What type(s) of space vehicles do we need?

[Valcan]

VZ

The idea may not be as bad as you think.

Darpa was looking into a way to make a large VERY large airship to ferry hundreds, if not thousands of tons of men material, and equipment to war zones instead of having to go threw other countries or have hundreds of individual aircraft (c5 galaxy, c130 herc., etc) for supply and to move troops faster. A author tom kratman wrote in one book, Caliphate that this was the now dominant means of moving men and material to war zones. Though these where flying wing like designes about a kilometer across and used a pebble bed nucleur reactor for power of engines and defensive weapons. :ugeek:


So while darpa cancelled the project airships still would present a huge advance not only for the military or space sectors but for the civilian sector as well.

anyways its possible



VASIMR my big problem with it is for any real distance its SLOW. The longer anything is away from a strong em feild like earths the more dangerous it is so for a ship to go to say mars or the belt or farther it will either need to go fast or me massivly sheilded.

Say your going to mars. You can build say the VASIMR type ship say you want to take about 10 or so people to mars for a year. Well ship a. has Vasimr populsion and contains the basic materials the food, materials for mining water, and constructing a deep habitat in Phobos mar's moon. Phobos is made up of a material very similar to d type asteroids. Or a carbonaceous chondrite material this can contain 3% to 22% of water.....theres some fuel and drinking water for a return flight. And oxygen. Ship a. then drops a team of landers to the surface to set up for mining water and the base camp. Mean while ship a. continues to burrow into the moon creating a cavern large enough to hold ship B.

Ship B uses a faster drive system and can dock with phobos base refuel and act as a safe haven for the team should the mission on mars go south. A small lifting body can be used to get the men from mars base to phobos.

Yes i know fantasy. But like you siad uber dork <----

 

[beneficii]

The orbiter should be designed to reach the lowest possible orbit, to minimize the engine and fuel demands. Instead of making the orbiter capable of achieving orbits of 200 miles or more, a vehicle should be built that would transfer passengers and freight to higher orbits. Every effort must be made to keep the mission requirements to the minimum, so that the vehicle can do one thing really well, and that is carrying people into space and back from there. We don't need a flying laboratory, we don't need a general purpose repair vehicle, because those can be built later. We need a cheap, reliable, sustainable way of getting into space and returning.

May you give more details on this vehicle "that would transfer passengers and freight to higher orbits"?

 

[docm]

Lots of talk about Atlas V and Delta IV, but IMO the one to watch out for is if SpaceX gets Falcon 9 Heavy going - and I'd bet somewhere on a SpaceX server there is a plan for man-rating it.

Loft to LEO-

Atlas V-H DEC: 25,000 kg
Delta IV H: 23,040 kg
Falcon 9 H: 29,610 kg

 

[wtrix]

Imho the main problem with current space programs is monopoly of suppliers. Whatever project NASA chooses, it'll eventually end up with the monopolistic contract of supplying parts for some rocket or other stuff. Therefore I think that the rocket, launch pad and the payload ownerships shall be parted. NASA shall own the payload (Orion capsule for example) and launch pad, but purchase launch services for that particular capsule from market whatever price it'll get it for (the system is a bit more complex involving strict parameters and QA systems for launch systems, but this is basically it). That way the competition is introduced to the market and prices start to drop.

 

[kjb]

docm should take a look at SpaceX's web site - from the get-go they have intended the Falcon 9 to be man rated. The Dragon capsule is designed as a dual purpose craft - both cargo and crew. The Dragon is essentially ready to go as a cargo craft (first launch later this year) and the principal thing it lacks for carrying a crew is the launch abort system.

 

[VZ]

Imho the main problem with current space programs is monopoly of suppliers. Whatever project NASA chooses, it'll eventually end up with the monopolistic contract of supplying parts for some rocket or other stuff. Therefore I think that the rocket, launch pad and the payload ownerships shall be parted. NASA shall own the payload (Orion capsule for example) and launch pad, but purchase launch services for that particular capsule from market whatever price it'll get it for...

Generally agree. A detail: launch pad is necessarily tailored to the launch vehicle, thus it should be owned by the entity which provides launch vehicle. Basically, it then provides *launch service*, not just vehicle.

 

[VZ]

VZ
The idea may not be as bad as you think.

Darpa was looking into a way to make a large VERY large airship to ferry hundreds, if not thousands of tons of men material, and equipment to war zones...

So while darpa cancelled the project airships still would present a huge advance not only for the military or space sectors but for the civilian sector as well.

anyways its possible

Possible does not equal desirable. Why do you think DARPA cancelled the project? Because planes bigger than Spruce Goose, Antonov-225 "Mriya", Boeing 747, Airbus A380, are getting exponentially more costly to design, build, and operate. It is possible, yes. If you have unlimited $$$. We don't need systems which require unlimited $$$. We have/had them already (Saturn V, Space Shuttle). We need *INEXPENSIVE* access to orbit.

 

[halman]

vz,

The term 'airship' generally applies to lighter-than-air craft, such as zeppelins or dirigibles. These do show great promise in providing heavy lifting capabilities, but they are limited in the altitude that they can achieve, and are subject to problems launching and landing during windy conditions. Be that as it may, eventually a platform carried by a number of helium balloons might be the starting point for trips to space.

Regarding the Orbital Transfer Vehicle I mentioned earlier, I envision a vehicle with a large life support module, capable of missions lasting several weeks, as this vehicle would be used for hauling men and materials to space stations in solar orbit, payloads to geosynchronous orbit, and and other tasks involving large amounts of delta V change. Essentially a big rocket with a movable basket at the front, which would allow for payloads to be secured with their center of gravity in line with the rocket's thrust. This vehicle would have at least two robot arms, and would be capable of supporting a module for transferring people with power, air, and water for short periods of time. Said 'bus' modules would usually have on-board life support, but emergency situations might require that the OTV provide life support.

In regards to launching from the back of an aircraft, vehicles dropped tend to go into a nose-down attitude very quickly. So the engines are actually pushing the vehicle towards the planet at first, until sufficient airspeed is developed to allow control surfaces to pitch the nose up. Gimballing the rockets with enough lateral control to pull the nose up would be far more difficult than the few degrees that they are generally capable of. As an example, the White Knight dropped Space Ship One at 50,000 feet. By the time SS1 had begun to actually climb, it was down to about 30,000 feet. (Remember, the SS1 engine did not fire until after drop.) By building a carrier wing with the proper materials, designing it so that no parts are in the exhuast path during engine run up, and pitching the nose down at separation, the effects of the rocket exhaust can be negated.

Over and over again, during the history of aviation, people have refused to believe that larger aircraft than the ones flying at the time were possible. The B-17 was considered too big for a pilot to control, even with electric motors aiding him. Compare a B-17 with a 747 and it is like looking at Volkswagon next to a tractor-trailer rig. And the carrier wing that I envision would be exactly that, a wing. No long fuselage, just a wing, with maybe a couple of short booms carrying the tail surfaces. If it even has them. Look at a B-2, and think BIG!

Yes, we can figure out a way to get people into space using the Delta rocket, with some additional work. But is that how we want to get to and from space for the next 50 or 100 years? We have proven that a lifting body can be flown to a runway and landed like an airplane. If the lifting body does not require extensive maintenance between flights, we can have high flight rates. Hopefully, in the not-to-distant future, lots of people will be going into space and coming back again. Somehow, I don't think that capsules will be the ideal method of transit.

 

[Chon2122]

halman is right about the number of vehicles needed to explore space but like he said this is fantasy right now. In order for human civilization to get access to a suite of these spacecraft it would pobably take a world civilization working together at the end of this century when the global economy pulls millions out of deep poverty and mega-entreprenuers with the savy and experience of what we are doing now to finance this fantasy. For now only the super rich will get to visit space like the astronauts. Like Larry_1 said the politicians will decide what rockets we use or don't use and they will do so for political and military national interest reasons. We are in a unacknowleged space race with the Chinese which is what Harrison Schmidt said in ISDC2007 and Orion is probably meant to seal our claim to the moon or at least stoping total Chinese domination of space. But there is no reason why we can't have a race in place with each space nation building a particular part of the space suite and all sharing space and keeping an eye on each other. Then perhaps we can do what Coitis said and find some new things to do in space that are to dangerous or impossible on earth like create mini-black holes to sling shot vehicles across the galaxy or hollow out asteroids to shoot probes out to the planets our telescopes have found at significant fractions of the speed of light with rail-guns. More international cooperation would be nice but remember historicaly it hasn't been that long since we were shooting at each other.

 

[vulture4]

SpaceX has show technical competence and organizational effectiveness. They have their pick of the best people in the business. Their equipment will be safe because it is thoroughly tested..

Constellation has no funding for the moon missions, even though we are designing a moon base. If we did get the money, what would we do there that will provide a scientific, commercial, technological, or geopolitical return greater than the cost? And If Orion/Ares is only used to go to LEO it will cost as much as the shuttle and have no more capability than the Falcon 9 with the manned version of the Dragon. It would make more sense to cancel Constellation entirely and buy rides from SpaceX. I just don't agree with comments that NASA has a higher standard of safety than SpaceX. I've been involved in some recent emergency planning for Constellation, and I can find no meaningful hazard analysis, just lists of things that could go wrong and specifications for reliability that everyone assumes will be met, because they're required.

 

[halman]

Chon2122,

Welcome to the looney bin! Your excellent post points up our situation quite well, I think. But what I like to remind people is that the amount of money being invested in space exploration right now is but a tiny fraction of the wealth being poured into developing new consumer products. The world equity markets represent about 6 trillion dollars, money that is chasing more money. Getting some of that immense wealth invested in space technology would dramatically accelerate the progress towards off-planet development.

A fundamental requirement of that development will be the ability to transport researchers and technicians to and from space, without the armies of people currently needed to launch a space craft. If sending a 747 from New York to Singapore demanded the same number of people as are needed to launch the shuttle, only the ultra rich could make the flight. But aviation technology has progressed to the point where intercontinental flights are routine, (usually,) and only a small number of people are involved in planning and implementing each flight.

Launching a space craft vertically will never be a routine and simple process, because the consequences of a failure of any one of dozens of systems means near-death experiences at the very best, and total disaster far too often. There is simply no way to abort 3 seconds after the vehicle has left the ground. Yes, we have technologies which offer the hope of saving the crew on some vehicles, but they have never been used, (to my knowledge,) and still do not assure safety. (Imagine a capsule being lifted away from an errant launch vehicle, only to land in the same place where the debris from the launch vehicle is coming down. That is but one scenario.)

Building a system with safe abort points all along the path to orbit is the only way to assure safety. For a horizontally launched, two stage to orbit system as I have described, such abort points include; using a run-off area on the catapult track if the carrier wing experiences a failure before take-off, the capability of the orbiter to return to the launch point under power if the carrier wing experiences a failure after take off, a flight path during the carrier wing ascent which provides the orbiter with an unpowered return to launch point, powered and unpowered flight paths for the orbiter to return to launch point after seperation from the carrier wing, and abort to orbit possibilities.

This isn't talked about very much, but a capsule has limited abort capabilities after certain speeds and altitudes have been attained, regimes where the escape tower would be ineffective, or where the escape tower has already been jettisoned. We must keep in mind that getting into orbit requires accelerating from a standing start to about 5 miles per second velocity. This would not be any big deal on an airless planet, but our atmosphere poses certain problems when trying to reach orbital speeds.

As long as the perception of space flight by investors is one of an experimental nature, getting them to put big bucks in is going to be hard. Rockets are not a vehicle that many people have had any experience with, and anything which takes off straight up is going to be threatening to the general public. It doesn't matter as far as cargo payloads, but sending people up on what seem like big fireworks is never going to seem safe, irregardless of the track record.

To my mind, vertical launching is a primitive technology, because I am sure that someday we will leave for orbit by taking off horizontally. (I am ignoring the folks who point out that eventually we will take off straight up, like they did in Star Wars, because I consider that level of technology to be unobtainable in the foreseeable future. Whatever kind of engines the Millennium Falcon had, they were not reaction engines.) I am certain that we have the technological capability to achieve orbit by taking off horizontally today, we just have not gotten around to doing it. But I am also certain that, until we do achieve that level of technology, the demand for any kind of space vehicle is going to be very meager. Supporting any kind of large enterprise in space will require too many people up there to rely upon vertical launching, in my opinion.

 

[vulture4]

>>I am certain that we have the technological capability to achieve orbit by taking off horizontally today, we just have not gotten around to doing it.

Not for human flight, but Pegasus demonstrates it can be done. However without liquid propulsion the advantages of horizontal launch are limited, since solids are impulse-limited but have a lot of thrust and can usually climb vertically, while liquid-fueled engines are usually thrust-limited and can be smaller an lighter if the launch vehicle is partially supported by wings. The program we needed, and still need, to design a horizontal launch system for humans is the X-34, the only real successor to the X-15. The cancellation of the X-34 remains an inexplicable error. Presumably the prototypes still exist. Why doesn't NASA give them to Rutan, who now has a suitable carrier aircraft?

 

[j05h]

... monopolistic contract of supplying parts for some rocket or other stuff. Therefore I think that the rocket, launch pad and the payload ownerships shall be parted. NASA shall own the payload (Orion capsule for example) and launch pad, but purchase launch services for that particular capsule from market whatever price it'll get it for...

Generally agree. A detail: launch pad is necessarily tailored to the launch vehicle, thus it should be owned by the entity which provides launch vehicle. Basically, it then provides *launch service*, not just vehicle.

Pad operator can be different from owner of land - witness EELV and Falcon fly from leased USAF locations.

The best split possible is already found in commercial launch services in various flavors: builder (say Boeing), launch operator (United Space Alliance) and insurer (Lloyds, etc). Payload is by nature separate (excepting state-run launchers). ILS, USA, Arianespace basically follow this model.

 

[vulture4]

>>The best split possible is already found in commercial launch services in various flavors: builder (say Boeing), launch operator (United Space Alliance) and insurer (Lloyds, etc). Payload is by nature separate (excepting state-run launchers). ILS, USA, Arianespace basically follow this model.

I would agree, except to clarify that USA supports Shuttle but is not really the launch operator. Maybe a better model would be United Launch Alliance (ULA) which is a subsidiary of Lockheed and Boeing but does both vehicle manufacturing and launch operations itself, as will SpaceX and Orbital. Each vehicle requires unique manufacturing and processing facilities and a unique launch pad. The only launch operator I am familiar with that doesn't lease land from a government entity for launch is of course Sea Launch. Virgin Galactic, having reusable vehicles, fits the airline paradigm better with separate manufacturing and launch operators, and presumably plans to procure its vehicles from Scaled Composites, or someone like them, without merging business operations.

 

[docm]

Virgin Galactic, having reusable vehicles, fits the airline paradigm better with separate manufacturing and launch operators, and presumably plans to procure its vehicles from Scaled Composites, or someone like them, without merging business operations.

And of course Scaled Composites is now a division of a much larger player - Northrop Grumman.

 

[wdobner]

Not to derail the current line of discussion, but if we're going to head toward a heavy lift booster why not go for broke and resurrect the Sea Dragon plans from the 1960s? It's gotta be useful to put something like a million pounds into low Earth orbit. Yeah, it'll cost some money to develop the enormous rocket engines for each of the stages, but presumably the simplicity Mr. Truax was looking to design into the launcher would reduce the launch costs and thus result in an even greater savings in per-pound costs to LEO. Certainly having a booster of that size and not having to worry about a turbopump could be a benefit. The Sea Dragons, (or at least their first stages) could be built out of steel to make them somewhat reusable. Maybe we could enlist Newport News, Litton or Electric Boat to build the first stage and ballast tank, since they're just barely getting by with the Virginias now. I don't know if the port at Cape Canaveral is deep enough to handle something the size of a Sea Dragon, but it could just as easily be serviced out of Jacksonville or Kings Bay, GA. After that we'd just need to find a way to get a nuke on a barge to supply a desalinization, electrolysis, and liquifaction system to fuel the booster from the surrounding seawater. The USS Enterprise was illustrated in the old Aerojet conceptualizations, and it's coming up on retirement, so maybe NASA (or whoever ends up going down this road) could score the Big E Then again it might be a better idea to have something with new reactors rather than trying to keep the eight old A2Ws running.

While 500 tons of cargo flies on the Sea Dragon crews could launch in a capsule to rendezvous with the cargo boosted by the Sea Dragon. I'm not particularly picky about the method used to lift the crew. We could use some combination of the Orion, Dragon, Soyuz capsules atop Atlas, Falcon 9H, Delta, or Soyuz rockets, or some sort of HOTOL SSTO or TSTO. I'd favor the Dragon+Falcon 9, SSTO, or TSTO options over the other alternatives, particularly if we have the Sea Dragon boosting the actual exploration craft we'd be using to reach the Moon, Mars, Asteroids, etc. IMHO we shouldn't remain fixed to any given launch arrangement, and I'm not arguing the Sea Dragon should replace the current expendible booster fleet, but certainly there are some roles we're now developing which may be best accomplished by a super heavy lift booster.

The first job of the massive new booster would be in supplying the parts for a lower inclination space station to serve as a spacedock and a stepping stone to both the moon and the planets, and then to supply that station with copious amounts of fuel gathered from the sea. The station would act as a point for each of the enormous rocket's payloads to aim rendezvous and dock with upon achieving orbit. Once there the payload could be brought into an enclosed hold and divided up. It is possible this could include removing food and other supplies, or assembling spacecraft and even other space stations for higher orbits. For the role of supplying the station with fuel there would neccesarily be some Sea Dragons with fully enclosed cargo areas only capable of offloading the equivilant of 500 tons of liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen (or even RP1, Methane, or whatever will fit in the nose and can be transloaded before launch). Because the station could likely grow to be considerably larger than the ISS, and is likely to have a variable drag profile as SeaDragons dock, are emptied, and returned, recycled, or discarded it is possible it'd be best to have it in a higher orbit than the ISS sits in.

For exploration I would argue we should also emphasize a two pronged approach, with cargo riding the slow boat to the moon (perhaps using Ion or VASIMR propulsion), while crews ride faster chemical rockets (or VASIMR powered craft operating inefficiently fast). This may not work for the initial reexploration of the Moon, or the exploration of Mars where a unitary vehicle may be desirable, but the basic infrastructure could pay dividends down the road, particularly if coupled to a lunar orbiting station operating in support of a lunar base (and similar infrastructure at Mars). Of course some sort of space tug, presumably using either NERVA, Ion, or VASIMR drive would operate from the new space dock station, perhaps ranging as far as lunar orbit. In time hopefully the widespread access to space a cheap booster like SeaDragon opens up would lead to greater capability when it comes to the assembly of carbon nanotubes and we'll see the big dumb boosters phased out in favor of space elevators.

 

[420santa]

we need one that dont destroy our ozone layer every time it is blasted into space it makes me a little upset when the goverment blames all of the globe problems on a mans every day liveing when it is really caused by rockets BURNING holes in the ozone as the enter and return from space and all the airplanes that fly in the sky and dump the fuel 24/7 365 those toxions reache our ozone a lot faster than the hair spray or the paint i might use :ugeek: it dont take a geek to put 2 an two togeather to see the cover up for the real reason the ozone layer is being destroyed we need a space vehicle pulled by raindeers very eco friendly great ideal I might say :idea:

 

[Chon2122]

It seems to me that the problem of launch to orbit can be solved but we need something in space that is drawing us out to enable the genuis of our space industry to risk large amounts of venture capital to invent new rocket technology. A killer Ap like Visicalc in the computer industry would help. Some think space tourism will do it others Space Based Solar Power Plants (SBSPP). These businesses may be the start but initial investment is heavy and the payback may take years and only the biggest players are trying it. Heavy goverment spending may be necessary to help support these industries and we see some of that in the background with spaceports and facilities made available which is all for the good. Most everything big starts out small and we may not be seeing our killer Ap for space yet. People on Earth have to make money first before we will have people in space making money for themselves to build their lives and ours here on Earth. But I am more interested in Orbital Transfer Vehicles. Vehicles that can do something in space once we get there. Right now the shuttle is all we really have and it does double and even triple duty doing other tasks. I was thinking that unlike Apollo 18 which they spent a billion dollars building and laid out in the yard at JSC without using it we might decommision the shuttles in space and let them do experimental jobs like building small SBSPP for places that desperatly need electricity like in Siberia or Africa where it would be to expensive for regular power plants to be built. Or build a space hanger or erect giant Mirrors to shine sunlight on the ocean to bring rain to some god forgotten place. Perhaps it's a bad idea. Chon2122.

 

[lousephyr]

hey guys; i'm new to these posts,i'm the nutter from down unda; :mrgreen: good to see all these debates about space vehicles ;
> i myself are of the belief,that the high alititude launch platforms,maybe the most feasible way of getting into low orbit,& opening space to space tourisum; :ugeek:
> the ideas of using airships,is a fav; of mine as more & more designs of airships are being built; i noticed on popsci other week that an airship had been built by armed forces,capable of being stationary for up to a week; sure it's ceiling was only 3miles; but seemed to be ideal platform for fitting catapult to;didn't have lift capabilities that i can remember,but was suggested that able to carry variety of loads, including communication satelittes; so there could be option on table already;
> i have further read on airship manufacturer sites, of verticle airships,that can be constructed far larger & have less restrictions in adverse weather conditions; i'm sure that a couple of these behemoths,can possibly be fitted with aircraft carrier flite deck,capable of launching leo's; which can then be boosted to higher orbits using halman's idea of tug; if necessary; high launch platforms of this type can also be used for shuttle capture on return to earth;
> i was also looking thru shuttle designs on wiki; earlier & noticed that the shuttle enterprise was launched from the top of a 747, successfully; sure enterprise had none working engines; but did show that with enough forward momentum,enterprise lifted away from 747 suffiecently to allow for engines to be started safely;
>as far as nasa not having enough funding to keep shuttles going,surely shuttles can be fitted with viewing platforms in loading bay,to allow for tourists to travel to leo's,&view earth & experience weightlessness;i'm sure enough companies around the world already use appropriate materials,that are already proven for high pressure resistance;
>vertical launch systems are so last century & create far to much wear & tear on launch vehicles & incredibly dangerous;
it's time we stopped riding hydrogen bombs into space :shock:
;

 

[halman]

Chonn2122,
The shuttle is a very poor Orbital Transfer Vehicle, because payloads must be able to be strapped down in the payload bay, else wise the payload is subject to off-axis thrust, which can cause the whole thing, payload and vehicle, to start to spin around the common center of gravity. In addition to a very low service ceiling, which severely limits its usefulness. But this is a result of the specialization needed in a launch vehicle; you want it to have a low service ceiling, so that you are not lifting excess material into space.

A circular orbit at 120 miles is quite stable for some time, yet does not require a lot of propellant to reach. If we could transfer our payload at that altitude, we can reduce our requirements for engine power and propellant loads.

lousephyr,

The Enterprise was carried aloft by a 747 that was specially modified for the mission, and which only carried enough fuel for the climb to altitude, the drop, and a quick landing. When ferrying the shuttle across country, the 747 has to land twice to refuel, because it cannot carry a full fuel load. An empty shuttle weighs about 120 tons, whereas the 747 normally can only carry 100 tons.

120 tons, or 240,000 pounds, empty weight. If we severely reduce the payload capacity and the maximum altitude capability, as well as use carbon instead of aluminum, we can probably come up with a vehicle which could carry 12 people to an orbit of 120 miles that only weighs 100,000 pounds empty. If that vehicle were launched at 50,000 feet, and 0 miles per hour, how much propellant would it take to accelerate it to 5 miles per second? Whoops! I forgot the payload. !2 people at 200 pounds each is 2,400 pounds, plus life support for a week for all 12, which probably works out of about 250 pounds per person, so another 3,000 pounds, so a total of 106,000 pounds we want to accelerate to 5 miles per second.

I don't know the first thing about engineering, so I have no clue what kind of delta-V mission that would be, but I am guessing around 80,000 to 100,000 pounds of propellant would be needed. Can anyone give us some hard figures, using the vehicle weight of 106,000 pounds, and an orbit of 120 miles, what do we need?

 

[lousephyr]

hey halman;
> not actually engineer,so can't really help with specs;but from what have read previously; only 1/3rd of fuel required @ 60,000ft+
>> wouldn't use 747 anyway to puny; russians used antonov an225,which has fuselage carrying weight of 440,000lbs;
> but not good ceiling,only 36000ft, was just looking @ possibilities of using what is available,without to much modification;possibly just launch catapult,to allow enough distance between carrier plane & a shuttle type vehicle;preferribly 1 that doesn't go to high orbit;
> what gets me about spaceflite,is the way russia uses mig26's to go sub-orbital,(space adventures); which you would think mig26 could be modified with some form of pulse or compressed gas engine to allow to climb higher;
>once we can get high altitude launch systems,even if can only use drones for task,then getting higher orbit craft can be developed, ;
> i hear french,have developed learjet into sub-orbital plane; so the capabilities & desire is certainly there;

 

[MeteorWayne]

lousephyr,

Your posts are very hard to read. Can you use punctuation and sentences? It would help us all comprehend what you are trying to say.

Thanx

Wayne

 

[halman]

lousephyr,

No existing aircraft would serve as a carrier wing, due to differences in construction. This aircraft will need to carry its payload externally, not internally. Plus, the payload requirements exceed anything flying today. But our atmosphere provides us with opportunity as well as with restrictions. Even though the atmosphere extends out beyond 280,000 feet in altitude, the bulk of it lies below 18,000 feet. At 50,000 feet, air pressure is only 1/10 of what it is at sea level.
(Source: Wikipedia)