EADS Rocket Plane Design for Space Tourism

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

On Jan 20, 1:45�am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Never anything to say for yourself, do you Robbie?

That's because you know nothng,. ..

Bertie

Rob Arndt wrote :

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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Does anything ever come out of that sewer mouth that is on-topic?

Rob