Edge of Space "Lynx Flight" up to 200,000 feet High!

[jinn1785]

@mr204gangsta,

HATER

i did apply u dick n jus so u feel proud of ur comment my bones r brittle dat means if i encounter n G's during flight my bone wil crush n i die!!! Lyk u care neway, b4 u go round showing hw much of a online gangsta u r no facts

[MrSLaKoNe1]

@jinn1785 obvious troll is obvious!

[jinn1785]

It cost more lyk a million, last i checked the flight by sir richard branson is costing rounfld dat figure, wot a concept n boy cnt wait, i wil mortage all my 8house n business n take a loan out hell i sell it al jus for dat experince tobe the first civi on rocket tours

[theblackdude]

i would pay to jus smoke in space

[razz0404]

I would pay serious money, to take a trip like that

[james87stephen]

How much does it cost? And where are you located?

[RsHaCkZoR]

@james87stephen it costs $95,000 which actually seems a pretty good price.

[MLKingXII]

@RsHaCkZoR I wouldn't pay more than $30.000..

[Bystander81]

@RsHaCkZoR Oh that's it, just 95k huh? lol must be nice...

[sbd45acp]

Familiar w/ HL-10, M2 F2 & X-24s. They went to 100k ft & MACH 1.9 w/ VERY rounded noses and virtually NO windshield angles. This fantasy plane has neither. I agree the basic problem is that it does not have enough space for fuel or the $ backing to get to 200k ft. 

[timmy3822]

Can they even pack enough fuel to reach sub orbital altitudes? I mean all the other commercial ventures require a mothership to launch from before making the climb to space.

[jetpoweredgriffin]

Low Earth Orbit is generally considered 100-1,240 miles AGL(Above Ground Level).

The Lynx is sub-orbital,"only" about 40 miles.

They will be "zoom climbing"-

build momentum then glide upwards then fall back.

They are not approaching escape velocity or reaching anything that could be called

"re-entry speeds".

If you look up "Colonel Kittinger HALO",

he broke the sound barrier in a full pressure suit falling from 102,800 feet-

in 1960.

This is not so unreasonable considering that.

[Nando85ec]

Define several minutes! After all it will cost several 10.000s!!!

[Dexpend]

If it would launch from a mothership (like the spaceshipone) then it would be possible. But the lynx launches from a runway.

[twistedyogert]

@Dexpend you could use the energy from the explosion of a fusion reactor to take off. But to fuse hydrogen into helium you need 5 million degrees to enen start the engine let alone use it to fly. 

[jetpoweredgriffin]

@twistedyogert

Well then,gosh.

As long as we're talking fantasy,

how about cold fusion?

[Dexpend]

Can you really pack that much energy in a small tank to get to space. I dont think its possible yet. Maybe in the future..

[twistedyogert]

@Dexpend nuclear thrusters?

[sbd45acp]

It will never fly to space and return with that sharp winshield angle... never

[jetpoweredgriffin]

@sbd45acp

200,000 feet is hardly Space.

[sbd45acp]

@jetpoweredgriffin My mistake. More properly"Outer" Space, or "Orbital" Space. If you step outside you are "in Space"

[jetpoweredgriffin]

@sbd45 Sub-Orbital. 200,000 feet is not so bad. Definitely won't be open cockpit... On a "zoom climb", the return velocity and its effect will be no problem. Colonel Kittinger's HALO jump from 100,000 feet was in a pressure suit. His "windshield" gave him no problems at all... His problem was that he went into a flat spin and blacked out from the G's. His auto-release system for his parachute saved his life. Hopefully, they fare better with their aircraft if they ever get that far...

[sbd45acp]

@jetpoweredgriffin The colonel & gear was what? 300 lbs? 12 sq feet surface area @ 100,000 ft. At 2 x the altitude, no drogue parachute, and a wt of 10,000 lbs. what speed will it come down at?

[jetpoweredgriffin]

@sbd45acp

Depends on if they will burn again on the way back down again,doesn't it?

I would be pleasantly surprised if they even ever make this an actual program.

These things have a high attrition rate.

Kittinger did not experience any serious friction for some time-

he described it as utter stillness because the air resistance was almost immeasurable.

In the absence of air resistance, all objects experience the same acceleration due to gravity-

thus,mass(weight)weight is irrelevant.

[jetpoweredgriffin]

@jetpoweredgriffin

Therefore,

I do not think that your question is relevantly phrased.

The windshield,though-

(in a nose-high attitude)will be in the"shadow"of the fall.

If they were to burn in a nose-high attitude,

the drag of the bottom of the aircraft coupled with the upward thrust would make the speed quite manageable.

Any other questions?

I don't think they will be burning on the way back down but regardless the friction will be on the belly,not the windshield.

Look again at the Shuttle.

[jetpoweredgriffin]

@sbd

The neat part is that the downward trajectory will gradually be converted into

a horizontal one.

The art will be in finding and successfully achieving that conversion.

The HL-10&M2-F3 rocket powered lifting bodies moved around 900-1,000MPH in the

60-90,000ft. range and they were pretty blunt-nosed.

Those noses were windshields like those on the B-29's.

Once again,though,the question is really whether this program will survive long enough to have to worry about such a challenge.

[Nando85ec]

How much will it cost?? Virgin galactic will offer suborbital flights for around 200k

[Nando85ec]

Commercial flights are the epic of epicness and you ruin it with requiem for a dream?? Come on!! By the way vrigin galactic offers a better choice of flight!

[Dusty696969]

I know that jets can go this high. So why do we still need to use propulsion rockets to push into space. Isn't there a way we can get a craft to around that altitude then hit booster rockets for less than a few minutes to push us into space. Wouldn't it be cheaper this way as well.

[chigeh]

@Dusty696969 Propulsion rockets are the most fuel effecient that exist.

[Dusty696969]

@chigeh Well of course it is. Its all we have. But if we can burn it for less time, or dose it cost more to send a jet into the atmosphere on jet fuel? I dont know the cost of sold rocket fuel and jet fuel so this is a subject I nothing about. But I would think it would be far less expensive. You wouldn't need recovery teams to retrieve the the solid rocket boosters, and external tanks, or sections of a rocket. You also wouldn't have to reassemble something each time.

[OmicronChan]

@Dusty696969 i dont think jets can get that high.... they can get to 90,000 feet or so? but this is 200,000 feet which is more than double, the atmosphere would be so thin that jets can't get enough air to a. conbust fuel and b. lift over the wings.

solid fuel rockets don't have either of these limitations.

[reluctable]

@Dusty696969 I am most certainly no rocket scientist, but I think you're underestimating how much energy it takes to get to orbit. You have to go incredibly fast to reach orbit, and the more mass you want to transport the greater the amount of energy it takes. Very specifically designed high altitude Jets can go about 60% this high, but they couldn't carry anything close to the amount of rocket fuel needed to go any further, and they couldn't transport much more than a can of salted nuts.

[Dusty696969]

@reluctable I do have some understanding of how much energy it takes. If it didn't than we wouldn't use huge rockets to get there. But we could use less of that energy on a shorter burn, rather than from the ground up.

[reluctable]

@Dusty696969 Well I'm trying to tell you why that wouldn't work but I don't know how to explain it more clearly than this:

the mass of fuel+payload it would take to get to orbit from the maximum possible height any jet could reach would far outstrip the mass such a jet would be capable of lifting.

[Dusty696969]

@reluctable I understand what your saying, and understand the whole concept your speaking of. Its own mass/weight + the mass/weight and load of the craft going into space after ascent with the jet. I understand that. You would think something could be built to handle this. It would not necessarily need to be a jet. Think about the huge high alt spy planes. But I dont know if plausible if this would even be coast efficient.

[scrfce123]

@Dusty696969 The highest altitude ever attained by an air breathing craft is around 125,000 feet (Mig 25). This was achieved by zoom climbing!

No engine could maintain flame at an altitude of 100,000+ feet. Most aircraft shut their engines off at around 85,000 feet because the reduced airflow can lead to overheating.

[TheDaddyCokes]

I'm sure some starving kid in Somalia can dream of taking this one day.

[paunocu666]

@TheDaddyCokes so cut off your internet account and give your resources to then

[1sorryham]

200,000 ft is a hair over 60 km, which is generally considered "the edge of space".

[VIR092]

200,000 feet is still well within the atmosphere.

[TreAldMatVideo]

Using FEET How About USING METRIC SYSTEM ?

[EpiDemic117]

@TreAldMatVideo they can use both. But aviation generally uses non metric for measurement on altitude.

[Talisienuk]

@TreAldMatVideo haha you clearly know nothing about aviation

[richardwillett]

Sounds really cool! Too bad IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN!

[TheSpoonFedFukWit]

Rollercoaster for rich guy's.

[fpvshitsonhsv]

cool