SolarStratos

[Darnok]

http://www.solarstratos.com/en/plane/

This is going to be good if they made it... space tourism at full speed ahead

BTW we would need lighter pilot cockpit, new wings and this electric engine in KSP

 

[Nibb31]

Not sure why anyone would thing link this to space tourism. If that was the case, then Concorde would have been a spaceship.

[Darnok]

54 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

Not sure why anyone would thing link this to space tourism. If that was the case, then Concorde would have been a spaceship.

According to Boeing capsule able to orbit on LEO is called "Starliner"

As for space tourism you have to make first step somehow, I doubt it you would be able to pilot rocket alone, but you will be able to pilot SolarStratos.

[Nibb31]

It's a plane. It can only go up to 60000ft max. It has nothing to do with space.

[Wjolcz]

51 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

It's a plane. It can only go up to 60000ft max. It has nothing to do with space.

Exactly. A propeller won't get you very high anyway. Scratch that. NASA's Helios almost achieved the altitude of 30km. But it was unmanned.

Edited December 11, 2016 by Veeltch

[Shpaget]

51 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

It's a plane. It can only go up to 60000ft max. It has nothing to do with space.

 

8 minutes ago, Veeltch said:

Exactly. A propeller won't get you very high anyway.

Well, Helios got up to ~97 000 ft (30 000 m); not that I would call that edge of space. It's a long way from 30 km to 100 km.

[benzman]

I did a lot of gliding in the 1980s.  My best altitude was 14,600 feet.  The current glider altitude record is 50,727 feet.  Would I be prepared to put on a space suit, get into SolarStratos and go to 75,000 feet or so?

In a heartbeat. 

 

 

Edited December 11, 2016 by benzman

[YNM]

Or use the SR-71 - they deserve a good retirement, not mothballing or destruction.

Or send people on a missile launched from another plane. (hint : X-15, SpaceShipOne/Two)

Edited December 12, 2016 by YNM

[Jonfliesgoats]

This is cool, but it is a plane.  Still, you can see the earth's curvature and appreciate things from a new perspective.

[p1t1o]

Its just marketing. Whilst the Karman line is widely accepted as being the border to "space", the "edge of space" is a non-defined term that has been used to mean "pretty high y'know?" in any number of contexts.

Like calling your food "organic" or your fighter jet "5th generation" - unless you specify a set of criteria, anyone can use the terms for anything. How wide is an "edge"? How long is a piece of string?

[Darnok]

On 11.12.2016 at 10:26 AM, Nibb31 said:

It's a plane. It can only go up to 60000ft max. It has nothing to do with space.

I am not a pilot, but IMO from 60 000 ft you can dive and feel zero gravity for while?

If YES, then this sounds like first step towards space for common person, that is afraid that rockets can blow up

[Steel]

9 minutes ago, Darnok said:

I am not a pilot, but IMO from 60 000 ft you can dive and feel zero gravity for while?

If YES, then this sounds like first step towards space for common person, that is afraid that rockets can blow up

Maybe in some planes, however by the look of this one if you dive for too long you'll over speed and the wings will come off

[p1t1o]

20 minutes ago, Darnok said:

I am not a pilot, but IMO from 60 000 ft you can dive and feel zero gravity for while?

If YES, then this sounds like first step towards space for common person, that is afraid that rockets can blow up

Freefall yes, but you can do this yourself by jumping an inch in the air, nothing special about height in it

[Darnok]

Just now, p1t1o said:

Freefall yes, but you can do this yourself by jumping an inch in the air, nothing special about height in it

Well larger height gives you more time for fun?

 

12 minutes ago, Steel said:

Maybe in some planes, however by the look of this one if you dive for too long you'll over speed and the wings will come off

Yea I know it is not jet fighter

 

[YNM]

(ignore, wrong thought)

Edited December 12, 2016 by YNM

[wumpus]

On 12/11/2016 at 4:26 AM, Nibb31 said:

It's a plane. It can only go up to 60000ft max. It has nothing to do with space.

I think you can see the curvature of Earth, but that was a claim from a passenger in a U2 (which also fly at least that high).  Nothing to do with space.

13 hours ago, Darnok said:

I am not a pilot, but IMO from 60 000 ft you can dive and feel zero gravity for while?

If YES, then this sounds like first step towards space for common person, that is afraid that rockets can blow up

NASA currently uses a Boeing 727-200F as the "vomit comet" (previously a KC-135A).  It (the 727, didn't check the vomit comet specifically) lists a service ceiling of 42,000ft (12,800m).  You hardly need 60,000ft, and I doubt the 727 starts at the service ceiling (empty it might try to get a bit of velocity on the way up).

 

13 hours ago, p1t1o said:

Its just marketing. Whilst the Karman line is widely accepted as being the border to "space", the "edge of space" is a non-defined term that has been used to mean "pretty high y'know?" in any number of contexts.

Like calling your food "organic" or your fighter jet "5th generation" - unless you specify a set of criteria, anyone can use the terms for anything. How wide is an "edge"? How long is a piece of string?

There was another thread about "getting to space with low thrust".  The entire definition of getting to how NASA defines the boundary between Earth and space is the Kármán line.  To get there in a plane requires reaching orbital velocity (assuming Kármán got his calculations right and you haven't managed to build a plane with a wildly higher lift to weight than he assumed).  Edge of space might as well mean "get serious altitude* with this one weird trick".

* I was going to say "get high" when I had to wonder what google would think about it.

[magnemoe]

18 hours ago, wumpus said:

I think you can see the curvature of Earth, but that was a claim from a passenger in a U2 (which also fly at least that high).  Nothing to do with space.

NASA currently uses a Boeing 727-200F as the "vomit comet" (previously a KC-135A).  It (the 727, didn't check the vomit comet specifically) lists a service ceiling of 42,000ft (12,800m).  You hardly need 60,000ft, and I doubt the 727 starts at the service ceiling (empty it might try to get a bit of velocity on the way up).

There was another thread about "getting to space with low thrust".  The entire definition of getting to how NASA defines the boundary between Earth and space is the Kármán line.  To get there in a plane requires reaching orbital velocity (assuming Kármán got his calculations right and you haven't managed to build a plane with a wildly higher lift to weight than he assumed).  Edge of space might as well mean "get serious altitude* with this one weird trick".

* I was going to say "get high" when I had to wonder what google would think about it.

Checked it and it don't account for drag at all, however since lift scales linear with lift coefficient x wing area and squared with speed the speed will win and you need to go fast to reach orbit anyway. More lift will increase drag, it would be smarter to stay so low you can use the air as long as possible while gaining speed and attitude and then go into space. 

[Nibb31]

 

18 hours ago, wumpus said:

There was another thread about "getting to space with low thrust".  The entire definition of getting to how NASA defines the boundary between Earth and space is the Kármán line.  To get there in a plane requires reaching orbital velocity (assuming Kármán got his calculations right and you haven't managed to build a plane with a wildly higher lift to weight than he assumed).  Edge of space might as well mean "get serious altitude* with this one weird trick".

No. You can technically reach the Karman line (and therefore "space" with near-zero velocity). It has nothing to with orbit.

 

[wumpus]

1 minute ago, Nibb31 said:

No. You can technically reach the Karman line (and therefore "space" with near-zero velocity). It has nothing to with orbit.

But then you don't have lift (via wings).  The point about the Karman line is that you need orbital velocity to maintain lift (it is mostly defined hardness of the vacuum).  If you are sitting on a barely-higher-than-1g rocket (presumably with magic ISP, that would take a long time and a lot of fuel) you could pull it off.   Presumably you could build an airship (vacuum dirigible?).  But using wings for lift requires orbital velocity (at the Karman line).

[magnemoe]

10 hours ago, wumpus said:

But then you don't have lift (via wings).  The point about the Karman line is that you need orbital velocity to maintain lift (it is mostly defined hardness of the vacuum).  If you are sitting on a barely-higher-than-1g rocket (presumably with magic ISP, that would take a long time and a lot of fuel) you could pull it off.   Presumably you could build an airship (vacuum dirigible?).  But using wings for lift requires orbital velocity (at the Karman line).

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kármán_line
Formula is: lift=1/2 * air density * airspeed^2 * lift coefficient * wing area. 
at 100 km air pressure is 1/2.200.000 of sea level, now having an wings 2 million times higher than needed for flight at sea level is an bit unpractical
Balloons faces the same issue in that it also need to be two million times larger, if you need an 1 meter in diameter balloon for sea level lift it need to expand to 130 meter at 100 km. 

 

[Darnok]

5 hours ago, magnemoe said:

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kármán_line
Formula is: lift=1/2 * air density * airspeed^2 * lift coefficient * wing area. 
at 100 km air pressure is 1/2.200.000 of sea level, now having an wings 2 million times higher than needed for flight at sea level is an bit unpractical
Balloons faces the same issue in that it also need to be two million times larger, if you need an 1 meter in diameter balloon for sea level lift it need to expand to 130 meter at 100 km. 

 

What if your balloon would have light gas at sea level and the higher it goes you would lower pressure of this gas until you reach vacuum inside "balloon"?

Of course such construction would need structural skeleton to keep balloon shape, but difference in pressure of air and vacuum at 40km should be low, so materials wouldn't have to be super strong.

[kurja]

25 minutes ago, Darnok said:

What if your balloon would have light gas at sea level and the higher it goes you would lower pressure of this gas until you reach vacuum inside "balloon"?

Of course such construction would need structural skeleton to keep balloon shape, but difference in pressure of air and vacuum at 40km should be low, so materials wouldn't have to be super strong.

...A balloon filled with vacuum would be buoyant in vacuum? Maybe not ,)

[magnemoe]

1 minute ago, Darnok said:

What if your balloon would have light gas at sea level and the higher it goes you would lower pressure of this gas until you reach vacuum inside "balloon"?

Of course such construction would need structural skeleton to keep balloon shape, but difference in pressure of air and vacuum at 40km should be low, so materials wouldn't have to be super strong.

This included lower pressure,
at sea level and room temperature 1 m^3 air weight 1.2 kg. 1m^3 hydrogen is 90 g, balloon and cargo can therefor be 1.1 kg. 1 with helium. 
This stays the same all the way but you would need an larger balloon higher up, high attitude balloons tend to be giant bags with an bit of lifting gas on top on takeoff but pretty round at operational attitude. 
To lift 1000 kg you would need an almost 1000 m^3, lets say 10 meter diameter for simplicity, at 32 km pressure is 1/125 bar and balloon has expanded to 50 meter diameter. quite doable. 
At 100 km it would need to be 1.3 km in diameter. an vacuum balloon would just save you 90 g hydrogen but would weight more than the thin film used as balloon skin. 
(all calculations done with square balloons for simplicity)

[Darnok]

12 minutes ago, kurja said:

...A balloon filled with vacuum would be buoyant in vacuum? Maybe not ,)

Not in vacuum, but in tin atmosphere, above 40km.

[magnemoe]

2 minutes ago, Darnok said:

Not in vacuum, but in tin atmosphere, above 40km.

It would have some drawbacks however, first it would need to be very light and strong helium weight 180 g/m^3 at one bar, hydrogen 90, as you go up the weight of lifting gas go down too. 
At 32 km the hydrogen weight is 0.7 gram / m3 
Granted at high attitude the pressure would be far less so you don't need to build it so strong however you need to get it up to the attitude intact, you also need an safety margin. 
You could perhaps fill the structure with helium, you release helium as you rise, until you reach maximum attitude filled, then start pumping out the gas, you would need the pump anyway to handle leaks. 
Now making strong vacuum takes lots of energy.