• solidheron@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    7 hours ago

    I still say we should mount rockets into a rollercoaster rail🎢 that way stage one can be spent on the ground doing a horizontal launch and then the rail would have to change the angle to be more horizontal

  • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    7 hours ago

    This reminds me there was a project about 10-15(?) years ago where they were trying to rig the F15 with an attachment to launch satellites in quick need situations. The F15A shot down a satellite in 1985, so it makes sense it could put one up there as well. Think they ended up terminating the program because it became cheaper to launch them in mass.

    Aka they probably just took it out of the public eye

    • applebusch (she/her)@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 hour ago

      no they cancelled it because thats impossible lol. you can shoot a satellite with a suborbital object but thats a loooong way from the projectile being orbital. shooting a satellite that way is more analogous to laying down a spike strip for a car. almost all the velocity of the impact is coming from the satellite not the projectile.

      theres a reason even the smallest orbital rockets are the size of a building, its all the propellant required to get there. theres just no way to get that into an F15, to say nothing of the limitations of an airbreathing engine. the skylon was an attempt at a single stage to orbit vehicle using an air breathing engine and it was so complicated and impractical they never even got past the engine precooler design.

      • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        15 minutes ago

        no they cancelled it because thats impossible lol. you can shoot a satellite with a suborbital object but thats a loooong way from the projectile being orbital.

        Nah, it’s not that long a way. You just need to adjust your goals, add an extra stage, accept a much smaller payload.

        If you can get a payload to space, you could put a payload 1/4 its mass into orbit with an additional stage.

        I mean, the anti-sat F-15 test was pretty wild. But is arguably less wild than other airlaunch systems like the Pegasus or spaceship one. Saying that airlaunch is impossible is silly, because it’s happening.

        These systems get cancelled because they’re expensive and complicated and reusable rockets are cheaper and easier.

        • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 minutes ago

          They are saying a missile that went faster than, and tracked a target at orbital speed and velocity, can’t be reached… Obviously it can, or they’d miss everytime. Yet they shot it down using a rocket deploying a payload 41 years ago. Same shit, different payload.

  • sem@piefed.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    9 hours ago

    The end with lots of fire coming out should point towards the ground.

    If it points towards space, that’s a big problem, and we will not go to space this day :/

  • outerspace@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Wrong approach, if they are going to the moon they need to attach engines to the moon and bring it closer