Global Flyer ... did Fossett make it?

Congratulations to Steve Fosset.
I have prepared another $25.000 award.

Okay, either whoever just pulled that one owns up, or we do an IP check..... That was lame.

Hey all, on checking XCOR's website, I found this:



Interesting, no?

And I still like Pioneer Rocketplane's design over XCOR's.

Spacecowboy,

Did I miss something? Was a post deleted? What are you referring to that "was lame" and should have an IP check? The post about the 25,000 prize?

Just a few words about the White Knight and Global flyer engines; GF uses a single non-afterburning Williams international FJ-44 turbofan of presumedly less than 8kN of thrust; WK uses two afterburning General Electric J85-GE-5 turbojets with thrust of 17 kN each. The internals are different as well; FJ-44 uses a radial compressor, J85 an axial one.

Congratulations to Fossett on his newest achievement

It merely goes to show ... some people have a different sense of humour. I guess the cowboy just missed the smiley-face.

Either that or he still orders "freedom fries" at McBlurghyuk's. Actually is it still de rigueur to call them freedom fries ... or are we all back to normal now that both Condi and Dubya have come over the pond to kiss up?

DKH

P.S. Congratulations to Fossett, man with the iron-bladder.

Peter,

you did misunderstand me. My point was NOT, that Wight Kinight should or could be used as a passenger carrier - my point is quite different.

The suborbital tourists could be invited to selected sites within there region of living and vacancies etc. Then the Wight Knight carrying the SSO could fly by the GlobalFlyer-engine from site to site. After landing at one site the GlobalFlyer-engine may be replaced by the orginal WK-enigine required for suborbital launches. WK/SSO will stay at that site until all suborbital tourists are serviced.

Then the engine required for suborbital launches will be replaced by the GlobalFlyer-engine again and WK/SSO will fly to the next site.

This way suborbital tourists could be invited to Mojave, Cape Canaveral, Madrid, Pleeeszk (right spelling???), Baikonur, Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur, Melbourne, Tokya, Shanghai, Beijing and Rio de Janeiro and WK/SSO could go by the GlobalFlyer-engine around the world Mojave-Canaveral-Madrid-Plessezk-Baikonur-Bangkok-Kuala Lumpur-Melbourne-Tokyo-Shanghai-Beijing-Rio-Mojave.

This would allow for a varietx of marketing- and selling.strategies to be discussed in other section of this board.

The only people who will have to be carried by WK/SSO are the pilots of these both.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)

That sounds a lot like what the old-time barnstormers did ... when they were inviting the public to pay for brief thrill flights back in the good old days ... they would fly their crates around the place and offer rides from the comfort of your own town airfield (ok, so it was a cow field) ... wow Ekkehard, that's pretty cool.

Maybe swapping engines is a doable thing too, I don't know. But I do know that the price of a ticket on a suborbital hop is going to be huge compared to the price of flying to Mojave (from anywhere). So economy is not going to be what would drive this.

What would? Why would the operator of a sub-orbital tourist trip vehicle fly his crate around the world (to various destinations from which the suborb hops would occur) - just to save customers the inconvenience of having to fly to Mojave?

DKH

I only see a purpose that could be achieved by intercahnging the engines.

I avoid to consider the economical side of it here because this is the Technology section - the economical side you are mentioning, Dr_Keith_H, we should discuss in the Financial Barriers section.

My thoughts were only a theoretical consideration what service the GlobalFlyer-engine might do for private space companies or private spce vehicles - it was no propsal to use it really now.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)

You have obviously never had to replace an aircraft engine or you would not even suggest such a thing. Not to mention all the ground support equipment that would have to be brought along to the new site. And legal permission to conduct space flight from the new location. It would more realistic to have several aircraft based at several locations with all necessary equipment and paperwork ready. This will happen soon, if suborbital flights become common.

Here is a quote from http://www.virginatlanticglobalflyer.co ... vation.jsp

"Three days before this particular attempt, he will go on a low residue diet of protein orientated foods like eggs to ensure that nothing upsets his digestive system and to dispense with the worry and inconvenience of mid-air of bowel movements. He will also be equipped with a pee bottle and a supply of diet milkshakes - which are low residue yet nutricious."

Eggs eh? I bet it was smelling a bit ripe in there when he finally touched down.

DKH

Peter,

the point simply is that it may be possible to develop a mechanism, method, technique, device or technology to make the replacement of airplane engines or a switch between different engines as easy as possible for pilots.

The other point is that I am a Political Economist - Economists are one group of people who have the insights and knowledges to justify what technologies, techniques etc.would be interesting, desirable, worth the work and so on. Political Economists and Enterprise Economists are often managers of companiey who order the R&D department of that company to do studies on the development of technologies and techniques which allow for such things like that I am considering.

Look at it that way and have in mind that yoou are mentioning things valid now and actually whereas ideas, thoughts and proposals always are NOT oriented to the actual situation(s) but future-oriented with the future ranging from one week to 50 years (at least).



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)

I am not even a little bit interested in some technology that is very cheap and nobody knows how to make it. I am only interested in what is actually technically possible. It will never be easy to change engines in an aircraft (or car). It will be easy to use airlines to bring passengers to space ports. And it will be easy to establish many space ports all over the world. I am not the slightest bit interested in discussing some harebrained scheme to do the impossible at an absurdly low price.

You seem to be basing your issue on your personal opinion which you didn't give arguments for. And you say that the issue which I call an opinion here is restricting your interest.

Concerning this I started a thread in the Off-Topc section - what about a post by you there?

You can do as you are doing - but it doesn't provide any base for me. Others provide such bases... But this too should be left to the thread on the Off-Topic section.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)

EDIT: Peter, please note too, that I didn't say anything about the economics of my proposal - you may be misunderstanding something: The proposal would mean that the customers don't be forced to travel to the US. This gets them more freedom of choice from where to go to space, more freedom to combine the suborbital flight of several hours with other activities planned for their vacations.

Thus the proposal would have the benefit to increase their possibilities how to organize their vacations.

The only partially economic issue of mine was that it would the round-trio of WK/SSO wouldn't cause the costs that acaused by a flight of a large intercontinental passenger airplane. And the costs of a WK carrying all the hundreds of customers wouldn't be caused too.

But that's enought economics here and in this section - that's a topic for the Financial Barriers section for those who are interested in it I think.

i read in one of the articles that he used bottles.....