Community > Forum > Technology & Science > How did they match NASA so cheaply? Well they haven't...yet

How did they match NASA so cheaply? Well they haven't...yet

Posted by: jnfranc - Wed Jul 28, 2004 3:52 am
Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 36 posts ] 
How did they match NASA so cheaply? Well they haven't...yet 
Author Message
Spaceflight Participant
Spaceflight Participant
User avatar
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2004 1:42 pm
Posts: 59
Post    Posted on: Sun Oct 10, 2004 5:28 pm
Quote:
SpaceShipOne has a wet mass of about 3.5 tonnes (if I remember correctly), around 50% of which is fuel. By comparison, to launch an equal dry weight (basically the flight controls, wings, and passengers) into orbit would require approximately 20 tonnes worth of fuel. You point me to a plane which can easily carry 20 tonnes of highly volatile rocket to a sufficient height to be worthwhile, and I'd be impressed.


Be impressed :) The Antonov An-225 Mriya has a payload of 250-275 tonnes, internally or externally mounted. It was mooted as the launch stage for the MAKS shuttle.

http://members.lycos.co.uk/aerospace21/ ... n-225.html


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Participant
Spaceflight Participant
avatar
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2004 4:58 pm
Posts: 95
Location: London, UK
Post    Posted on: Sun Oct 10, 2004 9:27 pm
Ok, the Antonov is definitely impressive :)

However, that does not necessarily mean it is practical. In my opinion, there are greater and smarter people than us working on launch technology, and that only one group of them decided to use air-borne launch says something about it.

_________________
Sev


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Mon Oct 11, 2004 7:09 am
Only one team that uses air-launch - right. But there other teams working on single stage concepts according to their websites. Their vehicle are planes using rockte engines - these concepts simly don't require air launches. One of this teams recently announced to be ready in 2007.

And Suborbital Corporation in Russia had in mind to use air-launch too. But they are suffering by lack of financial ressources as I remember.

So "only one team that uses air-launch" is to be relativated.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Participant
Spaceflight Participant
User avatar
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2004 1:42 pm
Posts: 59
Post    Posted on: Mon Oct 11, 2004 7:50 am
Sev wrote:
Ok, the Antonov is definitely impressive :)

However, that does not necessarily mean it is practical. In my opinion, there are greater and smarter people than us working on launch technology, and that only one group of them decided to use air-borne launch says something about it.

Not really. It shows us that rocket engineers build rocket-shaped things, and airplane engineers (like Rutan) build airplane-shaped things, and seldom do the two meet :P

There have been several design attempts by very clever people for air-launched orbital craft (MAKS, Sanger, the early Space Shuttle designs). These failed for budgetary and political reasons as much as technical ones.


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Enthusiast
Spaceflight Enthusiast
avatar
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:53 pm
Posts: 3
Location: Florida
Post Air Launch   Posted on: Tue Oct 12, 2004 5:09 pm
Sev wrote:
Ok, the Antonov is definitely impressive :)

However, that does not necessarily mean it is practical. In my opinion, there are greater and smarter people than us working on launch technology, and that only one group of them decided to use air-borne launch says something about it.


Yeah. The only team to fly a fullscale vehicle and in the process WIN the X-Prize.


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Enthusiast
Spaceflight Enthusiast
avatar
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 11:53 pm
Posts: 1
Post Speaking of the 4 letter word - NASA, Here Opportunities   Posted on: Mon Nov 08, 2004 12:39 am
The NASA Advanced Planning and Integration Office (APIO) is requesting input for the development of high-level roadmaps.

Submissions are sought in the following areas:

15 key capability focus areas (submissions due November 16, 2004):

High-Energy Power and Propulsion
In-Space Transportation
Advanced Telescopes and Observatories
Communication and Navigation
Robotic Access to Planetary Surfaces
Human Planetary Landing Systems
Human Health and Support Systems
Human Exploration Systems and Mobility
Autonomous Systems and Robotics
Transformational Spaceport/Range
Scientific Instruments/Sensors
In Situ Resource Utilization
Advanced Modeling, Simulation, Analysis
Systems Engineering Cost/Risk Analysis
Nanotechnology
12 key strategic focus areas (submissions due December 10, 2004):

Robotic and human lunar expeditions.
Sustained, long-term robotic and human exploration of Mars.
Robotic exploration across the solar system.
Advanced telescope searches for Earth-like planets and habitable environments.
Development of an exploration transportation system.
Completion of the International Space Station and focusing its use on supporting space exploration goals.
Exploration of the Universe.
Exploration of the dynamic Earth system.
Exploration of the Sun-Earth system.
Advanced aeronautical technologies for next-generation aviation systems.
Using NASA missions inspire, motivate, and educate.
Utilization of nuclear systems for the advancement of space science and exploration.
Detailed description under:

http://fellowships.hq.nasa.gov/apio/Att ... _01_V5.pdf

Submissions are required to be a maximum of two pages and to focus on no more than two points each.

There is also a public workshop being held November 30, 2004 in Washington D.C. on the capability focus areas.



http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=14404

http://fellowships.hq.nasa.gov/apio/index.cfm


Back to top
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 36 posts ] 
 

Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests


© 2014 The International Space Fellowship, developed by Gabitasoft Interactive. All Rights Reserved.  Privacy Policy | Terms of Use