Re: Sub-G thrust to orbit.
jimp_at_specsol-spam-sux.com
Date: 02/28/05
- Next message: francoisbelfort_at_yahoo.fr: "Re: Attraction vs repulsion - why does it depend on spin?"
- Previous message: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: Uncle Al: "Re: Sub-G thrust to orbit."
- Next in thread: Uncle Al: "Re: Sub-G thrust to orbit."
- Reply: Uncle Al: "Re: Sub-G thrust to orbit."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 21:17:43 +0000 (UTC)
Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> Brucebo wrote:
> >
> > Is is possible to make it into earth orbit using a sub-G thrusting
> > rocket motor together with a hypersonic lifting body?
> Walk up a ladder.
> > Assuming it is possible Newtonically, is it possible thermally,
> i.e.
> > would the vehicle burn up due to atmospheric friction before it reached
> > orbit?
> Artillery shells are entirely capable of being launched into orbit re
> John Bull. So? Calculate the acceleration of a 125-grain hollow
> point semijacketed round going from zero to 1250 ft/sec in six inches
> of .357 magum barrel. Now, pick your field artillery and don't ride
> in the shell - or do.
> Piggyback modes of orbital insertion, air breathing mothership then
> rocket, have been disappointing at scale. Look at the payload of the
> SR-71 Blackbird. The huge thing hardly carries more than its tankage.
And is capable of climbing straight up, for a while.
-- Jim Pennino Remove -spam-sux to reply.
- Next message: francoisbelfort_at_yahoo.fr: "Re: Attraction vs repulsion - why does it depend on spin?"
- Previous message: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: Uncle Al: "Re: Sub-G thrust to orbit."
- Next in thread: Uncle Al: "Re: Sub-G thrust to orbit."
- Reply: Uncle Al: "Re: Sub-G thrust to orbit."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|