Get a good Griff on yourself....

On 21/12/2011 3:40 PM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

Separate at altitude may be a bit of an issue, but again, we have
experience doing that subsonically and I don't see major issues
developing, despite the sizes involved. (Now, if they were proposing
supersonic separation, I'd be worried.)

Thing is, six miles, and 1000km/h, are a very small part of the altitude
and delta-V needed for orbit. The benefit may not be worth the cost.

Sylvia.

Sylvia Else wrote:
On 21/12/2011 3:40 PM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

Separate at altitude may be a bit of an issue, but again, we have
experience doing that subsonically and I don't see major issues
developing, despite the sizes involved. (Now, if they were proposing
supersonic separation, I'd be worried.)

Thing is, six miles, and 1000km/h, are a very small part of the altitude
and delta-V needed for orbit. The benefit may not be worth the cost.

Sylvia.

The point Henry raises on the arocket list and the one that has gathered a bit
a chatter over there is the ability of Stratolaunch to do one-orbit rendezvous.

This would lower transit time and cost associated with that.

However, I largely agree with you on launch costing, unless the one-orbit
option helps offset either on-orbit costs or helps to increase launch rate.

There is also the multiple target option(s) if Bigelow gets going.

Dave

On Dec 25, 4:21*pm, David Spain wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 21/12/2011 3:40 PM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

Separate at altitude may be a bit of an issue, but again, we have
experience doing that subsonically and I don't see major issues
developing, despite the sizes involved. (Now, if they were proposing
supersonic separation, I'd be worried.)

Thing is, six miles, and 1000km/h, are a very small part of the altitude
and delta-V needed for orbit. The benefit may not be worth the cost.

Sylvia.

The point Henry raises on the arocket list and the one that has gathered a bit
a chatter over there is the ability of Stratolaunch to do one-orbit rendezvous.

This would lower transit time and cost associated with that.

However, I largely agree with you on launch costing, unless the one-orbit
option helps offset either on-orbit costs or helps to increase launch rate.

There is also the multiple target option(s) if Bigelow gets going.

Dave

fly south to the equator, gains a bit

possible in flight refueling of the air breathing part means more
weight for orbit.....

On 26/12/2011 3:12 PM, bob haller wrote:
On Dec 25, 4:21 pm, David wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 21/12/2011 3:40 PM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

Separate at altitude may be a bit of an issue, but again, we have
experience doing that subsonically and I don't see major issues
developing, despite the sizes involved. (Now, if they were proposing
supersonic separation, I'd be worried.)

Thing is, six miles, and 1000km/h, are a very small part of the altitude
and delta-V needed for orbit. The benefit may not be worth the cost.

Sylvia.

The point Henry raises on the arocket list and the one that has gathered a bit
a chatter over there is the ability of Stratolaunch to do one-orbit rendezvous.

This would lower transit time and cost associated with that.

However, I largely agree with you on launch costing, unless the one-orbit
option helps offset either on-orbit costs or helps to increase launch rate.

There is also the multiple target option(s) if Bigelow gets going.

Dave

fly south to the equator, gains a bit

possible in flight refueling of the air breathing part means more
weight for orbit.....

If by in flight refueling, you mean a tanker craft makes a rendevous,
and transfers fuel, then it makes no sense in the context of a launcher.
You might as well have the two joined at takeoff, and separate after the
tanker's fuel is depleted.

Sylvia.

On Dec 26, 12:36*am, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 26/12/2011 3:12 PM, bob haller wrote:





On Dec 25, 4:21 pm, David *wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 21/12/2011 3:40 PM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

Separate at altitude may be a bit of an issue, but again, we have
experience doing that subsonically and I don't see major issues
developing, despite the sizes involved. (Now, if they were proposing
supersonic separation, I'd be worried.)

Thing is, six miles, and 1000km/h, are a very small part of the altitude
and delta-V needed for orbit. The benefit may not be worth the cost.

Sylvia.

The point Henry raises on the arocket list and the one that has gathered a bit
a chatter over there is the ability of Stratolaunch to do one-orbit rendezvous.

This would lower transit time and cost associated with that.

However, I largely agree with you on launch costing, unless the one-orbit
option helps offset either on-orbit costs or helps to increase launch rate.

There is also the multiple target option(s) if Bigelow gets going.

Dave

fly south to the equator, gains a bit

possible in flight refueling of the air breathing part means more
weight for orbit.....

If by in flight refueling, you mean a tanker craft makes a rendevous,
and transfers fuel, then it makes no sense in the context of a launcher.
You might as well have the two joined at takeoff, and separate after the
tanker's fuel is depleted.

Sylvia.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

in flight refueling minizes takeoff weight, and extends the range of
the stack to near anywhere in the world. plus its a common military
procedure done daily

On 26/12/2011 11:05 PM, bob haller wrote:
On Dec 26, 12:36 am, Sylvia wrote:
On 26/12/2011 3:12 PM, bob haller wrote:





On Dec 25, 4:21 pm, David wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 21/12/2011 3:40 PM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

Separate at altitude may be a bit of an issue, but again, we have
experience doing that subsonically and I don't see major issues
developing, despite the sizes involved. (Now, if they were proposing
supersonic separation, I'd be worried.)

Thing is, six miles, and 1000km/h, are a very small part of the altitude
and delta-V needed for orbit. The benefit may not be worth the cost.

Sylvia.

The point Henry raises on the arocket list and the one that has gathered a bit
a chatter over there is the ability of Stratolaunch to do one-orbit rendezvous.

This would lower transit time and cost associated with that.

However, I largely agree with you on launch costing, unless the one-orbit
option helps offset either on-orbit costs or helps to increase launch rate.

There is also the multiple target option(s) if Bigelow gets going.

Dave

fly south to the equator, gains a bit

possible in flight refueling of the air breathing part means more
weight for orbit.....

If by in flight refueling, you mean a tanker craft makes a rendevous,
and transfers fuel, then it makes no sense in the context of a launcher.
You might as well have the two joined at takeoff, and separate after the
tanker's fuel is depleted.

Sylvia.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

in flight refueling minizes takeoff weight, and extends the range of
the stack to near anywhere in the world. plus its a common military
procedure done daily

Insufficient range is not the problem that needs to be solved.

Sylvia.

On Dec 26, 7:17*am, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 26/12/2011 11:05 PM, bob haller wrote:





On Dec 26, 12:36 am, Sylvia *wrote:
On 26/12/2011 3:12 PM, bob haller wrote:

On Dec 25, 4:21 pm, David * *wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 21/12/2011 3:40 PM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

Separate at altitude may be a bit of an issue, but again, we have
experience doing that subsonically and I don't see major issues
developing, despite the sizes involved. (Now, if they were proposing
supersonic separation, I'd be worried.)

Thing is, six miles, and 1000km/h, are a very small part of the altitude
and delta-V needed for orbit. The benefit may not be worth the cost..

Sylvia.

The point Henry raises on the arocket list and the one that has gathered a bit
a chatter over there is the ability of Stratolaunch to do one-orbit rendezvous.

This would lower transit time and cost associated with that.

However, I largely agree with you on launch costing, unless the one-orbit
option helps offset either on-orbit costs or helps to increase launch rate.

There is also the multiple target option(s) if Bigelow gets going.

Dave

fly south to the equator, gains a bit

possible in flight refueling of the air breathing part means more
weight for orbit.....

If by in flight refueling, you mean a tanker craft makes a rendevous,
and transfers fuel, then it makes no sense in the context of a launcher.

On 26/12/2011 11:40 PM, bob haller wrote:
On Dec 26, 7:17 am, Sylvia wrote:
On 26/12/2011 11:05 PM, bob haller wrote:





On Dec 26, 12:36 am, Sylvia wrote:
On 26/12/2011 3:12 PM, bob haller wrote:

On Dec 25, 4:21 pm, David wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 21/12/2011 3:40 PM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

Separate at altitude may be a bit of an issue, but again, we have
experience doing that subsonically and I don't see major issues
developing, despite the sizes involved. (Now, if they were proposing
supersonic separation, I'd be worried.)

Thing is, six miles, and 1000km/h, are a very small part of the altitude
and delta-V needed for orbit. The benefit may not be worth the cost.

Sylvia.

The point Henry raises on the arocket list and the one that has gathered a bit
a chatter over there is the ability of Stratolaunch to do one-orbit rendezvous.

This would lower transit time and cost associated with that.

However, I largely agree with you on launch costing, unless the one-orbit
option helps offset either on-orbit costs or helps to increase launch rate.

There is also the multiple target option(s) if Bigelow gets going.

Dave

fly south to the equator, gains a bit

possible in flight refueling of the air breathing part means more
weight for orbit.....

If by in flight refueling, you mean a tanker craft makes a rendevous,
and transfers fuel, then it makes no sense in the context of a launcher.
You might as well have the two joined at takeoff, and separate after the
tanker's fuel is depleted.

Sylvia.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

in flight refueling minizes takeoff weight, and extends the range of
the stack to near anywhere in the world. plus its a common military
procedure done daily

Insufficient range is not the problem that needs to be solved.

Sylvia.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

well in flight refueling minimizes takeoff weight. can we agree
on that?

It *probably* reduces the weight of the heaviest single component.
That's about as much as can be said for it.


inflight refueling could have the carrier aircraft take off from KSC
and fly to a equatorial release point/ can we agree on this?


Why bother to use inflight refuelling for this? Fly the carrier aircraft
with attached spacecraft to an equatorial runway. Land, refuel, and
launch. Mucking about with inflight refuelling is just adding complexity.

Sylvia.

In article , lid
says...

On 26/12/2011 3:12 PM, bob haller wrote:
On Dec 25, 4:21 pm, David wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 21/12/2011 3:40 PM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

Separate at altitude may be a bit of an issue, but again, we have
experience doing that subsonically and I don't see major issues
developing, despite the sizes involved. (Now, if they were proposing
supersonic separation, I'd be worried.)

Thing is, six miles, and 1000km/h, are a very small part of the altitude
and delta-V needed for orbit. The benefit may not be worth the cost.

Sylvia.

The point Henry raises on the arocket list and the one that has gathered a bit
a chatter over there is the ability of Stratolaunch to do one-orbit rendezvous.

This would lower transit time and cost associated with that.

However, I largely agree with you on launch costing, unless the one-orbit
option helps offset either on-orbit costs or helps to increase launch rate.

There is also the multiple target option(s) if Bigelow gets going.

Dave

fly south to the equator, gains a bit

possible in flight refueling of the air breathing part means more
weight for orbit.....

If by in flight refueling, you mean a tanker craft makes a rendevous,
and transfers fuel, then it makes no sense in the context of a launcher.
You might as well have the two joined at takeoff, and separate after the
tanker's fuel is depleted.

Has anybody demonstrated a takeoff while linked to a tanker? You seem
to think that aerial refueling is some kind of big deal, and maybe if
you inhabit some third-world Hellhole it is, but for the US, the EU, the
CIS, and any of their clients, it's all in a day's work for any
military-trained pilot. I agree that there isn't likely any need for it
in the scenario under discussion, but that doesn't make it any kind of
issue to be argued against.

On Dec 26, 9:21*am, "J. Clarke" wrote:
In article ,
says...







On 26/12/2011 3:12 PM, bob haller wrote:
On Dec 25, 4:21 pm, David *wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 21/12/2011 3:40 PM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

Separate at altitude may be a bit of an issue, but again, we have
experience doing that subsonically and I don't see major issues
developing, despite the sizes involved. (Now, if they were proposing
supersonic separation, I'd be worried.)

Thing is, six miles, and 1000km/h, are a very small part of the altitude
and delta-V needed for orbit. The benefit may not be worth the cost..

Sylvia.

The point Henry raises on the arocket list and the one that has gathered a bit
a chatter over there is the ability of Stratolaunch to do one-orbit rendezvous.

This would lower transit time and cost associated with that.

However, I largely agree with you on launch costing, unless the one-orbit
option helps offset either on-orbit costs or helps to increase launch rate.

There is also the multiple target option(s) if Bigelow gets going.

Dave

fly south to the equator, gains a bit

possible in flight refueling of the air breathing part means more
weight for orbit.....

If by in flight refueling, you mean a tanker craft makes a rendevous,
and transfers fuel, then it makes no sense in the context of a launcher..
You might as well have the two joined at takeoff, and separate after the
tanker's fuel is depleted.

Has anybody demonstrated a takeoff while linked to a tanker? * You seem
to think that aerial refueling is some kind of big deal, and maybe if
you inhabit some third-world Hellhole it is, but for the US, the EU, the
CIS, and any of their clients, it's all in a day's work for any
military-trained pilot. *I agree that there isn't likely any need for it
in the scenario under discussion, but that doesn't make it any kind of
issue to be argued against.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

airplane with rocket attached takes off with little fuel from KSC
runway, then refuels in flight, perhaps loading the rocket fuel in
flight too.....

this should increase cargo capacity.

in a traditional rocket launch all fuel to orbit is payload.

in the new system fuel from launch to release is not part of payload