search the site
 daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Fun Forums > Space, Science & Technology

Space, Science & Technology shaping tomorrow's world



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old July 2nd, 2016, 07:09 PM   #1
fountainkopf
Registered User
 
fountainkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Endor
Posts: 476
Likes (Received): 96

Spaceship and Rocket Design

I have to withdraw my entry of the Mars goer list.

I found out that the Vinci rocket with enough of ISP ( 465 s ) is too big.



This has now 280 s ISP hybrid rocket which barely carries it to 80 km at M8 speed.

It could carry 15-20 000 kg rocket into orbit with 5-6 000 kg payload.

__________________
My nick is not an Ayn Rand glorification, but a homage to real geniuses in building art !


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by fountainkopf; July 4th, 2016 at 07:19 AM.
fountainkopf no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old July 11th, 2016, 10:30 PM   #2
fountainkopf
Registered User
 
fountainkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Endor
Posts: 476
Likes (Received): 96

Despite my withdrawal of the MARS race I have bullet proof calculations for each phase of the space flying aeroplane like vehicule.

I think one could pick up all 14 landers on MARS and bring'em back home for repairs...and take'em back to MARS to observe with it.

It brings the boosters and leaves the main engine on MARS after arrival.

Speed on propellers alone with 4000 kW on MARS thin air in 2420 km/h ( M2.31 ).

__________________
My nick is not an Ayn Rand glorification, but a homage to real geniuses in building art !


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Zaz965 liked this post

Last edited by fountainkopf; July 11th, 2016 at 11:23 PM.
fountainkopf no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 12th, 2016, 10:34 PM   #3
fountainkopf
Registered User
 
fountainkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Endor
Posts: 476
Likes (Received): 96

Quote:
Originally Posted by trekie View Post
Boeing's Mars vision. worth a look.

These are all very cool !

What I visioned was a plane capable to fly to orbit...and land on Mars !

With bigger wheels now !

__________________
My nick is not an Ayn Rand glorification, but a homage to real geniuses in building art !


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Zaz965 liked this post
fountainkopf no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 13th, 2016, 03:34 AM   #4
trekie
Registered User
 
trekie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,651
Likes (Received): 1324

Quote:
Originally Posted by fountainkopf View Post
These are all very cool !

What I visioned was a plane capable to fly to orbit...and land on Mars !

With bigger wheels now !

U need to expand on what you're proposing, fuel, speed, size, what, when, where, why, how, who,,,, ...

Otherwise you can't fly to Mars from Earth and hope to land there any time you want, there are considerations, distance, When Earth and mars are at each other's opposite aphelion distance between two planets is over 400 million km. At 50 000kmph it would take nearly a whole year to reach Mars. So these things needs to be considered and so on....

However interesting stuff, keep it up.
__________________
My youtube channel :
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices"

"I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: ‘O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous."

"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."



Voltaire



"Religion leads to anger, anger leads to bigotry, bigotry leads to hate, hate leads to suffering!!!" quote by me!!!

fountainkopf liked this post
trekie no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 13th, 2016, 04:48 PM   #5
AcesHigh
Taking On The World
 
AcesHigh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Novo Hamburgo
Posts: 25,910
Likes (Received): 6619

again the space plane from Fountainkopf?

as far as I remember, people with aerospace background at Nasa Spaceflight Forums had shown your theories didn´t work...
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
forum do grêmio, para quem não consegue se conter e falar somente do estádio, uma boa opção

RyukyuRhymer liked this post
AcesHigh no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 13th, 2016, 05:28 PM   #6
RyukyuRhymer
モデレーター Moderator
 
RyukyuRhymer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,005
Likes (Received): 2314

Quote:
Originally Posted by AcesHigh View Post
again the space plane from Fountainkopf?

as far as I remember, people with aerospace background at Nasa Spaceflight Forums had shown your theories didn´t work...
got a link?
__________________
Discover:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
RyukyuRhymer no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 13th, 2016, 06:02 PM   #7
fountainkopf
Registered User
 
fountainkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Endor
Posts: 476
Likes (Received): 96

Quote:
Originally Posted by AcesHigh View Post
again the space plane from Fountainkopf?

as far as I remember, people with aerospace background at Nasa Spaceflight Forums had shown your theories didn´t work...
865 km/t @ 28 km
1021 km/t @ 30 km
1104 km/t @ 31 km
M1.1 @ 32 km
M2.7 @ 44 km
M5.5 @ 56 km
M8.1 @ 64 km
M15.2 @ 76 km

I counted the speeds that are M10 below the shuttle speeds at any give altitude below 90 km.

My idea is against the mainstream...and NASA fans don't like it.

Space elevator is different as it is harmless.

It works quite perfectly..and the model flies outstandingly.
__________________
My nick is not an Ayn Rand glorification, but a homage to real geniuses in building art !


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
fountainkopf no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 13th, 2016, 06:06 PM   #8
fountainkopf
Registered User
 
fountainkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Endor
Posts: 476
Likes (Received): 96

Quote:
Originally Posted by trekie View Post
U need to expand on what you're proposing, fuel, speed, size, what, when, where, why, how, who,,,, ...

Otherwise you can't fly to Mars from Earth and hope to land there any time you want, there are considerations, distance, When Earth and mars are at each other's opposite aphelion distance between two planets is over 400 million km. At 50 000kmph it would take nearly a whole year to reach Mars. So these things needs to be considered and so on....

However interesting stuff, keep it up.
Yes sure it is a work for 1000 specialist for sure.

I can only fly it to orbit to show it works..in theory.

Landing speed on Mars is easy to count...I have so far counted various configurations and it ranges from 133-260 km/h depending of the payload etc.

Latest idea is to sent the return SRBs to MARS and assemble them on it there. It could haul 20 tons of samples from the remote planet.

If you make a room inside the wing spar and put the craft into axial rotation of 7 rpm it creates two places on the ship where there is Earth equivalent gravity...enroute to Mars !

I haven't counted the duration or such...just the velocities needed to leave Earth and Mars and so forth. All wraps up nicely in a compact 160 ton ( metric ) vehicle. It needs to weight 200-220 tons when leavin the orbit to reach Mars.

Leaving Mars for Earth was something like 90 tons. Also no landing on Mars should be tried above the 50 tons weight ( which is easy as the rockets are empty ).
__________________
My nick is not an Ayn Rand glorification, but a homage to real geniuses in building art !


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by fountainkopf; July 13th, 2016 at 06:18 PM.
fountainkopf no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 14th, 2016, 07:47 PM   #9
AcesHigh
Taking On The World
 
AcesHigh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Novo Hamburgo
Posts: 25,910
Likes (Received): 6619

Quote:
Originally Posted by fountainkopf View Post
865 km/t @ 28 km
1021 km/t @ 30 km
1104 km/t @ 31 km
M1.1 @ 32 km
M2.7 @ 44 km
M5.5 @ 56 km
M8.1 @ 64 km
M15.2 @ 76 km

I counted the speeds that are M10 below the shuttle speeds at any give altitude below 90 km.
gee, we had this argument months ago.

exactly HOW will your plane achieve such high speeds on propellers alone? The small air density means the propellers are also less efficient.


Quote:
My idea is against the mainstream...and NASA fans don't like it.
right, the excuse of everyone with crazy ideas. Maybe we should believe in E-Cats, BlackLight Power, etc, just because they also accuse people being against those ideas for being against the mainstream...



Quote:
It works quite perfectly..and the model flies outstandingly.
yes. The question has always been proving that it can achieve such high speeds just because it flies higher.

if I am not mistaken you said the plane flew faster because of centripetal motion of Earth. They debunked this physics of yours there.

Stratolaunch can barely reach 850 km/h with 6 turbofans providing 250 kN each!
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
forum do grêmio, para quem não consegue se conter e falar somente do estádio, uma boa opção
AcesHigh no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 14th, 2016, 08:03 PM   #10
AcesHigh
Taking On The World
 
AcesHigh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Novo Hamburgo
Posts: 25,910
Likes (Received): 6619

Quote:
Originally Posted by RyukyuRhymer View Post
got a link?
the thread was long ago deleted by mods at the forum.

some discussion about that thread and the deleting of the thread at post 2530
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpo...postcount=2530


anyway, you can return to post 3506 and make your way back from there for a long argument between me and Fountainkopf
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpo...postcount=3506


anyway, Fountainkopf kept changing his plane specifications everytime I pressured him in something or another.

at first, it was purely solar with propellers.

then, when it was debunked a solar plane with propellers could not reach even Mach 1 and that he still needed 28 thousand kilometers per hour to get to orbit, and thus the rocket would still need to be huge, he started saying rockets would propel the plane to those speeds, etc.


facts: orbit is about speed. 28 thousand kilometers per hour for LEO

air-launch has some advantages but also disadvantages. More complexity is a disadvantage. Being able to fly to a place with calm weather and having a single nozzle configuration for low pressure are advantages. Building a huge airplane that will cost $$$$$$ and only replace the launch plataform plus minimal fuel gain are disadvantages.

lowering price of spaceflight requires reusability. Single stage to orbit, and if possible, re-use that single stage.


air-launch doesn´t solve that unless it can reach VERY HIGH SPEEDS. Which Fountainkopf Solar Airplane CAN´T. Even with a rocket it can't. Those high speeds FountainKopf gives would disassemble his airplane when going over Mach 1, even at high altitudes and low air density. Look how streamlined with very small wings SKYLON needs to be. And it needs a super secret ultra top tech technology to reduce air temperature from thousands of degrees to negative temperatures in microseconds! Which is their main breakthrough!

Because that is what happens at high speeds. Propellers at mach 10 are laughable.




Notice that if Fountainkopf was serious and his ideas were solid, he wouldn´t change the concept, design, even name of his project every few months.


a few months ago it was Solar Eagle. Now it´s Millenium Falcon



from post #2532. regarding Fountainkopf thread deletion at Nasa SpaceFlight Forums

Quote:
I am under the impression someone had shown your calculations were one order of magnitude too optimistic. Even you aknowledged it and then said something along the lines that for solar flight ONLY (not launching it in space) it was still viable.

...

I think the biggest problem is the way you enter the forums, with those texts about human spaceflight having stalled and you having the solution

...

there is no "mind boggling" or not. There is an entire 500 pages thread at NASA Spaceflight Forums where two theoretical physicists are discussing Dr. Sonny White's, of NASA, propellantless propulsion theories... that is much more mind boggling than your proposal.


however, exactly because your proposal is far from being that much mind boggling, it´s easier to dismiss or not because the science around it is well known. You can get advances in materials and solar panel efficiency, but not much more.

...
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
forum do grêmio, para quem não consegue se conter e falar somente do estádio, uma boa opção

Kyll.Ing. liked this post

Last edited by AcesHigh; July 14th, 2016 at 08:17 PM.
AcesHigh no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 15th, 2016, 08:02 AM   #11
fountainkopf
Registered User
 
fountainkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Endor
Posts: 476
Likes (Received): 96

Quote:
Originally Posted by AcesHigh View Post
gee, we had this argument months ago.

exactly HOW will your plane achieve such high speeds on propellers alone? The small air density means the propellers are also less efficient.




right, the excuse of everyone with crazy ideas. Maybe we should believe in E-Cats, BlackLight Power, etc, just because they also accuse people being against those ideas for being against the mainstream...





yes. The question has always been proving that it can achieve such high speeds just because it flies higher.

if I am not mistaken you said the plane flew faster because of centripetal motion of Earth. They debunked this physics of yours there.

Stratolaunch can barely reach 850 km/h with 6 turbofans providing 250 kN each!

Of course this has to be checked and rechecked. It is supersonic above 30 km with low load.

I just counted the topspeed on electricity it was 735 km/h with full rocket load and solar speed without any load 686 km/h.

With the ceiling of 28,5 km with electricity (batteries + solar) with payload and highest alt with solar alone without payload 38 km.

All this is possible due to almost insane glideratio of 80:1. Not so much due to exceptional low drag but very high lift coefficent.

Stratolauch is heavy and draggy. Also carrying the payload externally makes it 4 x more inefficent compared to this. Stratolauch is also much smaller in span and wing area.
__________________
My nick is not an Ayn Rand glorification, but a homage to real geniuses in building art !


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by fountainkopf; July 15th, 2016 at 08:30 AM.
fountainkopf no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 15th, 2016, 08:10 AM   #12
fountainkopf
Registered User
 
fountainkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Endor
Posts: 476
Likes (Received): 96

Quote:
Originally Posted by AcesHigh View Post
the thread was long ago deleted by mods at the forum.

some discussion about that thread and the deleting of the thread at post 2530
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpo...postcount=2530


anyway, you can return to post 3506 and make your way back from there for a long argument between me and Fountainkopf
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpo...postcount=3506


anyway, Fountainkopf kept changing his plane specifications everytime I pressured him in something or another.

at first, it was purely solar with propellers.

then, when it was debunked a solar plane with propellers could not reach even Mach 1 and that he still needed 28 thousand kilometers per hour to get to orbit, and thus the rocket would still need to be huge, he started saying rockets would propel the plane to those speeds, etc.


facts: orbit is about speed. 28 thousand kilometers per hour for LEO

air-launch has some advantages but also disadvantages. More complexity is a disadvantage. Being able to fly to a place with calm weather and having a single nozzle configuration for low pressure are advantages. Building a huge airplane that will cost $$$$$$ and only replace the launch plataform plus minimal fuel gain are disadvantages.

lowering price of spaceflight requires reusability. Single stage to orbit, and if possible, re-use that single stage.


air-launch doesn´t solve that unless it can reach VERY HIGH SPEEDS. Which Fountainkopf Solar Airplane CAN´T. Even with a rocket it can't. Those high speeds FountainKopf gives would disassemble his airplane when going over Mach 1, even at high altitudes and low air density. Look how streamlined with very small wings SKYLON needs to be. And it needs a super secret ultra top tech technology to reduce air temperature from thousands of degrees to negative temperatures in microseconds! Which is their main breakthrough!

Because that is what happens at high speeds. Propellers at mach 10 are laughable.




Notice that if Fountainkopf was serious and his ideas were solid, he wouldn´t change the concept, design, even name of his project every few months.


a few months ago it was Solar Eagle. Now it´s Millenium Falcon



from post #2532. regarding Fountainkopf thread deletion at Nasa SpaceFlight Forums
Aces High...you can laugh all that you can. Alan Eustace and Felix Baumgartner reached Mach 1 even without propellers....in between 30 and 40 km altitude.

I know this plane would brake all existing altitude and speed record as well. But hey it has 120 m span and just 3 x the empty wingloading of Solar Impulse II. But still 40 times less than the Space Shuttle.

Naturally it will feather the props at M3 ( prop rpm at M3 is 2000 ) constituting 15% of the thrust above 28 500 meters with rockets until at 50 km. And keep travelling to the top with 24 x 78 KN SRBs.

This is a theory until proven a fact. I am preparing the bigger model after a free flight model....it'll be a 1/50 scale 2400 mm spanning R/C model.

With 3 metre dia wheels and 130-250 km/h landing speed on Mars this is still hitherto the only aircraft ever introduced to land on Mars and take off from there with 20-30 000 kg payload on it. With Tsiolkovski rocked equation fully comprehended.

Skylon with F-104 kinda wings cannot do it. All the best for Skylon.

BTW: It is not MILLENIUM FALCON...it is the Millenium Falcon II !

__________________
My nick is not an Ayn Rand glorification, but a homage to real geniuses in building art !


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by fountainkopf; July 15th, 2016 at 08:23 AM.
fountainkopf no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 16th, 2016, 06:22 AM   #13
AcesHigh
Taking On The World
 
AcesHigh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Novo Hamburgo
Posts: 25,910
Likes (Received): 6619

Quote:
Originally Posted by fountainkopf View Post
Aces High...you can laugh all that you can. Alan Eustace and Felix Baumgartner reached Mach 1 even without propellers....in between 30 and 40 km altitude.
yes, but GRAVITY was accelerating them 9,8 m/s²!!! Not PROPELLERS!!!


you NEVER explain what kind of mechanism will accelerate your plane to supersonic speeds. It seems you expect PROPELLERS to accelerate your plane to Mach 8 or above!



Quote:
Naturally it will feather the props at M3 ( prop rpm at M3 is 2000 ) constituting 15% of the thrust above 28 500 meters with rockets until at 50 km. And keep travelling to the top with 24 x 78 KN SRBs.
naturally? There are lots of quotes from you saying it would go all the way to much higher Machs on propellers alone.

never mind that, explain first what kind of propellers will spin fast enough to push a plane to Mach 3. Even augmenting the prop RPM, it just barely compensates the lower air density. The lower the air density, the more RPM you need to push the same amount of air per unit of time. The action-reaction remains.



and again... you talk about the airplane being LIGHT. But then you need rockets with TONS of fuel to accelerate the airplane from Mach 3 to beyond? How will that make space travel cheaper exactly?
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
forum do grêmio, para quem não consegue se conter e falar somente do estádio, uma boa opção

Kyll.Ing. liked this post
AcesHigh no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 16th, 2016, 09:40 AM   #14
fountainkopf
Registered User
 
fountainkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Endor
Posts: 476
Likes (Received): 96

Quote:
Originally Posted by AcesHigh View Post
yes, but GRAVITY was accelerating them 9,8 m/s²!!! Not PROPELLERS!!!


you NEVER explain what kind of mechanism will accelerate your plane to supersonic speeds. It seems you expect PROPELLERS to accelerate your plane to Mach 8 or above!





naturally? There are lots of quotes from you saying it would go all the way to much higher Machs on propellers alone.

never mind that, explain first what kind of propellers will spin fast enough to push a plane to Mach 3. Even augmenting the prop RPM, it just barely compensates the lower air density. The lower the air density, the more RPM you need to push the same amount of air per unit of time. The action-reaction remains.



and again... you talk about the airplane being LIGHT. But then you need rockets with TONS of fuel to accelerate the airplane from Mach 3 to beyond? How will that make space travel cheaper exactly?
This weighs just 2,5% of anything planned to go to Mars hitherto. There are 24 units of 78 kN SRBs in the picture...all weighing 4100 kg each. I never claimed propellers to work beyond M3.

Just to mention a little secret...the test pilot for F-84H told me did fly that beast beyond M1. Not that it matters...TU-95 props are constantly beyond M1.
__________________
My nick is not an Ayn Rand glorification, but a homage to real geniuses in building art !


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by fountainkopf; July 16th, 2016 at 01:53 PM.
fountainkopf no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 17th, 2016, 01:42 AM   #15
AnOldBlackMarble
read lightship chronicles
 
AnOldBlackMarble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,385
Likes (Received): 3683

Quote:
Originally Posted by fountainkopf View Post
Aces High...you can laugh all that you can. Alan Eustace and Felix Baumgartner reached Mach 1 even without propellers....in between 30 and 40 km altitude.

I know this plane would brake all existing altitude and speed record as well. But hey it has 120 m span and just 3 x the empty wingloading of Solar Impulse II. But still 40 times less than the Space Shuttle.

Naturally it will feather the props at M3 ( prop rpm at M3 is 2000 ) constituting 15% of the thrust above 28 500 meters with rockets until at 50 km. And keep travelling to the top with 24 x 78 KN SRBs.

This is a theory until proven a fact. I am preparing the bigger model after a free flight model....it'll be a 1/50 scale 2400 mm spanning R/C model.

With 3 metre dia wheels and 130-250 km/h landing speed on Mars this is still hitherto the only aircraft ever introduced to land on Mars and take off from there with 20-30 000 kg payload on it. With Tsiolkovski rocked equation fully comprehended.

Skylon with F-104 kinda wings cannot do it. All the best for Skylon.

BTW: It is not MILLENIUM FALCON...it is the Millenium Falcon II !

Even without propellers? Wow! That's fantastic. Clearly man you are a genius and you will achieve great things in the future, but don't you think you should wait till then to post in this thread? Don't you have another thread for your own inventions? I'm pretty sure this thread is for actual missions and projects that are fully financed. Yours isn't yet, so I think you should wait until then before posting it here. We can always follow your designs in your signature blog link and on your own thread.
__________________
Read my FREE science fiction adventure
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
AnOldBlackMarble no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 17th, 2016, 07:03 AM   #16
fountainkopf
Registered User
 
fountainkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Endor
Posts: 476
Likes (Received): 96

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnOldBlackMarble View Post
Even without propellers? Wow! That's fantastic. Clearly man you are a genius and you will achieve great things in the future, but don't you think you should wait till then to post in this thread? Don't you have another thread for your own inventions? I'm pretty sure this thread is for actual missions and projects that are fully financed. Yours isn't yet, so I think you should wait until then before posting it here. We can always follow your designs in your signature blog link and on your own thread.
Yes I am quite fine thank you anoldblackmarble !

Point is that no one has ever tried flying M1 above 30 km with propellers as it hasn't been possible hitherto ( no concept and no efficient and lite solar panels hitherto ).

I was denied a thread of my own before...I don't think it is possible in the future either.
__________________
My nick is not an Ayn Rand glorification, but a homage to real geniuses in building art !


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

AnOldBlackMarble liked this post
fountainkopf no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 18th, 2016, 03:07 PM   #17
AcesHigh
Taking On The World
 
AcesHigh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Novo Hamburgo
Posts: 25,910
Likes (Received): 6619

Quote:
Originally Posted by fountainkopf View Post
This weighs just 2,5% of anything planned to go to Mars hitherto.
if you need to accelerate to 28 thousand km/h just to get to orbit, you still need tons of fuel to do so and therefore I doubt your claim.

Quote:
There are 24 units of 78 kN SRBs in the picture...all weighing 4100 kg each. I never claimed propellers to work beyond M3.
if the maximum speed reached by your airplane is 3704,4 km/h on propellers, why HAVE THE PLANE AT ALL?? It´s extra mass that only complicates everything and make the whole system MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE.


Quote:
Just to mention a little secret...the test pilot for F-84H told me did fly that beast beyond M1. Not that it matters...TU-95 props are constantly beyond M1.
so what TU-95 props are beyond M1? They can rotate beyond M1 but the higher they go, the less air they push behind the keep the speed or accelerate.




The rocket equation works against your design.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
forum do grêmio, para quem não consegue se conter e falar somente do estádio, uma boa opção
AcesHigh no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 19th, 2016, 06:35 PM   #18
fountainkopf
Registered User
 
fountainkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Endor
Posts: 476
Likes (Received): 96

Quote:
Originally Posted by AcesHigh View Post
if you need to accelerate to 28 thousand km/h just to get to orbit, you still need tons of fuel to do so and therefore I doubt your claim.



if the maximum speed reached by your airplane is 3704,4 km/h on propellers, why HAVE THE PLANE AT ALL?? It´s extra mass that only complicates everything and make the whole system MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE.




so what TU-95 props are beyond M1? They can rotate beyond M1 but the higher they go, the less air they push behind the keep the speed or accelerate.




The rocket equation works against your design.
It is very difficult to try argue with anyone with no undertanding how aeroplanes, engines and physics work, but I try.

Ceiling for the TU-95 is 13 km and its engines cannot work beyond 20 km altitude...ok ? It has miniprops compared to this..this has double dia props...and wingloading is 20 times lesser.

Rocket equation is not against this on the contrary it has been taken well care of at the phase it travels as a pure rocket above 110 km altitude...to make the necessary velocity change for the orbit.
__________________
My nick is not an Ayn Rand glorification, but a homage to real geniuses in building art !


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
fountainkopf no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 20th, 2016, 01:45 AM   #19
Bond James Bond
Licence to kill.
 
Bond James Bond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 8,692

I split off the discussion on spaceship design in the space exploration thread into a separate thread. If any other posts should be moved here, let me know. I also put a link to this thread in the thread-finder thread stickied at the top of the section.
__________________
Automatic transmissions are for wimps.

RyukyuRhymer liked this post
Bond James Bond está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old July 20th, 2016, 08:37 PM   #20
AcesHigh
Taking On The World
 
AcesHigh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Novo Hamburgo
Posts: 25,910
Likes (Received): 6619

Quote:
Originally Posted by fountainkopf View Post
It is very difficult to try argue with anyone with no undertanding how aeroplanes, engines and physics work, but I try.

Ceiling for the TU-95 is 13 km and its engines cannot work beyond 20 km altitude...ok ? It has miniprops compared to this..this has double dia props...and wingloading is 20 times lesser.

Rocket equation is not against this on the contrary it has been taken well care of at the phase it travels as a pure rocket above 110 km altitude...to make the necessary velocity change for the orbit.
right, and when people with good understanding of aeroplanes, engines and physics argue with you, you call them close minded and such. Which is why you were banned from NasaSpaceFlight Forums, that other forum where you used to post (Cosmoquest?), etc.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
forum do grêmio, para quem não consegue se conter e falar somente do estádio, uma boa opção
AcesHigh no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 10:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2016 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2016 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu