Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: topspeed3 on 14/06/2016 14:27:44
-
I think it is possible to fly to orbit.
Let's discuss this.
This is 37,5 times lighter in wingloading than a Boeing 747.
-
It is 2300 kg empty and loaded weight is 12500 kg the Delta V is sufficient after the solar flight phase is over at 25 km altitude.
I figure this would be moderatly cheap way to travel to distant stars !
Do you find a flaw in it ?
-
TAke off speed fully laden on earth is 77.3 km/h and landing speed on Mars is 89 km/h almost empty of the 8 ton fuel.
-
I think it is possible to fly to orbit.
Let's discuss this.
This is 37,5 times lighter in wingloading than a Boeing 747.
It's impossible to "fly" into space with a plane in the manner in which you're speaking. Such a craft simply cannot attain orbital speed which is anywhere from 15,430 mph to 17,450 mph. To do this you have to get outside the Earth's atmosphere and if you do that then there's no air to give the wings on a plane any lift during the ascent phase. If you try to orbit lower where there is air then your plane will burn up due to the extreme heat which develops due to the friction between the surface of the craft and the atmosphere.
If it was possible then it would have been done already. Those boys at NASA are the Jet Propulsion Laboratory are very smart.
-
I think it is possible to fly to orbit.
Let's discuss this.
This is 37,5 times lighter in wingloading than a Boeing 747.
It's impossible to "fly" into space with a plane in the manner in which you're speaking. Such a craft simply cannot attain orbital speed which is anywhere from 15,430 mph to 17,450 mph. To do this you have to get outside the Earth's atmosphere and if you do that then there's no air to give the wings on a plane any lift during the ascent phase. If you try to orbit lower where there is air then your plane will burn up due to the extreme heat which develops due to the friction between the surface of the craft and the atmosphere.
If it was possible then it would have been done already. Those boys at NASA are the Jet Propulsion Laboratory are very smart.
I have no doubt that the boys at JPL are smart.
There is a window in going to space that hasn't apparently been discovered yet.
Going as slow as possible through the heating zone ( you know this..below 80 km and above Mach 10 ? ) can only be done with an aeroplane...of very lite nature.
See the SS1 files...it went Mach 3.09 at 65 km altitude..hardly heating at all.
-
For instance the heating starts to occur rapidly at 80 km when the shuttle came in at M29.
This craft can go through this part of the region ( the heating zone ) at M8-M9 speed.....flying on its wings.
The improved aerodynamics and solar cell efficiency makes this happen at very very low wingloading..later at 130-150 km altitude the craft can push the pedal to the metal...as the air ends ( no pressure readings ) and the craft is very lite due to the used mass of the propellant.
The air at 80-150 is very loose..hardly viscosity left and this is why two people have gone in free fall beyond Mach 1 at 30-40 km altitude...it is a whole new ball game up there for lite winged craft with lotsa punch. This has never been tried before...never ever !
-
There is a window in going to space that hasn't apparently been discovered yet.
Going as slow as possible through the heating zone ( you know this..below 80 km and above Mach 10 ? ) can only be done with an aeroplane...of very lite nature.
You're quite wrong. Such a vehicle has already been designed, built, launched and safely recovered that went above the Earth's atmosphere. It was done by The Spaceship Company, a California-based company owned by Virgin Galactic. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceShipTwo
The problem here is that you made the claim that a plane could be put into orbit. Right now it's pretty clear that you may not have a solid understanding of what it means for a spacecraft to be in orbit. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit
And you simply cannot go to the stars with such a craft. It would take literally thousands of years to make such a flight.
Being above the Earth's atmosphere is not considered to be in orbit. Being in orbit means to be placed in a circular orbit above the Earth's atmosphere. Once you've reached a height which is outside the Earth's atmosphere it can no longer fly like a plane because there is no lift. Once at that altitude you have to accelerate the craft to 17,000 mph. That's why it takes massive rocket engines to accomplish this. It requires a huge amount of work to accelerate an object to those speeds. It's not possible to do that with an airplane. Outside the Earth's atmosphere air breathing craft can't work. For one thing they need air to work, which there isn't any. Another reason is that there can be no lift because wings require air for lift. The tiny rocket engines you show on your little plane are not realistic. They have to be huge to do that kind of work. We're not talking about something like Mach 10. We're talking about just short of Mach 25!
Play around with the rocket equation and you'll find out the real parameters required to put a craft into orbit. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation
-
There is a window in going to space that hasn't apparently been discovered yet.
Going as slow as possible through the heating zone ( you know this..below 80 km and above Mach 10 ? ) can only be done with an aeroplane...of very lite nature.
You're quite wrong.
The problem here is that you made the claim that a plane could be put into orbit. Right now it's pretty clear that you may not have a solid understanding of what it means for a spacecraft to be in orbit.
And you simply cannot go to the stars with such a craft. It would take literally thousands of years to make such a flight.
Being above the Earth's atmosphere is not considered to be in orbit. Being in orbit means to be placed in a circular orbit above the Earth's atmosphere. Once you've reached a height which is outside the Earth's atmosphere it can no longer fly like a plane because there is no lift. Once at that altitude you have to accelerate the craft to 17,000 mph. That's why it takes massive rocket engines to accomplish this. It requires a huge amount of work to accelerate an object to those speeds. It's not possible to do that with an airplane. Outside the Earth's atmosphere air breathing craft can't work. For one thing they need air to work, which there isn't any. Another reason is that there can be no lift because wings require air for lift. The tiny rocket engines you show on your little plane are not realistic. They have to be huge to do that kind of work. We're not talking about something like Mach 10. We're talking about just short of Mach 25!
Hi !
It is a bit difficult to argue in the internet. Since I claim something I am willing to back up my theories. Can you inform which part of the flight is impossible for a purposebuilt plane that wants to go to orbit ?
We all know Burt Rutan achievements in jettisoning rockets from aeroplanes...I don't mean that. I also know my rocketry. I have counted that the delta V is sufficient to reach the orbit. Orbit we call LEO at 200 km.
I enclose a model views of a 1/4 scale plane of the intented orbit plane. You know the altitude record for 300 kg plane class is 9180 meters by Scott Winton. If I am able to brake the Winton record with a clear margin...will you then believe...I have a point ?
All the best ! !
-
There is a window in going to space that hasn't apparently been discovered yet.
And you simply cannot go to the stars with such a craft. It would take literally thousands of years to make such a flight.
I on the contrary claim that the reason we haven't yet been able to fly to distant stars like Mars is because we have made things too complicated. Burt Rutan has one aim to make it exiting like jettisoning the X-15 which btw did go to space. But the complexity and overlapping ( literally ) systems cannot be efficient. Efficiency is the key word here.
I enclose a rail launched TSTO of my design ( sketch ? ) which is reusable on most parts, but is more of a show than the real thing.
In Solar Eagle as I have presented it the aeroplane is the thing making the form...other WISE it has all the space flying systems like oms and pressurized cockpit/cabin. Lifesupport systems and EVA is easy to implement on it too as it has lotsa space packed in a lite weight but durable form. Most of all..it can land on Mars safely ( 89 km/h ). The 660 m2 of solar cells also play a vital role in a space flite to distant stars....as it can run a 20 times bigger Ion-thruster than was on board the Dawn probe ( of 1000 kg ).
-
In order to fly into space we have to learn to overcome gravity. First we must learn what gravity is and then produce machines capable of negating it. All we have to do is produce a force of a little more than 1G. Then we will slowly lift off. If we accelerate at a force of 2G's we will build up speed fairly rapidly.
Perhaps in another hundred years once we understand gravity, we can travel to the moon in a few hours and mars in a few days. But that is for future technology.
-
In order to fly into space we have to learn to overcome gravity. First we must learn what gravity is and then produce machines capable of negating it. All we have to do is produce a force of a little more than 1G. Then we will slowly lift off. If we accelerate at a force of 2G's we will build up speed fairly rapidly.
Perhaps in another hundred years once we understand gravity, we can travel to the moon in a few hours and mars in a few days. But that is for future technology.
No we don't you just fly with lower wingloading aircraft ...it does not know it is flying fast...as the air is loose and less dense...and at 110-150 km it turns into "regular rocket" that needs OMS.
-
I have an other theory !
Once in space with aeroplane like space ship. You ought to be able to steeer it "spacedynamically " .
There are particles in space 1 / cm3 and when the elevator for instance is 70 m2...and the plane lite you ought to be able to steer it at great speed...let's say 100 km/s to 0.01 C speeds.
-
Here is the proof !
After flying electric much higher where Space Ship II releases the rocket this starts to fly with rocket power.
-
Flying a single piece aeroplane / rocket into orbit is 4 x more effectice than having a two piece aeroplane like White Knight / Space Ship II combo. [;)]
-
This was counted 45 km flying altitude.
-
Newest here !
-
I have refrained from the rocket/propeller hybrid design and switched into solar powered propeller carrier ship and a rocket which then will be launced at 36 km altitude from the carrier ( of 2 x wing area of the Stratolaunch ).
This system seems to obey the rules of physics ( on paper ) as we know them....perfectly.
(https://pulinajakso.ilmailuliitto.fi/download/file.php?id=2166)
-
I counted with lift equation and knowning the air density at 36 km that this can deliver a small rocket to 36 km altitude. Also counted that projectile dropped will reach Mach 2 in free fall before 25 km altitude...and then start climbing to orbit in aerodynamic flight mode untill loosing the aerodynamic control at 110 km ( latest ) and turning into OMS controlled rocket.
Normal Tsiolkowsky calculations/physics were used when calculating the rocket fuel etc.
Less heat shielding need and low wing loading and most of all very low EAS speed make it happen. Ask if you think there is a glitch or something !
-
I have redeveloped the idea to fly to space....and into Mars and back.
Bob Clark helped me with depot stations theory....convincing the single stage to orbit is the way to go.
I am finally starting to open the truth's protective layers as Neil Armstrong indicated so many years ago.
-
I counted the solar power provides 500 KW constantly with 12 m dia props and keep pulling the thing to 36 km where the props are feathered and rocket ingined to get to LEO.
This has never been tried before...and low EAS number is the key here...to keep it at moderate temperatures both ways.
32 tons of batteries provide 4500 kW additional power for the props ( 5000 altogether ).
It is about 800 x more power that Solar Impulse puts out at night flying.
-
What is the Mach number of the propeller tips? Current thinking on solar planes is to use several small propellers to improve airflow over the wing and avoid Mach limiting at altitude.
You do raise an interesting point. Solar-powered aerodynamic flight at extreme altitude may be even more useful for communications and surveillance than low orbit.
-
Hello Alan and the distinguished readers !
Flying with SSTO ship to Mars is possible.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.fi/2015/08/propellant-depots-for-interplanetary.html
My design is a bit secret nowadays but here is a superbly flying model from 2015 you to see atop the electric 3-wheeler ( made of woodcomposite and to be used in MARS ).
Increased wing area of the lifting fiselage makes it possible..at the lift equation works fine.
I assume since Felix Baumgartner was able to brake the sound barrier in free fall above 100 000 ft that the low mach number is no longer a big issue.....if you are high enough.
Of course everything has to be prepared to make the kite fly in supersonic conditions...but only above 120 000 ft. There the air has low density and viscosity is low. Thus the compression no longer has such vast effect as in thick air at high speeds.
The EAS speed will indicate 100 km/h at all altitudes. This is very important in my humble opinion.
Let's do it ! ;)
(https://static-sls.smf.aws.sanomacloud.net/tiede.fi/s3fs-public/styles/medium_main_image_no_upscale/public/discussion_comment_image/4_2.jpg?itok=SlzwKVJj)
-
You do raise an interesting point. Solar-powered aerodynamic flight at extreme altitude may be even more useful for communications and surveillance than low orbit.
The illusion of solar power combined with battery power is weak force is created by the fact that Solar Impulse and several drones use only a small fraction of the available solar flux to fly during daytime. Drones stay up for months or years etc. Solar Impulse night flying energy consumption is 7 kW....and the craft weights 1600-2300 kg ???!!!
Batteries combined with solar power in my craft is 5000 kW..that is an enermous force. It weighs ( batteries ) 32 tons if 1 hr available of the max output...the batteries can be dropped with parachutes before rocket flight to orbit.
I read several comments above telling what I do not understand and what I possinbly don't. Don't get me wrong...I have studied this phenomena now for 5 years. Most people are suffering from Semmelweis reflex...due to the paradigm shift caused by the idea of this theory.
-
I have no doubt that you have done your homework, which is why I asked the question about the Mach number of the propellor tips.
I recall that some very good work was done on the subject by a young lad called Frank Whittle who wrote a paper for the RAF engineering college calculating the performance limits of propellors and ended up inventing the jet engine.
-
Yes Alan this is a good and valid question.
I figure the larger the props are, like in the 30-ies record setter by the italians, the bigger an advantage...as the paddle has to be big as the air gets thinner. Also a 8-12 m dia props rotate very slowly at high mach speed....if it is found out to be an advantage.
At high the air gets very thin and the viscosity drops a bit too. That is why Baumgartner exceeded Mach 1...in free fall...and felt nothing..as he exceeded the feared speed of sound.
There is also a bit controversy about if Mach 1 can be exceeded at lower with an prop plane as I was contacted by a USAF test pilot who had flown beyond M1 with F-84 Thunderscreech....unlike told in the official news and specs. Unfortunately he never answered me when I asked whether it was in a dive or if the prop was running ?
I can also feather the props just before reaching Mach 1...as the plane stays below M1 until at 36 km altitude ( calculated ). Rocket propulsion needs 90% fuel of the craft to reach LEO ....and lifting fuselage lay out may just provide this feature in an aeroplane.
This could be tested in an 20 m spanning lifting fuselage aeroplane with a kerosene/LOX engine ( hobbyist can make these ). This is a high risk test if done by hobbyists...as the solar cells are expensive and the batteries as well...not to mention the highly volatile rocket fuel. Reaching for instance 50 km ( and M1+ speed ) with an under 500 kg craft would be FAI record in several categories.
I also figured how to neatly pressurize a vehicle for this attempt. Perlan II was close to these conditions.
Rocket flying above 30 km with very low EAS number ( and high TAS ) has never been tried. Temperatures stay low as SS I indicated vs. X-15.
If the props do function above 36 km at EAS low numbers...the large prop rotates 3000 rpm at M7. This could increase the payload significantly if this feature worked at very very high altitude.
Shuttle regained the feel in the controls at 110 km altitude in re-entry.
-
I counted some WAYPOINT figures for the crafts ascent to orbit.
Interesting is that the craft has to reach almost orbital speed below 100 km to be able to fly to orbit.
M3 at 60 km and weight 56 metric tons.
M15 at 85 km and 31 tons weight ( rocket fuel burned away ).
-
An explanation about intented Mars journey.
Craft is a bit schematic at this stage...intentionally.
-
I took some time and counted the braking force in the re-entry...it is massive and 20 km higher than where Shuttle started to brake..which is good news as the heating is minimal.
-
The plane can be flying quite slowly or even not at all, with the prop tips exceeding Mach 1. This is what defines the span limit for a wind turbine, and the characteristic scream of a Harvard trainer!
The speed of sound in the stratosphere is about 300 m/s. 3000 rpm is 50 rev/second, which gives you a maximum prop diameter of about 2m before the tips become supersonic .
-
Alan ahoy !
Props are feathered at 36 km altitude just below the speed of sound...read the explanation in the picture above. It is a rocket ship where the props assist it to go to thin air where the rockets are useful.
THAT IS THE KEY ISSUE HERE I AM TRYING TO PROVE !
-
It is called feathering !
-
However...after having said that ...there is slight change of getting thrust of the props at high...because of Baumgartner ( Felix ).
-
I also couted the drag forces in re-entry at different altitudes using max aerobraking area.
Already 40 N at 180 km ! AT 80 km it is dragging a lorry behind.
40 N is much more than the most developed ION drive produces in space.
-
I think you will find here is a very good reason why propellers are not used above 12 km (WWII fighter aircraft) and in fact rarely above half that altitude (turboprop passenger aircraft). At any altitude above 6 km a jet is far more efficient and the props simply become dead weight and drag - two things you really don't need.
How about a multistage system, with a reuseable propeller-driven first stage launching a ramjet/rocket hybrid? Now to get a good payload to takeoff mass ratio, use turboprops or high-bypass jets for the first stage. Even so, there's a huge difference between say1000 kph at sea level and orbital speed (25,000 kph) so a rocket might be simpler!
Remember that plenty of experimental rocket planes have been launched from modified bombers, and most fighters carry Mach 3 rockets that could go a lot faster if they didn't have to track a moving target. But for some reason, all those clever chaps at Baikonur and Pasadena still prefer to go from ground to orbit with rockets all the way.
-
Alan ahooy !
Thank you for the comment !
You have to concentrate now Alan. Remember turboporps are used becaus e they are more efficient.
Facebook Aquila cruises at 25 km altitude at 5 kW power...and Helios reached 30 km with just 23 kW...and cruised 7 x faster in 30 km than on sea level...and guess what ? Compared to X-15 ....it heated 99% less than X-15 in the same altutude...using lower EAS speed.
There is no substitude for crossing the thick atmosphere than solar/electric power on propellers. Absolutely none.
This system is exactly 1000 x more cheaper way to haul people to Mars than ITS...and 100 x more efficient per astronaut.
-
Here is the new system to gain more altitude before ingining the rocket engine ( Mach 3 is gained via dive from 42 km to 27 km ). Kinda like Baumgartner, but in an orderly fashion.
(https://spacefellowship.com/Forum/download/file.php?id=340)