Video of a proposed replacement for the Space Shuttle| Off-Topic Discussion forum |

MadScientistMatt SuperDork
2/15/12 11:14 a.m.

For some reason, I couldn't link straight to it, but you can see it in this article:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/stratolaunch-plane-people-earth-orbit-203001086.html

Pretty crazy; it's basically the SpaceShipOne setup scaled up.

1988RedT2 SuperDork
2/15/12 11:16 a.m.

That actually makes sense to me!

Javelin GRM+ Memberand SuperDork
2/15/12 11:30 a.m.

Excellent!

ultraclyde HalfDork
2/15/12 11:40 a.m.

"The pair are teaming up with another Internet mogul, Elon Musk, founder of PayPal and Tesla, who is providing funds for the spaceship and booster components."

Oops. They're berkeleyed.

Snowdoggie Dork
2/15/12 12:19 p.m.

Looks like the guys who designed this watched those Gerry Anderson puppetmation shows from the 60s.

EastCoastMojo GRM+ Memberand SuperDork
2/15/12 12:22 p.m.

Two planes joined at the wing, with no cross member at the back for stability? Hmmm, looks sketchy. I like the concept though, can they not do it with one plane and 6 massive engines?

e_pie Reader
2/15/12 12:28 p.m.

Awesome, things like this restore at least a little bit of my faith in humanity.

e_pie Reader
2/15/12 12:31 p.m.

EastCoastMojo wrote: Two planes joined at the wing, with no cross member at the back for stability? Hmmm, looks sketchy. I like the concept though, can they not do it with one plane and 6 massive engines?

It worked just fine with the White Knight and Space Ship One.

BoostedBrandon HalfDork
2/15/12 12:31 p.m.

That looks like something a ten year old me would have built from Lego.

Ian F SuperDork
2/15/12 12:34 p.m.

EastCoastMojo wrote: Two planes joined at the wing, with no cross member at the back for stability? Hmmm, looks sketchy.

Computer controls now allow for planes to fly that would be impossible otherwise.

I like the concept though, can they not do it with one plane and 6 massive engines?

A couple of reasons. First - the heavier the craft, the more power it needs to break orbit, so the space craft needs to be as light as possible and all of the air-flight stuff isn't needed in space. Plus, it would make re-entry heat shielding a bitch. Additionally, in theory, the ground-based plane could be re-used mulitple times with more than one orbiter in space/being prepped. This would greatly reduce costs.

jimbob_racing Dork
2/15/12 12:47 p.m.

Brillant!

EastCoastMojo GRM+ Memberand SuperDork
2/15/12 12:49 p.m.

I meant get the orbiter up there with just one plane and then release it, like this design does, but I know they have it all worked out. I'm no engineer.

4cylndrfury SuperDork
2/15/12 12:54 p.m.

perhaps we're not too far off from this either

ReverendDexter SuperDork
2/15/12 12:56 p.m.

Aero-engineering question: what's the advantage to a twin fuselage setup like that over the standard single fuselage or a flying wing?

akamcfly Reader
2/15/12 1:00 p.m.

ReverendDexter wrote: Aero-engineering question: what's the advantage to a twin fuselage setup like that over the standard single fuselage or a flying wing?

It looks bitchin?

1988RedT2 SuperDork
2/15/12 1:01 p.m.

4cylndrfury wrote: perhaps we're not too far off from this either

Whoa! That thing is totally cutting edge!

pilotbraden Dork
2/15/12 1:09 p.m.

ReverendDexter wrote: Aero-engineering question: what's the advantage to a twin fuselage setup like that over the standard single fuselage or a flying wing?

The heavy and bulky spaceship will be on the centerline, making loading and launching easier and safer. It will not affect the center of gravity when the spaceship is dropped.

This is a very good idea. It is good to see the government let private industry make a go of this. Space travel is getting more affordable do to innovation the govt. can't do.

http://reason.com/blog/2012/02/08/cheap-tickets-to-space-coming-soon

Otto Maddox SuperDork
2/15/12 1:15 p.m.

It is amazing what free enterprise can do sometimes.

The space shuttle was outdated by the time it first launched. And now, we have rely on even older rocket technology.

Conquest351 Dork
2/15/12 1:29 p.m.

4cylndrfury wrote: perhaps we're not too far off from this either

Always thought it would be cool if we actually had these. LOL Make them a little more rigid and apply more thrust via jet engines rather than props and make some decent time getting somewhere.

vwcorvette GRM+ Memberand HalfDork
2/15/12 1:29 p.m.

N Sperlo SuperDork
2/15/12 1:43 p.m.

4cylndrfury wrote: perhaps we're not too far off from this either

I can just imagine a plane hitting the balloon or body (whatever it is) as it falls burning to the ground. Oh, the huge manatee!

Toyman01 GRM+ Memberand SuperDork
2/15/12 1:53 p.m.

friedgreencorrado SuperDork
2/15/12 1:59 p.m.

None of y'all had Estes rockets as a kid?

IIRC, the original Shuttle concept was for it to take off from a supersonic aircraft, but the technology wasn't around. And since we'd already beaten the Soviets to the moon, nobody wanted to cough up the dough to create it.

fast_eddie_72 SuperDork
2/15/12 2:25 p.m.

When I grow up I want to be Burt Rutan. Coolest dude ever.

ReverendDexter SuperDork
2/15/12 3:00 p.m.

pilotbraden wrote:
ReverendDexter wrote: Aero-engineering question: what's the advantage to a twin fuselage setup like that over the standard single fuselage or a flying wing?
The heavy and bulky spaceship will be on the centerline, making loading and launching easier and safer. It will not affect the center of gravity when the spaceship is dropped. This is a very good idea. It is good to see the government let private industry make a go of this. Space travel is getting more affordable do to innovation the govt. can't do. http://reason.com/blog/2012/02/08/cheap-tickets-to-space-coming-soon

OOOOOOoooooooh, okay. This isn't what goes into space, this carries the part that goes into space. That makes a lot more sense.