SpaceShipTwo unveiled

[phongn]

Gallery.

It's pretty much an upscaled design of their earlier SpaceShipOne, though somewhat resembling the classic Dynasoar. They're hoping to begin flight tests this year.

[MKSheppard]

I still think that contracting Boeing to revive North American Aviation as a division is better for commercial space travel; than Rutan's twinky designs which are good for one shot record attempts; but not for everyday use.

[phongn]

I still think that contracting Boeing to revive North American Aviation as a division is better for commercial space travel; than Rutan's twinky designs which are good for one shot record attempts; but not for everyday use.

He is expecting weekly launches with his fleet, though.

[MKSheppard]

He is expecting weekly launches with his fleet, though.

With what, unobtanium?

[phongn]

With what, unobtanium?

Why not? Its first stage is obviously reusable indefinitely, refueling should not be a major issue, and since it's moving at suborbital velocities, it doesn't need to shed huge amounts of energy on re-entry. SpaceShipOne had fast turnaround, after all.

[Sidewinder]

I noticed they redesigned the mother plane and gave both aircraft more conventional cockpits. That'll probably help with pilot training. (I remember reading about StarShipOne's pilots feeling disorientated by the view from that spacecraft's many portals.)

Comments from people with more knowledge of aviation, specifically regarding the feasibility of the new designs?

[Broomstick]

I still think that contracting Boeing to revive North American Aviation as a division is better for commercial space travel; than Rutan's twinky designs which are good for one shot record attempts; but not for everyday use.

Actually, Rutan's design for SpaceShipOne was a two shot record attempt. A successful one, I might add. If I recall, the R&D costs for SS1 was around $25 - about 1/5 the cost of one of Boeing's big jets. Not bad for a homebrew spacecraft.

Rutan's designs might be "twinky", but I've shared airspace with Rutan design airplanes that are over 30 years old - there's nothing wrong with his design abilities even if the airplanes look unconventional. They are unconventional, but that doesn't mean they're bad or inferior. Until the late 1990's you couldn't get a more fuel-efficient, fast, 2 seat airplane. He was building airplanes out of composites in the 1970's - now everyone is doing it.

[Phantasee]

If I recall, the R&D costs for SS1 was around $25 - about 1/5 the cost of one of Boeing's big jets. Not bad for a homebrew spacecraft.

Are you telling me that Boeing spends $125 on R&D? I'm assuming there are some missing zeroes, but even at millions I think that's a bit on the light side.

[Broomstick]

I noticed they redesigned the mother plane and gave both aircraft more conventional cockpits.

I'm scratching my head over the "more conventional cockpit" thing - maybe I'm just used to weird airplanes, but it doesn't look that different to me. SS1 was more bare-bones than most cockpits out there, but then, it was never intended to be a production aircraft. In what way does it appear more conventional to you?

That'll probably help with pilot training. (I remember reading about StarShipOne's pilots feeling disorientated by the view from that spacecraft's many portals.)

I have to wonder if the disorientation was from the portholes, or from have so few exterior references? From what I recall, the pilot were flying strictly on instruments past a certain point and looking outside very little, which isn't that much different from flying through clouds - you keep your head inside and looking at the instruments because looking outside results in disorientation.

Flying in space isn't like flying in atmosphere. I think you'll need people who are not just good atmospheric pilots, but people who can also adapt to vacuum flying (yes, yes, I know it's not a perfect vacuum, but it's not what we'd call "air", either). I would think that requires a different even if related skillset.

Comments from people with more knowledge of aviation, specifically regarding the feasibility of the new designs?

Well, SS1 clearly did work, the problem has always been the feasibility of scaling up. They've had some problems, most well known being the death of three staff during an engine test gone very wrong.

The thing is, it's not enough to simply build another experimental space ship. The FAA is quite willing to let you kill yourself in a homemade aircraft - but not let you take someone along for the ride. That's why during the X-prize flights SS1 carried a pilot and the equivalent weight of two more people and not two actual passengers. There's no way in hell the FAA would have allowed non-crew, non-essential people on board such a flight.

If I felt more ambitious I'd actually dig up the rules the FAA has now on "recreational spaceflight" or whatever the hell they're calling it now, but for damn sure they'll need a much better life support system than what they had on SS1. Know what they had on SS1? An oxygen bottle and a mask for the pilot. That thing leaked. It wasn't a seive, but it wasn't airtight eitherl, they just kept unloading air from bottles to compensate for what was lost overboard. It was quite adequate for a testflight/record attempt but there's no way the FAA would allow passengers with that. And it's in details like that, the safety systems and life support, where a hell of a lot of work needs to be done. If a test pilot dies it's horrible but it's a risk of the job. Start killing your customers/tourists it's another matter entirely.

In other words, there are several steps they have to work through here. First, they have to make sure the damn thing flies in atmosphere. I'm not too worried about that. Rutan has something like 30 successful designs and 4 or 5 of them are hanging in the Smithsonian as aviation milestones. He knows how to make things flyable. He has to make sure it flies in sub-orbital flight - that's a little more questionable because there's relatively little experience in it but he HAS done it so I'm confident he'll be able to scale up to SS2. Then he has to convince the FAA that it's not a deathtrap and I think THAT will be the most difficult part of turning this into a commercial operation. In fact, it would not surprise me if they wind up launching this thing from somewhere else in the world if they run into too many roadblocks with the FAA. I hope they don't, I'd prefer to see this down in the US (yay home team and all that). I'd prefer they be able to build this to very high regulatory standards because space is fucking dangerous.

[Broomstick]

If I recall, the R&D costs for SS1 was around $25 - about 1/5 the cost of one of Boeing's big jets. Not bad for a homebrew spacecraft.

Are you telling me that Boeing spends $125 on R&D? I'm assuming there are some missing zeroes, but even at millions I think that's a bit on the light side.

Sorry, that wasn't clear - a new Boeing jet costs about $125 million apiece. I have no idea what the R&D for a particular Boeing model cost. My point was that Rutan wasn't spending billions on this, this is a project that could have been done by private industry which clearly has the money. It's just that private industry doesn't see a profit in it, and there are some liability concerns as well that I'm sure stand in the way. It takes someone half-crazed like Branson to bankroll this sort of thing.

IF this turns into a money-making enterprise private industry such as Boeing or Airbus might be interested in it, at which point the per-unit cost will go down considerably. Rutan might even be happy to sell the plans, as he seems much more interested in coming up with new stuff than running a production assembly line.

But, you know, while the pictures are quite pretty the actual information they give is limited. Which I would expect. Rutan doesn't want to give away this technology.

[FedRebel]

I still think that contracting Boeing to revive North American Aviation as a division is better for commercial space travel; than Rutan's twinky designs which are good for one shot record attempts; but not for everyday use.

And while we're at it we could yank the XB-70 from the museum and get her flight worthy again, even if it means cramming in the engines of a SR-71 to get the damn thing airborne.

NAA is dead, period. Boeing won't bring it back, and why should they? It's just a name, hoisting a 'North American Aviation' banner won't make wings of B-70's and dynasoar's magically appear.

Boeing would only get into spacecraft if they get a solid contract with NASA for a shuttle replacement that'll spontaneously combust at a fraction of the cost, or if it becomes profitable to build a space worthy commercial spaceliner. In the latter event the product would probably be called the Boeing 808-200, or something

[Sidewinder]

Note to FedRebel: Lockheed Martin is building the shuttle replacement, i.e., the Orion.