Re: On a Wing and a Catapult
From: Ian Stirling (root_at_mauve.demon.co.uk)
Date: 08/29/04
- Next message: John Savard: "Re: What's wrong with this picture?"
- Previous message: Andrew Gray: "Re: What's wrong with this picture?"
- In reply to: Joann Evans: "Re: On a Wing and a Catapult"
- Next in thread: Joann Evans: "Re: On a Wing and a Catapult"
- Reply: Joann Evans: "Re: On a Wing and a Catapult"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 29 Aug 2004 13:33:27 GMT
Joann Evans <bondage@frontiernet.net> wrote:
> Steve VanSickle wrote:
>>
>> From article <13fd3446.0408262212.78603d6a@posting.google.com>, by skearney7@earthlink.net (Old Physics):
>>
>> > Rutan's white knight has to have a ground clearence greater than
>> > the height of the rocket it carries and take off requires greater
>> > thrust than climbing to altitude. This looks like a job for a
>> > specialized catapult.
>>
>> How is a mile long catapult any easier, cheaper, or better than just
>> building bigger landing gear?
>
>
> 'Bigger' landing gear is 'heavier' landing gear, is 'occupy more
> internal volume' landing gear. It cuts into payload faster than
> attaching a catapult carrage to hardpoints on the launcher frame, and if
> necessary, lightening the ship by dumping fuel during aborts (also
> desirable for obviuos safety reasons) before landing.
>
In this case, for a nominal mission, the landing gear does not need
to be oversized, just the takeoff gear.
Detatchable takeoff carridge might just work.
You could even have it independantly powered.
Engine failure before launch, or launch failure is now a Bad Day, though,
unless you can safely jettison the rocket.
- Next message: John Savard: "Re: What's wrong with this picture?"
- Previous message: Andrew Gray: "Re: What's wrong with this picture?"
- In reply to: Joann Evans: "Re: On a Wing and a Catapult"
- Next in thread: Joann Evans: "Re: On a Wing and a Catapult"
- Reply: Joann Evans: "Re: On a Wing and a Catapult"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
