Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Posted: 1/4/2015 3:23:30 AM EDT
So I was thinking about the redbull guy the other day that floated in a capsule to the upper atmosphere and parachuted back to earth...

and then I thought about how we no longer launch manned space shuttles...





would it not be possible in the interest of saving money, to float a smaller sized shuttle less major fuel and rocket system to the upper atmosphere and then just give it a

bump to get to the non-gravitational area?....the distance/fuel/weight saved by just using a balloon and floating up to a certain point, seems to be advantages




Link Posted: 1/4/2015 3:51:45 AM EDT
[#1]
Quoted:
So I was thinking about the redbull guy the other day that floated in a capsule to the upper atmosphere and parachuted back to earth...
and then I thought about how we no longer launch manned space shuttles...


would it not be possible in the interest of saving money, to float a smaller sized shuttle less major fuel and rocket system to the upper atmosphere and then just give it a
bump to get to the non-gravitational area?....the distance/fuel/weight saved by just using a balloon and floating up to a certain point, seems to be advantages

View Quote


if you don't get it to 17,500 mph it will just come back down
Link Posted: 1/4/2015 4:01:06 AM EDT
[#2]
that's essentially what SpaceShipOne did. Ride up out of the gravity well on a plane, fire rockets to get to space. Sub-orbital, but the idea is the same.

If you want to reach orbit, as fan said, you need to get going much faster.
Link Posted: 1/4/2015 5:03:16 AM EDT
[#3]
Alternative to what you're suggesting: SPACE ELEVATOR



A geosynchronous station tethered to the ground by a cable acting like an elevator. Cargo gets dragged up and assembeled in the station. Would drastically decrease launch costs (somewhere around $15K / kg weight).




Problem for a long time has been finding a material strong enough to form the tether with. Looks like graphene will be the solution.







During the original planning phases of the ISS, it was supposed to have a 'dry dock' and manufacturing facilities of sorts to assemble larger space fairing vessels in space. Kind of never happened due to budget constraints is my guess
Link Posted: 1/4/2015 1:06:34 PM EDT
[#4]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
if you don't get it to 17,500 mph it will just come back down
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



Quoted:

So I was thinking about the redbull guy the other day that floated in a capsule to the upper atmosphere and parachuted back to earth...

and then I thought about how we no longer launch manned space shuttles...





would it not be possible in the interest of saving money, to float a smaller sized shuttle less major fuel and rocket system to the upper atmosphere and then just give it a

bump to get to the non-gravitational area?....the distance/fuel/weight saved by just using a balloon and floating up to a certain point, seems to be advantages







if you don't get it to 17,500 mph it will just come back down
is that just for orbit? or exiting earths pull.........



 
Link Posted: 1/4/2015 1:14:01 PM EDT
[#5]
Link Posted: 1/4/2015 1:15:23 PM EDT
[#6]
Link Posted: 1/4/2015 3:40:03 PM EDT
[#7]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


17,500 mph is for low-Earth orbit. Escape velocity (to escape Earth's gravity entirely) is around 25,000 mph.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So I was thinking about the redbull guy the other day that floated in a capsule to the upper atmosphere and parachuted back to earth...
and then I thought about how we no longer launch manned space shuttles...


would it not be possible in the interest of saving money, to float a smaller sized shuttle less major fuel and rocket system to the upper atmosphere and then just give it a
bump to get to the non-gravitational area?....the distance/fuel/weight saved by just using a balloon and floating up to a certain point, seems to be advantages



if you don't get it to 17,500 mph it will just come back down
is that just for orbit? or exiting earths pull.........
 


17,500 mph is for low-Earth orbit. Escape velocity (to escape Earth's gravity entirely) is around 25,000 mph.


That speed is determined by the strength of earth's gravity and by the size of the earth. When you are relatively "near" the earth (say within about 300 miles from the surface) and traveling horizontally, the earth's gravity bends your path in such a way that you drop about 16 feet down from your original path in a period of 1 second (This is true regardless of your horizontal speed). But it also happens that the surface of the earth, due to its curvature, drops about 16 feet in 5 miles. So if you are moving horizontally at 5 miles per second, then in 1 second you will drop 16 feet, but at the same time the earth's surface will "drop away" also by 16 feet (because of the 5 miles you traveled). The result is that you will go neither closer to nor farther from the earth in that one second. At the end of 1 second, you are still going horizontally at 5 miles per second, still at the same altitude, and the cycle repeats itself, all the way around the earth.

If you were to travel more slowly (say at 2 miles per second), then your altitude would drop more quickly than the earth's surface dropped away from you. You would find yourself getting closer to the earth with each passing second, eventually intersecting with it (ouch!).

If you were to travel more quickly (say at 6 miles per second), then the opposite would happen: In 1 second your path would bend by 16 feet, but the earth's surface would drop away by MORE than 16 feet. You would find yourself getting ever farther from the earth with each passing second. (This trend will stop after a while, and you'll reach a maximum altitude and then start falling closer again--unless your initial speed exceeds "escape velocity"; but that's another subject).

So, based on the strength of gravity, five miles per second (approximately) is the "perfect speed" to go in perfect circle whose radius is about the same as the earth's radius. If you want to orbit at much higher altitudes, the "perfect speed" is correspondingly smaller.*RickB
Link Posted: 1/4/2015 5:12:36 PM EDT
[#8]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
I think there's a slight misunderstanding in how orbital mechanics work. Earth's gravity doesn't just drop off suddenly in space. In fact, where most shuttles and satellites orbit, they are still feeling a very significant portion of Earth's gravity. They are still being pulled to Earth at a rate of acceleration only slightly less than we feel at the surface. The difference is that their forward speed allows their, "fall," to match the curvature of the Earth. The reason the space shuttles appear to be in zero g is that they are perpetually falling. They're just moving fast enough forward to fall with the curvature of the Earth. The difficulty in getting something to orbit comes not with getting to the actual elevation, it is getting it to go fast enough to not just fall back to Earth. That's where the MASSIVE amounts of thrust needed come in. As mentioned earlier, if you're not going somewhere in the neighborhood of 17,000 mph parallel to the surface, you will fall right back to Earth.
View Quote



Very well explained. Without an atmosphere we could orbit the earth just feet from the ground (hills and mountains withstanding). You just have to go the right speed, really fast.  17500 MPH is accepted because of the ISS is LEO. ISS altitude is chosen because it is high enough to be clear of MOST (not all) of the atmosphere but low enough that we can get significant mass there with current lift vehicles.
Link Posted: 1/4/2015 6:29:10 PM EDT
[#9]
good stuff...
Link Posted: 1/5/2015 7:30:13 AM EDT
[#10]
Funny you mention this OP, a colleague and I had been working on this problem last year.  There are actually some significant advantages to high-altitude balloon launch, even relative to technologies like plane-assisted launches.

1.  You avoid the thick lower atmosphere completely.  Max-Q becomes trivial, and so the rocket can be almost whatever shape you want.  There may be more efficient engine configurations than sequentially-staged cylindrical rockets.
2.  You don't need the rocket to be aerodynamically compatible with a launch plane.  This is actually a fairly restrictive constraint with plane-launched rockets.
3.  While the total Delta-V savings from balloon launch is small (in terms of starting altitude), remember that in a rocket, any improvements tend to cascade due to reduced fuel requirements.
4.  Using hydrogen, balloon lifting power (via total enclosed volume) can be scaled almost without limit.  This is not possible with plane-assisted launches.  The dangers of hydrogen balloons are much less pronounced on a single-use device that has its own escape mechanism.

A balloon-launched rocket is also known as a "rockoon", if you want to do any further reading.
Link Posted: 9/8/2015 8:23:48 AM EDT
[#11]
Bloostar is currently working on this very problem. It's a pretty neat idea.

http://www.bloostar.com/
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top