|
Reader's Favorites
Media Casualties Mount Administration Split On Europe Invasion Administration In Crisis Over Burgeoning Quagmire Congress Concerned About Diversion From War On Japan Pot, Kettle On Line Two... Allies Seize Paris The Natural Gore Book Sales Tank, Supporters Claim Unfair Tactics Satan Files Lack Of Defamation Suit Why This Blog Bores People With Space Stuff A New Beginning My Hit Parade
Instapundit (Glenn Reynolds) Tim Blair James Lileks Bleats Virginia Postrel Kausfiles Winds Of Change (Joe Katzman) Little Green Footballs (Charles Johnson) Samizdata Eject Eject Eject (Bill Whittle) Pajamas Media Space
Alan Boyle (MSNBC) Space Politics (Jeff Foust) Space Transport News (Clark Lindsey) NASA Watch NASA Space Flight Personal Spaceflight (Jeff Foust) Rockets And Such Hyperbola (Rob Coppinger) Hobby Space A Voyage To Arcturus (Jay Manifold) Dispatches From The Final Frontier (Michael Belfiore) The Flame Trench (Florida Today) Orlando Sentinel Mars Blog Space Cynic Curmudgeon's Corner (Mark Whittington) Selenian Boondocks Tales of the Heliosphere Spaceports (Jack Kennedy) Out Of The Cradle Robot Guy (Ed Minchau) Parabolic Arc Space For Commerce (Brian Dunbar) Space Revolution (Ferris Valyn) A Babe In The Universe (L. Riofrio) Space Pragmatism (Dan Schrimpsher) Carried Away (Dan Schmelzer) True Anomaly Space Law Probe (Jesse Londin) Planetary Society (Emily Lakdawalla) Space Solar Power (Colonel Michael "Coyote" Smith) Back Off Government Chair Force Engineer (Air Force Procurement) Space, What Now (Tom Hill) Life At The Frontier (Joe Gillin) Troubadour (Brian Swiderski) Space Prizes Spacearium Saturn Follies JesusPhreaks (Scott Bell) Science
Nanobot (Howard Lovy) Lagniappe (Derek Lowe) Geek Press (Paul Hsieh) Gene Expression Carl Zimmer Turned Up To Eleven (Paul Orwin) Cowlix (Wes Cowley) Economics/Finance
Asymmetrical Information (Jane Galt and Mindles H. Dreck) Marginal Revolution (Tyler Cowen et al) Man Without Qualities (Robert Musil) Knowledge Problem (Lynne Kiesling) The Funny Pages
Cox & Forkum Day By Day Iowahawk Happy Fun Pundit Jim Treacher IMAO The Onion Amish Tech Support (Lawrence Simon) Scrapple Face (Scott Ott) Regular Reading
Quasipundit (Adragna & Vehrs) England's Sword (Iain Murray) Daily Pundit (Bill Quick) Pejman Pundit Daimnation! (Damian Penny) Aspara Girl Flit Z+ Blog (Andrew Zolli) Matt Welch Ken Layne The Kolkata Libertarian Midwest Conservative Journal Protein Wisdom (Jeff Goldstein et al) Dean's World (Dean Esmay) Yippee-Ki-Yay (Kevin McGehee) Vodka Pundit Richard Bennett Victory Soap (Andrea Harris) Random Jottings (John Weidner) Natalie Solent On the Third Hand (Kathy Kinsley, Bellicose Woman) Patrick Ruffini Inappropriate Response (Moira Breen) Jerry Pournelle Other Worthy Weblogs
Ain't No Bad Dude (Brian Linse) Airstrip One A libertarian reads the papers Andrew Olmsted Anna Franco Review Ben Kepple's Daily Rant Bjorn Staerk Bitter Girl Catallaxy Files Dawson.com Dodgeblog Dropscan (Shiloh Bucher) End the War on Freedom Fevered Rants Fredrik Norman Heretical Ideas Ideas etc Insolvent Republic of Blogistan James Reuben Haney Libertarian Rant Matthew Edgar Mind over what matters Muslimpundit Page Fault Interrupt Photodude Privacy Digest Quare Rantburg Recovering Liberal Sand In The Gears(Anthony Woodlief) Sgt. Stryker The Blogs of War The Fly Bottle The Illuminated Donkey Unqualified Offerings What she really thinks Where HipHop & Libertarianism Meet Zem : blog Space Policy Links
Space Future The Space Review The Space Show Space Frontier Foundation Space Policy Digest BBS AWOL
USS Clueless (Steven Den Beste) Media Minder Unremitting Verse (Will Warren) World View (Brink Lindsay) The Last Page More Than Zero (Andrew Hofer) Pathetic Earthlings (Andrew Lloyd) Spaceship Summer (Derek Lyons) The New Space Age (Rob Wilson) Rocketman (Mark Oakley) Mazoo Rocket Forge (Michael Mealing) COTS Watch (Michael Mealing) Spacecraft (Chris Hall) Kevin Parkin Laughing Wolf (C. Blake Powers) Quark Soup (Dave Appell) Site designed by Powered by Movable Type 4.0 |
The New Space RaceJeff Foust has a story today on the current real space race (as opposed to the fantasy one between the US and China)--the new race for customers in the suborbital market. It's basically a compilation of last week's XCOR press conference announcement and this past weekend's Space Access conference, both of which I attended. This to me is the key point: "Quietly, this has turned into a horse race," said conference organizer Henry Vanderbilt during a wrap-up panel at the conclusion of the Space Access conference. "There are a lot of people who could be the first to fly a passenger to suborbit at this point. Two years ago I'm sure the money would have been on Virgin Galactic. It isn't necessarily so at this point." What I meant about the "mystique of Burt" was the notion that the winning of the X-Prize was some kind of fluke, enabled only because the most brilliant aeronautical engineer in the world applied his genius to it. Many have used this as an excuse to denigrate the efforts of others building suborbital vehicles, which hasn't made it any easier to raise money for such ventures. Many seem to believe that it really takes the genius of a Rutan to build a suborbital vehicle. As evidence of this proposition, they point out that no other suborbital vehicles have been flown since 2004. But in so doing, they display a fundamental ignorance of the nature of the technology and the requirements. There is no "one way" to skin that cat, and never was. Burt's design was clever, and perhaps intrinsically safer, but it was not necessary, and there are other, better ways to do the job that are safe enough. It's not at all clear that the SS1 approach is the best one for a commercial application, and if one includes in that the hybrid propulsion, it's already caused delays (though those are partly due to Scaled taking on a project outside their area of expertise--they're an aircraft manufacturer, not a propulsion house) in their development program, and it's certain to result in higher operational costs and increased turnaround time. The real point is that if only Burt could win the X-Prize, it wasn't because he was the only guy smart enough to design a vehicle to do it. It was because he was the only guy with the reputation of being smart enough to be able to raise the money to do it. When it comes to space ventures, the hardest part is always raising the money. The technical challenges generally pale in comparison. So, with schedule delays in SS2, now comes XCOR. XCOR has a reputation of its own, hard won over the past eight years, of underpromising and overdelivering. So when they have a (rare, almost unheard of) press conference announcing that they have the design and the cash to build a suborbital vehicle, with an endorsement from the Air Force Research Laboratory, the world listens, and suddenly it's a real race. Evidence that the mystique has been broken is this CNBC story by Jane Wells from last week, after XCOR's announcement, with the hed "Branson And Northrop May Be Backing "Wrong" Rocket Man!" Burt is no longer God, other companies are getting serious attention from both business journalists and investors, and it's been a very good week for the new space industry and space age. 0 TrackBacksListed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: The New Space Race. TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.transterrestrial.com/admin/mt-tb.cgi/9316 13 CommentsLeave a comment
Note: The comment system is functional, but timing out when returning a response page. If you have submitted a comment, DON'T RESUBMIT IT IF/WHEN IT HANGS UP AND GIVES YOU A "500" PAGE. Simply click your browser "Back" button to the post page, and then refresh to see your comment.
|
Not one to pick a nit, but shouldn't "higher operational costs and reduced turnaround time", actually read "higher operational costs and longer turnaround time"? If I understand you correctly.
Anyway, I think I agree with you on your point regarding the mystique of Burt. Great guy, and very creative, but so are a host of others just waiting for an investor with the balls to give them a "shot at the heavens".
I'm surprised Virgin has actually fallen behind since they've already had a prototype go into space. Did they simply bite off more than they could chew technically?
Do these other companies have a more realistic approach technically?
So there is competition to create companies to fly millionaires to sub-orbital space. How does this get up to the real start of open space...commercial flights to near-earth orbital space and beyond?
These companies are building swan boats to paddle around the park pond. A far cry from building clipper ships.
Is it possible to build a small craft that can ferry passengers to orbit? Is there possible improvement in fuel composition, or reduction in the craft weight, or a better design that will allow for a spaceplane, one that will take off from a spaceport, deliver passengers to orbit and return for a landing? And won't take weeks and millions of dollars to turn around for the next flight?
How is XCOR competing with Virgin Galactic?
Xcor proposes to fly one passenger to 60km, well short of space.
Virgin proposes to fly 6 passengers to 110km, well into space.
This is a big difference. Its like comparing a Cessna to a Learjet.
I think Xerus started to get big weight problems, so XCOR had to scale it back.
You mention that Scaled encountered delays due to it being an aircraft manufacturer, not a propulsion house.
Doesn't that apply in reverse to XCOR? They consider themselves a propulsion house, and they sure as hell aren't an aircraft manufacturer.
And Scaled is certainly a much more reputable aircraft prototyper than XCOR is a propulsion shop; XCOR having never sold an engine to anyone for anything. They do make some nice photographs though.
XCOR having never sold an engine to anyone for anything.
So, the Air Force, NASA, and the US Navy are nobodies?
Ooo, ooo, I'll take this one!
"So there is competition to create companies to fly millionaires to sub-orbital space. How does this get up to the real start of open space...commercial flights to near-earth orbital space and beyond?"
One could easily have said similar things about aircraft in the early 1900's. "How does a few people building these things that fly for a few minutes get up to the real start of open airspace... commercial flights for hundreds of miles and farther?" It's precisely the unpredictable power of the market and innovation that will do this. An amazing number of technologies available for everyman nowadays started off as things available only for the millionaires.
"These companies are building swan boats to paddle around the park pond. A far cry from building clipper ships." You actually could have said precisely the same thing, word for word, about the early aircraft industry.
"Is it possible to build a small craft that can ferry passengers to orbit? Is there possible improvement in fuel composition, or reduction in the craft weight, or a better design that will allow for a spaceplane, one that will take off from a spaceport, deliver passengers to orbit and return for a landing? And won't take weeks and millions of dollars to turn around for the next flight?"
The simple answer is yes, but I certainly won't guarantee many of your stipulations. Maybe not "small craft" (maybe a large craft, maybe combinations of craft such as airship-to-orbit or Virgin's mothership/spaceship combo), maybe not "spaceplane" (maybe SSTO, other vertical takeoff/vertical landing, vertical takeoff horizontal landing, etc.), maybe not "spaceport" (maybe from airports, maybe from at-sea platforms, maybe from space elevators). Better design does seem necesary, and "won't take weeks and millions of dollars to turn around" is an absolute necessesity.
The point is that lots of entrepreneurs, working on lots of different projects, building the capabilities up slowly, and learning more and more as we go will be immensely more successful than any giant government program ever was.
Private:
Lynx Mk1 is announced to fly to at least 200,000 ft. Lynx Mk2 may fly as little as 18 months after Mk1, and is expected to fly to 300,000+ ft. The basic design is the same, with the difference being such things as adding a thermal protection system using advanced materials for the propellant tanks to save weight, and more powerful engines.
You might say it's better for them to wait until they can make 300,000 ft before they do anything at all. Or you migth even say it's better for them to wait until they can make it to orbit before they do anything at all. XCOR appear to think that proving they can make 200,000 ft is a useful step in gaining credibility and no doubt some revenue.
Re airframe construction: no one in the world knows how to make reliable, safe, long lasting rocket engines. Or, at least, no one before XCOR ever worked on that problem. On the other hand there are probably at least half a dozen companies in the USA that you could go to, cheque in hand, and say "please build me a Mach 2 airframe to fit this engine". Boeing and the other usual jet fighter suspects could do it in their sleep. No doubt XCOR could contract that out to Rutan as well, if they wanted to. Or they could hire some of the people who already know how to do it.
It's just not that hard a problem.
Bruce,
I am not saying that XCOR should not go for it with Lynx. However, it is very specious to say that it competes with SpaceshipTwo.
As far as reliable, safe, long-lasting rocket engines, XCOR's claims are far from unique in this regard. Reaction Motors, Rocketdyne, Pratt Whitney, Aerojet, TRW, Energomash, Bell, Kuznetsov...
Lynx Mk1 can address a market segment between a 80,000 ft. flight in a fighter aircraft and a 328,000 ft. flight in SS2. If XCOR is first to market, they will be the only experience between 80,000 ft. and orbit at a price point that is accessible to millions of people worldwide. The market is unproven, but one thing is true: they won't have trouble getting media attention. They will also be able to address the scientific experiment market that Masten is going after.
Lynx Mk2 may be interesting. If it's space suits, that's claustrophobic, but safer and more astronaut-like. It would probably decrease the potential market demand by as much as half, but would differentiate from shirt sleeves. Sitting in the front seat was worth 20% more to people than back seats based on Rocketplane's list prices.
XCOR has sold engines. We don't put everything we do on the Web. Also, the Xerus was a place holder. We knew it would change as we worked on it but we had to show _something_, a picture being worth 1,000 words and all that.
Sure I can compare a Cessna to the LearJet. There's a reason why Citation beats the pants out of Lear in the market (Learjets are now made by Bombardier). Heck, according to Wikipedia, Cessna Citation X is the fastest civilian aircraft in the world since the retirement of Concorde (poor, poor Sino-Swearingen).
Good stuff check out mine