Arial refueling for rockets ?

Just to expand on the airborne launch theory, why use transports? I think a more logical, and economical way of doing it would to use already existing rocket launchers inside for instance a Tu-160, or Tu-95. The Russians will most likely love to have more money to spend, so giving up one or two of the aforementioned bombers wouldn't mean too much. The Antonov An-225 would be able to carry a shuttle on it's back if it really had to , so it could carry huge loads, I mean it's MTOW is 1,000,000 lbs! I don't think that NASA should do it; I think private industry should develop this in co-operation with the Antonov Company. It would be significantly cheaper and you don't need a launch pad, you can launch from the equator above all the weather (which has stopped how many missions in the past? So IMO that is the best opinion, the tech is already there, now all you need is American funds, and Russian ingenuity.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thanks for the link EI Sparks, incredible piece of technology the Japanese are developing! I'd wait and buy one but its funner to try to design something better. At least until they come to the local Toyota dealer, then I give up on reinventing the wheel and buy one.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Undecided the second stage vehicle or vehicles would still have to be designed. Between the two aircraft you suggested I would go with the Tu-160, from what I can tell it has 4km higher ceiling and higher maximum speed. I didn't find out anything about the payloads but I'd guess the Tu-160 would have more due to its thrust. Probably would be realtively cheap to buy one (for an Aircraft) because the Ukraine destroyed theirs. http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/tu160/
http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/tu-95_bear.pl
I think a more logical, and economical way of doing it would to use already existing rocket launchers inside for instance a Tu-160, or Tu-95.
TU-160 uses the Kh-55MS cruise missle its got a range of 3000km and carries a 200 kiliton warhead. I couldn't find anything about the missle except it looks like its dropped before its ignited in the picture on the prieviously posted website. I don't think that would interfere to much, the missle would have to be changed somewhat to be able to go up instead of down anyways.
Anybody know about how much a 200 kiloton nuclear warhead weighs ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well I think a better missile then the sub-sonic Kh-55 would probably be the Supersonic Alfa missile, imagine the Tu-160 is going Mach 2 at 60,000ft already half way there. The Russians could easily IMO design a ramjet designed missile that could go mach 10+ easily. The Load that the Tu-160 can carry is about 9.000 kg but the max. load is 40,000. http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/bomber/tu-160.htm

The Tu-95 is too slow and flies to low to do anything substantive...

 

The Tu-95 is too slow and flies to low to do anything substantive...
My opinnion exactly.
Mach 10 isn't a good idea if we want to send people up, but, electronics could most likely take it. Since I'm a big fan of sending people and cargo seperate it really wouldn't matter. Just a seperate slower rocket needs to be designed. Loading the plane up to maximum probably would make its max altitude and max speed less. To launch something larger than the cruise missle the bomb bay would have to be redesigned but that would be simple compared to designing the second stage itself.
hehe Now all we need is investors and Corporate charter.

 

Mach 10 isn't a good idea if we want to send people up

Well how about the experiments with the X-15? They worked...

 

This site http://www.sierrafoot.org/x-15/pirep4.html thinks that Mach 6.7 was the most achieved by the X-15. I'm not really sure how many times the speed of sound a human being could take.
I know that at 7 Gs' or more its real uncomfortable. LOX and Hydrogen seem to be coming up a bunch in these searches, second stage should probably be powered by them cause they give alot of bang for their weight.

 

The limit's not the speed - the limit is the acceleration. Hence the ability of astronauts to travel at 7km/sec or so in LEO while experiencing "weightlessness".

 

Thanks, EI Sparks. I didn't realize that. Suppose it should of dawned on me before.