 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Shuttle / February 2008Spaceship Three
Sorry to go off topic. I've just been wondering about some things about SS3. Will it be just a scaled up version of SS2? If so its mothership must have to be huge to carry a big enough vehicle to reach proper orbit. I'm thinking wing span of a 747 at least for the mothership. Also, I wonder if total energy used by SS3 will be less than conventional methods. Of course when I said scaled up, I do realise lots of changes will have to be made including a proper heatshield. > Sorry to go off topic. I've just been wondering about some things about > SS3. Will it be just a scaled up version of SS2? There are some vague notions that if SS2 is successful, it will be followed on by SS3. I wasn't aware that there are any firm plans for a SpaceShip 3. SpaceShipThree poised to follow if SS2 succeeds http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2005/08/23/201097/spaceshipthree-poised-to- follow-if-ss2-succeeds.html This is a rather old article. Google didn't seem to find anything newer. If and when SS2 is financially successful, only then would I start asking about SS3. NASA has vague notions of going to Mars using Ares V, but I certainly wouldn't take them seriously before Ares V flies. It's starting to look like Ares I is doomed, which doesn't bode well for Ares V. Jeff  SignatureA clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein > Sorry to go off topic. I've just been wondering about some things about SS3. Will it be just a scaled up version of SS2? If so its > mothership must have to be huge to carry a big enough vehicle to reach proper orbit. I'm thinking wing span of a 747 at least for > the mothership. Also, I wonder if total energy used by SS3 will be less than conventional methods. > Of course when I said scaled up, I do realise lots of changes will have to be made including a proper heatshield. Unless SS3 achieves a lot higher max velocity (as compared to SS1 & SS2) then he isn't going to need an upgraded heat shield. I could be wrong but everything I've read sounded like basically the same mission profile as SS1, just with an increasing passenger carrying potential as he goes forward. Until the velocity gets to an appreciable percentage of orbital velocity no substantial heat shield will be required. SS1 & SS2's Vmax is a long way from orbital. While Rutan has made quite an achievement it really needs to be kept in context. Because of his craft's much lower velocity he just doesn't have to dissipate anywhere near the kinetic energy that something like a Soyuz or Shuttle must dissipate on the way back from orbit. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of Rutan, wish him well and hope he makes significant contributions to the privatization of space. However, we must keep in mind that he's basically rehashing the X-15 program with new composite materials and a neat little (though somewhat inefficient) hybrid rocket motor, albeit on a much smaller budget that what X-15 had, which is in and of itself a notable achievement. >> Sorry to go off topic. I've just been wondering about some things about SS3. Will it be just a scaled up version of SS2? If so >> its mothership must have to be huge to carry a big enough vehicle to reach proper orbit. I'm thinking wing span of a 747 at least [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > and a neat little (though somewhat inefficient) hybrid rocket motor, albeit on a much smaller budget that what X-15 had, which is > in and of itself a notable achievement. From what I've read they definitely want to go orbital with SS3. There was a big article in New Scientist magazine a few week's ago about this. I haven't read it but I did read the outline of the article and it appears orbital is the focus of SS3. > From what I've read they definitely want to go orbital with SS3. There > was a big article in New Scientist magazine a few week's ago about > this. I haven't read it but I did read the outline of the article and > it appears orbital is the focus of SS3. This would require two big leaps: Making SS3 capable of doing a reentry from orbital speeds and launching the thing in the first place. Both are totally outside of what Rutan has ever done (or is prepared to do). I could believe in using SS3 as a second stage for launching a third stage with a micro-satellite, but not more. Going from what SS2 does to orbital with SS3 seems a bit fantastic. Even if he somehow is able to come up with some smart ideas how to handle reentry (like active cooling of a composite body), managing hypersonic flight and especially the launcher (which would need to be really huge) is a bit too much to do in one step... Jochem Signature"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery >> From what I've read they definitely want to go orbital with SS3. There >> was a big article in New Scientist magazine a few week's ago about [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Jochem I'd like to be wrong but I agree with you Jochem. SS1 and SS2 are a long way from an orbital ship. I just don't see Rutan making the leap to get orbital velocity and solving the reentry issues in one step. Like I said, I'd like to be wrong and hope hg is right but I haven't seen any signs that Rutan is working on solving the issues required to get to orbit and back. Rutan is a sharp man, maybe he's got more up his sleeve than I think. > This would require two big leaps: Making SS3 capable of doing a reentry > from orbital speeds and launching the thing in the first place. Both are > totally outside of what Rutan has ever done (or is prepared to do). I > could believe in using SS3 as a second stage for launching a third stage > with a micro-satellite, but not more. They're talking about launching micro-satellites from WK2 already, not using any of the SS's. Would be an automatic airlaunch thing probably. >> This would require two big leaps: Making SS3 capable of doing a reentry >> from orbital speeds and launching the thing in the first place. Both are [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > They're talking about launching micro-satellites from WK2 already, not > using any of the SS's. Would be an automatic airlaunch thing probably. Might make sense, too. Airlaunch just to get out of the dense atmosphere and to get rid of the need for a ground launchpad is a good idea for small payloads and the WK is a better platform for that than most other planes (since it is actually designed for carrying and launching a rocket). Jochem Signature"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.