/sci/ - Science & Math

>>16049828
oh neat it's Black Colt

>>15396189
>>15396198
When aerial refueling?

>>15367982
SSTO no, stage and a half maybe

> umpteen air launch bullshit projects
> no based aerial refueling projects
I hate it

>>15258649
>Winged orbiters without shuttle style FOD-a-palooza launch configurations do have some advantages
Yes, but Radian's is retarded. Just do aerial refueling bro.

> Spacex e2e fantasy is dead
Sounds like it's Black Horse o'clock to me

>>14867125
Correct, afaik zip fuels were never even considered
>Q: I thought the point of the Black Horse was to avoid cryogens, since it uses JP-5 and H2O2. In Clapp's papers though, he talks about using LH2 and LOX! Isn't it safer to avoid cryogens completely?
>A:Well, the BH design isn't final yet. There are definite trade-offs between LH2/LOX, CH4/LOX, RP/LOX and JP5/H2O2. Currently, the non-cryogenic option seems to be the best for the Black Horse, but there are advantages to the other combinations as well. For instance, there is a better current experience base in LOX handling procedures than H2O2; there are more engine designs available for cryogenic fuels; LOX is cheaper, easier to make, and more stable than H2O2.
http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/im/magnus/bh/bh-faq.html

>>14641947
>Air launch is a meme
True, but air fuelling is good

>>14623623
There's a market for NYC to Singapore in an hour rather than a day, don't worry about that. SpaceX won't be filling it though

>>14594456
>>14594486
>Launching at a higher altitude decreases the dV required to reach orbit by such a small amount that I don't see the point of low speed in air refueling.
You can find the technical details here
http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/im/magnus/bh/analog.html
>It turns out that if you begin the mission to space from tanker altitude and airspeed, the amount of propellant that must be expended overcoming drag and gravity losses is greatly reduced, the vehicle tankage, wings and landing gear all become smaller, and everything becomes a whole lot easier.