#11
|
||||
|
||||
I suggest the government have 2-3 alternative suppliers.
|
#12
|
||||
|
||||
I don't know if redundancy was part of the thought process for the design, but with separated horizontal stabs, a fubar'd payload release might just hit one stab and leave the other side intact. It might be enough to get the now empty plane back to the ground. With the booms connected by a solid stab, there is a bigger target to hit and ripping of the solid stab would likely damage both booms and control systems.
__________________
I love sanding. |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Yeah, I get all that... but air launch of a LIQUID PROPELLANT rocket is something else indeed. Pegasus is solid fuel. Everything else I've seen air launched is solid propellant. Liquid propellant adds a whole different dimension, if only from sloshing of propellants, especially on the size rocket they were talking about launching. So are they talking about solid propellant rockets now? I don't really follow Stratolaunch-- I don't find it particularly interesting. I can see airborne launch for small payloads, for larger payloads, I'm not sold. I think it's a solution in search of a problem. I guess time will tell. Later! OL J R
__________________
The X-87B Cruise Basselope-- THE Ultimate Weapon in the arsenal of Homeland Security and only $52 million per round! |
#14
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Black Shire--Draft horse in human form, model rocketeer, occasional mystic, and writer, see: http://www.lulu.com/content/paperba...an-form/8075185 http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6122050 http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6126511 All of my book proceeds go to the Northcote Heavy Horse Centre www.northcotehorses.com. NAR #54895 SR |
#15
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
In his essay "Next--The Planets!" in his 1972 book "Report on Planet Three and Other Speculations," Arthur C. Clarke wrote the following, which occurred to him in response to Dr. Simon Newcomb's declaration that a heavier-than-air flying machine could never carry a passenger as well as a pilot (the astronomer had recently asserted that such flying machines were totally impossible--just months before the Wright brothers flew at Kitty Hawk): "Now I am not trying to poke fun at one of the greatest of American scientists. When you look at the Wright biplane, hanging up there in the Smithsonian Institution, Newcomb's attitude seems very reasonable indeed; I wonder how many of us would have been prepared to dispute it in 1903. "Yet--and this is the really extraordinary point--there is a smooth line of development, without any major technological breakthrough, from the Wright 'Flyer' to the last of the great piston-engined aircraft such as the DC-6. All of the many-orders-of-magnitude improvement in performance came as a result of engineering advances which in retrospect seem completely straightforward, and sometimes even trivial. Let us list the more important ones: variable-pitch airscrews; slots and flaps; retractable undercarriages; concrete runways; streamlining; supercharging. "Not very spectacular, are they? Yet these things, together with steady improvements in materials and design, lifted much of the commerce of mankind into the air. For they had a synergistic effect on performance; their cumulative effect was much greater than could have been predicted by considering them individually. They did not merely add; they multiplied. "All this took about forty years; and then there was the second technological breakthrough--the advent of the jet engine--and a new cycle of development started. "Unless the record of the past is wholly misleading, we are going to see much of the same sequence of events in space. As far as can be judged at the moment, the equivalent items on the table of aerospace progress may be: refueling in orbit; air-breathing boosters; reusable boosters; refueling on (or from) the Moon; lightweight materials (e.g., composites and fibers). **ALSO**: In addition to making launches of expendable satellite launch vehicles much simpler, easier, and cheaper (all ground-based rocket range and tracking infrastructure can be dispensed with as well), air-launching will also make fully-reusable space planes practical. (Designs that were developed for launch from existing large jet transports would be feasible, and the larger Stratolaunch plane will make even larger space planes practical.) Plus: The existing space plane designs could be launched--with much longer drop zone "loiter times" if necessary--from the Stratolaunch aircraft. As well, just as is the case with the Pegasus vehicle and its L-1011 launch aircraft, expendable and reusable air-launched vehicles can be flown to the satellite owners' manufacturing facility (or facilities) aboard the Stratolaunch aircraft, which will greatly simplify the payload integration and mission logistics, and will reduce the launch costs. In addition: While its design was dropped in 2015 in favor of a single-launch and multiple-launch (of up to three vehicles in one flight) Pegasus XL launching configuration, the development of the larger, heavier-payload Pegasus II (see: www.google.com/#q=pegasus+ii+launch+vehicle ) launch vehicle could be resumed and completed in order to provide a greater air-launched payload-to-orbit capability than the Pegasus XL's. (Air-launched reusable space planes, being "aircraft-assisted SSTO [Single-Stage-To-Orbit] spacecraft," would have smaller payloads to orbit than multi-stage expendable air-launched rockets of comparable size and mass.) The Pegasus II's larger-diameter, solid propellant first and second stage motors (they're the same diameter as the SLS/Shuttle solid boosters, while the restart-able third stage has two LOX/LH2 engines) and its 5 meter diameter payload fairing would accommodate larger spacecraft than the Pegasus XL can carry.
__________________
Black Shire--Draft horse in human form, model rocketeer, occasional mystic, and writer, see: http://www.lulu.com/content/paperba...an-form/8075185 http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6122050 http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6126511 All of my book proceeds go to the Northcote Heavy Horse Centre www.northcotehorses.com. NAR #54895 SR |
#16
|
||||
|
||||
15 years ago when White Knight 1 was built and WK2 was started, air launch was the only nearly or partially reusable option. Its lack of use due to a stubborn policy of internal propulsion development and continuous failure eliminated that 15+ year (8-02 to now 6-17) head start with immediate revenue opportunities that were also lost. The time value of revenue cannot be overstated. That's my main problem with Tripoli too.
Now we have SpaceX and Blue Origin successfully launching landable and reusable rockets. The era of air launch is now relegated to small payloads that need unique orbits. For the majority of mass lift SpaceX and Blue Origin will be the thing. SLS is a FEDGOV/NASA Boondoggle to keep Shuttle vendors working and nothing more. IN the next 5 years or so I will be able to buy WK1 and WK2 in BK sale. Maybe CIA will also sell me their Proteus aircraft. cite: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaled_Composites_Proteus Last edited by Jerry Irvine : 06-10-2017 at 09:04 AM. |
#17
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Black Shire--Draft horse in human form, model rocketeer, occasional mystic, and writer, see: http://www.lulu.com/content/paperba...an-form/8075185 http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6122050 http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6126511 All of my book proceeds go to the Northcote Heavy Horse Centre www.northcotehorses.com. NAR #54895 SR |
#18
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Agree... Wings and mother aircraft just add more complexity and expense to an already complicated and expensive operation, is space launch... The shuttle basically proceed that already... It was a 100 ton reusable payload fairing for a 20 ton payload that required HLV power levels and expense to achieve LEO; the only real "advantage" it had was it could carry 7 astronauts at the same time, though since it was deliberately designed so it COULDN'T operate without their presence, it could be argued it was about as much of a liability... For strictly payload to orbit capability, no wings reusable will beat winged reusable every time hands down... But launch isn't a one size fits all proposition... I could see where a stratolaunch type craft could have certain advantages, but I took it'll always be more for certain niches than the mainstem... Wings and runway landing capability has a very high price that comes directly out of available payload capability... I could see it for a reusable rapid launch crew taxi type vehicle, for payload unless it's small and light and your launching a million of them, I don't see it... As for shuttle SRB size solid launchers, they've been proposing that sorta thing since the 80's with no real traction... No need, expensive, unbelievably heavy, and just SO much easier and cheaper ways to do it... Then you want to add air launch and wings in just for kicks... Wouldn't sell me on it without some REALLY compelling reasons, it'd have to be sheeting that just didn't make much sense to launch any other way, and I don't know of any payloads needing a rocket that size that would make sense... Even dream chaser plans to launch on a conventional rocket... Later! OL J R
__________________
The X-87B Cruise Basselope-- THE Ultimate Weapon in the arsenal of Homeland Security and only $52 million per round! |
#19
|
||||
|
||||
Dream Chaser is properly named.
|
#20
|
||||
|
||||
It might be just chasing a dream, but this pic is pretty cool, historically speaking.
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/...17-0016-016.jpg
__________________
I love sanding. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|