|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Suborbital Homebuilts?
Unlike me, Andrew Case is probably too modest to toot his own horn,
but he has a nice piece over at The Space Review about the coming age of suborbital barnstorming. http://www.thespacereview.com/article/30/2 -- simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole) interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org "Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..." Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me. Here's my email address for autospammers: |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Suborbital Homebuilts?
The Space Review about the coming age
of suborbital barnstorming. I remember reading in OMNI about20 years ago about a fellow who was fashioning his own suborbital manned rocket, using largely pieces of hardware obtained surplus from NASA or DoD. I can't recall any other details. I wonder if anyone else recalls more about this, and what happened to the effort? Matt Bille ) OPINIONS IN ALL POSTS ARE SOLELY THOSE OF THE AUTHOR |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Suborbital Homebuilts?
Sounds like Bob Truax.
MattWriter wrote: The Space Review about the coming age of suborbital barnstorming. I remember reading in OMNI about20 years ago about a fellow who was fashioning his own suborbital manned rocket, using largely pieces of hardware obtained surplus from NASA or DoD. I can't recall any other details. I wonder if anyone else recalls more about this, and what happened to the effort? Matt Bille ) OPINIONS IN ALL POSTS ARE SOLELY THOSE OF THE AUTHOR |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Suborbital Homebuilts?
MattWriter wrote:
I remember reading in OMNI about20 years ago about a fellow who was fashioning his own suborbital manned rocket, using largely pieces of hardware obtained surplus from NASA or DoD. I can't recall any other details. I wonder if anyone else recalls more about this, and what happened to the effort? This was probably Bob Truax's VolksRocket. Details are from memory, but I believe the plan involved surplus Atlas LR101 verniers, sea launch and parachute recovery. One detail that sticks in my mind is a comment from Truax that the pilot had a 90-95% chance of surviving the first flight. Doesn't sound very appealing to me, but then again those were the days when men were MEN. Another vehicle concept I left out of the article (I'd completely forgotten until John Bossard reminded me) was the Cerulean Freight Forwarding Company's Kitten, which IIRC predated the X Prize. They are now an official X Prize team, though their name has changed to Kittyhawk Technologies. .......Andrew -- -- Andrew Case | | |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Suborbital Homebuilts?
"VolksRocket" is my recollection also. I believe it used 4 of the Atlas
steering rockets (they're the small rocket engines on the side of the booster near the tail). I have several of those myself, which I got from a surplus dealer in North Hollywood - possibly where Truax got his. Andrew Case wrote: MattWriter wrote: I remember reading in OMNI about20 years ago about a fellow who was fashioning his own suborbital manned rocket, using largely pieces of hardware obtained surplus from NASA or DoD. I can't recall any other details. I wonder if anyone else recalls more about this, and what happened to the effort? This was probably Bob Truax's VolksRocket. Details are from memory, but I believe the plan involved surplus Atlas LR101 verniers, sea launch and parachute recovery. One detail that sticks in my mind is a comment from Truax that the pilot had a 90-95% chance of surviving the first flight. Doesn't sound very appealing to me, but then again those were the days when men were MEN. Another vehicle concept I left out of the article (I'd completely forgotten until John Bossard reminded me) was the Cerulean Freight Forwarding Company's Kitten, which IIRC predated the X Prize. They are now an official X Prize team, though their name has changed to Kittyhawk Technologies. ......Andrew -- -- Andrew Case | | |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Suborbital Homebuilts?
Clark S. Lindsey wrote:
I would say that the closest to a real backyard manned rocket project is that of Brian Walker (aka Rocket Guy.) I should have mentioned Walker in the article. I meant to but somehow it slipped my mind. He certainly has the resources to pull it off, and he takes advice from people more knowledgeable than he is. His vehicle has undergone considerable evolution since the first version. Also he has the money to pull it off, which is a big deal. I kind of wish he'd collaborate with other people a bit more, perhaps more in the style of Armadillo, but it's his money, his call. I'm hoping he succeeds. .......Andrew -- -- Andrew Case | | |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Suborbital Homebuilts?
Rand Simberg wrote:
Unlike me, Andrew Case is probably too modest to toot his own horn, but he has a nice piece over at The Space Review about the coming age of suborbital barnstorming. http://www.thespacereview.com/article/30/2 Thanks, Rand. I've also put a bunch of peripherally related links on RocketForge http://www.rocketforge.org/index.php .......Andrew -- -- Andrew Case | | |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Suborbital Homebuilts?
"Allen Meece" wrote in message ... Andrew says, "Preliminary indications from the office of the FAA Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation (AST) are that they are favorably disposed towards suborbital spaceflight, though whether this extends to homebuilt vehicles remains to be seen. This statement can be misleading. Rutan said the whole SS1 suborb system cost 10 million to build and would cost that much again to have it man-rated by the FAA. That's NOT being "favorably disposed." That's being prohibitive toward CATS. Face it, in general, the government does not a bunch of civilians running around in space. Period. Umm, compare that cost to the cost of any new aircraft and getting flight certification. (I believe that's the proper designation for a passenger craft.) There's no FAA standard for "man-rated". ^ //^\\ ~~~ near space elevator ~~~~ ~~~members.aol.com/beanstalkr/~~~ |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Suborbital Homebuilts?
Allen Meece wrote:
Andrew says, "Preliminary indications from the office of the FAA Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation (AST) are that they are favorably disposed towards suborbital spaceflight, though whether this extends to homebuilt vehicles remains to be seen. This statement can be misleading. Rutan said the whole SS1 suborb system cost 10 million to build and would cost that much again to have it man-rated by the FAA. That's NOT being "favorably disposed." That's being prohibitive toward CATS. AST is favorably disposed towards suborbital spaceflight, and they don't have a procedure for "man rating." Rutan's comment refers to the expense of running SS1 through the FAA process for type certifying *airplanes*, which makes no sense for a suborbital spacecraft. Rutan is an airplane builder, and he's treating SS1 as an airplane for regulatory purposes (at least for now) - this works just fine in the development phase, where the experimental aircraft rules apply. Once you want to put the vehicle into revenue under the aircraft certification rules service, you have to jump through a whole bunch of hoops that are completely inappropriate for a developing industry. AST understands this, though the rest of the FAA has yet to come around. If everything goes smoothly suborbitals will be regulated as what they a neither airplane nor orbital launcher. If things go particularly badly, they will be regulated as if they were aircraft, and the suborbital spaceflight industry will all but die. From the standpoint of a homebuilder, it might be possible to work entirely under the rules for experimental aircraft. That might seem like the best approach, but I don't think it is. Homebuilders will fare best if there is a vigorous industry flying suborbitals, both because of the increased familiarity with suborbitals on the part of FAA and the public, and because homebuilders can learn from the commercial operators. In addition, the availability of equipment from commercial operators will greatly simplify things for homebuilders: I talked in the piece about flight control systems and engines as being the hardest parts of the problem - both will be easier to get, cheaper, and more reliable if there are comercial outfits using them. If a precedent is established that suborbital spacecraft are regulated as if they were aircraft, the resulting regulatory burden on the startups will kill most of them and cripple the rest. This whole issue is very much in flux right now. We'll know within 18 months how it's going to shake out. Ideally there will be a unique regulatory category for suborbital spacecraft that acknowledges the unique features of the vehicles. The worst case is if the regulations for commercial aircraft are simply carried over without modification. Once the first flights start things will move quite rapidly. Face it, in general, the government does not a bunch of civilians running around in space. Period. Not even close to true. The government consists of a huge number of individuals and interest groups, each with their own concerns and ideas about what is best. The government does not have a uniform policy towards civilian spaceflight. Right now there is unfortunately little that outsiders can do except stay out of the way, AFAIK. The startups are working on moving things along and uninformed attempts to push one way or another may do more harm than good. There may be opportunities later on for input from the public to influence the course of events in a positive direction. .......Andrew -- -- Andrew Case | | |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Suborbital Homebuilts?
Allen Meece wrote:
Andrew says, "Preliminary indications from the office of the FAA Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation (AST) are that they are favorably disposed towards suborbital spaceflight, though whether this extends to homebuilt vehicles remains to be seen. This statement can be misleading. Rutan said the whole SS1 suborb system cost 10 million to build and would cost that much again to have it man-rated by the FAA. That's NOT being "favorably disposed." That's being prohibitive toward CATS. Face it, in general, the government does not a bunch of civilians running around in space. Period. so launch from elsewhere? ^ //^\\ ~~~ near space elevator ~~~~ ~~~members.aol.com/beanstalkr/~~~ -- Sander +++ Out of cheese error +++ |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
space shuttle as a suborbital plane | washer of kegs | Space Shuttle | 6 | June 27th 04 07:39 PM |
What happened to SpaceShipOne? | CA Zuke | Technology | 11 | March 26th 04 02:52 AM |
Suborbital Homebuilts? | Andrew Case | Space Science Misc | 0 | July 6th 03 04:20 AM |