> The energy is not the problem, the structure is the problem.
In commenting about the energy, I was taking Spike at his word that nothing new was
going to happen (at least in the short run) with chemical rockets. I agree
completely that increased energy density is a compound win because it lowers the
amount of fuel you need to lift the fuel you need. However, I do admit that my
statement was not really fair because we do not now have a "way way" cheaper energy
source, and we do not launch in large economies of scale.
> Perhaps rocket science is called rocket science for a reason. It's *science*.
It is called that because it is good marketing to play on the public's ignorance of
the difference between science and technology, which it mostly is.
> Spike Jones wrote:
> > 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.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:24 MDT