Rocket-powered sleds poised to launch space planes into reality

zohaibahd

Posts: 934   +19
Staff
Why it matters: Back in the 90s, NASA had a bold vision: to develop a reusable space plane called the X-33 that could dramatically reduce the cost of launching payloads into orbit. However, the agency ultimately scrapped the program in 2001 due to technical challenges. Now, that dream is being revived by an ambitious Seattle startup determined to finish what NASA started over two decades ago.

Radian Aerospace is developing Radian One, a fully reusable space plane designed to transport up to five astronauts into space as many as 100 times. The company raised an impressive $28 million in funding in 2022. Leading the effort is Livingston Holder, former NASA program manager for the ill-fated X-33, who now serves as Radian's chief technology officer.

Holder believes that reviving the space plane concept is far more feasible today than it was in the early 2000s.

"We've got composite materials that are lighter, tougher and can take a larger thermal range than we had back then," he explained in an interview with CNN. "And propulsion is better than anything we had, in terms of how efficiently it burns propellant and how much the systems weigh."

The idea of a space plane remains alluring after all these years because the demand for affordable access to space has only intensified, driven by the growing use of satellite networks. Unfortunately, conventional rockets still present an inherently expensive way to reach orbit.

As former NASA astronaut Jeffrey Hoffman explains, a typical multi-stage rocket requires around 95 percent of its total mass for fuel just to break through the atmosphere at over 17,500 mph – leaving little room for the actual vehicle and payload. Additionally, they are extremely wasteful, with multiple stages that must be discarded during flight.

Instead of a traditional vertical rocket launch, Radian's innovative solution involves having the Radian One take off from a two-mile-long electromagnetic rail. A rocket sled would accelerate the plane to over 500 mph before releasing it, allowing its onboard engines to complete the final push into orbit.

Radian explains that this unconventional two-part system, along with lightweight landing gear and aerodynamic wings, is crucial to making their single-stage space plane a reality.

The unique airline-style ascent profile also promises a smoother ride compared to vertically-launched rockets while significantly reducing fuel consumption and associated costs. If all goes according to plan, Holder envisions Radian One as the "pickup truck" of space launch – ideal for lighter payloads – while conventional rockets continue to serve as higher-capacity "18-wheelers."

However, many challenges still lie ahead on Radian's path to orbit. A full-scale prototype isn't expected until 2028 at the earliest, though an initial prototype is slated for testing this year. The longer-term vision is enticing: offering an affordable new option for the commercial space industry.

Permalink to story:

 
Even if, and that's a big If you can launch your plane with all that stress loading you still have to suffer re-entry thermal heat loading which is still going to require extensive refit every time. Not going to even get into the issues with crew escape systems in a platform such as this.. yikes.

 
Why not launching from a plane? the railway should be very expensive and in a fixed location.
 
Given that NASA had to know of that film, even before NASA existed, there must have been a rather good reason why they went with multistage vertical lift-off. Good thing that we do not need a real space ark. :p

Maybe W. Von Braun had something to do with it.
 
I saw that movie - When Worlds Collide - 1951 (!)
But they built their tracks up the side of a mountain to gain more altitude before launching.
Yeah but. as an aircraft approaches vertical. the lift generated by its wings becomes perpendicular to the force of gravity. Obviously, that offset angle determines the percentage of loss of lift.

Accordingly, if you want to go straight up, you need a thrust to weight ratio of < 1:1. Anything less than that, and you must trade altitude for airspeed.
 
They could save a TON of money if they just did rocket launches from the south pole. Because it is on the bottom of the world, just cut the string and it will fall into space LOL.
New from Parker Brothers: "Space Monopoly", now at a GoFundMe page near you.

But then, their CEO wouldn't be able to pass go, collect 28 million dollars, have two car pieces on the board, (a Ferrari and a Maserati), buy a hotel in, "No Extradition Place", and summarily decide to quit the game.
 
I think in the long run the maintenance will catch up to them because you're carrying people, unlike the Air Force X-37 which is a robotic vehicle. Space travel is never cheap unless you cut corners.
 
I saw that movie - When Worlds Collide - 1951 (!)
But they built their tracks up the side of a mountain to gain more altitude before launching.

Sci-fi again becomes Sci-fact.
A great benefit from launching from a mountain - preferably from a tunnel inside a mountain - is that being remote and hard to monitor, it is better protected from terrorist activities.
 
Why not launching from a plane? the railway should be very expensive and in a fixed location.

Launching from a plane severely limits how big your rocket can be - look up Stratolaunch, a company created by MS founder Paul Allen, which built one of the largest aircraft in the world with intent of using it to carry up rockets to launch them; it turns out the rockets they intended to launch with would have only been a fraction of the payload you get from a standard Falcon 9 rocket.

That said, this proposal to launch from a railway does not make any sense either. Adding an extra ~500 miles an hour to the launch speed just does not help much; you need more than 15,000 MPH of tangential velocity to get something into a stable LEO orbit. Adding a giant expense and complication at your launch site to save maybe 3% of the fuel is just silly; fuel is fairly cheap & making the rocket slightly bigger in not that hard. That is also another reason why air launch or running tracks up a mountain, or what not is just not worth the trouble.
 
Last edited:
That said, this proposal to launch from a railway does not make any sense either. Adding an extra ~500 miles an hour to the launch speed just does not help much; you need more than 15,000 MPH of tangential velocity to get something into a stable LEO orbit. Adding a giant expense and complication at your launch site to save maybe 3% of the fuel is just silly; fuel is fairly cheap & making the rocket slightly bigger in not that hard. That is also another reason why air launch or running tracks up a mountain, or what not is just not worth the trouble.
Well, I've been making attempts at humorous posts, trying to shed light on this as a folly. It's actually a < SCAM >..! One sentence in the original article tells the entire story; "(they've) raised an "impressive" 28 million dollars". 28 million is nothing more than pocket change in relation to the cost of developing a new launch system..

Piggyback systems, (as you say), limit the amount of payload carried. The tiny X-15 was carried by the monstrous B-52. The most amazing piggyback stunt I believe anyone will ever see, is when they used a 747 (?) to ferry the space shuttles. However, the shuttles had an enormous wing area. Thus, once you passed its stall speed, the shuttle was essentially, "flying itself", in terms of the lift it was generating.

Now, there are four immutable constants, earth's atmosphere & gravity, orbital insertion velocity, and escape velocity.. Orbital or escape velocity requires the exit gas velocity of the propulsion system to meet, or exceed these speeds. Accordingly, 1st stage boosters do spend a lot of time, "spinning their wheels" initially, while trying to overcome air drag & gravity, to achieve those speeds.

So, although I may not have a degree in aeronautical engineering, I do know enough to call "bullsh*t" on this proposal, and humbly suggest that it is nothing more that your typical startup SCAM.

FWIW, to whom it may concern, or for entertainment purposes only, here are two short videos. The first is of fighter jets making afterburner takeoffs. It shows the "tiger tails", which are the result of the exhaust gases breaking the sound barrier. Each "mach",or "shock" diamond, is its own little sonic boom, while the aircraft is still at or slightly above its rotational speed. (160 Knots or so).

Now you're probably asking yourselves, "why the hell doesn't the USAF just put these things on sleds"? Well, the navy does. They're called "catapults".

This is a short explanation of how to start a P & W J-58. (the SR-71's power plant(s).

He does fail to mention the huge green flash from the TEB injection that finally convinces the gooey JP-7 to burn. That's a consideration toward the Blackbird's retirement, they couldn't find gas stations that still sold JP-7.
 
So, given that the idea of a horizontal or diagonal launch is out, what about using a relatively slight vertical boost via some method in which the fuel is on the launch pad, rather than the vehicle?

As I understand it, just overcoming the inertia of being stationary & barely beginning to move is rather difficult. Yes, much acceleration is still needed; but the very 1st bit seems to take a rather large quantity of energy, compared to that which follows.

Just goes to show how little I actually know about this subject. :p
 
So, given that the idea of a horizontal or diagonal launch is out, what about using a relatively slight vertical boost via some method in which the fuel is on the launch pad, rather than the vehicle?

As I understand it, just overcoming the inertia of being stationary & barely beginning to move is rather difficult. Yes, much acceleration is still needed; but the very 1st bit seems to take a rather large quantity of energy, compared to that which follows.

Just goes to show how little I actually know about this subject. :p
Well, we already have a launch system where the fuel is on the pad, they're called "bullets". Since the initial acceleration G forces would be enough to kill anybody on board, we'll strike that as impractical. Plan "B" would be to externally fuel the rocket from the top down. The only question there is, "how long and thick would the hoses have to be to continue supplying fuel to the booster"?

To be sure, there is a lot of "slippage" between a rocket's exit gases and the atmosphere. Even with a solid connection, say you're car tires, a lot more energy is expended going from 0 to 60, than is necessary to maintain 60 mph once you get there.You've overcome static inertia.

Rockets don't go straight up. By the end of the 1st stage, the flight path is already on the way to being horizontal with the earth's surface.

The parasitic drag induced by air pressure at sea level is considerable. Air is a fluid, which thins considerably at altitude. Hence there's less drag, requiring less power for acceleration. I'm old enough to have seen the Apollo launches when they happened. The most astonishing part was seeing the LEM's tiny boosters. Which left me scratching my head wondering, "how the hell are they going to get that thing back into orbit"?

Answer, easily. With 1/7 earth's gravity, and NO atmosphere, the seemingly tiny booster did just fine. (Personally I don't believe it actually ever happened, not to mention the earth is really flat ;)🤣 ).

FWIW, I think someone has to understand the principles and challenges of powered flight within the atmosphere, before they can understand the difficulties associated with escaping it.

As a teaser, the famous U2 spy plane is configured as a glider. As such, it lands at a comfortable 90 Kts or so, just above it's stall speed, (At sea level!) Yet when it's at its operating altitude (70,000 ft) and speed, 480 Kts or thereabouts, it's flying just above its stall speed. Yes, the air is so much thinner at that altitude, that the wings can't generate enough lift to keep it in the air much below its normal flight speed.
 
Back