 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Shuttle / June 2004how well would space ship one scale up?
to a orbital version? I kinda like the launced from aircraft idea. It elminates the hazardous controlled bomb launch. The airplane part can be refuled whatever times necessary to get it to launch altitude. This should increase its possible payload capacity. How hard would it be to scale it up to a orbital version for 3 crew or even more people? HAVE A GREAT DAY! > How hard would it be to scale it up to a orbital version for 3 crew or even > more people? You must be blind, there are several threads that mention the issues involved. Why start another thread? Are you in troll mode again, Bob? Jeff >You must be blind, there are several threads that mention the issues >involved. Why start another thread? Are you in troll mode again, Bob? gee I saw half mentions and comments about it likely happening in another country because of FAA regs but nothing detailed about how and why it may or may not be possible. perhaps I missed it. just finishing remodeling my rental home I have little time for anything else HAVE A GREAT DAY! > I kinda like the launced from aircraft idea. It elminates the hazardous > controlled bomb launch. The airplane part can be refuled whatever times > necessary to get it to launch altitude. To reach ISS orbit, you need to accelerate from 0 to 25,000km/h. If a carrier aircraft gets you to 45,000 feet altitude at a speed of 600 km/h, you still need to accelerate 24,400 km/h, not much of a difference from if you started from the ground. Where the carrier aircraft makes a big difference is positioning and orienting the spacecraft to intercept an existing object's orbital plane, therefore greatly opening launch windows. >To reach ISS orbit, you need to accelerate from 0 to 25,000km/h. If a carrier >aircraft gets you to 45,000 feet altitude at a speed of 600 km/h, you still [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >the spacecraft to intercept an existing object's orbital plane, therefore >greatly opening launch windows. Well the right aircraft could get you to 60,000 feet above most of the atmosphric drag. The fuel; to get to that altitude could be on a refuel basis too. so theres no need to haul tanks big enough to move everything from seal level. certinally these two issues must bring about some improvements? HAVE A GREAT DAY! >Well the right aircraft could get you to 60,000 feet above most of the >atmosphric drag. The fuel; to get to that altitude could be on a refuel basis >too. so theres no need to haul tanks big enough to move everything from seal >level. > >certinally these two issues must bring about some improvements? For small values of 'some' and large values of 'difficult and expensive', yes. I.E. for all practical purposes, no. D.  SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. >For small values of 'some' and large values of 'difficult and >expensive', yes. > >I.E. for all practical purposes, no. > >D. hpw about a transport craft that gets the combo not only to release altitude but with afterburners of some sort to up the speed. how fast could a airplane like vehicle go? HAVE A GREAT DAY! >>For small values of 'some' and large values of 'difficult and >>expensive', yes. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >but with afterburners of some sort to up the speed. how fast could a airplane >like vehicle go? Not even remotely fast enough to make a significant difference. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. > Well the right aircraft could get you to 60,000 feet above most of the > atmosphric drag. The fuel; to get to that altitude could be on a refuel basis > too. so theres no need to haul tanks big enough to move everything from seal > level. So you're proposing avoiding seal launch? Sounds good to me. Seals seem to be happiest at sea level. Jeff SignatureRemove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address. > > Well the right aircraft could get you to 60,000 feet above most of the > > atmosphric drag. The fuel; to get to that altitude could be on a refuel [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Jeff Oh, Jeff, I don't know about that. They're pretty darn happy at about 2 meters above mean sea level basking on warm rocks, too. ;-) SignatureHerb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D. Reformed Aerospace Engineer Columbia Loss FAQ: <http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html> >So you're proposing avoiding seal launch? Sounds good to me. Seals seem to >be happiest at sea level. > >Jeff yep the seals really prefer sea level. now for serious answers........ HAVE A GREAT DAY! |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.