Why No Space Plane To Take Off Like A Normal Earth Plane?

[ladyleviticus]

Hello <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br /><br />I don't know If this has been discussed before but why doesn't NASA create a space plane to take off like a normal planes do? i mean we are in 2005 now and I don't see any reason stopping us people on earth from making a space plane that takes off like a norml plane. I know the space shuttle doesn't take off like a normal plane just before it is launched into space but don't we have the materials or technology to do that? I am sure someone who is working for NASA has come up with the Idea already if they have why haven't they done it? or suggested it? is it to do with been too expensive? just curious too know.<br /><br />Thanks<br /><br />-LadyLeviticus <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[scopenoob]

well it takes $450 million to launch a shuttle. Do you think an avarage person can afford that?

 

[jatslo]

I have heard of a rail plane that utilizes a very long electrically charged track to propel the plane into orbit, or lob it is a better term. Anyway, there is no need to carry fuel, which is extra weight. The craft has to travel at a particular speed to maintain a particular orbit, and currently that requires caboodles of fuel. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[pyoko]

It exists already . Read this:<br /><br />http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/rutan_flight_040318.html <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p><span style="color:#ff9900" class="Apple-style-span">-pyoko</span> <span style="color:#333333" class="Apple-style-span">the</span> <span style="color:#339966" class="Apple-style-span">duck </span></p><p><span style="color:#339966" class="Apple-style-span"><span style="color:#808080;font-style:italic" class="Apple-style-span">It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.</span></span></p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

The problem is an engineering one, really. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> It's been proposed many times, and there are plenty of paper concepts for orbital spaceplanes that take off from runways. There are a few things that come kinda close to it, but aren't quite it:<br /><br />* several suborbital rocketplanes have been built; the most notable are the X-15 and SpaceShipOne, both of which are capable of flight into space (although they aren't going anywhere near fast enough to maintain orbit). Neither takes off from the ground under their own power; X-15 was carried aloft by a B-52, and SpaceShipOne is carried aloft by a custom-built aircraft called White Knight that exists specifically for that purpose. (White Knight will soon be participating in NASA's X-37 program, carrying the unmanned X-37 rocketplane to a suitable altitude for release.)<br /><br />* the Pegasus rocket isn't a spaceplane and isn't reusable, but it is orbital; it's launched from the belly of a converted Lockheed Tristar (L-1011) airliner. (Tristars are widebody aircraft similar in size to DC-10s. There are very few still in service, since Lockheed got out of the airliner business.) For the testflight of the X-41 "HyperX" scramjet with a Pegasus booster, the Pegasus was carried instead by a B-52, as the HyperX didn't clear the belly of the Tristar.<br /><br />It's long been a sort of Holy Grail of spacecraft designers, and a major factor in the development of spaceplanes in general. It's got some great advantages, well demonstrated by the Pegasus program. The biggest is that you can launch from pretty much any airport, so the infrastructure changes are minimal, whereas rockets require extensively customized ground support facilites. And it makes it a lot easier to recover and reuse major components. But it's got drawbacks too. Wings are very heavy, and do you no good in space, so you're hauling along a lot of extra mass. (Consider: the Space Shuttle has similar liftoff thrust to the <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

One step, perhaps, but a very big step. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> The main engineering problems left to be tackled were thermal protection and better propulsion. It wasn't especially fast for a supersonic airplane, and certainly not in the area of a airbreathing hotrod like the SR-71. (SR-71s have an additional problem. Those ramjets are so fuel-hungry that the vehicle has to tank up after it gets in the air, which is reportedly a nailbiting experience since the KC-135 tanker's top speed is barely above the SR-71's stall speed.) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>