Found the presentation I remember,
http://diyhpl.us/~bryan/papers2/mockingbird.pdf
I didn't really know what to make of this. Is a 1500kg system you could
move around on a Ford F-350 really an option? Why wouldn't more people have
put effort into this if so, no matter how tiny the orbital launch capacity?
Costs on that scale can't be prohibitive to companies in the business,
smaller objects are just cheaper to build.
Occasionally people reference it in conversation, but I've seen no serious
new designs in this vein, it's all air launch or small staged systems, so
there must be a problem with it. Margins too thin? Lack of appropriate
engine designs? SSTO's out of fashion?
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Jonas Bjarnø <sveskemos@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ah, there we go. I new I had seen an article about the Aerobee escape shot
recently:
http://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/1957-two-tiny-pellets-were-first-man-made-objects-escape-earths-gravity-180954622/?no-ist
2016-05-31 20:53 GMT+02:00 John Dom <johndom@xxxxxxxxx>:
(a) meaning mass OR length
(b) or the future
I'll have to lookup a few of the names you mentioned in detail.
Whatever, those launchers still remain massive compared to a staged
gun-launched rocket. Whose main stage, the barrel, does not fly. Such
contraptions never made it to orbit because of G. Bull's inventions were
considered
a threat to some governments.
The US heated hydrogen gas gun project lacked funding.
The US Navy's railgun will soon become operational. To launch ammo, not to
launch rockets. So far.
I never knew Juno II was hiding a spinning top stage hidden under it's
shroud. With Jupiter C the top stages could be seen spinning wildly on the
platform before launch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NengyrD9-ag which few had heard about at
the
time: no YouTube in the fifties.
Never heard of Lambda 4S, the Japanese launcher for instance. Size reminds
me of a US Scout with fins.
jd
-----Original Message-----
From: arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On
Behalf Of Henry Spencer
Sent: dinsdag 31 mei 2016 19:35
To: Arocket List
Subject: [AR] Re: Size question
On Tue, 31 May 2016, John Dom wrote:
Very interesting question, rarely replied: which is at present the
smallest launcher to orbit or to escape, solid or liquid, SSTO or
multistage or whatever.
Depends a lot on definitions. In particular, (a) is "smallest" by mass or
by length, and (b) does "at present" include the past?
Historically, Lambda 4S still holds the title for the lightest orbital
launcher, by a small margin, with Vanguard the runner-up; Black Arrow was
the shortest, with the Shtil 1 (a Russian SLBM) not much longer (Volna,
another Russian SLBM, is slightly shorter than Shtil 1 but never had a
fully
successful orbital launch). NOTS 1, aka Project Pilot and Notsnik, would
beat both if you disregard the size and mass of the Skyray fighter that
launched it, *and* disregard the considerable uncertainty about whether it
ever actually achieved orbit.
For escape, hmm, less data on this one. Might have been Juno II (one
successful launch to escape, Pioneer 4) at 24m long and 55t -- shorter and
lighter than the Mu 3S-II. (Juno II was a Jupiter IRBM with the spinning
upper-stage cluster of a Jupiter-C added on top.)
If you insist on currently-operational launchers, hmm, might be Pegasus XL
to orbit (if you overlook the launch aircraft, and duck the question of
whether Pegasus is truly operational any more) and Minotaur V to escape.
Pegasus with a kick stage could launch a small payload to escape but I
don't
think anybody has ever done that.
Henry