Combining the Ares IX and SpaceShip One

[dryson]

How feasible would it be to design a craft such as the SpaceShip One to be ferried into a low Earth orbit by a modified Ares IX where SpaceShip One would be launched from the delivery craft and would then head towards the ISS or other station?

The image that I am trying to convey would be that of the Ares IX launching with the modified SpaceShip one in the cargo hold at a certain height the paneling of the cargo hold would jettison away revealing SpaceShip One. Space Ship one would then rocket and rendevous with the ISS or other oribiting platform. The engine used to lift the ship into low Earth orbit would then be recovered and used again.

Once in space SpaceShip One would be used to ferry travelers and workers to the Moon or for sightseeing trips for children.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Completely ridiculous, demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of Physics or launch trajectories and velocities. Astoundingly ignorant.

This thread won't be here in M&L long.

 

[scottb50]

How feasible would it be to design a craft such as the SpaceShip One to be ferried into a low Earth orbit by a modified Ares IX where SpaceShip One would be launched from the delivery craft and would then head towards the ISS or other station?

The image that I am trying to convey would be that of the Ares IX launching with the modified SpaceShip one in the cargo hold at a certain height the paneling of the cargo hold would jettison away revealing SpaceShip One. Space Ship one would then rocket and rendevous with the ISS or other oribiting platform. The engine used to lift the ship into low Earth orbit would then be recovered and used again.

Once in space SpaceShip One would be used to ferry travelers and workers to the Moon or for sightseeing trips for children.

If you look at the X-37B discussion, on this page, you will see it takes a real big rocket to put a relatively small vehicle into orbit. Next what goes up has to come down. The straight wing of SS1 would generate too much heat and the amount of TPS needed to de-orbit would be significant in itself. If you intend it to stay in Space and not return it would be overkill to use the design, the wings would be useless and the aerodynamic body shape a waste.

Not a good idea at all.

What would make more sense is a simple container for people or cargo attached to a refuel-able upper stage that could be used for various duties in Space. Replace the container with a manned version of X-37, or a similar design so there is a return capability. The biggest problem would be the vehicle would probably be too heavy for Atlas.

 

[Zipi]

Well let's try to answer something...

Velocities of Ares 1 rocket would tear SpaceShipOne to pieces and velocity is the key to achieve orbit. More velocity -> higher aerodynamic loads. SpaceShipOne would require some sort of fairing around it during the launch which would add weight and make emergency launch escape systems pretty difficult to implement.

If you somehow manage to get SpaceShipOne to Earth Orbit then you have a problem how to get it down... Because there is significantly higher thermal loads if you are going to land from LEO compared to the suborbital flight. To make SpaceShipOne able to land from LEO it would need plenty of heat shilding which would add weight.

Ares 1 is not very powerful rocket what comes to its lifting power and it will be on its limits when it is carrying Orion. Maybe someone else continues this lesson.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Which is basically what I said, though you went into more detail

 

[Swampcat]

Which is basically what I said, though you went into more detail

It was the way it was said

 

[Eman_3]

Although Aries could easily place a Spaceship One into orbit, you would find that Spaceship One is totally unsuited for the environment of orbiting in space.

Spaceship One was designed to lift a cargo of just three people to an altitude of at least 100 km, and then return. That's it, Spaceship One is just a composite egg with wings and a rocket. Absolutely, definitely nothing more, and it cannot accomodate any major changes (such as adding a fuel cell or even an airlock). Heck, no automated guidance, Spaceship One is hand-flown from launch to landing. In fact, if asked it's range, the answer would have to be 35 miles.

It goes up, then goes right back down. Spaceship One is in a weightless and airless environment for only a few brief moments, then it falls/glides back to earth. It lacks just about every system required for orbiting conditions. It does not have a re-entry heat shield, it does not have a long-duration power supply, it does not have the proper communications equipment, radiation shielding, and so on and so on. In orbit, it would be totally useless for any task, and a guaranteed death trap.

 

[jakethesnake]

OMG... Wayne! Send this thing to the depths of the scrap bin please!!! :roll:

 

[CalliArcale]

How feasible would it be to design a craft such as the SpaceShip One to be ferried into a low Earth orbit by a modified Ares IX where SpaceShip One would be launched from the delivery craft and would then head towards the ISS or other station?

While SpaceShipOne is not suitable for this purpose (it is explicitly a suborbital craft, and besides, would likely fracture during the boost phase), the idea of putting a spaceplane on the end of a rocket isn't actually that far-fetched, and in fact, it's been dreamed of for decades -- Werner Von Braun even drew up designs for a winged version of the V-2 that gets close to what you have in mind.

Examples include Dynasoar (a USAF project to build a spaceplane to be boosted by a Titan rocket) and Spiral (a Soviet project, that might have been launched by either a first-stage rocketplane or a conventional booster). There have also been European and Chinese designs. None have ever flown.

More recently, there was a short-lived attempt to breathe life into CRV (the Crew Return Vehicle, originally designed to launch aboard Shuttle and be docked semi-permanently to the ISS as a seven-man automated lifeboat) by developing an interstage which could mount it to a Delta IV. Several other spaceplane-atop-booster concepts were floated at the same time as ideas for the Orion program. Of course, as we all know, a conical capsule was selected instead.

 

[Zipi]

More recently, there was a short-lived attempt to breathe life into CRV (the Crew Return Vehicle, originally designed to launch aboard Shuttle and be docked semi-permanently to the ISS as a seven-man automated lifeboat) by developing an interstage which could mount it to a Delta IV. Several other spaceplane-atop-booster concepts were floated at the same time as ideas for the Orion program. Of course, as we all know, a conical capsule was selected instead.

Probably the latest design/plan is Kliper: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kliper
(which of course is cancelled or halted at the moment since Russians rarely cancel anything)

 

[CalliArcale]

Jeez, how did I forget Kliper? Brain not working. Thanks, Zipi!

 

[lemev]

:?: How does the spaceship fall when feathered? It was supposed to be "gravitating" like a satellite, at Zero G... Even braking all the lift, making all that drag with the tail boom, it should keep on "floating", or not? Wasn't it in outer space? Any answers, please?! Eman_3....???

 

[Zipi]

:?: How does the spaceship fall when feathered? It was supposed to be "gravitating" like a satellite, at Zero G... Even braking all the lift, making all that drag with the tail boom, it should keep on "floating", or not? Wasn't it in outer space? Any answers, please?! Eman_3....???

You have presented pretty wide question about orbital mechanics and space flight... I try to give you something to start thinking:

For example at the height of ISS (about 350km) there is about 80% of earth's gravity still present. The reason why those astronauts are floating is because the station is at constant falling.

When you launch a rocket you will need a certain amount of speed to get it to the orbit. More speed -> higher orbit. ISS orbit is about 350km and that needs about 28000km/h speed. So when you launch a rocket it is not done staight upwards, instead it is steered sideways so it can start gathering relative speed compared to the earth.

Then the question why spacecrafts drop back to earth... Suborbital flights like SpaceShipOne & Two don't have enough speed to maintain constant fall and that is the main reason why they fall rather quickly.

Things at orbit will stay there longer since they have the speed to maintain constant fall. However the speed of all orbiting objects is slowing down a little by little since atmospheric drag. Even the atmosphere is very very thin at earth orbit, there still is drag. Higher orbit -> less drag, lower orbit -> more drag. This is the reason why spacecrafts need to be boosted from time to time to maintain their orbit.

More info about orbital mechanics can be found from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_mechanics

When you really get away from earth gravity well, then you don't need speed to stay at space. However it need a significant amount of speed to escape from earth. Fun chart about gravity wells can be found from: http://www.xkcd.org/681/ (EDIT: Click the picture to get a larger one)

 

[lemev]

> Thank you Zipi !!! I didn't know about that.... Finally somebody gave me a good answer for that question. I'm a comercial pilot and I used to ask some friends of mine (Who are also pilots) the same question I posted here but, nobody had a clue and it was just causing more and more confusion among us.... I think, as airplane pilots, we just have that little and old knowledge about aerodynamics (lift/drag/thrust/weight) that really didn't help us, when the question turned to something that would fly at such thin air like SpaceShipOne.
> I thought those forces would no longer have an influence on the aircraft due to the altitude... Now, I know the ship didn't go as high as the satellites do. Thank's man, I appreciated your help!