Sfdwhf

Putting Ant-Man on house arrest

Lights are flickering on and off after accidentally bumping into light switch

How do I deal with an erroneously large refund?

Is Bran literally the world's memory?

A German immigrant ancestor has a "Registration Affidavit of Alien Enemy" on file. What does that mean exactly?

How can I introduce the names of fantasy creatures to the reader?

lm and glm function in R

“Since the train was delayed for more than an hour, passengers were given a full refund.” – Why is there no article before “passengers”?

xkeyval -- read keys from file

What documents does someone with a long-term visa need to travel to another Schengen country?

What could prevent concentrated local exploration?

Can this water damage be explained by lack of gutters and grading issues?

How to create a command for the "strange m" symbol in latex?

Can a Knight grant Knighthood to another?

Who can become a wight?

How to get a single big right brace?

Why do people think Winterfell crypts is the safest place for women, children & old people?

Why these surprising proportionalities of integrals involving odd zeta values?

/bin/ls sorts differently than just ls

What's the connection between Mr. Nancy and fried chicken?

tabularx column has extra padding at right?

How to charge percentage of transaction cost?

Is "ein Herz wie das meine" an antiquated or colloquial use of the possesive pronoun?

Why did Bronn offer to be Tyrion Lannister's champion in trial by combat?

Benefits of air-launching a rocket

4

$begingroup$

Is there a way to quantify how much you would gain by air-launching a rocket compared to a ground launch?

air-launch

share|improve this question

asked 10 hours ago

HobbesHobbes

96.6k2272427

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Possible duplicates: Why aren't all satellite-carrying rockets launched from airplanes?, Is the “airship to orbit” mission profile feasible?
  $endgroup$
  – DarkDust
  9 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

4

$begingroup$

Is there a way to quantify how much you would gain by air-launching a rocket compared to a ground launch?

air-launch

share|improve this question

asked 10 hours ago

HobbesHobbes

96.6k2272427

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Possible duplicates: Why aren't all satellite-carrying rockets launched from airplanes?, Is the “airship to orbit” mission profile feasible?
  $endgroup$
  – DarkDust
  9 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

$begingroup$

Is there a way to quantify how much you would gain by air-launching a rocket compared to a ground launch?

air-launch

share|improve this question

asked 10 hours ago

HobbesHobbes

96.6k2272427

$endgroup$

share|improve this question

asked 10 hours ago

HobbesHobbes

96.6k2272427

share|improve this question

asked 10 hours ago

HobbesHobbes

96.6k2272427

asked 10 hours ago

HobbesHobbes

96.6k2272427

asked 10 hours ago

HobbesHobbes

96.6k2272427

1 Answer
1

active

oldest

votes

3

$begingroup$

I came across a fairly detailed comparison made by the team that worked on Interim HOTOL.

Delta-v required for a vertical launch SSTO (e.g. Delta Clipper) to LEO: 9361 m/s

For Interim Hotol:

• speed supplied by launch aircraft (An-225), launching at Mach 0.8 at 9 km altitude: - 235 m/s


• drag loss: + 67 m/s


• gravity losses: - 670 m/s


• Isp underexpansion losses at low altitude: - 180 m/s


• Thrust vectoring demands: + 10 m/s


• Improved engine Isp due to altitude start: - 214 m/s

for a total reduction in delta-V of 1222 m/s, or 13%, translating into a 24% reduction in propellant requirement.

From the book 'Spaceflight in the era of aero-space planes' (R. Hannigan, Krieger publishing, 1994).

share|improve this answer

answered 10 hours ago

HobbesHobbes

96.6k2272427

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Are the +67m/s drag loss related to the attitude change, from horizontal to suborbital trajectory? And are drag gains (from not having to go through 9km of dense atmosphere) already summed up into this result of +67?
  $endgroup$
  – qq jkztd
  9 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  "Isp underexpansion losses at low altitude" and "improved engine Isp due to altitude start" seem like they should be the same thing, so I'm a little suspicious of this accounting.
  $endgroup$
  – Russell Borogove
  9 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  The book doesn't go into more detail than what I've supplied. The calculation was originally made by BAe and TsAGI for a presentation to ESA.
  $endgroup$
  – Hobbes
  8 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Could this be the difference? 'Isp underexpansion losses' are the losses you avoid by not running the rocket at 0-9 km altitude, and 'improved engine Isp' is the gain you get by tuning the nozzle for the 9km+ regime.
  $endgroup$
  – Hobbes
  7 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  What's interesting about this is while Elon Musk has said it's only around a 5% savings, this comparison shows substantially more.
  $endgroup$
  – TemporalWolf
  3 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

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
});


}
});

draft saved

draft discarded

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

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f35712%2fbenefits-of-air-launching-a-rocket%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

3

$begingroup$

I came across a fairly detailed comparison made by the team that worked on Interim HOTOL.

Delta-v required for a vertical launch SSTO (e.g. Delta Clipper) to LEO: 9361 m/s

For Interim Hotol:

• speed supplied by launch aircraft (An-225), launching at Mach 0.8 at 9 km altitude: - 235 m/s


• drag loss: + 67 m/s


• gravity losses: - 670 m/s


• Isp underexpansion losses at low altitude: - 180 m/s


• Thrust vectoring demands: + 10 m/s


• Improved engine Isp due to altitude start: - 214 m/s

for a total reduction in delta-V of 1222 m/s, or 13%, translating into a 24% reduction in propellant requirement.

From the book 'Spaceflight in the era of aero-space planes' (R. Hannigan, Krieger publishing, 1994).

share|improve this answer

answered 10 hours ago

HobbesHobbes

96.6k2272427

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Are the +67m/s drag loss related to the attitude change, from horizontal to suborbital trajectory? And are drag gains (from not having to go through 9km of dense atmosphere) already summed up into this result of +67?
  $endgroup$
  – qq jkztd
  9 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  "Isp underexpansion losses at low altitude" and "improved engine Isp due to altitude start" seem like they should be the same thing, so I'm a little suspicious of this accounting.
  $endgroup$
  – Russell Borogove
  9 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  The book doesn't go into more detail than what I've supplied. The calculation was originally made by BAe and TsAGI for a presentation to ESA.
  $endgroup$
  – Hobbes
  8 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Could this be the difference? 'Isp underexpansion losses' are the losses you avoid by not running the rocket at 0-9 km altitude, and 'improved engine Isp' is the gain you get by tuning the nozzle for the 9km+ regime.
  $endgroup$
  – Hobbes
  7 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  What's interesting about this is while Elon Musk has said it's only around a 5% savings, this comparison shows substantially more.
  $endgroup$
  – TemporalWolf
  3 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

3

$begingroup$

I came across a fairly detailed comparison made by the team that worked on Interim HOTOL.

Delta-v required for a vertical launch SSTO (e.g. Delta Clipper) to LEO: 9361 m/s

For Interim Hotol:

• speed supplied by launch aircraft (An-225), launching at Mach 0.8 at 9 km altitude: - 235 m/s


• drag loss: + 67 m/s


• gravity losses: - 670 m/s


• Isp underexpansion losses at low altitude: - 180 m/s


• Thrust vectoring demands: + 10 m/s


• Improved engine Isp due to altitude start: - 214 m/s

for a total reduction in delta-V of 1222 m/s, or 13%, translating into a 24% reduction in propellant requirement.

From the book 'Spaceflight in the era of aero-space planes' (R. Hannigan, Krieger publishing, 1994).

share|improve this answer

answered 10 hours ago

HobbesHobbes

96.6k2272427

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Are the +67m/s drag loss related to the attitude change, from horizontal to suborbital trajectory? And are drag gains (from not having to go through 9km of dense atmosphere) already summed up into this result of +67?
  $endgroup$
  – qq jkztd
  9 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  "Isp underexpansion losses at low altitude" and "improved engine Isp due to altitude start" seem like they should be the same thing, so I'm a little suspicious of this accounting.
  $endgroup$
  – Russell Borogove
  9 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  The book doesn't go into more detail than what I've supplied. The calculation was originally made by BAe and TsAGI for a presentation to ESA.
  $endgroup$
  – Hobbes
  8 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Could this be the difference? 'Isp underexpansion losses' are the losses you avoid by not running the rocket at 0-9 km altitude, and 'improved engine Isp' is the gain you get by tuning the nozzle for the 9km+ regime.
  $endgroup$
  – Hobbes
  7 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  What's interesting about this is while Elon Musk has said it's only around a 5% savings, this comparison shows substantially more.
  $endgroup$
  – TemporalWolf
  3 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

$begingroup$

I came across a fairly detailed comparison made by the team that worked on Interim HOTOL.

Delta-v required for a vertical launch SSTO (e.g. Delta Clipper) to LEO: 9361 m/s

For Interim Hotol:

• speed supplied by launch aircraft (An-225), launching at Mach 0.8 at 9 km altitude: - 235 m/s


• drag loss: + 67 m/s


• gravity losses: - 670 m/s


• Isp underexpansion losses at low altitude: - 180 m/s


• Thrust vectoring demands: + 10 m/s


• Improved engine Isp due to altitude start: - 214 m/s

for a total reduction in delta-V of 1222 m/s, or 13%, translating into a 24% reduction in propellant requirement.

From the book 'Spaceflight in the era of aero-space planes' (R. Hannigan, Krieger publishing, 1994).

share|improve this answer

answered 10 hours ago

HobbesHobbes

96.6k2272427

$endgroup$

share|improve this answer

answered 10 hours ago

HobbesHobbes

96.6k2272427

answered 10 hours ago

HobbesHobbes

96.6k2272427

answered 10 hours ago

HobbesHobbes

96.6k2272427