On Tue, 11 Jun 2002 03:22:16 -0500, John Carmack
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I finally got around to joining AIAA, and while browsing around the site, I
>noticed that they have a free sample issues of each of the journals. In
>one of them is a paper about the ISAS VTVL demonstrator:
>
>Ground support is billed as extremely streamlined for lox/hydrogen, but it
>still seems pretty shitty from a peroxide engine standpoint, with several
>hours of work necessary for a 20 second maximum flight.
Good paper, in the sense that it does a very good job of conveying
their engineering philosophy. They're close. They've read the gospel
according to Hunter, but they haven't bought into all of it yet. They
know costs need to come down. They know this means RLV. They know it
means SSTO. They know this it VTVL. But they still buy into the myth
that SSTO requires LOX/hydrogen.
BTW, did anyone read Howe's Analog article about nuclear rockets? I
considered writing a letter to Analog detailing the omissions in the
article, but decided against it. I may write one commenting that a
development plan that starts with, "First, we have to educate the
public..." is very much like a business plan that starts with, "First,
we have to raise 500 million dollars..."
-R
--
"How did you know there were ninjas in the closet!"
"There are always ninjas in the closet. I go
through more closet doors... Do you know what
closet doors cost?"
-- Last Action Hero
_______________________________________________
ERPS-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
