![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() You have probably all heard recently about Airbus filing a patent for a hypersonic aircraft involving turbojets, a rocket engine and ramjets. Even if in this case the rockets aren’t used for space travel, I still consider this to be relevant to this newsgroup. Rockets are a space technology. And if Airbus pulls this off, it means very reliable and easily reusable rockets. Since these planes would do flights of only a few hours we can expect them to do say 5 flights per day. So if you have 10 of these planes flying you have about 50 flights per day. You must have much higher reliability than today's rockets or else your going to have stories in the newspapers about a rocket failure every other day and that spells the end of the plane model even if the planes survive the rocket failures. So developing this plane involves developing very interesting rocket engines. For these reasons, I think it would be cool if Airbus, or anyone else, would go forward with this kind of plane. But I don’t think that their particular plan is the best one. I don’t think that the ramjet is necessary. If you already have a rocket engine on board, why not use it a little longer, go a little higher and a little faster and then glide to near your destination. At that point you turn on again the turbojets for approach and landing. But that is just my gut feeling, I would like to know what other people think of that. Another question I have about such a plane is whether it is feasible to use the same fuel for the turbojet and the rocket. I see no reasons why it couldn’t be done. But some times the devil is in the details. If you use the same fuel that means that if you have a problem with your rocket engine, you can simply shut it down, dump the oxidizer and have the pilot open the microphone and say something like: we are sorry but we will be arriving 8 hours late. This also brings another question. Would the amount of fuel (fuel only not oxidizer) needed for a flight using a rocket engine be enough for a flight using the turbojets? Any thoughts? Alain Fournier |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
At Tue, 18 Aug 2015 09:56:41 EDT Alain Fournier wrote:
You have probably all heard recently about Airbus filing a patent for a hypersonic aircraft involving turbojets, a rocket engine and ramjets. Even if in this case the rockets aren’t used for space travel, I still consider this to be relevant to this newsgroup. Rockets are a space technology. And if Airbus pulls this off, it means very reliable and easily reusable rockets. Since these planes would do flights of only a few hours we can expect them to do say 5 flights per day. So if you have 10 of these planes flying you have about 50 flights per day. You must have much higher reliability than today's rockets or else your going to have stories in the newspapers about a rocket failure every other day and that spells the end of the plane model even if the planes survive the rocket failures. So developing this plane involves developing very interesting rocket engines. For these reasons, I think it would be cool if Airbus, or anyone else, would go forward with this kind of plane. But I don’t think that their particular plan is the best one. I don’t think that the ramjet is necessary. If you already have a rocket engine on board, why not use it a little longer, go a little higher and a little faster and then glide to near your destination. At that point you turn on again the turbojets for approach and landing. But that is just my gut feeling, I would like to know what other people think of that. Another question I have about such a plane is whether it is feasible to use the same fuel for the turbojet and the rocket. I see no reasons why it couldn’t be done. But some times the devil is in the details. If you use the same fuel that means that if you have a problem with your rocket engine, you can simply shut it down, dump the oxidizer and have the pilot open the microphone and say something like: we are sorry but we will be arriving 8 hours late. This also brings another question. Would the amount of fuel (fuel only not oxidizer) needed for a flight using a rocket engine be enough for a flight using the turbojets? Any thoughts? My only thought is that if Airbus pulls this off, it is only a 'short' skip to a sub-orbital plane. Add a piggy-back shuttle, and you are pretty much at a (relatively) cheap and easy 1-1/2 stages to orbit. The only missing piece is a terminal in orbit and places to go from there (eg lunar colonys, etc.) ... But the 'terminal in orbit' (eg space station) and desinations beyond are actually 'easy', once you make getting into orbit itself 'easy', since the getting out of the gravity well is the 'bitch'. One can boost parts and materials for the space station using conventual multi-stage heavy boost rockets fairly cheaply, then bring up the work force, etc. up using the Airbus sub-orbital 'plane'. Alain Fournier -- Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933 Deepwoods Software -- Custom Software Services http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Linux Administration Services -- Webhosting Services |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Airbus unveils 'Adeline' re-usable rocket concept | [email protected] | Policy | 20 | June 14th 15 02:00 AM |
Airbus - reusable space launcher | Alain Fournier[_3_] | Technology | 6 | June 11th 15 11:42 AM |
What if(on Airbus) | G=EMC^2 Glazier[_1_] | Misc | 12 | July 2nd 09 02:32 PM |
Airbus cockpit | Michael Baldwin Bruce | Misc | 6 | January 16th 06 10:38 PM |
Airplane Scientists | Rand Simberg | Space Science Misc | 37 | December 25th 03 05:54 AM |