Re: Put-Put
- From: henry@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Henry Spencer)
- Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 18:13:09 -0000
In article <w6-dneFLco-rNwrfRVn-vQ@xxxxxxx>,
Earl Colby Pottinger <earlcp@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Has anyone considered making a working model of 'King David's Spaceship' ?
Unfortunately, conventional explosives are *not* good rocket propellants,
and an external-combustion design like that (essentially a non-nuclear
Orion) is not generally an efficient rocket engine. Unless there is some
subtle design trick that greatly boosts performance -- what it would be is
not obvious -- such a design needs an enormous mass ratio, much higher
than that of an ordinary chemical rocket.
The Orion guys did build and fly a small chemical-explosive demonstrator,
which is now in the Air & Space Museum, but it was built to show basic
feasibility and flight stability, not to have high performance.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert | henry@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Microwave beamed power
- Next by Date: Re: SSME vs. RS-68 performance
- Previous by thread: Re: Soundwaves Boost Wing Lift
- Next by thread: Re: SSME vs. RS-68 performance
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|