Hi John,
The industry will need to shift gears if we're going to advance propulsion
technology and current performance levels significantly. I think most of us
acknowledge that there's only so much you can do with traditional chemical
reactions in a safe and practical system. Even nuclear propulsion in
configurations that have been demonstrated using current technology
advancements is a good *first step* in my opinion. The infrastructure,
materials and know how are available and arguably at lower risk than many of
the chemical based programs that you cite. 800~900 seconds could be
figuratively COTS in terms of practical availability. I'm probably preaching to
the choir.
Merry Christmas and all the best in 2020.
Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
http://www.cesaronitech.com/
(941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto
-----Original Message-----
From: arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of
John Dom
Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2019 12:48 PM
To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [AR] Alternative propulsion was: Flying to Orbit with Hydrogen?
Skylon, Space X, NASA, India, China, Japan: what am I missing is why
non-chemical propulsion gets no priority (in order to make it real). Like
fission or fusion propulsion or space elevators.
As for an energy source on the surface, I'd but my bets on lava streams below
heat exchangers like Iceland does. Not windmills, nor powersats.
John D.
-----Original Message-----
From: arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On ;
Behalf Of Keith Henson
Sent: woensdag 25 december 2019 17:32
To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [AR] Re: Flying to Orbit with Hydrogen?
On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 10:09 PM Rand Simberg <simberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Superheavy/Starship should be able to get to that cost, or lower, and
requires no new propulsion technology.