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: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 08:05 AM
link   
a reply to: dashen

what im saying is to launch the rocket at an angle to earths rotation, which will give it a lil extra to escape




posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 08:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Domo1

actually mr phage has misled you, pushing through millions of tons of atmosphere, and starting near sea level where gravity is much stronger requires much more fuel and thrust as opposed to all the advantages of launching near the edge of space.
Rockoons are a thing, that have being used since the 50s.



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 08:14 AM
link   



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 08:28 AM
link   
a reply to: dashen

I happen to agree with this idea and floated it in science circles more than a decade ago. People from DOD, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and BAS noticed it, modeled it, and discussed it. The biggest concern seemed to be that the technology would be used to launch downwards from altitude with guided rockets. This would be a stealth means of missile launch with radar avoidance. I did the math and the low mass of composite rockets compared to specific thrust lends itself well to balloon launch. The powers do not like this idea for the downward launch capacity of this technology but I think it is sound from the computed benefit of cost for space access.



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 08:38 AM
link   
So what if the balloons or tethers get in the way?
I would think that would be a total loss of everything, rocket, balloons, platform.



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a reply to: pikestaff

The way I see it is a thousand balloons carrying a fiber carbon platform into high atmosphere with a rockets clamped on the bottom .
Telemetry senders would help you launch in the direction of rotation of earth which would give an additional boost to the escaping rocket



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 08:43 AM
link   
a reply to: machineintelligence

Floated in science circles. The balloon humor is so good on this thread



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 08:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: dashen


That Stanford team should have talked to the folks at JPA, lots of good advice available.

Their lead line from the balloon was too short, which meant that they needed 10-15 degrees off azimuth to clear their balloon, which cut their max altitude.

We used to launch with a 2-5 degree angle on a long lead.

Nice job though!



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 08:47 AM
link   
Balloons sound a little unstable.. hovering tens of kilometers upwards carried by winds in random directions.

Instead use this www.space.com...



Imagine this: A wedge-shaped aircraft attached to a supersonic jet engine is hurtling along an electrified track, carrying a pod or spacecraft destined for orbit.


I find this more sufficient



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 08:47 AM
link   
a reply to: pikestaff

The release mechanism has to be well thought out. The balloons have a lot of drag compared to the rocket body. A separation sequence delay of .5 seconds moves the rocket away from the lifting body by several hundred feet with only 30 foot of drop on the rocket body. No issue with hitting the lifting body.



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 08:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: pikestaff

The way I see it is a thousand balloons carrying a fiber carbon platform into high atmosphere with a rockets clamped on the bottom .
Telemetry senders would help you launch in the direction of rotation of earth which would give an additional boost to the escaping rocket



How about an extreme high-altitude self-propelled airship capable of flying itself to a desired launch site at an altitude of 95,000FT or more, able to launch multiple rockets?



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 09:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: machineintelligence
a reply to: pikestaff

The release mechanism has to be well thought out. The balloons have a lot of drag compared to the rocket body. A separation sequence delay of .5 seconds moves the rocket away from the lifting body by several hundred feet with only 30 foot of drop on the rocket body. No issue with hitting the lifting body.



We used to launch out of a box. We called it a "launch tube".

The balloons were attached to the launch tube, the rocket rode, free from attachment in the tube.

No attachment, no possibility of the rocket getting stuck in the tube.

Well, almost no possibility! (Yep, it happened. Once.)

After launch, the balloons were separated and popped. The launch tube came down on parachutes.



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Bhadhidar

I have floated this idea as well. It was shot down for the same reason. Downward launch capability. The air powers hate the idea of radar invisible composite rockets floated over a target and launched down to a target at hyper-sonic speed.


edit on 01am2016-01-19T09:06:06-06:0009061America/Chicago06131 by machineintelligence because: errata



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Bhadhidar

Or you can strap a fleet of zeppelins together



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 09:07 AM
link   
a reply to: machineintelligence

Everytime I see the word floated In this thread I giggle a little bit.
Why would World superpowers not want the weapons that can Strike anywhere in the world with almost no warning?



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 09:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: machineintelligence
a reply to: Bhadhidar

I have floated this idea as well. It was shot down for the same reason. Downward launch capability. The air powers hate the idea of radar invisible composite rockets floated over a target and launched down to a target at hyper-sonic speed.



Actually, the USAF Battlelab was quite interested in developing a system very similar to this several years ago.



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 09:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: machineintelligence
a reply to: Bhadhidar

I have floated this idea as well. It was shot down for the same reason. Downward launch capability. The air powers hate the idea of radar invisible composite rockets floated over a target and launched down to a target at hyper-sonic speed.



Actually, the USAF Battlelab was quite interested in developing a system very similar to this several years ago.



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 09:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: machineintelligence
a reply to: Bhadhidar

I have floated this idea as well. It was shot down for the same reason. Downward launch capability. The air powers hate the idea of radar invisible composite rockets floated over a target and launched down to a target at hyper-sonic speed.



Actually, the USAF Battlelab was quite interested in developing a system very similar to this several years ago.



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 09:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: machineintelligence
a reply to: Bhadhidar

I have floated this idea as well. It was shot down for the same reason. Downward launch capability. The air powers hate the idea of radar invisible composite rockets floated over a target and launched down to a target at hyper-sonic speed.



Actually, the USAF Battlelab was quite interested in developing a system very similar to this several years ago.



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 09:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Bhadhidar

We built a fiber composite skeletal launch tube and it was a total mass of 50 grams and was recovered intact. The first phase of the rocket was recovered. Its tether was sheared a bit but the assembly survived. The secondary assembly was not recovered. The payload made it to 36 miles at its peak altitude. It remained at altitude for more than an hour before it started to decay back to ground. It was 1476 miles down range when recovered. It did not achieve orbit. It would not have covered more than a few miles if ground launched which proved the point. Success is not enough reason to advance a program sometimes. The overall impact of the technology must be considered. In this case a downward launch from a balloon launched rocket must be considered. As a weapon it is very concerning to TPTB. It can not be used for commercial aerospace for this reason and do not waste investor or taxpayer money in pursuit of this or face losses.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join