Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Does space matter to you?

Page 7 of 8 [ 117 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

24 May 2011, 1:30 pm

ruveyn wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
You might find this interesting.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13506289


That is rather cool. Using atmospheric oxygen to burn fuel until a given altitude is reached and then switching to onboard supplies of oxygen. A real space-plane, rather than the Shuttle which requires boosters.


What is the free board lifting capacity of this vehicle?

ruveyn


Cargo capacity? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_E ... ayload_bay

Quote:
Payload bay

The payload bay of the Skylon C2 design is a cylinder 12.3 metres (40.4 ft) long and 4.6 metres (15 ft) in diameter.[10] It is designed to be comparable with current payload dimensions, and yet able to support the containerization of payloads that Reaction Engines hopes for in the future.[10] To an equatorial orbit, Skylon could deliver 12 tonnes (26,455 lb) to a 300 kilometres (186 mi) height or 10.5 tonnes (23,149 lb) to a 460 kilometres (286 mi) altitude.[10] It could also launch 9.5 tonnes (20,944 lb) to the orbit of the International Space Station, when launching from the equator.[10] Using interchangeable payload containers, Skylon could be fitted to carry satellites or fluid cargo into orbit, or, in a specialised habitation module, up to 30 astronauts in a single launch.[18][19]


Pitiful. The Apollo had a payload capcity of Fully fueled it had a total mass of 6.5 million pounds (3,000 metric tons) and a payload capacity of 260,000 pounds (120,000 kg) to LEO. (From the Wiki article).

ruveyn


How does the cost per mass compare though?



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

24 May 2011, 1:34 pm

[quote="iamnotaparakeet"

How does the cost per mass compare though?[/quote]

We were talking about lifting capacity, not cost per ton of cargo.

If I had to guess I would say this half-plane half-rocket ship is cheaper. How much cheaper? I have not the foggiest idea.

ruveyn



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

24 May 2011, 4:53 pm

ruveyn wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:

How does the cost per mass compare though?


We were talking about lifting capacity, not cost per ton of cargo.

If I had to guess I would say this half-plane half-rocket ship is cheaper. How much cheaper? I have not the foggiest idea.

ruveyn


Quote:
The price for launching a kilogram of payload into a geostationary orbit - the location for today's big telecoms satellites - is currently more than $15,000 (£9,000). Skylon's re-usability could bring that down to less than $1,000[/kg], claims REL.

If the vehicle ever does go into full production, the investment required will probably be in the region of $9-12bn (£5.5-7.5bn), but the company will not be looking to government for that money.
Link from before.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

25 May 2011, 6:12 pm

See
http://dvice.com/archives/2011/05/nasa-unveils-ne.php



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

25 May 2011, 6:34 pm

Sand wrote:
See
http://dvice.com/archives/2011/05/nasa-unveils-ne.php


And from NASA directly also:

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011/ma ... ision.html

http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/mpcv/



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

25 May 2011, 6:37 pm

Sand wrote:
See
http://dvice.com/archives/2011/05/nasa-unveils-ne.php


At least the man-carrying portion is on top where it belongs.

ruveyn



simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

25 May 2011, 7:26 pm

It's a long standing dream to have a single stage to orbit. Likely to remain a long standing one for some time.

Blue Origins (created by the Amazon founder) is trying to build a fully reusable two stage to orbit rocket that lands vertically under power. The New Shepherd. It's also likely may years away.



Last edited by simon_says on 25 May 2011, 7:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

25 May 2011, 7:29 pm

They were actually thinking of launching shuttles off of airplanes for a while but finally figured it was a bad idea.



Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

25 May 2011, 7:38 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
They were actually thinking of launching shuttles off of airplanes for a while but finally figured it was a bad idea.


there are still multiple designs using that method, some even propose a specialized high altitude carrier plane using scramjet technology.

not a bad idea, the one instance were nasa tried it simply yielded bad results.


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

25 May 2011, 7:59 pm

Sand wrote:
See
http://dvice.com/archives/2011/05/nasa-unveils-ne.php


This is not really a big deal. This is just the continuation of Orion under a different name, which was basically mandated by Congress. Next month there should be some real new information.



psychohist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,623
Location: Somerville, MA, USA

25 May 2011, 9:15 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
They were actually thinking of launching shuttles off of airplanes for a while but finally figured it was a bad idea.

Indeed - quite possibly a mistake as Space Ship One launched off an airplane and Space Ship Two will too.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

26 May 2011, 12:09 am

psychohist wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
They were actually thinking of launching shuttles off of airplanes for a while but finally figured it was a bad idea.

Indeed - quite possibly a mistake as Space Ship One launched off an airplane and Space Ship Two will too.


There is a tremendous difference between merely attaining an altitude beyond the atmosphere and reaching velocities for orbit. The latter requires huge sources of energy available only from rocket power.



Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

26 May 2011, 12:45 am

Sand wrote:
psychohist wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
They were actually thinking of launching shuttles off of airplanes for a while but finally figured it was a bad idea.

Indeed - quite possibly a mistake as Space Ship One launched off an airplane and Space Ship Two will too.


There is a tremendous difference between merely attaining an altitude beyond the atmosphere and reaching velocities for orbit. The latter requires huge sources of energy available only from rocket power.


none of the designs rely solely on the carrier plane, just a higher launch platform for the rocket.


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

26 May 2011, 1:12 am

There is also the possibility (outside of dedicated 'air-breathers') that space planes could launch without the fuel required for escape velocity and instead have refueling planes do this in air. The space plane could then build up velocity (possibly in a hybrid system with the air breathing system such as on the Skylon) before firing off the main rocket and achieving LEO


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

26 May 2011, 1:33 am

Vigilans wrote:
There is also the possibility (outside of dedicated 'air-breathers') that space planes could launch without the fuel required for escape velocity and instead have refueling planes do this in air. The space plane could then build up velocity (possibly in a hybrid system with the air breathing system such as on the Skylon) before firing off the main rocket and achieving LEO


This approach would not and could not have happened as long as v. Braun was the main mover for design. The successful Apollo was, in reality, an overgrown V2. Think of it as v. Braun's wunderwaffen.

ruveyn



MDD123
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,007

26 May 2011, 11:29 am

What I don't like is the planned mission to Mars though. The space program is already struggling and we're going to invest in a mission that is not only extremely risky, but won't offer the kind of dividends that a moon colony could.