News Space tourism coming soon!!!

[Mader Levap]

I hear that point so much that people compare the battle of private spaceflight is the same as the birth of aviation.(...)
Also, spaceflight is still a lot more harder to do then most think. Its just not push a button and let the rocket go.

You seem to think flying airplane is like "push a button and let the plane go".

I will say just these two words: not exactly.

 

[RGClark]

According to space reporter Jeff Foust, XCOR will be begin flight tests this year:

Khaki Rodway, XCOR: Lynx Mk 1 flight test program to start in 2nd quarter; low-altitude flight tests in 3Q, high-altitude in 4Q. #spaceuphou
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/437398561135677440

Bob Clark

 

[Urwumpe]

According to space reporter Jeff Foust, XCOR will be begin flight tests this year:

Better late than never. :lol:

 

[RGClark]

With XCOR coming online and VG soon to be operating, and Bigelow angling for LEO and lunar stations, and SpaceX and Orbital Sciences already launching, the next few years are going to very exciting for commercial space.

Bob Clark

---------- Post added at 09:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:23 AM ----------

Very nice article from a new online magazine RocketSTEM on the Lynx Mark I prototype vehicle:

HUMAN SPACEFLIGHT.
LYNX SPACECRAFT TO GIVE BIG BOOST TO SPACE TOURISM.
SHERRY VALARE — JANUARY 14, 2014

http://www.rocketstem.org/2014/01/14/lynx-spacecraft-give-big-boost-space-tourism/

Apparently during flight tests to start this year, this test vehicle won't reach the "official" altitude for space at 100 km, but up to 70 km. The Mark II vehicle to be tested perhaps next year will reach the 100 km altitude for space.
Still the Mark I will reach sufficient altitude to see the darkness of space and it will have longer periods of weightlessness than a parabolic arc aircraft.

Bob Clark

 

[RGClark]

XCOR will be conducting a Q&A, Thursday, Feb. 27.

Post questions on Twitter:

@XCOR: We're interviewing XCOR CEO @jeffgreason for our blog tomorrow at 11 AM Pacific time. Have questions? Reply right here.
https://twitter.com/xcor/status/438856369320382464

Or on their Facebook page:

XCOR Aerospace.
We're doing a Q&A with XCOR CEO Jeff Greason for the XCOR blog tomorrow at 11 AM Pacific time. Have questions? Drop them right here.
https://www.facebook.com/xcoraerospace?hc_location=timeline

Bob Clark

 

[RGClark]

The interview with the XCOR CEO here:

Follow the Build: Q&A with XCOR CEO Jeff Greason.
http://www.xcor.com/blog/jeffgreason1/


Says he believes flight tests will start this year. From photos linked on that page at least they are building the actual flight vehicle not just mock-ups.


Bob Clark

 

[RGClark]

Airbus is continuing their development of a suborbital tourism vehicle:

European Commercial Space Plane Prototype Set for May Drop Test.
By Rob Coppinger, Space.com Contributor | March 04, 2014 10:00am ET

The company stated in 2007 that the project would cost 1 billion euros ($1.37 billion at current exchange rates), and that it was seeking private investors. At the time, seat prices were expected to be at least $200,000, but EADS had no intention of being an operator. Rather, it would sell the spacecraft to tourism companies.
http://www.space.com/24901-europe-space-plane-drop-test.html

The question I have is on the estimated development cost. This no doubt was based on standard governmental costing models since the estimate dates from 2007. However, NASA's commercial space program has shown both launchers and spacecraft can be developed for 1/10th the cost of usual governmentally financed space projects by following the commercial space approach.
Then the suborbital rocket commercially developed likely would cost only a few hundred million dollars. And if adapting already existing rocket stages it might be doable for less than $100 million.

Bob Clark

 

[Urwumpe]

The question I have is on the estimated development cost. This no doubt was based on standard governmental costing models since the estimate dates from 2007. However, NASA's commercial space program has shown both launchers and spacecraft can be developed for 1/10th the cost of usual governmentally financed space projects by following the commercial space approach.

First of all: Erase the term "commercial space approach" from your head. Its plain theology and no scientifical term from economics. It has shown nothing. NASA commercial spaceflight program has achieved so far nothing new at all. The Soyuz-TMM spacecraft was, despite its prolonged development cycle, still by a factor 20 cheaper than the Dragon Spacecraft project.

Next: Cost estimates are done by various ways and I can't tell you, which one of those EADS used. What you can be sure of, is that a design to cost approach was used, because that is standard among the European Aerospace Industry. The project model is like Airbus aircraft projects, so it is likely that its the EADS cost estimate approach that has proven itself in commercial aircraft projects.

Finally: Important is not, how high the costs are, when you estimate them, but how close you get to your estimate and on which side of the estimate you land in the end.

Your favorite company might use the new economy model of expressively optimistic cost estimates. I prefer the conservative cost estimate model, that is first very depressing and discouraging, but offers the lowest risk to the company, should the calculation fail. So far, experience has shown, that the conservative cost estimate approach has never been far too high, since you don't estimate for artificially inflated costs by it, like many claim. You just assume that problems will happen and time buffer and budgets for alternative solutions will be necessary, even if the customer might not like it or a rival might decide to go without. Its often better to lose a contract than to risk a dead company.


So: You can expect that 1.3 billion Euro will be needed for a reason. As you can see with Virgin Galactic and SpaceShipTwo, getting to a product that can be sold is much much harder than sending an aircraft into space.

 

[RGClark]

First of all: Erase the term "commercial space approach" from your head. Its plain theology and no scientifical term from economics. It has shown nothing. NASA commercial spaceflight program has achieved so far nothing new at all. The Soyuz-TMM spacecraft was, despite its prolonged development cycle, still by a factor 20 cheaper than the Dragon Spacecraft project.
Next: Cost estimates are done by various ways and I can't tell you, which one of those EADS used. What you can be sure of, is that a design to cost approach was used, because that is standard among the European Aerospace Industry. The project model is like Airbus aircraft projects, so it is likely that its the EADS cost estimate approach that has proven itself in commercial aircraft projects.
Finally: Important is not, how high the costs are, when you estimate them, but how close you get to your estimate and on which side of the estimate you land in the end.
Your favorite company might use the new economy model of expressively optimistic cost estimates. I prefer the conservative cost estimate model, that is first very depressing and discouraging, but offers the lowest risk to the company, should the calculation fail. So far, experience has shown, that the conservative cost estimate approach has never been far too high, since you don't estimate for artificially inflated costs by it, like many claim. You just assume that problems will happen and time buffer and budgets for alternative solutions will be necessary, even if the customer might not like it or a rival might decide to go without. Its often better to lose a contract than to risk a dead company.
So: You can expect that 1.3 billion Euro will be needed for a reason. As you can see with Virgin Galactic and SpaceShipTwo, getting to a product that can be sold is much much harder than sending an aircraft into space.

I don't know what the development cost of the Soyuz-TMM was but if it were 1/20th that of the Dragon, that would put it in the $15 million range, which is hard to believe for an original spacecraft development. It may have been that if it were simply an upgrade of a prior Soyuz.

All of NASA, SpaceX, and Orbital Sciences have documented the reduction of the cost for both their launchers and their capsules. That's four separate systems that have shown that reduction in cost. That is not a coincidence.

For VG they estimate they their development cost will be in the $400 million range. And that includes a large carrier aircraft as well as the suborbital rocket craft. That is already a third of what the Airbus estimate is and the Airbus version would not even use a carrier aircraft. Moreover the long development time, 10 years, and cost growth is widely known to be due to the problems with getting the hybrid engine to work.

In contrast VG developed a liquid fueled engine sufficient for the task in only two years. If they had chosen the liquid fuel version from the beginning they would already by flying suborbitally with a much reduced development cost.

Bob Clark

 

[Urwumpe]

I don't know what the development cost of the Soyuz-TMM was but if it were 1/20th that of the Dragon, that would put it in the $15 million range, which is hard to believe for an original spacecraft development. It may have been that if it were simply an upgrade of a prior Soyuz.

The Dragon did not cost 300 million. SpaceX alone received a 278 million USD gift from NASA for meeting a few early development milestones in the COTS program. Since SpaceX does still not publish balance reports to the public, you and me can only guess what SpaceX invested itself into the development and how much of the contract awarded for the Dragon flights is R&D.

SpaceX already received 400 million USD only for developing a manned version of the Dragon. which puts the known minimum R&D budget already at 678 million.

Where is the factor ten? Ten times harder to calculate the costs?

In that document, you can find what Energia invested into the project, though in a very very badly organized form. It takes a moment to add the numbers up.

http://www.energia.ru/en/corporation/adocs/adoc_2011.pdf

But I get mere 200 million Euro for replacing all the old analog hardware from companies that are nolonger in Russia, by all digital and all Russian hardware. Since SpaceX did not start by zero, and Energia did not start by zero, I think it is pretty fair. Also, Energia did not get taxpayers money for developing the Soyuz TMA-M spacecraft, they get it, like SpaceX will get additionally, by the launch contract.

All of NASA, SpaceX, and Orbital Sciences have documented the reduction of the cost for both their launchers and their capsules. That's four separate systems that have shown that reduction in cost. That is not a coincidence.

Like always: have they? And for what reference have the documented it, you know... if you say 10 times cheaper, then you should have a project that was ten times more expensive.

What NASA did was calculating how much the project would have cost if they would have done it. Badly. With one arm tied to the back. And by paying engineers salaries that not even department heads receive.

For VG they estimate they their development cost will be in the $400 million range. And that includes a large carrier aircraft as well as the suborbital rocket craft. That is already a third of what the Airbus estimate is and the Airbus version would not even use a carrier aircraft. Moreover the long development time, 10 years, and cost growth is widely known to be due to the problems with getting the hybrid engine to work.

I have not yet seen it fly and their cost estimate is already history.

In contrast VG developed a liquid fueled engine sufficient for the task in only two years. If they had chosen the liquid fuel version from the beginning they would already by flying suborbitally with a much reduced development cost.

I have not seen a finished running liquid fueled engine that passed any test. All I have seen is a development project, that was cancelled early when the whole system including ground infrastructure promised to make VG bankrupt before the first flight.

 

[RGClark]

Virgin Galactic appears to have acknowledged that SpaceShipTwo will not be
able to reach the full altitude of 100 km considered to be space:

SpaceShipTwo Can’t Reach 100 Km Boundary of Space.
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/05/15/spaceshiptwo-reach-100-km-boundary-space/

It is unfortunate that VG decided to use hybrid engines for SS2. If they had
used liquid engines, then they would already be flying suborbitally.

Bob Clark

 

[Urwumpe]

It is unfortunate that VG decided to use hybrid engines for SS2. If they had
used liquid engines, then they would already be flying suborbitally.

How did you arrive at that prediction?

 

[Nicholas Kang]

Time to inject new stuff here!

 

[RGClark]

Blue Origin says they’ll be doing manned test flights of the suborbital New Shepard by the end of this year, and launching paying customers within a year or two:

http://seattlebusinessmag.com/profi...blue-origin-will-launch-people-space-end-2018

Bob Clark

 

[Andy44]

SpaceShip 1 made its flight what, over 15 years ago now? Come on, somebody make this happen already. At this rate the investors will die of old age before a passenger ever gets to the Karman line...

 

[MaverickSawyer]

Three letters, Andy44: F. A. A. :lol: