check out my idea for a launch system

You got a little error in your second image link... should hav been a [/img] in th end..

i like it but.... there's a reason people don't propose things for VLEO. i don't know if you have a solution to this, but your orbital velocity for VLEO is much faster than higher orbits are, and orbits that low tend to decay pretty fast due to the "density" of the atmosphere when compared to the more reasonable height of several hundred miles. perhaps a more reasonable preposition would be for your first stages to boost up to LEO, with the OB thing having the capability to go to GEO, or possibly beyond to the lagrange points or the moon? i'm not convinced that it's more efficient to send something to VLEO before LEO (actually i'd wager it's not), but it probably is better to send it to LEO on a booster/boosters and then send your OB up to GEO (or probably even just HEO) and beyond. of course seeing as i'm lazy i haven't worked out the more basic physics just to check if i'm right about energy, but i'd think so.

Voyager:
fixed it, thanks for pointing that out
Terra:
The ship would not spend much time in VLEO, as it would rendezvous with the Orbital Booster which would take it up to the space station.
The idea behind this system is to send the payload (orbiter, fuel for the Orbital booster) in smaller chunks, thus requiring less energy per launch, which in turn translates into less complex, i.e. cheaper launch vehicles.

The concept reminds me repeatedly to a proposal made in the NIAC-study concerning HASTOL.

That concept lifts the payload to maximum airplane altitude only and lets an orbital spacecraft catch it from that airplane. The orbital craft dives into the atmosphere and returns to space then.

Your idea, 109Ace, simply seems to increase the altitude - the result is significantly increased target altitude of the payload.

It seems to be a good idea that provides significant extension and improvement.



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

ok, didn't catch that the orbital booster wasn't sitting in VLEO, in that case, i think it sounds pretty good.

You poor soul, stuck using MS Paint to try and awkwardly draw these schematics...
This concept looks very interesting, but I'm still trying to wrap my mind around some of the concepts:

For trips to the space station, what is being refered to with the term "orbital-tanker"? I thought the tow-plane/tanker has already separated from the orbital components before VLEO has been achieved. What is the process of the propellant transfer for the trip to the SS? What I understand is:
Tow-tanker tows Rocket/jet/orbital ensemble to max altitude, then transfers fuel to jet
Rocket/jet takes orbiter to VLEO
orbiter separates, then joins up with booster
booster takes orbiter to SS

Where does the booster get it's propellant?
Is the refelling orbiter a completely separate orbiter launched separately to VLEO?

slycker: yes, the refueling orbiter is launched to VLEO separately, just like a regular orbiter.

This system requires that the flight of the refueleing orbiter and of the payload orbiter happen in relativekly quick sequence, before the Orbital Booster's orbit decays too much due to atmospheric drag.

Isn't that similar to the concept t/Space has documented in a .pdf?



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb9 Augustin (Political Economist)

Ekke-I've never heard of TSpace and their concept.
This is entirely my idea.

Yes - I believe that and I allways was convinced that it's entirely your idea - I naver had any doubts.

I find it remarkable That the ideas of profeesionals like Burt Rutan and the other memebrrs of t/Space don't think very different to the people here. That's a proof that may of the ideas discussed here are to be read and thought oder very seriously.

I myself had been thinking of such ideas too but looked at them skeptical and doubtfully then - I wasn't satisfied.

What I find good too is that the similarities of the ideas that are similar to ideas of teams like t/Space are a proof that these ideas can be modified to achieve best fitness to different schedules, situations and processes possible.

I would like to find here as much variations as possible from as much forum participants as possible.



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

well, ekke, I am an aerospace engineer


I went to the T/Space website and checked their architecture. I don't think it's that similar to mine. True, it promotes an air-launch system, hoewrver, the spacecraft is slung under the mothership and there is no mention of in-flight refueling.

Yes - I know. I'm interested in the backgrounds of the people posting here often and because of this I'm used to read their profiles. someimes I read them repeatedly and I have a good memory.

A friend of mine is engineer od electronics. He has two companies with the business to develop special microchips. As a Political Economist I only understand much too few of his developments but from converstaions with him I have experienced that I often do ask good and assisting or helping questions - intuitively and fllowing my own imaginations. These experiences show me that my ideas, imaginations etc. don't be that bad even if they are mixed by errors, mistakes and lack of knowledges.

In cases like this one I'm simply recognizing similarities or analogies - the statistical aspect of my science and the mining side of my profession... (and more like this) .

If this is stimulating creativity I would have contributed something to the creation of new and improved solutions to make space accessable for the genral public.



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