[ExI] darpa's notion of using a retrofitted fighter jet to launch payloads

spike spike66 at att.net
Wed Feb 11 01:02:46 UTC 2015

-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf
Of Robert G Kennedy III, PE
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 4:22 PM
To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
Subject: Re: [ExI] darpa's notion of using a retrofitted fighter jet to
launch payloads

>...As described and quoted from The Space Review, this is not a
mono-propellant, it's a bi-propellant.

>...Furthermore, the two parts (powerful oxidizer, explosive fuel, both of
them gases!) are in the same container.

>...I think there's a shorter word for that: bomb.

>... The NOTS actually stood for something real, but I forget what.


Robert, NOTS is Naval Ordnance Test Station.

The Pegasus is launched from an airplane.  What I see are the contributions
of this DARPA idea is a nozzles-forward design which allows the same nozzles
to be used all the way up.

Ja sounds like something was missed.  In principle you can have two reactive
gases in the same container.  This happens thousands of times per second in
your car engine.  They are well mixed, under pressure and hot but don't
combust until the spark plug starts the reaction.

However in this case, Acetylene and nitric can't be mixed.  The versions I
have seen of that are hypergolic as all hell, however I can imagine them as
liquids being mixed, then vaporized in the combustion chamber.  Nitric oxide
is a lot easier to keep liquid than is hydrogen and acetylene is easier to
keep liquid than is LOX.

Hey here's an idea: have the fuels carried aboard the aircraft in
well-insulated tanks, carry the empty launcher way up above most of the
water vapor, fuel the spacecraft in a single non-insulated tank 10 seconds
before release, drop the thing and get outta Dodge before the motors start.
It's a dangerous way to launch, but no one is aboard either craft, so that
might work.


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list