The shuttle already transfers cryogenic propellant inflight between the ET and orbiter, Falcon Heavy will be transferring LOX inflight with its cross feed system, it's only the actual coupling inflight of cryogenic systems that hasn't already happened.
The Lun ekranoplan had a potential lifting power of 1,000 tonnes
I could find nothing on the web about The T-Space 3STO, there was a depiction of a dinky little two stage rocket attached to the belly of a 747 on the T-Space Wiki page, hopefully that's not what you're referring to.
Yeah, you're no doubt right about that, I think a traditional delta wing is far more practical.
The proof is in the results, inflight refueling is conducted by most Western airforces and accidents involving loss of aircraft are extremely rare, it's arguably safer than normal runway landings, certainly safer than carrier landings, which are routine operations.
Rocket powered take-offs have been going on for about 70 years, there is no space launch system operating that doesn't involve rocket take-off, this is just getting silly.
This is just ridiculous, you're ignoring my point that there's a huge saving in using an existing super jumbo, the stability issues exist because these aircraft are not designed to carry hundreds of tonnes on their backs, the 747 Shuttle transporter had stability issues with the higher center of gravity of only the 70 ton Shuttle.
This is just bizarre, you play up the dangers of a routine operation like air to air refueling, but consider the actual seperation of two huge aircraft inflight as something that's relatively simple. it isn't, there's no way an orbiter of the size being discussed is ever going to be "dropped" from any version of any existing aircraft, it's simply impossible.
But you're talking a large developmental program for a specific air-propellant-transfer system. No matter HOW they evolve, (IF they do, which depends greatly on WHO developes and fields them ) the system is going to be based on a "single-source" customer: Themselves.
Nope, I've no how you came up with any of that. Haven't the rockets flying today all evolved, aren't they still evolving?? Isn't the 747 still evolving?? Who said anything about a "single-source" customer (whatever that is)
My own "pet" concept of attachable "booster" jet-pods for any spaceplane would be highly "compatiable" with any airframe that could mount the simple attachment points. "Wireless" control of the pods would give ANY spaceplane a "self-ferry" as well as highly flexible launch.
Have you doe a post on your "pet" concept? There are a few issues I can see but I would need more details before commenting.
I wait with baited breath to see how you're going to fit an orbiter capable of carrying a 15 or 20 tonne payload to orbit into, or under, an A380 or an AN225 or a 747-8.
Not an "operational" issue until a SIGNIFICANT flight rate is achieved and there is no guarantee the same situation would not occur for APT operations as ANY issues with the Tanker automatically ground the Orbiter until and unless the flight operations pace is significant enough to allow multiple Tankers on stand-by for every flight.
So your solution is to hope that "a SIGNIFICANT flight rate" is never achieved, brilliant!
Almost any "Air-Launch" concept is capable of "self-ferry" so this isn't something that is enheirent only with APT.
Name one air launched plane that had a proven self ferry capability. The ATP would have such an ability encompassed in its normal operations.
Running to the FAA again, when regulations impede progress without good reason they need changing, you've not actually suggested that there's any good reason why an APT orbiter shouldn't self-ferry.
Further I'd point out that the AirLaunch LLC/T-Space concept the carrier aircraft is still capable of being used as an air-freighter or air-tanker (due to the modifications needed for use as a carrier aircraft) when not being tasked for launch operations. This allows the aircraft an additional 'revenue' stream beyond just launch operations. (This is actually a GOOD thing while waiting for flight rates to ramp up )
The revenue of even an A380 is peanuts compared to the current cost of just one orbital launch, does NASA use its Shuttle carrier to move other stuff around?
This issue is also possible with APT, but is not a "feature" of Air-Launch concepts in general. The bottom-mount AirLaunch LLC/T-Space system stages at around 12,000M (34,000+ ft)
These repeated references to a small air launch system that isn't comparable to a 15-20 tonne payload APT are tiresome.Which is it, 34,000+ ft or 12,000M? 12,000M is about 40,000ft.
Epis.There is nothing new in the idea of fully reusable TSTO the first shuttle concepts were exactly that, the only reason the shuttle wasn't done that way is cost. Developing an aircraft that can carry a cargo of hundreds of tonnes to high altitude at high speed costs tens of billions of dollars, the only reason I suggest that it can be done now is that most of the development has now been done, and it's been paid for by someone else.
Jim.I don't think I'd need to look too hard to find examples of cryogenic systems that have extensions, retractions and rotations. How do they fuel the Shuttle on the pad? How do the motors gimbal? Are you suggesting that doing these mechanical operations as part of inflight refueling is going to be a show stopper?
True as far as it goes, but the 'sticking' point is the "method" at the moment. Using an "off-the-shelf" commercial aircraft is going to be be "cheaper" than a specially designed and built vehicle to be sure, HOWEVER the various modifications REQUIRED to turn that aircraft into a carrier vehicle OR a Tanker is going to cost also.
Well we can START with the assumption that you "need" 15-20 metric tonnes of payload "on-orbit" in LEO...
And you also assume that modifications would not allow semi-recessed carry for a larger vehicle.
APT does NOT get a "feebie" in any way as the Tanker and the Orbiter BOTH have to be working perfectly to achive the mission. You can't "argue" that APT is somehow "different" in this respect without explaining why and how it would "differ" from any other concept system.
First please note that APT does NOT have a "proven" self-ferry capability. This is an ASSUMED not PROVEN capability.
That should have probably been closer to 10,500m but still makes the point that not ALL Air-Launch concepts are limited in altitude.
spaceX clearly show how simple laws of scalability can reduce cost by ~10X, so bigger rocket means cheaper payload to LEO, same will be true for airplane launch assist rockets so if rocket/plane combo cant scale to >50 mt LEO payload then I can easy say it wont be cheaper than spacX solution.
Maybe the focus of skeptics is on the tanker not because it's so hard, but because the orbiter is so similar any other reusable orbiters that have to propel themselves part of the way to orbit with on-board fuel, so any challenges of the feasibility of the orbiter are challenges to many skeptics own pet ideas.
I've looked at just about every system to reduce cost to orbit, and I've had lots of favorites at one time or another, I'm not going to stick with any one method in the face of evidence of it having some major shortcoming compared to another, so if you think APT has some disadvantage that would make it less economical than another (lets assume say 10,000-100,000 tonnes/yr to orbit) convince me, trying to claim that cryogenic refueling booms are just tooo hard isn't going to cut it.
We can dream all day about the US taxpayer footing the bill for the fully reusable system that the Shuttle should have been, but it ain't gonna happen.
Possibly a 25 tonne payload
APT is the only system I know of with what I think are manageable capital costs and what I think is a reasonable payload to LEO, and it's achievable only because super jumbo's already exist.
If you want the benefit of lower per flight costs of a fully reusable system you either have to settle for a smaller payload
Who says anything about about the taxpayer.
lower per flight costs are meaningless if the payload mass isn't there. 15 to 30klb to GTO is what is needed.
Current systems are cheaper for current flight rates.
It is not an 'existing" system, you have yet to prove that it can exist.
Also, who is "I"? It is news to me where New Zealand is a haven of companies dealing with space launch or an unusual concentration of experienced engineers dealing with the same subject.