Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]
January 20th 08, 09:45 AM
Never anything to say for yourself, do you Robbie?
That's because you know nothng,. ..
Bertie
Rob Arndt > wrote in
:
> http://www.personalspaceflight.info/wp-
content/uploads/2007/06/eads1.jp
> g
>
> Interior seating:
> http://www.personalspaceflight.info/wp-
content/uploads/2007/06/eads2.jp
> g
>
> 6/14/07
>
> Yesterday the European aerospace company EADS Astrium announced its
> proposal to develop a suborbital vehicle to serve the space tourism
> market. While this is a new design, the concept of operations is
> almost identical to what Rocketplane Global has been developing for
> several years: a vehicle the size of a business jet that takes off
> under jet power, ignites a rocket engine at altitude to fly a
> suborbital trajectory, then land again under jet power. If nothing
> else, the Rocketplane people should feel pleased that concept has been
> "borrowed" by a big aerospace company (even though Astrium's actual
> vehicle design is somewhat different from the Rocketplane XP.) It also
> appears that those earlier reports about the use of an A380F as a
> carrier aircraft turned out to be unfounded.
>
> EADS didn't release a lot of technical details about the vehicle
> design, but one thing about it struck me as odd. Look at the seating
> design of the cabin:
>
> I can understand why the designed put the seats sideways: it makes it
> easy for passengers to look out windows, and may allow for a shorter
> passenger cabin. However, during ascent, this design means that the g-
> forces experienced by passengers will be on the Gy vector: across the
> body from left to right (or right to left, depending on how you're
> oriented), which doesn't seem as preferable as taking the g-forced
> through the body on the Gx vector. One of the features of the
> SpaceShipTwo cabin, for example, is the movable seat, so that the g-
> forces go through the Gx vector on both launch and reentry.
>
> So what does Astrium's entry into the market mean for space tourism in
> general, and other companies in the market? The endorsement of the
> suborbital space tourism concept by one of the world's largest
> aerospace companies does certainly give industry an additional air of
> legitimacy, although it's not clear just how important or necessary
> that endorsement is (except, perhaps, in the eyes of some
> contrarians.) And the addition of new ventures may increase the
> likelihood that one or more of them are eventually successful.
>
> However, how seriously should this proposal be taken? According to the
> BBC Astrium estimates that it will cost EURO 1 billion (US$1.3
> billion) to develop the vehicle, and that the company will seek
> additional investment. They plan to charge EURO 150,000-200,000
> (US$195,000-265,000) per ticket, which puts them on the high end of
> known prices, particularly compared to Virgin's $200,000 list price.
> It's tough to see how the business plan for this would close, given
> the huge investment required: at the EURO 200K ticket price, that
> means a revenue per flight of EURO 800K. That would mean Astrium would
> have to fly the vehicle 1,250 times to recoup their investment--and
> that assumes a marginal cost per flight of zero! That's sharply
> different from other companies, which require anywhere from five to 20
> times less money to develop their vehicles, making it much more likely
> they can fly enough to pay off the investment.
>
> A conspiratorially-minded person might wonder if this is an example of
> what's known in the computer industry as FUD (fear, uncertainty, and
> doubt): by playing up their experience and putting such a high price
> tag on the venture, it could create uncertainty in the market that
> smaller, less experienced companies can pull off their plans. That may
> not be an intentional effect, but it is something to look out for in
> the months to come.
>
> -by Jeff Foust
>
>
That's because you know nothng,. ..
Bertie
Rob Arndt > wrote in
:
> http://www.personalspaceflight.info/wp-
content/uploads/2007/06/eads1.jp
> g
>
> Interior seating:
> http://www.personalspaceflight.info/wp-
content/uploads/2007/06/eads2.jp
> g
>
> 6/14/07
>
> Yesterday the European aerospace company EADS Astrium announced its
> proposal to develop a suborbital vehicle to serve the space tourism
> market. While this is a new design, the concept of operations is
> almost identical to what Rocketplane Global has been developing for
> several years: a vehicle the size of a business jet that takes off
> under jet power, ignites a rocket engine at altitude to fly a
> suborbital trajectory, then land again under jet power. If nothing
> else, the Rocketplane people should feel pleased that concept has been
> "borrowed" by a big aerospace company (even though Astrium's actual
> vehicle design is somewhat different from the Rocketplane XP.) It also
> appears that those earlier reports about the use of an A380F as a
> carrier aircraft turned out to be unfounded.
>
> EADS didn't release a lot of technical details about the vehicle
> design, but one thing about it struck me as odd. Look at the seating
> design of the cabin:
>
> I can understand why the designed put the seats sideways: it makes it
> easy for passengers to look out windows, and may allow for a shorter
> passenger cabin. However, during ascent, this design means that the g-
> forces experienced by passengers will be on the Gy vector: across the
> body from left to right (or right to left, depending on how you're
> oriented), which doesn't seem as preferable as taking the g-forced
> through the body on the Gx vector. One of the features of the
> SpaceShipTwo cabin, for example, is the movable seat, so that the g-
> forces go through the Gx vector on both launch and reentry.
>
> So what does Astrium's entry into the market mean for space tourism in
> general, and other companies in the market? The endorsement of the
> suborbital space tourism concept by one of the world's largest
> aerospace companies does certainly give industry an additional air of
> legitimacy, although it's not clear just how important or necessary
> that endorsement is (except, perhaps, in the eyes of some
> contrarians.) And the addition of new ventures may increase the
> likelihood that one or more of them are eventually successful.
>
> However, how seriously should this proposal be taken? According to the
> BBC Astrium estimates that it will cost EURO 1 billion (US$1.3
> billion) to develop the vehicle, and that the company will seek
> additional investment. They plan to charge EURO 150,000-200,000
> (US$195,000-265,000) per ticket, which puts them on the high end of
> known prices, particularly compared to Virgin's $200,000 list price.
> It's tough to see how the business plan for this would close, given
> the huge investment required: at the EURO 200K ticket price, that
> means a revenue per flight of EURO 800K. That would mean Astrium would
> have to fly the vehicle 1,250 times to recoup their investment--and
> that assumes a marginal cost per flight of zero! That's sharply
> different from other companies, which require anywhere from five to 20
> times less money to develop their vehicles, making it much more likely
> they can fly enough to pay off the investment.
>
> A conspiratorially-minded person might wonder if this is an example of
> what's known in the computer industry as FUD (fear, uncertainty, and
> doubt): by playing up their experience and putting such a high price
> tag on the venture, it could create uncertainty in the market that
> smaller, less experienced companies can pull off their plans. That may
> not be an intentional effect, but it is something to look out for in
> the months to come.
>
> -by Jeff Foust
>
>