Orbiter-Forum [News] Stratolaunch
 Register Blogs Orbinauts List Social Groups FAQ Projects Mark Forums Read

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

 12-20-2011, 01:05 AM #61 C3PO Donator Quote: Originally Posted by T.Neo  Depends on how severe a dog-leg you fly. Try it.
 12-20-2011, 10:45 AM #62 T.Neo SA 2010 Soccermaniac Quote: Try it. Depends on how severe a dog-leg you fly. From what launch site? To what orbit? With what vehicle? At what point in the flightpath?
 12-20-2011, 04:07 PM #63 C3PO Donator Quote: Originally Posted by T.Neo  Depends on how severe a dog-leg you fly. From what launch site? To what orbit? With what vehicle? At what point in the flightpath? Your choice, any site, any target, any vehicle. Just try launching out of plane.
 12-20-2011, 04:17 PM #64 T.Neo SA 2010 Soccermaniac Quote: Just try launching out of plane. Are you trying to be facetious? If you are so desperate to prove that it is impossible, show it yourself. Last edited by T.Neo; 12-20-2011 at 04:20 PM.
 12-20-2011, 09:28 PM #65 C3PO Donator Quote: Originally Posted by T.Neo  If you are so desperate to prove that it is impossible, show it yourself. Progress --> ISS Worst case would be a 22.5° plane change, so let's use ~50% of that: 11° DV: 1380 m/s Extra fuel for plane change: 3618 kg Max payload 2350 kg Payload reduction: 154% The calculations include negative mass for payload, so you would have to add larger fuel tanks to make it to ISS. Then you need to include the increased gross mass to all the orbital maneuvers, so I'm guessing the final number would be closer to 200% payload reduction.
 12-20-2011, 09:32 PM #66 T.Neo SA 2010 Soccermaniac Quote: Worst case would be a 22.5° plane change, so let's use ~50% of that: 11° DV: 1380 m/s Extra fuel for plane change: 3618 kg Max payload 2350 kg Payload reduction: 154% The calculations include negative mass for payload, so you would have to add larger fuel tanks to make it to ISS. Then you need to include the increased gross mass to all the orbital maneuvers, so I'm guessing the final number would be closer to 200% payload reduction. Wait, you're talking about a plane-change on orbit, done by the propulsion onboard the spacecraft itself? I'm talking about flying the launch vehicle sideways to change inclination as was performed on some Shuttle and Delta II flights.
 12-20-2011, 09:37 PM #67 C3PO Donator Quote: Originally Posted by T.Neo  An aggressive rendezvous has nothing to do with launch location but rather the amount of dV expended in orbit. And it is a trade-off: do you want a shortened rendezvous time, if it results in even a 50% payload reduction? Quote: Originally Posted by T.Neo  Wait, you're talking about a plane-change on orbit, done by the propulsion onboard the spacecraft itself? I'm talking about flying the launch vehicle sideways to change inclination as was performed on some Shuttle and Delta II flights. Can you please make up your mind?
 12-20-2011, 09:39 PM #68 T.Neo SA 2010 Soccermaniac Quote: Can you please make up your mind? I made my mind up a long time ago, but I didn't clarify that my envisioning of an "aggressive rendezvous" assumed that the spacecraft and its target were more or less in the same plane.
 12-21-2011, 12:52 AM #69 C3PO Donator Calculating dog-leg during ascent is a bit too complex for me. (for this discussion anyway) But I doubt that any existing launcher will make it into orbit, even without payload, if the target plane is more than a few degrees off. Quote: .... assumed that the spacecraft and its target were more or less in the same plane That is the way we do things now using launch sites. But the target may be in the wrong position for a direct ascent by the time the launch site is in-plane. By using a plane as a first stage it's possible to fly out to the location where you're in-plane at the same as the target is at the optimal TrA. A winged first stage does this kind of maneuver much more efficiently than a ballistic one.
 12-21-2011, 02:30 PM #70 zerofay32 Buckeye While I don't have hard numbers yet, in order for the shuttle to perform a 'dog-leg' maneuver, NASA was planning to utilize five segment SRBs or Liquid boosters (all the way up to STS-107 when the 5-seg SRB was finally nixed from the SSP). This would have allowed acceptable payload to a south-north polar orbit or 20,000 lb more payload to an ISS-inclination orbit. I haven't found any info on if the shuttle would be able to perform the maneuver empty but what is the point of an empty space shuttle? My opinion is, there are too many unknowns in the system to make a definitive conclusion. Personally I like the idea of air launching an orbit bound payload. But the advantages and disadvantages have yet to be explored in real world conditions yet. I'll wait until they produce some hardware
 Thanked by:
 12-21-2011, 04:05 PM #71 C3PO Donator Quote: Originally Posted by zerofay32  My opinion is, there are too many unknowns in the system to make a definitive conclusion. Personally I like the idea of air launching an orbit bound payload. But the advantages and disadvantages have yet to be explored in real world conditions yet. I'll wait until they produce some hardware That's exactly why I'm excited about this project.
 Thanked by:
 12-21-2011, 04:39 PM #72 Napalm42 Drell Admiral, Citadel Fleet Quote: Originally Posted by Hielor  - I can't be the only one thinking "go around, go around" on that landing video--way too high and fast, and they ate up a ton of runway in the roundout and flare... I was nearly screaming
 12-22-2011, 05:43 PM #73 T.Neo SA 2010 Soccermaniac Quote: That is the way we do things now using launch sites. But the target may be in the wrong position for a direct ascent by the time the launch site is in-plane. 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.
 12-22-2011, 08:53 PM #74 Sky Captain Orbinaut I guess if the huge carrier aircraft could be used to also carry oversized air cargo then the concept might be finnancially viable. An 225 is used quite often to carry heavy machinery to remote regions. If a runway can handle the An 225 then it also should be able to handle this plane since the weight is quite similar. That way they could avoid the poblem of spending hundreds of millions of \$ on a new aircraft that is used only few times per year.
 12-23-2011, 03:29 PM #75 orb O-F Administrator Parabolic Arc: Stratolaunch Extends Northrop Grumman’s Commercial Space Portfolio: Quote: NGC PR — REDONDO BEACH, Calif., Dec. 22, 2011 — Northrop Grumman Corporation expanded its commercial space portfolio with Stratolaunch Systems’ recent selection of Scaled Composites, a Northrop Grumman subsidiary, to build the largest aircraft ever constructed. This is the latest example of the company’s innovative solutions to challenging problems. Scaled Composites is developing an air-launch system for Stratolaunch Systems, which is a Paul G. Allen project that will revolutionize space transportation by providing orbital access to space at lower costs, greater safety and increased flexibility. “This private spaceflight initiative represents a significant leap forward in defining technologies today which will open doors tomorrow for affordable commercial space transportation,” said Paul Meyer, vice president and general manager of advanced programs and technologies for Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems. “Whether it be manned and unmanned aircraft, space systems or advanced technologies, we are focused on developing innovative solutions that enable the growth of the aerospace industry.” {...}

 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 User Control Panel Private Messages Subscriptions Who's Online Search Forums Forums Home Orbiter-Forum.com     Announcements     Meets & Greets Orbiter Space Flight Simulator     Orbiter Web Forum         OFMM         Orbiter Forum Space Station         Simpit Forum     General Questions & Help     MFD Questions & Help     Hardware & Software Help     Tutorials & Challenges     Orbiter SDK     Orbiter Visualization Project     Orbiter Beta » Orbiter Project Orbiter Addons     OrbitHangar Addons & Comments     Addons     Addon Development     Addon Requests     Addon Support & Bugs         Addon Developer Forums             Project Apollo - NASSP     Orbiter Lua Scripting Far Side of the Moon     Spaceflight News     Math & Physics     Astronomy & the Night Sky     Backyard Rocketry     Brighton Lounge     International Forum

All times are GMT. The time now is 02:42 AM.