If you reread what I wrote, you'll see that I said:
Perhaps a better approach would be to use a TSTO design with a mother ship (similar to DARPA's SCAMP [sic] concept) to carry a booster with the payload as high and as fast as possible. SCAMP [sic] is taking about launching the booster at around Mach 3 and over 100,000 feet high. An air breathing rocket engine might be able to get it a lot faster and perhaps higher before release, increasing the payload to orbit.
The key phrase is "similar to DARPA's SCAMP concept", only I meant to say RASCAL. An air breathing rocket could probably achieve much higher performance than RASCAL's mothership (for lack of a better term), although it would have to contend with higher thermal loads, too.
Space/Science » in reply to re: RASCAL is not an air-breathing rocket
I never said it was
The whole thread (9 posts)
- Is the air breathing space shuttle concept dead? I hope not. The specific impulse of an air breathing engine far exceeds that of a rocket. This permits a much smaller and less expensive craft. I know… (n/t)
