 | | Re: NASA IS GOING BACK BABY —Brian Davis
|
| | | (...) The problem is rockets use reaction mass, and need to carry it along, so the rocket equation enters into everything you do. And honestly a rocket is not a very good way to use the energy: you have to launch at high speed (rocket equation (...) (17 years ago, 6-Feb-07, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: NASA IS GOING BACK BABY —Mike Petrucelli
|
| | | | (...) On the other hand "Space Ship One" already surpassed NASA in efficiency with the use of a "carrier plane" to get a much higher start. Building a plane specifically designed for high altitude super sonic launching of "rocket ships" is one easy (...) (17 years ago, 7-Feb-07, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: NASA IS GOING BACK BABY —Brian Davis
|
| | | | (...) Yep, but it came no where *near* orbital velocity - about a factor of 30 to low in energy. I agree, it's a nice mechanism to get away from the atmosphere problem, but so do balloons (for a far lower cost, actually). no offense to Space Ship (...) (17 years ago, 8-Feb-07, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | |
