Re: Launch Technology

From: Ross A. Finlayson (
Date: Sun Jan 21 2001 - 16:08:17 MST

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:
"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