Discussion ARCA's flying ocean launch platform

[Spacethingy]

Romanian Cosmonautics and Aeronautics Association is a Google Lunar X Prize competitor from Romania. They've got an interesting idea for a launch platform - a seaplane carrier ship. Development seems to have stopped at drop-testing the detachable cockpit some time ago, so it may be a while before anything else happens.

I just rather liked the sound of a rocket-launching-seaplane. :lol:

 

[RisingFury]

That's what happens when an F-22, Falcon-9 and a hydroplane have a threeway...

 

[MattBaker]

Add a SpaceShip Two into that somewhere.

 

[Matias Saibene]

I find curious the objectives of the organization ARCA. And with regard to the launch pad is really very innovative (I speak from my ignorance on the subject). I hope it is useful:tiphat:.

 

[Donamy]

.. and a Sea Dart.

 

[Urwumpe]

.. and a Sea Dart.

Sure it has not been a Sea Master?

 

[PhantomCruiser]

That's what happens when an F-22, Falcon-9 and a hydroplane have a threeway...

I now have "It's OK if it's a three way" (from Lonely Island) playing in my head now.

It's kind of neat looking, and certainly interesting.

 

[ISProgram]

This might be OT, but whatever happened to Haas 2C? In particular, its first flight being in 2013...

 

[Hlynkacg]

Why?

 

[ISProgram]

Why?

Why it might be OT? This thread is about "ARCA's flying ocean launch platform" (IAR-111), as opposed to the actual rocket it'll be launching.

It also occurred to me that if I mentioned the Haas 2C, it might start discussion on the Haas, as opposed to the IAR. I've seen a lot of posts on NSF where someone OT mentions a "certain company" and things gets seriously OT. Seriously OT.

In short, I just thought that this was a thread purely on the plane, not the rocket, so I put a warning/apology. Begs the question of why I posted it to begin with then...

 

[thepenguin]

Now that's cool. I can see an orbiter addon in the future for that.

 

[ISProgram]

Now that's cool. I can see an orbiter addon in the future for that.

I agree a addon like that would be nice. Maybe a DG with a Pegasus-style launch vehicle...

 

[Hlynkacg]

Why it might be OT? This thread is about "ARCA's flying ocean launch platform" (IAR-111), as opposed to the actual rocket it'll be launching.

It also occurred to me that if I mentioned the Haas 2C, it might start discussion on the Haas, as opposed to the IAR. I've seen a lot of posts on NSF where someone OT mentions a "certain company" and things gets seriously OT. Seriously OT.

In short, I just thought that this was a thread purely on the plane, not the rocket, so I put a warning/apology. Begs the question of why I posted it to begin with then...

I'm more confused about the "whys" of program itself.

Why make it a sea-plane, why compromise aerodynamics and mass ratio to give it a low radar cross section? What role is this craft supposed to fill?

 

[jedidia]

Why make it a sea-plane

I too am wondering about the benefits of having a rocket submerged in sea water before launch... :blink:

 

[ISProgram]

I'm more confused about the "whys" of program itself.

Why make it a sea-plane, why compromise aerodynamics and mass ratio to give it a low radar cross section? What role is this craft supposed to fill?

You know, it just occurred to me that you have a point. The only advantages the IAR 111 MIGHT have with launching the Haas 2 is that it is a [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_launch_to_orbit"]air launch system[/ame], with the aircraft carrier providing similar advantages to a [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Launch"]sea launch system[/ame]. That's possibly a technical justification for it, though in my opinion, a PR objective might be a true motive.

I have no idea why they made it a sea-plane, because similar (if not superior) performance could have been achieved with a regular aircraft carrier and a fighter jet-thingy architecture. Exactly how they plan to fill it with LOX and RP-1 and then have that "cold" rocket contact "warm" ocean water is beyond me. Unless, of course, that carrier provides the LOX, which I doubt.

That "low radar cross section" might be due to the fact that its a efficient shape for supersonic flight. Another possible reason is because it might appeal to the military or otherwise have military applications. Romania IS right next to Ukraine after all...

ARCA had a reason for doing this architecture, and we might never know said reason. It could've been for either technical or public relations reasons.

 

[MattBaker]

Well, their experiments with carrier balloons show that their rocket does not have the bang it takes to go to orbit from the ground.
But why choose a seaplane? I have no idea.

 

[n122vu]

Launch from the water, and you virtually eliminate the constraints on launch inclination imposed by launching from a fixed land-based launch facility. (More flexible launch windows, etc)

 

[ISProgram]

Launch from the water, and you virtually eliminate the constraints on launch inclination imposed by launching from a fixed land-based launch facility. (More flexible launch windows, etc)

But does that justify a seaplane? A aircraft carrier with a rocket carrying aircraft could easily suffice...

 

[jedidia]

Launch from the water, and you virtually eliminate the constraints on launch inclination imposed by launching from a fixed land-based launch facility. (More flexible launch windows, etc)

That might be well and good, but you get those advantages to a maybe lesser, but still by no means insignificant degree for any air-launched or floating system without combining the too, and it still doesn't explain why anyone would want to submerge a rocket, filled with potentially cryogenic propellant and sensitive technology, in salt water for what has to be at least an hour, probably more, before launch.

 

[Urwumpe]

That "low radar cross section" might be due to the fact that its a efficient shape for supersonic flight.

Thats wrong. What is good for reducing RCS is actually very harmful to aerodynamics, including the performance at supersonic flight.