more fluid into the appropriate tank, and that's going to slow down
turnaround.

Oh, not necessarily. The hybrid grains are inert solid objects... keep
'em stored in a rack. No power required for refrigeration; if the
spaceport power blacks out during the heat of the summer, your fuel
doesn;t go away. The guys who deal with the fuel do not need specail
cyrogen protection suits; spills of hydrocarbon fuels do not need to be
mopped up and leeched out of the ground prior to the contamination
reached groundwater.

Also, the fuel tanks will not need to be periodically cleaned out or
inspected; there will be little risk of dirty sediment building up and
clogging things. Plumbing lines, and associated maintenance, are cut in
half. Replacing a hydrid fuel grain could be, if designed right, the job
of two guys and ten minutes, using tools available at any Home Depot.
And in this case, these two guys can be relatively low-tech, and thus
lower pay and overhead than the several guys needed for RP-1 maintenance
(and certainly far cheaper than LH2 maintenance guys). Since the solid
fuel won't spill and is damned unlikely to catch fire, storage costs and
facility insurance rates *should* be lower.

While RP-1 fueling might be quicker, the other operational advantages
that the solid fuel grain provide could well make that the operationally
cheaper route to go. We are quite some distance from where spacecraft
are able to just pull into a gas station, tank up and go.

--
Scott Lowther, Engineer
Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam
gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address

In article ,
Scott Lowther wrote:
Hybrids are not an unreasonable choice. The one limitation, for an
operational vehicle, is that loading a new fuel grain -- inherently a
large, clumsy object -- is distinctly less convenient...

Oh, not necessarily. The hybrid grains are inert solid objects... keep
'em stored in a rack.

Kerosene stores very nicely in quite ordinary tanks. And you don't need
to manufacture it.

No power required for refrigeration...
The guys who deal with the fuel do not need specail
cyrogen protection suits...

None required for kerosene. That sort of thing *is* required sometimes
for the oxidizer... but hybrids too use a liquid oxidizer.

spills of hydrocarbon fuels do not need to be
mopped up and leeched out of the ground prior to the contamination
reached groundwater.

Odd how most airports have little trouble with this, thanks to making
modest efforts to avoid spills and contain the ones they do get.

Also, the fuel tanks will not need to be periodically cleaned out or
inspected; there will be little risk of dirty sediment building up and
clogging things.

Except in the oxidizer plumbing, of course, which means that the cleaning
and inspection still has to be done.

Replacing a
hydrid fuel grain could be, if designed right, the job
of two guys and ten minutes, using tools available at any Home Depot.

I don't recall Home Depot selling forklifts, although perhaps I haven't
looked in the right area. These grains won't be lightweight.

Don't forget that you have to get the remains of the old grain out first.

Fueling an airliner usually takes one guy about the same length of time
with no tools.

And in this case, these two guys can be relatively low-tech, and thus
lower pay and overhead than the several guys needed for RP-1 maintenance
(and certainly far cheaper than LH2 maintenance guys).

The airliner fueling crew usually doesn't have a PhD either. DC-X didn't
have a squad of people devoted solely to pouring fuel into the tanks, and
that was with LH2.

Since the solid
fuel won't spill and is damned unlikely to catch fire, storage costs and
facility insurance rates *should* be lower.

The insurance people will probably be far more worried about fires in the
oxidizer storage facility anyway, as indeed they should be.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

Henry Spencer wrote:

Also, the fuel tanks will not need to be periodically cleaned out or
inspected; there will be little risk of dirty sediment building up and
clogging things.

Except in the oxidizer plumbing, of course, which means that the cleaning
and inspection still has to be done.

On *one* set of plumbing, yes.

Replacing a
hydrid fuel grain could be, if designed right, the job
of two guys and ten minutes, using tools available at any Home Depot.

I don't recall Home Depot selling forklifts,

They sell the equipment for moving heavy items, like truck engines and
the like.

Don't forget that you have to get the remains of the old grain out first.

They're called "bolts." Undo them, and the case/grain falls right off.
For an example, see "Space Ship One."


Fueling an airliner usually takes one guy about the same length of time
with no tools.

No hoses, huh? No pumps? Fuel trucks? Grounding cables?

And in this case, these two guys can be relatively low-tech, and thus
lower pay and overhead than the several guys needed for RP-1 maintenance
(and certainly far cheaper than LH2 maintenance guys).

The airliner fueling crew usually doesn't have a PhD either.

Do they clean out the airliner fuel tanks? Replace the fuel sensors and
whatnot?

DC-X didn't
have a squad of people devoted solely to pouring fuel into the tanks,

Of copurse not. But did they have people who scoped out the tank?

With a liquid vehicle, the liquid tanks need to be maintained,
periodically cleaned. With an SS1 style hybrid, the fuel grain is
integral witha low-cost case; simply remove from shrink wrap, bolt to
injector head and go.

--
Scott Lowther, Engineer
Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam
gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address

(Henry Spencer) :

In article ,
Scott Lowther wrote:
Hybrids are not an unreasonable choice. The one limitation, for an
operational vehicle, is that loading a new fuel grain -- inherently a
large, clumsy object -- is distinctly less convenient...

Oh, not necessarily. The hybrid grains are inert solid objects... keep
'em stored in a rack.

Kerosene stores very nicely in quite ordinary tanks. And you don't need
to manufacture it.

Neither will the user of solid fuel slugs, they will be ordered from a
manufactor and delivered by truck, the same when you need the amount of fuel
an airliner needs.

No power required for refrigeration...
The guys who deal with the fuel do not need specail
cyrogen protection suits...

None required for kerosene. That sort of thing *is* required sometimes
for the oxidizer... but hybrids too use a liquid oxidizer.

So there is no diffirence there at all.

spills of hydrocarbon fuels do not need to be
mopped up and leeched out of the ground prior to the contamination
reached groundwater.

Odd how most airports have little trouble with this, thanks to making
modest efforts to avoid spills and contain the ones they do get.

It happens very rarely at a well run airport, it happens never with well run
handling of solid fuel.

Also, the fuel tanks will not need to be periodically cleaned out or
inspected; there will be little risk of dirty sediment building up and
clogging things.

Except in the oxidizer plumbing, of course, which means that the cleaning
and inspection still has to be done.

Henry! Question! I am always hearing about inspection and problems with
cleaning hydrocarbon lines, I have heard very little about the need in
oxidizer lines - It has always been my understanding all major oxidizer leave
little or no deposits after use, the most important thing is prefiltering the
oxidizer for flamable particules - why would inpection turn into a mjor job
here?

Replacing a
hydrid fuel grain could be, if designed right, the job
of two guys and ten minutes, using tools available at any Home Depot.

I don't recall Home Depot selling forklifts, although perhaps I haven't
looked in the right area. These grains won't be lightweight.

It is a turn of phrase - forklifts are so easy to buy thay might as well be
in your local Home Depot. Infact I would not be suprise if some Home Depots
in the states do sell them even if not here in Canada.

Don't forget that you have to get the remains of the old grain out first.

Only an idiot would not have prewrapped the fuel slug in a non-combustable
wrapper that you just pull out after unbolting the nozzle end off the motor.

Fueling an airliner usually takes one guy about the same length of time
with no tools.

As point out, grounding straps, fuel trucks, feed nozzles and pumps are tools
too. You can fuel an airliner with nothing but your bare hands and nothing
else.

And in this case, these two guys can be relatively low-tech, and thus
lower pay and overhead than the several guys needed for RP-1 maintenance
(and certainly far cheaper than LH2 maintenance guys).

The airliner fueling crew usually doesn't have a PhD either. DC-X didn't
have a squad of people devoted solely to pouring fuel into the tanks, and
that was with LH2.

The point being?

Since the solid
fuel won't spill and is damned unlikely to catch fire, storage costs and
facility insurance rates *should* be lower.

The insurance people will probably be far more worried about fires in the
oxidizer storage facility anyway, as indeed they should be.

Depends on the oxidizer - if Nitrous Oxide theft is your real problem,
Hydrogen Peroxide how clean everything and I mean everything is, LOX while
clean is important so is the cooling/insulation systems. What commerical
oxidizer did I miss?

Earl Colby Pottinger

--
I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,
SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to
the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp

Earl Colby Pottinger wrote:

spills of hydrocarbon fuels do not need to be
mopped up and leeched out of the ground prior to the contamination
reached groundwater.

Odd how most airports have little trouble with this, thanks to making
modest efforts to avoid spills and contain the ones they do get.

It happens very rarely at a well run airport, it happens never with well run
handling of solid fuel.

The company I work for, and for the next few weeks anyway, has had a
major operation in effect for a decade or so to leech trichloroethane
(or ethylene, I forget) out of the soil. This has been quite expensive
and expansive. What was thuis horrible substance and how did it get in
the ground? It was a solvent used to clean things, and was occaisionally
spilled by workers. We didn't ahve a big tank truck of the stuff tip
over and spill... just a few decades of guys occaisionally tossing a cup
of the stuff out onto the asphalt (which was the original procedure for
disposal).


So... if you think the EPA and OSHA are going to pass up the opportunity
to make life a living hell for a brand-new industry that occasionally
spills stuff...


Replacing a
hydrid fuel grain could be, if designed right, the job
of two guys and ten minutes, using tools available at any Home Depot.

I don't recall Home Depot selling forklifts, although perhaps I haven't
looked in the right area. These grains won't be lightweight.

It is a turn of phrase - forklifts are so easy to buy thay might as well be
in your local Home Depot. Infact I would not be suprise if some Home Depots
in the states do sell them even if not here in Canada.

Regardless of whether or not one can buy a forklift down the block at
Forks R Us, or has to special order from the Ministry Of Forklifts, the
simple fact is... if you are dealign with large and heavy things lift
aircraft and spacecraft, and need forklifts or cranes for maintenance...
you're going to need forklifts or cranes.

So... replacing a hybrid grain of a few tons weight might require a
crane, but you'd be well advised to ahve one anyway for other
maintenance purposes. What other value would a kerosene or, worse yet,
liquid hydrogen storage tank have?


Only an idiot would not have prewrapped the fuel slug in a non-combustable
wrapper

Technical term: cartrige loading. Done all the time.



Depends on the oxidizer - if Nitrous Oxide theft is your real problem,
Hydrogen Peroxide how clean everything and I mean everything is, LOX while
clean is important so is the cooling/insulation systems. What commerical
oxidizer did I miss?

At the present time, that's about it. There is, in fact, very little
chance of any oxidizers other than those being used for a tourist
rocket; while FLOX would certain jack up the performance, it jsut ain't
gonna happen. Nitrogen tet and nitric acid are useful oxidizers, but
they stand no chance of being used around civvies. Hydrous ADN, HAP, HAN
and the like seem very unlikely for this sort of thing.

--
Scott Lowther, Engineer
Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam
gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address