Orbiter-Forum  

Go Back   Orbiter-Forum > Far Side of the Moon > Spaceflight News
Register Blogs Orbinauts List Social Groups FAQ Projects Mark Forums Read

Notices

Spaceflight News Share news, stories, or discussions about government and private spaceflight programs; including ESA, ISS, NASA, Russian Space Program, Virgin Galactic, & more!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-23-2011, 04:44 PM   #76
C3PO
Donator
 
C3PO's Avatar

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by T.Neo View Post
 I never suggested doing a direct ascent, rather doing a 'traditional' ascent with more 'dV expensive' manuvers to catch up to the target in a reduced period of time.
Then what are the dog-leg maneuver you're talking about? They're not done during the ascent, neither during orbital operations. Is there another period that I'm not aware of?

The point is that a winged first stage makes it much easier to do a direct ascent. Or an ascent with fewer phasing orbits. Or with awkward launch azimuths.

There is no "wrong" or "right" way to launch. It all depends on the mission, hardware, [________] etc.

Your continued statements that you're much smarter than most participants in the COTS programme, without any reasonable argument or example or calculation, simply doesn't impress me at all.
C3PO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2011, 09:36 PM   #77
T.Neo
SA 2010 Soccermaniac
 
T.Neo's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Then what are the dog-leg maneuver you're talking about?
The dog-leg maneuver is a dog-leg maneuver, don't confuse it with anything else.

Quote:
The point is that a winged first stage makes it much easier to do a direct ascent.
And have several other disadvantages.

But where is this requirement for a direct ascent? You don't need a 2-hour transit time to get an acceptable market for space tourism (for example), millions of people take trips to places that last for half a day or more.

The prohibitative factor is the price of the trip, and if you halve that you'll see far more increased interest than if you halved the time to docking.

Quote:
Your continued statements that you're much smarter than most participants in the COTS programme, without any reasonable argument or example or calculation, simply doesn't impress me at all.
I am sorry about that, because;

1. Stratolaunch is not connected to COTS/CCDev except for the involvement of SpaceX, which is a contractor.

2. I never stated I was smarter, but rather detailed scenarios where an assumed (or their stated) business case could fail or their technical decisions could be disadvantageous.

3. Groups of smart, experienced people can come together with good intentions and work hard, and still be wrong.

Last edited by T.Neo; 12-23-2011 at 09:47 PM.
T.Neo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2011, 11:53 PM   #78
C3PO
Donator
 
C3PO's Avatar

Default

You don't answer any questions, do you?
When exactly do you propose that dog-leg maneuver to occur? And how much of an advantage will you gain by that method?

What does direct ascent have to do with space tourism? Is this particular project even supposed to be manned? I thought it was about flexibility.

How does "being a contractor" translate to: "not connected"?

So you don't say you're smarter, but you've spotted a flaw in a plan made by "Groups of smart, experienced people". I think I'll let people make up their own mind about those statements.
C3PO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2011, 11:10 AM   #79
T.Neo
SA 2010 Soccermaniac
 
T.Neo's Avatar
Default

Quote:
When exactly do you propose that dog-leg maneuver to occur?
During launch, just like the dog-leg manuvers done by STS, Delta and Atlas.

Quote:
And how much of an advantage will you gain by that method?
I don't know, I just suggested it as an option to launch slightly out of plane of the target orbit.

Quote:
What does direct ascent have to do with space tourism?
The idea that it would be useful due to a reduced travel time to the space station or 'orbital hotel', which would make it more attractive from a customer standpoint.

Quote:
Is this particular project even supposed to be manned?
I think it is implied, for example by the animations/graphics depicting Stratolaunch lifting what looks like a Dragon capsule.

Quote:
I thought it was about flexibility.
Well, flexibility can be a nice buzzword. You can also achieve flexibility by being able to launch 400 tons of payload to the ISS, but such a capability would be totally meaningless.

In the US exist two launch sites that can cover pretty much all demanded orbits, and limitations by the Earth's rotation (i.e. being able to launch to the ISS only once a day) are more or less matched by the rate at which the vehicle can be prepared or 'recycled' for launch.

Quote:
How does "being a contractor" translate to: "not connected"?
If Bob sells apples to Applemart, and also sells apples to Alice (who makes apple juice), it does not mean that Alice sells anything to Applemart.

Quote:
So you don't say you're smarter, but you've spotted a flaw in a plan made by "Groups of smart, experienced people".
Er... no. I've explained ways I think the plan could be flawed. I haven't said whether it is flawed or not, I have no idea.
T.Neo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2012, 10:31 AM   #80
orb
O-F Administrator
Ninja
 
orb's Avatar

Default

Parabolic Arc: Stratolaunch Breaks Ground on Mojave Production Facility

SPACE.com: Construction of Giant Hangar for Rocket-Launching Monster Jet Begins
orb is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2012, 07:29 PM   #81
orb
O-F Administrator
Ninja
 
orb's Avatar

Default

Parabolic Arc: Stratolaunch Accepts First 747 for New Launch Aircraft:
Quote:
HUNTSVILLE, AL, February 15, 2012 (Stratolaunch PR) - Today Stratolaunch systems closed on purchase of the first of two Boeing 747-400 aircraft that are being purchased from United Airlines.

Stratolaunch contractor Scaled Composites of Mojave California with support from their subcontractor BAE Systems has developed a complete plan for how the engines, landing gear, hydraulics and other subsystem components of these aircraft will be disassembled and reintegrated into a custom composite aircraft to be built by Scaled Composites in Stratolaunch’s new integration facility being built at the Mojave Air and Space Port.

Tail number N196UA made its final journey on its way to becoming part of a revolutionary new aircraft last Friday and after final receiving inspection we have accepted the aircraft from United.

“The arrival of the first 747 aircraft in Mojave is extremely exciting for our team. This demonstrates Mr. Allen’s commitment to press forward with establishing a space transportation system that will change the way we currently perform space launch,” said Gary Wentz, CEO and President of Stratolaunch. A second aircraft will arrive in Mojave in late February to provide most of the remaining 747-400 components needed to assemble Stratolaunch’s new mother ship.

Editor’s Note: The aircraft had been sitting outside the Scaled Composites hangar in Mojave for almost three weeks. It was towed down the flight line on Thursday and now sits in front of the large BAE Systems hangar.


A retired United Airlines 747 in front of the Scaled Composites hangar in Mojave. (Credit: Stratolaunch Systems)

{...}
orb is online now   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 04-27-2012, 01:45 PM   #82
orb
O-F Administrator
Ninja
 
orb's Avatar

Default

Parabolic Arc: Exclusive Photos: Stratolaunch Hangar Under Construction

First Stratolaunch hangar under construction in late April 2012. (Credit: Douglas Messier)




orb is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2012, 03:17 PM   #83
jonmatifa
Orbinaut
Default

To me, this is an exciting development, not because this technique will revolutionize space travel or even make it cheaper or more accessible, but because we are getting back to the "don't tell me what I can't do" mindset of exploration and experimentation of the days of the X-15, Mercury, Gemini and Apollo. If this is where commercial space endeavors are taking us, then retiring the Space Shuttle is the best thing that could have happened for long term progress.

In an era where the White Houses's and NASA's collective ambitions are at an all time low, the idea of capable individuals creating industries around ideas of mining asteroids and air launching orbital vehicles IS innovation, which is exactly what we need right now if we ever hope to progress space exploration.

To be fair, the Space Shuttle and ISS collectively, standing on the shoulders of the achievements before them is undoubtedly one of the greatest, if not the greatest feat of engineering to date.
jonmatifa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2012, 06:03 PM   #84
MaverickSawyer
Acolyte of the Probe
 
MaverickSawyer's Avatar
Default

Dang. That's fast work! They broke ground only a few months ago...
MaverickSawyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2012, 04:37 PM   #85
Rareth
Orbinaut
Default

I was wondering why they didn't design this around a pair of B-52s instead of the 747s they went with.
Rareth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2012, 01:58 AM   #86
Hlynkacg
Aspiring rocket scientist
 
Hlynkacg's Avatar


Default

Because 747s are easier to come by and structurally suited to the task.

A more a more appropriate question would be why b52s?

Last edited by Hlynkacg; 05-17-2012 at 02:00 AM.
Hlynkacg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2012, 11:22 AM   #87
Rareth
Orbinaut
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hlynkacg View Post
 Because 747s are easier to come by and structurally suited to the task.

A more a more appropriate question would be why b52s?
how is a bomber not structurally suited to carrying a heavy load?

as for why.. they can carry more and have a higher flight ceiling.
Rareth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2012, 01:35 AM   #88
Capt_hensley
Captain, USS Pabilli
 
Capt_hensley's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rareth View Post
 I was wondering why they didn't design this around a pair of B-52s instead of the 747s they went with.
the 747's used are very young, when compared to the most recent B-52 that was built.
Capt_hensley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2012, 08:39 AM   #89
T.Neo
SA 2010 Soccermaniac
 
T.Neo's Avatar
Default

747s might also be preferable due to the fact that they're a civillian, rather than military aircraft.
T.Neo is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 05-20-2012, 08:45 AM   #90
Codz
Orion/SLS supporter.
 
Codz's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rareth View Post
 I was wondering why they didn't design this around a pair of B-52s instead of the 747s they went with.
B-52's would be hard to procure for a non-governmental entity.
Codz is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Orbiter-Forum > Far Side of the Moon > Spaceflight News


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:32 PM.

Quick Links Need Help?


About Us | Rules & Guidelines | TOS Policy | Privacy Policy

Orbiter-Forum is hosted at Orbithangar.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2007 - 2012, Orbiter-Forum.com. All rights reserved.