Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Geek Talk & Media
Richard Branson’s space flight
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="slobster" data-source="post: 8339271" data-attributes="member: 6693711"><p>So with assisted launch, there are a number of real advantages, and there are some advantages that turn out to be overhyped or undercut by some disadvantages that the tech has. TLDR, it has a niche which includes gimmick "space" tourism and maybe small or specialized satellites, but doesn't look likely to be very useful as a mainstay of spaceflight for the coming decades.</p><p></p><p>I'll start with the good. Assisted launch involves putting your rocket on a plane and then flying it up as high as you can before you actually launch the rocket. This means that instead of needing specialized rocket launch facilities (of which there are maybe a couple dozen in the world), you can use any airport of sufficient size. You can also fly your rocket to the optimum location before launch. Third and maybe a little surprisingly, the fact that you fly above most weather before launching means that you are not at the mercy of weather conditions, which accounts for delays and risk for probably most traditional launches. Assisted launches are also better at launching at short notice.</p><p></p><p>All this combines to give assisted launch great flexibility and the capacity to launch more times of the year, into more orbits, from pretty much anywhere you want to go. For very specific small packages which need unusual orbits, this can be a boon. For national security packages that need to be able to launch quickly, for example if your opponent has anti-satellite weapons and you want to be able to redeploy on short notice into any necessary orbit, this is especially huge.</p><p></p><p>Now with the overhyped. Some people bring up that launch assist allows you to launch your rocket at a higher altitude and with some velocity already imparted by the plane it is based from. This essentially uses the plane as a pseudo-first stage for the rocket. This is all true, but it turns out that the boost given by the plane is miniscule compared to the fuel needed to actually get a payload into orbit. A plane flying at 14 km above the planet at 300 meters per second just isn't that big a deal when you need to get up to 200+ km and 30,000 meters per second in order to keep the payload from falling right back down. And you do pay for the ability to launch from a plane by needing to make the rocket much smaller. Generally, in rocketry, the bigger your rocket the more efficient it is, for a bunch of reasons including the square cube law and aerodynamics which we won't get into here. Suffice it to say that using a plane as your sort-of first stage ends up being a bad deal compared to just using an actual rocket as your first stage if your goal is to get mass into orbit as cheaply as possible.</p><p></p><p>On top of all this for Virgin Galactic specifically, the vehicle never actually reaches orbit. You go up, you freefall for a few minutes and experience apparent null gravity, and then you land. You can never for instance dock with a space station, or transfer to another craft, or spend any longer than a few minutes in "technically space according to the airforce". So while it's an interesting novelty, it will never be able to hook in to what many of us anticipate will be a future space infrastructure, including civilian space stations or orbital industrial facilities or transfer flights to the moon and beyond. So in that way it looks likely to be a dead end, barring some serious improvement in the technology.</p><p></p><p>Hope that makes sense, and sorry for the long post!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="slobster, post: 8339271, member: 6693711"] So with assisted launch, there are a number of real advantages, and there are some advantages that turn out to be overhyped or undercut by some disadvantages that the tech has. TLDR, it has a niche which includes gimmick "space" tourism and maybe small or specialized satellites, but doesn't look likely to be very useful as a mainstay of spaceflight for the coming decades. I'll start with the good. Assisted launch involves putting your rocket on a plane and then flying it up as high as you can before you actually launch the rocket. This means that instead of needing specialized rocket launch facilities (of which there are maybe a couple dozen in the world), you can use any airport of sufficient size. You can also fly your rocket to the optimum location before launch. Third and maybe a little surprisingly, the fact that you fly above most weather before launching means that you are not at the mercy of weather conditions, which accounts for delays and risk for probably most traditional launches. Assisted launches are also better at launching at short notice. All this combines to give assisted launch great flexibility and the capacity to launch more times of the year, into more orbits, from pretty much anywhere you want to go. For very specific small packages which need unusual orbits, this can be a boon. For national security packages that need to be able to launch quickly, for example if your opponent has anti-satellite weapons and you want to be able to redeploy on short notice into any necessary orbit, this is especially huge. Now with the overhyped. Some people bring up that launch assist allows you to launch your rocket at a higher altitude and with some velocity already imparted by the plane it is based from. This essentially uses the plane as a pseudo-first stage for the rocket. This is all true, but it turns out that the boost given by the plane is miniscule compared to the fuel needed to actually get a payload into orbit. A plane flying at 14 km above the planet at 300 meters per second just isn't that big a deal when you need to get up to 200+ km and 30,000 meters per second in order to keep the payload from falling right back down. And you do pay for the ability to launch from a plane by needing to make the rocket much smaller. Generally, in rocketry, the bigger your rocket the more efficient it is, for a bunch of reasons including the square cube law and aerodynamics which we won't get into here. Suffice it to say that using a plane as your sort-of first stage ends up being a bad deal compared to just using an actual rocket as your first stage if your goal is to get mass into orbit as cheaply as possible. On top of all this for Virgin Galactic specifically, the vehicle never actually reaches orbit. You go up, you freefall for a few minutes and experience apparent null gravity, and then you land. You can never for instance dock with a space station, or transfer to another craft, or spend any longer than a few minutes in "technically space according to the airforce". So while it's an interesting novelty, it will never be able to hook in to what many of us anticipate will be a future space infrastructure, including civilian space stations or orbital industrial facilities or transfer flights to the moon and beyond. So in that way it looks likely to be a dead end, barring some serious improvement in the technology. Hope that makes sense, and sorry for the long post! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Geek Talk & Media
Richard Branson’s space flight
Top