[Spaceships] Winged Spaceships

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by scc

Thanks. And no it doesn't, I was hopping for a speed boost or something. I may just end up using boosted performance chemical rockets (The ones in Spaceships are actually worse performers then the SSME's)

0.15 mps delta-V for a 5% mass fraction corresponds to an ISp of about 490, which is significantly better than the SSME.

[scc]

Originally Posted by Anthony

0.15 mps delta-V for a 5% mass fraction corresponds to an ISp of about 490, which is significantly better than the SSME.

There's a formula provided in the designers notes, ISp/3,000 = mps and .05 times thrust-to-weight ratio = thrust for Spaceships, the SSME has values of ISp 452.3 and 65.91, this gives the SSME .1507 then a line of 6's for mps per tank and 3.2955 G for accel.

As for NTR ram rockets, there was research into them in the 50's and early 60's. The Russian's actually got a plane off the ground using them. They did this by removing most if not all shielding from the reactor and using a Direct Air Cycle system, the words environmental disaster spring to mind.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by scc

There's a formula provided in the designers notes, ISp/3,000 = mps and .05 times thrust-to-weight ratio = thrust for Spaceships, the SSME has values of ISp 452.3 and 65.91, this gives the SSME .1507 then a line of 6's for mps per tank and 3.2955 G for accel.

Spaceships more than makes up for that by ignoring tank mass and atmospheric performance reduction (the SSME has roughly a 20% loss in performance at sea level). In addition, mps should actually be ISp/3,280.

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by scc

TThe Russian's actually got a plane off the ground using them. They did this by removing most if not all shielding from the reactor and using a Direct Air Cycle system, the words environmental disaster spring to mind.

Got a source for that? I like wacky Cold War projects.

[scc]

Originally Posted by johndallman

Got a source for that? I like wacky Cold War projects.

It was a docu I watched years ago, so sorry, no. But you can look up the subject online

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by scc

It was a docu I watched years ago, so sorry, no. But you can look up the subject online

All I can find is the TU-119, which had some kind of heat-driven turboprops with heat supplied by an onboard reactor, which couldn't have been too critical on weight because several of the test flights were made with the reactor in shutdown.

[flyingwombat]

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

All I can find is the TU-119, which had some kind of heat-driven turboprops with heat supplied by an onboard reactor, which couldn't have been too critical on weight because several of the test flights were made with the reactor in shutdown.

I know about a test in the USA involving a B-36. The reactor wasn't used to power the aircraft. Just tests to see if a reactor can be carried. The project was canceled due to fears of a crash.

[panton41]

NASA had a functioning nuclear rocket (not a ram-rocket mind you) in testing for years that had good performance, but required too much maintenance and required too much enriched radioactives to be a serious contender for spaceflight. At the end of the project they pulled the control rods out and caused it to explode, which ****** the Soviets off because of test ban treaties.

[scc]

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

All I can find is the TU-119, which had some kind of heat-driven turboprops with heat supplied by an onboard reactor, which couldn't have been too critical on weight because several of the test flights were made with the reactor in shutdown.

From what I understand the problem comes from trying to use the reactor to power the engines. Basically you can build a plane that has enough lift to carry a reactor, you can't build a reactor that can generate enough power to make the plane fly

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by scc

From what I understand the problem comes from trying to use the reactor to power the engines. Basically you can build a plane that has enough lift to carry a reactor, you can't build a reactor that can generate enough power to make the plane fly

This is not correct to my knowledge, it can be done in principle, but it's very expensive and risky to try *and* the ICBM was invented so the chief need for a round-the-world-unrefueled bomber evaporated.

You might not get a very fast plane, though.