Paul Breed is an entrant in the Lunar Landing Challenge. He didn’t make to last year’s attempt, but expects to do so this year.

They are literally doing everything in their garage. Last year, they built an engine and ran it and it was perfect. They built four more, and it didn’t work so well. Showing a film, taken on one Saturday..On the first burn, they saw a green flash, which meant a meltdown of the copper combustion chamber. It turned out that they used a different kind of solder. Then he showed a stability and control test vehicle that was neither controllable or stable. Then their four-quadrant vehicle turned out to be too complex, with too many valves.

This year, they’ve switched to a monoprop vehicle using peroxide, with sodium permanganate decomposition. New vehicle is spherical tank, using McMaster car parts. Will be tested next week. Doing testing of stability and control unit with a large RC helicopter, which they don’t have to go out to the rocket test site (four hours away) to test. Vehicle will be aluminum. Expect to static fire full vehicle in two to four weeks, with first flight test in eight weeks.

…and hopefully, to sleep. More conference blogging on the morrow.

Clark Lindsey has his notes up from the first afternoon session of the conference.

[Update a few minutes later]

Henry Cate (who I’m sitting next to) has some posts up as well (no permalinks, just scroll).

Jess Sponable of AFRL is giving a talk with the post title.

Jess starts out by noting the upcoming fifteenth anniversary of DC-X flight tests.

Common vision between industry and government of reliable, routine, diverse and affordable space access. Confident that it is coming at us, though not sure when.

Discussing HAVE REGION program of the 1970s, which was to develop structural concepts for potential space planes. Subject to thermal and aero loads in test chambers on the ground. All airframes came in within three percent of estimates. Validated loads, with some articles tested to destruction, some deliberately, some otherwise. Best vehicle was Boeing RASV. Honeycomb structure, with very little metal. Highly classified at the time, but now all declassified. Came very close to SSTO weightwise, but concerns were about durability and operability.

Talking about NASP, now. We learned that it’s really really hard to get an airbreather all the way to orbit. Have to spend too much time in the atmosphere to take advantage of the scramjet. Had high ISP, but horrible engine T/W–even worse than conventional aircraft engines, and hydrogen fuel was required, which required very large tanks because of its low density. It was a very complex vehicle in terms of shapes, and the heating problems of flying that low in the atmosphere at such higher velocities were very challenging. It would have been a very large vehicle.

Now going on into other SSTO projects. Points out that Mike Griffin actually started the DC-X program while at SDIO. DC-X/XA was the best program he ever worked on. It didn’t have to work because it was a test vehicle. They had a 26-hour turnaround time. Pete Conrad was determined to demonstrate three flights a day. Very low infrastructure required (~$600K). First ever composite linerless oxygen tank, long before X-33 tank failed a few years later. NASA tried X-34 and X-33 which both failed.

A missed opportunity was not extending the DC-X program with a more integrated airframe and fly to Mach 8, for about $90M. Once you’ve flown something and developed that experience base, it’s cheaper to extend it. Had they gone for Mach 8 from the beginning of DC-X, it would have been a billion dollar program.

Lesson learned was that two-stage, hydrocarbon fuels is a winner, despite the loss in Isp, because the vehicles are so much smaller. Isn’t saying that SSTO isn’t the right answer, and that you couldn’t build a demonstrator, but it might not be operable.

The reason that the commercial sector is important is because we don’t have any choice. We don’t have the money to do it the way the government does. Build quick, reduce risk will be a quarter of the cost of government program business as usual.

The good news is that the entrepreneurs are starting to engage, and they’re putting a lot more into it than either NASA or the Air Force are interested in. Talking about Bezos, Branson, Musk, Carmack. John Carmack has a great approach–just go build it.

As naval power was built on the back of maritime power (ocean commerce) the Air Force will have to engage with the private sector. AF is continuing to engage in technology push toward operability. Will trade performance gains for operability, which also pushes toward two-stage. Building a ground-based demonstrator tank (common bulkhead) that they want to evolve into a Mach 7 test vehicle. Technology will support wide range of applications.

Mach 12 vehicle will be about the size of an F-15. Not big vehicles with hydrocarbons–lots of room for growth.

Pure energy price to put a person into orbit is about $76. To actually approach that cost will require much higher flight rates than are required by the Air Force, which is why they have to partner with the private sector and private markets.

In giving XCOR the contract, they’re not paying them to build a flight test vehicle–they’re doing that with their own money. They’re paying them for technology development, and it will be shared with the industry. “Build an industry, not just a government program.”

Increase in the of knowledge doubling dramatically increasing. By 2020 knowledge will be doubling every 73 days. Time is on our side. AFRL will be continuing to push and mature technology that are beyond our horizon, but some of them will be helpful to us now.

Technologies are more complex than initial Wright work for airplanes, but we are getting to the point that we can do amazing things with small teams. Discussing technology exchange forum in Dayton where they will present their technologies to private developers to make them aware of what the Air Force has. Also a three-day workshop in New Mexico for the DC-X anniversary to discuss lessons learned for the future.

This is what I would have live blogged at yesterday’s XCOR press conference if I’d had an Internet commercial.

———————————————————————-

Doug Graham gives an introduction. Leads off by introducing Esther Dyson.

Took it for granted that she would be going to the moon, but space was like a priesthood, for NASA and big companies, not for ordinary folk. If you wanted to go into space you went into industry and lost your entrepreneurial initiative, or you wrote science fiction (Pournelle). PCs have made computing cheaper by orders of magnitude. The Internet was developed by the government, but its potential didn’t explode until it was turned over to the commercial sector. In the software world, you can build a business by copying software, but you can steal XCOR’s plans, and not be an XCOR and not build a Lynx. Not qualified to judge the technology. But she can judge the customers, and the people and their approach. She’s investing in Jeff and the team that he surrounded himself with. Real-world company. Not making wild-eyed promises, but transparent and making promises they will be held accountable for.

Greason: Just notified that Air Force wants to continue to fund their SBIR, and the process would make parts of the vehicle public over time, so announcing now. Most people wouldn’t be able to tell the last few versions apart. Also wanted to let potential travelers know what else was out there. Airframe designed from scratch to be optimized for the engines. Fly from the ground out into space, see stars, earth curvature, earth below, experience weightlessness. Looking at different ways to package people in vehicle, and shifted from Xerus to Lynx about three years ago. Referring to Metacomp Technologies CFD support. Started with engines in 1999, because it was clear that this was the critical technology at the time for building these kinds of vehicles. High flight rate is critically important. Allows a much smaller vehicle, with single passenger, and still fly as many people with a smaller vehicle that flies less often. Regulatory regime is unique in the world. By requiring developers to release safety records, there wil be competitive pressure for safer vehicles. High flight rate, low cost propulsion systems will be able to offer prices at roughly half the price of competitors. Smallest vehicle that they can build–if they could figure out a way to fly half a passenger they would do that. Not that last step–just one more step on a roadmap they laid out years ago: low suborbital, high suborbital, orbital. Thinks that this business is important, and that demonstrating a vehicle like this can make money will bring new capital into the market.
rt
Rick Searfoss: Was convinced would never fly into space again after leaving NASA. After working with XCOR, became convinced that it was possible, except this time can take wife (if she wants to go). Showing video of virtual vehicle being rolled out of hangar, checking out engines on runway, lighting it up, and on its way. Similar to high-performance fighter aircraft. Flight test and ops will take place same place (initially) as Yeager’s first flight. All-liquid rocket propulsion technology. Using same approaches as X-15 and Shuttle–dead stick landing. Well proven and easy to do, except they have the ability for go-around, reducing risk. Absolutely enthralled with the prospect of flying Lynx through test phase to the point that they can safely fly the paying public. XCOR an impressive organization. Lots of people want to get into the game, but very few really have capability to make it happen–XCOR is one of those. Scalable, developable, vey amenable to flight-test regime. As a test pilot he loves it. Flight test isn’t about taking risk–it’s about mitigating and controlling them while expanding the performance envelope. Most impressive thing about space is the view (riding up front, next to piot). Weightless experience is more different than you can imagine, but still second place to the view. Excited about working with this technical team to make it a reality, and open up space to many people in the future.

LA Times: What is state of vehicle.

Vehicle is sufficiently designed that they can start to build.

Pressurized cockpit, suit?

Yes, pressurized cockpit with life support, but will have pressure suits for additional layer of safety. Searfoss: Developing suits with Orbital Outfitters, which will be lighter and more manageable to wear. Not pressurized, and can fly with faceplate open. Dyson: You get to wear a space suit, and keep it.

Will passengers need physicals?

Missed the response.

Can’t address price point, because they are not the retailers. “our price to them is sufficiently low that the can charge about half the competition.

How large is the market. Jeff know one knows for sure, but a lot of research has been done. Dyson: a lot of people with more money than time. They can’t do a safari in Africa, but can do this in a day.

some training needed for suit operations, but shouldn’t take more than a few days and doesn’t have to happen right next to the flight.

Is 200,000 feet high enough? “More than high enough to satisfy the people who haven’t flown at all. By the time that market is worked off, will have higher vehicles. Direct competitor is Scaled/SSCompany. Very different concepts. Doesn’t think that any one will be the way to go. Different vehicles for different experiences. They only have one passenger with a co-passenger experience. Theirs is direct from runway to space, with no mother ship.

Test flights first half of 2010.

Why not carried aloft, to shorten rocket burn, like SS2? Expect that there will be competition on cost, so rather than focus on how fast to get there, but how to design a system that’s cost effective to operate, but be able to compete as well. That led to the engineering choice of doing it in a single vehicle. Trade off is to have more advanced rocket propulsion, which is why there started there.

Why suborbital when the problem is orbital. Esther: likes speciation–going after a real market niche in the short term, with real technology that will continue to involve over time. It’s a good business case. Jeff looks forward to the day that he can announce an orbital system, and you’ll be able to see the heritage from what we’re doing today, and obvious that a step-wise approach is better than “hail Mary” to orbit.

Air Force contract more important psychologically than financially. Very validating to have them watching over shoulders and trusting them. Don’t have all the money yet, but don’t expect any problems based on current discussion with investors. Ride is about thirty minutes, with last twenty a glide home. Only difference between Lynx one and two (none external), but 2 will be full-performance version. Can fly one without waiting for ultimate perfect vehicle.

Is it high enough to be in space? Tee-shirt factor is an issue, but still a big market for early adopters. Not technically in space (50 miles, 100 km), and that will obviously be worth more, but they will get to that point. Price allows multiple flights. In terms of passenger sizing, Greason is the model (because he wants to fly, and because he’s 95th percentile).

Total burn time is about three minutes, weightless about a minute and a half.

Start with taxi tests, then runway hops, then fly arounds, then subsonic (thirty or forty), then carefully through transition, then take it to the limit. Fifty to seventy to a hundred flight tests.

What infrastructure required? Franchise to other places in the world? Do you expect Mojave to be upgraded to New Mexico class?

No infrastructure required except runways and air space. Doesn’t expect California taxpayers to build them new facilities. Expects to fly all over the world, because people want to operate from their own turf.

Do you need to be supersuper wealthy? Comparable to Everest operation. Had two teachers who bought flights on Zero Gee at 3500. Was it worth it? Absolutely, will share with students and remember forever. Greason: Of course price will come down. Aren’t we glad that people bought plasma teevees and cell phones so that now we can all afford them? Never be dirt cheap, but could come down to the price of a cruise.

2700-3000 lb class engines for engines, with three of them. Weight of vehicle commensurate with that thrust. One of differences between Mark 1 and Mark 2 will be leading edges on nose for entry, but it’s a lot easier than orbit. Peak temp about 1200. Will use commercial for of RP-2.

Not four flight a day per pilot, but perhaps two. Methane interested for upper stages, not for suborbital.

Nice to be first in the marketplace, but better to be right. Multiple parties will be entering this market, and that’s great.

How far off is orbital flight? Can it scale up?

Orbital flight is where we want to go. selected this approach because it fits it a roadmap that leads there. That doesn’t mean that the vehicle design itself will carry over. It’s the systems concepts that will.

Does the vehicle require a sophisticated flight director? Jeff: A very sophisticated one, and he’s standing right here (referring to Searfoss). Very simple flight profile required to military vehicle, but expect the vehicle to be flyable by a pilot without a lot of need for automated flight control. Just took a dig at Scaled: “not like we’re going to just light off a hybrid rocket motor and we’re off on Mr. Toad’s Wild Right. “Digital throttle–on or off.” Throttling adds complexity and failure modees, and isn’t necessary.

How to reassure customers or investors that a cataclysmic failure by them or a competitor won’t destroy the industry? ME-163 bad example, but understand that safety has to be high priority. Never find anything in advance, will test, and test, and test. Will have more flights on it than anyone has put on a rocket vehicle before they put passengers in it. In a lot of ways the traveling public are a lot more sophisticated than people judging from the outside. Esther: If it’s inevitable, delay it as long as possible, set expectations properly, and realize that part of the appeal is that it is real. People die climbing Everest, often. Don’t make light of it, but doesn’t have to be a major blow to the industry.

Question to Esther: How important beyond military contracts and private travel, how much business beyond does she need. Not expecting asteroid mining or Mars colonization, but she expects them to develop this spacecraft and its descendants, but wouldn’t be surprised to develop new generations of technology and become part of the establishment. Not a long-term prospect. They are disruptive because they’re small and quick. Generating reasonable returns from the POV of a VC.

This is what I would have live blogged at yesterday’s XCOR press conference if I’d had an Internet commercial.

———————————————————————-

Doug Graham gives an introduction. Leads off by introducing Esther Dyson.

Took it for granted that she would be going to the moon, but space was like a priesthood, for NASA and big companies, not for ordinary folk. If you wanted to go into space you went into industry and lost your entrepreneurial initiative, or you wrote science fiction (Pournelle). PCs have made computing cheaper by orders of magnitude. The Internet was developed by the government, but its potential didn’t explode until it was turned over to the commercial sector. In the software world, you can build a business by copying software, but you can steal XCOR’s plans, and not be an XCOR and not build a Lynx. Not qualified to judge the technology. But she can judge the customers, and the people and their approach. She’s investing in Jeff and the team that he surrounded himself with. Real-world company. Not making wild-eyed promises, but transparent and making promises they will be held accountable for.

Greason: Just notified that Air Force wants to continue to fund their SBIR, and the process would make parts of the vehicle public over time, so announcing now. Most people wouldn’t be able to tell the last few versions apart. Also wanted to let potential travelers know what else was out there. Airframe designed from scratch to be optimized for the engines. Fly from the ground out into space, see stars, earth curvature, earth below, experience weightlessness. Looking at different ways to package people in vehicle, and shifted from Xerus to Lynx about three years ago. Referring to Metacomp Technologies CFD support. Started with engines in 1999, because it was clear that this was the critical technology at the time for building these kinds of vehicles. High flight rate is critically important. Allows a much smaller vehicle, with single passenger, and still fly as many people with a smaller vehicle that flies less often. Regulatory regime is unique in the world. By requiring developers to release safety records, there wil be competitive pressure for safer vehicles. High flight rate, low cost propulsion systems will be able to offer prices at roughly half the price of competitors. Smallest vehicle that they can build–if they could figure out a way to fly half a passenger they would do that. Not that last step–just one more step on a roadmap they laid out years ago: low suborbital, high suborbital, orbital. Thinks that this business is important, and that demonstrating a vehicle like this can make money will bring new capital into the market.
rt
Rick Searfoss: Was convinced would never fly into space again after leaving NASA. After working with XCOR, became convinced that it was possible, except this time can take wife (if she wants to go). Showing video of virtual vehicle being rolled out of hangar, checking out engines on runway, lighting it up, and on its way. Similar to high-performance fighter aircraft. Flight test and ops will take place same place (initially) as Yeager’s first flight. All-liquid rocket propulsion technology. Using same approaches as X-15 and Shuttle–dead stick landing. Well proven and easy to do, except they have the ability for go-around, reducing risk. Absolutely enthralled with the prospect of flying Lynx through test phase to the point that they can safely fly the paying public. XCOR an impressive organization. Lots of people want to get into the game, but very few really have capability to make it happen–XCOR is one of those. Scalable, developable, vey amenable to flight-test regime. As a test pilot he loves it. Flight test isn’t about taking risk–it’s about mitigating and controlling them while expanding the performance envelope. Most impressive thing about space is the view (riding up front, next to piot). Weightless experience is more different than you can imagine, but still second place to the view. Excited about working with this technical team to make it a reality, and open up space to many people in the future.

LA Times: What is state of vehicle.

Vehicle is sufficiently designed that they can start to build.

Pressurized cockpit, suit?

Yes, pressurized cockpit with life support, but will have pressure suits for additional layer of safety. Searfoss: Developing suits with Orbital Outfitters, which will be lighter and more manageable to wear. Not pressurized, and can fly with faceplate open. Dyson: You get to wear a space suit, and keep it.

Will passengers need physicals?

Missed the response.

Can’t address price point, because they are not the retailers. “our price to them is sufficiently low that the can charge about half the competition.

How large is the market. Jeff know one knows for sure, but a lot of research has been done. Dyson: a lot of people with more money than time. They can’t do a safari in Africa, but can do this in a day.

some training needed for suit operations, but shouldn’t take more than a few days and doesn’t have to happen right next to the flight.

Is 200,000 feet high enough? “More than high enough to satisfy the people who haven’t flown at all. By the time that market is worked off, will have higher vehicles. Direct competitor is Scaled/SSCompany. Very different concepts. Doesn’t think that any one will be the way to go. Different vehicles for different experiences. They only have one passenger with a co-passenger experience. Theirs is direct from runway to space, with no mother ship.

Test flights first half of 2010.

Why not carried aloft, to shorten rocket burn, like SS2? Expect that there will be competition on cost, so rather than focus on how fast to get there, but how to design a system that’s cost effective to operate, but be able to compete as well. That led to the engineering choice of doing it in a single vehicle. Trade off is to have more advanced rocket propulsion, which is why there started there.

Why suborbital when the problem is orbital. Esther: likes speciation–going after a real market niche in the short term, with real technology that will continue to involve over time. It’s a good business case. Jeff looks forward to the day that he can announce an orbital system, and you’ll be able to see the heritage from what we’re doing today, and obvious that a step-wise approach is better than “hail Mary” to orbit.

Air Force contract more important psychologically than financially. Very validating to have them watching over shoulders and trusting them. Don’t have all the money yet, but don’t expect any problems based on current discussion with investors. Ride is about thirty minutes, with last twenty a glide home. Only difference between Lynx one and two (none external), but 2 will be full-performance version. Can fly one without waiting for ultimate perfect vehicle.

Is it high enough to be in space? Tee-shirt factor is an issue, but still a big market for early adopters. Not technically in space (50 miles, 100 km), and that will obviously be worth more, but they will get to that point. Price allows multiple flights. In terms of passenger sizing, Greason is the model (because he wants to fly, and because he’s 95th percentile).

Total burn time is about three minutes, weightless about a minute and a half.

Start with taxi tests, then runway hops, then fly arounds, then subsonic (thirty or forty), then carefully through transition, then take it to the limit. Fifty to seventy to a hundred flight tests.

What infrastructure required? Franchise to other places in the world? Do you expect Mojave to be upgraded to New Mexico class?

No infrastructure required except runways and air space. Doesn’t expect California taxpayers to build them new facilities. Expects to fly all over the world, because people want to operate from their own turf.

Do you need to be supersuper wealthy? Comparable to Everest operation. Had two teachers who bought flights on Zero Gee at 3500. Was it worth it? Absolutely, will share with students and remember forever. Greason: Of course price will come down. Aren’t we glad that people bought plasma teevees and cell phones so that now we can all afford them? Never be dirt cheap, but could come down to the price of a cruise.

2700-3000 lb class engines for engines, with three of them. Weight of vehicle commensurate with that thrust. One of differences between Mark 1 and Mark 2 will be leading edges on nose for entry, but it’s a lot easier than orbit. Peak temp about 1200. Will use commercial for of RP-2.

Not four flight a day per pilot, but perhaps two. Methane interested for upper stages, not for suborbital.

Nice to be first in the marketplace, but better to be right. Multiple parties will be entering this market, and that’s great.

How far off is orbital flight? Can it scale up?

Orbital flight is where we want to go. selected this approach because it fits it a roadmap that leads there. That doesn’t mean that the vehicle design itself will carry over. It’s the systems concepts that will.

Does the vehicle require a sophisticated flight director? Jeff: A very sophisticated one, and he’s standing right here (referring to Searfoss). Very simple flight profile required to military vehicle, but expect the vehicle to be flyable by a pilot without a lot of need for automated flight control. Just took a dig at Scaled: “not like we’re going to just light off a hybrid rocket motor and we’re off on Mr. Toad’s Wild Right. “Digital throttle–on or off.” Throttling adds complexity and failure modees, and isn’t necessary.

How to reassure customers or investors that a cataclysmic failure by them or a competitor won’t destroy the industry? ME-163 bad example, but understand that safety has to be high priority. Never find anything in advance, will test, and test, and test. Will have more flights on it than anyone has put on a rocket vehicle before they put passengers in it. In a lot of ways the traveling public are a lot more sophisticated than people judging from the outside. Esther: If it’s inevitable, delay it as long as possible, set expectations properly, and realize that part of the appeal is that it is real. People die climbing Everest, often. Don’t make light of it, but doesn’t have to be a major blow to the industry.

Question to Esther: How important beyond military contracts and private travel, how much business beyond does she need. Not expecting asteroid mining or Mars colonization, but she expects them to develop this spacecraft and its descendants, but wouldn’t be surprised to develop new generations of technology and become part of the establishment. Not a long-term prospect. They are disruptive because they’re small and quick. Generating reasonable returns from the POV of a VC.

This is what I would have live blogged at yesterday’s XCOR press conference if I’d had an Internet commercial.

———————————————————————-

Doug Graham gives an introduction. Leads off by introducing Esther Dyson.

Took it for granted that she would be going to the moon, but space was like a priesthood, for NASA and big companies, not for ordinary folk. If you wanted to go into space you went into industry and lost your entrepreneurial initiative, or you wrote science fiction (Pournelle). PCs have made computing cheaper by orders of magnitude. The Internet was developed by the government, but its potential didn’t explode until it was turned over to the commercial sector. In the software world, you can build a business by copying software, but you can steal XCOR’s plans, and not be an XCOR and not build a Lynx. Not qualified to judge the technology. But she can judge the customers, and the people and their approach. She’s investing in Jeff and the team that he surrounded himself with. Real-world company. Not making wild-eyed promises, but transparent and making promises they will be held accountable for.

Greason: Just notified that Air Force wants to continue to fund their SBIR, and the process would make parts of the vehicle public over time, so announcing now. Most people wouldn’t be able to tell the last few versions apart. Also wanted to let potential travelers know what else was out there. Airframe designed from scratch to be optimized for the engines. Fly from the ground out into space, see stars, earth curvature, earth below, experience weightlessness. Looking at different ways to package people in vehicle, and shifted from Xerus to Lynx about three years ago. Referring to Metacomp Technologies CFD support. Started with engines in 1999, because it was clear that this was the critical technology at the time for building these kinds of vehicles. High flight rate is critically important. Allows a much smaller vehicle, with single passenger, and still fly as many people with a smaller vehicle that flies less often. Regulatory regime is unique in the world. By requiring developers to release safety records, there wil be competitive pressure for safer vehicles. High flight rate, low cost propulsion systems will be able to offer prices at roughly half the price of competitors. Smallest vehicle that they can build–if they could figure out a way to fly half a passenger they would do that. Not that last step–just one more step on a roadmap they laid out years ago: low suborbital, high suborbital, orbital. Thinks that this business is important, and that demonstrating a vehicle like this can make money will bring new capital into the market.
rt
Rick Searfoss: Was convinced would never fly into space again after leaving NASA. After working with XCOR, became convinced that it was possible, except this time can take wife (if she wants to go). Showing video of virtual vehicle being rolled out of hangar, checking out engines on runway, lighting it up, and on its way. Similar to high-performance fighter aircraft. Flight test and ops will take place same place (initially) as Yeager’s first flight. All-liquid rocket propulsion technology. Using same approaches as X-15 and Shuttle–dead stick landing. Well proven and easy to do, except they have the ability for go-around, reducing risk. Absolutely enthralled with the prospect of flying Lynx through test phase to the point that they can safely fly the paying public. XCOR an impressive organization. Lots of people want to get into the game, but very few really have capability to make it happen–XCOR is one of those. Scalable, developable, vey amenable to flight-test regime. As a test pilot he loves it. Flight test isn’t about taking risk–it’s about mitigating and controlling them while expanding the performance envelope. Most impressive thing about space is the view (riding up front, next to piot). Weightless experience is more different than you can imagine, but still second place to the view. Excited about working with this technical team to make it a reality, and open up space to many people in the future.

LA Times: What is state of vehicle.

Vehicle is sufficiently designed that they can start to build.

Pressurized cockpit, suit?

Yes, pressurized cockpit with life support, but will have pressure suits for additional layer of safety. Searfoss: Developing suits with Orbital Outfitters, which will be lighter and more manageable to wear. Not pressurized, and can fly with faceplate open. Dyson: You get to wear a space suit, and keep it.

Will passengers need physicals?

Missed the response.

Can’t address price point, because they are not the retailers. “our price to them is sufficiently low that the can charge about half the competition.

How large is the market. Jeff know one knows for sure, but a lot of research has been done. Dyson: a lot of people with more money than time. They can’t do a safari in Africa, but can do this in a day.

some training needed for suit operations, but shouldn’t take more than a few days and doesn’t have to happen right next to the flight.

Is 200,000 feet high enough? “More than high enough to satisfy the people who haven’t flown at all. By the time that market is worked off, will have higher vehicles. Direct competitor is Scaled/SSCompany. Very different concepts. Doesn’t think that any one will be the way to go. Different vehicles for different experiences. They only have one passenger with a co-passenger experience. Theirs is direct from runway to space, with no mother ship.

Test flights first half of 2010.

Why not carried aloft, to shorten rocket burn, like SS2? Expect that there will be competition on cost, so rather than focus on how fast to get there, but how to design a system that’s cost effective to operate, but be able to compete as well. That led to the engineering choice of doing it in a single vehicle. Trade off is to have more advanced rocket propulsion, which is why there started there.

Why suborbital when the problem is orbital. Esther: likes speciation–going after a real market niche in the short term, with real technology that will continue to involve over time. It’s a good business case. Jeff looks forward to the day that he can announce an orbital system, and you’ll be able to see the heritage from what we’re doing today, and obvious that a step-wise approach is better than “hail Mary” to orbit.

Air Force contract more important psychologically than financially. Very validating to have them watching over shoulders and trusting them. Don’t have all the money yet, but don’t expect any problems based on current discussion with investors. Ride is about thirty minutes, with last twenty a glide home. Only difference between Lynx one and two (none external), but 2 will be full-performance version. Can fly one without waiting for ultimate perfect vehicle.

Is it high enough to be in space? Tee-shirt factor is an issue, but still a big market for early adopters. Not technically in space (50 miles, 100 km), and that will obviously be worth more, but they will get to that point. Price allows multiple flights. In terms of passenger sizing, Greason is the model (because he wants to fly, and because he’s 95th percentile).

Total burn time is about three minutes, weightless about a minute and a half.

Start with taxi tests, then runway hops, then fly arounds, then subsonic (thirty or forty), then carefully through transition, then take it to the limit. Fifty to seventy to a hundred flight tests.

What infrastructure required? Franchise to other places in the world? Do you expect Mojave to be upgraded to New Mexico class?

No infrastructure required except runways and air space. Doesn’t expect California taxpayers to build them new facilities. Expects to fly all over the world, because people want to operate from their own turf.

Do you need to be supersuper wealthy? Comparable to Everest operation. Had two teachers who bought flights on Zero Gee at 3500. Was it worth it? Absolutely, will share with students and remember forever. Greason: Of course price will come down. Aren’t we glad that people bought plasma teevees and cell phones so that now we can all afford them? Never be dirt cheap, but could come down to the price of a cruise.

2700-3000 lb class engines for engines, with three of them. Weight of vehicle commensurate with that thrust. One of differences between Mark 1 and Mark 2 will be leading edges on nose for entry, but it’s a lot easier than orbit. Peak temp about 1200. Will use commercial for of RP-2.

Not four flight a day per pilot, but perhaps two. Methane interested for upper stages, not for suborbital.

Nice to be first in the marketplace, but better to be right. Multiple parties will be entering this market, and that’s great.

How far off is orbital flight? Can it scale up?

Orbital flight is where we want to go. selected this approach because it fits it a roadmap that leads there. That doesn’t mean that the vehicle design itself will carry over. It’s the systems concepts that will.

Does the vehicle require a sophisticated flight director? Jeff: A very sophisticated one, and he’s standing right here (referring to Searfoss). Very simple flight profile required to military vehicle, but expect the vehicle to be flyable by a pilot without a lot of need for automated flight control. Just took a dig at Scaled: “not like we’re going to just light off a hybrid rocket motor and we’re off on Mr. Toad’s Wild Right. “Digital throttle–on or off.” Throttling adds complexity and failure modees, and isn’t necessary.

How to reassure customers or investors that a cataclysmic failure by them or a competitor won’t destroy the industry? ME-163 bad example, but understand that safety has to be high priority. Never find anything in advance, will test, and test, and test. Will have more flights on it than anyone has put on a rocket vehicle before they put passengers in it. In a lot of ways the traveling public are a lot more sophisticated than people judging from the outside. Esther: If it’s inevitable, delay it as long as possible, set expectations properly, and realize that part of the appeal is that it is real. People die climbing Everest, often. Don’t make light of it, but doesn’t have to be a major blow to the industry.

Question to Esther: How important beyond military contracts and private travel, how much business beyond does she need. Not expecting asteroid mining or Mars colonization, but she expects them to develop this spacecraft and its descendants, but wouldn’t be surprised to develop new generations of technology and become part of the establishment. Not a long-term prospect. They are disruptive because they’re small and quick. Generating reasonable returns from the POV of a VC.

The trip was uneventful, except for an excruciatingly long and slow detour out in the desert in a long line of trucks and cars due to blocking off eastbound I-10 for and accident investigation about thirty miles west of Phoenix.

Obviously, I have an Intertube connection. I came in late due to the above, in the middle of a discussion of a tether system for earth-moon transport. I’m sitting next to Henry Cate, Jr. (who started the Carnival of Space series after last year’s conference) and am staring at the backs of Clark Lindsey’s and Jeff Foust’s heads.