The Sanger Concept

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "ANTIcarrot"
wrote:
>
> I think you are being optomistic about building such an aircraft in
the
> first place - let alone building one that can carry the second
stage (with
> all it's highly volitile hydrogen fuel) several hundred miles and
*then*
> accelerate to sub-orbital speeds, and fly back again. The latter is
not
> going to happen with existing or near future technology.
>
i believe you missed what I'm saying. the first stage would be a
striped down version of a 747. if that does not have enough lift, the
wings would be extended a bit. a scram jet engine would not require
anywhere near as much propellant/fuel as a the shuttle, plus since it
does not have to lift the huge fuel take up, it would not have to
have as big of engines. the engines are a major proportion of the
weight of the shuttle. cut it back by half and a decent amount of the
weight of the shuttle is removed.

since it is meeting and docking with a space based engine (never
lands), it only needs enough fuel to get just past the minimum
orbital limit. the space engine would have the fuel to move it else
where.

therefore the last stage (the new shuttle) would hardly be heavier
than the empty shuttle is. the 747 could easily lift it ant the
second stage
>
> True, you could operate such a set up near the coast, but inland
states
> couldn't have a launch vehicle with such technology. With VTO they
could, as
> that does not violate supersonic overflight rules.

no, actually the vto would violate the supersonic flight rules.
>
> John
> Less powerful than a model airplane!
> More fuel inefficient than an american SUV!
> Larger than a jumbojet engine!
> Yes! It's NASA's worthless scramjet!
>
its only useless at the moment, because it takes a mach two wind to
start it. if the vehicle is already traveling at that speed, then it
can be used as is.