/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2124020]

Why has nobody done this yet? I'm talking about a space plane that can take off and land conventionally with what essentially is a huge rocket attached to it

Obviously the plane would be made of special materials etc

[Anonymous No.2124029]

Rockets strong enough to achieve escape velocity are too heavy, even with special materials etc

[Anonymous No.2124036]

>Why has nobody done this yet?

People much smarter than you have tried.

[Anonymous No.2124049]

We have done this. Plenty of times. In various configurations.

The Bell X-1 was the first craft to do something like what you're suggesting. A B-29 bomber carried it aloft and then dropped it at a certain altitude, where the rockets would then ignite and the plane became the first craft to break the sound barrier in level flight.

Then came craft like the X-15, capable of sub-orbital spaceflight. It was carried aloft to 50,000 feet by a B-52 bomber, then dropped, and ignited, where it soared to altitudes previously unheard of, at speeds previously unimaginable. It is pictured here.

The more recent development in this kind of technology is the Scaled Composite SpaceShipOne and Two. The White Knight mothership carries the spaceplane to around 50,000 feet drops it, where the rocket motor ignites, and you pull up, really really hard.

Basically, you've touched upon the cheapest and quickest way to achieve sub-orbital spaceflight, and many many before you have tried this idea.

[Anonymous No.2124056]

>>2124049
>derp I have 0 reading comprehension.

[Anonymous No.2124058]

>>2124049
forgot picture, lol

[Anonymous No.2124069]

>>2124020
It'll happen if we can develop lighter fuels. If we had anti-matter fuel, it would be trivially easy. Right now fuels are so heavy you need multiple stages.

[Anonymous No.2124082]

>>2124056
It's not that I lack reading comprehension. I know that OP was talking about orbital flight. The problem is that it's not possible, the closest thing we have to anything like what he is talking about is these suborbital airdrop flights.

So basically, OP, what you're asking for requires a more efficient engine, nothing more. Everything else is already there, it's proven technology.

[Anonymous No.2124099]

>>2124069
What if you attached a few nuclear bombs to the plane, then when it reaches 70000ft you could release a couple of bombs which would detonate shortly after dropping, and the shockwave from the blast would propel the ship into orbit. Would that work? Because nuclear bombs are way lighter and capable of releasing much more energy than conventional rockets

[Anonymous No.2124124]

He's not talking about something that gets dropped out of another plane. He's talking about a single plane that flies up into the upper atmosphere, and then ITSELF rockets into orbit. The reason it hasn't been possible thus far is because of the weight of the fuel needed to get orbital velocity. There are a number of jets that can make it up out of the atmosphere by themselves -- so you could call them "space planes" -- but the real trick is making the 7 km/s velocity necessary for orbit. That takes a lot of energy.

[Anonymous No.2124145]

>>2124099
That's called nuclear pulse propulsion, and might work, though the people back on earth might not be thrilled about the fallout you leave behind.

[Anonymous No.2124153]

>>2124124
>He's not talking about something that gets dropped out of another plane
Well, yeah, I know he's not, but that's just because he doesn't understand the technology, therefore he doesn't understand that that's the only possible way anything like this can work, as demonstrated countless times in the past. It's not that his idea is wrong or anything, he just doesn't understand how it would have to be executed.

These kind of crafts don't launch from the ground because that's even more fuel you have to take with you. You launch them when they're already in the air. There's also a lot of safety factors that go into this, like being able to vent all of your fuel before landing, avoiding all of the hazards of launching from a runway with a massive store of high explosives onboard, etc.

[Anonymous No.2124178]

>>2124099

>mfw high-altitude nuclear detonations cause widespread EMP damage, not to mention fallout

Nuclear pulse propulsion is a bad idea in the atmosphere of an inhabited planet, mmkay.