747-derived booster

Take a secondhand 747-400ER, upgrade the outer two engines with something
slightly more powerful, around 70,000 lbf, and preferably ETOPS-rated though
we aren't going far. The 747 will fly on two engines, no problem.

Replace the inner two engines with 240-ton fixed thrust rockets. You'll need
to upgrade the pylons, and perhaps add extra attachments directly to the
main structural H thingy.

Replace the the 6.5 m dia fuselage with a 4.5 m dia cylindrical body 60 m
long. 25 m is space for the second stage (24m long, 4.15 m dia) with
bomb-bay/clamshell doors, the rest is fuel tanks for the rockets and the
pilot's cabin. Add fins.

You need to get the OEW down to 105 tons, from around 155 tons, so this
conversion isn't straightforward, but it is do-able.


Voila! The Finial spacebooster!


Takes off (TOW 420 tons) on jets, with a little rocket boost to ease runway
length requirements. Flies 155 miles west to 45,000 feet (15 Km), then turns
east and accelerates upwards and eastwards on it's rockets. Burn starts at
1.5 g and goes to 3g max. Burns 180 tons of LOX/Kero. Initial mass is 360
tons, after-burn mass is 180 tons.

Coasts to 115 km and 1730 m/s horizontal, during which the 60 ton second
stage separates. Re-enters at a ridiculous angle, and slows to sub-mach.
Turns west and glides the 110 miles back to it's start runway with it's
engines idling. It has 15 tons of fuel on board if needed for go-arounds
etc. Lands 42 minutes after take-off.

If the ground jockeys are hummin', it can refuel and reload, and take off
again 46 minutes later, to catch the same space in equatorial orbit (where
we build a shop/station/hotel).



The 60 ton cargo second stage puts 20,000 lb in LEO. LOX/LH2, MR is 4,
target Isp is 440 (vacuum all the way). The engines and flight electronics
are returned for re-use with an ablative heatshield. The fuel tanks are left
in orbit for reuse, for use as building material, or for sale as orbital
scrap. Any unburned fuel is scavenged. No aerodynamic forces on ascent -
they are enclosed in the modified 747.

The 60 ton people-carrier second stage puts 5 tons of people and hand
baggage in orbit. Say 35 passengers, a stewardess, and a handsome pilot or
two. And a skycop (spacecop?) with a tazer. An ALCM-derived spaceplane would
do well here.



Anything wrong with this? Anything that wouldn't work, ar would be too
expensive, especially compared to other methods?

--
Peter Fairbrother

Peter Fairbrother wrote:
Take a secondhand 747-400ER, upgrade the outer two engines with something
slightly more powerful, around 70,000 lbf, and preferably ETOPS-rated though
we aren't going far. The 747 will fly on two engines, no problem.

Replace the inner two engines with 240-ton fixed thrust rockets. You'll need
to upgrade the pylons, and perhaps add extra attachments directly to the
main structural H thingy.

Especially as the main stress is normally at right angles to what you
propose.


Replace the the 6.5 m dia fuselage with a 4.5 m dia cylindrical body 60 m
long. 25 m is space for the second stage (24m long, 4.15 m dia) with
bomb-bay/clamshell doors, the rest is fuel tanks for the rockets and the
pilot's cabin. Add fins.

You need to get the OEW down to 105 tons, from around 155 tons, so this
conversion isn't straightforward, but it is do-able.


Voila! The Finial spacebooster!


Takes off (TOW 420 tons) on jets, with a little rocket boost to ease runway
length requirements. Flies 155 miles west to 45,000 feet (15 Km), then turns

Can it make 45000 feet on 2.2 engines?

Anything wrong with this? Anything that wouldn't work, ar would be too
expensive, especially compared to other methods?

Boeing probably will not support you, which is a minor annoyance.
I don't know how nasty the FAA will be if the original maker runs
screaming from the room.

Peter Fairbrother wrote in
:

Anything wrong with this? Anything that wouldn't work, ar would be too
expensive, especially compared to other methods?


So...
Take a boeing.
Remove the engines, replace with other stuff.
Remove the fuselage, replace with alternate stuff.
Alter the wings & control surfaces & etc so it is capable of high
supersonic flight, using rockets at high altitude.
Make it so it can control and survive a nasty re-entry from some 115km @
6230 km/hour (1730 m/sec)
Re-entry will be dang near vertical, at some 2.5km/sec (9000 km/hour)

So basically, you need to replace everything except for the paintjob with
new stuff.
Then dispose of the paintjob, because the unobtainuim you needed to build
it from doesnt take paint very well.

Aside from this minor niggle, it is a great idea.

Peter Fairbrother writes:

Take a secondhand 747-400ER, upgrade the outer two engines with something
slightly more powerful, around 70,000 lbf, and preferably ETOPS-rated though
we aren't going far. The 747 will fly on two engines, no problem.

Replace the inner two engines with 240-ton fixed thrust rockets. You'll need
to upgrade the pylons, and perhaps add extra attachments directly to the
main structural H thingy.

Replace the the 6.5 m dia fuselage with a 4.5 m dia cylindrical body 60 m
long.


At this point you're designing a new airplane. Might as well design an
airplane that's optimal for the job and doesn't pretend to derive from
a 747.


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
* for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

Marvin wrote:

Peter Fairbrother wrote in
:

Anything wrong with this? Anything that wouldn't work, ar would be too
expensive, especially compared to other methods?


So...
Take a boeing.
Remove the engines, replace with other stuff.
Remove the fuselage, replace with alternate stuff.

Yes, yes, yes.

Alter the wings & control surfaces & etc so it is capable of high
supersonic flight, using rockets at high altitude.

No alterations to the wings (maybe a litle*, see below). No high supersonic
flight on ascent (or only a little - it's a pure rocket, really).

Make it so it can control

Control is by RCS, not aerodynamic shaping. I should have mentioned that
before.

and survive a nasty re-entry from some 115km @
6230 km/hour (1730 m/sec)
Re-entry will be dang near vertical, at some 2.5km/sec (9000 km/hour)

When it hits 35 km and some serious air it will be going 1160 m/s downwards
and 1730 m/s horizontally. That's a 34 degree downward path, not even
halfway to vertical.

2.03km/s on-path iirc, with 1790 m/s to shed. That's enough k.e. to heat Al
to ~ 2000 degrees, if it was all put into the Al - but most of it goes into
the air.

The actual skin temperature increase is around 180-230 degrees, ie to
150-200 C. One alternate path gets to 280 C. I haven't done any detailed
analysis on leading edges and so on yet though, they might get significantly
hotter*. That might require adjustments to the wing, which I'm hoping to
avoid. If needed we can pre-chill the wings using the cryo fuel on ascent,
but as I say, I'd like to avoid that.

Comes in almost flat-on, with 7.5 tons fuel in each outer wing tank for
balance. BTW I'd be interested in knowing what the hypersonic l/d's of a 747
with a short skinny body at high (near 90 degree) incidences are, if anyone
can help. I just wild-ass-guesstimated.

So basically, you need to replace everything except for the paintjob with
new stuff.

The paintjob might burn off in spots, leaving the bare metal. Everything
else should be okay. Fingers crossed.



--
Peter Fairbrother

Ian Stirling wrote:

Peter Fairbrother wrote:
Take a secondhand 747-400ER, upgrade the outer two engines with something
slightly more powerful, around 70,000 lbf, and preferably ETOPS-rated though
we aren't going far. The 747 will fly on two engines, no problem.

Replace the inner two engines with 240-ton fixed thrust rockets. You'll need
to upgrade the pylons, and perhaps add extra attachments directly to the
main structural H thingy.

Especially as the main stress is normally at right angles to what you
propose.

Yes. Another option is to have a rocket or two here (R), just behind the
main structural thingy (the bit the wings are bolted on to, I can't remember
what it's called). Some bad ascii art:

|\
| \------------------------o_
|---------- ooooooo
~~ R----------------/


Replace the the 6.5 m dia fuselage with a 4.5 m dia cylindrical body 60 m
long. 25 m is space for the second stage (24m long, 4.15 m dia) with
bomb-bay/clamshell doors, the rest is fuel tanks for the rockets and the
pilot's cabin. Add fins.

You need to get the OEW down to 105 tons, from around 155 tons, so this
conversion isn't straightforward, but it is do-able.


Voila! The Finial spacebooster!


Takes off (TOW 420 tons) on jets, with a little rocket boost to ease runway
length requirements. Flies 155 miles west to 45,000 feet (15 Km), then turns

Can it make 45000 feet on 2.2 engines?

Do you know, I'm not sure, especially when heavy. I've run 30,000 feet
before some pilots without them screaming though. I'll ask, a
brother-in-law's brother-in-law is a 747 pilot.

Mostly we just have to get where the air is thin and the ISP is bigger (95%
of vacuum) before we set off the rockets. The overall design has lots of
room here - the rocket boost phase adds 130 km, but I've given 115 km as the
_total_ turnover height.

Anything wrong with this? Anything that wouldn't work, ar would be too
expensive, especially compared to other methods?

Boeing probably will not support you, which is a minor annoyance.

Perhaps Airbus wouldn't support it instead either, if they have some
shareholdings/-holders in common with Ariane. An A340 or A380 beased version
is viable. But I wasn't necessarily looking for support from Boeing or
Airbus, this could be an AirAntigua or SpaceSumatra -type project. Cheap.

I don't know how nasty the FAA will be if the original maker runs
screaming from the room.

The FAA doesn't really matter overall unless US funding is needed, though it
would be better to have them on our side. That would cost a lot more though,
in meeting regulations, and while it might be worth the cost, it wouldn't be
if they were fundamentally opposed.



--
Peter Fairbrother

John Schilling wrote:

Peter Fairbrother writes:

Take a secondhand 747-400ER, upgrade the outer two engines with something
slightly more powerful, around 70,000 lbf, and preferably ETOPS-rated though
we aren't going far. The 747 will fly on two engines, no problem.

Replace the inner two engines with 240-ton fixed thrust rockets. You'll need
to upgrade the pylons, and perhaps add extra attachments directly to the
main structural H thingy.

Replace the the 6.5 m dia fuselage with a 4.5 m dia cylindrical body 60 m
long.


At this point you're designing a new airplane. Might as well design an
airplane that's optimal for the job and doesn't pretend to derive from
a 747.


Cost. And certification. And spare parts cost. And so on.

Our wings will cost around $100 million. The landing gear, cockpit, most of
the main structure, the wing fuel tanks, flight electronics, etc is all
thrown in for free. And the jet engines, if we're lucky and can get the
right 'plane. We also get some scrap parts to sell.

It would cost more just to design the wings for a new booster, never mind
build them. If it was done by committee ... it would cost a lot more.



The main modifications are to the fuselage - replacing the pressurised
fuselage with a fuel tank and a "bomb-bay" - and installing the rocket
engines. That's all - it's a lot, but it's the kind of thing that is done to
aircraft from time to time. except they don't fit rockets much!


I'm not wedded to this idea, and a new design is always a possibility, but
I'd like to know why this won't work before spending the money on one.
--
Peter Fairbrother

I wrote:

The fuel tanks are left
in orbit for reuse, for use as building material, or for sale as orbital
scrap.

Aluminium in orbit is valuable as scrap for building stuff, and all you need
is a mirror to melt it. If it's already in orbit you don't have to pay to
send it there. Even urine and faeces, especially in quantity, have this
valuable property. Recycle!!

However, if an accumulation of unsaleable Al becomes a problem, we can use
it to deodorise the upper atmosphere, and take all those smelly
ozone-destroying CFC'c out. TAKE THEM RIGHT OUT!

Just vaporise the Al at the right altitude, and you get deodorant (aluminium
hydroxide/chloride/water complex), and all the nasty CFC's get sucked up -
or at least the chloride ions that deplete the ozone get sucked up. Well,
some of them might get sucked up. It's quite easy, all you have to do is
de-orbit the Al in drops of the right size.

Whether it would be wise as well as expedient to "deodorise" the upper
atmosphere, especially considering that the main mode of action of Al-Cl
deodorants in humans is to prevent sweating rather than to remove
odouriferous molecules, is left as an exercise for the reader.


--
Peter Fairbrother

JRS: In article , seen in
news:sci.space.policy, Peter Fairbrother posted
at Sat, 21 Feb 2004 13:09:46 :-

The 60 ton cargo second stage puts 20,000 lb in LEO. LOX/LH2, MR is 4,
target Isp is 440 (vacuum all the way). The engines and flight electronics
are returned for re-use with an ablative heatshield. The fuel tanks are left
in orbit for reuse, for use as building material, or for sale as orbital
scrap. Any unburned fuel is scavenged. No aerodynamic forces on ascent -
they are enclosed in the modified 747.

The 60 ton people-carrier second stage puts 5 tons of people and hand
baggage in orbit. Say 35 passengers, a stewardess, and a handsome pilot or
two. And a skycop (spacecop?) with a tazer. An ALCM-derived spaceplane would
do well here.



Anything wrong with this? Anything that wouldn't work, ar would be too
expensive, especially compared to other methods?


That delivers 5 tons of people plus luggage; which could be changed to
rather fewer people plus luggage plus consumables for their stay.

But it is necessary also either to deliver permanent housing for these
people (fuel tanks?), or to provide a means for them to return.

Delivering a pilot or two every 96 minutes is probably using them up
faster than the present pilot-training rate, unless they can be
recycled. Fifty vehicles working flat out could depopulate the USA in a
lifetime, if I have the decimal point correctly sited.

Any part of the electronics not attached to the engines can probably be
returned as pilot's hand-luggage.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links;
some Astro stuff via astro.htm, gravity0.htm; quotes.htm; pascal.htm; &c, &c.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.

Only if George Kennedy is the pilot.