how well would space ship one scale up?

to a orbital version?

I kinda like the launced from aircraft idea. It elminates the hazardous
controlled bomb launch. The airplane part can be refuled whatever times
necessary to get it to launch altitude. This should increase its possible
payload capacity.

How hard would it be to scale it up to a orbital version for 3 crew or even
more people?
HAVE A GREAT DAY!

"bob haller" wrote in message
...
How hard would it be to scale it up to a orbital version for 3 crew or
even
more people?

You must be blind, there are several threads that mention the issues
involved. Why start another thread? Are you in troll mode again, Bob?

Jeff

You must be blind, there are several threads that mention the issues
involved. Why start another thread? Are you in troll mode again, Bob?

gee I saw half mentions and comments about it likely happening in another
country because of FAA regs but nothing detailed about how and why it may or
may not be possible. perhaps I missed it. just finishing remodeling my rental
home I have little time for anything else
HAVE A GREAT DAY!

bob haller wrote:
I kinda like the launced from aircraft idea. It elminates the hazardous
controlled bomb launch. The airplane part can be refuled whatever times
necessary to get it to launch altitude.


To reach ISS orbit, you need to accelerate from 0 to 25,000km/h. If a carrier
aircraft gets you to 45,000 feet altitude at a speed of 600 km/h, you still
need to accelerate 24,400 km/h, not much of a difference from if you started
from the ground.


Where the carrier aircraft makes a big difference is positioning and orienting
the spacecraft to intercept an existing object's orbital plane, therefore
greatly opening launch windows.

To reach ISS orbit, you need to accelerate from 0 to 25,000km/h. If a carrier
aircraft gets you to 45,000 feet altitude at a speed of 600 km/h, you still
need to accelerate 24,400 km/h, not much of a difference from if you started
from the ground.


Where the carrier aircraft makes a big difference is positioning and
orienting
the spacecraft to intercept an existing object's orbital plane, therefore
greatly opening launch windows.



Well the right aircraft could get you to 60,000 feet above most of the
atmosphric drag. The fuel; to get to that altitude could be on a refuel basis
too. so theres no need to haul tanks big enough to move everything from seal
level.

certinally these two issues must bring about some improvements?
HAVE A GREAT DAY!

(bob haller) wrote:

Well the right aircraft could get you to 60,000 feet above most of the
atmosphric drag. The fuel; to get to that altitude could be on a refuel basis
too. so theres no need to haul tanks big enough to move everything from seal
level.

certinally these two issues must bring about some improvements?

For small values of 'some' and large values of 'difficult and
expensive', yes.

I.E. for all practical purposes, no.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

For small values of 'some' and large values of 'difficult and
expensive', yes.

I.E. for all practical purposes, no.

D.

hpw about a transport craft that gets the combo not only to release altitude
but with afterburners of some sort to up the speed. how fast could a airplane
like vehicle go?
HAVE A GREAT DAY!

"bob haller" wrote in message
...
Well the right aircraft could get you to 60,000 feet above most of the
atmosphric drag. The fuel; to get to that altitude could be on a refuel
basis
too. so theres no need to haul tanks big enough to move everything from
seal
level.

So you're proposing avoiding seal launch? Sounds good to me. Seals seem to
be happiest at sea level.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

In article ,
"Jeff Findley" wrote:

"bob haller" wrote in message
...
Well the right aircraft could get you to 60,000 feet above most of the
atmosphric drag. The fuel; to get to that altitude could be on a refuel
basis
too. so theres no need to haul tanks big enough to move everything from
seal
level.

So you're proposing avoiding seal launch? Sounds good to me. Seals seem to
be happiest at sea level.

Jeff

Oh, Jeff, I don't know about that. They're pretty darn happy at about 2
meters above mean sea level basking on warm rocks, too. ;-)

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
Columbia Loss FAQ:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

So you're proposing avoiding seal launch? Sounds good to me. Seals seem to
be happiest at sea level.

Jeff

yep the seals really prefer sea level.

now for serious answers........
HAVE A GREAT DAY!