From: axgarciaz65@go.com   
      
   "Andrew Gray"  wrote in message   
   news:slrncfte2g.eob.andrew.gray@compsoc.dur.ac.uk...   
   > Afternoon all.   
      
   [snip]   
      
   > Have any groups studied - I don't recall hearing of any, so I suspect   
   > no-one ran with it - an in-air refuelling system, or would this be   
   > barred by the competition rules?   
   >   
   > (IOW: Spacecraft takes off "light" from a runway, meets tanker at   
   > altitude, fuels up, then makes a ballistic shot with this fuel, gliding   
   > back and landing light)   
   >   
   > I'm not sure why this just wandered into my head, but it would seem to   
   > offer the potential for a system about as efficient as the White   
   > Knight/SS1 concept, with two more steps added (second takeoff,   
   > refuelling) and one removed (in-flight separation).   
      
   I think this approach is very possible.  I'm sure it has been studied   
   somewhere.  The added complexity of the refuelling and the need for a   
   heavier landing gear for take-off are obsticals.  I would think the weight   
   penalties to the launch vehicle would be very high.   
      
   > (As an aside, would it be possible, in theory, for SS1 to take off from   
   > a runway by itself?)   
      
   [snip]   
      
   At a minimum the propulsion would have to change so the engine would be of   
   a 'refuelable' type and the landing (take-off) gear would have to be   
   heavier.  As an alternative a jettisonable undercarriage could be used for   
   take-off only.  If you change the propulsion to support this concept then   
   you have to accept the added complexity of both a more complex engine   
   (simple propulsion was one of the selling points of the Hybrid) and the   
   need to tank-up (possibly while in glide) and you still need two   
   specialized vehicles.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)