Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!space
From: Fischer.pa@XEROX.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V6 #42
Message-ID: <851213-004132-1028@Xerox>
Date: Fri, 13-Dec-85 03:41:00 EST
Article-I.D.: Xerox.851213-004132-1028
Posted: Fri Dec 13 03:41:00 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 14-Dec-85 00:32:30 EST
References: <ota@s1-b.arpa>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 24

The talk of "The New Orient Express" and TAVs reminded me (serious
question coming) of the Gerry Anderson Supermarionation movie
"Thunderbirds are GO!" (about 1966; availible as rental videotape now)
and the live action TV series "UFO" (1969?; reruns occasionally).  In
each, TAVs which were carried partway by aircraft or "wings" appeared.

Question: what's there to be gained using airbreathing engines to get
you as high and fast as possible first?  What percentage of "energy to
LEO" can conventional and exotic aero-engines (opposite anero-engines?)
possibly provide?  Is that percentage useful, ie does it cost less
weight or money to do it this way given that you've now got two systems
to carry, even partway?

Anyone know of alternative shuttle designs that would have used this?
Perhaps someone can explain the military TAV in these terms?

On the thumbnail, if an aircraft can reach 100,000 ft that's only 18.9
miles (out of 175?). I can't find a copy of the "Rubber book" and thus
don't know what part of escape speed mach 8 is.
 
I'm discounting obvious but important tangent arguments like airport
takeoff.

(ron)