Time To Think "Horizontal" for Future Space Launches

[ErnstBlofeld]

Defense Tech:


Is firing a rocket from the ground straight up into space the right way to do things?

It sure was in the 1950s and ‘60s and it persists today. But it’s still expensive, fraught with technical risk and dwindling into obsolescence.

There could be an alternative on the horizon, however, that incorporates the concepts of railguns, scram jets and kinetic launching into an innovative, reusable space launch system for unmanned cargo.

An early proposal has emerged that calls for a wedge-shaped aircraft with scramjets to be launched horizontally on an electrified track or gas-powered sled. The aircraft would fly up to Mach 10, using the scramjets and wings to lift it to the upper reaches of the atmosphere where a small payload canister or capsule similar to a rocket’s second stage would fire off the back of the aircraft and into orbit. The aircraft would come back and land on a runway by the launch site.

Edited September 23, 2010 by Rheo
snipped

[ErnstBlofeld]

This was proposed by Dr. Eugen Sanger in his development of an Amerika Bomber.Eugen Sänger was an Austrian-German aerospace engineer best known for his contributions to lifting body and ramjet technology.But in 1921 pioneering aviator and aircraft designer Vincent Justus Burnelli patented the simple concept of an airfoil shaped airframe to increase the lift and load capacity of aircraft

Edited September 22, 2010 by sonofstrangelove

[ErnstBlofeld]

This is the Sanger horizontal launcher developed in the 1940s

 

 

1) Captive Rocket Booster of 600 Tons Thrust 2) Sänger Amerika Bomber of 100 Tons Thrust

3) 3 Km (1.9 miles) Long Monorail Track 4) Sled Carriage

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N38oSFwlYhE&feature=player_embedded#!

[ErnstBlofeld]

Lifting bodies pose complex control, structural, and internal configuration issues. Lifting bodies were eventually rejected in favor of a delta wing design for the Space Shuttle.

[AceRimmer]

If it's for unmanned cargo, it sounds like a good idea. However, flying at Mach 10 while still under the laws of gravity(ie within the Earth's atmosphere) does not sound like something I would want to do. I don't want to find out what the G's are at that speed...

[ErnstBlofeld]

If it's for unmanned cargo, it sounds like a good idea. However, flying at Mach 10 while still under the laws of gravity(ie within the Earth's atmosphere) does not sound like something I would want to do. I don't want to find out what the G's are at that speed...

 

There have been lifting bodies that are designed for travel such as the X-30 and X-54

[AceRimmer]

If it's for unmanned cargo, it sounds like a good idea. However, flying at Mach 10 while still under the laws of gravity(ie within the Earth's atmosphere) does not sound like something I would want to do. I don't want to find out what the G's are at that speed...

 

There have been lifting bodies that are designed for travel such as the X-30 and X-54

 

I don't know what speed the Mercury, Gemini, Apollo or shuttles were going when they lifted off, but it wasn't Mach 10, at least until they were in space. I'm not a pilot, so I don't pretend to be an expert, and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but the G-force at Mach 10 seems kinda high while still obeying Einstein and Newton.

 

If NASA is working on a new travel system that means we won't have to depend on the Russians to get astronauts into space, more power to them. Now the question is, when are we going back to the Moon?

[ErnstBlofeld]

If it's for unmanned cargo, it sounds like a good idea. However, flying at Mach 10 while still under the laws of gravity(ie within the Earth's atmosphere) does not sound like something I would want to do. I don't want to find out what the G's are at that speed...

 

There have been lifting bodies that are designed for travel such as the X-30 and X-54

 

I don't know what speed the Mercury, Gemini, Apollo or shuttles were going when they lifted off, but it wasn't Mach 10, at least until they were in space. I'm not a pilot, so I don't pretend to be an expert, and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but the G-force at Mach 10 seems kinda high while still obeying Einstein and Newton.

 

If NASA is working on a new travel system that means we won't have to depend on the Russians to get astronauts into space, more power to them. Now the question is, when are we going back to the Moon?

I am expert.Pilots of high-performance jet aircraft experience 7 to 9 G’s routinely and wear G-suits to prevent the blood from pooling in the lower extremities and causing blackouts. Astronauts face 3 to 4 G’s for extended periods of time. There is something called an astronaut support couch.It was molded exoskeletons that helped support the gravity pressure of launch. These couches were used in the early days of NASA.

[AceRimmer]

The fastest bird we ever had that wasn't attached to rockets was the SR-71, and that was about mach 3-4(?). Tom Wolfe wrote in "The Right Stuff" that the Air Force was working on aircraft that were even faster, and capable of achieving orbit, but the projects were canceled when NASA launched Mercury.

 

I'm just trying to imagine the G's you'd pull at mach 10.

[ErnstBlofeld]

The fastest bird we ever had that wasn't attached to rockets was the SR-71, and that was about mach 3-4(?). Tom Wolfe wrote in "The Right Stuff" that the Air Force was working on aircraft that were even faster, and capable of achieving orbit, but the projects were canceled when NASA launched Mercury.

 

I'm just trying to imagine the G's you'd pull at mach 10.

 

 

The really big projects that NASA and the USAF flirted with in the 60s was Blue Gemini, MOL(Manned Orbital Laboratory) and the Dyna Soar(X-20). With the Dyna Soar project, it can trace its lineage back to the Sanger Amerika Bomber.

Edited September 22, 2010 by sonofstrangelove