Cheapest way ever to orbit

[rogers_buck]

You are correct, however that is just one side of the story. More interesting to rocket fuel is energy per volume. Think of it this way, which would you rather have combust in the palm of your hand. A 1cc cube of hydrogen, a 1cc cube of PETN, or a 1cc cube of kerosene. It is the difference between having a burned hand and not having a hand...<br />

 

[scottb50]

So. Can you buy all that stuff from Acme?<br /><br />I think it's more a matter of reaching orbit in one piece rather than a gellatinous state. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rogers_buck]

Beep beep.<br />

 

[virusxp]

rogers_buck: "More interesting to rocket fuel is energy per volume."<br />I would like to disagree. Unless you are planning to travel in a rocket-powered craft through lower atmosphere (which would require fuel tanks with smaller cross section) , you prefer less mass rather than less volume. Otherwise all the big boosters would be kerosene and not hydrogen powered.

 

[olivebird111]

good idea it just that any basic idea would be put into testing for like 10 years with bilions of dollars. Well i hope they use that technique in war with terrorism and all the other useless things congress and bush issues now. i think another good idea is that you can kind of use gravity to shift a spacecraft by the planets. if a spacecraft have to reach like pluto or neptune it would have to do this or else you wouldnt be able to get tons of fuel because thats just waste.

 

[rogers_buck]

Good point. Of course in this case the comparison of potential energy / mass needs to also include the mass of the oxidizer. <br /><br />

 

[publiusr]

I must say this is one of the most original threads I've seen. I wonder if a tether only a few thousand miles tall could lasso a passing asteroid and simply yank a large payload to orbit. <br /><br />That is about as cheap as you get--provided it works of course <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />