"Sticking Out Like a Sore Thumb": A Not-So-Clandestine Rocket Launching Operation
So... Yahoo News etc. and Space.com were likely told that the Terrier-Orion triple rocket launch scheduled to take place in Virginia today (not sure if they've launched yet?) is no big deal, yada yada, typical "science payload" on a weather balloon parachute, blah blah. If there is any story here, it's classified and none of our beeswax. That's where I hope to help out.
Well. You know that up-and-coming company, Virgin Galactic? Run by that crazy and successful long haired guy that looks a bit like Dog the Bounty Hunter? Well, he just watched his space plane take off the other day this week, iirc, with an assisted launch from the specialized mother ship "WhiteKnightII".
The thing that struck my interest is that the latest known (to the public) "scramjets", operated by our military and contractors, still require an "assist" from another vehicle in order to achieve orbit (or sub-orbit, as you would have it).
For a hypersonic UAV, the logical means would be a tried-and-true solid fuel rocket, ideally something like the Terrier-Orion or Black Brant rockets. Because the crew has been removed from the picture, all life support concerns are also removed -- including worry about G-forces (which is why a different type of rocket may be used!).
I suppose that it's possible (but not definite of course!) that this amazing "triple launch" from Virginia ( http://news.yahoo.com/launch-3-milit...220717169.html ) might be something to do with an amazing new technology (that's been in sci-fi for many years!) required in order to "boost" a specialized craft into space...
Particularly in the case of a stealth or spy craft, you would not want to be over-encumbered by the bulky equipment needed to launch from the surface while the drone is mapping or attacking a target. Therefor a rocket assisted launch or airplane assisted launch is the way to go -- and the only way to race another nation's ICBM launch is by launching your counter-measures just as quickly.
Hope you guys enjoy the footage of the launches, if it's out there already!
I really hope it's not just another Vandenberg style nuclear dry run toward Syria
p.s. I should give some info on these launches!
http://news.yahoo.com/launch-3-milit...220717169.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramjet_programsLaunch of 3 Military Rockets Tonight Visible Along US East Coast
SPACE.com By by Mike Wall, Senior Writer
3 hours ago
The U.S. military will launch three rockets from Virginia early Tuesday (Jan. 14) in back-to-back-to-back liftoffs that could be visible to observers in the mid-Atlantic region, weather permitting.
Three Terrier-Orion suborbital rockets are scheduled to blast off from NASA's Wallops Flight Facility between 1 a.m. and 5 a.m. EST (0600 to 1000 GMT) Tuesday within a span of 20 seconds, on hush-hush missions for the Department of Defense (DoD).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sounding_rocket
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misty_(satellite)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandenberg_Air_Force_Base
http://www.space.com/24249-commercia...-off-2014.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Upd...et-test-flight
Virgin Galactic CEO
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramjet_programs
It could be that the military is trying to see which scramjet to mass produce: could be a test run of 3 different craft to compare their abilities in action!
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/18/scramjet_test/
p.s.DARPA scramjet nudges Mach 10
Successful Oz launch of HyCAUSE
By Lester Haines, 18th June 2007
Australia's Woomera Test Facility last Friday hosted the successful launch and firing of a scramjet engine which reached speeds of "up to Mach 10", the country's Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO) has announced.
The HyCAUSE lifts off atop a TALOS rocket. Photo: DSTOThe HyCAUSE vehicle - a joint project between DSTO, the US's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and the Australian Hypersonics Initiative (AHI)- took off atop a TALOS rocket and reached a heady 530km before firing its way to around 11,000km/h (6,800mph), according to Oz's parliamentary secretary to the Minister for Defence, Peter Lindsay.
Lindsay trumpeted: "This research is a major boost to Australian and international scramjet technology research. Australia is a world leader in hypersonics research."
DARPA's deputy director of the Tactical Technology Office, Dr Steven Walker, said: "This test has obtained the first ever flight data on the inward-turning scramjet* engine design. DARPA will compare this flight data to ground test data measured on the same engine configuration in the US. We are pleased with this joint effort between the US and Australia and believe that a hypersonic airplane could be a reality in the not too distant future."
DSTO boffin Dr Warren Harch explained that "hypersonic propulsion using supersonic combustion ramjet (scramjet) technology offered the possibility of very high speeds and fuel efficiencies". He added: "This technology has the potential to put numerous defence and civilian aerospace applications within our reach during the next couple of decades."
The principal advantage of the scramjet is that it contains relatively few moving parts. To qualify for the scramjet title, the engine must mix atmospheric air with fuel (hydrogen) and ignite it while flow throughout the engine remains at supersonic speeds.
This last requisite points to the scramjet's main disadvantage - it has to be going pretty fast before it can be fired up, meaning it has to be brought to operational speed by, for example, a good old-fashioned rocket.
The latest test of the tech follows last year's acceleration of a HyShot III scramjet to an estimated 9,000km/h (5,600mph) as part of a joint project with the UK's Qinetic.
DSTO last year signed the AU$74m "Hypersonics International Flight Research Experimentation (HiFire) Agreement" with the United States Air Force, which will see 10 "hypersonic flight experiments" at Woomera over the next five years. ®
Bootnote
*The difference between an inward-turning scramjet and, for example, NASA's X-43, is that the latter has a box-shaped combustion chamber in which "the large surface areas created by rectangular designs generate tremendous heat transfer into a vehicle, requiring extra fuel loads just to cool areas around the engine chamber", as DefenceTalk puts it.
The former boasts a funnel-shaped combustion chamber "where air comes in through a circular opening, increases in pressure as it passes through, then leaves with more thrust and less heating than through a rectangular design".
The Road to Enterprise PaaS
http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/l...php/t1034.html
Full Version: Solid Vs. Liquid Rockets
Unmanned Spaceflight.com > Other Missions > Private Missions
Chmee
May 27 2005, 07:38 PM
I am no rocket scientist, but it seems to me that the cheapest way to space for unmanned missions would be to use rockets with solid fuel and not liquid. Solid rockets are much, much simpler than liquid rockets since they have virtually no moving parts (no pumps, engines, etc). It has been my experience that the simpler the design, the fewer potential points, and thus opportunities, for failure.
This simplicity also translates into a much easier assembly process, and thus lower cost. So why don't we use some modified Shuttle SRB's to get into orbit?
I know that that solid rockets have some "drawbacks", in that they cannot be throttled nor turned off once lit. But how many (unmanned) launches have we seen that needed the thrust to be cut? If the rocket went off course, they are blown up immediately, regardless what kind of fuel is in them.
I believe that solid fuel is not as efficient as liquid (at least does not have a high ISP). However, if it is 4 times cheaper to assemble a solid rocket vs. a liquid, the higher fuel requirement should not be a big deal; just make the rocket a bit larger and it will still be much cheaper.
Are there other issues that I did not list that would make using solids not desirable? If there are no other issues, why isn't the space industry using them now for cheap access?
Bob Shaw
May 27 2005, 07:47 PM
Using SRB-derived rockets for manned launches has been given serious support by the new NASA Administrator, who says also that he already has a heavy-lift vehicle available - the Shuttle stack without the Orbiter.
These are persuasive concepts, though the new Hybrid rocket motors (as used by SpaceShipOne) have some very attractive features, being non-toxic, non cryogenic, and able to be throttled - albeit with a poorer specific impulse than Hydrogen/Oxygen etc.
I can't honestly see unbuilt and expensive Titan-IV class boosters competing, somehow - the post-Shuttle landscape will surely use as much Shuttle hardware as possible, and thereby will save zillions on the launch support side of things...
http://www.cbsnews.com/network/news/...c335b-336.html
I would like to know -- whenever the gov discloses it of course (did I miss it?) how many men died in nuclear missile silos over the last 60 years because of liquid-fuel rockets produced by corrupt companies... how long has NASA tolerated the constant setbacks of having to develop and provide support to terrestrial wartime missions rather than off-world peaceful missions?NASA unveils new super rocket for manned flights beyond Earth orbit
09/14/2011 03:23 PM Filed in: Space News | Exploration | SLS
By WILLIAM HARWOOD
CBS News
NASA unveiled the design of its long-awaited post-shuttle super rocket Wednesday, a gargantuan Saturn 5-class booster intended to propel the agency's manned Orion crew capsules beyond low-Earth orbit and onto a variety of deep space destinations ranging from nearby asteroids to Mars.
NASA's heavy-lift Space Launch System rocket will be ready for its initial test flight in 2017 if the program is fully funded. (Credit: NASA)
If fully funded and developed, it will be the most powerful rocket ever built, dwarfing the lift capability of the space shuttle and exceeding that of the mighty Saturn 5 that propelled the Apollo missions to the moon.
I think it's pretty sick that the nuclear program hijacked our space program.
What do you guys think?
Personally, I want to know what happened re:
"This launch system will create good-paying American jobs, ensure continued U.S. leadership in space and inspire millions around the world," NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said in a statement. "President Obama challenged us to be bold and dream big, and that's exactly what we are doing at NASA. While I was proud to fly on the space shuttle, tomorrow's explorers will now dream of one day walking on Mars."
Why are we stuck with launching small-time unmanned rockets then, instead of actually making good on this?