smaller rockets needed when OALP is used

Status
Not open for further replies.
W

webtaz99

Guest
<img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> Just when I thought I had a handle on stupid, it surprised me again. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
B

billslugg

Guest
bgridley<br />The R&D costs, the capital costs and the operational costs of such a system would be outweighed perhaps ten million to one by what might be gained. I could be off by a factor of 10, but no more than that. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p> </div>
 
Q

qso1

Guest
Liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen are as green as it gets and powerful to boot. What specific green sources are you referring to? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>
 
J

j05h

Guest
That is the most complex variant on tube-launch that I've ever read. Steam or compressed-gas tube launch is much easier, but doesn't scale much above ICBM sizes. This is the rusty, failure-prone and dangerous version of what US and Russian sub-launched missiles have done for a long time. <br /><br />Personally, I wouldn't want to be in that tube. Any failure and you are suddenly stuck a kilometer below the surface with no diving gear and no sub, just a jammed (fully fuelled) rocket. <br /><br />The failure modes on this are bewildering. You'd have a better chance of building the mag-lev-laser-launch system that Marshall Savage proposed.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts