Private spaceport wins permit

Chris Allington, Rochester, Michigan — Tue, 19 Sep 2006 20:17:58 GMT

This story associates a height of 62 miles with "a few minutes of weightlessness". Whether this results from misunderstanding or a poor choice of words, it accidentally contributes to a lack of distinction in the public's mind between orbital and suborbital flights. The weighlessness in either case results from turning the engines off, and has nothing to do with height. Ironically, this magical idea of outer space - and make no mistake, weightlessness is the coolest thing about it - is what stirs the imagination of the public. It is what is driving this new space-tourism race, and I think it's a good thing. But it raises an interesting ethical question: Should we perpetuate the myth to keep the money flowing? After all, anybody who wants to study Newton can do so. Nobody's stopping them.

Private spaceport wins permit

Alan Boyle — Tue, 19 Sep 2006 22:11:07 GMT

Right ... I recently experienced a few minutes of weightlessness at a height of 30,000 feet or so, though not all at once:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14805969/

... and it does have to do with being in a freefall situation rather than being beyond gravity's grip. For an interesting interactive on that, plus an entertaining explanation, check out this link:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3077313/

The thing about the altitude is that you have a longer time in weightlessness... During my zero-G (oops, I meant freefall) jaunt, the microgravity came in doses of just 30 seconds or so. I don't think it's a myth to talk about zero-gravity or to associate longer, higher-quality weightlessness with suborbital flights ... in fact, it's shorthand for the suborbital experience (and a big selling point, admittedly). I'll try to be conscious of the true physics of vehicular microgravity as I write future stories on all this.

Private spaceport wins permit

Jack Kennedy, Wise, Virginia — Tue, 19 Sep 2006 22:17:03 GMT

Congratulations to the Blue Origin Team generally and Jeff Bezos specifically on the FAA/AST spaceport license. But I remain curious why the Wallops Island Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport is NOT yet a site being presently considered by one of the NewSpace human suborbital space launch firms. Is it NASA organizational culture in managing the spaceport, coastal weather conditions, or air traffic in the area of East Coast population?

Private spaceport wins permit

Gaetano Marano - Italy — Tue, 19 Sep 2006 23:03:34 GMT

. . . . . . . . . .

my opinion is that all DC-X-like [ http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/dcx.htm ] vehicles (like seems the Blue Origin's New Shepard will be) are the wrong choice for sub-orbital flights since they are not efficient (the rocket-like lift-off and landing needs more propellant to launch the same payload) and (I think) very dangerous for pilots and passengers (especially at lift-off and landing, both accomplished with rear rockets, not with wings or parachutes)

the better, more efficient and SAFE sub-orbital vehicles for pilots and passengers are the WINGED (horizontal departure and horizontal landing from/to a common runway) SpaceShipOne-like vehicles [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceShipOne ] or (best) the (simpler and smarter) RocketPlane version [ http://www.rocketplane.com/home.asp ] that can take-off and land from a common airport runway without any "mother-plane" and (risky) air launch

. . . . . . . . . .

about my proposal of a "bigOrion" (with a bigger Service Module) for autonomous (cargo or crew) flights to/from the moon (without launch, everytime, the giant and very expensive AresV+EDS+LSAM) I've published a new article [ "CorkScrew Orion or SwissKnife Orion?" ] on my website that explains (with a curious image and a list of TEN advantages) WHY a "bigOrion" is BETTER than a TransEarthInjection-only Orion:

http://www.gaetanomarano.it/
articles/014swissCEV.html

. . . . . . . . . .

Private spaceport wins permit

Alan Boyle — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 01:23:48 GMT

Jack, Wallops had been considered by SpaceDev as a launch complex for their Dream Chaser spaceship. I do need to find out what the status of the Dream Chaser project is, since SpaceDev was not selected for the COTS program. Aaanyway, it does seem like Wallops is a bit off the beaten track for space projects. Maybe there's an issue with infrastructure? Don't know.

Private spaceport wins permit

Frank Glover — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 03:02:49 GMT

Hmm. We seem quite content to use 'inefficient' rockets on worlds with no atmosphere....

The horizontal-landing people say: "What if the rockets don't light properly on descent? And you have to bring the weight of terminal landing fuel through the entire flight. Plus, I have better re-entry cross-range."

The vertical-landing people say: "Your ship comes back as a glider, and has only one pass at a runway. What if you can't reach one? My ship can land on any reasonably dry, hard surface, even a clearing not much wider than itself. And I *don't* have to take the weight of wings all the way into orbit and back, either. That translates into more payload and/or landing fuel."

And they're both right.

Both ships, of course, would use typical re-entry aerobraking when returning from orbit, to reduce speed.

Vertial vs. horizontal landing* is an engineering opinion divide on re-useable spacecraft that's gone on for some time, and chances are that both approaches will be used in some way.

*And this doesn't even consider the take-off orientation of the spacecraft design (vertical, horizontal, air-launch), which also matters a great deal:

http://www.spacefuture.com/vehicles/rocketsvsplanes.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RLV

Private spaceport wins permit

Aaron Oesterle — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 04:25:13 GMT

Jack, a blogger by the name of Mr. X, over at Chair Force Blog, discussed wallops launches. Check it out:

http://chairforceengineer.blogspot.com/
2006/07/launch-constraint.html

Now, I realize he was discussing Orbital launches, and what we are talking about is sub-orbital, but long term, everyone realizes we need to go orbital, and there may be similiar issues. In addition, my other thought is that they want more control over the site than Nasa is willing to give them.

Private spaceport wins permit

William Burford, Lake Elsinore,CA — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 06:09:16 GMT

The space station is a great place for a select number of people to find safety when an asteroid is on a collision course with earth. The question becomes-who will be selected? Maby the super rich should get into private space stations as well.

Private spaceport wins permit

MIKE BRYANT MELROSE PARK, IL. — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 15:29:11 GMT

new mnemonic for the planets ? MY VERY EARLY MEMORIES JOG SOME UNDER NUDGING.............?

Private spaceport wins permit

mike — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 17:00:16 GMT

My
Very
Educated
Mind
Just
Scorns
Understanding
No

Pluto

Private spaceport wins permit

Dennis Costea Jr., Virginia Beach, Virginia — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 17:44:18 GMT

I hope that Blue Origin builds a facility with onsite guest accomodations so those of us with dreams of spaceflight but no means can at least come by and watch! Even being able to watch the testing of vehicles as they are developed might be worth the trip from Virginia to Texas. Who agrees?

Private spaceport wins permit

Chris, Arlington, TX — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 18:47:24 GMT

Here's a little education for some of those who are so quick to call the public "uneducated and fascinated with the mythical concept of weightlessness." First, if anyone is referencing the Space Shuttle as a rocket, it's not. The shuttle's main engines are NOT rockets. They are solid propellant motors, but not rockets. Engines can be turned off and on. Solid propellant rockets cannot. Even if you feel the need to consider the main engines as "rockets", they are the most efficient "rockets" ever designed. That is a fact, not an opinion. Second, the solid rocket boosters used in a Space Shuttle launch were designed to be inefficient because they had to be reused. Modular, reusable rockets will be a key in the success of private spaceflight.

As far as vertical vs. horizontal takeoff/landing, each have their drawbacks. Vertical takeoff has been used for more than 50 years, with SpaceShip One being the only manned launch to occur horizontally. Horizontal takeoff also requires more human-in-the-loop operation, which will need to be minimized for commercial space travel. The problems associated with landing are the same for both horizontal and vertical landing. Atmospheric entry heating is a concern for either. Vertical landing concepts have grown from the Apollo-era lunar landing. Landing on the moon is a big difference. Gravity is one-sixth that of Earth's and the thrusters used for landing are not operating under high Mach conditions as those for an Earth vertical landing would be. For reusable spacecraft and commercial space travel, I think it would be a great benefit to use a vertical re-entry via parachute. It has been proven and reduces the complexity of the spacecraft design. At a rate of 1 launch per week, Blue Origin will need multiple spacecraft. A simple, yet safe design will suffice. A winged body will also require a complex automated flight system plus the need for a manual backup in case of "auto-pilot" failure.

Private spaceport wins permit

Josh Devrie — Thu, 21 Sep 2006 00:06:58 GMT

First Virgin Galactic now "Amazons In Space." This Space Race (Private industry instead of government) is one that can be actuall won.
The real question is, Who's Gonna Be The First To Build A LunarLodge?

Private spaceport wins permit

Gaetano Marano - Italy — Thu, 21 Sep 2006 02:12:32 GMT

. . . . . . . . . .

Chris (Arlington, TX) said... "if anyone is referencing the Space Shuttle as a rocket, it's not"

GM: if you refer to the word "rocket"(... both accomplished with rear rockets, not with wings...) used in my previous comment, it was a mistyping that I can't correct without a blog's "edit text" function... the right word is ENGINES

Chris (Arlington, TX) said... "shuttle's main engines are NOT rockets. They are solid propellant motors"

GM: the Space Shuttle Main Engines (aka SSME) are not "solid propellant motors" but liquid propellant motors and, yes, the SSME "can be turned off" but not "turned on" in flight (they are not air-startable and can be burned only on the launch pad)

Frank Glover said... "Your ship comes back as a glider, and has only one pass at a runway. What if you can't reach one?"

GM: the sub-orbital ship can use common jets (like the Rocketplane version) to have many landing attempts on diferent runways

Frank Glover said... "I *don't* have to take the weight of wings all the way into orbit and back"

GM: the Blue Origin (and other sub-orbital vehicles) can't reach the orbital altitude and speed but can only fly to 100-150 km. (that, however, already is "the Space")

Frank Glover said... "We seem quite content to use 'inefficient' rockets on worlds with no atmosphere...."

GM: if you refer to my comment about rockets used for sub-orbital flights... the "inefficient" is not related to the engines but to the whole flight profile of a vertical lift-off/landing vehicle vs. a winged vehicle

we are not on the Moon, we have a DENSE atmosphere, so, we don't need to waste propellant to lift/land vertically

from earth surface to (about) 30 km. we can use the wings to lift the vehicle (like airplanes do everyday...) and the air oxygen as Jet's oxidizer

only between 30 and 100+ km. we need to use the liquid (or hybrid) engine of the vehicle and fuel/oxidizer tanks

at reentry, the winged vehicle falls to 30 km. then will use (again) its wings (to glide towards the runway) and its main Jets (that use a FREE "external oxidizer" called air...) to do a common airlines-like flight

the vertical lift-off/landing vehicles need GIANT quantities of fuel and oxidizer, at lift-off they are dangerous like a bomb (with a very high risk for passengers) and at reentry they falls like a METEORITE that is very easy to crash if the engines don't works or if they don't give the right thrust for the right time

its' so dangerous that NASA, ESA and Russia have NEVER used it for real (manned or unmanned) flight!!!

they have accomplished only a few (DC-X) tests and, then, abandoned the project!

the only rear rockets used in real vehicles/flights are the Soyuz and Shenzhou small rear rockets, but they are used in the last seconds of the flight (at a few meters from eart surface) after using parachutes for reentry

Chris (Arlington, TX) said... "I think it would be a great benefit to use a vertical re-entry via parachute"

GM: this is good solution only for a small capsule like the Apollo or the Orion (that already need GIANT parachutes)

recover and land an entire rocket may need parachutes incredibly big, heavy and complex to open safely

in a sub-orbital ship like Blue Origin, will be (simply) impossible to find sufficient space inside the vehicle for (both) the passengers and the parachutes...

. . . . . . . . . .

Private spaceport wins permit

Frank Glover — Thu, 21 Sep 2006 23:59:56 GMT

'Rockets' use Newton's third law and a reaction mass (hot gases, accelerated ion stream, etc.) to create motion. Wether the chemical varieties are liquid or solid fueled (the latter, as the Chinese might readily point out, were arguably the first ones) is irrelevant to the fact that they're still rockets...

It's quite true that a winged orbital or sub-orbital re-entry vehicle does not *have* to return to Earth purely as a glider, but that returns you to the matter of the weight of engines and fuel that must be part of the original launch mass, and you're still counting on air-start of jet (instead of rocket) engines. (which has often been done but, typically in emergency situations) There's no inherent reason that either one can't be done as part of normal operations if you're willing to accept that weight penalty. NASA chose to trade that weight for careful navigation on descent, as exemplified this morning.

For a non-airbreathing winged vehicle, wings aren't of much use on ascent (even the shuttle ascends *inverted*), as rocket vehicles benefit from getting out of the denser lower atmosphere (where lift is greatest, but so is drag, and rocket efficency is lowest) as quickly as practical.

Their greatest benefit on descent is the greater cross-range, compared to semi-ballistic vehicles, and a better ability to use existing aircraft infrastructure.

If it *is* an airbreather (which is the only kind of single-stage orbital vehicle that can hope to take off and land horizontally...an all-rocket HTHL would be too heavy for any practical landing gear, though a rocket sled launch could be used. But that would mean something other than normal airports, and limited launch directions, however) that means scramjet engines that will be heavier than rocket engines that could generate the same thrust, and staying in the atmosphere at increasing Mach numbers, for as long as your engines and materials will permit, continuing to accept drag and atmospheric heating, getting as near orbital velocity as posible, and still using some degree of rocket thrust at the end. And scramjets work well at certain ranges of hypersonic cruise...but not as well at steady acceleration.

You *do* pay a signifigant engineering penalty for the carrot of not carrying your own oxidizer.

Vertical Take off Vertical landing designs (VTVL) do require a lot of fuel...but no more than most other orbital designs. To do it in a single stage, however, their challenge is the need for a very *light* structure (two or more stages reduce that issue, but if re-useable, you must return both launcher and orbiter to the launch site and re-mate the system before it can fly again, complicating the operation), espically if the fuel is low-density (meaning large tanks) liquid hydrogen. The flip side of this, is a large, but mostly empty and light ship coming back down, with a fairly low terminal velocity, that should have no special hazards for rocket deceleration near the end.

Anything requiring parachute deployment (which must also work every time) isn't likely to be acceptable for any kind of commercial spacecraft (and may also deny you the use of normal airports). The DC-X/A had one for emergencies, but it was never used. (It was destroyed due to a landing gear failure, falling over after an otherwise normal touchdown and engine shutdown. The budget of the experimental program didn't allow for a backup to a pressurization line that hadn't been re-connected after the previous flight.)

And the DC-X was folowed up on, but that came to naught, not for any danger issues, but because Lockheed-Martin failed to deliver on design promises in the X-33, the intended 'successor' (a vertical takeoff, horizontal landing design, not that proposed by the original DC-X contractor, McDonnell-Douglas, which was to have been a higher, faster version of their original ship)

And *anything* you use will be carrying a lot of some energetic fuel (hydrogen or hydrocarbon). Yet that doesn't stop people from boarding fully-fueled wide-bodied jets (which use about as much energy on a transcontinental flight, as to go into orbit).

Again, commercial, reuseable space access involves a great many engineering trade-offs. You have to recognize them all (and most *can* work), then use your own engineering philosophy to decide which will suit what you percieve the need and market to be. That's why there are so many different designs out there. (Burt Rutan, for example, is a long-time airplane guy. Horizontal winged flight is what he knows, and is most comfortable with. Others look at the problem differently. Let's see how it all shakes out.)

Private spaceport wins permit

Henry, Houston, Texas — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 17:17:18 GMT

This is all prep work to make the inevitable jump to orbital and interplanetary flights more palatable to a skeptical public. That's all. There's not much that's impressive about it, other than the fact that private industry will be able to push the boundaries of what we do in space and near space much further than the public will allow government space programs to.

Private spaceport wins permit

Beau Goldly — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 04:29:59 GMT

If you can check it, therein lies the problem. The paradox is in its mere existence, it thinks, therefore it already has. ___________________________________ LunarLodge: "The Last Best Space"®

Private spaceport wins permit

L. Hill, Van Horn, Texas — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 01:41:04 GMT

The only accomodations in Van Horn, Texas are the motels and hotels that exist. This past weekend, Nov. 10, 11, 12, Bezos launched his first test flight Monday morning at 7:30 central standard time and NO one was allowed to watch anything. Even the security guards had to remain at the gate at the highway entrance. So there is not much to see. The test flight lasted about a minute and only went up about 800 feet according to sources. Bezos and his people only come to town when they are doing something major and booked every hotel in town and no media was told anything...so, if you plan to come to Van Horn, book rooms ahead of time if you know something is up. Bezos and his people have little to do with the townsfolk of Van Horn.