Jed Rothwell wrote: > > Frederick Sparber wrote: > > >I disagree with you Jed. The Earth to Orbit energy runs about 120,000 > >BTU/kilogram easily done with using air-breathing, Piloted-Recoverable > >ScramJets and Robot-Auto-Pilot to low earth orbit. > > Actually, as Arthur C. Clarke pointed out long ago, with a very good > battery or a hydrogen generator, you could recover the energy it takes to > go up on your way back down, with regenerative braking. The only energy > cost would be for friction. > Based on A. C. Clarke's reasoning we should be using that idea for Boeing 777s and Airbuses full of passengers. OTOH, failing that, Air Brakes for Planes and Vacuum Brakes for Spacecraft? > > But actually, the dollar cost for fuel is only > a tiny part of the cost of reaching space with rocket technology. With cold > fusion the fuel would cost virtually nothing but there would still be two > big problems: > > 1. Danger. After 60 years and billions of dollars of development, unmanned > rockets still explode so frequently that insurance rates are sky high. Even > a cold fusion powered vehicle would require extreme performance, high > temperatures and pressures and so on. > The Cold War and the Arms Race dictated the use of Rocket technology (inherited from Germany and Japan's war effort). > > 2. The enormous expense of manufacturing the vehicles. I do not think that > reusable spacecraft will become practical any time soon because of the > stresses they undergo during spaceflight. A vehicle climbing the space > elevator would undergo little stress. > Burt Rutan would dispute that, Jed. > > >When does Turner Classic Movies show the Japanese film: > > > >"GODZILLA CHASES JED UP THE SPACE ELEVATOR"? :-) > > When that happens you will know we have won the fight for truth, justice > and the American way. > The American way, or Arthur C. Clarke's science fiction way?
Personally, I prefer the works of Robert A. Heinlein, and Ray "The Martian Chronicles" Bradbury. :-) Fred > > - Jed >
