Posted on 12/13/2011 3:46:04 PM PST by mandaladon
Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen and aerospace pioneer Burt Rutan are building the world’s biggest plane to help launch cargo and astronauts into space, in the latest of several ventures fueled by technology tycoons clamoring to write America’s next chapter in spaceflight.
Their plans, unveiled Tuesday, call for a twin-fuselage aircraft with wings longer than a football field to carry a rocket high into the atmosphere and drop it, avoiding the need for a launch pad and the expense of additional rocket fuel.
Allen, who teamed up with Rutan in 2004 to send the first privately financed, manned spacecraft into space, said his new project would “keep America at the forefront of space exploration” and give a new generation of children something to dream about.
“We have plenty and many challenges ahead of us,” he said at a news conference.
Allen and Rutan join a field crowded with Silicon Valley veterans who grew up on “Star Trek” and now want to fill a void created with the retirement of NASA’s space shuttle. Several companies are competing to develop spacecraft to deliver cargo and astronauts to the International Space Station.
Allen bemoaned the fact that government-sponsored spaceflight is waning.
“When I was growing up, America’s space program was the symbol of aspiration,” he said. “For me, the fascination with space never ended. I never stopped dreaming what might be possible.”
Allen and Rutan last collaborated on the experimental SpaceShipOne, which was launched in the air from a special aircraft. It became the first privately financed, manned spacecraft to dash into space in 2004 and later won the $10 million Ansari X Prize for accomplishing the feat twice in two weeks.
(Excerpt) Read more at seattle.cbslocal.com ...
“This method saves money by not using rocket fuel to get off the ground.”
I see. It will use ‘jet fuel’ to loft the giant plane and it’s giant cargo (the capsule riding along for the ride).
Given the combined weight and given that the capsule-vehicle must still carry its own fuel to “blast” above the altitude to which it is delivered by the plane, and the plane must also carry enough fuel to return to land; is the “fuel savings” the greatest “savings”?
I would think the biggest savings would be in the reusability of the launch plane, because even though a “rocket launch pad” may not be needed, I would expect new and separate take-off and landing facilities for the behemoth plane would be needed; putting into question any “savings” from not needing a “rocket launch pad”.
Actually, Space X is a partner, they will be providing the rocket stages of this launch system.
I’d rather he build a space elevator
But maybe Rutan's plane is an intermediate step, if the rocket section can also be reused.
Paul Allen has a $$$hitload of money to burn through, this could work!
And I meant to add, it is great to see a new space race developing.
The savings will be that it has an airbreathing engine instead of a rocket for the first stage. So, it won’t have to have an oxidizer (typically liquid oxygen) as part of its liftoff weight, since it will extract the oxygen from the atmosphere. This is a big weight savings.
Also, it will have more lift than a typical rocket. A rocket basically punches through the air, whereas a plane is more efficient directing the air around it.
In other words,fuel for the plane but not the rocket right? The rocket would be able to carry more payload vs. fuel?
Not only could those good old boys fight wars, but they could build stuff also.
Also you are converting low speed horizontal thrust into vertical lift with the use of wings. That’s quite a savings compared to he need for overcoming gravity by pure vertical lift. Your time to orbit is substantially increased, but so what? It isn’t a race.
I do have a problem grasping the idea that retro-rocket re-entry is somehow cheaper/easier than using a parachute. I guess the extra cost and complexity of a parachute subsystem is more than the extra fuel costs involved with powered return. Still way cool.
Not exactly. A rocket requires fuel and an oxidizer. A jet engine only requires fuel, and gets its oxygen from the atmosphere. The Rutan design is a two-stage vehicle. The first uses the jet engine, so no need for oxidizer (and ancillary container), which significantly reduces the weight of the first stage. The second stage is a traditional rocket, still requiring fuel/oxidizer.
You explained it much better than I did in Post #29.
I've said this before and I'll say it again.
There's nothing that can be done by people in space that can't be done cheaper and faster by people right here on Earth.
All of the technology we've gained has come from going into space. Nothing has come from people actually being in space.
Our foray into space so far is more like the Vikings travels to North America than Columbus' voyages to the Caribbeans. Until we have spent more time in space, your assertion will hold true.
Will it be running Win95 or Vista?
I wish them all the best but for Allen this could prove the old adage:
It’s easy to make a small fortune. You just start with a large one and...
Yeah, but why would I want to go into space. It’s not as though there’s really anything to go to at this point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.