Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

t/Space Demonstrates New Air-Launch Method

Posted by samzenpus on from the get-it-up-there dept.

FleaPlus writes "Last month t/Space, an organization with plans for constructing a simple, low-cost successor to the Space Shuttle, was mentioned on Slashdot. Recently t/Space used a portion of the concept study funds it had been awarded by NASA to also build and test actual hardware. They performed three weeks of drop tests of a 23%-scale model from a Scaled Composites Proteus carrier aircraft to demonstrate the feasibility of a new air launch method they had devised, dubbed 'Trapeze-Lanyard Air Drop.' The new method eliminates the need for wings on air-launched rockets, potentially leading to improved safety and cost-effectiveness. Last month at a space conference they also displayed a full-scale model of their vehicle. Unfortunately, with the recent selection of Boeing/Northrop-Grumman and Lockheed-Martin as the two competing teams for the contract to build the Shuttle's successor, t/Space's future path is somewhat uncertain."

3 of 117 comments (clear)

  1. Down with combustion! by mister_llah · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If we could just get rid of combustion and the need for incredibly expensive fuels... we'd be set.

    Elecromagnetism? Superheated water / water reclamation?

    ===

    http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/news/backgrou nd/facts/vcd.html

    --
    MoM++ - A Classic Expanded - [Master of Magic 1.5]
    http://mompp.sourceforge.net/
  2. Uncertain future.. but not in space tourism.. by guyfromindia · · Score: 3, Insightful

    t/Space's future path is somewhat uncertain."
    Given the possible boom in space tourism, I dont see t/Space going out of business anytime, especially if they have a viable technology.

  3. Re:What you saw was a weather balloon! by DerekLyons · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Whatever happened to launching from lighter-than-air platforms? With conventional rockets, so much weight goes into fuel to move the fuel you'll burn later to move the fuel that comes even later. Surely someone's doing something with a straightforward idea like this?
    It's one of those ideas that seems straightforward... Until you do the actual math.

    It turns out that it only takes about 5% of the fuel (or less) to get to the altitude that a typical airship flies - and that a reasonable size payload requires an airship twice the size of the Hindenburg to carry it. Given that a) fuel costs are down in the noise and b) the (extremely fragile) airship costs hundreds to thousands of times more than is saved in the costs of tankage - it suddenly seems like a much less nifty idea.

    Anyhow, the main problem in getting to orbit isn't about altitude, it's about speed.