Kistler Aerospace K-1 Rocket Launch Animation

Animation of the original version of the K-1 Rocket launch, orbit insertion, reentry, and landing. This is an old, circa 1994 version of the K-1 rocket and its flight profile.

Category:

Film & Animation

Tags:

• rockets
• launch
• vehicles
• space
• satellites

[BobCitron]

This is a historical, circa 1994, version of the original K-1 rocket and its flight profile concept. It was made obsolete by a later design and a completely different flight profile.

[2eelShmeal]

@luketorpedo Thanks

[luketorpedo]

@2eelShmeal

Exactly the same. Getting anything into orbit has around 9000m/s delta V requirement, which is a way of characterising fuel burned per inert unit mass. Orbital speed in LEO is around 7700m/s for everything. Also you are both making an error in that you assume a launch vehicle to LEO can go straight up, they can't. Anything aiming for launching a payload into orbit must gain as much horizontal velocity as possible, hence horizontal shuttle trajectory or any rocket.

[2eelShmeal]

@HaroldHoltCantSwim Ok gotcha. Thanks. That's pretty damn fast huh? ... As compared to the shuttle? What's that doing per second?

[HaroldHoltCantSwim]

@2eelShmeal

There are two components, the boost platform and the orbital vehicle (OV). The OV carries the payload to space, with the boost platform eating the 1500 m/s of the 9000 m/s (7600m/s + 700m/s drag + 700 m/s gravity loss) needed for orbit. Obviously the OV will need to deal with phasing issues and will need to spend several days in orbit to return to the launch site, or land elsewhere and be trucked back.

[2eelShmeal]

@HaroldHoltCantSwim I don't know where in this video it says anything about 5 mins. The shuttle makes it to space in about 8 mins but they fly at an angle so they're 32 miles downrange in 2 minutes. This thing goes vertically so I guess it's plausible but if it's just 5 mins to space then they'll be going faster than the shuttle. More likely, it's not as fast but more efficient which means a longer time to space. If it's 10 mins up, it's 10 back so that's 20. I think it'd be way downrange.

[HaroldHoltCantSwim]

@2eelShmeal

You are seriously overestimating how far the earth rotates in five minutes. You make a five second burn and you're back over the pad.

[2eelShmeal]

@HaroldHoltCantSwim It's just a vertical system. But how did NASA think they would come back to the launch site? In the animation, they fly themselves. [ 0:47 ] But in real life, as you launch vertically, the earth still spins under you so by the time the second stage fires, Africa is now underneath you. Unless they just hover there, waiting for the earth to spin the launch site back around the next day and THEN descend, they would either have to be recovered or fly themselves back.

[HaroldHoltCantSwim]

@2eelShmeal

The platform provides zero horizontal velocity. It's purpose is to cancel gravity and drag losses and raise the second stage to vacuum where it's engine is more efficient.

[EmperorOfMars]

@2eelShmeal That's not a problem, they're just obsolete already

[EEEL123]

This rocket seems suspiciously prone to... problems.