Dumb question: why don't they launch rockets from the tops of mountains?
Related question: Couldn't we create some sort of rocket elevator with huge and very high balloons?
Paul Allen's new rocket-launching plane
51–60 of 170 posts
Re: Paul Allen's new rocket-launching plane
#52This is awesome but a little bit scary. Interesting that they didn't physically connect the tail wings at all, I wonder what stresses and torques the main wing will endure under maneuvering or turbulence. I assume all the control surfaces are computer controlled to synchronize and minimize that, but from the perspective of an ignorant observer, looks a little fragile.
it's a proven design.
scaled composites, which built this also built the GlobalFlyer with similar configuration.
Re: Paul Allen's new rocket-launching plane
#53Dumb question: why don't they launch rockets from the tops of mountains?
Related question: Couldn't we create some sort of rocket elevator with huge and very high balloons?
Here are some interesting ideas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-rocket_spacelaunch
Re: Paul Allen's new rocket-launching plane
#54This is awesome but a little bit scary. Interesting that they didn't physically connect the tail wings at all, I wonder what stresses and torques the main wing will endure under maneuvering or turbulence. I assume all the control surfaces are computer controlled to synchronize and minimize that, but from the perspective of an ignorant observer, looks a little fragile.
it's a proven design. scaled composites, which built this also built the GlobalFlyer with similar configuration. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Atlantic_GlobalFlyer
So the bit of wing that joins the two fuselages is made of carbon fibre? Are there any details on how it was constructed?
Imagine that thing, fully loaded taking off into turbulent air. Scary.
Re: Paul Allen's new rocket-launching plane
#55IANARS but this plane should give the remaining stage(s) four advantages: 1. +230m/s orbital velocity [1] 2. +9km launch altitude [1] 3. can launch in more weather conditions 4. 1st stage can abort mid-launch without loss of payload. Of these, the most important is the increase in launch altitude, because that means stage 2 launches in air of greatly decreased density, leading to the following efficiencies: A. a vacu…
Is 4. really doable? Would have thought landing while carrying a fully fueled rocket might be pretty high risk.
I haven't actually seen anyone mention it, but it shouldn't be much more risky than taking off fully-fueled. That said, landing with the rocket still on board might break some fuel-balancing assumptions.
Re: Paul Allen's new rocket-launching plane
#56Dumb question: why don't they launch rockets from the tops of mountains?
Related question: Couldn't we create some sort of rocket elevator with huge and very high balloons?
Yeah it's called a rockoon! https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Rockoon
You get the benefit of altitude, but not of horizontal velocity.
Re: Paul Allen's new rocket-launching plane
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
it's a proven design. scaled composites, which built this also built the GlobalFlyer with similar configuration. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Atlantic_GlobalFlyer
So the bit of wing that joins the two fuselages is made of carbon fibre? Are there any details on how it was constructed? Imagine that thing, fully loaded taking off into turbulent air. Scary.
the plane structure is all carbon/CFRP. you can see in the earlier pictures in the hangar before.
http://www.stratolaunch.com/gallery.html
the black is cfrp under the white paint.
Scaled Composites has some secret CFRP processes of construction which non Americans are not allowed to know about under ITAR regulations, so i cannot tell you haha.
Re: Paul Allen's new rocket-launching plane
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is 4. really doable? Would have thought landing while carrying a fully fueled rocket might be pretty high risk.
I haven't actually seen anyone mention it, but it shouldn't be much more risky than taking off fully-fueled. That said, landing with the rocket still on board might break some fuel-balancing assumptions.
Peagus rockets aren't cryogenic, they are solid monopropellant rockets. Not really all that dangerous.
Re: Paul Allen's new rocket-launching plane
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it really that dramatic a difference? I suppose it must be, if they're building it, but it's strange that no one has done this before if it really helps.
Virgin Galactic's White Knight is a very similar aircraft. It was used to launch SpaceshipOne which one the x prize. The article doesn't mention it but this new plane is the logical extension of the White Knight. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaled_Composites_White_Knig...
There's a reason they are very similar:
Re: Paul Allen's new rocket-launching plane
#60Does anyone have any insight into how the dual flight decks are utilized?