The "Real Aerospace" Thread

[Smithy]

Today I discovered Bristol Spaceplanes Ltd. They are working on updated 1960s spaceplane design concepts, using existing aerospace technologies. A two-man SSTO of theirs called Ascender could be operational before Skylon.

A few years after that, they hope to have SpaceCab running, a 6-passenger craft intended for taking small satellites to orbit or crews to the ISS.

And a few years after that, they hope to have a prototype for SpaceBus, a 50-passenger tourist carrier capable of hauling medium satellites to orbit.

I assume that what lets those two larger craft reach orbit when SpaceShipOne/Two can't, is that their carrier aircraft are also spaceplanes, capable of suborbital hops with their rocket engines.

I'm sad that we just glanced over Skylon with a few links. Has everything about it already been said on those sites or something?

Skylon would look awesome with a cockpit at the front, though obviously that space is needed for propellant and fuel. It will be rated capable of carrying people though, which is great.

Skylon has been debated on these forums before, and the discussion got quite "heated", with opinions ranging from it being junk to the best thing since sliced bread...

Ascender is not a SSTO vehicle, it is actually a sub-orbital vehicle aimed at space tourism for a single passenger, albeit it's hoping to do that in a single stage. To compare it to Skylon which is a far, far more ambitious project would be wholly inappropriate. In other news reaction engines (skylon) just signed a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement with the US air force a few months back. As it has been gaining a lot of investment interest recently.

The technical challenges of a sub orbital hop are slightly underplayed to be fair in the articles I have found, as single stage to sub orbit has never been achieved, so I think claiming that the technology is already proven is a bit of a stretch. Especially considering that us engineers are more than aware that new yet undiscovered problems have an unhelpful way of appearing at inappropriate times...

It all looks quite heavily geared to capturing the space tourist industry which is quite interesting, It's worth watching but I wouldn't get too excited.

[RedDwarfIV]

Ah. I think I missed the 'sub-orbital' part, although if it can do it in a single stage, that's still better than SpaceShipTwo (but with less passengers).

I think a bigger problem Bristol Spaceplanes has is... their donation system. I would have donated something to them, but they use an investment site. It's not like Kickstarter, where you pay them something and get a T-shirt if it succeeds - it's an actual investment. You have to fill in sheets about yourself, you have to be over a certain age, and there was some 100 question questionairre about your investment status which you have to get all 100 questions right to go through with...

... it's really no wonder that, when they had about a month to go, they had reached only about 5% of their goal.

[Smithy]

Ah. I think I missed the 'sub-orbital' part, although if it can do it in a single stage, that's still better than SpaceShipTwo (but with less passengers).

I think a bigger problem Bristol Spaceplanes has is... their donation system. I would have donated something to them, but they use an investment site. It's not like Kickstarter, where you pay them something and get a T-shirt if it succeeds - it's an actual investment. You have to fill in sheets about yourself, you have to be over a certain age, and there was some 100 question questionairre about your investment status which you have to get all 100 questions right to go through with...

... it's really no wonder that, when they had about a month to go, they had reached only about 5% of their goal.

Don't get me wrong and all, but Kickstarter really isn't the right kind of website to raise funding for a major aerospace venture, or really for serious business investment. It's raised plenty of cash, but primarily for computer games, and people's pet projects/products. If you notice Crowdcube's pitches all list the equity you will be entitled too, and the tax your returns may be subjected to. Crowdcube is a different kettle of fish altogether.

Crowdcube is much more professional, as an investor you have rights especially considering that your investment leads to you becoming a shareholder, which can have major ramifications in the event of a sell off, stock flotation, or the company going bankrupt. The fact you're not prepared to fill in a serious investment questionnaire, means you're not prepared to yet be a shareholder and the responsibilities and risks that brings.

BSp Ltd was happy to give away stock, kickstarter is not the website for selling stock.

Or perhaps the reason they struggled is because Crowdcube is "relatively" new, and space tourism is seen as quite a risk, the reason they probably pitched was more aimed at cheap marketing, something as novel as a "space" company "crowd-funding" would generate some news in investment circles and raise some long term interest in the company. Such as this article, and with news like this for example! Meeting the actual goal would of been a major bonus no doubt, but they need to boost their brand awareness and they won't be overly bothered I think. They have already received funding from the UK Space Agency for feasibility studies so they are probably secure for now.

[RedDwarfIV]

I didn't fill it in because I wanted to donate, not invest.

And given the silliest sort of things that can make their goals on KickStarter? I don't think there's much Bristol Spaceplanes could have lost by doing it. By making it investment only... well, they aren't following up all the avenues they could be getting funding from.

[Smithy]

I didn't fill it in because I wanted to donate, not invest.

And given the silliest sort of things that can make their goals on KickStarter? I don't think there's much Bristol Spaceplanes could have lost by doing it. By making it investment only... well, they aren't following up all the avenues they could be getting funding from.

BSp Ltd want investors, not donors. Investors are extremely important to companies as they often are able to offer advice, help, connections, and even prestige. Plus a wide and diverse shareholder base is often viewed as a good sign for new investment.

Kickstarter is not really a crowdfunding platform for companies. Also Kickstarter does not allow for the offering of services, ergo, if you give BSp Ltd £20,000 (as promised on crowdcube) they cannot take you to space, and that was probably their must persuasive reward... To be accepted by Kickstarter you need to offer a product reward (hardware, software, albums, video games, etc.). Note that if you look at Kickstarter's guidelines, you'll find they aren't keen on all kind of rewards either, so if you wanted a T-shirt, Bristol Spaceplanes would have to start making T-shirts... Kickstarter is in all essence a tool/market to pre-sell products before they exist to customers who are happy to wait it out and pay up-front.

As BSp Ltd can't offer you trips to space, nor t-shirts, they would have to be pre-selling you spaceplanes... Ambitious to say the least...

Basically, BLt Ltd have asked themselves, do we offer anything that can be pre-sold to a large number of people...

The answer is obviously no, and that is why you don't see projects of this nature on Kickstarter. Because the only reward they can really sensibly offer is equity, which kickstarter vehemently suppresses. Hence why BSp Ltd offered themselves up on an investment website, because they don't want to pre-sell you stuff, they would rather offer you a good investment, with maybe the added perk of sub-orbital spaceflight. Something Kickstarter would never allow them to do.

[Suederwind]

Oh I hate it, when stuff like that happens: Russia will cut off US access to the International Space Station over Ukraine sanctions

[Arioch]

This is what happens when you retire the Shuttle without a replacement. However, the US commercial alternatives should be ready by 2020. Russia being dicks about it is a good thing... it increases the pressure to do what we already should have done.

But it's not as if we're doing anything actually... important... on the ISS.

[Suederwind]

This is what happens when you retire the Shuttle without a replacement.

I have to admit that I though it would be budget restrictions or problems with Russian rockets that would lead to an early shut down of the ISS and not some politicians playing Cold War volume 2.

However, the US commercial alternatives should be ready by 2020. Russia being dicks about it is a good thing... it increases the pressure to do what we already should have done.

I hope some guys at ESA get that message, too. An ATV based capsule would be a nice thing to see. But as far as I know those plans were canceled.

Sorry if this was not posted in the right thread. I was unsure where to put it.

[CptWinters]

What about the testing of the VASIMR engine?

[RedDwarfIV]

The ISS' station keeping systems can be controlled from the ground, right? Cause The Life After People TV movie said the ISS would crash after about three years if uncontrolled.

[icekatze]

hi hi

The ISS needs to be periodically refueled, since at its altitude, it experiences slight amounts of atmospheric drag and needs to compensate with periodic thrust.

[Arioch]

If for some reason this standoff is still going on 6 years from now, all Russia will be doing with a boycott is taking money out of Russian contractors' pockets and redirecting it to American contractors. They're doing us a favor by lighting a fire under the people responsible for funding the American manned program.

"We’re now looking at launching from U.S. soil in 2017," NASA spokesperson Allard Beutel told Mashable in April. "The choice here is between fully funding the plan to bring space launches back to America or continuing to send millions of dollars to the Russians. It’s that simple."

[RedDwarfIV]

w00t! You might actually get SLS working even earlier. An Earth-Moon Lagrange Point station will be much more useful than ISS, and much less of a mash-up. Hopefully this time NASA will put it together with autodocking rather than doing it manually like they did with the ISS. Though I think it was because of the shuttles that they did it that way. The ISS would have been complete much faster if it was built automatically, if what I read somewhere was correct.

And a Lagrange Point station would give a great place to analyse that asteroid, plus provide a halfway house for anything sent to build a moonbase. Meanwhile, the ISS sits there testing the effects of zero-G on bacteria and maybe, possibly, testing the NAUTILUS X's centrifuge.

[GeoModder]

The ISS' station keeping systems can be controlled from the ground, right? Cause The Life After People TV movie said the ISS would crash after about three years if uncontrolled.

Only as long as there's fuel for the thrusters. And no circuitry or propulsion systems break down.

[RedDwarfIV]

I suppose if neccesary, NASA might send some money in SpaceX's direction so they can get a man-rated Dragon capsule operational.

[Arioch]

I suppose if neccesary, NASA might send some money in SpaceX's direction so they can get a man-rated Dragon capsule operational.

I'm pretty sure that is already part of the existing plan. As I understand it, the plan was that domestic civilian launches would take over a share of the manned launches from the Russians starting in 2017. This situation just makes it more urgent and harder for foot-dragging, and means that Russia may be cut out of the equation altogether.

I think it's true that the Russian section is at the core of the ISS infrastructure, and so they could make things difficult for us if they wanted to. It's hard to imagine things getting that bad, though, short of actual armed conflict.

[RedDwarfIV]

Don't cosmonauts carry guns?

I know it's so they can survive in the hostile terrain of Russia after their capsules land, but it's not a comforting thought.

[Karst45]

Don't cosmonauts carry guns?

I know it's so they can survive in the hostile terrain of Russia after their capsules land, but it's not a comforting thought.

even if it was not a propaganda thing, they dont send moron in space, that the space tourism department job

[Grayhome]

Oh noes!

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014 ... -sanctions

[Karst45]

was bound to happen

now it just a matter of what do we do