[AR] Re: Just where does space start?
- From: "Monroe L. King Jr." <monroe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2014 13:38:20 -0700
Chris
I have to agree with you on that one (the balloons) Because they fly
nowhere near space. If a balloon can float there it's not near space
it's as high as a balloon can go.
Balloons can only go 20 miles or so and that's not even halfway to the
Karman line. I've flown a lot of balloons and the view is breathtaking
but it's just an illusion or prelude to real space.
It is for sure a good way to get really high altitude though far
cheaper and with a much higher dwell time worthy of experiments than
most any amateur rocket.
The rockoon is still the next cheapest way to achieve space.
The next cheapest way has to be an air launched rocket.
The third would be an air breathing augmented rocket.
Speaking of that I wonder if anyone on Arocket has done any ducted
rocket experiments? I think it might be cool to do some sugar rocket
motors and a ducted augmenter with propane like an after burner. That
might boost sugar propellant to a useable level.
Being that a booster would be atmospheric and I believe something like
the Ardupilot we use could maintain proper inlet pressure with a moving
nosecone in the inlet. Use aluminum for the upper duct and steel with an
ablative for the lower part of the duct.
Monroe
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [AR] Re: Just where does space start?
> From: Chris Jones <clj@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Sun, August 31, 2014 1:06 pm
> To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> On 8/31/2014 3:51 PM, Monroe L. King Jr. wrote:
> > The FAI is also the governing body I'd submit an altitude or speed
> > record attempt too if I wanted an official record.
>
> As others have said, this (the 100 km altitude) seems to have a lot of
> backing among the space community. For myself, I'm more interested in
> the altitude Monroe mentioned earlier (minimum altitude for a viable
> orbit, though I'm not really sure where that is, since I'm sure it
> varies; 100 statute miles is a nice round number, though I know
> satellites do dip into lower orbits, at least at perigee).
>
> Really space is a concept rather than a physical boundary, and it's the
> effects (e.g. loss of aerodynamic control, need for pressure suit, "low
> enough" atmospheric density) one has to worry about. Any of the
> definitions being bandied around can (arguably) be used. I personally
> do not like hearing reports that a balloon has flown to (near-)space but
> that's personal feelings.
Other related posts: