On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 17:32:20 +0100, Ian Woollard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I think a ramjet would win big if you wanted to cost reduce the booster. >I don't think it's in any way a silly idea, but I suspect most sane >developments would just drop a jet engine in (if there was a suitable >one anywhere, otherwise a ramjet is probably a better choice than what >Kistler was up to). > >It may very well be that a ramjet would be really easy, but you don't >know that until you actually try it, and straight away you've got a risk >in your program; and then you'd be looking to hedge the risk, in which >case you'd go for the jet engine too, but then you've got two >developments to do the same thing, so you'd probably drop the ramjet >(although a really inspired choice would be to run the two in parallel >for a bit before making a decision based on how it was going- the two >are close enough that you'd get synergy.) > >You might be able to hire an aerospace engineer from somewhere and give >him the spec for the ramjet and say- go build. It would probably take a >couple of years, but it's still probably cheaper than buying a turbojet- >that's what? 10 man years worth? > >If it was a manned booster you may prefer the turbojet though; which is >probably more where Randalls head is I suspect. Although if you've got >rockets on it anyway, you may use them for a go around; so it's not >completely obvious. All of that is pretty much my thinking, yes. -R -- Son: Dad, I have a question about women. Suppose I Dagwood: Apologize anyway. Son: Yeah, that's about what I figured Dagwood: It saves time _______________________________________________ ERPS-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
