Khazar-khum Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 63. Keep that number in mind.
>
> It takes approximately 63 pounds of fuel to put
> one pound in orbit.
>
> Until they find/make a better fuel, that ain't
> gonna change.
Hence the EM Drive (if it isn't hot air like the cold fusion generators)
See, I've heard this before (this 63 - which should be 42, but that's a joke from HHG2G) -- but what isn't stipulated is that that is the fuel for a straight up rocket boost into orbit.
It doesn't allow for non-rocket boost technologies or approaches. In simplest form, what if you didn't light that rocket until you got to 5, 10, 20 miles up first? Would that pound/weight still be the same? Seems likely not ;0 and you could achieve this with simple balloons.
Or, howe about the gauss cannon aka electormagnetic rail launcher mounted on the equator in S. America? Math predicts it to be the cheapest 'shot' into orbit solution.
What really kills me, and is likely little known, is we had the technology in the 40's to launch payloads into orbit... from cannons. Hmm I need to go and look at what pound per thrust they had, but they didn't really use solid rocket fuel ;0 I will agree though that the robustness required of the payload to survive that kind of cannon shot would likely bar delicate electronics.
Reading these in order is an interesting trip down conspiracy lanes (which, I am vehemently anti-conspiracy)
[
militaryhistorynow.com]
[
en.wikipedia.org]
(note: NOT the alaskan HAARP project)
[
en.wikipedia.org]
[
en.wikipedia.org]
and when finished, consider the sequentially diminishing comments around the launching of electronics in this fashion, starting with
"Test electronics were potted in a mix of sand and epoxy, proving more than capable of withstanding the rigors of launch."
and ending with
"However, these speeds are too far into the hypersonic range for most practical propulsion systems and also would cause most objects to burn up due to aerodynamic heating or be torn apart by aerodynamic drag. Therefore, a more likely future use of space guns would be to launch objects into near Earth orbit, from where attached rockets could be fired or the objects could be "collected" by maneuverable orbiting satellites."
Engineering ;0
Nowadays we discuss the rail gun (gauss cannon) concept as much more practical - and I gotta admit, a silent launch is far far better than one with a great big boom.
But *none* of these pay any attention to the 63 pound fuel limit ;0
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/02/2015 05:40PM by sansahansan.
