And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
If ever commercialized and put into service, I wonder how many people will die as the inevitable crashes and mishaps occur. New technology always has kinks that need to be discovered and worked out.
Until we can find some wonderfuel that packs more wallop than current fuels, SSTO (single stage to orbit) is a losing proposition. Takes too much fuel of any kind to get to an altitude where internal fuel only will carry the vehicle to orbit.
This is why SpaceX's Starship is a dual-unit system. Booster to lift partly out of the gravity and air-resistance well, and then Starship takes it to Low Earth Orbit.
Those huge wings are also a huge weight and drag penalty. There are a number of detailed analysis about why space planes are a losing proposition. The only ones that are workable have quite small wings used only for landing.
Stopping to refuel after launch makes a big difference, I will bet the plan was to tank from both KC-135s before accelerating past Mach one and heading to orbit.
We don't have design numbers but the bird would be almost empty of rocket fuel and oxidizer and probably mostly empty of jet fuel too. That makes landling loads a lot lower so there may have been a 2nd set of landing-only gear stowed in her belly.
Will never happen, could never work and is just another NASA fantasy.
Why did it take 7 days for their latest alleged moon rocket to get to the moon when 50 years ago, using a smaller rocket the Apollo missions got there in 3 days?
A manned mission has to worry about food, waste, air, water, and power consumption all the way there and back. An unmanned mission can use solar cells for power so there isn't a need for an expensive high speed orbit.
As to if SSTO is possible, I will trust the engineers who said yes, we can over anyone who says impossible before it is tried.
If ever commercialized and put into service, I wonder how many people will die as the inevitable crashes and mishaps occur. New technology always has kinks that need to be discovered and worked out.
ReplyDeleteIt better not use fossil fuel because that's b-a-a-a-a-d!
ReplyDeleteUntil we can find some wonderfuel that packs more wallop than current fuels, SSTO (single stage to orbit) is a losing proposition. Takes too much fuel of any kind to get to an altitude where internal fuel only will carry the vehicle to orbit.
ReplyDeleteThis is why SpaceX's Starship is a dual-unit system. Booster to lift partly out of the gravity and air-resistance well, and then Starship takes it to Low Earth Orbit.
Those huge wings are also a huge weight and drag penalty. There are a number of detailed analysis about why space planes are a losing proposition. The only ones that are workable have quite small wings used only for landing.
DeleteStopping to refuel after launch makes a big difference, I will bet the plan was to tank from both KC-135s before accelerating past Mach one and heading to orbit.
ReplyDeleteI’m betting landing would be a frisky proposition, in that all the gear was shed on takeoff.
ReplyDeleteWe don't have design numbers but the bird would be almost empty of rocket fuel and oxidizer and probably mostly empty of jet fuel too. That makes landling loads a lot lower so there may have been a 2nd set of landing-only gear stowed in her belly.
DeleteRubber bands. Really big rubber bands.
ReplyDeleteC'mon people, do I have to do all the thinking?
Will never happen, could never work and is just another NASA fantasy.
ReplyDeleteWhy did it take 7 days for their latest alleged moon rocket to get to the moon when 50 years ago, using a smaller rocket the Apollo missions got there in 3 days?
Everything NASA tells you is a lie
A manned mission has to worry about food, waste, air, water, and power consumption all the way there and back. An unmanned mission can use solar cells for power so there isn't a need for an expensive high speed orbit.
DeleteAs to if SSTO is possible, I will trust the engineers who said yes, we can over anyone who says impossible before it is tried.
Really? So they can just ramp up the future speed of the alleged Orion rocket by 133%? How does that work?
DeleteAccording to NASA Apollo 11 travelled @ 6,340mph. Orion is currently moving @ 1,782mph. That's quite a difference.
DeleteConsidering Escape velocity is about 25,000 mph (11.186 km/sec) I think you are misreading or misinterpreting the average speeds above. T
Deletehere isn't ONE path to the Moon or one speed to get there so comparing the transit times doesn't make a lot of sense.
That runway must be 10 miles long.
ReplyDelete