Does creating space plane that can go sub-orbital straight from runway without mother ship is possible?

[Pawelk198604]

as above

Edited June 21, 2016 by Pawelk198604

[justidutch]

I know English isn't your first language, so a suggestion: "Sub-orbital plane without a mothership: is this possible?"  - if you can edit the title!

[Pawelk198604]

3 minutes ago, justidutch said:

I know English isn't your first language, so a suggestion: "Sub-orbital plane without a mothership: is this possible?"  - if you can edit the title!

Done does now is better?

[justidutch]

I understand the question, no problem.  The syntax is still a little abnormal, so perhaps this: 

Is creating a spaceplane that can go suborbital straight from a runway without a mothership possible?

By the way, I always admire you and others who fare so well on English speaking forums.  I can't even order a beer in Polish!

[Pawelk198604]

1 minute ago, justidutch said:

I understand the question, no problem.  The syntax is still a little abnormal, so perhaps this: 

Is creating a spaceplane that can go suborbital straight from a runway without a mothership possible?

By the way, I always admire you and others who fare so well on English speaking forums.  I can't even order a beer in Polish!

LOL

I made typos even if i write in Polish, i have dyslexia  

I just written by my self,l maybe if i just used google translate as i mostly does, it would not be such problem

this text is written by myself too.

Resuming to subject is possible or not, without using B-52 or WhiteKnight

 

[Shpaget]

Suborbital? Sure. Ever time you throw a rock it's suborbital.

For something mode substantial, recently Blue Origin launched (for the fourth time) its New Shepard single stage suborbital rocket.

As for an actual winged aircraft, MIG 29 can reach high enough for the sky to turn black (~20 km).

[Pawelk198604]

1 minute ago, Shpaget said:

Suborbital? Sure. Ever time you throw a rock it's suborbital.

For something mode substantial, recently Blue Origin launched (for the fourth time) its New Shepard single stage suborbital rocket.

As for an actual winged aircraft, MIG 29 can reach high enough for the sky to turn black (~20 km).

Yes i know about MIGs-29 even watched on YouTube, but i means real sub-orbital above magical 100 km  

[wumpus]

Wiki claims that you needed 1.4km/s delta-v to win the X-prize.  While this was won with a "mothership" it certainly shouldn't be too hard to add the needed engines on the spacecraft.  You are unlikely to manage it just on jets, and would certainly need a both jets and rockets (unless you decided to just modify the shuttle with the fuel tank on the back and land with it or something).

[Nibb31]

Every plane flight is suborbital.

A first stage suborbital rocket is absolutely possible. Just stick wings on it and glide back. It should absolutely be possible. Not practical, but possible.

[vger]

43 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

Every plane flight is suborbital.

A first stage suborbital rocket is absolutely possible. Just stick wings on it and glide back. It should absolutely be possible. Not practical, but possible.

ICBM's. They've been around for decades. And I can't remember the missions anymore, but there have been a few suborbitals that have been sent to do science in the upper atmosphere.

Edited June 21, 2016 by vger

[cantab]

Of course it's possible. The question is whether there's any point. I'm inclined to think not. Even suborbital spaceflight is an involved enough business that the extra complexity of the mothership isn't a big deal.

[RainDreamer]

I think it is possble, just that it will look very much like a rocket with wings.

[magnemoe]

3 hours ago, cantab said:

Of course it's possible. The question is whether there's any point. I'm inclined to think not. Even suborbital spaceflight is an involved enough business that the extra complexity of the mothership isn't a big deal.

Yes, its quite possible but expensive, has been ideas of using an mach 6+ plane as an first stage
problem with planes is that its expensive to design an good fast one, and you need rockets past mach 2-3 anyway and landing an rocket stage who land is cheaper to develop. 
Skylon or scramjet might change this. Note that an Skylon who is just mach 12 and suborbital would still be useful for deploying satellites. 

[Sereneti]

Yes it is Possible,

there are so many ways to do that, even a SSTO are in planing:
 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SABRE_(rocket_engine)

you can even go to space without oxidicer:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramjet
the speed is enough to reach space in a parabolic fligt...

Edited June 22, 2016 by Sereneti

[p1t1o]

We're on the verge of being able to attain fully orbital air breathing SSTOs (the debate as to whether or not they will be economical is the big one) so suborbital straight from a runway is very much within reach.

Fun Fact: The SR-71 had to "steer downwards" in order to follow the curvature of the Earth, the lift necessary for it to fly was measurably decreased due to its speed (~10-12% orbital velocity)

[Kryten]

Xcor's Lynx was going to do this, and as far as anyone can tell it would've worked fine. They just ran out of money.

[Exoscientist]

 Yes, it is possible:

Reusable Space Plane Idea Intrigues Europeans. Rob Coppinger, SPACE.com Contributor Date: 01 May 2012 Time: 04:30 PM ET
http://www.space.com/15494-vinci-space-plane-suborbital-flight-idea.html

European Commercial Space Plane Prototype Set for May Drop Test
By Rob Coppinger, Space.com Contributor | March 4, 2014 10:00am ET
http://www.space.com/24901-europe-space-plane-drop-test.html

 Bob Clark

[Elukka]

On 6/22/2016 at 4:39 AM, RainDreamer said:

I think it is possble, just that it will look very much like a rocket with wings.

Well, it wouldn't need all that much delta-v so it could make do with a relatively modest propellant fraction. For example, if you specced it at 3 km/s delta-v (which may be excessive) and used a kerolox rocket of middling performance, you would only need about 65% of the vehicle mass to be fuel.

It's certainly possible and not a particularly strenuous mission requirement compared to things like orbital launch.

Edited June 23, 2016 by Elukka

[wumpus]

On 6/22/2016 at 4:27 AM, p1t1o said:

We're on the verge of being able to attain fully orbital air breathing SSTOs (the debate as to whether or not they will be economical is the big one) so suborbital straight from a runway is very much within reach.

Fun Fact: The SR-71 had to "steer downwards" in order to follow the curvature of the Earth, the lift necessary for it to fly was measurably decreased due to its speed (~10-12% orbital velocity)

"On the verge" for values of nobody apparently trying right now.  The one that looks like "on the verge" to me is the X-43, but that has:

Been transferred to the Air Force and appears canceled

"Single stage" would have to be redefined to means (came back with all parts).  It uses an air launch, (presumably staged) rockets to hypersonic flight, air breathing engines (to roughly 1/2 orbital velocity), and would need additional engines to reach orbit (even KSP SSTOs do).

You probably wouldn't bother hitting 1/2 orbital velocity (it probably isn't accelerating enough to justify the fuel), but it does go seriously fast.  No idea how much drag the necessary delta-v (both fuel and rocket engines) needed for orbital velocity would add

The X-43 is single use.  I've never heard of a disposable SSTO before, and this might have something to do with the cancellation.  However impressive mach 9 might be, if you can't make it reusable it has the economic niche of a slow rocket engine.  We might be waiting on materials tech for quite some time (of course, since the Air Force buys *lots* of single use missiles, if they develop the tech it might go somewhere (but likely classified to death technology wise.  I'm afraid that the Blackbird's engines suffered the same fate*).

* or not.  The problem with the Blackbird is that is essentially made out of 100% unobtanium.  The aircraft it mostly titanium, which made tooling nearly impossible.  The fuel is non-combustible (outside of a jet engine) and said to cost the same as "fine scotch".  Materials science has made amazing strides, but just can't quite make 1960s unobtanium for reasonable prices.  While designing that engine was *hard* (as in "used up half of the career of a genius"), designing a new one with a supercomputer (I don't think the CDC 6600 was quite available when this was done) and the basic idea of the thing (whoever builds one next isn't too likely to have blackbird data).

[p1t1o]

7 minutes ago, wumpus said:

<snippity-snip>

I wasn't suggesting that there are real-world solutions on the ground right now, only that it was feasible. And if we are talking *sub*-orbital, then super-feasible.

Whether or not you would want to build one, or whether or not anyone will ever try that hard to do so, or how much benefit they would be, are debates for another time/place, but as a technological challenge, it is within humanity's near-term reach, unlike say, FTL or space elevators.

[razark]

Possible?  Yes.  Anything that doesn't break the laws of physics is "possible".

 

The question is getting the funding.

[p1t1o]

21 minutes ago, razark said:

Possible?  Yes.  Anything that doesn't break the laws of physics is "possible".

 

The question is getting the funding.

"Possible within the laws of physics" is different to "Feasible"

Funding is *definitely* the biggest hurdle, that and political will.

**edit**

THIS WAS MY 1000th POST!!!! Duuu-na-na-na, na-na, na-na you can't touch this! Duuu-na-na-na, na-na, na-STOP. HAMMERTIME. 

Edited June 23, 2016 by p1t1o

[razark]

Just now, p1t1o said:

"Possible within the laws of physics" is different to "Feasible"

Indeed.  That's why we haven't gone to Mars or Alpha Centauri yet.

The question here was if the task was possible, though.

[wumpus]

2 hours ago, p1t1o said:

I wasn't suggesting that there are real-world solutions on the ground right now, only that it was feasible. And if we are talking *sub*-orbital, then super-feasible.

Whether or not you would want to build one, or whether or not anyone will ever try that hard to do so, or how much benefit they would be, are debates for another time/place, but as a technological challenge, it is within humanity's near-term reach, unlike say, FTL or space elevators.

Isn't the only real difference from Blue Origin's New Shepard and what the OP wanted was that the New Shepard launches (and lands) vertically?  I suppose you could shove a near-billion dollar jet engine in there to use a bit less fuel, but it would require a ton of flights (just to space, not to orbit) to justify itself.

[Shpaget]

A jet engine can not compete with a rocket engine regarding TWR, compound that with the issues jets have at high Mach, you quickly realize that jets to space are not going to happen.