Does anyone else see a big problem here?
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 71
  1. #1
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    2,997

    Does anyone else see a big problem here?

    BANNED

  2. #2
    Quiet, daddy's drinking
    Reputation: Turtleherder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    5,824
    It looks like it was put together by a demented little kid with the Legos he found under the couch.
    Just because you won't listen to reason does not mean I have to listen to idiocy.

    No collusion with the delusion

    “Nationalism always breaks its promises because nationalists hate enemies in their countries more than they hate the enemies of their countries" The Guardian.

  3. #3
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Akirasho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,205
    The aircraft seems to follow the rules of aerodynamics, so no probs. OTOH, A mainstay of several branches of the US military in the 1960's was the F4 Phantom, which proved that if you applied enuff thrust, even a brick could fly.


  4. #4
    feelin' Freddie Mercury
    Reputation: SystemShock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    32,386
    Quote Originally Posted by duriel View Post
    Does anyone else see a big problem here?


    https://www.npr.org/2019/04/14/71330...ne-takes-fligh
    Eh? Not sure what the problem is.

    Though at first, I did think it didn't make sense as a launch platform because a conventional sub-sonic plane launching rockets at below Mach 1 and from 35,000 feet isn't really making achieving orbit significantly easier for the rocket.. no real significant advantage in terms of payload-to-orbit for a given rocket mass, say.

    But then I read further into the article, and the whole point of it apparently is to be able to launch rockets even in bad weather... no more 'weather delays', since you're launching ABOVE the weather, effectively.

    So it seems to be a nice alternative to traditional launch pads, or perhaps it could be a back-up to them that could be prepped if the forecast for launch day is that weather will render conventional launch pads a no-go.

    Still not sure what the 'big problem' is that you're referring to. The launch plane isn't a 737 MAX.
    .
    Monkhouse: I want to go like my Dad did – peacefully, in his sleep, not screaming in terror like his passengers.

    System: Fake news?? Trump's a Fake President, for God's sake.

    Plat: I'd rather fellate a syphilitic goat than own a Cervelo.

    Homer: I believe that children are our future. Unless we stop them now.

    Seam: Saw Bjork poop onstage back in the day. It blew my teenage mind


  5. #5
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Oxtox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    10,300
    looks pretty cool to me.

    similar design to this one...

    Attachment 324951
    Ancient Astronaut theorists say, 'YES!'

  6. #6
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    2,997
    My problem:

    1. You have 3 engines on your right and 3 engines way way over there. If balance of power is not met (flame out, lose of fuel, turbine explosion) it is going to be very hard to control and all unbalance goes through that one center wing section. To say if there were some structural failure in that section, guess what, you have 2 planes, both with all engines on one side on the one wing you got.
    2. If there is bad weather, how in the * are you going to take off in that thing, carrying your payload.
    3. Was that built by Boeing with their own quality control oversight?
    4. I'm thinking we could have saved a billion $ by letting that POS idea pass and moving on.
    5. If one is going to Mars, your going to take off in that thing? I don't think so. Building an orbiting launch station to me would be a way better idea. Now building a small vehicle to fly back and forth to there would be a great idea.
    BANNED

  7. #7
    Adorable Furry Hombre
    Reputation: Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    27,523
    Quote Originally Posted by SystemShock View Post
    Eh? Not sure what the problem is.

    Though at first, I did think it didn't make sense as a launch platform because a conventional sub-sonic plane launching rockets at below Mach 1 and from 35,000 feet isn't really making achieving orbit significantly easier for the rocket.. no real significant advantage in terms of payload-to-orbit for a given rocket mass, say.

    But then I read further into the article, and the whole point of it apparently is to be able to launch rockets even in bad weather... no more 'weather delays', since you're launching ABOVE the weather, effectively.

    So it seems to be a nice alternative to traditional launch pads, or perhaps it could be a back-up to them that could be prepped if the forecast for launch day is that weather will render conventional launch pads a no-go.

    Still not sure what the 'big problem' is that you're referring to. The launch plane isn't a 737 MAX.
    .

    Depends on what you're comparing to and able to launch with that plane.

    For reference, it took the Space Shuttle about 60 seconds of burning a crapload of rocket propellant to get to 35,000 feet (caveat emptor it was going hella faster than 200MPH by then)....Which IIRC the SRBs themselves only had a total of 2 minutes of burn-time total---500,000kg of solid rocket fuel (rough guess, burned half of it), as well as another 700,000kg of liquid rocket fuel (rough guess 1/8th of that) to get to airliner altitude.

    https://space.stackexchange.com/ques...shuttle-launch

    Simply giving a rocket a moving start and 10,000 meters ASL to start would save massively (hehe) on the mass of rocket fuel needed to reach orbit...Not a rocket scientist, but guessing jet fuel is much cheaper per unit mass than any rocket fuel.
    "Refreshingly Unconcerned With The Vulgar Exigencies Of Veracity "

  8. #8
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Oxtox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    10,300
    Quote Originally Posted by duriel View Post
    My problem:

    4. I'm thinking we could have saved a billion $ by letting that POS idea pass and moving on.
    who's 'we'...?
    Ancient Astronaut theorists say, 'YES!'

  9. #9
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Akirasho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,205
    Quote Originally Posted by Oxtox View Post
    looks pretty cool to me.

    similar design to this one...

    Attachment 324951
    I can't see!!!!!

  10. #10
    feelin' Freddie Mercury
    Reputation: SystemShock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    32,386
    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    Depends on what you're comparing to and able to launch with that plane.

    For reference, it took the Space Shuttle about 60 seconds of burning a crapload of rocket propellant to get to 35,000 feet (caveat emptor it was going hella faster than 200MPH by then)....
    FYI, the Space Shuttle is going over 1,000 MPH 60 seconds after launch, aka about twice as fast as the Stratolaunch plane's claimed top speed (which could be a tad optimistic, given not only companies' interest in exaggerating performance claims but also the plane's non-swept-back straight-across wing profile).


    Which IIRC the SRBs themselves only had a total of 2 minutes of burn-time total---500,000kg of solid rocket fuel (rough guess, burned half of it), as well as another 700,000kg of liquid rocket fuel (rough guess 1/8th of that) to get to airliner altitude.

    https://space.stackexchange.com/ques...shuttle-launch

    Simply giving a rocket a moving start and 10,000 meters ASL to start would save massively (hehe) on the mass of rocket fuel needed to reach orbit...Not a rocket scientist, but guessing jet fuel is much cheaper per unit mass than any rocket fuel.
    Would want to see firm numbers on it.

    If I sound unimpressed, it's because there's been proposals for much more ambitious 'space plane' launch platforms, such as Robert Zubrin's 'Black Colt', which would fly much faster and higher than Stratolaunch, and give any rocket payload true SSTO ('single stage to orbit) capability.

    Again, the article really emphasizes the all-weather capability of the Stratolauch system, not the fuel savings and/or payload increase for rocket mass (though okay, there must be some).
    .
    Monkhouse: I want to go like my Dad did – peacefully, in his sleep, not screaming in terror like his passengers.

    System: Fake news?? Trump's a Fake President, for God's sake.

    Plat: I'd rather fellate a syphilitic goat than own a Cervelo.

    Homer: I believe that children are our future. Unless we stop them now.

    Seam: Saw Bjork poop onstage back in the day. It blew my teenage mind


  11. #11
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Akirasho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,205
    Does it hurt to have multiple platforms?

    My local airport rarely sees anything larger than a 737. Should our local thinking preclude a Dreamliner as a waste of time and effort?

  12. #12
    Weed
    Reputation: zyzbot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,012

  13. #13
    feelin' Freddie Mercury
    Reputation: SystemShock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    32,386
    Quote Originally Posted by duriel View Post
    My problem:

    1. You have 3 engines on your right and 3 engines way way over there. If balance of power is not met (flame out, lose of fuel, turbine explosion) it is going to be very hard to control and all unbalance goes through that one center wing section. To say if there were some structural failure in that section, guess what, you have 2 planes, both with all engines on one side on the one wing you got.
    2. If there is bad weather, how in the * are you going to take off in that thing, carrying your payload.
    3. Was that built by Boeing with their own quality control oversight?
    4. I'm thinking we could have saved a billion $ by letting that POS idea pass and moving on.
    5. If one is going to Mars, your going to take off in that thing? I don't think so. Building an orbiting launch station to me would be a way better idea. Now building a small vehicle to fly back and forth to there would be a great idea.
    Well, we're gonna hope the thing doesn't break in half... that would be sh!t design, yes?

    Far as bad weather operation goes, it most likely is designed to fly above the weather (otherwise, it's raison d'etre does not exist, it is supposed to be able to hit 35,000 feet), and takeoffs in bad weather, well, passenger jumbo jets do that already, it's just a matter of HOW BAD the weather really is.

    Far as going to Mars via this thing, no, I think any manned Mars spacecraft would be put into orbit via heavy-lift booster (think of a Saturn V on steroids), and not via this deal, as the launch mass would be too high for it (it can carry a 250-ton rocket, but that's not 250 tons to orbit, more like 1/20th of that).

    Unless you want to do on-orbit assembly of a multi-piece spacecraft, which is complex and fraught with issues.
    Monkhouse: I want to go like my Dad did – peacefully, in his sleep, not screaming in terror like his passengers.

    System: Fake news?? Trump's a Fake President, for God's sake.

    Plat: I'd rather fellate a syphilitic goat than own a Cervelo.

    Homer: I believe that children are our future. Unless we stop them now.

    Seam: Saw Bjork poop onstage back in the day. It blew my teenage mind


  14. #14
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,616
    Similar to this but split cockpits to leave the mid portion open for the payload mounting.

    Name:  hqdefault.jpg
Views: 154
Size:  19.5 KB

    I suppose they already did the value engineering calculation to see if it's more economical to launch a rocket that way or not.

  15. #15
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Akirasho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,205
    Quote Originally Posted by SystemShock View Post

    Unless you want to do on-orbit assembly of a multi-piece spacecraft, which is complex and fraught with issues.
    Who knew someone obsessed with Game Of Thrones could use a word like fraught!

    We are approaching some new "active airframe" designs which may blow your minds like Flight of the Navigator".


  16. #16
    feelin' Freddie Mercury
    Reputation: SystemShock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    32,386
    Quote Originally Posted by Akirasho View Post
    Who knew someone obsessed with Game Of Thrones could use a word like fraught!
    Methinks you are way too concerned with my vocabulary, yea verily.


    giphy

    Monkhouse: I want to go like my Dad did – peacefully, in his sleep, not screaming in terror like his passengers.

    System: Fake news?? Trump's a Fake President, for God's sake.

    Plat: I'd rather fellate a syphilitic goat than own a Cervelo.

    Homer: I believe that children are our future. Unless we stop them now.

    Seam: Saw Bjork poop onstage back in the day. It blew my teenage mind


  17. #17
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    607
    Quote Originally Posted by Oxtox View Post
    who's 'we'...?
    Right? Unless you count all of us who threw money at Microsoft over the past few decades that paid for Windows 8 among other notable achievements.

  18. #18
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Oxtox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    10,300
    Quote Originally Posted by Akirasho View Post
    I can't see!!!!!
    XP-82 Twin Mustang...
    Ancient Astronaut theorists say, 'YES!'

  19. #19
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    5,199
    Whatever happened to the idea of a space elevator?

  20. #20
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: GlobalGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    455
    Quote Originally Posted by Akirasho View Post
    The aircraft seems to follow the rules of aerodynamics, so no probs. OTOH, A mainstay of several branches of the US military in the 1960's was the F4 Phantom, which proved that if you applied enuff thrust, even a brick could fly.

    Probably why in terms of use or life span and production it became the most successful fighters in ever made by the US and one of the most widely used internationally.

    I enjoyed riding around in one, except for the part of it smoked like a steel factory D model.

  21. #21
    Weed
    Reputation: zyzbot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,012
    Quote Originally Posted by Oxtox View Post
    XP-82 Twin Mustang...
    They recently made one flyable:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GsqUjLSqZc

  22. #22
    gazing from the shadows
    Reputation: QuiQuaeQuod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    26,220
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveG View Post
    Whatever happened to the idea of a space elevator?
    Nothing happened to the idea. Actually producing materials for the cable is the problem. Carbon nanotubes are strong and light and might work, but the largest produced to date are tiny. Measured in centimeters, not meters, and certainly not km.
    .
    Stout beers under trees, please.

  23. #23
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    2,997
    Quote Originally Posted by SystemShock View Post
    Far as bad weather operation goes, it most likely is designed to fly above the weather (otherwise, it's raison d'etre does not exist, it is supposed to be able to hit 35,000 feet), and takeoffs in bad weather, well, passenger jumbo jets do that already, it's just a matter of HOW BAD the weather really is.
    So how is this 'bad weather' thing really suppose to work?
    So the weather is bad in Cape Canaveral, and we need to launch today. What are you going to do, drive your rocket to Houston, load it on the plane and take off there to 35,000ft? I don't think that is going to work.

    Somehow I think if there is weather in Cape C, that plane ain't taking off from Cape C with a payload.
    I would think weather would be easier to handle if you have a rocket engine than a dam plane with a wing sail. HELLO!
    A rocket will blast through any wind or whatever, no wing is going to do that!
    BANNED

  24. #24
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Akirasho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,205
    Quote Originally Posted by duriel View Post
    So how is this 'bad weather' thing really suppose to work?
    So the weather is bad in Cape Canaveral, and we need to launch today. What are you going to do, drive your rocket to Houston, load it on the plane and take off there to 35,000ft? I don't think that is going to work.
    You're assuming that the Cape is the Only launch venue for Every rocket. Not true. Anyone wishing to launch a payload would consider option based on said payload and mission requirements.



    Quote Originally Posted by duriel View Post
    Somehow I think if there is weather in Cape C, that plane ain't taking off from Cape C with a payload.
    I would think weather would be easier to handle if you have a rocket engine than a dam plane with a wing sail. HELLO!
    Again, the Cape was initially chosen for it's proximity to water for early manned missions (the Russians have lost crews using braking rockets and landing on Terra Firma) There are many viable launch sites (both private and government) that are more "Weather Stable" than South Florida.


    Quote Originally Posted by duriel View Post
    A rocket will blast through any wind or whatever, no wing is going to do that!
    Not true. A rocket even as massive as a Saturn V is subject to weather. Indeed, even if you did launch under adverse conditions, the rocket would waste precious fuel just fighting wind (just like a cyclist can easily displace the air in front at 10mph... not so easily at 30mph)! Most rocket launches don't waste weight by hauling unnecessary fuel.

    I applaud innovations and throw away the box thinking.

  25. #25
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: burgrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,841
    Siamese plane, joined at the wing?

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Does anyone else see the irony in this?
    By Andrea138 in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 06-26-2011, 08:50 AM
  2. Does anyone else see the humor in this?
    By msl819 in forum Commuting, Touring and Ride Reports
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 04-14-2006, 03:27 PM
  3. Pumping up Presta / Does Anyone Else Have This Problem?
    By dbmcclus in forum Beginner's Corner
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 01-26-2006, 09:30 PM
  4. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-29-2005, 03:51 AM
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-21-2005, 06:34 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT ROADBIKEREVIEW

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.