Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Eads Astrium Unveils Space Plane Concept  
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30986 posts, RR: 86
Posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2018 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Note - I am guess Space-Related topics go here and not CivAv since we discuss Space Shuttle missions here?

Quote:
European aerospace company EADS on Wednesday unveiled a model of a jet designed to take tourists into space, rocketing paying passengers to weightlessness at more than 62 miles above the Earth.

EADS Astrium said it hoped the space jet — which looks much like a conventional aircraft but has rocket engines — will be operational by next year, with the first flight in 2012.

The space jet would take off from regular airports using conventional jet engines. Upon reaching an altitude of about 7 ½ miles, the pilot would ignite the rocket engines, sending the craft to an altitude of 37 miles in 80 seconds.

The engines would then shut down, and the craft's momentum would carry it to its final altitude. There, passengers would gaze down on Earth and experience weightlessness for three minutes.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...hnology/2003747009_spacejet14.html

12 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineAutoThrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1595 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 1908 times:

Interesting, didnt know they are working on this. But 200,000$ is still to much for a flight. Big grin


“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 913 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1836 times:

" ...will be operational by next year, with the first flight in 2012."

How will this thing be operational in 2008, but no flying till 2012?


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30986 posts, RR: 86
Reply 3, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1830 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Oroka (Reply 2):
How will this thing be operational in 2008, but no flying till 2012?

I'm guessing certification is going to take some time. Virgin Galactic's SpaceShip Two is expected to need two years or so from completion to being certified for service.


User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1814 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 2):
" ...will be operational by next year, with the first flight in 2012."

How will this thing be operational in 2008, but no flying till 2012?

That's either an error or a hopelessly optimistic EADS.

A400M, A380, A350, Galileo, ATV... all far behind schedule. But this vehicle, a major departure from anything they've built before, will be flying next year? Good luck to them, but I'll believe it when I see it.


User currently offlineAutoThrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1595 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1802 times:

Quoting Thorny (Reply 4):
That's either an error or a hopelessly optimistic EADS.

Maybe they need time to do testing or certifications until they can do a test flight might wont be a bad idea? Yeah sure

Quoting Thorny (Reply 4):
A400M, A380, A350, Galileo, ATV... all far behind schedule

Untrue and you know that, the A400M isnt behind schedule though still having problems with the TP400-D6, also the A350 is still on schedule, Galileo is behind schedule but because political and economical problems. That must have incredible much to do with EADS.  talktothehand 

Also ATV is not delayed.Or do you have a source?The only EADS Product at the moment behind schedule is the A380.



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1797 times:

Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 5):
Maybe they need time to do testing or certifications until they can do a test flight might wont be a bad idea?

Of course. But why say it will fly next year?

Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 5):
Untrue and you know that, the A400M isnt behind schedule

Technically, you're right. But A400M was begun in 1982 and still hasn't flown. It just seems like a delay, when really it was budget and wishy-washy politicians. If anything, EADS's space tourism vehicle looks even more endangered by this phenomenon.

Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 5):
A350 is still on schedule,

Yeah, right. When US Airways signed on, they were to get their A350s in 2010. Now EIS is 2013...

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m..._m0CWU/is_2005_Nov_29/ai_n15888202

Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 5):
Also ATV is not delayed.

http://www.esa.int/esapub/bulletin/bulletin130/bul130b_ellwood.pdf

"The technical complexity led to a three-year delay in the inaugural launch."


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13206 posts, RR: 77
Reply 7, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1759 times:

A bit unfair, this whole '1982' thing is nonsense, there was no launch of a definitive aircraft, the A400M, until 2003.
All the paper studies on new transports from the mid 80's onwards were of course mired in politics, both national and industrial, lack of real cash.
Not until post Cold War was there a real impetus to build a new transport, with capabilities beyond C-130J (restricted as it is by the same fuselage as legacy Herks), but affordable, unlike C-17 which would be overkill for most of the time anyway.
Even then, you had the politics, German reservations (they also in this period managed to delay Typhoon by at least two years).

You might as well argue that the legacy C-130 replacement began in the 70's with the YC-14 and YC-15, them getting axed before nearly 20 years later it emerging finally as a modernised Herk.

But, what we know as A400M, was launched in 2003. Any comment on any technical issues/delays start from then.

And let's face it, what a (quiet) scandal C-130J has been at times, just how long did it take from it 'entering service' to actually being able to perform a basic range of expected tactical missions?
Something like 6 years, yes it was software, but this is a new version of a very well established airframe, not a new generation fighter with all the dazzling performance, fly by wire, unstable config and incremental weapon/sensors upgrades.

As for this space-plane, who knows, is it serious or just thinking aloud?
Myself, I have real doubts on all these space-planes, sure I'd love a ride on one, but all those wealthy, influential pax?
If something goes wrong, imagine the shit-storm of litigation, no good saying 'it was their choice to go on it', plain common sense and taking personal responsibility went out the window a long time ago.
Then there is the mercurial hand of the FAA with certifying the current Space Ship One.


User currently offlinePelican From Germany, joined Apr 2004, 2531 posts, RR: 7
Reply 8, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1750 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 2):
" ...will be operational by next year, with the first flight in 2012."



Quoting Thorny (Reply 4):
That's either an error or a hopelessly optimistic EADS.

It is indeed an error.
From the EADS astrium homepage:
"If development begins in 2008, a first commercial flight would be possible by 2012."

Quoting GDB (Reply 7):

As for this space-plane, who knows, is it serious or just thinking aloud?

It is a little bit more than just thinking aloud but not much. Development hasn't started yet.

Quoting GDB (Reply 7):
Myself, I have real doubts on all these space-planes, sure I'd love a ride on one, but all those wealthy, influential pax?
If something goes wrong, imagine the shit-storm of litigation, no good saying 'it was their choice to go on it', plain

Well, the Russians do already commercial space flights... I guess the passengers would have to waive liability.

pelican

[Edited 2007-06-16 12:34:42]

User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12146 posts, RR: 51
Reply 9, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1730 times:

Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 5):
Untrue and you know that, the A400M isnt behind schedule though still having problems with the TP400-D6, also the A350 is still on schedule,

The original first flight of the A-400M was suppose to be this year. It isn't going to happen, I would say that is behind schedule. The original first delivery was suppose to be the first quarter of 2009, now it is 2012. Isn't that a delay, too?

Which schedule are you referring to for the A-350? It has so many I cannot keep up.

What about the A-380 schedule? Would you say 2 years behind schedule is significant? BTW, the A-330MRTT, TT, and KC-30B are all at least 6 months behind schedule, too. There is also a significant delay in flight testing of the EADS Air Refuieling Boom being flight tested on the EADS KC-310.


User currently offlineAutoThrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1595 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1725 times:

Quoting Thorny (Reply 6):
Technically, you're right. But A400M was begun in 1982 and still hasn't flown. It just seems like a delay, when really it was budget and wishy-washy politicians. If anything, EADS's space tourism vehicle looks even more endangered by this phenomenon.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 9):

The original first flight of the A-400M was suppose to be this year. It isn't going to happen, I would say that is behind schedule. The original first delivery was suppose to be the first quarter of 2009, now it is 2012. Isn't that a delay, too?



Quote:
FI
Launched in May 2003 with the signature of a 180-aircraft development and production contract by Europe's OCCAR procurement agency acting on behalf of seven partner nations, the A400M is publicly declared as being on track to achieve its first flight in the first quarter of 2008, albeit later than a previous goal of next January. But with the project's aggressive timescale leaving little room for error,

Again if any delay appears its due the TP400-D6 Engines not manufactured by EADS and not the frame. thumbsdown 

Quoting GDB (Reply 7):
And let's face it, what a (quiet) scandal C-130J has been at times, just how long did it take from it 'entering service' to actually being able to perform a basic range of expected tactical missions?
Something like 6 years, yes it was software, but this is a new version of a very well established airframe, not a new generation fighter with all the dazzling performance, fly by wire, unstable config and incremental weapon/sensors upgrades.

Very good point.

Quoting Thorny (Reply 6):
Yeah, right. When US Airways signed on, they were to get their A350s in 2010. Now EIS is 2013...

They changed the plane to make a better one, because customers wanted so. How can you claim its behind schedule when its a totally new plane and program?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 9):
What about the A-380 schedule? Would you say 2 years behind schedule is significant?

I already said the A380 is clearly behind schedule whait should i say more.  Yeah sure



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1720 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 7):
You might as well argue that the legacy C-130 replacement began in the 70's with the YC-14 and YC-15, them getting axed before nearly 20 years later it emerging finally as a modernised Herk.

Lockheed has an excuse: they were part of the organization which gave birth to A400M originally, and finally bailed out when there was no end in sight to funding/development fiasco. Then they started on C-130J on their own. That was 1989. C-130J first flew in 1996. We're still waiting for A400M.

Quoting GDB (Reply 7):
But, what we know as A400M, was launched in 2003.

http://www.armedforces.co.uk/raf/listings/l0054.html

"The MoD committed to 25 x Airbus A400M in 2000 to meet the Future Transport Aircraft (FTA) requirement for an air lift capability to replace the remaining Hercules C-130K C1/C3 fleet.

The A400 is a collaborative programme involving eight European nations (Germany, France, Turkey, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Luxembourg and United Kingdom), procuring a total of 180 aircraft. The expected UK cost is some £2.4 billion for 25 aircraft. The projected in-service date has slipped from 2007 to 2010."

Kinda like saying A380 has only been in development since 2000. Nevermind that A3XX had been a going concern since 1994...


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13206 posts, RR: 77
Reply 12, posted (7 years 3 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1611 times:

In 2000, what we now know as A400M, was less well defined, was NOT a launched industrial programme.
The UK really signed on to be a part of this industrial project, but there was and is a need for something in the A400M class with the RAF.
There had been great UK service interest through all the long line of proposals, arguments, lack of funding, but the RAF legacy Herks, very hard worked, needed a boost in the near term, bringing some UK contractors on to C-130J was a bait by LM, but one not really needed, the only answer definately on the horizon then (1994), was the modernised C-130.
But having a capability beyond C-130J was desired, with the then FLA project mired again, not likely to provide an aircraft until the latter half of the new decade if the project and partners stayed together at all, the RAF leased 4 C-17's.

While they now have 5 C-17's, to be owned rather than leased, and maybe 3 more may follow, circumstances have changed since 2000.
What was then a niche heavy lift capability, likely an interim until A400M arrived in numbers to provide something beyond C-130J, but back to leasing AN-124's for that niche heavy lift, has by events since 2001, become far from niche.
The RAF C-17's do a lot more than their most frequent sightings in the media, bringing bodies home from Iraq and Afghanistan, the projected use of them in 2000 has gone off the scale, way off the scale.

However, assuming the EADS aircraft proves to be successful, there have long been rumours that then, the RAF would sell their C-130J fleet (the initial 25 A400M's replacing remaining legacy Herks), for more A400M's, both increasing capability, cutting a type from the supply chain and getting a good price probably for by then around 15 year old C-130J's.
After all, the initial requirement for FLA for what followed and became A400M, is 40-45 airframes for the RAF.
The service also might well be taking a look at the A400M's planned air to air refuelling capability, via wing pods, if those 14 new A330's get too busy in a surge operation.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Eads Astrium Unveils Space Plane Concept
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Eads Unveils UAV Tech Demonstrator 'Barracuda' posted Sat May 13 2006 23:08:50 by A319XFW
WSJ: Eads Acquires Ex-Fokker Space Systems Group posted Thu Dec 1 2005 23:39:23 by N328KF
Landing The Space Shuttle posted Thu Jun 14 2007 00:37:56 by Trinxat
DOH! Pilot Violates Space Shuttle Airspace posted Tue May 22 2007 23:01:40 by PC12Fan
Video Of Near Plane Crash At Airshow posted Tue May 22 2007 04:32:57 by KPDX
Scotty - Lost In Space posted Sat May 12 2007 15:21:12 by ZANL188
Fatal Plane Crash In The Keys (Tether Blimp Wire) posted Fri May 4 2007 05:11:31 by TedTAce
Rivals Muscle In On Lockheed's Cargo Plane posted Thu May 3 2007 22:42:04 by Srbmod
Could The Space Shuttle Land On Water? posted Sun Apr 22 2007 16:39:50 by Pizzaandplanes
VP Cheney's Plane Has A Bird Strike posted Fri Apr 13 2007 22:41:24 by Csturdiv

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format