For booster recovery in general, a lofted trajectory (climbing fast to orbital altitude and then burning out) is best, and is generally similar to the tourist suborbital trajectories.
Just an observation. I've seen about half a dozen statements like "people behind this project aren't stupid" - of course they are not, but such statements can also be seen as argumentum ad verecundiam.
P.S. On the 747 you could mount the Falcon above the center wing section and have it slide back off a rack at launch.
Quote from: sanman on 12/14/2011 01:46 pmIf all else fails, maybe you could use it to carry submarines Suppose you don't want to send your sub thru the Panama Canal, or thru the Suez Canal, or around the Cape of Good Hope, or around Tiera Del Fuego. Just hook it up to Stratolaunch, and fly it wherever you want.Gee, come to think of it, wouldn't Stratolaunch be better as a giant seaplane, like Spruce Goose? Could eliminate landing-gear weight.Even if you off-loaded all of the Trident missles at one coast, and re-loaded them at the other coast, do you really think you can get permission to fly that nuclear reactor (or perhaps Subs have multiple reactors ??) over land ? How does that reactor get cooled during flight ?
If all else fails, maybe you could use it to carry submarines Suppose you don't want to send your sub thru the Panama Canal, or thru the Suez Canal, or around the Cape of Good Hope, or around Tiera Del Fuego. Just hook it up to Stratolaunch, and fly it wherever you want.Gee, come to think of it, wouldn't Stratolaunch be better as a giant seaplane, like Spruce Goose? Could eliminate landing-gear weight.
Quote from: Rocket Science on 12/14/2011 05:11 pmQuote from: Thorny on 12/14/2011 05:06 pmQuote from: Rocket Science on 12/14/2011 04:59 pmTry to figrure this...Despite the caption, that is actually an F-82 Twin Mustang, not two P-51s bolted together. The F-82 was an all new aircraft that started from the P-51H design, but diverted from it radically. It was not two P-51s.No, I guess I did not make my point clear as to the big "why"?I'm afraid you still haven't. You quoted my whole post, but it discussed several different topics. Were you asking why the twin fuselage on the F-82 but not on a passenger jet?They needed a second engine and bigger wings to lift the extra fuel for longer range, and they wanted a second pilot to reduce fatigue on long overwater flights. Basing it on the P-51 saved development cost, and the separate cockpits avoided disadvantaging one crewman with a backseat view, as he was not a systems operator, but a full co-pilot.In some ways it was similar to the twin-boom P-38, but that plane had a central fuselage and was single-seated.If you're carrying passengers, you need a large pressurized volume, something neither the F-82 nor the Stratolauncher aircraft require. Two fuselages is not a structurally efficient way to provide that volume.If you were asking why I think modifying two 747's to this configuration is more difficult than building the F-82, you'll have to point out which part of what I said in my previous post you disagree with.
Quote from: Thorny on 12/14/2011 05:06 pmQuote from: Rocket Science on 12/14/2011 04:59 pmTry to figrure this...Despite the caption, that is actually an F-82 Twin Mustang, not two P-51s bolted together. The F-82 was an all new aircraft that started from the P-51H design, but diverted from it radically. It was not two P-51s.No, I guess I did not make my point clear as to the big "why"?
Quote from: Rocket Science on 12/14/2011 04:59 pmTry to figrure this...Despite the caption, that is actually an F-82 Twin Mustang, not two P-51s bolted together. The F-82 was an all new aircraft that started from the P-51H design, but diverted from it radically. It was not two P-51s.
Try to figrure this...
Quote from: Rocket Science on 12/14/2011 02:32 pmP.S. On the 747 you could mount the Falcon above the center wing section and have it slide back off a rack at launch.Oh my. Something goes wrong with the rack, it gets hung up on one roller, wind gust at just the right moment. Risk is part of this game, unnecessary risk is another thing entirely.
I won't be surprised if the carrier aircraft is designed to mid-flight refuel.While I'm not aware of any civilian use of mid-flight refueling, the technology behind it is very mature. Mid-flight refueling would drastically increase the available payload.
I cannot imagine the military raising any objections against a group with these credentials.
Did you guys actually watch the press conference? Like the part where Burt Rutan himself says quite specifically that a twined 747 was just plain "stupid", and that you really have to build a purpose-designed aircraft?
Quote from: OV-106 on 12/14/2011 06:25 pmQuote from: Rocket Science on 12/14/2011 02:32 pmP.S. On the 747 you could mount the Falcon above the center wing section and have it slide back off a rack at launch.Oh my. Something goes wrong with the rack, it gets hung up on one roller, wind gust at just the right moment. Risk is part of this game, unnecessary risk is another thing entirely. There is definite risk, even with this underwing design.They could put explosive bolts within the strongback to effect a secondary separation in the event of a faulty separation.
Of course there is risk. "Risk" in its own right should not be something that strikes fear in the hearts of everyone and keeps that job from happening. What one does is design to minimize the risk within practical terms that have the least impact on technical, cost and schedule.As for redundancy, what you suggested is a possibility, and is a function of the overall risk strategy, their design and ConOps.
Quote from: OV-106 on 12/14/2011 07:29 pmOf course there is risk. "Risk" in its own right should not be something that strikes fear in the hearts of everyone and keeps that job from happening. What one does is design to minimize the risk within practical terms that have the least impact on technical, cost and schedule.As for redundancy, what you suggested is a possibility, and is a function of the overall risk strategy, their design and ConOps. I've nothing against risk. I think this is an enthralling design and I'm very happy to see more private investment attempting to lower costs to space.I do have concerns about the tremendous complexity involved with this system. Fueling will be complicated. The tight timing from release to engine start could be hairy. Safely mitigating abort scenarios could be the biggest undertaking of all.There seem to be significant risks to the carrier aircraft. I wouldn't want to be flying in that aircraft during the first few launches. I even wonder if it will be remotely piloted.