Re:Paul Allen's new rocket-launching plane
by jameshart on Wednesday May 31, 2017 @08:13PM
(#14456930)
Is 4. really doable? Would have thought landing while carrying a fully fueled rocket might be pretty high risk.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
I haven't actually seen anyone mention it, but it shouldn't be much more risky than taking off fully-fueled. That said, landing with the rocket still on board might break some fuel-balancing assumptions.
Re:Paul Allen's new rocket-launching plane
by gernerz on Wednesday May 31, 2017 @09:11PM
(#14457201)
Peagus rockets aren't cryogenic, they are solid monopropellant rockets. Not really all that dangerous.
Re:Paul Allen's new rocket-launching plane
by MPSimmons on Thursday June 01, 2017 @01:59AM
(#14458301)
Anyone who suggests to you that hydrazine isn't dangerous shouldn't be trusted.
Hydrazine is liquid; an equally toxic solid would be much less dangerous to work with.
Re:Paul Allen's new rocket-launching plane
by tacticus on Wednesday May 31, 2017 @10:01PM
(#14457407)
Landing weights are usually a bit lower than take off weights due to the extra shock on landing.
for example the a340-600 has a MTOW of 380 tons but a Max landing weight of 265 tons. Just a bit of a difference.
Re:Paul Allen's new rocket-launching plane
by rbanffy on Thursday June 01, 2017 @04:59AM
(#14458853)
That's the fuel the plane takes off with. I don't know how much this beast uses, but those six engines must be burning quite a lot of it. Also, the landing gears seem to be very robust.
The A340-600 has four engines, not six. But the point is still true with, say, a Boeing 787. Here are the figures for the 787-9: maximum takeoff weight: 560,000 lb; maximum landing weight: 425,000 lb [1]. In case of an emergency the pilot has to get rid of fuel before landing if the airliner is above maximum landing weight.
[1] Figures given in pounds on wikipedia, the kg version looks like a "dumb" conversion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner#Specific...
Re:Paul Allen's new rocket-launching plane
by rbanffy on Thursday June 01, 2017 @11:36AM
(#14461180)
We don't know Roc's maximum landing weight but abort is possible if the maximum landing weight is more than weight of the whole craft plus its cargo minus the fuel. I assume it takes of with a lot of fuel because it has potentially 1.5x time fuel consumption of an old 747.
Re:Paul Allen's new rocket-launching plane
by jameshart on Thursday June 01, 2017 @09:31AM
(#14460052)
Fundamentally, landing speeds are lower than takeoff speeds. To travel at the same (low) speed and rate of descent with more weight means getting more lift at the same speed. That is done by increasing angle of attack or adding flaps. There is a limit to both.
Can the payload be dropped with a parachute? Is 200m/s safe for parachute deployment?
Re:Paul Allen's new rocket-launching plane
by tacticus on Wednesday May 31, 2017 @09:59PM
(#14457400)
Could always dump fuel on the way back.
Re:Paul Allen's new rocket-launching plane
by robotresearcher on Thursday June 01, 2017 @12:02AM
(#14457919)
Not from the Pegasus solid rockets.