http://www.pcworld.com/article/228667/s ... space.html

Got home this morning to see this news. Personally if it works out I think it'll be glorious how about the rest of you?

I remember reading about something like this. It's the ship that takes off horizontally, like a plane, and lands vertically, right?

it says in like the first paragraph that it uses a runway to take off and land
dude

_________________

I'm NORML and I VOTE
Soul Silver Friend Code: 0260-2900-0828

I know. The second part was not stated, which is why I asked, so don't berate me.

Yes it takes off and lands at a runway, ideally even the same runway.

This baby is designed to achieve Mach 5 before it even taps into it's rocket fuel.

how you gonna land vertically on a runway, nigga? it obviously will land like a plane

_________________

I'm NORML and I VOTE
Soul Silver Friend Code: 0260-2900-0828

You live in the UK, think Harrier. This is not one of those but that's how a plane lands vertically.

Also a crash can be considered a vertical landing.

_________________
Zeph do you ever tire of being perfect? ~Dave
Zeph is still awesome though. ~Rival
I love you so much right now Zeph. ~Yoshi
I love you Zeph. You and your simple yet humorous topic-breakers. ~Coos
Zeph has left me inspired. ~Mathias
Zeph is so awesome even soulless bits of binary worship him. ~Wizard
Curse YOU ZEPH! CURSE YOU! ~JesusChrist
WE ARE SORRY THAT WE ARE NOT AS PERFECT AS YOU, ZEPH! ~Stufflikehearts
Zepherin for forum queen and writer of the best seller "how to screw your brethen up for dummies". ~ The Mirak

I don't think this DOES land vertically, there's really no reason for them to since they'd almost assuredly have a devoted airport.

Vertical landing comes into play if you have limited space, like on aircraft carriers and such.

Some Russian capsules (most/all?) land vertically with retro rockets, as opposed to the ocean landings used by the US program.



Anyway, regarding Skylon, a reusable airplane-type spaceship (especially a single stage to orbit one) has to be able to deal with a much smaller fuel fraction than a traditional rocket. As mentioned in the article, using atmospheric oxygen should help a lot, and using modern composites should help bring down the mass of the vehicle. It just remains to be seen how well it will perform, and if it can beat traditional rockets on payload cost.

On a technical note, the use of hydrogen for fuel implies that weight is a bigger concern than the greater technical issues it raises. Though the high heat capacity and speed of sound of hydrogen probably helps with the engine precooling section mentioned.

Well weight would be an issue anyways, they want to have as much room to haul loads as they possibly can.

Yeah, but hydrogen engines are harder to build than ones that burn liquid hydrocarbons (because, e.g. of more extreme pressure and temperature requirements and the ability of hydrogen to happily penetrate merely airtight seals). Only the upper stages of the Saturn V used hydrogen, and the Soviet equivalent didn't use hydrogen main engines at all. Hydrogen use is not universal in modern rockets, despite everyone wanting them to lift as much as they can. Despite the challenges, hydrogen offers weight savings, so apparently the Skylon people think it's worth it.