Richard Branson / Rutan Team Up For Orbital Flight - Five year plan to put tourists in space?

Grypd · 2005-02-26 14:18:38

Still if a lower stage can seperate at speeds of mach 3 to mach 5 at very high heights. It will allow the second stage to be able to benefit from the reduced air drag. This is why a carrier aeroplane for a lower stage is essential for a TSTO spaceplane and why a ballon will not do anything much for it.

But still its a really difficult and expensive proposal to develop an operational TSTO spaceplane that reaches LEO at the least. Whiteknight and spaceship one never actually made it to LEO nor are they able to. So Rutan will have to design something a lot more powerful (and expensive) if he wishes LEO capability.

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-26 15:44:13

The speed, not the height, is the most important thing Grypd. Since the amount of rocket fuel (and hence size of the vehicle and its cost) you need increases with practical fuels geometricly with the speed you need, then reducing the the speed you need to achieve by 20% is a big deal. If you can make the carrier plane hit Mach-5 or so, then you get such a savings.

The air drag reduction is less important since the drag isn't such a huge factor for rockets, and only saves you a few percent. What is handy though about low air pressures is that conventional bell-nozzle Hydrogen/Oxygen rocket engines are more efficent. Hydrogen engines actually have no little more efficency then Kerosene ones at low altitudes where the air is thick and you need lots of thrust... but up high where its thin, you get a little more performance boost.

Combining these with advanced hydrogen engines burning slushed hydrogen instead of liquid, and the spaceplane starts getting smaller quickly. Of course, such a TSTO spaceplane would still cost $10Bn for a small one, or $15-20Bn for a large one.

Grypd · 2005-02-26 17:49:03

Sorry in my fumbling way I was trying to get that across and explaining why there is no way any Balloon assisted spaceplane would work. Still there is the other point and this is to do with spaceplane seperation. As the speed increases so does the difficulty in the seperation and increases the risk to both planes.

J.J. Moesker · 2005-02-26 19:59:35

If you have access to science direct or AAIA I would recommend the paper 'Beating the rocket equation' published in the journal of spacecraft and propulsion last year. It covers some performance estimates using different types of air launch systems. Including subsonic, mach 3 (xb-70) and mach 6 releases. The general conclusion is that air launch can be viable, yet large investments would be involved in developing the carrier plane.

The author used hydrogen/fluorine fuel combination compared to the conventional hydrogen/oxygen combination. The results are therefore a bit optimistic since this 'advanced' fuel is not really acceptable.

Still, the solution is much more viable than any SSTO concept. And it is one of the more promising RLV concepts.

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-27 00:20:49

Hydrogen and Fluorine??? "Not really acceptable" is something of an understatement... highly toxic and very lethal, eats most anything including glass if wet, very reactive and causes poisonous fires easily, etc.

I think that it is quite plausable, it would just be quite expensive to pull it off and you need some place to fly it to first.

The only other option for a "no really!" RLV that I have come across is the DC-X concept, a true VTOL SSTO with a superhigh performance hydrogen/oxygen rocket. One big enough to carry a Proton-sized payload may be possible, but it is a valid question if the mass estimates are realistic to keep the fuel tank size & engine thrust within reason.

Returning to Earth is kind of a "scarry" thing from a reliability standpoint too.

SpaceNut · 2005-02-28 06:08:25

Question what is the highest near orbital altitude that can be achieved without the need for heat sheilding or just a very thin replaceable one?

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-28 09:26:04

I think a good comparison would be with the X-15, which was bascially a sub-orbital vehicle.

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-28 09:28:52

(skip)

Grypd · 2005-03-01 10:08:26

Virgin have now got 7000 cutomers for the flights to the upper atmosphere and each are paying £115,000 each for the pleasure. That is a lot of money taken in for an investment by Richard Branson of £74 million. If he gets all his passengers he will be paid £805 million in return.

I suspect that he will get the 7000 people and probably a lot more as he gains efficiency and the price for flights reduce. Interesting point is that sort of financial return could easily pay for a developed spaceplane that could enter LEO.

GCNRevenger · 2005-03-01 14:45:20

I disagree

This initial glut of high-paying customers won't last forever, and there won't be that many repeat-customers for this "once in a lifetime experience." I predict that the ranks of passengers will initially peak due to people with the will and reasources, but then drop off, even if ticket prices are lowerd somewhat.

Definatly not enough money to build a reuseable spaceplane. A real reuseable spaceplane will cost many billions, perhaps as much as ten billion for a quality one if you had to start from scratch and carry a little payload.

J.J. Moesker · 2005-03-04 18:16:30

Question what is the highest near orbital altitude that can be achieved without the need for heat sheilding or just a very thin replaceable one?

Spacenut, I'm sorry but I do not really understand youre question about the 'highest near orbital altitude'.

Maybe you can elaborate?

btw. I'm pretty convinced that a subsonic airlaunched rocketplane would be good contestend for the A-prize. It offers some destinct safty advantages compared to the booster/capsule combination. Drag losses aren't really an issue, yet the reduced gravity losses and improved engine/nozzel performance do make a difference. Ofcourse the (little) added velocity helps too. The exponential nature of the rocket equation can result in some what suprising results.

My pet concept consits airlaunched two stage rocketplane. It comprimizes a reusable Lox/LH2 'upperstage' and a refubishable Lox/RP-1 booster. Come to think of it, sound alot like 'a' Rutan tier-3 program..... Ofcourse there are other simpler ways to do it.

Anyway, if you do the math it looks quite nice. But then again, dreaming up concepts isn't that hard. The details, thats where the devil lives.

deagleninja · 2005-03-04 18:31:00

Ohhhhh you mean one of those "dark sky" balloons as launch vehicle... I was thinking you ment using a conventional chemical rocket and launching off a balloon to try and save on fuel.
A solar sail won't do you a whole lot of good, since you'll be flying either parallel or under the direction of the sunlight, so it anything the light pressure would push you back down.
I think that without an extremely light weight ion engine and an extremely large balloon, that such a vehicle would have too much trouble with drag and not make it to orbit easily enough.

Hmmm, wouldn't an orbit from pole to pole solve many issues dealing with sunlight?

Second stupid question: do you have to reach speeds of Mach 25 to stay in the sunlight?

SpaceNut · 2005-03-04 19:31:23

J.J. Moesker: or anyone else that can answer this question.
"what is the highest near orbital altitude that can be achieved without the need for heat sheilding or just a very thin replaceable one?"

This does not need to be a sub orbit parabolic path but even that style of launch and return with out going around the Earth must still have a maximum before shielding for re-entry heat is needed. Even the mercury missions needed shielding and they only went around a few times.

J.J. Moesker · 2005-03-11 19:54:42

This is a very interesting question, yet not an easy one to answer. Reentry from orbit has been studied pretty extensively, both for ballistic capsules and lifting bodies. For sub-orbital reentry ballistic capsules have received the majority of interest. By doing some back of the envelope calculation we can get a feeling about what’s going on.

Basically what goes up must come down. Most of the energy that was used to boost a spacecraft to into space needs to be dissipated when it comes down. The only practical method to do this is trough aero braking and transferring the energy to the atmosphere. To get a feeling for the amount of energy involved we should look at the numbers. Since we are concerned about sub-orbital (ballistic) trajectories we will assume zero velocity at an altitude of 200 Km. Assuming a typical spacecraft mass of 3.000Kg this would result in a total energy of 6 *10^3 MJ! Even though this is allot of energy, an orbital spacecraft would have to dissipate 97 *10^3 MJ at the same altitude. This already shows fundamental difference between orbital and sub-orbital reentry. Of course this is far to simplified to say anything about heights etc.

Heat transfer is a function of both the atmosphere density and vehicle velocity. Atmospheric density is related to altitude. Thus, indirect the heat transfer rate would be a function of altitude and velocity. Furthermore altitude and velocity are related trough the laws of motion. The actual heating load is difficult to predict because it depends of the type of heat transfer process (conductive, radiation etc). Numerical methods are required to calculate the flow field so that predictions about the heat transfer can be made. The aero- and thermodynamic analysis for reentry are complex due to the extreme conditions, variations of fluid behavior (free molecular flow, transitional flow and continuum flow) and the combined sub and supersonic flow regions of detached shockwaves.

There are simplified analytical methods which given some really interesting information about the parameters involved during the reentry process. Classic papers on the subject are those by Allen and Eggers for non-lifting blunt bodies. Furthermore Lees et. al. described the advantage of lift during reentry. One of the conclusions made by Allen and Eggers is for example that for the special non-lifting blunt body case the configuration doesn’t influence the maximum deceleration rate (thus the G-loads). Entry angle is the key, yet the configuration does have an influence on the maximum heat transfer. It was derived that heat transfer rates are proportional to the square root of the ballistic coefficient ( m/sCd). The results of these studies drived the reentry capsule design during the sixties.

The case of none-lifting ballistics capsules (L/D = 0) are only a specialized case. An L/D = 2 would for example half the deceleration rate and have a quite a significant effect on the maximum heating rate. To reenter the atmosphere with only a metallic structure a large lift parameter would be required.

For spaceship One Scaled Composites invented the 'feather' configuration such that it makes SS1 effectively a static stable blunt body, generating loads (pressure) drag and still some lift. It somewhat 'similar' to the shuttle entering the atmosphere at 40 deg. AOA, but without an advanced control augmentation system to keep it stable. Actually (if I rember it correctly), SS1 enters at an stunning 70 deg. AOA!!

Mad Grad Student · 2005-03-12 21:31:52

Nonsense, the Falcon-I is a puny toy barely capable of orbital flight at all. Its first stage is no more reuseable then a Shuttle SRB, which isn't reuseable, its refurbishable. "Reuseable" doesn't mean "try to fish it out of the ocean without breaking it and hope the salt water didn't kill the turbopumps." Which you would have to dismantle, check, and test... gee, now what does that sound like? (*coughShuttlecough*) ...Five of them on Falcon-V too. And how many times as any of Elon's rockets flown?
It is going to cost a billion dollars to design a passenger-carrying crew vehicle which uses off-the-shelf docking adapter/airlock, avionics, engines, LSS, and so on which won't have to somehow carry the big flimsy upper stage back down too... Oh, thats for the RUSSIANS to build something like that, a vehicle that would win the "Americas Space Prize."
20% more to develop a launch vehicle that is ~5 times as powerful? Rediculous. The new launch pad will cost that much alone.
"it should be possible to make a true-blue SSTO RLV for $300-400 million."
Perhaps you recall the DC-I RLV concept that Burt at Scaled Composits had a hand in? $6Bn. Small lift-body space planes (baby HL-20) will likly cost around half that at least, and thats just for the crew vehicle with no launch vehicle development.
"$300M-400M" is clearly wishful thinking.

File this under better-late-than-never.

The Falcon I first stage is a bit different than a shuttle SRB. True, some refurbishing would be necessary, but nothing near the complex proceedures needed to use an SRB again. The Merlin is a much simpler machine than an SSME (gas-generator cycle rather than preburners, pintle injection system, demonstrated reusibility...), so there are much fewer parts to check. Dismantle a turbopump, relatively simple for a gas-generator engine, run some water through to make sure it works, clean it up, and you can use it again. X-ray the tank to make sure there are no cracks and its ready to go again. This results in a turn-around time of a week or two without a shuttle standing army of technicians. Not as good as an airliner, but definately better than shuttle level reusability.

Why exactly will it cost at least a billion dollars to develop the crew capsule? You threw out a figure and a laundry list of technical parts without an evidence for this figure. Don't take it personally, man, I'm just asking how you came up with a billion dollars. As far as I can tell, assuming the crew capsule is twenty times as complex and difficult to develop as the SS1 cabin it should take about $200-300 million to create. That's probably on the high side.

First of all, I think that's "ridiculous" you ment to say. Assuming a new launch vehicle uses essentially the same technology as a previous launcher, just a scaled-up version, it shouldn't be that much more expensive to develop. A new 737 version and an A380 cost about the same to bring from CGI model to rollout, despite the quite large difference in scale.

You yourself have pointed out before that Scaled just constructed the tanks for the DC-X. They didn't even design them, they were just assembled in Scaled Composites's factory after they were given the plans from McDonnell Douglas. These costs you keep citing are always those incurred by cost-plus dealings between dinosaur big-three aerospace companies and NASA or the Air Force. Costs will always be quite lower, even orders of magnitude lower, for Alt. space companies because they fundamentally operate differently and more efficiently. The reason you don't see very many successful alt. spacers is because they can't even get the small bare minimum capital needed for vehicle development in the first place. They really can do things cheaply.

With this in mind, there is clearly a factual basis for a $300-400 million figure for an SSTO RLV. Disagree with me all you want but pretty please with a cute little red cherry on top don't accuse me of consciously forgoing logic and giving in to wishful thinking. That's not what I do.

dicktice · 2005-03-13 13:38:09

"The case of none-lifting ballistics capsules (L/D = 0) are only a specialized case. An L/D = 2 would for example half the deceleration rate and have a quite a significant effect on the maximum heating rate. To reenter the atmosphere with only a metallic structure a large lift parameter would be required." [J.J.Moesker]

This little quote, from two posts back, made me think of a water-filled reentry body skimming the atmosphere in deep stall AOA with its water jacketed metal skin (a) keeping the surface temperature below incandescence and (b) producing steam thrust to control the rate of descent while steadily slowing and decreasing AOA, until flying attitude is achieved, for the glide back to base and a wheels-down landing roll. The one thing different (aside from all the obvious objections) is the velocity-generated heat, normally dissipated in the atmosphere, being transformed into downwards vectored thrust.

With this in mind, I quote further (below) from the same post, since I couldn't state it better, the description of the many heat transfer perameters which (with onboard water and/or fuel aboard) could perhaps have included vertical thrust generation, as another means of controlling the lift body's height to keep from burning-up in the atmosphere:

"Heat transfer is a function of both the atmosphere density and vehicle velocity. Atmospheric density is related to altitude. Thus, indirect the heat transfer rate would be a function of altitude and velocity. Furthermore altitude and velocity are related through the laws of motion. The actual heating load is difficult to predict because it depends of the type of heat transfer process (conductive, radiation etc). Numerical methods are required to calculate the flow field so that predictions about the heat transfer can be made. The aero- and thermodynamic analysis for reentry are complex due to the extreme conditions, variations of fluid behavior (free molecular flow, transitional flow and continuum flow) and the combined sub and supersonic flow regions of detached shockwaves." [ibid]

SpaceNut · 2005-03-14 07:07:09

Thanks for the descriptions and terms for re-entry heat disapation.

on another note
Spaceship firm to expand; Rutan to add hangar, about 70 employees

This is good news for not only employment but also for the developing of the commercial spaceliner Branson's Virgin Galactic.

GCNRevenger · 2005-03-15 22:53:12

Wow, have you too have given over your rational faculties to the fictional dreamland of the AltSpace utopians? Where the laws of physics can be summerly overcome by people who wish really hard...

"True, some refurbishing would be necessary... Dismantle a turbopump, relatively simple... run some water through to make sure it works, clean it up, and you can use it again. X-ray the tank to make sure there are no cracks and its ready to go again."

This is wishful thinking. Dismantling and reassembling half a dozen a complex rocket engines for every flight is simply not going to be a quick nor easy nor cheap proposition. It takes more then water and a shop cloth to clean the combustion residues out of a turbopump... start with meta creosol. And X-ray the entire fuel tank? Do you have any clue of all the X-ray images you would be taking? NASA won't even do that for Shuttle.

Why exactly will it cost at least a billion dollars to develop the crew capsule?... As far as I can tell, assuming the crew capsule is twenty times as complex and difficult to develop as the SS1 cabin it should take about $200-300 million to create. That's probably on the high side."

Again, irrelivent comparisons with Burt's puny plastic toy cessna with the rubber rocket. Barely able to survive supersonic flight, powerd by an overgrown OMS engine... You being an aerospace expert should know full well that when you increase complexity or increase performance, you increase the price exponentially. Given the extreme conditions and capabilities that a capsule must endure, I don't see it at remotely possible to build a capsule for much less. Even the Russians can't build Klipper, despite the radical difference of currencies, commonality with Soyuz, and low relative engineers' wages for less then that. And it will fly on the old Zenit, no new rocket development.

This is reinforced and magnified in rockets because of the unyeilding nature of the Rocket Equation, where your fuel mass must increase geometricly too. SSO would have to have a hundred times the power to even dream of reaching orbit, two or three hundred times for a reasonable dry mass. It is really hard to drum home that "lesson" of SSO is a LIE, that space really ISN'T any closer to our grasp, and the "little guy" really CAN'T do it much easier then the big guys.

"Scaling up" a rocket is not near as easy as it sounds either... Airliners can do it because of their relativly gentle dynamics versus the strength of their materials, and the ease at which jet turbine engines can be scaled up versus rocket engines. One of the main reasons that the Russians had to use multiple chaimbers for RD-170/180 is that the materials they were made of couldn't withstand the pressures reasonably if it were just one large chaimber. Likewise, Elon can't just double all the dimensions to make a bigger engine.

"These costs you keep citing are always those incurred by cost-plus dealings... Costs will always be quite lower, even orders of magnitude lower, for Alt. space companies because they fundamentally operate differently and more efficiently"

Nonsense. Orders of magnetude cheaper? Now you are just seething with hate for "old" companies and clearly infatuated with the "entrepreneurial spirit" of the AltSpace firms. Cost-plus will always see some price markup, several percent or perhaps a few tens of percent, but hundreds? Thousands? No way, the GAO would never let them get away with such fraud.

"With this in mind, there is clearly a factual basis for a $300-400 million figure for an SSTO RLV... don't accuse me of consciously forgoing logic and giving in to wishful thinking. That's not what I do."

Except that this is not true. What it is, it is a clear factual basis for you being out of your mind if you think that.

The "cheap" Kistler rocket? Its pricetag is somewhere above $500M now. It uses old scavenged Russian engines, no fancy liquid hydrogen, simple construction for the fuel tanks, pretty simple TPS systems. Minimal launch facilities required, and its even two stages to boot... On the contrary, there is factual basis that your assertion is insane. And it doesn't fly, nor will it without another few hundreds of millions of dollars.

Nobody has ever come up with a workable idea for a rocket powerd SSTO of any kind, powerd by any fuel, built by anyone, except for the DC-X. It is my opinion that the original $6Bn pricetag is not at all excessive given all the new technology and extremely high performance requirements. It is not within the realm of reasoning, thinking persons to believe this could be done for under ten percent of this figure.

Building rockets is a difficult business, when you begin needing higher and higher performance, which requires higher and higher complexity and quality of parts. Launching rockets into space is hardly possible at all, and they must be built to near the limits of technology to do this.

...There is one central truth that you keep trying to wish away, that space ships require such an extreme level of performance, which you take terribly for granted, that the only way to achieve this performance in a reasonable vehicle is through maximizing efficency. Spaceflight technology isn't going to have any breakthrough or revolution in technology because of the inherint physics of the proposition:

I have said it in different ways on many seperate occasions on this board, that to stand back for a moment and look past all the engineering and to look at the base physics of spaceflight, and then you might begin to realize just how hard it really is. I think that engineers have problems with this sometimes, for a variety of reasons... Anyway, the atoms that make up space craft and fuels with today's technology have upper limits of performance, and the rigors of spaceflight demand we push this limit... because of this, a "cheap spacecraft" is not only hard, it is against the laws of physics.

dicktice · 2005-03-16 09:01:53

There you go again, confusing the "laws" of economics with the laws of phisics. Forget the cost, just for once, and concentrate your objections on the actual jobs to be carried out. Assume a bunch of wealthy volunteer retirees from the space industry, if you must--anything to get yourself off this "can't be done on the cheap" kick, and use your ingenuity to come up with the simplest modular, reliable, reproducible system possible, to launch in five years. Like Burt Rutan, et al (with financing behind the scenes, not up front) are setting out to do.

GCNRevenger · 2005-03-16 09:17:59

But they aren't seperable, the physics of the situation strictly demand that whatever space vehicle you come up with must have very high performance relative to what is possible with today's materials, fuels, and construction... which in turn present economic constraints.

Thus, by nessesity, the vehicle will be expensive. No way around it, no trick, no ingenuity, no market force, no nothing can inexpensively change this fact.

It just isn't possible to build a vehicle simple enough to be orders of magnetude cheaper, because if it is too simple, it will never be efficent enough to make it. This is directly controlled by the energy density of fuels, materials strength, and the unchanging force of gravity.

Even Elon's bigger rocket, which doesn't yet exsist except as an engineering concept, won't be able to lower price by an order of magnetude, and thats with attempted recycling of the first stage, which will not be easy... tearing down a rocket engine and getting the brew of things in sea water and coked fuel isn't a simple procedure. From what I know of the Falcon series of rockets, they are also the simplest rockets that I can imagine building.

There is this idea that small-time companies can make a vehicle for tens of times less money... it just isn't true, sure they can make it somewhat cheaper, but there is a minimum cost to meet the minimum complexity & performance to reach orbit, which will never be low enough to meet the AltSpace "dream."

dicktice · 2005-03-16 22:50:59

Itemize the cost, and I'll bet the greater portion will go to pay wages and salaries. What has that got to do with physics?

J.J. Moesker · 2005-03-17 05:28:37

It is my opinion that the original $6Bn pricetag is not at all excessive given all the new technology and extremely high performance requirements. It is not within the realm of reasoning, thinking persons to believe this could be done for under ten percent of this figure.

I second that. There is a report on the net covering two different type of cost analysis for the DC-X program. No matter what method used, the figure is between the 8-10 billion dollars spend in about 8 years. Both methods included cost reducing management methods. Also different development approaches where evaluated (direct prototype vs tech. demonstrators). It also showed that the technology demonstration path leads to faster development at the lowend of the cost figure. Yet still 8 billion (1996) dollars.

Dicktice, do you really think that you can build a space launcher with a handful of retired engineers? That's whish full thinking.

Though, I do agree that being a pessimist doesn’t help the cause. ‘Alt.’ space companies will contribute in the small launch sector and likely act as subsystem developers in larger projects. Maybe someday there will be a private launch segment consisting of operators, integrators, contractors and subcontractors. It depends on how the launch market will evolve in the next decade.

GCNRevenger · 2005-03-17 09:52:32

Yes, there is no way around having to pay for a signifigant number of engineers to accomplish such a difficult project in a reasonable amount of time, and these will not be cheap.

Just developing the engines, the large radial aerospike, the small OMS engines, ane the bigger-then-normal RCS engines will take quite a bit of money.

Such a vehicle is going to be nearly as large as the Space Shuttle.

The reality of the situation is that the AltSpace companies really can't do things for an order of magnetude cheaper, its impossible. The idea that they are ten times more efficent is a fairy tale.

Ad Astra · 2005-03-18 00:06:04

I just listened to a presentation from a Scaled Compostes employee; he says that while Burt Rutan is dreaming about orbital spaceflight, he has no solution to the problem, and he is not in the running for the Bigelow prize.

GCNRevenger · 2005-03-18 00:31:58

Finally someone in the business is talking some sense...

He has no solution because there is no solution as there is no fundimental change in the paramters of spaceflight.

As long as you are relying on rockets, even ones powerd by fancy slushed hydrogen and aerospike engines, a small/simple/cheap space ship is just not possible.

It will have to wait until something does change... like air-breathing rockets or regenerative scramjets or N5+ rocket fuel or spin-locked Helium or something superior to push space ships with... Not even nuclear fusion will be of any help given its low specific power, nor would superstrong CNT composits radically change the equation.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2005-02-26 14:18:38

Re: Richard Branson / Rutan Team Up For Orbital Flight - Five year plan to put tourists in space?

#77 2005-02-26 15:44:13

Re: Richard Branson / Rutan Team Up For Orbital Flight - Five year plan to put tourists in space?

#78 2005-02-26 17:49:03

Re: Richard Branson / Rutan Team Up For Orbital Flight - Five year plan to put tourists in space?

#79 2005-02-26 19:59:35

Re: Richard Branson / Rutan Team Up For Orbital Flight - Five year plan to put tourists in space?

#80 2005-02-27 00:20:49

Re: Richard Branson / Rutan Team Up For Orbital Flight - Five year plan to put tourists in space?

#81 2005-02-28 06:08:25

Re: Richard Branson / Rutan Team Up For Orbital Flight - Five year plan to put tourists in space?

#82 2005-02-28 09:26:04

Re: Richard Branson / Rutan Team Up For Orbital Flight - Five year plan to put tourists in space?

#83 2005-02-28 09:28:52

Re: Richard Branson / Rutan Team Up For Orbital Flight - Five year plan to put tourists in space?

#84 2005-03-01 10:08:26

Re: Richard Branson / Rutan Team Up For Orbital Flight - Five year plan to put tourists in space?

#85 2005-03-01 14:45:20

Re: Richard Branson / Rutan Team Up For Orbital Flight - Five year plan to put tourists in space?

#86 2005-03-04 18:16:30

Re: Richard Branson / Rutan Team Up For Orbital Flight - Five year plan to put tourists in space?

#87 2005-03-04 18:31:00

Re: Richard Branson / Rutan Team Up For Orbital Flight - Five year plan to put tourists in space?

#88 2005-03-04 19:31:23

Re: Richard Branson / Rutan Team Up For Orbital Flight - Five year plan to put tourists in space?

#89 2005-03-11 19:54:42

Re: Richard Branson / Rutan Team Up For Orbital Flight - Five year plan to put tourists in space?

#90 2005-03-12 21:31:52

Re: Richard Branson / Rutan Team Up For Orbital Flight - Five year plan to put tourists in space?

#91 2005-03-13 13:38:09

Re: Richard Branson / Rutan Team Up For Orbital Flight - Five year plan to put tourists in space?

#92 2005-03-14 07:07:09

Re: Richard Branson / Rutan Team Up For Orbital Flight - Five year plan to put tourists in space?

#93 2005-03-15 22:53:12

Re: Richard Branson / Rutan Team Up For Orbital Flight - Five year plan to put tourists in space?

#94 2005-03-16 09:01:53

Re: Richard Branson / Rutan Team Up For Orbital Flight - Five year plan to put tourists in space?

#95 2005-03-16 09:17:59

Re: Richard Branson / Rutan Team Up For Orbital Flight - Five year plan to put tourists in space?

#96 2005-03-16 22:50:59

Re: Richard Branson / Rutan Team Up For Orbital Flight - Five year plan to put tourists in space?

#97 2005-03-17 05:28:37

Re: Richard Branson / Rutan Team Up For Orbital Flight - Five year plan to put tourists in space?

#98 2005-03-17 09:52:32

Re: Richard Branson / Rutan Team Up For Orbital Flight - Five year plan to put tourists in space?

#99 2005-03-18 00:06:04

Re: Richard Branson / Rutan Team Up For Orbital Flight - Five year plan to put tourists in space?

#100 2005-03-18 00:31:58

Re: Richard Branson / Rutan Team Up For Orbital Flight - Five year plan to put tourists in space?

Board footer