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.
Originally posted by danwild6
Well it looks like there is another remarkable role the greatest plane(at least the best looking imo)ever built was capable of filling.
F-14 Space launcer
To bad, the Navy always wanted to have its own space launch capability. Didn't realize it was sitting right in front of them.
Originally posted by esecallum
Why not think bigger and convert a 747 jumbo to a space shuttle? it would take of horizontally then go vertical near space... the air breathing jet engines would be supplied from on board oxygen near about 60000 feet as the atmosphere thins out..
Originally posted by jra
Originally posted by esecallum
Why not think bigger and convert a 747 jumbo to a space shuttle? it would take of horizontally then go vertical near space... the air breathing jet engines would be supplied from on board oxygen near about 60000 feet as the atmosphere thins out..
I think you may have misunderstood the concept (or i've misunderstood your post). The proposed idea in the link isn't to get the F-14 into space, it's just meant to carry the rocket underneath it up to a certain height and then let it go from there. Like how the White Knight/SpaceShipOne works basically.
I don't think it would be possible to attach something underneath a 747, not without some serious modification (correct me if i'm wrong on that). You could attach something above in a similar fashion to the 747 that transports the shuttle, but launching something from on top is a lot more risky and dangerous and generally just not a good idea overall.
Originally posted by esecallum
thus the thrust or acceleration upwards does not have to be huge like a saturn 5 rocket etc.... a normal rocket must provide huge thrust and be able to accelerate the rocket upto 7 to 11 km/sex within 5 to 10 minutes and use all that fuel up. a smaller thrust or acceleration upwards for LONGER time will achieve orbit also. thus we should focus on modyfying a 747 instead of f-14 or learjets as they are too small and lack ambition.
Originally posted by jra
Originally posted by esecallum
thus the thrust or acceleration upwards does not have to be huge like a saturn 5 rocket etc.... a normal rocket must provide huge thrust and be able to accelerate the rocket upto 7 to 11 km/sex within 5 to 10 minutes and use all that fuel up. a smaller thrust or acceleration upwards for LONGER time will achieve orbit also. thus we should focus on modyfying a 747 instead of f-14 or learjets as they are too small and lack ambition.
You need to be traveling at least 7800 m/s if you want to maintain a low Earth orbit. That won't happen if you aren't traveling fast enough.
something from scratch.
[edit on 15-1-2007 by jra]
Originally posted by Nipples
You misunderstand the principle behind air-breathing propulsion. The main reason jet engines won't work for exoatmospheric flight is that the propulsive medium they use (air) is no longer there. It is not a matter of not having anything to oxygenate the combustion reaction, but rather that the engine is not taking in any air to pump to make thrust. Even IF you could store enough compressed/liquid O2 to last a full mission (which I am highly doubtful of, given the enormous mass flow-rates of the CF6 class engines on board the 747) the engines simply won't run above 60k ft. Furthermore, the service ceiling of the 747 is in the 40k ft. area, not because of lack of O2, but because the engines no longer make enough thrust for lift to equal weight in level flight above that altitude.
All this being said, you touch on the important point many forget when considering low-cost orbital lift options. You are right that the orbital speed needn't be achieved in any given time-frame, so once you realize that it opens up a lot more options.
Originally posted by PhloydPhan
esecallum I think - no, I know - that you're oversimplifying the issues at hand. You can't just spray oxygen into the front end of a 747's high-bypass turbofan and expect it to run as is normal. It doesn't work like that. A Rolls-Royce concept called Skylon ran on a similar principle, but only after investing gobs of money in research and development.
Add to that the issues involved in getting a 747 to climb at a 45-degree angle for an extended period of time - even if they can do that, I doubt the airframe is designed for it - and in storing fuel and oxidizer onboard for ascent and a powered descent.
I don't think you're going to be able to modify a 747 to act as an SSTO. Sorry, but it wasn't designed for that environment.
Originally posted by Nipples
You are still comparing apples to oranges in terms of propulsive mechanisms. Turbofan engines do indeed burn fuel and air,.
i am afraid minor engineering issues are being used to oppose the idea in principle.