Re: More ET foam woes
- From: Len Lekx <LFLekx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 11:23:51 -0500
On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 17:35:07 GMT, henry@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Henry Spencer)
wrote:
>> Personally, I prefer using non-cryogenic fuels for launch vehicles.
>Unfortunately, non-cryogenic oxidizers as good as LOX are a bit hard to
>come by. Hydrogen peroxide doesn't perform as well (although it has
Peroxide is my oxidizer of choice. So what if you don't get the
same Isp as oxygen - we're not going to be building a launcher that
performs like an F-1 racecar. Giving up a half-percent of the payload
mass-ratio shouldn't be much of a worry. :-)
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: More ET foam woes
- From: lifeform1
- Re: More ET foam woes
- References:
- Re: More ET foam woes
- From: Len Lekx
- Re: More ET foam woes
- From: Henry Spencer
- Re: More ET foam woes
- Prev by Date: Re: Minimum development cost space transport
- Next by Date: Re: Plutonium Blurb
- Previous by thread: Re: More ET foam woes
- Next by thread: Re: More ET foam woes
- Index(es):