• SamuelRoman13

    Looks good. Now pull out that old motor and insert another. A lot of work. Rocket Plane just refuels with LOX and Kerosene. It uses thrusters to get to a flat re-entry. Simple. It uses a 36,000lb thrust rocket engine. Like the one I found a long time ago and I think is available. I forgot the name but a search should turn it up. One has been made and tested paid for by US-A. Spaceship2 uses a complicated feather system. But it is automatic. When enough air hits it at any attitude it enters a re-entry attitude. X-15 did OK with thrusters though.

  • duheagle

    As seems increasingly often the case, I have no idea what you’re on about here. Rocketplane, following its takeover of Kistler Aerospace, won, then lost, one of the two original COTS development contracts. It limped along for awhile after that ultimately fatal reverse, but finally went bust for good eight years ago. It was the XCOR of its time.

    Or were you really intending to refer to some other entity whose name starts with “Rocket?” I don’t know of any such that fit with the rest of your comment so help us all out, wouldja?

  • Maxtrue

    Congrats for the symbolism. The pilots certainly risked death. This is however a tourist system despite all the talk about experiments. The 747s were made with a built in 5th pylon and Virgin shows others that lifting ships via airlift works. The Virgin ship however doesn’t seem the optimal design for getting into orbit or lifting load. I am therefore not certain how this has an impact on space advances save the expectation of the wealthy getting an unusual ride with significant risk.

  • SamuelRoman13

    rocketplaneglobal.com

  • redneck

    Apparently he is also unable to distinguish between a notion of long gone company, and an actual vehicle.

  • SamuelRoman13

    And some people does not know how to do search. rocketplaneglobal. com. New company ’15. Took over bankrupt RocketPlane. You should go to their site and read. I read that they have somebody doing the work for them. Modifying a Lear Jet. Not done, but they are working on it. It sounds good. The 2 jet engines and 1 36,000lb thrust rocket engine my be attractive to some. More conventional than the hybrid engine on Spaceship-2. They say they can get beyond 100K. I doubt they will make it. Branson probably has all the business locked up.

  • redneck

    Do some actual research to learn the difference between web sites and hardware.

  • duheagle

    Thanks for the link, though it would have been much better had you included it in your original comment.

    Wasn’t aware that company name had been revived.

    Now that I know about them, I’ll pay them some attention.

    At first blush what they plan to do seems – at least initially with the Lear – both more likely to work well over the long haul than SS2 and, not so incidentally, to require probably two orders of magnitude less capital to develop than Branson has spent on SS2.

    But these folks do have to raise money and do the work even to get the Lear-based project actualized. The big bespoke vehicle shown alongside the modified Lear on their home page is obviously way beyond both their current means and skill set.

    The web site, in fact, is not very impressive. On the News page they claim to have made a deal to launch a bunch of stuff for some unnamed telecom concern but there is no link to an actual story. That doesn’t really pass the smell test.

    So I’d have to describe my expectations as low, but not quite zero.

  • duheagle

    Words to live by.

  • duheagle

    The XP sounds good. XS,no. I doubt they will ever be built.

    XP will likely be good iff they can build it. I also quite agree that the XS is aptly named and will almost certainly never exist.

  • Hemingway