|
astrobrian
|
|
« on: 04/26/2006 03:40 AM » |
|
Saw this image playing on the internet. Does anyone have info on it?
|
|
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
« on: 04/26/2006 03:40 AM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Avron
|
|
« Reply #1 on: 04/26/2006 04:18 AM » |
|
Maglev Launcher??
|
|
|
|
Chris Bergin
|
|
« Reply #2 on: 04/26/2006 10:01 AM » |
|
Thanks Brian, now I'm going to get no work done as I try and find the folder with this ship inside.  I've seen it before and it was on some Advanced Concepts site back in about 2000. Arghhhh, wish my brain would work then I'd tell you 
|
|
|
|
Jester
|
|
« Reply #3 on: 04/26/2006 10:16 AM » |
|
|
|
|
|
Jester
|
|
« Reply #4 on: 04/26/2006 10:22 AM » |
|
Advanced magnetic lifter sled launched rocket based combined cycle (RBCC) launch vehicle (courtesy of John Frassanito & Associates and NASA Marshall).
|
|
|
|
spacefire
|
|
« Reply #5 on: 04/26/2006 02:10 PM » |
|
it ain't better than the stick 
|
|
|
|
James Lowe1
|
|
« Reply #6 on: 04/26/2006 05:18 PM » |
|
spacefire - 26/4/2006 9:10 AM
it ain't better than the stick If you're insistant on going to the Moon in a plane. Stop thinking cool ships over capabilities.
|
|
|
|
astrobrian
|
|
« Reply #7 on: 04/26/2006 07:52 PM » |
|
I does look cool , but not functional for a moon trip. I would love to see something like it become a reality maybe for a LEO replacement for the shuttle. Sorry Chris if I ruined your work day over this
|
|
|
|
wannamoonbase
|
|
« Reply #8 on: 04/28/2006 06:50 PM » |
|
I love pretty pictures too, but I fell for NASP and X-33 and I now just crave a simple reuseable first stage for a Delta II size payload. I will take any sign of design progress.
|
|
|
|
mlorrey
|
|
« Reply #9 on: 05/06/2006 10:23 PM » |
|
But are more ICBM stages actually design progress? No, they are just more new products in the same old technology.
RBCC is here, it's ready. P&W's TBCC engine can run you up to mach 10, which would be fine for a flyback first stage. What we have here is a lack of vision in the VSE.
Its like they want to go back to building Model T's on the excuse that the modern SUV hasn't solved the energy crisis: it wasn't meant to, you are asking the wrong questions, and coming up with all the wrong answers. As Rutan said, the VSE is archaeology.
|
|
|
|
Jim
|
|
« Reply #10 on: 05/07/2006 02:13 AM » |
|
mlorrey - 6/5/2006 6:23 PMBut are more ICBM stages actually design progress? No, they are just more new products in the same old technology. RBCC is here, it's ready. P&W's TBCC engine can run you up to mach 10, which would be fine for a flyback first stage. What we have here is a lack of vision in the VSE.Its like they want to go back to building Model T's on the excuse that the modern SUV hasn't solved the energy crisis: it wasn't meant to, you are asking the wrong questions, and coming up with all the wrong answers. As Rutan said, the VSE is archaeology. RBCC and TBCC are not here. Remember the propfan revolution of the late 80's, it was more fuel efficent but not cost effective. Current flight rates don't justify the $ needed to bring these systems on line. It would take forever to buy down the noncurring costs with the recurring costs nearly the same as a ELV. It would be just like the shuttle. for the near term, ELV's are more cost effective
|
|
|
|
gladiator1332
|
|
« Reply #11 on: 05/07/2006 02:14 PM » |
|
astrobrian - 26/4/2006 3:52 PM
I does look cool , but not functional for a moon trip. I would love to see something like it become a reality maybe for a LEO replacement for the shuttle. Sorry Chris if I ruined your work day over this Totally agree...the cutting edge technology should be kept for LEO, I would like to eventually see something like this act as a Shuttle. (This design reminds me of the Orion from 2001) For now, the exploration vehicles should be kept simple and use only what we know works. For the time being things should be kept simple, but eventually we are going to need nuclear powered manned spacecraft, and that is a whole new ballgame. I would love to see NERVA restarted someday for Mars missions.
|
|
|
|
spacefire
|
|
« Reply #12 on: 05/07/2006 07:14 PM » |
|
let's not kid ourselves here. Chemical rockets are not going to get much cheaper.
SPaceX is trying to bring the cost down, and I'm confident they will succceed, simply because all other launchers have been designed and built in a wasteful manner through government contracts.
But....without radical improvements in technology we will forever be stuck in this rut and trips to space will only be available to a select few.
Think how steamships revolutionized ocean travel over sailing vessels. Or how the West was opened by railroads.
Sure it was initially less of an investment to build a tallship versus a steamer or to build a stagecoach over a locomotive...but the latter offered much improved capabilities, which requested in an incraese in volume of use, which drove prices down. Think props versus jet airliners.
We are in the exact same situation right now with the current launchers. We need something new and radically better.
|
|
|
|
publiusr
|
|
« Reply #13 on: 05/18/2006 07:37 PM » |
|
We tried the new and radically better--and got X-33. Stick with what works. I want the same but radically bigger--true spacelift.
|
|
|
|
vt_hokie
|
|
« Reply #14 on: 05/19/2006 10:13 AM » |
|
publiusr - 18/5/2006 3:24 PM
We tried the new and radically better--and got X-33. Stick with what works. I want the same but radically bigger--true spacelift. Politics killed X-33 as much as anything. It was a flawed program, but still could have yielded something of value had the program been allowed to continue.
|
|
|
|
vt_hokie
|
|
« Reply #15 on: 05/19/2006 10:21 AM » |
|
Jim - 6/5/2006 10:00 PM
Remember the propfan revolution of the late 80's, it was more fuel efficent but not cost effective. I do remember that, now that you mention it! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:GE-36_UDF_Domke.jpgPersonally, the last time I was interested in commercial aviation was when Boeing announced the "Sonic Cruiser". I was almost as disappointed by Boeing cancelling that in favor of the boring, conventional "Dreamliner" as I am in NASA for returning to ballistic capsules. It's just not my decade, I guess! The future once seemed so much more promising.
|
|
|
|
simonbp
|
|
« Reply #16 on: 05/20/2006 10:21 PM » |
|
vt_hokie - 19/5/2006 5:00 AM
Politics killed X-33 as much as anything. It was a flawed program, but still could have yielded something of value had the program been allowed to continue.
Politics and physics: You only need a calculator and the rocket equation to show that a chemical SSTO rocket with best likely Isp (450 sec) needs a liftoff mass ratio of about 9.5. Now, the typical wet-to-dry mass ratio for a Delta IV is 8.4, which means that a SSTO Delta would have just 1.1% as payload, as opposed to 3.3% as is... Simon
|
|
|
|
Avron
|
|
« Reply #17 on: 05/21/2006 07:48 PM » |
|
simonbp - 20/5/2006 6:08 PM
vt_hokie - 19/5/2006 5:00 AM
Politics killed X-33 as much as anything. It was a flawed program, but still could have yielded something of value had the program been allowed to continue.
Politics and physics: You only need a calculator and the rocket equation to show that a chemical SSTO rocket with best likely Isp (450 sec) needs a liftoff mass ratio of about 9.5. Now, the typical wet-to-dry mass ratio for a Delta IV is 8.4, which means that a SSTO Delta would have just 1.1% as payload, as opposed to 3.3% as is...
Simon So in pure theory .. more staging equals more payload for a given takeoff mass.. ?
|
|
|
|
mong'
|
|
« Reply #18 on: 05/21/2006 09:04 PM » |
|
yes because in the wet mass you have to take into account the payload AND the structure of the rocket, staging allows you to get rid of some of the structure
|
|
|
|
Avron
|
|
« Reply #19 on: 05/21/2006 11:45 PM » |
|
mong' - 21/5/2006 4:51 PM
yes because in the wet mass you have to take into account the payload AND the structure of the rocket, staging allows you to get rid of some of the structure Ok.. so why not more staging, or one better variable structure... "burn off" structure..
|
|
|
|
mong'
|
|
« Reply #20 on: 05/21/2006 11:59 PM » |
|
Staging has his drawbacks too, for exemple each stage needs at least one engine, but to simplify, each stage is a rocket on its own, so it adds to the lift-of mass and the quantity of stuff that is expanded, you could build a rocket with 14 stages, but you would have to throw 14 engines, RCS systems, avionics,etc... so there's a point of diminishing return, you can go around that with external tanks like the shuttle but it adds other problems (like the foam issue that's grounding the STS).
what do you mean by variable structure ?
|
|
|
|
eeergo
|
|
« Reply #21 on: 05/22/2006 11:46 AM » |
|
|
|
|
|
mong'
|
|
« Reply #22 on: 05/22/2006 12:07 PM » |
|
I don't think it would be wise to accelerate something to 10 km/s in the sea level atmosphere, but it could provide the initial necessary kick for a scramjet powered RLV
|
|
|
|
