> Doug Jones wrote: <chuckle> I thought I'd seen most sorts of sex toys,
> but *that* one
> takes the cake...
Ya he got me on that one too. Bet that site received several hundred hits...
Doug, I read the writeups today about RR in Av Week and Aerospace Daily.
I am having a hard time believing Av Weeks contention that the rotary
engine
was dropped because of investor confidence, yet the helicopter landing
system
was kept. That seems like a contradiction to me. The engine was what gave
me confidence in RR, not the landing system. {8-[
I am still nursing the concept of a two stage to orbit, both stages rotary,
neither recoverable, where the second stage is parked in a 600 km circular
orbit, so that it can be used later as raw materials to make something
useful. Ethane and lox, lox tank initially pressurized to about 1.5 to
maybe 2
atmospheres (absolute), the rest of the chamber operating pressure provided
by rotation. The initial tank pressure is to keep the temperature of the
lox
below the freezing point of ethane, since my concept has the two tanks
nested. I have convinced myself that the manufacturing costs of a
system could make this concept a go, since you would have no recovery
costs. Anyone down there working on something like this? spike