It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why does NASA not launch rockets from weather balloon tethered platforms?

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 11:50 PM
link   
It is odd really that so much fuel must be burnt and dangers surmounted to launch payloads into orbit.

If one were to tie, say a 1000 or so weather balloons to a light aluminum platform and attach a rocket to that sucker why would it not be much cheaper and safer to launch payloads into orbit and beyond?

A rockoon (rocket + balloon), which as a concept was envisioned by Cmdr. Lee Lewis, Cmdr. G. Halvorson, S. F. Singer, and James A. Van Allen during the Aerobee rocket firing cruise of the U.S.S. Norton Sound on March 1, 1949, is a simple principal.

And if you launch in the arctic and give the balloons valves that would deflate them slowly before they pop in the upper atmosphere this rig would be reusable and recoverable.

How could a technology so obviously simple and superior be ignored for so long?
I mean, it's not rocket science....





posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 11:54 PM
link   
a reply to: dashen



If one were to tie, say a 1000 or so weather balloons to a light aluminum platform and attach a rocket to that sucker why would it not be much cheaper and safer to launch payloads into orbit and beyond?

Not really.

Attaining orbit is not so much a matter of altitude as it is speed. You need to get to about 17,000 mph to orbit the Earth.

While launching from a high altitude would provide a bit of an advantage in terms of drag, the main problem is accelerating the mass of the vehicle to the required velocity. Launching closer to the equator provides some of that velocity before you leave the ground.
www.quora.com...

edit on 1/18/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 11:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

well say you release the platform from ecuador and use the spin of the earth at that altitude to help fling the rocket into orbit? the spin at higher altitudes is faster no?



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 12:01 AM
link   
a reply to: dashen



the spin at higher altitudes is faster no?

No. The only difference that may be found would be in wind speed. But which direction and how strong...not enough to make much of a difference.

edit on 1/19/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 12:06 AM
link   
a reply to: dashen

I'm just asking my self one question:

Which gaz they used to fill the balloon?

Hydrogen? If you have enough why not burn it?
Helium? What an expensive launch!
Hot air? Why no using that power to propel you?
edit on 19-1-2016 by PersonneX because: mistake

edit on 19-1-2016 by PersonneX because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-1-2016 by PersonneX because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 12:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

launching from near orbit would significantly increase the advantage' in angular/linear velocity



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 12:19 AM
link   
a reply to: PersonneX

solar balloons with some magic gas inside?



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 12:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

i havent seen plans using many many balloons, but it has been done successfully, why you naysay so hard?



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 12:23 AM
link   
a reply to: dashen



launching from near orbit would significantly increase the advantage' in angular/linear velocity

Would it? First, let's define "near orbit." How high are you going to put that balloon? Let's be optimistic and say 100,000 feet.

At the surface, at the equator, you get a "free" boost of 1,037.583 mph (24,902/24). At 100,000 feet you get a boost of 1038.372 mph (24,921/24).

0.8 mph. Is it worth the trouble?

edit on 1/19/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 12:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

.8 is nothing to sneeze at. plus the 100,000 ft worth of fuel you dont have to burn, contain, and channel into thrust.
Using solar balloons with a mix of light gas would do the job i think. maybe
edit on 19-1-2016 by dashen because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 12:29 AM
link   
a reply to: dashen



.8 is nothing to sneeze at.

Actually, it is:
www.discovery.com...



plus the 100,000 ft worth of fuel you dont have to burn, contain, and channel into thrust.
Did you forget? It isn't the altitude that matters, its the velocity. You have to accelerate the mass to orbital velocity.

edit on 1/19/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 12:29 AM
link   
a reply to: dashen

I don't know, just asking. I'm not a rocket engineer, but I dislike being taken lightly. I dismiss.



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 12:30 AM
link   
a reply to: PersonneX

taken lightly, balloons. funny achieved



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 12:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

sneeze propulsion?
intriguing...



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 12:35 AM
link   
A hypervelocity railgun with a rocket booster might be within today's technology given appropriate funding. A similar technology might also be used one day to propel airliners that glide between continents.



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 12:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

getting to escape velocity at a higher altitude necessitates less fuel, less drag man. less distance to orbit, gravity is weaker(it is dammit, i dont care how little).
Add all these advantages and more that i havent mentioned yet, i think it would be safer and somewhat cheaper



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 12:37 AM
link   
a reply to: glend

or a balloon mounted hypervelocity rocket assisted railgun?



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 12:37 AM
link   
a reply to: dashen


getting to escape velocity at a higher altitude necessitates less fuel, less drag man.

Really? I was not aware of that.
Oh wait. Read my first post.


Add all these advantages and more that i havent mentioned yet, i think it would be safer and somewhat cheaper
Well then, there you go. You need to tell those rocket scientists about something they never considered.



edit on 1/19/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 12:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

obviously considered, and executed, successfully.
but why is it not used more often?



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 12:45 AM
link   
a reply to: dashen
Because it isn't worthwhile.

BTW, I messed up. The actual rotational boost at 100,000 feet is 5 mph. Still not worth a sneeze.



edit on 1/19/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join