Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    sci.space.tech    |    Technical and general issues related to    |    3,113 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 2,049 of 3,113    |
|    Eric Pederson to Andrew Gray    |
|    Re: X-Prize Design Concepts    |
|    26 Jul 04 19:05:00    |
      From: "Zeric.a.pedersonZ"@ZboeingZ.comZ.deZ.to.respond.retro.com              Andrew Gray wrote:       >       > Afternoon all.       >       > The current foremost contender for the X-Prize is, of course, Scaled       > Composites - expected to formally announce soon, I believe - which uses       > a staged flight method, with horizontal takeoff and landing.       >       > Other contenders use vertical takeoff and landing single-stage vehicles;       > Mr Carmack's group, for example.       >       > 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).       >       > (As an aside, would it be possible, in theory, for SS1 to take off from       > a runway by itself?)       >       > I'm travelling at the moment and seem to be having trouble finding a       > copy of the rules to examine, but it's quite possible they would       > invalidate this due to it involving multiple launches/transfer - the       > system as a whole, however, is reusable.       >       > It is a little more complex, and building two aircraft is beyond the       > reach of most groups, but I can't help but wonder what makes it       > inefficient that I'm missing |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca