Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
davros of skaro

Dead Weight Platform Launches :(

35 posts in this topic

Dead Weight Platform Launches are so 1960's

Do we really need the "OOOOHS & AAAGHS" of traditional launches when there is a cheaper

way in the long run?

Traditional space launches should be looked upon as one would see a Biplane for aviation

imho.

Airplane launch platforms are nothing new, but hardly used (as far as I know.)

If I want to see a rocket launch, then I will just buy a rocket kit from the hobby shop

(Estes is a good brand.)

I do not know how often alternative space launch vehicles occur, but I think we need to

say goodbye to tradition.

What do you think, and please take the time to watch the videos first (this is our

future)...Thanks

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfJtxmrwhVs

post-142153-0-23145500-1387389585_thumb.

post-142153-0-99332200-1387389599_thumb.

post-142153-0-30230500-1387389631_thumb.

post-142153-0-62379600-1387389638_thumb.

post-142153-0-81731500-1387389647_thumb.

post-142153-0-16072900-1387389661_thumb.

post-142153-0-15504300-1387389670_thumb.

post-142153-0-56654400-1387389682_thumb.

post-142153-0-90683100-1387389692_thumb.

post-142153-0-77238900-1387389701_thumb.

post-142153-0-66562600-1387389747_thumb.

post-142153-0-47892600-1387389759_thumb.

post-142153-0-80792200-1387389768_thumb.

Edited by davros of skaro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's an awful lot of words to say nothing davros.

Prey tell, what are these cheaper alternative launchers?

If there really were available, cheaper alternatives don't you think they would be in use?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's an awful lot of words to say nothing davros.

Prey tell, what are these cheaper alternative launchers?

If there really were available, cheaper alternatives don't you think they would be in use?

Airplane launch platforms A.L.P.

Can you atleast watch the first video? -.-

Do you actually think thrift is in the minds of Government agencies????????? o.O

It's we that have to shake things around here, but rolling over playing dead is the norm.

Edited by davros of skaro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's cheaper to launch a space vehicle from a modified, or specificly built airplane.A plane taxi's down the runway till enough lift is generated from thrust for take off.A rocket is dead weight for a vertical take off, and much more thrust is needed to get it off the ground.If dead weight vertical take off was efficient then every airport would be launch pads instead of runways.Look how long the outdated Shuttle program was dragged along.You have seen the 747 carrying the Enterprise, but that set up was not for orbital launch, but for transportation, and test landing missions.According to the 1st video it takes $100,000 per weight of a Gallon of water for a traditional launch, while an airplane launch platform A.L.P costs $5,500 for the same weight.

People are ingrained into the traditional launch platform of dead weight launch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me know when you get your degree in aeronautical engineering. You seem to be a bright lad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is more of the Orbital Sciences Pegasus XL rocket.

Animation showing the launch of the IRIS satellite aboard an Orbital Sciences Pegasus XL rocket carried to space by Orbital's Stargazer L-1011 commercial transport aircraft modified to serve as the launch platform; the various Pegasus rocket stage separations and the eventual deployment of the IRIS satellite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me know when you get your degree in aeronautical engineering. You seem to be a bright lad.

Let me know when you realize being fleeced is not a good thing.

I does not take rocket science to see the difference, but it takes a shock to the system to not trust everything one is told from authority.

Edited by davros of skaro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enterprise first test flight 1977.

Further modifications to the 747, additional boosters for the Shuttle, and not only cheaper spaceflights, but the Challenger/Columbia dead weight launch problems would never have had happened.

Just look at the conceptual artwork from that era, but they went with traditional rocket launches.

[media=]

[/media]

post-142153-0-67524800-1387394560_thumb.

post-142153-0-16120200-1387394569_thumb.

post-142153-0-93297600-1387394577_thumb.

post-142153-0-65466300-1387394587_thumb.

post-142153-0-53892300-1387394595_thumb.

post-142153-0-38920000-1387394643_thumb.

Edited by davros of skaro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so how are you going to use a flawed plan and turn that to a working plan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enterprise first test flight 1977.

Further modifications to the 747, additional boosters for the Shuttle, and not only cheaper spaceflights, but the Challenger/Columbia dead weight launch problems would never have had happened. Just look at the conceptual artwork from that era, but they went with traditional rocket launches.

Impossible.

The Space Shuttle system was created to lift up a payload of 16-25tons into orbit. The orbiter had a ttl wght of approx 110tons including payload. To reach the escape velocity of 11km/sec, to lift this 110tons into orbit, a propellant amount of approx 1700tons was required. Even when a lower ammount of propellant would be required if the start had been done at an altitude at 12km, no aircraft ever is able to lift up such wght.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Impossible.

The Space Shuttle system was created to lift up a payload of 16-25tons into orbit. The orbiter had a ttl wght of approx 110tons including payload. To reach the escape velocity of 11km/sec, to lift this 110tons into orbit, a propellant amount of approx 1700tons was required. Even when a lower ammount of propellant would be required if the start had been done at an altitude at 12km, no aircraft ever is able to lift up such wght.

Impossible because that is what you are led to believe?

The Antonov An-225 Mriya (NATO "Cossack") is a cargo aircraft that has a maximum gross

payload of 559,577 lbs or 253.8199 tons (it's a worlds record holder.)

This airplane was used to transport the Soviet shuttle Buran like the Boeing 747 that was

modified to transport the Enterprise shuttle.

Gross liftoff weight of the Shuttle Orbiter is 240,000 lbs or 108.8622 tons

Maximum payload of the Shuttle Orbiter is 55,250 lb or 25.06098 tons

Gross weight of shuttle orbiter, and max payload combined is 295,250 lbs or 133.9231

This leaves enough weight (264,327 lbs or 119.8967 tons) for a jettisonable tank for the

shuttle orbiter for it's main engines to feed off of that the Antonov can carry all

together.

You know how high altitude climbers need oxygen tanks with them?This is because the

atmosphere is thinner at higher altitudes.Higher altitudes are less dense, and have less

drag on jet aircraft.Air launched space vehicles do not need the extra bulk of

propellents for a ground level denser atmosphere dead weight lift off.

NASA was going to do this, but opted for the "OOOOHS & AAAAGHS" of a traditional launch.

Russia was going to use the Antonov for the MAKS (Multipurpose aerospace system) with

their Buran shuttle program, but the Soviet Union fell.

This system is possible, and saves on costs in the long run.The future of spaceflight is

the air launch to orbit platform system.Just look at the pictures, and videos I posted,

get your head out of old black & white sci fi movies, and stop being so trusting of

government.Space is mankinds future, but who is directing this future?

This is possible, but why are you people saying it's impossible is the serious question?

Remember less propellent (weight) is needed with a running start, and less drag at higher

altitudes.

post-142153-0-53017300-1387480331_thumb.

post-142153-0-24082700-1387480335_thumb.

post-142153-0-99244500-1387480338_thumb.

post-142153-0-76660900-1387480342_thumb.

post-142153-0-65921500-1387480358_thumb.

post-142153-0-98883000-1387480369_thumb.

post-142153-0-41760200-1387480400_thumb.

post-142153-0-82652500-1387480407_thumb.

post-142153-0-89049000-1387480420_thumb.

post-142153-0-83771100-1387480443_thumb.

post-142153-0-64931100-1387480453_thumb.

post-142153-0-57910900-1387480466_thumb.

post-142153-0-49033100-1387480476_thumb.

post-142153-0-25837600-1387480489_thumb.

post-142153-0-82821400-1387480495_thumb.

post-142153-0-24149200-1387480501_thumb.

post-142153-0-72634400-1387480508_thumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so how are you going to use a flawed plan and turn that to a working plan?

You should tell Sir Richard Branson that (derp.)

http://www.virgingalactic.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Impossible because that is what you are led to believe?

My conclusion is based on facts, not on belief.

The Antonov An-225 Mriya (NATO "Cossack") is a cargo aircraft that has a maximum gross

payload of 559,577 lbs or 253.8199 tons (it's a worlds record holder.)

I´m aware of these facts already, so no need for information about these here.

This airplane was used to transport the Soviet shuttle Buran like the Boeing 747 that was modified to transport the Enterprise shuttle.

I´m aware of these facts already, so no need for information about here.

Gross liftoff weight of the Shuttle Orbiter is 240,000 lbs or 108.8622 tons

Value depends on payload weight and targeted orbit.

Maximum payload of the Shuttle Orbiter is 55,250 lb or 25.06098 tons

Value depends on targeted orbit.

Gross weight of shuttle orbiter, and max payload combined is 295,250 lbs or 133.9231

Value depends on payload weight and targeted orbit.

This leaves enough weight (264,327 lbs or 119.8967 tons) for a jettisonable tank for the shuttle orbiter for it's main engines to feed off of that the Antonov can carry alltogether.

Your math is funny, but wrong. To keep it simple, let say 1L propellant is 1kg. The propellant burn rate of the SSMEs is approx. 224.000L per minute. So, 120tons will last for an approx. 32sec burn of the SSMEs. In that short period of time, the Shuttle cannot be accelerated to the required escape velocity of approx.11km/sec.

You know how high altitude climbers need oxygen tanks with them? This is because the atmosphere is thinner at higher altitudes.

You didn´t understood the mode of operation of liquid-propellant rockets. Liquid-propellant rockets never use atmospheric oxygen. So you have to ask yourself a question, not me.

This is possible, but why are you people saying it's impossible is the serious question?

You claimed “the NASA was going to do this, but opted for the "OOOOHS & AAAAGHS" of a traditional launch”, so the orbiter in discussion is the NASA Space Shuttle. You claimed the NASA Space Shuttle can be aircraft launched. Both claims art incorrect.

Conclusion: It is impossible to accelerate an air launched orbiter with a wght of 110tons to the required escape velocity of 11km/sec, launched from an aircraft with a payload of 253tons. Period.

Edited by toast

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Impossible because that is what you are led to believe?

The Antonov An-225 Mriya (NATO "Cossack") is a cargo aircraft that has a maximum gross

payload of 559,577 lbs or 253.8199 tons (it's a worlds record holder.)

This airplane was used to transport the Soviet shuttle Buran like the Boeing 747 that was

modified to transport the Enterprise shuttle.

Gross liftoff weight of the Shuttle Orbiter is 240,000 lbs or 108.8622 tons

Maximum payload of the Shuttle Orbiter is 55,250 lb or 25.06098 tons

Gross weight of shuttle orbiter, and max payload combined is 295,250 lbs or 133.9231

This leaves enough weight (264,327 lbs or 119.8967 tons) for a jettisonable tank for the

shuttle orbiter for it's main engines to feed off of that the Antonov can carry all

together.

You know how high altitude climbers need oxygen tanks with them?This is because the

atmosphere is thinner at higher altitudes.Higher altitudes are less dense, and have less

drag on jet aircraft.Air launched space vehicles do not need the extra bulk of

propellents for a ground level denser atmosphere dead weight lift off.

NASA was going to do this, but opted for the "OOOOHS & AAAAGHS" of a traditional launch.

Russia was going to use the Antonov for the MAKS (Multipurpose aerospace system) with

their Buran shuttle program, but the Soviet Union fell.

This system is possible, and saves on costs in the long run.The future of spaceflight is

the air launch to orbit platform system.Just look at the pictures, and videos I posted,

get your head out of old black & white sci fi movies, and stop being so trusting of

government.Space is mankinds future, but who is directing this future?

This is possible, but why are you people saying it's impossible is the serious question?

Remember less propellent (weight) is needed with a running start, and less drag at higher

altitudes.

"for the MAKS (Multipurpose aerospace system)" -- Where's the 'K' in this? Shouldn't it be 'MAS?' :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"for the MAKS (Multipurpose aerospace system)" -- Where's the 'K' in this? Shouldn't it be 'MAS?' :P

MAKS is from russian language.

Edited by toast

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you actually think thrift is in the minds of Government agencies????????? o.O

Possibly not. But I bet it is in the minds of people in private companies who want their satellites launched.

Do you think their engineers can do the sums?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you actually think thrift is in the minds of Government agencies????????? o.O

As per NASA FY 2013 President´s budget request the the NASA budget is fixed at 17,7B USD per year for 2014/2015/2016 and 2017.

Edited by toast

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Possibly not. But I bet it is in the minds of people in private companies who want their satellites launched.

Do you think their engineers can do the sums?

I do not know what you mean by "sums", but to answer your other question check out this link.

http://www.stratolaunch.com/news.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your math is funny, but wrong. To keep it simple, let say 1L propellant is 1kg. The propellant burn rate of the SSMEs is approx. 224.000L per minute. So, 120tons will last for an approx. 32sec burn of the SSMEs. In that short period of time, the Shuttle cannot be accelerated to the required escape velocity of approx.11km/sec.

You didn´t understood the mode of operation of liquid-propellant rockets. Liquid-propellant rockets never use atmospheric oxygen. So you have to ask yourself a question, not me.

You claimed “the NASA was going to do this, but opted for the "OOOOHS & AAAAGHS" of a traditional launch”, so the orbiter in discussion is the NASA Space Shuttle. You claimed the NASA Space Shuttle can be aircraft launched. Both claims art incorrect.

Conclusion: It is impossible to accelerate an air launched orbiter with a wght of 110tons to the required escape velocity of 11km/sec, launched from an aircraft with a payload of 253tons. Period.

space shuttle main engine burns 350 gal sec of liquid oxygen (@9.5 lbs per gal) or 3,325

lbs a second.Assuming jettisonable tank (for the shuttle on an airplane) weighs empty at

24,327 lbs which leaves room for 240,000 lbs of liquid oxygen. 3,325/240,000=72.1804511

seconds of burn time.Since the main engines cannot be fired till empty or an explosion

will happen I will estimate a 60 second burn time.

It takes 8 minutes for the space shuttle to reach orbit from a dead weight platform

launch.At sea level rockets are less efficient, but higher up closer to the vacum of

space they are more efficient (this is drag/friction hence thinner atmosphere.)

The world record for an oxygen breathing jet engine plane's highest altitude was about 23 miles for

a Russian Mig.If the Antonov was modified to be crewless via remote operation then

sustained 25 mile altitude can be possible.The shuttle needs 200 miles from ground level

to be in orbit.The shuttle main engines can do 2.5 miles a second, so at 60 seconds would

be 125 miles, but that's giving 15 seconds for the shuttle to catch up to the 2.5 miles a

second speed.So this would be 150 miles altitude which is 50 miles short.The Antonov

would have to be further modified for either higher altitude, or extra weight ability to

fill this gap.

I know my math is sketchy, but I do show that air to launch platforms are possible, and I

have shown it has been done for lighter loads.This system is possible, it's the future,

and has been in concept form by both US, and Russian space agencies.

The MAKS program would have had a lighter payload than the US shuttle, but the savings in overall costs are there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAKS_(spacecraft)

The launchpad is stone age for the space age.

Air to launch platforms, and reusable space planes are the future.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/05/stratolaunch-orbital-air-launch/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, you initial claim that the NASA Space Shuttle could had been air launched, is wrong.

space shuttle main engine burns 350 gal sec of liquid oxygen lbs a second

Incorrect. SSME propellant is not just liquid oxygen. It´s liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen with a proportion of app. 1 to 2,7.

Assuming jettisonable tank (for the shuttle on an airplane) weighs empty at 24,327 lbs which leaves room for 240,000 lbs of liquid oxygen. 3,325/240,000 =72.1804511 seconds of burn time.

This math is useless as it is based on 1 SSME. The shuttle had 3 of them. In addition, even a 60sec (120/240) burn executed from an altitude of 10-12km will not result the required escape velocity.

Since the main engines cannot be fired till empty or an explosion will happen I will estimate a 60 second burn time.

You are mixing something up here. SSMEs can be regulated, SRBs cannot.

It takes 8 minutes for the space shuttle to reach orbit from a dead weight platform launch. At sea level rockets are less efficient, but higher up closer to the vacum of space they are more efficient (this is drag/friction hence thinner atmosphere.)

Air launch may be an effective option for sub orbit missions with low weight space crafts, but not for space crafts to be operated at LEO/GEO or interplanetary. In addition, looking at the average space craft weight, or on multi satellite lift ups by one launcher, air launching is ineffective viewed from an economic point of view

Edited by toast

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, you initial claim that the NASA Space Shuttle could had been air launched, is wrong.

Incorrect. SSME propellant is not just liquid oxygen. It´s liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen with a proportion of app. 1 to 2,7.

This math is useless as it is based on 1 SSME. The shuttle had 3 of them. In addition, even a 60sec (120/240) burn executed from an altitude of 10-12km will not result the required escape velocity.

You are mixing something up here. SSMEs can be regulated, SRBs cannot.

Air launch may be an effective option for sub orbit missions with low weight space crafts, but not for space crafts to be operated at LEO/GEO or interplanetary. In addition, looking at the average space craft weight, or on multi satellite lift ups by one launcher, air launching is ineffective viewed from an economic point of view

I figured I had some flawed math.......BUT!

I have proven it has been conceptualized by both major space agencies with artistic renderings in the pics I previously posted.I have shown Russia was closer to a green light for such a system in the late 80's, and that they are looking to revive it as of 2010.

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1569/1

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1580/1

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1591/1

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1608/1

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/makbiter.htm

I have shown that NASA has used a smaller scale system (Pegasus) that did put a satellite in low Earth orbit, and here is another concept they are thinking of.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/Features/towed_glider_concept.html

If it was not possible then why dust off these concept systems?

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:0427b302-0de4-49b6-988d-1dc834390f7e

You need to call up the Swiss, and tell them to scratch there S3 system unmanned shuttle plans.

http://www.gizmag.com/swiss-space-systems-a300-shuttle-satellites/26679/

You remind me of the naysayers of the era before the Wright Brothers first flight.This is the future of space flight, and like I said go to the hobby store to feed your old fashioned launch pad passions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You remind me of the naysayers of the era before the Wright Brothers first flight.This is the future of space flight, and like I said go to the hobby store to feed your old fashioned launch pad passions.

I just confuted you initial claim by the use of knowledge as you were wrong. To whom I remind you is dispensable as you do not have knowledege about me, my skills and my passions. Your response as given above is unobjective, silly minded and of some kind of underaged behavior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just confuted you initial claim by the use of knowledge as you were wrong. To whom I remind you is dispensable as you do not have knowledege about me, my skills and my passions. Your response as given above is unobjective, silly minded and of some kind of underaged behavior.

Well you act like a know it all (you have to pull every little spec I provide saying that you know this, or that to begin with), and obviously did not check on the information in the links I provided.There are even comments from retired engineers that did the math on the concepts (math is a weak point for me), and the disapointment of the budget drops.

You should be making phone calls to countries, and companies working out ideas in these systems in the coming decade, to tell them it cannot be done.

DARPA XS-1

http://www.spacenews.com/article/military-space/38138darpa%E2%80%99s-xs-1-experimental-sp

aceplane-call-for-proposals-eyes-a-2018

[media=]

post-142153-0-33449100-1387846908_thumb.

Edited by davros of skaro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a doc on the Antonov that was going to be used for the Russian MAKS air launch to orbit shuttle system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you act like a know it all (you have to pull every little spec I provide saying that you know this, or that to begin with), and obviously did not check on the information in the links I provided.There are even comments from retired engineers that did the math on the concepts (math is a weak point for me), and the disapointment of the budget drops.

Something seems to be wrong with your reading comprehension. I didn´t took the air launch system into question. Again, I just confuted you initial claim, that the NASA Space Shuttles could have been air launched. Just that and nothing else. And there is no need for me to look thru your provided links for teaching purposes as I´m well aware about the technologies and that since the times before YT already.

You should be making phone calls to countries, and companies working out ideas in these systems in the coming decade, to tell them it cannot be done.

I don’t think you really want me to comment that. But anyway, the future of air launch systems will be formed by economic facts and not by technical possibilities.

DARPA XS1 payload is <2tons, so not an option to bring manned shuttles like the Space Shuttle into orbit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.