"The profile of the vehicle is very similar to a rocket-propelled vehicle," Sippel explained. "We only have a small corridor in which we can fly safely and economically."
SpaceLiner's design will make use of study results from a FAST20XX (Future High-Altitude High-Speed Transport 20XX) project funded by the European Union and backed by researchers from Germany, Austria, Spain, Switzerland, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, France and Sweden. It can also draw lessons from upcoming efforts such as Project ALPHA by Aerospace Innovation GmbH — a space plane that aims to launch in midair from an Airbus A330 aircraft.
But future success ultimately depends upon the success of space tourism efforts by companies such as Virgin Galactic. If enough people prove willing to pay top dollar for suborbital flights as part of their travels around the world, Sippel envisions a fleet of SpaceLiners eventually making 10 to 15 flights per day.
- Ten Military Aircraft that Never Made it Past the Test Phase
- Hypersonic Waverider - How the USAF X-51A Scramjet Works | Video
- 10 Ways Smarter Cars Will Make You Love Commuting
Copyright 2013 TechNewsDaily, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
See what we're tweeting about
8 Comments
Add CommentHmmm, Wouldn't you achieve the kind of economy of scale, that would make such a project profitable, if you designed a single vehicle for both space tourism and supersonic planetary use? Or is there something about the two objectives that is thought to be mutually exclusive?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisglobalism will be long dead at that time. There won't be a demand.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWill passengers be required to pass a physical? Not everyone can be an astronaut, and many people have health issues, heart conditions for example, that they're not aware of...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHealth issues aside,the real issue is can it be done at a profit?I think more likely a much smaller craft with 10 to 20 passengers,because the cost of failure would be much lower.The price of a ticket would still be somewhere around75,000 to 125,000 one way.For most who could afford it getting there that fast just wouldn't make any sense.Its more likely that small corporate craft of this size could fly without making a profit.Even then most would not think it was worth the risk,other than the thrill seekers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe giant price doesn't seem to justify the time saved. The cancellation of the Concorde SST shows there just isn't the demand for this commercially. Maybe the Mil could use it for logistics but that's about it I think. Besides, if you need to get from Los Angeles to Moscow in 90 min you're effed no matter what.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThink of the logistics, you have to fly from (e. g.) New York to the Mojave desert or Cape Canaveral, where you will then board your 2 hour flight to a spaceport outside Sydney from where you will have to get onto another plane to get to Sydney. Where do they suggest to launch and land the things in Europe? Does not sound very practical to me. But of course a fascinating idea and a great concept to ponder.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi don't see any mention of a secondary propulsion unit, to be used after the booster is finished...without that, the landings would be at least as interesting as the take off's...if there's no secondary unit, why worry about dropping the booster? - why not just carry it along, since the vehicle would only be gliding once the boost phase is done...anyway, go ahead and work it all out - sounds great to me...i'll start saving...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat does it mean "you are effed no matter what"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this