Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm in 100% agreement with that point. I recently finished a modeling project for a sounding rocket where we achieved an optimal solution (highest altitude, speed) by moving our launch site from near-sea-level to a remote desert location in Utah with an elevation of 5000 feet. Solved all our problems. Drag losses due to tunneling through the high-density regions of the atmosphere at KSC are phenominal! For most space applications, an air-launch from the equatorial regions would be ideal. Or from a mountaintop.
I don't think you'll get much delta-V benefit from a fast aircraft when you compare the speeds you need to what you can get out of a large aircraft, but you can certainly minimize your drag losses by going high. I wonder if anyone has ever proposed a balloon launch platform; like Sea-Launch but with Zepplins?
There are hundreds of ideas out there for combined-cycle rocket/airbreathing engines.
Yeah, it's about altitude, not velocity, although say 500 MPH headed East for free does not hurt anything.
I have read some books from the 40's and 50's where launch from the top of a mountain somewhere in Mexico was suggested, both for the "free" altitude and for the "free" Eastward velocity from being closer to the Equator.
The Russian Sea Launch is specifically to get to an equatorial launch, although it's pretty much by definition starting from 0 altitude.
Except for the fact that it's been done a lot, I don't see much advantage to vertical launch for non-military applications.
IIRC some early sounding rockets were carried up in balloons.
Another point for serious space exploration is that *everything* does not have to go up in one rocket. The Gemini docking operations were to prove out the technology to dock one orbiting vehicle to another, in Gemeni the 2 vehicles went up separately. This technology was only used in Apollo to turn the Command/Service Module around and pick up the Lunar Module, however in principle they could have gone up on 2 different rockets.
So will all other species, but isn't it odd, none of them have yet.
Yea, and the extinction rate for species across the history of the planet is what.. 99%? I guess they failed to leave the planet too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88
Americans will need to spread out into other continents, if the nationality is to survive in the future, too. The nearer future. What is your plan for that?
Um... Move to Switzerland? You must have just come out from watching the movie "Avatar" to think it's a bad idea.
How much more does it cost for a man to ride along?
Hugely more. Food, water, temperature control, internal atmosphere maintenance, pressurization and maintenance of same, safety and emergency procedures, communications, guarantee of a safe return. All these add-ons also add weight, and therefore you need a bigger launch vehicle, more fuel, and so forth. It becomes a spiral of exponentially rising costs and risks.
As we're seeing with unmanned aerial war craft for survellance and even attack, it costs so much less to send out an autonomous vehicle to do the initial exploration or task at hand. We could eventually produce artificial intelligence devices capable of landing on some distant planet, where it will assemble a habitable base, begin mining for water, minerals, etc. to provide a safe haven for our later, much more expensive arrival and survival.
Eventually our species will have to exit this planet. God is not coming to get us, but the sun will wreck havoc eventually. We may even determine, next month or next year, that some massive asteroid will hit us in a few years. Better that we begin to explore what is necessary to get out of here. Example: A huge space station that is self-contained and capable of survival without ties to Earth is what will allow us to leave this solar system on a long journey to find a suitable new home.
So will all other species, but isn't it odd, none of them have yet.
Americans will need to spread out into other continents, if the nationality is to survive in the future, too. The nearer future. What is your plan for that?
The other species here are now officially limited or reduced by man's continuing exponential habitat encroachment and modification, as well as our total lack of respect for the other inhabitants on this planet.
We certainly are having a measurable effect, at 6.5+ B population, on this planet, it's resources and it's future. I'm not buying into Al Gore's global warming theories just yet, but to also suggest, as that self-serving idiot Limbaugh does, that we're having absolutely no effect on our environment, is patently stupid. The only thing that is apparently unlimited is human arrogance.
Any organic population will always self-limit, of course. Any ecologist can tell you how and show you examples. Trouble is, if left to itself, it's always unpleasant, versus us planning for it.
You aerospace engineering types: what's the current status of the pulse/ram jet runway launched spaceplane stuff? Too many obstacles? Runs out of fuel before getting up far enough? Skin gets too hot? What's up, so to speak, with that concept?
We need to spend the money on real needs that are here on this planet NOW and not the dreams of a few that are getting paid too much. Zllions on going to no place thats inportant.
I agree, chief, but we could also invest in aerospace engineering and concept while still taking care of our own here on Earth. For instance: the wars on this planet. There must be a better way to reduce the population, right?
If we were smart enough to live within the limits on this planet, we would have endless abundance. That's a fact!
Manned Space exploration is needed to keep the dream alive and to learn far more then we can without humans actively exploring where ever we can go. Just developing the technology expands the possibilities of out own economy so the costs are returned with a lot of interest. This is a great place for the government to spend taxes. IMHO protecting a privately owned oil oligopoly’ access to oil they do not own is about the worst place to spend our money.
As far as Earth’s habitability is concerned, The Earth is really big but is still a finite Petri dish. Humans can over crowd the place. So which one of you will step up and hire the remaining Horsemen of the Apocalypse? War and Death are already occupied but Pestilence and Plague are looking for work.
IMHO Space exploration in general should cease...unless it directly relates to our national defense & security. They spend way too much money on it when we have other pressing needs here at home!
The only thing that is apparently unlimited is human arrogance.
I disagree with this statement. As an individual, a human can be arrogant, intelligent, willful, stubborn, compassionate, friendly.
As a species on the macroscopic scale, we are no different from any other organism and arrogance has nothing to do with it. Which is to say, you cannot anthropromorphize humans, haha. We propogate to the maximum limits of our environment. Because we evolved a superior weapon (the brain) to any possessed by any other creature we became the apex predator and have managed to push back the natural limits like food supply (without agriculture we would probably be limited to a few million individuals), climate (without clothes, we would only be able to live in a narrow belt around the equator) etc.
Quote:
Any organic population will always self-limit, of course. Any ecologist can tell you how and show you examples. Trouble is, if left to itself, it's always unpleasant, versus us planning for it.
Quoted For Truth.
Quote:
You aerospace engineering types: what's the current status of the pulse/ram jet runway launched spaceplane stuff? Too many obstacles? Runs out of fuel before getting up far enough? Skin gets too hot? What's up, so to speak, with that concept?
IMO and this is my personal O, horizontal launch is a dream. We found out with the X-program that orbital launch simply costs more horizontal than vertical. It's a dead horse and we should stop beating it. Turbo-ram-rockets. Ramrockets, Air Turbo-Rockets aren't a new idea. They didn't work in the 60's and not enough has changed in the materials world to make them work today.
In a nutshell:
Ram/Scram doesn't operate below Mach 1.
Ram/Scram doesn't operate up to orbital velocities or altitudes.
Turbojet doesn't operate from Mach 3 to orbit.
So, if you want to go from Zero to Orbit, you need turbojet (probably with pulse det) then ram/scram, then rocket. And each time you switch, you carry all the dead weight of the turbojet, ram/scram, etc. So a triple system is just too heavy. Or you can use a rocket to push you to ram/scram, switch it off for a bit, then switch it back on when your scramjet tops out. But really, is it worth it? Trade studies and experiments say no.
Adding a drop plane (a recoverable stage, basically) which takes you up to ram/scram velocities adds complexity and expense.
In the end, it's just better to go rocket all the way up. Eventually you're going to have to light a rocket to get you where you need to go. Why tack on a ton of airbreathing mass which eats up any payload gain you get and ends up costing you more money and time?
My 2 cents about that.
What we need are:
- Bigger dumber chemical boosters.
- Nuclear Thermal Rockets
- Active structures (space fountain/elevator or launch loop)
I disagree with this statement. As an individual, a human can be arrogant, intelligent, willful, stubborn, compassionate, friendly.
As a species on the macroscopic scale, we are no different from any other organism and arrogance has nothing to do with it.
Actually, I'd say our ability to consider our future and then manipulate the present to alter the trajectory is unique in the animal kingdom. It created Hitler's and Mao's plans, as well as those of Nixon, the Bushs, and now, Mr. Obama. All have agendas and have planned and initiated policies to achieve their ultimate goals. We and they may be friendly on the surface but underneath we all have that element of subterfuge and deceit. In my personal experience of course.
Pol Pot? Stalin? J. Edgar Hoover? All essentially evil and selfish but powerful enough to create problems for many Earth-captive citizens.
We're drifting off trajectory, but to me, space exploration, manned or robotic and then later manned, is the pinnacle of human exploration. I also suspect the fiscal and psychological costs of such exploration to the US, compared to that of our current wars, is small. The results however are gigantic. At least to the curiously minded.
Sad to hear about the prognosis for horizontal takeoffs. Perhaps some magnetically contained ion-blast fusion reactor engine will enable us in the distant future?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
