/sci/ - Science & Math

bump

BASED BEN DOES IT AGAIN

>>12669214
thanks, anon

>>12667567
more risky and unsafe than normal rocket capsules

>>12667567
>so what are /sci/s thoughts on India's spaceplane?

>>12667567
>thoughts on spaceplanes?

>>12667567
Space travel is foolish.
We live in one of the most diverse and hospitable planets in the known universe, by the time we find anything of usefulness we will be unable to utilize it in time.
If we cannot solve our problems here on earth, we are not ready to explore space- we would be as refugees, bringing our cancer with us to another place

>>12667567
Starship makes them obsolete.

>>12667567
>thoughts on spaceplanes?

>>12667567
>thoughts on spaceplanes?

>>12670227
>thoughts on spaceplanes?

>>12667567
>thoughts on spaceplanes?

>>12667567
>thoughts on spaceplanes?

>>12667567
>thoughts on spaceplanes?
https://futurism.com/the-byte/pentagon-military-space-station-outpost
https://www.eg24.news/2020/07/is-the-united-states-building-the-first-military-space-station-know-the-details.html

>>12667567
>thoughts on spaceplanes?
https://www.aircosmosinternational.com/article/military-space-beijing-defies-washington-2864

>>12670207
>them?
who's them?
INDIA USA RUSSIA CHINA OTHER?
ALL-of-the-ABOVE?
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLLxHwkkuCQiCZfd8R_fCJ9z6sG54jNIBr

>>12667567
>thoughts on spaceplanes?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2020/01/14/five-features-that-make-sierra-nevadas-dream-chaser-spaceplane-unique/?sh=29d90aa27a1f

>>12667567
>thoughts on spaceplanes?
https://www.space.com/sierra-nevada-dream-chaser-launch-2021.html

>>12667567
>thoughts on spaceplanes?
https://spacenews.com/sierra-nevada-weighing-options-for-launching-future-dream-chaser-missions/

>>12667567
>thoughts on spaceplanes?
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/spiral_development.html

For what we currently use space vehicles for?
Useless.

I'm sure there'll be a use in the future on other planets with much lower delta V requirements and/or a thicker atmosphere. Or when for some reason we don't calculate the exact flight plan of every space vehicle months or years in advance.

>>12667567
>thoughts on spaceplanes?
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/space/lectures/lec22.html

>>12670445
haha spacedog

>>12667567
Why do they need wings if there is no air in space?

>>12667567
>thoughts on spaceplanes?
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2136022/lift-space-plane-race-china-tests-hypersonic-drone-model

>>12667567
Lol the thing in OP's pic would work horribly bc the COM of the spaceplane isn't gonna be centred.

But anyways OP there are many issues with them making them basically pointless and retarded as space fairing mechanisms.
1. Renewable rockets more generally run into the issue of fuel density. You gotta carry a ton of fuel per kilo of payload somehow and so whatever you do with the surrounding metalworks, the main cost driver is always going to be that big fat tanker of fuel.
2. When you make spaceplanes reusable you multiply the complexity tenfold, but because of how re-entry works, you have to re-fit the spaceplane after every flight anyways. The complexity adds to these refit times, as well as to safety concerns - gotta re-check every flight system, surface.

>>12670326
take your meds

>>>/x/

>>12667567
>thoughts on spaceplanes?
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Boeing_X-40

>>12672042
Fuck off dickhead, its a larp at Starship.
go suck on Musk's exploding cock.

>>12670818
the hard part is not getting to space
the hard part is getting back, and if you bring wings with you that's much easier
>>12671984
it's a test for India's dolphin sex fully reusable TSTO

>>12672042
>scitard go REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!

>>12670203
This sounds like a scene from a movie.

>>12667567
>thoughts on spaceplanes?
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Hermes_(spacecraft)

>>12667567
With higher energy density fuels / nuclear rockets they make a lot of sense for LEO work, with current fuels they are a bit shit.
t. Lithium / Fluorine chad

>>12673981
eh, I think propane/LOx or Methane/LOx should be perfectly adequate for a fully reusable TSTO (upper VTHL spaceplane. lower VTVL rocket), which would become THE premier way to travel.

>>12667567
Please explain how this is different from the Space Shuttle ?

>>12675084
the space shuttle was a bad NASA design for delivering a spaceplane to orbit, ruined by the Air Force and Congress and budgetary constraints and cowardice, without a purpose
this is a good Indian design for delivery a spaceplane to suborbital space, for testing high mach dynamics and booster reentry, to help them make a recoverable spaceplane booster

>>12670285
>>12671966
Why are chinese images alway taken from magazine photo through the magnifying glass by a calculator?

>>12673981
>current fuels
>Lithium / Fluorine
rocketards really think their magik "new propulsion system" will happen.
Kill yourself.

>>12670113
*ppppffhhhh*
*braaaap*

>>12675114
Pajeets cannot into space though

>>12676076
kek, cause its true.
its watching fleas fart

>>12676037
>Why doesn't USA-MILITARY give us public better images?
jeez, why not?

>>12667567
high L/D ratio means reentry acceleration is lower. Meaning they'd be suitable for your gran to ride. But damn is it hard to beat capsules in terms of safety.

>>12676139
they are the third biggest space launch organization after SpaceX and the Chinese government

>>12676881
it's too bad that capsules won't work for upper stage recovery, which is the important metric
if you're not recovering your upper stage then you're going to get priced out of the market by Starship

>>12676076
Source:
https://library.sciencemadness.org/library/books/ignition.pdf
Book page 188, PDF page 204

fucking retarded.
its like designing a nozzel to be efficient at surface and in space

Once cost to orbit hits some arbitrary lower bound, spaceplanes are going to become the most popular form of manned spacecraft for sure. There are just so many objective and perceived safety benefits to them over capsule/parachute designs.

>>12677051
incorrect, one of the advantages of the spaceplane system is that your engines ONLY need fire in vacuum instead of needing to bring both sea level and vacuum engines (like Starship)

>>12677051
Just to be clear. designing a rocket nozzle "to be efficient at the surface and in space" isn't hard and has basically already been done. Most of the upper-stage variants of the RL-10 have extendable nozzle extensions to help make the engine more compact inside the fairing. They even actuated one while an engine was firing once and it didn't blow up.

The issue with single stage rockets isn't engine design. It's payload fraction to orbit as it relates to cost.

>>12677253
you are literally the first person in this entire thread to mention SSTO, take your schizo-air-force-boomer-ass-SSTO bullshit out of here, this is a TSTO thread

>>12677259
Bro chill. I never said I liked SSTOs. I was just pointing out the real issue with building them. People always say it's an issue with engines but that's a fucking lie.

The engines can be built. It's the mass to orbit problem that is unavoidable.

>>12677270
yeah but you're the first person to mention them

>>12676862
I'm talking about Chinese images though. They already looks like made in AUTOCAD and then they are saved IN 240p and edited in MS paint into blurry mess.

>>12677342
>this is artistic-license.

>>12677353
implessive

>>12677048
Oh, yeah i don't doubt that one can create such an engine.

>>12677494
isn't that just a chemical thermal rocket

>>12675084
space shuttle went to orbit
this merely goes up and then falls back down again