Another space launch start-up
- Thread starter RAMA
- Start date
He needs at 12,000 foot runway?
I still like that there are people willing to get involved with it, this gives me hope that space will almost quietly seep into our lives, as opposed to hitting us over the head with sledgehammer firsts, such as landing on Mars. The more attempts that occur or even possibly fail, will meanthere is more chance for some to succeed, we need to at least try!
RAMA
Interesting..but carrying a liquid fueled missile up into the sky carries a large degree of risk...
what's the abort procedure..and where would the fully fueled rocket go if it was jettisoned..even a self destruct system can be an issue if it's done over land...
I see this puppy launching from coastal spaceports and doing it's launches over water for safety's sake.
what's the abort procedure..and where would the fully fueled rocket go if it was jettisoned..even a self destruct system can be an issue if it's done over land...
I see this puppy launching from coastal spaceports and doing it's launches over water for safety's sake.
Last edited:
I don't understand how two vehicles can be 5-10 percent more efficient than one. You are lifting the rocket weight either way, plus the extra weight of the jet engines for the two vehicle solution. Is it just that a jet engine is that much more efficient to over come the extra weight and still come out ahead when compared to just rocket?
A 12,000 foot runway isn't that unusual. Most airports that accommodate wide body jet transports (freight and passenger) are longer than that. The width of that monster would be a more likely issue, not just clearing things like runway/taxiway signs and radio navigation antennas but also ingesting loose material (including wildlife) from grass areas adjacent to the pavement into the engines.
Large aircraft carry large quantities of flammable liquids over populated areas every day. The issues with high performance rockets have been related to the much higher volume pumps and high pressures and temperatures in the nozzles, which wouldn't be an issue until the "upper" stage is ignited.
Large aircraft carry large quantities of flammable liquids over populated areas every day. The issues with high performance rockets have been related to the much higher volume pumps and high pressures and temperatures in the nozzles, which wouldn't be an issue until the "upper" stage is ignited.
^Abort scenarios would still limit it to launching mostly over water. "Any time, anywhere" is just spin. How many airports have the facilities to support the combined vehicle? Last I checked most don't have LOX storage.
I think Paul Allen could have spent his money in support of space better by helping an existing operation.
I think Paul Allen could have spent his money in support of space better by helping an existing operation.
Last edited:
Well, I'm with RAMA on this one. I think this is great news. A launch platform 100 times safer than how the shuttle launched. Heck, they don't even need an escape rocket! If something goes wrong they're already thousands of feet in the air and could just release the command module to parachute back to Earth.
More links here:
http://www.starshipmodeler.net/talk/viewtopic.php?t=97020
http://www.starshipmodeler.net/talk/viewtopic.php?t=97020
