A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Zoom to space



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 22nd 03, 08:37 PM
Damon Hill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Zoom to space

DARPA and various companies including Scaled Composites are
looking at a carrier aircraft that would fly to Mach 3.1
and 200,000 feet(!) to deploy a two-stage rocket which
would carry up to 50-130 kg into orbit.

The rocket itself is not unusual, it's the aircraft.
Four souped up F-100 engines being injected with water
and LOX, something that might almost embarrass a SR-71.

It's this weeks AW&ST cover story. Read it he

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/new...wst_story.jsp?
id=news/09223top.xml

--Damon
  #2  
Old September 22nd 03, 10:41 PM
Jochem Huhmann
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Zoom to space

Damon Hill writes:

DARPA and various companies including Scaled Composites are
looking at a carrier aircraft that would fly to Mach 3.1
and 200,000 feet(!) to deploy a two-stage rocket which
would carry up to 50-130 kg into orbit.

The rocket itself is not unusual, it's the aircraft.


Not to be picky, but 200,000 feet is almost a spacecraft. Or at least an
air-breathing first stage of a launcher. Is this thing thought be at
Mach 3.1 at 200,000 feet? What it is speed at 50,000 feet?


Jochem

--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
  #3  
Old September 23rd 03, 02:40 AM
Damon Hill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Zoom to space

Jochem Huhmann wrote in :

Damon Hill writes:

DARPA and various companies including Scaled Composites are
looking at a carrier aircraft that would fly to Mach 3.1
and 200,000 feet(!) to deploy a two-stage rocket which
would carry up to 50-130 kg into orbit.

The rocket itself is not unusual, it's the aircraft.


Not to be picky, but 200,000 feet is almost a spacecraft. Or at least an
air-breathing first stage of a launcher. Is this thing thought be at
Mach 3.1 at 200,000 feet? What it is speed at 50,000 feet?


Indeed, it is nearly a spacecraft by itself as it's essentially
out of the atmosphere at that altitude, hence the modifications
to the engines. The article says Mach 3.something at lower altitude
and still slightly Machish at peak altitude.

--Damon
  #4  
Old September 23rd 03, 06:22 PM
Elmar Moelzer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Zoom to space

Oh yeah, I have seen that one at RLV- news yesterday. Pretty impressive and
so simple, that it could actually work!
I really like the idea.
Lets see if it really happens until 2005 as predicted. If so, this is IMHO
much more impressive and perhaps much more of an advance than NASAs stupid
OSP and that with a comparably ridiculously low budget!
CU
Elmar

"Damon Hill" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
32...
DARPA and various companies including Scaled Composites are
looking at a carrier aircraft that would fly to Mach 3.1
and 200,000 feet(!) to deploy a two-stage rocket which
would carry up to 50-130 kg into orbit.

The rocket itself is not unusual, it's the aircraft.
Four souped up F-100 engines being injected with water
and LOX, something that might almost embarrass a SR-71.

It's this weeks AW&ST cover story. Read it he

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/new...wst_story.jsp?
id=news/09223top.xml

--Damon



  #5  
Old September 25th 03, 07:06 PM
Lou Scheffer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Zoom to space

"gmw" wrote in message . ..
Not to rain on anyone's parade but what does the modifications due to the
engine's maintained costs and lifespan?


According to the article:

"The engines are set to operate within its regular parameters, Carter
said, which should be adequate to meet Rascal's performance goals.
However, if the vehicle weight increases or other obstacles occur,
designers may yet choose to operate the engine at higher performance
levels even though that would degrade their durability."

Lou Scheffer
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982) Stuf4 Space Shuttle 150 July 28th 04 07:30 AM
European high technology for the International Space Station Jacques van Oene Space Station 0 May 10th 04 02:40 PM
Clueless pundits (was High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers) Rand Simberg Space Science Misc 18 February 14th 04 03:28 AM
International Space Station Science - One of NASA's rising stars Jacques van Oene Space Station 0 December 27th 03 01:32 PM
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 September 12th 03 01:37 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.