Space ship one V The Space Shuttle

[ascan1984]

I was just thinking. What if years ago they designed a space shuttle with the space ship one idea. By that i mean launched from an other vehicle. With the type of payloads that the orbiters have carried in the past is it possible to have a vehivle like this? Would this have been a better vehicle?

 

[thinice]

<i>With the type of payloads that the orbiters have carried in the past is it possible to have a vehivle like this?</i><br /><br />No.<br /><br /><i>Would this have been a better vehicle?</i><br /><br />It would have been MUCH smaller vehicle.

 

[barrykirk]

If we had the right tether in orbit, Spaceship One would have almost been capable of acheiving orbit and returning safely from orbit.<br /><br />Think about that.

 

[barrykirk]

Their is a lot of merit to air dropping a rocket.<br /><br />The starting point is above most of the atmosphere and a fairly high altitude jet can drop the rocket in near vacuum conditions.<br /><br />Some of the thorniest problems with rocket engine design are designing a rocket that doesn't lose to much efficiency at 14.7 PSI atmosphere. The aerospike engine comes to mind.<br /><br />Even so.<br /><br />1) Rockets are inherently less efficient at sea level than vacuum.<br /><br />2) Drag loses are much higher when launched from the ground.<br /><br />3) Starting from a higher altitude means slightly and it is very slightly less energy is required to acheive orbit.<br /><br />4) Air dropping a vehicle can also be done with higher velocity jets, SCRAMJETS come to mind can also start the rocket at a non zero velocity and reduce orbital energy requirements. Remember that airplanes are far more efficient than rockets.<br /><br />5) Air dropping means that you have much more flexability in picking your launch spot. The launch pad isn't fixed.<br /><br />Bad weather in your launch area. Just fly to another launch area. You can easily put your airport for the plane in a place that has good weather almost all of the time.

 

[holmec]

I agree air dropping is safe, efficient, and the plane is reusable. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[spacefire]

plus it allows for pressure-fed engines, thus reducing weight and cost significantly. <br />Check out T/Space's proposal. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

Depending on the speed and latitude you require for the drop (and of course vehicle weight), you can be puhing the envelope on the aircraft - and abort on takeoff conditions can be non-trivial.<br /><br />So a blanket "safe" is probably a little strong. <br /><br />(I do like air-launch by the way)<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[thinice]

<i>If we had the right tether in orbit, Spaceship One would have almost been capable of acheiving orbit and returning safely from orbit.</i><br /><br />If we had a spacelift, we would needed neither tether nor SS-1. But the problem is we have neither spacelift, nor tether.

 

[spacester]

It is conceivable that, if the money spent on developing Shuttle had instead been spent on developing the biggest aircraft of all time - we're talking maybe 5 times bigger than the biggest ever built even today - that the air drop method could have performed Shuttle-like missions.<br /><br />Just barely conceivable though, right aircraft experts? (I am not). No composites in 1970 to speak of, right?<br /><br />Is is probably even more difficult to imagine that design option being selected over launching from a pad.<br /><br />But in the end, it would appear that Mr. Rutan et al are building the largest practical air-launch carrier craft even as we speak. So everything in due time I guess. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacefire]

the launch platform should be an airship with aerodynamic lifting surfaces. That way you could build something truly gigantic, able to carry enormous loads to high altitudes. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[yummylicious2323]

We need Darpa's WALRUS ! 500-1000 tonne payload. Then were talking about some badass airlift.<br />http://www.livescience.com/scienceoffiction/050912_walrus.html