No to Rockets - Yes to Planes :)

[riflemannl]

I just don't get it... why do people just keep developping rockets?? If we can develop a plane, that might cost billions to develop, but will cost less once it's built... It is possible (I want to develop such once I finish university), otherwise I'll find a way to make it.<br /><br />Simply : I hate rockets <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /> Anyone else?

 

[nacnud]

Because you can't fly in space. A reuseable spaceplane would cost billions and still be limited to LEO while a reuseable rocket cost millions. Sorry but there is no point in wings where there isn't an atmosphere, but here is a neat concept to keep you happy <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <br /><br />Skylon

 

[wvbraun]

I hate spaceplanes.

 

[riflemannl]

Forgot to say it was multi-functional. Scramjet (more developed) into space and then a (researched) special engine... everything is possible, once you try to do it <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[nexium]

Hi Rifleman: It may be possible to build a ram jet/scramjet engine that will operate at an altitude of 70 miles and the craft could possibly reach twice orbital speed. This would cause artificial gravity away from the Earth at a normal gravity of one g. This is probably fast enough to coast to the moon or perhaps Mars, but almost 40,000 miles per hour at an altitude of 70 miles, air friction would heat most of the craft red hot and parts white hot = 4000 degrees c, at which temperature no known substance remains rigid. A possible solution is to use porus metal and exude water though the pores which will flash to steam, cooling the metal sufficiently to prevent failure.<br /> You will however need small rockets to orbit or land at your destination. An exception would be a scram jet that used magnesium or another light metal as fuel could possibly produce thrust at Venus at high altitude or Mars at low altitude, burning carbon dioxide instead of oxygen. The other problem is the scram jet optimised for 70 miles altitude would barely function at 50 miles and be a dead weight at lower altitudes.<br /> Hypersonic at an altitude of 70 miles wings, rudder, alerons and an elevator are completely impractical, so your craft won't be much like an airplane. Please embellish, refute, and/or comment. A lot of things are possible, but I doubt, everything. Neil

 

[riflemannl]

nice one! :O<br /><br />but the main idea for me is to get something with the following 'modes' in one :<br /><br />- 'Car'-like<br />- LAS (Low Altitude Ship)<br />- HAS (High Altitude Ship)<br />- OSS (Orbital and Stationary Ship)<br />- SIPS (Space Independently Propulsed Ship)<br />(mind my english, I'm Dutch <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />)<br /><br />HOW to get all this is a big question.. It IS possible in some ways and also this ship won't have much cargo and passenger seats.. I think the total thing would be like 10 meters long, 3 meters high and 5 meters wide (rough thinking). This all would make it a heavy and big plane, but hey.. The first computers and the first tanks we're massive too . The materials used don't bother me just yet, cause I really don't know what I CAN and CAN'T use. (I'm just 15 (won't take long till I'm 16 <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />)... I'm no dreamer, just planning my future a bit <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />.)<br /><br /><br />*** This plane/ship/whatever you like to call it, will also have Vertical Thrust features <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />.<br /><br />Let's get researching <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[wvbraun]

Check out this website.

 

[nacnud]

It's a nice idea to fly to orbit but it will be <b>very</b> hard to do. The easiest way to show this is to look at the mass fraction of launch vehicles.<br /><br />For a single stage to orbit the vehicles mass has to be around 96% propellant, two stage to orbit vehicles fair better but not but that much. In comparison a 747 can achieve around 50% of the take off weight as fuel.<br />

 

[scottb50]

The simplest, safest and cheapest way to orbit, in my opinion: A vertically launched, fly-back vehicle with a second stage that continues into orbit. <br /><br />Basically the Space Ship I idea, except the Launcher has two SRB's, three main engines and four turbofan engines and is launched vertically. Second stage engines operate for launch, taking propellant from the launcher and switching over to internal supply before separation.<br /><br /><br /><br />The second stage is a fuel tank with attached, re-startable engines and a payload.<br /><br />The basic configuration is a single piece wing that attaches to two SRM housings and three propellant tanks. Non-structural aerodynamic fairings cover the center section. A forward wing, between the SRM's carries the Crew Module and control surfaces. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[riflemannl]

I agree with you about the SpaceShipOne concept.. If we (anyone) could try to make this more advanced.. well... see for yourself

 

[spacefire]

I hate the space-shuttle <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[arobie]

Don't hate the shuttle...just strongly dislike the politics that caused it to be overbuilt and underfunded...caused it to become what it has become. <br /><br />I personally admire and like the shuttle. It is just amazing to me.

 

[najab]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Basically the Space Ship I idea, except the Launcher has two SRB's, three main engines and four turbofan engines and is launched vertically. Second stage engines operate for launch, taking propellant from the launcher and switching over to internal supply before separation.<br /><br />The second stage is a fuel tank with attached, re-startable engines and a payload. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>What you just described is basically the Shuttle that NASA wanted to build - before Congressionally mandated cost cutting and unrealistic Air Force requirements were forced on them.

 

[scottb50]

pretty close. With contemporary materials it could be done a lot lighter, cheaper and stronger though. I've also changed to four SSME's, instead of three and plan to ignite the second stage engines at SRB burnout so the nozzles can be sized for Space and not compromised.<br /><br />Get the second stage to 80 miles or so and release it. If all you have to do on return of the Launcher is refuel the SRB's, with segments inserted into the permanent housings and attach a payload turn-around could be rather rapid. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>