Space elevators?!?

HOTOL

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Actual picture of Myasishchev VM-T

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Russians were good people,

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

http://buran.city.tomsk.net/buran2.htm

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Actual Photo of Shuttle being lift off from a 747 ,

Hmm, no need of 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, ......

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

the shuttle has 2 solid boosters (rockets) the main tank is what the name says it is, a tank it's not a rocket, it simply doesn't have the fuel capacity aeronotics and avionics are 2 completley different things

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, well, Nice try. Now, can u just imagine that 747 completely filled with JetFuel ?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Apart from the cabin, I presume?

 

It is very important to consider all these re-usable spacecraft launch concepts, because they are likely to bring the cost of kg-to-orbit down so much that the research and development for a space elevator will be too expensive a prospect. Several substantial breakthroughs are required before elevators are possible; reusable rockets could be much more cost effective in the medium term.

 

Dude, Shuttles have never been launched into space from the back of a 747. Enterprise conducted various glide tests from a 747, and Columbia rode on a 747 when it was delivered prior to it's first launch, but that's it. I guess they would use a 747 to recover a shuttle if it had to use an alternative landing strip.

 

Thanks, at last.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Superb.

 

Fascinating idea, I don't understand why it isn't more widely publicised! Would make good popular sci-fi and a visually impressive movie sequence.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But as for the cost of construction... and the public discomfort at the idea of all those huge structures in relatively low orbit, covering several arcs of latitude/longitude... UGH. :bawl: Even given the right technology (Erburacum's mass-produced buckytubes, and cheap mass drivers to launch them) it would be very difficult to get off the ground (pun intended).

 

I believe that's an Antonov-225 carrying the HOTOL- they'd have to build more of them as well, only 1 working model currently exists.

 

the antanov's wings are in a completly different angle then those of the buran I wonder how how hard it chould have been to fly with that thing on the back

 

Why would wings at a different angle make it difficult to fly?

 

aerodynamics perhaps biplane and normal planes are considerbly different things like the tail section, lift,drag, aircurrent interference some things have to be specialy designed overall has to be reinformerd and it will never fly like it is supose to
link

 

Definitely, but the HOTOL's wing area would contribute very little to lift as it is not in the airflow from the main wing while being carried.
Any biplane interference that occurred would be at the wing root, the last place to suffer stall or airflow disturbance.
Although they would have had to check for potential loss of control effectiveness/ lift on the empenage due to possible vortices from the HOTOL lifting surfaces.

 

well it certainly looks like the've redisigned tha tail section for the stearing (it got 2 at the sides in stead of one large in the middle).
I wonder how that effects performance when it's unlouded.

that I'm not so sure off but the lift drag is going to be constant so any computer program can compensate for that

 

An-225 was designed from the start with a twin tail (presumably to improve control effectiveness in the wake of such a large wing).
Carrying HOTOL is a later idea and would have had no influence on Mriya's configuration.

 

actually it were stability problems with the rear plane that doomed the project and it's succesor (altough the theory was good)

However HOTOL may be scrapped it succesor Skylon is not wich is basicly the same like he HOTOL but with fixes for the stability problems.... Altough special parts have to be redesigned because of pattent problems... That always cracks me up a goverment pays some scientist to design some crucial part and he does so for a couple of hunderd thousand dollar but he keeps the patent so that they can't use the stuff the've paid for in the next version unless they pay those couple of hunder thousands again that are by then outdated because evolution of the hardware makes it so that completly redesigning them is cheaper...
anyway $3000/kg... relativly spoken that's cheap as cheap as a first generation space elevator a russian proton does abouth 4300 and 9350 for a space shuttle for comparison

 

the falcon looks nice to

a decrease in costs from a average 8800$/kg to 1300$/kg
initially and perhaps as low as 1100$/kg in the further future. (It apears previus costs mentioned of $4,000 where costs in pounds)
It would become commercial between 2008-2010 and it apears NASA is willing to invest up to 278$million in it (if it achieves certain goals) what is great for it's financial future.

 

Actually, I can. A 747-400 freighter completely loaded with fuel (cargo space included), would only be, under the best of circumstances, 28638 kg under maxiumum take off weight. Add the empty weight of the shuttle (75,000 kg), and it will never get off the ground.)

Besides that, of what use is adding fuel to the plane? All that would do is increase the range of the plane, it would do nothing towards raising the max speed or its ceiling. If anything, the increased fuel weight would lower the plane's ceiling.