Re: Flyback boosters


"Brian Gaff" <briang1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ZTEzi.1761$c_1.1698@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Surely, at the start you are battling huge weight of propellant, you want
to not add weight surely, so any additional structure to allow fly back
would seem to be a non starter, at least to my mind.

If the alternative is using less fuel, but throwing away the booster after
every flight, then a fly back booster makes economic sense if the flight
rate is high enough.

Also, a liquid fueled flyback booster seems to make more sense to me than
solid fueled boosters you drop in salt water, then fish out and refurbish
after every flight.

This is why, at one time, liquid fueled flyback boosters were studied for
the space shuttle. The problem was, with the shuttle's low flight rate,
you'd never make back your investment since development costs were projected
to be pretty high.

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)


.