Keith wrote: > > I don't know who on this list is up to understanding the technical > parts . . . . > I think I am. Or I was. Probably now I switched from being one of the "good guys" (working in the space industry) to become one "evil minion" (working in the oil industry) :-)
> The root problem is the same space flight has had all along--the > rocket equation. All sins flow from the fact that at best one part > in 60 of the liftoff mass gets to GEO or lunar orbit with > chemical fuels. Here it is in graphical form. > If you want to play with the rocket equation, just use this javascript: http://www.geocities.com/albmont/relroket.htm It's a relativistic rocket equation, but it works (obviously) for v << c. The whole problem is that you need energy/power/speed/name-it to get the rocket away from Earth's athmosphere. Right now, the only way to do it is by chemical rockets. Now comes the second problem. Suppose you get to LEO. Theoretically, it's possible to use "more efficient" ways to transfer to GEO. One way is to continously thrust with a high-specific-impulse engine. But this would make the transfer take eons - and now economy plays a very important part in the equation: you don't want to _wait_! Time is money. So, the pretty little mathematical and physics of transfer bows to the implacable and ruthless laws of economics, and we use chemical rockets. Darth Alberto Monteiro _______________________________________________ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
