Jump to content

Air-launch-to-orbit: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 3: Line 3:
[[File:Lockheed TriStar launches Pegasus with Space Technology 5.jpg|thumb|250px|[[Orbital Sciences Corporation|Orbital's]] ''[[Stargazer (aircraft)|Stargazer]]'' launches [[Pegasus (rocket)|Pegasus]] carrying the three [[Space Technology 5]] satellites in the skies of [[California]], 2006]]
[[File:Lockheed TriStar launches Pegasus with Space Technology 5.jpg|thumb|250px|[[Orbital Sciences Corporation|Orbital's]] ''[[Stargazer (aircraft)|Stargazer]]'' launches [[Pegasus (rocket)|Pegasus]] carrying the three [[Space Technology 5]] satellites in the skies of [[California]], 2006]]
'''Air launch to orbit''' ('''ALTO''') is the method of launching [[launch vehicle|rockets]] at altitude from a conventional horizontal-takeoff
'''Air launch to orbit''' ('''ALTO''') is the method of launching [[launch vehicle|rockets]] at altitude from a conventional horizontal-takeoff
aircraft, to carry satellites to [[low Earth orbit]]. It is a follow-on development of [[air launch]]es of [[experimental aircraft]] that began in the late 1940s. This method, when employed for orbital payload insertion, presents significant advantages over conventional vertical [[rocket]] launches, particularly because of the reduced mass, thrust, cost of the rocket and natural disasters.
aircraft, to carry satellites to [[low Earth orbit]]. It is a follow-on development of [[air launch]]es of [[experimental aircraft]] that began in the late 1940s. This method, when employed for orbital payload insertion, presents significant advantages over conventional vertical [[rocket]] launches, particularly because of the reduced mass, thrust, cost of the rocket, geographical factors and natural disasters.


Air launching has also been developed for [[sub-orbital]] [[spaceflight]]. In 2004 the [[Ansari X Prize]] $10 Million purse was won by a team led by [[Burt Rutan]]'s [[Scaled Composites]], launching the [[SpaceShipOne]] from the purpose-built [[Scaled Composites White Knight|White Knight]] carrier aircraft.
Air launching has also been developed for [[sub-orbital]] [[spaceflight]]. In 2004 the [[Ansari X Prize]] $10 Million purse was won by a team led by [[Burt Rutan]]'s [[Scaled Composites]], launching the [[SpaceShipOne]] from the purpose-built [[Scaled Composites White Knight|White Knight]] carrier aircraft.

Revision as of 01:07, 28 October 2022

Orbital's Stargazer launches Pegasus carrying the three Space Technology 5 satellites in the skies of California, 2006

Air launch to orbit (ALTO) is the method of launching rockets at altitude from a conventional horizontal-takeoff aircraft, to carry satellites to low Earth orbit. It is a follow-on development of air launches of experimental aircraft that began in the late 1940s. This method, when employed for orbital payload insertion, presents significant advantages over conventional vertical rocket launches, particularly because of the reduced mass, thrust, cost of the rocket, geographical factors and natural disasters.

Air launching has also been developed for sub-orbital spaceflight. In 2004 the Ansari X Prize $10 Million purse was won by a team led by Burt Rutan's Scaled Composites, launching the SpaceShipOne from the purpose-built White Knight carrier aircraft.

Advantages

The principal advantage of a rocket being launched by a high flying airplane is that it needs not fly through the low, dense atmosphere, the drag of which requires a considerable[1] amount of extra work and thus mass of propellant. Higher densities at lower altitudes result in larger drag forces acting on the vehicle. In addition, thrust is lost due to over-expansion of the exhaust at high ambient pressure and under-expansion at low ambient pressure; a fixed nozzle geometry cannot provide optimal exhaust expansion over the full range of ambient pressure, and represents a compromise solution. Rockets launched from high altitude can be optimized for lower ambient pressure, thus achieving greater thrust over the entire operating regime.

Propellant is conserved because the air-breathing carrier aircraft lifts the rocket to altitude much more efficiently. Airplane engines do not require on-board storage of an oxidizer and they can use the surrounding air to produce thrust, for example with a turbofan. This allows the launch system to conserve a significant amount of mass that would otherwise be reserved for fuel, reducing the overall size. A larger fraction of the rocket mass can then include payload, reducing payload launch costs.

Air launch to orbit offers the potential for aircraft-like operations such as launch on demand, and is also less subject to launch-constraining weather. This allows the aircraft to fly around weather conditions as well as fly to better launch points, and to launch a payload into any orbital inclination at any time. Insurance costs are reduced as well, because launches occur well away from land, and there is no need for a launch pad or blockhouse.[citation needed]

Air launch to orbit also works well as part of a combination launch system such as a reusable air-launched single stage to skyhook launch vehicle powered by a rocket or rocket/ramjet/scramjet engine.

An additional benefit of air launch to orbit is a reduced delta V needed to achieve orbit. This results in a greater payload to fuel ratio which reduces the cost per unit mass to orbit. To further leverage the Delta V advantage, supersonic air launch to orbit has been proposed.[2]

Air launch to orbit (ALTO) method also served as an alternative to launching space rockets from the ground in case of natural disasters such as earthquakes, tsunamis, floods and volcanic eruption.

Disadvantages

According to Aviation Week and Space Technology, air launch to orbit is limited by aircraft size. Additionally, airplanes may generate large lateral forces which could damage payloads.[3]

SpaceX CEO Elon Musk argued in a Q&A session that the increase in performance is not worth the additional complexity and limitations (paragraphs added):

"…it seems like...you're high up there and so surely that's good and you're going at...0.7 or 0.8 Mach and you've got some speed and altitude, you can use a higher expansion ratio on the nozzle, doesn't all that add up to a meaningful improvement in payload to orbit? The answer is no, it does not, unfortunately. It's quite a small improvement. It's maybe a 5% improvement in payload to orbit...and then you've got this humungous plane to deal with. Which is just like having a stage. From SpaceX's standpoint, would it make more sense to have a gigantic plane or to increase the size of the first stage by five percent? Uhh, I'll take option two. And then, once you get beyond a certain scale, you just can't make the plane big enough. When you drop...the rocket, you have the slight problem that you're not going the right direction. If you look at what Orbital Sciences did with Pegasus, they have a delta wing to do the turn maneuver but then you've got this big wing that's added a bunch of mass and you've able to mostly, but not entirely, convert your horizontal velocity into vertical velocity, or mostly vertical velocity, and the net is really not great."[4]

Air launch systems

Operational:

Retired:

Under development:

Proposed:

Abandoned projects:

See also

References

  1. ^ "Flight Mechanics of Manned Sub-Orbital Reusable Launch Vehicles with Recommendations for Launch and Recovery".
  2. ^ "Conceptual Design of a Supersonic Air-launch System" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 2015-02-10. Retrieved 2014-12-03.
  3. ^ Norris, Guy (15 February 2015). "Design Space". Aviation Week and Space Technology. Vol. 177, no. 2.
  4. ^ "Transcript - Elon Musk lecture at the Royal Aeronautical Society". Shit Elon Says. Archived from the original on 11 March 2016. Retrieved 11 March 2016.
  5. ^ "Technologies". Archived from the original on 2015-12-08. Retrieved 2015-12-01.
  6. ^ ARCA Space, Haas Orbital Rocket Launcher Archived 2012-07-22 at the Wayback Machine fact sheet, Dec. 2, 2008 (accessed 22 Sept 2014)
  7. ^ Leone, Dan (November 26, 2013). "Startup Generation Orbit Launch Service Bets Big on 'Small Space'". Archived from the original on April 7, 2014.
  8. ^ Diller, George (September 30, 2013). "NASA Awards First CubeSat-Class Launch Services Contract". Archived from the original on September 30, 2013.
  9. ^ Borys, Christian (7 May 2017). "The world's biggest plane may have a new mission". BBC. Archived from the original on 20 October 2017. Retrieved 20 October 2017.
  10. ^ Gebhardt, Chris (2014-11-26). "SNC, Stratolaunch expand on proposed Dream Chaser flights". NASASpaceFlight.com. Archived from the original on 2014-11-28. Retrieved 2014-11-27.
  11. ^ a b Russia, Kazakhstan to develop unique space system Archived 2013-02-09 at the Wayback Machine: "Ukrainian experts moved to develop the Svityaz system based on the An-225 Mriya (Dream) Cossack jumbo transport plane and the Zenit-2 rocket", "The Ishim complex will include two MiG-31I aircraft, a three-stage launch vehicle on a streamlined store between engine nacelles, as well as an Ilyushin Il-76MD Midas surveillance plane."
  12. ^ Bergin, Chris (2013-05-25). "Stratolaunch and Orbital – The Height of Air Launch". NASASpaceFlight.com. Archived from the original on 2013-06-08. Retrieved 2013-05-24.

Media related to Air launch to orbit at Wikimedia Commons

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Air-launch-to-orbit&oldid=1118624372"