backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 26 comment(s) - last by Belard.. on Mar 30 at 7:32 PM


An illustration of the Xcor Lynx Mk I  (Source: Xcor)

The Lynx Mk I flight profile  (Source: Xcor)

X-20 Dyna-Soar
Lynx will make its first suborbital flight in 2010

Space tourism is enough to set most geeks hearts aflutter. The thought of traveling into space and experiencing weightlessness is enough to excite most space enthusiasts. However, the actual cost of taking a trip into space is more than most can afford.

A company from California called Xcor Aerospace intends to enter the space tourism market with a vessel called the Lynx. Lynx is the size of a small private aircraft and is expected to begin flights in 2010. According to Xcor the Lynx will take off from a normal runway like any other private aircraft.

After takeoff the  two seat Lynx will reach a speed of Mach 2 and climb to an altitude of 200,000 feet. The Lynx would then return back to Earth in a slow gliding circle before touching down on a standard runway.

The company plans to fly the Lynx craft several times a day to keep the project profitable. 

Xcor CEO Jeff Greason claims, “We have designed this vehicle to operate much like a commercial aircraft. The Lynx is powered by reusable liquid-fuel engines and is expected to be able to make several flights per day.

Xcor has spent the last nine years developing the engines for the Lynx at the same production facility where Burt Rutan’s Scaled Composites is located. Rutan and mogul Richard Branson have their own idea for commercial space travel and unveiled SpaceShipTwo which will be the craft used by the Virgin Galactic fleet to ferry passengers into space for $200,000 per trip.

Lynx is just a model on a computer right now, though with extensive knowledge in engine design, Xcor's ambitions to get Lynx from concept to production in the next two years is entirely plausible.

It's interesting to note that the Xcor Lynx MK1 bares more than a 50-year-old USAF design for a reusable space vehicle. The X-20 Dyna-Soar was to be carried aloft into space atop an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) and glide back to earth like today's Space Shuttle.

Unfortunately, the program was cancelled in late 1963.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Makes "some" sense
By FingerMeElmo87 on 3/27/2008 5:26:37 PM , Rating: 2
since the engines are the hardest thing to compete by far, getting this thing into air in only a few years seems plauseable but what doesnt makes sense is there plan to keep things afforable. it only has occupancy only for 2 people, a pilot and a passenger, so there means of trying to keep the cost down by making several trips a day will only turn this thing into a super exspensive single person roller coster. if it could fairy at least 4 passengers and 1 pilot then there plan would make sense. their current way doesnt

now i dont know how much it will cost but it doesnt take a genious to figure it out; more people + more trips = lower price. plus rockets are extremely powerful, it should be able to handle a few more heads




RE: Makes "some" sense
By FingerMeElmo87 on 3/27/2008 5:35:42 PM , Rating: 2
besides, space starts at 50miles up (according to NASA, 62miles for ESA) not at 37. so realisticlly, they arent even taking people nto space, liers


RE: Makes "some" sense
By ElFenix on 3/27/2008 6:10:57 PM , Rating: 2
you get your astronaut wings for flying an SR-71 or a U-2


RE: Makes "some" sense
By JediJeb on 3/27/2008 6:13:40 PM , Rating: 2
I think the ESA limit is 62km which is what the diagram shows as the apogee. NASA limit of 50miles = 80km.


RE: Makes "some" sense
By Gul Westfale on 3/27/2008 6:17:00 PM , Rating: 2
actually the international limit is 100km, but the USA claims it as being lower, thus the blackbird pilots are technically astronauts, but only in the US.

as for me, i'd be happy to go up far enough to experience weightlessness and to see the stars without the atmosphere to block most of them like down here on earth... but i have no idea whether this xcorp thingie goes high enough for that or not.


RE: Makes "some" sense
By FingerMeElmo87 on 3/27/2008 6:29:12 PM , Rating: 2
the US limit is 50 miles (80KM). the ESA is 100KM (62 miles). the lynx, 37 miles which is 13 miles short.

sr-71s dont fly that high do they?


RE: Makes "some" sense
By rcc on 3/27/2008 7:27:50 PM , Rating: 2
Nope, nope, they top out at 40,000 feet. Really they do. : )


RE: Makes "some" sense
By Gul Westfale on 3/27/2008 10:37:31 PM , Rating: 1
we were all wrong on that... the SR-71 doesn't even get close to space... it was the X-15 experimental plane. i should have known, i had a book about these when i was little. anyway, here is the wikipedia link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_X-15#O...


RE: Makes "some" sense
By rcc on 3/28/2008 12:03:57 PM , Rating: 2
I was a kid when the X-15 was flying. That was some fun stuff. The desert sky will never be the same. : (


RE: Makes "some" sense
By boogle on 3/28/2008 7:20:38 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
as for me, i'd be happy to go up far enough to experience weightlessness


For that one you need only go on the 'vomit comet', or any other free-fall ride. In essence weightlessness in orbit is only due to free-fall, you have to be much, much further away from the Earth to get real weightlessness due to lack of gravity.


RE: Makes "some" sense
By notfeelingit on 3/28/2008 9:14:09 AM , Rating: 2
Well put.


RE: Makes "some" sense
By maverick85wd on 3/29/2008 6:35:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
For that one you need only go on the 'vomit comet'


the vomit comet was, of course, the pinnacle of death-trap style carnival rides. Pricing in at just under 3 tickets, it was usually also the most affordable. This was, of course, to counter it's high death toll.


RE: Makes "some" sense
By Belard on 3/30/2008 7:32:02 PM , Rating: 2
If you launch during the day - you won't see any stars. The Earth is so bright that all you'll see is black. Its in SciFi movies that you'll see stars while the ship is in orbit or flying around above a planet (They usually forget that planets have a dark side) - One reason, it looks more interesting to have the stars on the movie, and gives the eyes a reference so the ship looks like its moving.

Here is a good picture of the ISS for example:
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap070625.html

(Click on it for the super size version)


RE: Makes "some" sense
By JediJeb on 3/27/2008 6:17:18 PM , Rating: 2
Have to figure the extra mass of the ship when enlarged to fit the 4 extra passengers, seats, safety harness, ect plus the extra mass of fuel to make up for the extra mass of passengers and ship. I don't know all the figures for this but I imagine it begins to add up quickly.


One good thing:
By AmyM on 3/29/2008 3:11:10 PM , Rating: 5
The only thing you could possibly lose would be your lunch, not your luggage.




Price
By Yames on 3/27/2008 5:07:50 PM , Rating: 2
Too bad the price of admission wont fall as fast the Nvidia 8800 these days.




Only mach 2?
By DeepBlue1975 on 3/28/2008 10:05:05 AM , Rating: 2
As they are doing an effort to make it fly really high, they could also make an effort to go really fast. Mach 2 was attained by the concorde, which is a several decades old aircraft. I would expect much better by these days. Why not pushing it to mach 4 or 5, even if it means going a few kilometers higher?

Not that mach 2 is actually slow, but... for that price, twice+ the speed is not cutting it.




Very nice...
By TimberJon on 3/27/08, Rating: -1
RE: Very nice...
By Gul Westfale on 3/27/2008 5:59:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Though I don't see any thrusters on topside to keep the thing from flying too far out into orbit.


come again?


RE: Very nice...
By Samus on 3/27/2008 6:22:34 PM , Rating: 2
Ganna gave to get those passengers in pretty good shape for a 4G re-entry :P


RE: Very nice...
By Samus on 3/27/2008 6:24:11 PM , Rating: 2
*have