Community > Forum > Technology & Science > Balloon Launched Rockets

Balloon Launched Rockets

Posted by: george - Tue Jun 01, 2004 7:03 pm
Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 22 posts ] 
Balloon Launched Rockets 
Author Message
Space Walker
Space Walker
avatar
Joined: Tue May 18, 2004 4:25 pm
Posts: 122
Post    Posted on: Wed Jun 09, 2004 9:24 pm
i find rail guns/maglev technology facinating

on a slightly different note i was to ask a question but found this info myself concerning escape velocity:
Quote:
...launched with an initial velocity greater than Vesc, it will rise and never return. We must give the particle enough kinetic energy to overcome all of the negative gravitational potential energy. Thus, if m is the mass of the ball, M is the mass of the earth, and R is the radius of the earth, the potential energy is -GmM /R. The kinetic energy of the ball, when it is launched, is mv2/2. We thus have

G x m x M / R = m x VESC2 / 2, or

(1.29) VESC = SQRT[ 2 x GM / R ]

which is independent of the mass of the ball (or space vehicle).

taken from http://www.braeunig.us/space/orbmech2.htm#escape

so am i correct in my understanding that it is the escape velocity (from ground) one is talking about when one says that the escape velocity to get out of earths gravity is 40,320 kph?

edit: anyway if so it would be 11200 mps (same number but in mps (metric meters per second not miles)) for a rail gun system. some time would be needed to accelerate slowly if it were to carry humans (and extremely fine timing of the rail magnets as higher and higher speeds are attained).

i remember the russians proposing a gigantic intercontinentail rail gun system for space launches some years ago (a huge circular design transversing russia, usa (alaska), canada, greenland (denmark), possibly iceland, norway, sweden and finland).

anyway here's a link on the problem for those interested (and it has different numbers :?): http://avoyagetoarcturus.blogspot.com/2003_10_01_avoyagetoarcturus_archive.html#106676489327698654


Last edited by n54 on Wed Jun 09, 2004 9:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Trainee
Spaceflight Trainee
avatar
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 1:13 pm
Posts: 49
Location: Santiago, Chile
Post    Posted on: Wed Jun 09, 2004 9:30 pm
n54: Maglev is interesting, but aparently still very expensive due to power consumption. Regarding escape velocity, I'm tempted to say yes, but I'd have to ask my dad (who studied physics) to be sure.


Back to top
Profile
Space Walker
Space Walker
avatar
Joined: Tue May 18, 2004 4:25 pm
Posts: 122
Post    Posted on: Wed Jun 09, 2004 9:51 pm
yes and from what i've found (edited my last post) i imagine the construction costs to be pretty enormous as well :?


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Sat Apr 18, 2009 2:40 pm
Which improvements of rocket launches from balloons are provided by JP Aerospace's Tandems? For one and the same rocket to be launched they are of more mass because of the construction making them tandems - but the construction might have advantages for rocket launches.

And what about their advantages for launches from other planets?



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


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
avatar
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 7:44 am
Posts: 707
Location: Haarlem, The Netherlands
Post    Posted on: Sat Apr 18, 2009 6:45 pm
And how about this: take the Dark Sky Station, but rather than mounting the tubes in a star shape, you connect them end-to-end into a torus. Hang the rocket underneath vertically in the middle, and launch through the hole. To lift a reasonably sized rocket the torus would have to be pretty big anyway, so the exhaust may not be a problem (haven't done any calculations though!) The main problem would probably be keeping the torus open. What would be the optimum shape to keep that from happening?


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
avatar
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2008 9:29 pm
Posts: 712
Post    Posted on: Sun Apr 19, 2009 1:03 am
Humm, Interesting thread! Making a nice big balloon is possible with polyethylene and a hot weld tool. Hydrogen is cheaper. We could use some help guy's if your still interested in working on a balloon platform. Our platform must lift 2000 lbs. to @100k ft. You can get involved in our Near Space Expedition if you like. We are ready for a launch we just need a USB Sirf compatible GPS and some map calibrations, finish up our hydrogen generator. We could use the help.

Monroe

_________________
Today's the day! We go into Space!


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
avatar
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 6:16 pm
Posts: 335
Post    Posted on: Sun Apr 19, 2009 5:11 pm
I've been meaning to build an Airship for some time. The thing that is holding me back is finding somewhere that I can buy Mylar and Hydrogen from.

Nearspace itself offers possibilities for Tourism. A Nearspace hotel at 20km altitude would be cheaper than a space hotel, yet will have the same stunning views and gravity.

One possible spacecraft I've concieved is an Airship to Orbit SSTO, using electrically enhanced H2O2/Ethanol rockets. They could spike the Isp high enough for SSTO.

For the Torus idea, pressure would be enough if you overpressurised the envelope. Probably you'd want an inflated beam runniong round the inside to keep its shape. Since rocklets don't tend to launch straight up anyway, a drop launch would be easier.


Back to top
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ] 
 

Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests


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