Spike Jones wrote:
> > Spike Jones wrote: Starting with a 50 pound rocket, I have some *serious*
> > > doubts we could make it to orbit with 7 pounds. I might believe
> > > 7 ounces however.
> > Adrian Tymes wrote: Ok, ok, true. Point is that it's < 100% of the
> > craft's mass - and that
> > we need *far* better (faster exhaust velocity) fuels than have been
> > used to date, no? (Lasers - highest exhaust velocity, barring FTL
> > discoveries - fuelled by matter/antimatter - highest known energy
> > density - would be nice, but we can settle for more immediately
> > achievable ones as an intermediate step.)
> Ja. There are no great breakthrus in our future for standard
> chemical rockets. No one tomorrow is gonna discover a
> previously unknown chemical that will get us to orbit way
> cheaper than now. In the area of chemical rockets, the
> only development we can look forward to is economies
> of scale by making a lot of them.
> I am convinced we need to develop some means of keeping
> all the energy on the ground, transmitting it to the rising rocket
> by means of laser. The infrastructure for doing this is being
> developed in the form of weaponry: ground based lasers and
> airborne lasers. In some form those weapons will be used to heat
> propellant to lift rockets. I just dont know how yet. spike
About the simulation, if you ask a question, and the simulation has an answer,
and it's different than the expected result, then you can tell it why and it
could explain how it arrived at its conclusion.
-- Ross Andrew Finlayson Finlayson Consulting Ross at Tiki-Lounge: http://www.tiki-lounge.com/~raf/ "The best mathematician in the world is Maplev in Ontario." - Pertti L.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:21 MDT