Quote:
Originally Posted by ogon_bat
I am under the assumption that your question is "How different is to use a one stage reusable vehicle vs. traditional rockets to get people into LEO hotels?". If that is the case, it would be cheaper (nothing more, nothing less). Think for a moment that some company designed cheap planes that could cross the atlantic but could only be used once, if such endeavor could compete with commercial reusable planes we would have seen them by now, don't you think?
|
It wasn't, but thats not too important anyway. There is a reason why powerful rockets use a multi stage design. The mutli stage design allows for getting rid of useless deadweight during the flight (getting rid of burned out stages). Its meant to maximize the effective payload.
The single stage design proposed here would use aerodynamic lift instead of raw rocket thrust to gain the first 14-20km of height. And there is also the benefit of using the air's oxygen for as long as possible. This gives that particular one stage design an advantage in the early phase of the flight. This advantage is more significant when flying to a lower orbit.
Flying to higher altitudes makes this advantage shrink, because the atmoshpere is fixed in height unlike the altitude of the orbit. This is also the reason why the one-way transatlantic plane is at best a misleading comparison.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ithekro
Well it the space plane design is modelled at least partly along airline models it means a relatively confortable trip for tourists and business types that might want to stay at one of Bigelow's stations for a few days. The plane would likely return to Earth, get fueled up and ready for the next set of passangers to that or one of the other stations.
Unlike the Space Shuttle, there would be no disposable parts and no external rockets that need to be recovered and serviced. The space plane might require serious maintenance between flights, but paying passangers I would think would like having a confortable chair, possible in-flight services (the flight need not be straight up, nor quickest route...even if it is, it might still take several hours to reach one of the stations from whatever airport these things take off from.
In a way, it would be like the early days of long distance passanger air travel. Though we will see if it is more the style of a DC3, a China Clipper or a Zepplin in comfort.
|
But you already realized it, most of these benefits come from the airframe that is modeled closer to a plane. It could still be multistage (btw. multi stage does not imply that the stages cannot be reused) or use a different means of propulsion (e.g. scramjets). This article was mainly about the engines, and my response was focused on that.