How feasible is the Delta-Glider?How would manned interstellar travel become feasible?How feasible would it be to move the ISS to the surface of the Moon to recycle its components in future?How feasible is the Moonspike mission?Are Armageddon's simultaneous shuttle launches feasible?How high *could* a glider reach, to catch a skyhook reaching down from orbit?Cost-effective Space Shuttle: was it feasible?What is the largest delta-v ever produced in space from mechanically stored energy?Orbital reentry glider with no heat shieldIs the Pulse detonation engine feasibleHow to calculate the kilowatt hours (kW-h) needed for a solar-electric engine to produce a given delta-v?
What do I need to do, tax-wise, for a sudden windfall?
Grandpa has another non math question
Why are ambiguous grammars bad?
That's not my X, its Y is too Z
DateTime.addMonths skips a month (from feb to mar)
How many sets of dice do I need for D&D?
Selecting by attribute using Python and a list
Professor Roman loves to teach unorthodox Chemistry
C++ logging library
Can I use 220 V outlets on a 15 ampere breaker and wire it up as 110 V?
How do I type a hyphen in iOS 12?
When to use и or а as “and”?
Should I list a completely different profession in my technical resume?
Enchiridion, 16: Does a stoic moan, or not?
What is Gilligan's full Name?
Why is long-term living in Almost-Earth causing severe health problems?
ASCII Meme Arrow Generator
Part of my house is inexplicably gone
Is there a better way to do partial sums of array items in JavaScript?
Oil draining out shortly after turbo hose detached/broke
Is it safe to dpkg --set-selections on a newer version of a distro?
How can powerful telekinesis avoid violating Newton's 3rd Law?
Do Veracrypt encrypted volumes have any kind of brute force protection?
Is it true that "only photographers care about noise"?
How feasible is the Delta-Glider?
How would manned interstellar travel become feasible?How feasible would it be to move the ISS to the surface of the Moon to recycle its components in future?How feasible is the Moonspike mission?Are Armageddon's simultaneous shuttle launches feasible?How high *could* a glider reach, to catch a skyhook reaching down from orbit?Cost-effective Space Shuttle: was it feasible?What is the largest delta-v ever produced in space from mechanically stored energy?Orbital reentry glider with no heat shieldIs the Pulse detonation engine feasibleHow to calculate the kilowatt hours (kW-h) needed for a solar-electric engine to produce a given delta-v?
$begingroup$
In Dr. Martin Schweiger's freeware spaceflight simulator Orbiter 2016, a very popular(but fictional) spacecraft is the Delta-Glider.
It is capable of take-off from a runway, has hover engines for VTOL in low-g planets/moons, and lands similarly. It has several variants, including DG-S (equiped with scramjet).
Here are the major specs(table from orbiter.wiki):
Do any of the figures sound unrealistic? How feasible is this?
EDIT:
It is capable of flight in the atmosphere, but is mainly designed for orbital and interplanetary spaceflight.
spacecraft design feasibility
edited May 28 at 15:29
Russell Borogove
93.6k3316402
asked May 27 at 16:21
William R. EbenezerWilliam R. Ebenezer
1738
$endgroup$
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
In Dr. Martin Schweiger's freeware spaceflight simulator Orbiter 2016, a very popular(but fictional) spacecraft is the Delta-Glider.
It is capable of take-off from a runway, has hover engines for VTOL in low-g planets/moons, and lands similarly. It has several variants, including DG-S (equiped with scramjet).
Here are the major specs(table from orbiter.wiki):
Do any of the figures sound unrealistic? How feasible is this?
EDIT:
It is capable of flight in the atmosphere, but is mainly designed for orbital and interplanetary spaceflight.
spacecraft design feasibility
edited May 28 at 15:29
Russell Borogove
93.6k3316402
asked May 27 at 16:21
William R. EbenezerWilliam R. Ebenezer
1738
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
There is a close vote about your question, because it seems to like more about atmospherical flights than spaceflights. I suggest to edit it to be about spacflight. We have about aviation.stackexchange.com . I also suggest to make it more clear, "how feasible" looks too broad. How feasible for what?
$endgroup$
– peterh
May 27 at 20:00
2
$begingroup$
@peterh all the questions here about helicopters or planes or gliders or ballons on Mars and Venus would then have to be considered for closure as off-topic by the same logic. I think as long as this question is specifically about atmospheric flight on Mars, a planet were so far as we know, no atmospheric flight has ever happened, it is on-topic an d should remain open.
$endgroup$
– uhoh
May 28 at 0:48
1
$begingroup$
If it were feasible, NASA would have already done it. (They put a lot of research into SSTO back 15-25 years ago, but nothing came of it.)
$endgroup$
– RonJohn
May 28 at 5:48
1
$begingroup$
@uhoh My votes (up + "leave open") followed the same concept.
$endgroup$
– peterh
May 28 at 9:18
1
$begingroup$
My feeling as something of a regular there is that this would be quickly closed on Aviation, as a combination of too broad, off-topic and primarily opinion-based.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
May 28 at 9:25
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
In Dr. Martin Schweiger's freeware spaceflight simulator Orbiter 2016, a very popular(but fictional) spacecraft is the Delta-Glider.
It is capable of take-off from a runway, has hover engines for VTOL in low-g planets/moons, and lands similarly. It has several variants, including DG-S (equiped with scramjet).
Here are the major specs(table from orbiter.wiki):
Do any of the figures sound unrealistic? How feasible is this?
EDIT:
It is capable of flight in the atmosphere, but is mainly designed for orbital and interplanetary spaceflight.
spacecraft design feasibility
edited May 28 at 15:29
Russell Borogove
93.6k3316402
asked May 27 at 16:21
William R. EbenezerWilliam R. Ebenezer
1738
$endgroup$
In Dr. Martin Schweiger's freeware spaceflight simulator Orbiter 2016, a very popular(but fictional) spacecraft is the Delta-Glider.
It is capable of take-off from a runway, has hover engines for VTOL in low-g planets/moons, and lands similarly. It has several variants, including DG-S (equiped with scramjet).
Here are the major specs(table from orbiter.wiki):
Do any of the figures sound unrealistic? How feasible is this?
EDIT:
It is capable of flight in the atmosphere, but is mainly designed for orbital and interplanetary spaceflight.
spacecraft design feasibility
spacecraft design feasibility
edited May 28 at 15:29
Russell Borogove
93.6k3316402
asked May 27 at 16:21
William R. EbenezerWilliam R. Ebenezer
1738
edited May 28 at 15:29
Russell Borogove
93.6k3316402
asked May 27 at 16:21
William R. EbenezerWilliam R. Ebenezer
1738
edited May 28 at 15:29
Russell Borogove
93.6k3316402
edited May 28 at 15:29
Russell Borogove
93.6k3316402
edited May 28 at 15:29
Russell Borogove
93.6k3316402
93.6k3316402
asked May 27 at 16:21
William R. EbenezerWilliam R. Ebenezer
1738
asked May 27 at 16:21
William R. EbenezerWilliam R. Ebenezer
1738
asked May 27 at 16:21
William R. EbenezerWilliam R. Ebenezer
1738
1738
2
$begingroup$
There is a close vote about your question, because it seems to like more about atmospherical flights than spaceflights. I suggest to edit it to be about spacflight. We have about aviation.stackexchange.com . I also suggest to make it more clear, "how feasible" looks too broad. How feasible for what?
$endgroup$
– peterh
May 27 at 20:00
2
$begingroup$
@peterh all the questions here about helicopters or planes or gliders or ballons on Mars and Venus would then have to be considered for closure as off-topic by the same logic. I think as long as this question is specifically about atmospheric flight on Mars, a planet were so far as we know, no atmospheric flight has ever happened, it is on-topic an d should remain open.
$endgroup$
– uhoh
May 28 at 0:48
1
$begingroup$
If it were feasible, NASA would have already done it. (They put a lot of research into SSTO back 15-25 years ago, but nothing came of it.)
$endgroup$
– RonJohn
May 28 at 5:48
1
$begingroup$
@uhoh My votes (up + "leave open") followed the same concept.
$endgroup$
– peterh
May 28 at 9:18
1
$begingroup$
My feeling as something of a regular there is that this would be quickly closed on Aviation, as a combination of too broad, off-topic and primarily opinion-based.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
May 28 at 9:25
|
show 2 more comments
2
$begingroup$
There is a close vote about your question, because it seems to like more about atmospherical flights than spaceflights. I suggest to edit it to be about spacflight. We have about aviation.stackexchange.com . I also suggest to make it more clear, "how feasible" looks too broad. How feasible for what?
$endgroup$
– peterh
May 27 at 20:00
2
$begingroup$
@peterh all the questions here about helicopters or planes or gliders or ballons on Mars and Venus would then have to be considered for closure as off-topic by the same logic. I think as long as this question is specifically about atmospheric flight on Mars, a planet were so far as we know, no atmospheric flight has ever happened, it is on-topic an d should remain open.
$endgroup$
– uhoh
May 28 at 0:48
1
$begingroup$
If it were feasible, NASA would have already done it. (They put a lot of research into SSTO back 15-25 years ago, but nothing came of it.)
$endgroup$
– RonJohn
May 28 at 5:48
1
$begingroup$
@uhoh My votes (up + "leave open") followed the same concept.
$endgroup$
– peterh
May 28 at 9:18
1
$begingroup$
My feeling as something of a regular there is that this would be quickly closed on Aviation, as a combination of too broad, off-topic and primarily opinion-based.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
May 28 at 9:25
2
2
$begingroup$
There is a close vote about your question, because it seems to like more about atmospherical flights than spaceflights. I suggest to edit it to be about spacflight. We have about aviation.stackexchange.com . I also suggest to make it more clear, "how feasible" looks too broad. How feasible for what?
$endgroup$
– peterh
May 27 at 20:00
$begingroup$
There is a close vote about your question, because it seems to like more about atmospherical flights than spaceflights. I suggest to edit it to be about spacflight. We have about aviation.stackexchange.com . I also suggest to make it more clear, "how feasible" looks too broad. How feasible for what?
$endgroup$
– peterh
May 27 at 20:00
2
2
$begingroup$
@peterh all the questions here about helicopters or planes or gliders or ballons on Mars and Venus would then have to be considered for closure as off-topic by the same logic. I think as long as this question is specifically about atmospheric flight on Mars, a planet were so far as we know, no atmospheric flight has ever happened, it is on-topic an d should remain open.
$endgroup$
– uhoh
May 28 at 0:48
$begingroup$
@peterh all the questions here about helicopters or planes or gliders or ballons on Mars and Venus would then have to be considered for closure as off-topic by the same logic. I think as long as this question is specifically about atmospheric flight on Mars, a planet were so far as we know, no atmospheric flight has ever happened, it is on-topic an d should remain open.
$endgroup$
– uhoh
May 28 at 0:48
1
1
$begingroup$
If it were feasible, NASA would have already done it. (They put a lot of research into SSTO back 15-25 years ago, but nothing came of it.)
$endgroup$
– RonJohn
May 28 at 5:48
$begingroup$
If it were feasible, NASA would have already done it. (They put a lot of research into SSTO back 15-25 years ago, but nothing came of it.)
$endgroup$
– RonJohn
May 28 at 5:48
1
1
$begingroup$
@uhoh My votes (up + "leave open") followed the same concept.
$endgroup$
– peterh
May 28 at 9:18
$begingroup$
@uhoh My votes (up + "leave open") followed the same concept.
$endgroup$
– peterh
May 28 at 9:18
1
1
$begingroup$
My feeling as something of a regular there is that this would be quickly closed on Aviation, as a combination of too broad, off-topic and primarily opinion-based.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
May 28 at 9:25
$begingroup$
My feeling as something of a regular there is that this would be quickly closed on Aviation, as a combination of too broad, off-topic and primarily opinion-based.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
May 28 at 9:25
|
show 2 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The specific impulse figure of 40kN•s/kg (i.e. exhaust velocity of 40km/s) and the 31.5km/s of delta-v achieved thereby is not achievable with current propulsion technology -- it’s about 10 times the fuel efficiency of modern chemical rockets.
That performance suggests something like a fusion rocket engine.
edited May 28 at 14:36
Community♦
1
answered May 27 at 16:47
Russell BorogoveRussell Borogove
93.6k3316402
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Gas-core fission rockets could also get similar isps, according to Project Rho
$endgroup$
– qazwsx
May 28 at 14:43
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Brief:
The extremely high Isp (about a factor of 9 above what is achievable today) enables it to perform feats of derring-do beyond our current imaginings. Apart from that, it seems feasible.
Longer:
As noted by others, the Isps cited suggest a nuclear engine of some sort.
The Isp is around nine times that of the Space Shuttle main engines (!)
It has SSTO capability beyond anything we could build today.
It could "go to earth orbit" from a standing start (with tanks partially filled).
On full tanks, it cannot quite lift from the earth's surface.
Even with tanks almost empty, it would be a sluggish climb to orbit for a terran launch.
But once in LEO its capabilities are astounding.
Mars surface to orbit would be 'easy'.
Converting N to kg with a factor of 10 ("naughty" but makes comparisons easier)
Main engine thrust is 24,000 kg.
Empty weight + all fuel brings thrust:mass to about 1:1 but the extraordinarily high Isp allow an earth LEO delta V on well less than "a full tank".
This table shows the delta V in km/s required to go from locations in the left-hand column to locations in the top row. From Wikipedia - Delta-V budget. If you launched from earth to LEO on just enough fuel to get you there and then "tanked up" in LEO you could 'wander around' the Earth-Lunar-Lagrange environments in astounding style.
It gets better!
You can do Mars return from LEO on Hohmann transfer orbits with ease.
And so probably greatly reduce Earth-Mars-Earth journey times with non-Hohmann trajectories.
But wait!
It gets better still.
You can dive into the sun! - or sun graze and just start to get back.
With full tanks from LEO you can maybe manage Jupiter or Saturn return,
easily achieve Mercury, Venus or Mars return,
And make a one-way journey to anything past Saturn.
edited May 28 at 23:27
Mark Omo
3,75512343
answered May 28 at 15:25
Russell McMahonRussell McMahon
67947
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
"On full tanks it cannot quite lift from the earth's surface." -- this design is for horizontal runway takeoff, like an airplane, so it's using wing lift rather than thrust to get off the ground.
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
May 28 at 17:19
$begingroup$
@RussellBorogove Yes, I agree. I was (attempting to) address the "fact" that it is 'sold' as a 'spaeplane' but not as a planetary surface craft - as addressed in the discussion to the question re possible voting to close. On Terra the wings are "useful". On Mars, hardly at all. On Mercury, not at all. On Venus you don't want to find out :-) - but you can easily go there and back again (with or without Hobbits). I have not looked at how short an eg Mars return may be achievable pulling its max 2g each way for as long as possible on the available high Isp fuel capacity, but ... :-)
$endgroup$
– Russell McMahon
May 28 at 21:57
$begingroup$
All the VTC are way off base.
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
May 28 at 22:00
$begingroup$
@RussellBorogove All your base are belong ... :-). I'd be pleased for more detailed comment from you if the following is not sufficient. I assume you mean that the velocities in the table are wrong. This may well be the case - it is Wikipedia sourced after all :-) - BUT it may be that their meaning is not clear. eg in the interplanetary table "v exiting LEO" is the velocity after the single orbital burn (sufficient presumably to produce a Hohmann transfer trajectory, ...
$endgroup$
– Russell McMahon
May 29 at 7:49
$begingroup$
@RussellBorogove ... and dV in the next column is the delta V burn necessary to produce that exit burn (assuming I understand it correctly). The 1st 2 tables give only actual burn dV. || [The wabe are mimsier than I'd like].
$endgroup$
– Russell McMahon
May 29 at 7:49
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "508"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f36422%2fhow-feasible-is-the-delta-glider%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The specific impulse figure of 40kN•s/kg (i.e. exhaust velocity of 40km/s) and the 31.5km/s of delta-v achieved thereby is not achievable with current propulsion technology -- it’s about 10 times the fuel efficiency of modern chemical rockets.
That performance suggests something like a fusion rocket engine.
edited May 28 at 14:36
Community♦
1
answered May 27 at 16:47
Russell BorogoveRussell Borogove
93.6k3316402
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Gas-core fission rockets could also get similar isps, according to Project Rho
$endgroup$
– qazwsx
May 28 at 14:43
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The specific impulse figure of 40kN•s/kg (i.e. exhaust velocity of 40km/s) and the 31.5km/s of delta-v achieved thereby is not achievable with current propulsion technology -- it’s about 10 times the fuel efficiency of modern chemical rockets.
That performance suggests something like a fusion rocket engine.
edited May 28 at 14:36
Community♦
1
answered May 27 at 16:47
Russell BorogoveRussell Borogove
93.6k3316402
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Gas-core fission rockets could also get similar isps, according to Project Rho
$endgroup$
– qazwsx
May 28 at 14:43
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The specific impulse figure of 40kN•s/kg (i.e. exhaust velocity of 40km/s) and the 31.5km/s of delta-v achieved thereby is not achievable with current propulsion technology -- it’s about 10 times the fuel efficiency of modern chemical rockets.
That performance suggests something like a fusion rocket engine.
edited May 28 at 14:36
Community♦
1
answered May 27 at 16:47
Russell BorogoveRussell Borogove
93.6k3316402
$endgroup$
The specific impulse figure of 40kN•s/kg (i.e. exhaust velocity of 40km/s) and the 31.5km/s of delta-v achieved thereby is not achievable with current propulsion technology -- it’s about 10 times the fuel efficiency of modern chemical rockets.
That performance suggests something like a fusion rocket engine.
edited May 28 at 14:36
Community♦
1
answered May 27 at 16:47
Russell BorogoveRussell Borogove
93.6k3316402
edited May 28 at 14:36
Community♦
1
edited May 28 at 14:36
Community♦
1
edited May 28 at 14:36
Community♦
1
1
answered May 27 at 16:47
Russell BorogoveRussell Borogove
93.6k3316402
answered May 27 at 16:47
Russell BorogoveRussell Borogove
93.6k3316402
answered May 27 at 16:47
Russell BorogoveRussell Borogove
93.6k3316402
93.6k3316402
1
$begingroup$
Gas-core fission rockets could also get similar isps, according to Project Rho
$endgroup$
– qazwsx
May 28 at 14:43
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
Gas-core fission rockets could also get similar isps, according to Project Rho
$endgroup$
– qazwsx
May 28 at 14:43
1
1
$begingroup$
Gas-core fission rockets could also get similar isps, according to Project Rho
$endgroup$
– qazwsx
May 28 at 14:43
$begingroup$
Gas-core fission rockets could also get similar isps, according to Project Rho
$endgroup$
– qazwsx
May 28 at 14:43
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Brief:
The extremely high Isp (about a factor of 9 above what is achievable today) enables it to perform feats of derring-do beyond our current imaginings. Apart from that, it seems feasible.
Longer:
As noted by others, the Isps cited suggest a nuclear engine of some sort.
The Isp is around nine times that of the Space Shuttle main engines (!)
It has SSTO capability beyond anything we could build today.
It could "go to earth orbit" from a standing start (with tanks partially filled).
On full tanks, it cannot quite lift from the earth's surface.
Even with tanks almost empty, it would be a sluggish climb to orbit for a terran launch.
But once in LEO its capabilities are astounding.
Mars surface to orbit would be 'easy'.
Converting N to kg with a factor of 10 ("naughty" but makes comparisons easier)
Main engine thrust is 24,000 kg.
Empty weight + all fuel brings thrust:mass to about 1:1 but the extraordinarily high Isp allow an earth LEO delta V on well less than "a full tank".
This table shows the delta V in km/s required to go from locations in the left-hand column to locations in the top row. From Wikipedia - Delta-V budget. If you launched from earth to LEO on just enough fuel to get you there and then "tanked up" in LEO you could 'wander around' the Earth-Lunar-Lagrange environments in astounding style.
It gets better!
You can do Mars return from LEO on Hohmann transfer orbits with ease.
And so probably greatly reduce Earth-Mars-Earth journey times with non-Hohmann trajectories.
But wait!
It gets better still.
You can dive into the sun! - or sun graze and just start to get back.
With full tanks from LEO you can maybe manage Jupiter or Saturn return,
easily achieve Mercury, Venus or Mars return,
And make a one-way journey to anything past Saturn.
edited May 28 at 23:27
Mark Omo
3,75512343
answered May 28 at 15:25
Russell McMahonRussell McMahon
67947
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
"On full tanks it cannot quite lift from the earth's surface." -- this design is for horizontal runway takeoff, like an airplane, so it's using wing lift rather than thrust to get off the ground.
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
May 28 at 17:19
$begingroup$
@RussellBorogove Yes, I agree. I was (attempting to) address the "fact" that it is 'sold' as a 'spaeplane' but not as a planetary surface craft - as addressed in the discussion to the question re possible voting to close. On Terra the wings are "useful". On Mars, hardly at all. On Mercury, not at all. On Venus you don't want to find out :-) - but you can easily go there and back again (with or without Hobbits). I have not looked at how short an eg Mars return may be achievable pulling its max 2g each way for as long as possible on the available high Isp fuel capacity, but ... :-)
$endgroup$
– Russell McMahon
May 28 at 21:57
$begingroup$
All the VTC are way off base.
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
May 28 at 22:00
$begingroup$
@RussellBorogove All your base are belong ... :-). I'd be pleased for more detailed comment from you if the following is not sufficient. I assume you mean that the velocities in the table are wrong. This may well be the case - it is Wikipedia sourced after all :-) - BUT it may be that their meaning is not clear. eg in the interplanetary table "v exiting LEO" is the velocity after the single orbital burn (sufficient presumably to produce a Hohmann transfer trajectory, ...
$endgroup$
– Russell McMahon
May 29 at 7:49
$begingroup$
@RussellBorogove ... and dV in the next column is the delta V burn necessary to produce that exit burn (assuming I understand it correctly). The 1st 2 tables give only actual burn dV. || [The wabe are mimsier than I'd like].
$endgroup$
– Russell McMahon
May 29 at 7:49
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Brief:
The extremely high Isp (about a factor of 9 above what is achievable today) enables it to perform feats of derring-do beyond our current imaginings. Apart from that, it seems feasible.
Longer:
As noted by others, the Isps cited suggest a nuclear engine of some sort.
The Isp is around nine times that of the Space Shuttle main engines (!)
It has SSTO capability beyond anything we could build today.
It could "go to earth orbit" from a standing start (with tanks partially filled).
On full tanks, it cannot quite lift from the earth's surface.
Even with tanks almost empty, it would be a sluggish climb to orbit for a terran launch.
But once in LEO its capabilities are astounding.
Mars surface to orbit would be 'easy'.
Converting N to kg with a factor of 10 ("naughty" but makes comparisons easier)
Main engine thrust is 24,000 kg.
Empty weight + all fuel brings thrust:mass to about 1:1 but the extraordinarily high Isp allow an earth LEO delta V on well less than "a full tank".
This table shows the delta V in km/s required to go from locations in the left-hand column to locations in the top row. From Wikipedia - Delta-V budget. If you launched from earth to LEO on just enough fuel to get you there and then "tanked up" in LEO you could 'wander around' the Earth-Lunar-Lagrange environments in astounding style.
It gets better!
You can do Mars return from LEO on Hohmann transfer orbits with ease.
And so probably greatly reduce Earth-Mars-Earth journey times with non-Hohmann trajectories.
But wait!
It gets better still.
You can dive into the sun! - or sun graze and just start to get back.
With full tanks from LEO you can maybe manage Jupiter or Saturn return,
easily achieve Mercury, Venus or Mars return,
And make a one-way journey to anything past Saturn.
edited May 28 at 23:27
Mark Omo
3,75512343
answered May 28 at 15:25
Russell McMahonRussell McMahon
67947
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
"On full tanks it cannot quite lift from the earth's surface." -- this design is for horizontal runway takeoff, like an airplane, so it's using wing lift rather than thrust to get off the ground.
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
May 28 at 17:19
$begingroup$
@RussellBorogove Yes, I agree. I was (attempting to) address the "fact" that it is 'sold' as a 'spaeplane' but not as a planetary surface craft - as addressed in the discussion to the question re possible voting to close. On Terra the wings are "useful". On Mars, hardly at all. On Mercury, not at all. On Venus you don't want to find out :-) - but you can easily go there and back again (with or without Hobbits). I have not looked at how short an eg Mars return may be achievable pulling its max 2g each way for as long as possible on the available high Isp fuel capacity, but ... :-)
$endgroup$
– Russell McMahon
May 28 at 21:57
$begingroup$
All the VTC are way off base.
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
May 28 at 22:00
$begingroup$
@RussellBorogove All your base are belong ... :-). I'd be pleased for more detailed comment from you if the following is not sufficient. I assume you mean that the velocities in the table are wrong. This may well be the case - it is Wikipedia sourced after all :-) - BUT it may be that their meaning is not clear. eg in the interplanetary table "v exiting LEO" is the velocity after the single orbital burn (sufficient presumably to produce a Hohmann transfer trajectory, ...
$endgroup$
– Russell McMahon
May 29 at 7:49
$begingroup$
@RussellBorogove ... and dV in the next column is the delta V burn necessary to produce that exit burn (assuming I understand it correctly). The 1st 2 tables give only actual burn dV. || [The wabe are mimsier than I'd like].
$endgroup$
– Russell McMahon
May 29 at 7:49
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Brief:
The extremely high Isp (about a factor of 9 above what is achievable today) enables it to perform feats of derring-do beyond our current imaginings. Apart from that, it seems feasible.
Longer:
As noted by others, the Isps cited suggest a nuclear engine of some sort.
The Isp is around nine times that of the Space Shuttle main engines (!)
It has SSTO capability beyond anything we could build today.
It could "go to earth orbit" from a standing start (with tanks partially filled).
On full tanks, it cannot quite lift from the earth's surface.
Even with tanks almost empty, it would be a sluggish climb to orbit for a terran launch.
But once in LEO its capabilities are astounding.
Mars surface to orbit would be 'easy'.
Converting N to kg with a factor of 10 ("naughty" but makes comparisons easier)
Main engine thrust is 24,000 kg.
Empty weight + all fuel brings thrust:mass to about 1:1 but the extraordinarily high Isp allow an earth LEO delta V on well less than "a full tank".
This table shows the delta V in km/s required to go from locations in the left-hand column to locations in the top row. From Wikipedia - Delta-V budget. If you launched from earth to LEO on just enough fuel to get you there and then "tanked up" in LEO you could 'wander around' the Earth-Lunar-Lagrange environments in astounding style.
It gets better!
You can do Mars return from LEO on Hohmann transfer orbits with ease.
And so probably greatly reduce Earth-Mars-Earth journey times with non-Hohmann trajectories.
But wait!
It gets better still.
You can dive into the sun! - or sun graze and just start to get back.
With full tanks from LEO you can maybe manage Jupiter or Saturn return,
easily achieve Mercury, Venus or Mars return,
And make a one-way journey to anything past Saturn.
edited May 28 at 23:27
Mark Omo
3,75512343
answered May 28 at 15:25
Russell McMahonRussell McMahon
67947
$endgroup$
Brief:
The extremely high Isp (about a factor of 9 above what is achievable today) enables it to perform feats of derring-do beyond our current imaginings. Apart from that, it seems feasible.
Longer:
As noted by others, the Isps cited suggest a nuclear engine of some sort.
The Isp is around nine times that of the Space Shuttle main engines (!)
It has SSTO capability beyond anything we could build today.
It could "go to earth orbit" from a standing start (with tanks partially filled).
On full tanks, it cannot quite lift from the earth's surface.
Even with tanks almost empty, it would be a sluggish climb to orbit for a terran launch.
But once in LEO its capabilities are astounding.
Mars surface to orbit would be 'easy'.
Converting N to kg with a factor of 10 ("naughty" but makes comparisons easier)
Main engine thrust is 24,000 kg.
Empty weight + all fuel brings thrust:mass to about 1:1 but the extraordinarily high Isp allow an earth LEO delta V on well less than "a full tank".
This table shows the delta V in km/s required to go from locations in the left-hand column to locations in the top row. From Wikipedia - Delta-V budget. If you launched from earth to LEO on just enough fuel to get you there and then "tanked up" in LEO you could 'wander around' the Earth-Lunar-Lagrange environments in astounding style.
It gets better!
You can do Mars return from LEO on Hohmann transfer orbits with ease.
And so probably greatly reduce Earth-Mars-Earth journey times with non-Hohmann trajectories.
But wait!
It gets better still.
You can dive into the sun! - or sun graze and just start to get back.
With full tanks from LEO you can maybe manage Jupiter or Saturn return,
easily achieve Mercury, Venus or Mars return,
And make a one-way journey to anything past Saturn.
edited May 28 at 23:27
Mark Omo
3,75512343
answered May 28 at 15:25
Russell McMahonRussell McMahon
67947
edited May 28 at 23:27
Mark Omo
3,75512343
edited May 28 at 23:27
Mark Omo
3,75512343
edited May 28 at 23:27
Mark Omo
3,75512343
3,75512343
answered May 28 at 15:25
Russell McMahonRussell McMahon
67947
answered May 28 at 15:25
Russell McMahonRussell McMahon
67947
answered May 28 at 15:25
Russell McMahonRussell McMahon
67947
67947
2
$begingroup$
"On full tanks it cannot quite lift from the earth's surface." -- this design is for horizontal runway takeoff, like an airplane, so it's using wing lift rather than thrust to get off the ground.
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
May 28 at 17:19
$begingroup$
@RussellBorogove Yes, I agree. I was (attempting to) address the "fact" that it is 'sold' as a 'spaeplane' but not as a planetary surface craft - as addressed in the discussion to the question re possible voting to close. On Terra the wings are "useful". On Mars, hardly at all. On Mercury, not at all. On Venus you don't want to find out :-) - but you can easily go there and back again (with or without Hobbits). I have not looked at how short an eg Mars return may be achievable pulling its max 2g each way for as long as possible on the available high Isp fuel capacity, but ... :-)
$endgroup$
– Russell McMahon
May 28 at 21:57
$begingroup$
All the VTC are way off base.
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
May 28 at 22:00
$begingroup$
@RussellBorogove All your base are belong ... :-). I'd be pleased for more detailed comment from you if the following is not sufficient. I assume you mean that the velocities in the table are wrong. This may well be the case - it is Wikipedia sourced after all :-) - BUT it may be that their meaning is not clear. eg in the interplanetary table "v exiting LEO" is the velocity after the single orbital burn (sufficient presumably to produce a Hohmann transfer trajectory, ...
$endgroup$
– Russell McMahon
May 29 at 7:49
$begingroup$
@RussellBorogove ... and dV in the next column is the delta V burn necessary to produce that exit burn (assuming I understand it correctly). The 1st 2 tables give only actual burn dV. || [The wabe are mimsier than I'd like].
$endgroup$
– Russell McMahon
May 29 at 7:49
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
"On full tanks it cannot quite lift from the earth's surface." -- this design is for horizontal runway takeoff, like an airplane, so it's using wing lift rather than thrust to get off the ground.
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
May 28 at 17:19
$begingroup$
@RussellBorogove Yes, I agree. I was (attempting to) address the "fact" that it is 'sold' as a 'spaeplane' but not as a planetary surface craft - as addressed in the discussion to the question re possible voting to close. On Terra the wings are "useful". On Mars, hardly at all. On Mercury, not at all. On Venus you don't want to find out :-) - but you can easily go there and back again (with or without Hobbits). I have not looked at how short an eg Mars return may be achievable pulling its max 2g each way for as long as possible on the available high Isp fuel capacity, but ... :-)
$endgroup$
– Russell McMahon
May 28 at 21:57
$begingroup$
All the VTC are way off base.
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
May 28 at 22:00
$begingroup$
@RussellBorogove All your base are belong ... :-). I'd be pleased for more detailed comment from you if the following is not sufficient. I assume you mean that the velocities in the table are wrong. This may well be the case - it is Wikipedia sourced after all :-) - BUT it may be that their meaning is not clear. eg in the interplanetary table "v exiting LEO" is the velocity after the single orbital burn (sufficient presumably to produce a Hohmann transfer trajectory, ...
$endgroup$
– Russell McMahon
May 29 at 7:49
$begingroup$
@RussellBorogove ... and dV in the next column is the delta V burn necessary to produce that exit burn (assuming I understand it correctly). The 1st 2 tables give only actual burn dV. || [The wabe are mimsier than I'd like].
$endgroup$
– Russell McMahon
May 29 at 7:49
2
2
$begingroup$
"On full tanks it cannot quite lift from the earth's surface." -- this design is for horizontal runway takeoff, like an airplane, so it's using wing lift rather than thrust to get off the ground.
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
May 28 at 17:19
$begingroup$
"On full tanks it cannot quite lift from the earth's surface." -- this design is for horizontal runway takeoff, like an airplane, so it's using wing lift rather than thrust to get off the ground.
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
May 28 at 17:19
$begingroup$
@RussellBorogove Yes, I agree. I was (attempting to) address the "fact" that it is 'sold' as a 'spaeplane' but not as a planetary surface craft - as addressed in the discussion to the question re possible voting to close. On Terra the wings are "useful". On Mars, hardly at all. On Mercury, not at all. On Venus you don't want to find out :-) - but you can easily go there and back again (with or without Hobbits). I have not looked at how short an eg Mars return may be achievable pulling its max 2g each way for as long as possible on the available high Isp fuel capacity, but ... :-)
$endgroup$
– Russell McMahon
May 28 at 21:57
$begingroup$
@RussellBorogove Yes, I agree. I was (attempting to) address the "fact" that it is 'sold' as a 'spaeplane' but not as a planetary surface craft - as addressed in the discussion to the question re possible voting to close. On Terra the wings are "useful". On Mars, hardly at all. On Mercury, not at all. On Venus you don't want to find out :-) - but you can easily go there and back again (with or without Hobbits). I have not looked at how short an eg Mars return may be achievable pulling its max 2g each way for as long as possible on the available high Isp fuel capacity, but ... :-)
$endgroup$
– Russell McMahon
May 28 at 21:57
$begingroup$
All the VTC are way off base.
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
May 28 at 22:00
$begingroup$
All the VTC are way off base.
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
May 28 at 22:00
$begingroup$
@RussellBorogove All your base are belong ... :-). I'd be pleased for more detailed comment from you if the following is not sufficient. I assume you mean that the velocities in the table are wrong. This may well be the case - it is Wikipedia sourced after all :-) - BUT it may be that their meaning is not clear. eg in the interplanetary table "v exiting LEO" is the velocity after the single orbital burn (sufficient presumably to produce a Hohmann transfer trajectory, ...
$endgroup$
– Russell McMahon
May 29 at 7:49
$begingroup$
@RussellBorogove All your base are belong ... :-). I'd be pleased for more detailed comment from you if the following is not sufficient. I assume you mean that the velocities in the table are wrong. This may well be the case - it is Wikipedia sourced after all :-) - BUT it may be that their meaning is not clear. eg in the interplanetary table "v exiting LEO" is the velocity after the single orbital burn (sufficient presumably to produce a Hohmann transfer trajectory, ...
$endgroup$
– Russell McMahon
May 29 at 7:49
$begingroup$
@RussellBorogove ... and dV in the next column is the delta V burn necessary to produce that exit burn (assuming I understand it correctly). The 1st 2 tables give only actual burn dV. || [The wabe are mimsier than I'd like].
$endgroup$
– Russell McMahon
May 29 at 7:49
$begingroup$
@RussellBorogove ... and dV in the next column is the delta V burn necessary to produce that exit burn (assuming I understand it correctly). The 1st 2 tables give only actual burn dV. || [The wabe are mimsier than I'd like].
$endgroup$
– Russell McMahon
May 29 at 7:49
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Space Exploration Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f36422%2fhow-feasible-is-the-delta-glider%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
$begingroup$
There is a close vote about your question, because it seems to like more about atmospherical flights than spaceflights. I suggest to edit it to be about spacflight. We have about aviation.stackexchange.com . I also suggest to make it more clear, "how feasible" looks too broad. How feasible for what?
$endgroup$
– peterh
May 27 at 20:00
2
$begingroup$
@peterh all the questions here about helicopters or planes or gliders or ballons on Mars and Venus would then have to be considered for closure as off-topic by the same logic. I think as long as this question is specifically about atmospheric flight on Mars, a planet were so far as we know, no atmospheric flight has ever happened, it is on-topic an d should remain open.
$endgroup$
– uhoh
May 28 at 0:48
1
$begingroup$
If it were feasible, NASA would have already done it. (They put a lot of research into SSTO back 15-25 years ago, but nothing came of it.)
$endgroup$
– RonJohn
May 28 at 5:48
1
$begingroup$
@uhoh My votes (up + "leave open") followed the same concept.
$endgroup$
– peterh
May 28 at 9:18
1
$begingroup$
My feeling as something of a regular there is that this would be quickly closed on Aviation, as a combination of too broad, off-topic and primarily opinion-based.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
May 28 at 9:25