Check out this project...

[Jafar]

http://www.space-transport.com/

This company is owned by a good friend of mine, for the ten years I've known him he's been a rocket enthusisast and a great engineer.

Anyway, Eric had a little set back in his pursuit of the Ansari X-prize yesterday.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/08/09/bc.privaterocket.ap/index.html

Many of you may have already seen some of the many articles around the web concerning this.

Him and his partner have come a very long way in this endeavour considering their budget, and I wish them luck on their next launch. I'm sure they'll be succesful in the future, based on what I know of their convictions. Good luck guys.

So what do you all think of the race for space in the private sector? As we all know, Paul Allen's ship made it a few weeks ago, and there are 24 other teams competeing for the X-prize. Many of the advances we have made in aviation have stemmed from this type of "prize" offered by various sources. I for one think it is time to get space travel out of government control and into the private sector.

 

[EagleRJ]

That rocket is only 23' high and 3' in diameter, and it is supposed to carry three people? That's barely enough room for the people, never mind fuel and engines! Is the vehicle on a larger launch vehicle or is that it?

 

[Jafar]

Yes, indeed that is it. That is all that is necessary. Check out some of the other vehicle designs at http://www.xprize.org/

I've seen the Rubicon up close, and it seats three surprisingly well. You wouldn't want to spend a day in there, but the flight is only 15 minutes long. SpaceShipOne, the Paul Allen funded design is only 16 feet long. Granted it is dropped from a larger vehicle at altitude. The Armadillo Aerospace vehicle is only 24 feet, and is self powered from the ground. Most of the designs are along these lines. No space shuttle size or Redstone rocket type craft are competing. Size and cost effectiveness are the orders of the day.

One of the factors that makes Space Transport Corporations design unique is the exclusive use of solid fuel. Seven solid rocket boosters making 5000 lbs of thrust each are fired sequentially by twos, then the last is fired at about 15 miles up.

Previous test flights of another one of their vehicles made it to 42 miles up.

 

[sstearns2]

The rocket doesn't need to carry a lot of fuel. They are only going to 350,000 feet, not to orbit. Going to orbit requires an order (or two) of magnitude more fuel.

Scott

 

[EagleRJ]

I know they're not going into orbit. Those dimensions just didn't seem like enough space for payload and fuel.

It would be nice if one of the teams gave thought to some sort of escape tower, especially in light of Space Transport's CATO this last weekend.

From their website:

Basically, one of the solid propellant engines over-pressurized and severely damaged the remainder of the engine assembly, resulting in a truncated flight.

That's an interesting way to say "Our rocket blew up"!

I don't know if I would feel safer on a solid fuel, liquid fuel, or hybrid system. They all have their advantages and disadvantages. The key is sufficient testing before putting a human on top of it. Hopefully the race for the X-Prize won't cause teams to cut corners!

 

[Jafar]

Yeah, engineer speak for "It done blewed up!"

Interestingly enough, the Armadillo Aerospace rocket augered in the same day, within an hour or two of STC's.

No one will be climbing into those things for some time, it's safe to say, but some good progress is being made considering budgets and team size.


The advantage of the solid fuel seems to be safety in handeling and preparing, simplicity of design, and cost. The obvious disadvantage is that it isn't throttlable. Thrust rate is built into the design and can't be altered in flight.