Re: SPACE: Roton in New Scientist
Mon, 10 Aug 1998 13:18:31 EDT

In a message dated 98-08-10 08:25:24 EDT, you write:

<< Considering that current rocket technology only allows a mass fraction of around
.95, that means that for every ton you put in orbit, you expend 19 tons in fuel
and boosters getting it there. In order to cancel all of a spacecraft's velocity
so that it can just 'free fall' to earth from altutude, you would essentially need
to carry an equal amount of fuel into orbit as you used for the original blastoff.
Since you also need to launch that fuel and boosters by the same mass fraction,
then you would increase the size, mass and cost of your original launcher by at
least 19 while its possible, its not cost effective.

I understand, I thought it would take less fuel since the operation would be done in a vacuum. The idea is still there, for when we have the opportunuity to slow it down without using or bringing extra fuel, there would be more possibilities in a vacuum to do something like that, perhaps laser technology or some kind of waveform, using satellites.