Henry Spencer wrote:
optimal energy efficiency of a rocket engine is when the velocity of the 
exhaust is about the same speed as the vehicle moves at...
    

Correct, but for chemical rockets, in general you care overwhelmingly
about *mass* efficiency and not at all about energy efficiency.  What
matters is the momentum imparted to the vehicle by a given amount of mass
from the tanks, and that is maximized by recruiting as much outside air as
possible, taking the exhaust velocity as low as possible. 
  
So, in theory, for this application, energy/mass density is important, so a lox/aluminum powder monoprop mixture has great energy per unit mass (16KJ/g) and could be good (better than LH/LOX at 13KJ/g).

[Well, beryllium + ozone is better- 26KJ/g, but... ;-)  Lithium and oxygen manages 20KJ/g, that's not quite so bad ]

I did some BOE that suggested it could be just a few hundred kg of fuel for 7 tonnes to 30km, but the equipment to heat the air and put it through a nozzle is complex and possibly too heavy. (Some kind of jet engine/ramjet could work, but thrust to weight is a reasonably big problem.)  Still, jets are limited by temperature, but squirting in extra LOX in the inlet may work according to Mitchell Burnside Clapp.
                                                          Henry Spencer
                                                       [EMAIL PROTECTED]

_______________________________________________
ERPS-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list

  

Reply via email to