At $95K per pop, I knew you guys would want to know where to send the check.

The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments:
Shortcut to: RocketShip Tours - Personal Journeys to the Edge of Space

 

I'll take two........
no really if I was a high-roller, I'd sign up in a heart beat that looks pretty amazing

 

Seeing the rather high failure rate of the NASA funded version, I would hold off on a private ride...

 

This one looks safer than the shuttle, it is lacking the things which proved fatal...

LOX/Kerosene is much safer than LOX/H2...NASA used it on the Saturn V, which worked reliably if you recall that far back.

A suborbital re-entry is pretty low-energy compared to an orbital re-entry...super-high tech heat shields are not required.

For a civilian application, I would prefer solid fuel like Spaceship one..it actually used a solid hybrid, with a liquid oxidizer to provide throttling and restart (?) capability.

 

I actually like the liquid as opposed to solid... "solid" tends to burn a bit faster and does not usually have the ability to restart (except for the hybrid)....great for ballistic missles, hard to manage to precision aerial vehicles. Solid fuel seems at first glance to be easier to engineer... but looking more closely requires specific design characteristics for a manned vehicle (without boosters) that would need specific control inputs among other things.
As far as safety goes, I would favor a liquid fuel.... once a solid goes uncontrolled, that's it, game over.

 

I'd rather buy myself a nice single-piston for personal use, but that's just me!

 

Liquid fuel engines are VERY complex, and often stressed right to the engineering limits (no 150% ultimate load).

Look at recent history...I can't recall any solid fuel booster failures in the last two decades, but there have been numerous, recent, major malfunctions of liquid engines.

Even the shuttle Challenger booster did not fail...it leaked, but it continued to function normally. The leak ignited the liquid fuel tank.

The military invariably uses solid boosters in all applications for reliability and safety...the only justification for the cost and risk of liquid is if you have to get something heavy into orbit, or move it around once you get there.

 

The Lynx was designed to be used 8 times a week (I'm not sure if that will happen). Solids like the nitrocellulose-nitroglycerin with repeated use could be a problem.

SPACE.com -- Brazil Mourns 21 Dead in Rocket Disaster

Six killed in rocket fuel blast at Sriharikota-Hyderabad-Cities-The Times of India

Fatal blast at rocket fuel plant / 2nd explosion in 5 weeks kills worker

PEPCON disaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I didn't say that liquid motors are not complex... just that solid motors are not "easy" to engineer and produce their own unique set of challenges.

 

[QUOTE=rickair7777;515685]
Look at recent history...I can't recall any solid fuel booster failures in the last two decades, but there have been numerous, recent, major malfunctions of liquid engines.

Even the shuttle Challenger booster did not fail...it leaked, but it continued to function normally. The leak ignited the liquid fuel tank.
QUOTE]

I'd call that a failure. A leak that leads to a failure is a failure. The problem may not have been the propellant, but it was still a failure. The dead astronauts would also call it a failure.

 

It's great to see these kind of programs. The first 32 inch LCD our squadron bought cost $20,000. I bought a 46 inch one last week for $1,300.

This is the perfect evolution of technology. The government did it when it was cost prohibitive for the private sector and now the technology is being handed to the private sector. Who will definitely do it better and cheaper than the government ever did. Someday soon that $100,000 rocket ride will be $10,000.

Just think of the possibilities when we get things like the space station into the private sector.

As for you guys quibbling over what kind of fuel to use, I'm sure the guys building these rockets are vastly more qualified to make these determinations than any of us. Yes I know there are some rocket scientist flying for FedEx, but as always it's easier to criticize those who are actually doing something than it is to do it yourself.