F-14 Space Launch Vehicle

Originally posted by waynos


How do you modify the structure to withstand the stresses and how do you make sure the wings don't snap off?
.

no major modifications are required.

the wings will not snap off as the the 747 will fly WITHIN DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS BELOW ABOUT 50000 FT.

after that the tmosphere is very thin and gets thinner and thinner and the drag gets less and less and so the forces acting on the plane get less and less...

remember the plane is flying upwards a an angle of 45 degrees..some lift is providec by the wings and some by the engine acting in an upward direction..

have you ever seen 747 take off from at an upward angle?

it will only fly at higher speeds above 50000 ft and it will use internal fuel mixed with internal oxygen to supply the jet/rocket engines and accelerate it to 7800 m/s...remember F=MA and as there is no drag in space and hence no losses even a small SUSTAINED thrust outside the atmosphere will eventually bring it to the 7800 m/s speed to maintain orbit...see calculations above.

where will the fuel be stored?

where is it stored now?


in the wings.

Originally posted by Nipples
So just what engines are you referring to when you say the engines to be used already exist? ..only they are starving for air too and are producing less thrust. What minor engineering issue are you going to fix to get around this major problem?

u have misunderstood.

their will be NO supersonic flight within 50000 ft and no need for supersonic engines either.

it is not required.

the jet/rocket engines have already been tested by U.S defence organisations/companies for experimental research and produce thrust exceeding the exceeding the present engines easily.

only last year i remember at least 1 test that was done.

you can google jet/rocket engines yourself for all the tests,etc

the engines are not an issue and as explained internal stored oxygen burned with internal stored in the wings fuel will be used to MAINTAIN engine thrust above about 50000 ft.

can you not see that?

i dont understand your obsession with air as thrust? it makes no sense.

you bun fuel with air/oxygen and the thats is your thrust.end of story.

as long as the thrust is MAINTAINED the 747 will continue to climb up and go faster and faster in the absence of friction above 50000 feet.

also you seem to have forgotten as it gets faster and starts to FOLLOW THE CURVE OF THE EARTH centrifugal force will pull it up and provide additional lift upwards !!!!


here is the standard physics equation....this equation explains why satellites stay in orbit.gravity is pulling down but centrifugal force is pulling upwards..
if the 2 are equal then orbit is maintained...

as the 747 accelerates this force upwards increases as the the square of the speed!!...

this replaces wing lift !!!!

A=V SQUARED/R

attach a weight to an elestic band and spin it around and round.
1 force pulls it inwards.. ..2nd force pulls it outwards
as you increase spin speed the the elastic band will lenghten...this is the LIFT upwards pulling the747 upwards due to centrifugal force!

this lift will replace wing lift above 50000 feet in addition to the engine lift.
remember the 747 is flying near to an angle of 45 degrees and to attain speedand height and will level off gradually well above 50000 feet.

all these things work together.


re-entry is the opposite....

you slow down using engine power to normal aircraft speeds before coming back into the main atmosphere..no need for shielding ...high g forces or any unusual stresses....


Many of you cannot grasp the simple fact the present space shuttle and rockets burn/ use at least 95% of their fuel within the 10 mintues of takeoff and then are basically flying bricks/darts without any thrust.

that is why they need shielding and fancy materiels...

the 747 concept is the exact opposite.

Also for your information the atmosphere is universally accepted as ending above 400000 feet. it is very very thin between 50000 to 400000 feet.

This allow for less and less drag..

remember is the 747 is going up at angle of about 45 degrees to attain an altitude of at least 22000 miles.

This angle allows it gain forward speed and altitude at the same time.




[edit on 19-1-2007 by esecallum]

[edit on 19-1-2007 by esecallum]

It won't work.

At best all you will end up with is a suborbital hop in a 747 before it breaks up as it renters. You can't add enough propellants to a 747 to get it to orbit and still stay under the airframes take off weight.

You can't carry enough propellant to slow down from orbital speeds so you can renter without using friction as a break.

Chemical propellants just don't have the energy density to allow you to do it.

no major modifications are required.

I think I can see a flaw in the scheme galloping thunderously over the horizon towards me.

as long as the thrust is MAINTAINED the 747 will continue to climb up and go faster and faster in the absence of friction above 50000 feet.

Yes, I thought I could.


Were do you get the impression that there is a lack of friction above this height?

Concorde cruised at 60,000ft and its design speed was pegged at Mach 2 because this was the highest speed that normal materials could be used, any higher or faster would have demanded titanium.

The SR-71 flew at anything between 80,000 and 100,00ft at mach 3 (twice as high as where you suppose friction ends) and it had to be built out of titanium . Both aircraft were design to allow for the expansion of the structure at these heights due to the friction causing the airframe to heat up. The 747 has no such allowance in its structural design so the first part of your answer is immediately wrong.

after that the atmosphere is very thin and gets thinner and thinner and the drag gets less and less and so the forces acting on the plane get less and less...

And lift too, presumably. So what keeps it climbing? Engine thrust? That requires a T/W ratio greater than 1 (for if the wings are not impeded by drag they cannot by definition be contributing any lift either). This is why rockets don't have wings and go straight up. It is not efficient but it works.

As any aeroplane climbs higher and higher into thinner air the amount of lift produced is reduced until enough lift cannot be generated to overcome weight, then you have reached your ceiling, the way around this is to have huge powerful engines (a la SR-71) to push you faster and faster, increasing the lift generated by the wing, as you do this a by-product of lift is drag, or friction, and your very long, slender and needle nosed aircraft gets incredibly hot.

Please explain how this is overcome in a massive, fat and blunt bodied aircraft like the 747 with round and blunt wing leading edges that apparently need no major modification?

Even the idea that a 747 structure is already strong enough to withstand space travel is ridiculous, it is a large and cavernous structure that is designed to be very light and is stressed only for flying gently in a straight line at 45,000ft.

As for your centrifuge argument, just try getting a satellite to orbit at 50,000ft!!! there is NO centrifugal effect at this height (or any other where an aeroplane might fly horizontally) as the strenght of gravity is so high that the required speed to overcome it is impossible to attain, and even if it were your 747 would have burnt to a cinder dur to airframe heating.

With each new ludicrous possibility you put forward I am inclined to think that your entire scheme is no more than a wind up. Maybe your final remark in relation to the Saturn & Space Shuttle was a clue?

the 747 concept is the exact opposite.

Yes, because they were based in solid science and worked. Trying to send a 747 into space is like an attempt to break the land speed record in a double decker bus




[edit on 19-1-2007 by waynos]

Finally, here's an image you might like to see. Its a 1982 scheme to use the 747 as a launch platform for an unmanned shuttle, notice the rocket booster in the tail for just enough extra height for the launch. Boeing, however, were never barking mad enough to think the 747 could do the entire job by itself

There are so many problems wit hthe '747 to orbit' idea that I really dont know where to begin...

Firstly theres no known hybrid engines with either the specific fuel consumption nor the specific thrust or the specific impulse (all are aviation and space terms, look them up because they are VERY important) to do anything like what you are describing.

Secondly the 747 airframe is not built to maintain a vertical stance, it will result in structural failure.

Thirdly, the Space Shuttle uses engines with specific thrust several orders of magnitude higher than any jet engine to date.

Fourthly the Space Shuttle uses hydrogen and oxygen to fuel its engines, the stored energy (or specific impulse) of which is several times greater than any jet fuel available to date.

Fifthly the Space Shuttle requires 2.025 million litres of hydrogen and oxygen to reach orbital speed and altitude, while the 747 has a maximum fuel capacity of just over 220,000 litres. You are talking about using a fuel capacity 1/4 that of the Space Shuttle to put an aircraft that weighs EMPTY about twice the MAXIMUM weight of a Space Shuttle into orbit. Excluding fuel.

Originally posted by waynos

no major modifications are required.

I think I can see a flaw in the scheme galloping thunderously over the horizon towards me.

you are totally wrong.

friction is zero above 400000 ft says wiki

between 50000 to 400000 it reduces PROGRESSIVELY...

so what if the SR71 SPY PLANE heats up at 10O000 ft at mach 3...WHO CARES?

JUST DONT GO AT THAT SPEED UNTIL THE FRICTION IS LESS...GOT THAT?

so what?

just wait until you have climbed to say 200000 feet ....then speed up to high speeds like mach 2, 3, 5 ....whatever...

remember the 747 can have engines producing 129000 of thrust

the new 777 JUMBO plane engine has this thrust...look it up....

a 747 weighs between 400000 empty to 700000 fully laden max pounds
4 engines =4 x 129000 =520000 pounds of thrust....

see?

a 747 CAN take off vertically....


i dare say the 777 engines can be tweaked to produce even more thrust.....


BUT WE DONT WANT to AS WE DONT WANT TO COPY THE SHUTTLE...OK?

WE WANT PARTIAL LIFT FROM THE WINGS
AND PARTIAL LIFT FROM THE ENGINES
AS IT TRAVELING UPWARDS AT AN 45 DEGREES...


also the sr71 uses LIQUID OXIDESER CARRIED ON BOARD TO ENABLE THE ENGINES TO WORK IN A PARTIAL VACUUM !!!

THIS IS TECHNOLOGY FROM THE 1960'S !!!!

CHECK IT NOW....

and all you people WHO above were making LAME EXCUSES how you cant carry oxidant to produce thrust....and yet the ancient sr71 does this already !!!!

THE SR 71 PROVES IT CAN WORK...

also to that idiot who said i wanted satellites at 50000 feet...YOU ARE A LIER..I NEVER EVER SAID THAT OK??

LEARN TO READ FIRST...

Originally posted by esecallum
just wait until you have climbed to say 200000 feet ....then speed up to high speeds like mach 2, 3, 5 ....whatever...
...

a 747 CAN take off vertically....
...

WE WANT PARTIAL LIFT FROM THE WINGS
AND PARTIAL LIFT FROM THE ENGINES
AS IT TRAVELING UPWARDS AT AN 45 DEGREES...

A 747 won't break the speed of sound with out falling apart first. I know what you are going to say ... but there is no resistance so it is ok. Even if that was true how are you going to slow it down again before it reenters the atmosphere? If you dont slow it down it will just be ripped apart at about 400,000 feet when it starts to hit the atmosphere.

Next, a 747 cannot take off vertically. Full stop. Whatever calculations you have done are wrong.

How are you going to get partial lift when the atmosphere is so thin it doesnt give any resistance. Your argument is ripping itself apart, on one hand you say "the plane wont fall apart because there is no atmosphere to give air resistance" then on the other hand you say "we will be getting partial lift from the wings still because the atmosphere is still dense enough". These statements are mutually exclusive. Pick one.

Also you still havn't detailed how you are going to carry enough oxygen on board for your engines.

Finally Im going to say one thing. Just give it up. There are people on these boards who know alot more about aeronautics than you do, if they say its not possible then please just drop it. You are increasingly sounding like a troll.

You still are not grasping how thrust is made in a jet engine. Yes, in rocket engines, all the thrust comes from the combustion of fuel and stored oxidizer and the resulting acceleration of those combustion products through the nozzle. Modern rockets achieve enormous specific thrusts by utilizing massive chamber pressure and lightweight fuel/propellant (H2). Jet engines do not do this because they are designed to pump the atmosphere for thrust, in addition to the comparatively small amount of fuel. Rockets are using their fuel and oxidizer as their propulsive medium, whereas jets use the atmosphere.

Third-law thrust is still just m_dot*V_exit...whether the massflow comes from pumped atmosphere or internal stores. So you can make thrust with lightweight fuel accelerated to very high exit speeds (as with rockets) or by using large amounts of massflow at relatively low exit velocity (as with jets). Simply lighting a fire is not enough to make thrust! Massflow must be accelerated! Jets use the released energy of fuel-oxidizer combustion to move massive amounts of atmosphere through a nozzle to make thrust. If you were to run a jet engine outside the atmosphere it MIGHT make a small amount of thrust from the acceleration of stored fuel and oxidizer that has been combusted out the exit nozzle. This is VERY modest thrust compared to what they make in their designed-for condition where they are pumping atmosphere. If you are going to do this, why even bother with a jet at all, since all you are doing is firing a rocket? Rockets operate outside the atmosphere so they can only use internal stores for the massflow necessary to make thrust, which is why they have such short flights. They literally have to carry their propulsive medium with them. It is analogous to a car needing to carry every inch of ground it would need the wheels to turn on over the desired distance.

The SR-71 has to fly supersonic at the high altitudes in order to make lift and thrust. As the air gets less dense the wings make less lift and the engines make less thrust. Air density drops with increasing altitude, so to maintain massflow, flightspeed must be increased. That is why you cannot simply fly around at .8 mach at 200k, 100k, or 60k...not enough mass going over the wings and/or through the engines. The GE90-115B engines you are referencing cannot fly supersonic, nor can the 747 airframe. If you stick to subsonic flight, I gather you intend on making up for lost lift with increased altitude by somehow rotating the aircraft up to balance weight with engine thrust. Not much above 40k these engines will be tasked with supporting a very large portion of the 400k# (minimum) aircraft weight. The portion they need to supplement will grow as altitude does, but the thrust they generate will decrease as altitude grows. Something has to give, and it is going to be your concept.


"...i dont understand your obsession with air as thrust? it makes no sense."

If you cannot understand my 'obsession' with jet engines pushing atmospheric air to produce thrust, then you are beyond help at your current level of propulsion education.

Originally posted by esecallum
LEARN TO READ FIRST...

heh, likewise...

We can read your posts just fine (although the all-caps is annoying). Face it, your idea just won't work. The 747 has been around for a long time, if this idea were at all remotely plausible, it would have been done already. Just look at all the people who are trying to develop commercial space flight right now. Why haven't any of them come up with an idea similar to yours instead of trying to develop rockets? Why didn't any of the X-Prize teams attempt this? Why did Burt Rutan go with his White Knight / SpaceShipOne combo, if he could just use a 747? And heck why doesn't Richard Branson just convert one of his 747's from his fleet of aircraft to work in space instead of developing a brand new space ship? Maybe because your idea just isn't realistic for all the reasons stated by the other posters here. I wish it were as simple as you propose, but sadly it just isn't.

If you're still not convinced, then why don't you go around and propose your idea to some investors and engineers and try to start your own aerospace company?

I don't think the f14 would survive the re-entry trip, it would burn up once it re-eters from space, it would probaly blow up.
Adding extra stuff on it would make it a flying brick hard to manuver and it would take away it's role as a combat aircraft.
Maybe they can make it so it can fly in the stratosfere just near to other space, but why do that when the F22 can already do that, it would be a waste of money.

Space trips for 747 another bad idea, those planes are so fagile, I don;t think they can even make it in to space, to be able to take a 747 in to space is even more difficult, first of all it would need to have a reinforced body, that would add to it's weight, the space shutle can berly get up there with 3 external rocket tanks.
The way the 747 is designed on re-entry it's wings would come off, it would need to have wings like the shuttle has, similar to the old migs for stability.
Might as well design a new space shutle I would say.




[edit on 21-1-2007 by pepsi78]

Originally posted by esecallum


the engines are not an issue and as explained internal stored oxygen burned with internal stored in the wings fuel will be used to MAINTAIN engine thrust above about 50000 ft.

can you not see that?

The 747 does not have a high enough Maximum Takeoff Weight to carry the requisite amount of oxygen to do what you suggest.

i dont understand your obsession with air as thrust? it makes no sense.

Go and read up on what a high bypass turbofan actually does and how it produces 90% of its thrust - hint, its not the exhaust gasses from the combustion of the fuel.

you bun fuel with air/oxygen and the thats is your thrust.end of story.

No, thats not your thrust, not even close on a 747.

re-entry is the opposite....

you slow down using engine power to normal aircraft speeds before coming back into the main atmosphere..no need for shielding ...high g forces or any unusual stresses....


Many of you cannot grasp the simple fact the present space shuttle and rockets burn/ use at least 95% of their fuel within the 10 mintues of takeoff and then are basically flying bricks/darts without any thrust.

that is why they need shielding and fancy materiels...

The 747 would have burnt all your fuel (and then some) on the ascent, there would be nothing to slow it down.

Your idea is ludicrous, nonsensical and it will not work.

You have no grasp of the concepts of how much energy is stored in a unit of fuel, you have no concept of the fact that any turbofan or tubojet engine would not work in the method you require, you have no concept of the masses of fuel, you have no concept of the physics involved beyond a very basic and misguided idea of centripetal forces, you have no concept of the stresses a 747 airframe could endure, you have no concept of the workings of a jet engine.

There are smarter people than you in the world, and yet we are still riding into space on chemical rockets, with payloads well below that of any fuelled 747. That says something.

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by esecallum
LEARN TO READ FIRST...

. Why haven't any of them come up with an idea similar to yours instead of trying

One team is already trying to turn a Learjet into a spaceplane already ok?
but with poor funding and with people like you trying to stop them....

The learjet is too small to carry much payload or have endurance...


some of you people are lying also....

i mean look at that idiot who said a 747 would collapse if it was turned vertical.!...how stupid can u get??

now lets it make clear.


between ground 60000 feet normal 747 aircraft speeds.

between 60000 and 400000 feet nearly normal aircraft speeds as somebody above is worried about the low friction...

now at 400000 ft zero friction ....NO MORE ATMOSPHERE OK??/
this IS 100 km above the earth

You got that

the 747 will traveL at a uniform 500 miles/hour upto 60000
the from 60000 to 200000 at mach 1...using onboard oxidizer
then at 200000 to 400000 about mach 2 USING ONBOARD OXIDIZER.

this engines are turbojets or similar..able to use atmospheric air or onboard oxidizer....

AND NO AIR IS NOT PROPELLANT UNTIL IT BURNS AND SPEEDS UP TO GENERATE THRUST....

after 400000 due to zero atmosphere drag it will accelerate to 7800 m/s

it will ALWAYS BE GOING UPWARDS AT A 45 degree angle...remember THAT...

it will ALWAYS BE GOING UPWARDS AT A 45 degree angle...remember THAT... OK?

THIS ALLOWS BOTH FORWARD MOMENTUM AND LIFT UPWARDS FROM THE ENGINES...


suppose you cut engine power at 60000 feet what happens momentum will continue to carry it upwards....

throw a rock upwards and it continues upwards..slows...
levels off then comes come down...TRY IT NOW


QUICK GO OUTSIDE THROW A ROCK AT A 45 DEGREE ANGLE..AFTER LEAVING YOUR ARM IT WILL CONTINUE UPWARDS LEVEL OFF THEN COME DOWN IN A PARABOLIC ARC...

MY 747 WILL THE SAME IN THE FIRST 1/2 OF THIS ARC...

the upper end of the arc being 22000 miles above earth...

can u people not see that...??


the 747 can burn fuel carried in the wings for at least 10 hours....

hence sustained thrust can carry it into orbit...
no stresses involved....


the shuttle simply bangs it all in 5 minutes...
thats how the shuttle goes up?
all the fuel burnt
then simple momentum carries it up into orbit...

my plan can and will work..
youare simple jelous
and envious that you did not think of it first...
or had the boldness to argue your postion...

i daresay you would made the same argument to the wright brothers...

history is full of people trying to stifle innovation.

[edit on 21-1-2007 by esecallum]

[edit on 21-1-2007 by esecallum]

Originally posted by esecallum


One team is already trying to turn a Learjet into a spaceplane already ok?
but with poor funding and with people like you trying to stop them....

The learjet is too small to carry much payload or have endurance...

Yes, its all a huge conspiracy to keep the cost of space travel high, some random people on an internet forum board noone cares about are working together to defeat cheap space travel.

some of you people are lying also....

i mean look at that idiot who said a 747 would collapse if it was turned vertical.!...how stupid can u get??

Stupid? Lying? You know nothing about the structural load limits on a 747.


[edit on 21/1/2007 by RichardPrice]

Esecallum, you still havn't answered my question above about how you are going to slow the 747 down from mach 3 or whatever before it reachs 400,000 feet.

Also you CANNOT fly a 747 at mach 1 at 60,000 feet. Modify your idea.

[edit on 21/1/07 by gfad]

also to that idiot who said i wanted satellites at 50000 feet...YOU ARE A LIER..I NEVER EVER SAID THAT OK??

Well, thanks for calling me a lying idiot, thing is, I never said you did make that claim. If the point I was making was too complex for you to grasp, then what hope is there for you understanding the mechanics of what you are proposing?

Originally posted by esecallum
One team is already trying to turn a Learjet into a spaceplane already ok?
but with poor funding and with people like you trying to stop them....

hahaha what?! How am I or anyone here trying to stop them?! I've never even heard of the project as far as I know... how could I be trying to stop it? That's truly a bizarre thing to say.

Doing a google search, is this the project you're thinking of? www.rocketplane.com...

If so, it's been modified a lot, it has delta wings, and a rocket engine, it also cannot go into space. It's only a sub-orbital vehicle. It's not even comparable to what you are proposing. This idea is actually possible. (and I'm not trying to stop it )

no.

you are deliberately lying...just imagine a 747 going into a vertical postion and it collapsing.

its one of the most strongest aircraft designed and can ven take a missile hit and keep going...

it is of the safest aircraft...




i challenge you to quote me a single instance of this collapse happening...

Originally posted by gfad
Esecallum, you still havn't answered my question above about how you are going to slow the 747 down from mach 3 or whatever before it reachs 400,000 feet.


[edit on 21/1/07 by gfad]

i dont want to slow down ...i want to accelerate to 7800 m/s and attain an alitude of 24000 miles to achieve orbit...

But you DO want to slow down when you are coming back, which is what was meant by the question.

How do you propose that firing the engines slows it down anyway? A re you proposing that the 747 comes down backwards? Then what? a deep stall within the atmosphere and enough g forces to tear the thing apart as it tries to flip over to forwards flight? Or do you somehow beleive that the turbofans thrust reversers will deflect enough thrust to counteract the earths gravity as this 250 ton object descends?