Assisted lift

But WK can't carry 100 tons to 50Kft. She has to climb for an hour to get that little SS1 to that altitude.

The t/Space plans for CXV call for air launch at 30Kft... a transonic rail launch from 22Kft will place the (possibly much more massive) vehicle in a very similar envelope... and could do it a hundred times a day!

As i said beforem 'the' Antanov An 225 can carry 250 tonnes to 33k feet:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-225

But if you would build an aircraft like whiteknight with the sole purpose of carrying a rocket to an altitude of something like 10 km at least, without making a super-triple-use-do-it-all-mega-aircraft, it would be at least an economic advantage. But perhaps the rocket will have to need wings or something like that.

Another aspect of this. Instead of making a complete carrieraircraft, why not make a remote controlled or automatic carrier which only has engines, fuel, landinggear, sensors, and a graple to hold on to the rocket on several places, so you would minimize all the stuff you wouldnt need anyway.

That was pretty much what I was thinking about with the mag-assisted rocket.

I have also heard about ideas like large balloon platforms for launch.


They have taken balloons up to 100k feet or so, and the technology is very simple.

Gaining almost 20 miles in altitude for little more than a bit of hydrogen has got to be an interesting idea in terms of cost avoidance.

At the bottom line, one has to evaluate any of these ideas in terms of cost avoidance, because that is the ultimate arbitor of how "good" an idea is to get people into space.

Mag launch seems to me to be a good idea because you can scale down your rocket, and save costs in fuel. Not knowing enough physics or design, I have to defer to those who do. If the cost savings is out weighed by the losses in having to build a ship that can withstand the lateral thrust, then it is an interesting idea and ends there for humans.

I still think the mag-assist idea may be practical for non-manned cargoes if you can pump enough delta-V into the cargo ship.

Hello, SawSS1June21,

because of your remark .

I am not sure if it was announced really but I suppose that WK2 will be unveiled during this year and Richard Branson scaled it up to be able to launch payloads into orbit.

This meant as a hint or remark only - not as something to be discussed in this thread.



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

Some while ago--I advocated Branson buying a second AN-225 that hasn't been assembled--so that Rutan only needs build the spacecraft. The cargo plane can be used by Virgin for Cargo when not needed as a first stage. I suggested the folks at t/Space use it due to a shoulder mount wing. But because I dared dispute (Forrest) Gump and his ugly attack on Griffin with a Letter to the Editor myself--he didn't want to talk to me.

For launch assist, try this:
http://www.hypacc.com/
http://www.rocketry.org/links/index.php?offset=45&type=

If you can find some deep natural holes in a submerged karst region, you might have a chance. This and Sea Dragon show the opposite ends of waht water can give you.

With a huge bit of infrastructure/pad, and a small LV--you have Hypacc. Sea Dragon is on the opposite end--with no pad at all, but a big rocket.

The body of one might be the tube for the other--for caisson work--or for work as a Spar.

Now if you will excuse me--I have to get back to my assisted lifting center.
Time for my sponge bath---nurse!

Misc.
http://www.mhprofessional.com/product.php?isbn=0071459057&cat=&promocode=

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=52614

Hello, SawSS1June21,

Just another hint not meant for discussion in this thread: The CXV including fuel will be much heavier than SSO and SS2 - and it will have reentry-capability. If now something should be launched into orbit that isn't intended to return to the earthian surface - then the return capability the CXV has can be replaced by additional payload weight.

This as well as the feaibility study for Launchpoint Techmologies' maglev tends to increase my doubts that heavy lift is a proper criterion. Andy Hill didn't restrict assisted lift to heavy lift as far as I understand him. Launchpoint Technologies approach is a hint that a sufficient number of light lifts might be cheaper and otherwise also more advantageous than heavy lift.

My looks into data about heavy lift launches are proceeding because of the Lunar Soyuz-thread and at present they are justifying increased doubts about heavy lift.

The question is what the purpose of a particular launch is - delivery of fuel? Delivery of food and water? Carrying astronauts? Emergency-delivery? ...

There may be purposes where assited lift of light payloads is best while for other purposes one alternative or another is best.

And all should be combined with looks into the purpose as a whole - is the payload as a whole indivisible or can it be delivered element by element, comppnent by component (ISS)?

Assisted lift might turn light lift even cheaper than in the past - it's a pity that no data are available yet like for conventional rockets.



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

I tend to return to the idea of assisted lift from time to time.

Assistance would be the buoyancy idea applied in water or in oceans more precisely, to provide an initial push by magnets, the Vega-idea Andy Hill mentioned and any mechanical catapult.

The magnets will be unreaistic.

But what about magnetic catapults like applied by aircraft carrriers? Might they work vertically? Might they involve the application of water? Which iquids might be applied that provide more buoyancy than water?



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

How about build the launch system in the side of a mountain. Drop a large counterweight down the center of the mountain that lifts the entire pad a mile at 7gs?

Monroe

We only need one demolishing the side of a mountain wouldn’t be that tough. Boring the hole down the center? I wonder what one of these tunnel borers could do going straight down with gravity? Just leave it down there.

The advantage to going sideways with a TBM is that you can run scrapers and conveyor belts and dump the stuff you've drilled out into a train running behind the TBM, on tracks it lays as it goes.

Drilling straight down you'd have to haul all that stuff back up, which is a lot of energy and hassle.

An easier approach would probably be to drill a tunnel in from the side at the base of the mountain, make a cavern at the center, then assemble the TBM pointing up.


This is not to say that I think any of this is a good idea on Earth. In every comprehensive analysis, "build a bigger rocket" has always won.

On the moon, though, where you could give something enough delta-v on a linear accelerator to almost orbit it, and just need a small circularizing burn on the far side....

Ben
Hey, I think you could run tracks on both sides of the TBM and have a bucket conveyor running to the top. But it is just a 2 second idea. I was thinking of droping a kiloton and lifting a really big rocket. Like I said it was a 2 second thought, not a big plan. Interesting problem however im just too busy to look at it very hard.

Monroe

Did Jeff name the baby yet?

Well, for assisted launch you get:

1) A bunch of Hydrogen balloons
2) Solar cells
3) A magnetic launch track

Then you lift the netire contraption to high altitude using the balloons, coat the with the solar cells, and use the power available to launch stuff. Or beam power at an Airship...