Re: "Rockets not carrying fuel" and the space tower.

From: bz (bz+sp_at_ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu)
Date: 03/29/05

  • Next message: D. Orbitt: "Re: NASA to ax Voyager support" 
    Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 01:44:29 +0000 (UTC)

    mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote in
    news:NC12e.19$45.3195@news.uchicago.edu:

    > In article <ky12e.60128$xX3.28598@twister.socal.rr.com>, "Mike Rhino"
    > <october2003@alexanderpics.com> writes:
    >>If you wanted to send energy to a rocket, you would be better off with a
    >>laser. In that case, the rocket would still need fuel, but it wouldn't
    >>need anything that burns. The fuel tank would contain ammonia and
    >>nothing else. The back of the rocket would have a concave mirror that
    >>concentrates the laser light on one spot. Ammonia would be sent to that
    >>spot, heat up, and be ejected as exhaust.
    >>
    > And the advantage over "something that burns" would be? I mean other
    > than saying "I'm high tech, I'm using a laser":-)
    >

    The energy to orbit a vehicle can be generated on earth and beamed to the
    vehicle, rather than trying to carry all that energy(mass) with you.

    You don't even need to carry fuel. Heated Air can act as a pulse jet.

    If you want to carry a reaction mass, why not water?

    http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/laser_propulsion_
    000705.html

    Google for
    "laser powered" spacecraft launch 

    -- 
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an 
infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu   remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
  • Next message: D. Orbitt: "Re: NASA to ax Voyager support"

    Relevant Pages