Slashdot Mirror


China Plans to Also Launch Reusable Spaceplanes by 2020 (arstechnica.com)

Slashdot reader hackingbear writes: According to a statement from China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation, China's reusable spaceplane will launch in 2020. The spaceplane will be launched vertically by a winged rocket to orbit and each of them will be returned to the ground horizontally, according to Chinese media reports. The system is designed to be reusable in 24 hours and for at least 20 times, cutting launch costs to 1/10 of the current price... "Currently China is developing its own reusable earth-to-orbit space vehicles that can take off and land horizontally," Liu Shiquan, vice director of the China Aerospace Science & Industry Corporation, said. "We have already finished several crucial ground tests for engines and [other key components], yielding remarkable achievements."

92 comments

  1. they are ALL reusable by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    entropy, man.

  2. Yeah by Motard · · Score: 1

    I predict that their also launching capabilities will be unsurpassed.

    1. Re:Yeah by myowntrueself · · Score: 0

      I predict that their also launching capabilities will be unsurpassed.

      Well, it'll be interesting to see if their 'reusable spaceplane' design is a deathtrap like the US space shuttle was.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    2. Re:Yeah by Immerman · · Score: 0

      Does the shuttle really qualify as a spaceplane though? Seems like the definition requires "acting as an aircraft in atmosphere", while everything I've heard of the shuttle suggests it flew more like a brick.... :-D

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    3. Re:Yeah by Motard · · Score: 1

      But it clearly also launched.

    4. Re: Yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rockets with wings existed forever, all that is needed is some serious dedication to reach orbits.

    5. Re: Yeah by Motard · · Score: 1

      That's how science works, after all.

    6. Re:Yeah by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      True enough. The spaceplane concept hasn't had the greatest track record so far. Whether that was because of implementation issues or it's an intrinsic feature of spaceplanes remains to be seen. But I'd note that NASA, who has the most experience with that approach, has abandoned it.

      The Soviets had the best approach to it; remote control and automated systems. The Buran never flew with a crew on board; its test flight was entirely automated. They considered it too risky for cosmonauts. The Space Shuttles test flight had a crew on board with no hope of survival in event of a mishap; it never flew without a crew, could never have flown without a crew.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    7. Re:Yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You make it sound like that's significantly different from rockets. At present anything that's going into space is a significant risk. The main difference between the US shuttles and the Soviet ones is that by the time they had that first flight, the country was practically bankrupt. By that time, they had already had the Chernobyl nuclear reactor accident and much of what infrastructure they had was having serious problems due to the lack of resources for design and maintenance.

      Fully automating things is OK for certain things, it's been feasible to send probes to other planets for decades because we didn't need to send a probe. But, we could never get the science done in orbit that we've gotten if we took such a conservative approach to the problem.

      It's unfortunate, that there have been deaths in the space program, but I'm not sure how it could realistically be avoided given what we knew at the time. And the number of people killed has been relatively small when compared with the various other expeditions that have gone wrong.

    8. Re:Yeah by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      The Space Shuttles test flight had a crew on board with no hope of survival in event of a mishap; it never flew without a crew, could never have flown without a crew.

      Not for technical reasons, though, but for astronauts unions reasons. Plus, one could argue that "Buran...never flew with a crew, could never have flown with a crew" as well. And making Buran flyable with people would have involved more work than making STS fly *without* people since Buran was effectively unfinished at the time of its flight.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    9. Re:Yeah by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Plenty of rockets have launched, and even flown home and landed. I haven't heard anyone calling the Falcon 9 a spaceplane...

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    10. Re:Yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Space Shuttles test flight had a crew on board with no hope of survival in event of a mishap"

      You do realize that the Shuttle had ejection seats at that point right? Not that they would have been terribly useful throughout the entire flight but it made their chances of survival fairly decent (for test pilots).

    11. Re:Yeah by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      You make it sound like that's significantly different from rockets. At present anything that's going into space is a significant risk. The main difference between the US shuttles and the Soviet ones is that by the time they had that first flight, the country was practically bankrupt. By that time, they had already had the Chernobyl nuclear reactor accident and much of what infrastructure they had was having serious problems due to the lack of resources for design and maintenance.

      Fully automating things is OK for certain things, it's been feasible to send probes to other planets for decades because we didn't need to send a probe. But, we could never get the science done in orbit that we've gotten if we took such a conservative approach to the problem.

      It's unfortunate, that there have been deaths in the space program, but I'm not sure how it could realistically be avoided given what we knew at the time. And the number of people killed has been relatively small when compared with the various other expeditions that have gone wrong.

      Well, the first flight of all the US rockets didn't have crews... so why did the space shuttle have to go up first time with a crew if its not significantly different from rockets?

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  3. This makes Elon sad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SpaceX just became an also-ran in this area.

    1. Re: This makes Elon sad. by Type44Q · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I know.. isn't it weird how a hollow announcement of someone's "plans" beats out actual achievements?

    2. Re: This makes Elon sad. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      It should be interesting when BO has NG flying. I'm guessing that bezo will have either Bigelow or Axiom launch a leo station, followed by one to eml1, and then one on the moon. With that, BO, SX, and maybe some others will be launching weekly, if not every couple of days.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    3. Re:This makes Elon sad. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Actually, SpaceX hasn't been interested at all in spaceplanes either for a very long time or ever, so they can't be an "also-ran" if that means what I think since they never entered the race.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    4. Re: This makes Elon sad. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      For a second I thought that "NG" meant "natural gas". Then I realized it mostly does. :)

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  4. Mmm Hmm by rmdingler · · Score: 1
    SpaceX and Blue Origin are much more likely to pull this off than the Chinese.

    Aren't they going to the moon too?

    With the Chinese, it's not precisely the same thing as when a tinpot dictator spouts off with some improbable future outcome, but it sure is reminiscent.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re: Mmm Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You fail with your unsubstantiated assumption about other people on this planet.

      Meanwhile, american battle cruisers don't know how to swim without colliding and killing their own crew.

    2. Re: Mmm Hmm by Motard · · Score: 1

      Swim? English not your first language?

    3. Re: Mmm Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, you are a fucking genius at guessing.
      Meanwhile american BATTLE cruisers are a death trap for their own crewmen.

    4. Re: Mmm Hmm by Motard · · Score: 2

      Wow, you are a fucking genius at guessing.
      Meanwhile american BATTLE cruisers are a death trap for their own crewmen.

      Would you care to test that for yourself, Mr. AC? Would you dare to confront an American Battle Cruiser on the high seas and only have concern for it's own crewman?

    5. Re: Mmm Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If a tanker can sink your stupid cruisers without a single shot - no one needs to worry about that.

    6. Re: Mmm Hmm by Motard · · Score: 1

      Then get yourself onto a tanker and rule the seas. Our stupid cruisers won't have a chance.

    7. Re: Mmm Hmm by Motard · · Score: 1

      Or, just keep typing stuff into a little backwater of the internet.

    8. Re: Mmm Hmm by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Ehm, the US Navy hasn't had a battle cruiser in operation for decades.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    9. Re:Mmm Hmm by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      When the Soviets started Sputnik, they were just 10 years beyond german WWII technology.
      When the USA sent people to the moon, they where 20 years beyond german WWII technology.

      No idea which point in technology advancement we want to assign China at the moment. But technology wise they are minimum 30 beyond the moon technology of the USA. Probably a decade more. Considering that the moon crew vehicle, landers etc. had less processing power than a toaster ... everything can now bought on the world market.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    10. Re: Mmm Hmm by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      At least he speaks and writes a second language ...
      Swim ... a German could make the same mistake.

      Which word would you chose? Drive? Travel? Move? Float? Drift? Go? Find?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    11. Re: Mmm Hmm by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Would you dare to confront an American Battle Cruiser
      Sure! I doubt they have a sea worthy Battle Cruiser ... perhaps you want to google what a battle cruiser is. But, well it was the parents fault to start that discussion :D

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    12. Re:Mmm Hmm by rmdingler · · Score: 1
      Your esimates are well thought out. China, though, is a yet a great imitator and an unproven innovator.

      I have high hopes for Humanity, but I also fear that instead of exploiting space exploration for the greater good of mankind, we are on the precipice of exploiting it for military advantage.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

  5. no people please by supernova87a · · Score: 1

    Despite the photo in the article having some kind of astronaut-looking person in it, I hope they're not wasting $/effort on trying to put people in space.

    For any satellite or cargo mission in the foreseeable future, there is absolutely no need to have a person in space, and doing so just increases the costs / risks and decreases the useful load of what has to go up there.

    Aside from going to Mars / putting a person on Mars, there really isn't any need for humans to be in space at this point. As a certain scientist said, the main scientific output from the ISS has been high-school-science-fair-level projects.

    Aside from the glory factor, there's no need for people. And while maybe for some countries that's still necessary, for a country like China -- guys, we already believe you.

    1. Re:no people please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope they're not wasting $/effort on trying to put people in space.

      The Chinese are adversaries whom we may one day be obliged to fight in war. It pleases me to see them wasting their time and money because that is time and money that cannot be spent against us.

    2. Re:no people please by Motard · · Score: 1

      I think the Chinese are pretty much made of time and money.

    3. Re:no people please by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's what internet space buffs always say. It flies in the face of the experience of the space program to date, but it's easy to say sitting behind a keyboard.

    4. Re:no people please by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      Maybe they want a new way to take people to their space station?

    5. Re:no people please by Motard · · Score: 1

      Yes, internet space buffs are always saying stuff like we don't need people in space.

    6. Re:no people please by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      As of last summer, the ISS has given us thousands of manhours of zero-G experience by 222 people. This is hardly baking soda volcanos.

    7. Re:no people please by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      And what's the practical use of having thousands of manhours of zero-G ?

    8. Re:no people please by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Aside from the glory factor, there's no need for people. And while maybe for some countries that's still necessary, for a country like China -- guys, we already believe you.

      Hey, now give me a reason for putting anything in space at all, ever.

      Today, if we were all living in say Europe, we could use the argument, demanding robot oceangoing ships because there's no need for people to do worldwide exploring - stay at home and let the drones and robot ships do the work. Building ships and planes for meatbags is too expensive, and what's the point? We have to fix the problems in Europe before the expense of sending people to explore new lands that might not be of any use anyhow.

      Problem is, you don't understand the psychology of humans. The science is awesome, but what is the point of exploring the moons of Jupiter if we plan to never ever leave earth, stay here forever, never to leave because reasons.

      Regardless, there are many of us like myself, who with a manned presence, support an almost unlimited NASA/space exploration budget. Unmanned and manned together.

      Without a manned element, I support a budget of $0.00.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    9. Re:no people please by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      And what's the practical use of having thousands of manhours of zero-G ?

      Of what use is a newborn baby?

      - W Churchill

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    10. Re:no people please by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      Of what use is a newborn baby?

      They are fun to make. And they don't cost billions a piece.

    11. Re:no people please by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      Hey, now give me a reason for putting anything in space at all, ever.

      GPS, telecommunication, earth observing sciences, weather forecasting, mapping, espionage, to name just a handful of obvious reasons.

      what is the point of exploring the moons of Jupiter if we plan to never ever leave earth,

      It's interesting to see what's out there.

    12. Re:no people please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That kind of mindset can be applied to virtually every human endeavor at some point in history. "Cars, why do we need those my pappy made due with a horse and carriage" or "Oil rigs? We'll never need those there is plenty of oil on land". The same will most likely be said for space, as the population grows, our desire for resources (electrical power, rare metals, etc) increases and information (telecommunications, earth observation, etc) becomes a more integral part of our lives.

    13. Re:no people please by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Pssst! S E X in free fall!

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    14. Re:no people please by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Of what use is a newborn baby?

      They are fun to make. And they don't cost billions a piece.

      Until you get divorced.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  6. Re:How about a 1-time usable Republican President? by Motard · · Score: 0

    How can this be if CHIIIINA is also-doing all this good stuff?

  7. Re: How about a 1-time usable Republican President by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Crying snowflake's wet dream.

  8. China has a long successful track record in space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Hollow announcement", eh? You must have been living in a cave for the past 20 years.

    Ever since the US blocked China from joining the ISS in late 90s, China has been developing its own space program, and pretty much everything went as planned (which they sometimes announced a few years ahead) since the first Shenzhou launch.

    This is another announcement for things to come the next few years, from a space program that has been delivering results, as pre-announced, for over a decade.

  9. Re:How Eclipses Show the Flat Earth by Motard · · Score: 2

    You wouldn't even have learned words like corona or chromoSPHERE, or even eclipse, if what you're trying to convince us were true. You're just a troll. And not a very good one at that.

  10. Schedule seems ambitious by joe_frisch · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nothing fundamentally wrong with a fully re-usable space plane but the 2020 launch date would imply that they are very far along. If so, I'm surprised no design information has leaked out. They should already be testing full scale gliding models etc.

    I hope its real and they have just been keeping it hush hush: the more human capability there is to do space, the happier I am. I'll believe it though when I see some pictures of actual hardware .

    1. Re:Schedule seems ambitious by hackingbear · · Score: 1

      There are many design and scaled models leaked on the Chinese web, like this, this, and this. Do not assume if you don't read Chinese and really know nothing about China.

    2. Re:Schedule seems ambitious by joe_frisch · · Score: 1

      Thank you for the links.

      I've also seen the old US reusable spaceplane models - you can still find some in the Smithsonian and other museums. We also had dynosaur, and the various lifting body craft. Sill we never built a real one. (unless you count the partially-reusuable shuttle).

      They are also not making a big deal about it in their internal museums - at lest nothing in the space section of the Shanghai technology museum a couple of years back.

      I'm not doubting that the Chinese are working on it - just the 2020 date. Still, I'd like to be surprised.

    3. Re:Schedule seems ambitious by hawk · · Score: 1

      It seems to me I heard similar plans, with similar cost claims, about forty years ago . . .

      Took a little less than a decade from design approval to launch.

      hawk

    4. Re:Schedule seems ambitious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Chinese operate at a much more grandiose scale/pace than Merica's NASA, which is where I assume you base your obvious space assumptions on? When China say they want to do something, they do it 1000 x over and before the time they say. It really is awe inspiring the level of power that pumps through that nation at this point in time, at the cost of many lives of course, their bubble is so off the charts that everyone else is just a spec of dust in their pond.

  11. What ever happened to Chinese manned spaceflight? by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

    It's going on near a decade that they haven't flown a manned mission. In the mean time, the Russians have kept flying and we have one reusable capsule that has flown a dozen times and is about to get its manned rating from NASA and two more in development to the tune of billions of dollars already spent and metal having been cut. Chinese? Not so much.

  12. Re: How Eclipses Show the Flat Earth by jandrese · · Score: 1

    It is copy-paste nonsense.

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
  13. Re: How about a 1-time usable Republican President by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Crying snowflake Trump is probably wetting his own bed these days. Mueller's got it on tape. See you at the gallows, TRAITOR FAGGOTS! :D

  14. Developing... horizontal takeoff? by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

    Why would you want to launch horizontally, regarding (presumably) a second vehicle under development? It just doesn't seem like you make any meaningful improvements, unless you are small and being dropped from a plane at 50,000 feet

    1. Re:Developing... horizontal takeoff? by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      I figure there's some kind of translation error:

      "Currently China is developing its own reusable earth-to-orbit space vehicles that can take off and land horizontally,"

      I assume they mean the rockets will take off and then land horizontally. The concept is somewhat like the Space Shuttle--the rocket will go up vertically, release the satellite/space-plane, and rather than falling back and burning up, crashing someplace, or doing a controlled landing (like SpaceX), it will glide like the Space Shuttle and be remote piloted like the Buran back to an airfield where it will land horizontally.

      That would be impressive to see.

    2. Re:Developing... horizontal takeoff? by hackingbear · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm the OP's author. They are developing both versions. The vertical take off one is to be launched in 2020 and the horizontal take off one by 2030. I made it clear in my original post as a side note. The English news article omitted the details.

    3. Re:Developing... horizontal takeoff? by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      Why would you want to launch horizontally, regarding (presumably) a second vehicle under development? It just doesn't seem like you make any meaningful improvements, unless you are small and being dropped from a plane at 50,000 feet

      Eventually, all orbital shots are done horizontally, as you need horizontal speed to stay in orbit. Rockets just go striaght up inorder to get above the atmosphere first. Being launched by a second plane at 50,000 feet or so saves about 5% of the fuel costs of a rocket and when going to orbital velocities, one doesn't need much "vertical" velocity as the ground will drop off with "horizontal' travel quickly under the accelerations normally needed. The idea of a plane concept is that it can use atmospheric oxygen for combustion thus saving on fuel mass. Most of the orbital velocity will still require a rocket until we get ramjets, scramjets, etc working. Still, they'd have to make it work and then make it cost near the same a normal launch to make it more than just a engineering exercise.

  15. Re:What ever happened to Chinese manned spacefligh by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 4, Informative

    From the list of astronauts you can see that there have been six missions to space. The last one, Shenzhou 11, launched on 16 October 2016 and rendezvoused with the space laboratory. They stayed in orbit for a month.

    The Chinese are taking their time and making sure that they get everything right. They are definitely not rushing things with their program. I wouldn't put down the Chinese space program as they at least have the capability to put people into orbit unlike the US.

  16. Re:ISS science fair projects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Go kill yourself by driving off the edge of the Earth already.

  17. Re:How about a 1-time usable Republican President? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like someone really likes Pence...

  18. Re:How Eclipses Show the Flat Earth by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    With a few careful observations, you can begin to understand that the
    heliocentric model is a lie, and you live on a flat plane.

    I bet your bridge is just a drawing on a flat plane.

  19. Re:How Eclipses Show the Flat Earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My bridge is made of dark matter. You can't see it, but you must believe my bridge exists, otherwise your model of the universe falls apart.

  20. Doesn't matter. Only speed matters by raymorris · · Score: 1

    As far as reaching orbit, it doesn't much matter. The altitude is easy. It's getting orbital speed that's the hard part. If they figure they can get velocity faster by using lift to counteract gravity, thereby saving engine thrust to use for velocity, that could make sense. On the other hand, getting into lower air pressure in the first 60 seconds will help acceleration.

    1. Re:Doesn't matter. Only speed matters by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      If they figure they can get velocity faster by using lift to counteract gravity, thereby saving engine thrust to use for velocity, that could make sense

      The problem is that the wings add extra mass that also needs to be accelerated, which could negate all the savings.

  21. Elon: scamming par excellence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The great achievement of Elon is that he has successfully suckered billions of dollars out of gullible investors for businesses that cannot survive on the free market because nobody wants them, and so only by looting taxpayers does he stay afloat. Tesla and SolarCity will eventually go bankrupt or be broken up and sold off to other companies. SpaceX probably will follow the same path down the road.

    1. Re: Elon: scamming par excellence by Ost99 · · Score: 1

      Falcon 9 has been used for more than half of all US launches in 2017. Spacex isn't going away anytime soon.

      --
      ---- Sig. gone.
    2. Re:Elon: scamming par excellence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No doubt Elon does like to play his margins a little narrow, but given that he has done in several areas what was claimed to be impossible/wildly impractical (mass produced EVs, partly reusable & far cheaper orbital launch vehicles, etc) only a decade ago I'd say he's far from failing. Depending on how well Blue Origin fairs once they get an orbital vehicle going SpaceX will either be the leader in global launch services or one of two. And in the EV market I think they are by far the leader, and that gap could widen significantly with the Model 3, as well if they get autonomous driving up and going before their competition they could take a pretty good chunk of the regular car market.

  22. Deranged progressives now love the American Gestap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How deranged does someone have to be to trust that the former director of the American Gestapo (read: FBI) is somehow an impartial and just source of American equity? Do you wish cross-dressing serial crook J Edgar Hoover was here, too?

  23. That rocket; it looks...familiar by hyades1 · · Score: 1

    Well, if nothing else, the speed with which China meets its objectives will serve to highlight the strength of its outstanding corporate espionage sector.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  24. It's easy when you steal by mveloso · · Score: 1, Funny

    It takes time to translate all the stolen documentation into Chinese then re-source the materials. Google translate isn't quite good enough for this task yet.

    1. Re:It's easy when you steal by joe_frisch · · Score: 1

      The Chinese certainly aren't stealing space technology from us these days......

    2. Re:It's easy when you steal by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Actually Baidu Translate does a much better job with Chinese than Google does.

      You should be careful with that accusation. Same thing was said about Japan, and then suddenly Japanese cars and electronics were better than the western ones and they were the ones doing all the innovation. It's already happening with China - European car manufacturers who missed the EV boat are now buying in Chinese technology and parts to catch up. Same with renewable energy, everyone just assumed Chinese products were crap and then one day realized that they were both cutting edge and cheap.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:It's easy when you steal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be the North Koreans, as they upgraded from 1960s Soviet technology to 1970s Soviet technology.

  25. Now, if only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now, if only...they could make screwdrivers that lasted more than one job.

  26. wings are already there for landing. Save rocket by raymorris · · Score: 1

    The wings are already there for landing. By also using wings for takeoff, the craft can use it's much more efficient jet engines to reach hypersonic speeds, saving the rocket engine for when it's too high to get any oxygen from the air. That reduces the weight of fuel required, as well as potentially piping, pumps, etc.

  27. Re:Deranged progressives now love the American Ges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nowhere near as deranged as those dumbfucks who voted the Orange idiot into power.
    Still, when the inevtiable end comes, the Republicans will be finished as a force for at least 10 years for their stupidity in selecting Trump.

  28. Re:wings are already there for landing. Save rocke by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

    the craft can use it's much more efficient jet engines to reach hypersonic speeds, saving the rocket engine for when it's too high to get any oxygen from the air. That reduces the weight of fuel required, as well as potentially piping, pumps, etc.

    Less fuel, but you need two kinds of engines, which only adds more piping, pumps, etc, plus the dead mass of the extra engines. At least the extra fuel you carry will be burned, reducing mass as you go.

  29. Re:China has a long successful track record in spa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How do you say "Sputnik" in Chinese?

  30. Re:Deranged progressives now love the American Ges by haruchai · · Score: 1

    How deranged does someone have to be to trust that the former director of the American Gestapo (read: FBI) is somehow an impartial and just source of American equity? Do you wish cross-dressing serial crook J Edgar Hoover was here, too?

    Bitch, please. If Obama had even 1 link to Russia, you nutbags would want him lynched

    --
    Pain is merely failure leaving the body