LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for LINUX-L Archives


LINUX-L Archives

LINUX-L Archives


LINUX-L@LISTS.UFL.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

LINUX-L Home

LINUX-L Home

LINUX-L  2007

LINUX-L 2007

Subject:

Re: "build your own sputnik" (BBC article)

From:

Eric Lavigne <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Platform Independent Linux List! <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 23 Oct 2007 23:57:21 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (62 lines)

> It's not reasonable to expect rockets to run as cheaply as airplanes:

The claim was not that the total cost would be similar to airplanes,
but that fuel would make up a similar portion (1/3 to 1/2) of the
total cost. Thus $10 worth of fuel per pound of payload translates
into between $20 and $30 of total cost per pound of payload. Your
arguments which follow all suggest a higher fuel consumption but
provide no indication that costs other than fuel should make up a
larger portion of the total cost.

> Airplanes draw oxidizer from their environment; rockets must contain
> and lift their oxidizer.

Yes, that is extra non-payload weight, which increases the amount of
fuel required to lift the craft. That amount of fuel costs $10 per
pound of payload.

> Few airplanes generate enough thrust to lift the airplane vertically;
> instead, wings allow a thrust less than the total weight of the
> vehicle to lift the aircraft over time. Wings don't work in vacuum.

Yes, spacecraft require a lot of thrust. Thus they need a fuel that
provides such thrust. That quality and quantity of fuel costs $10 per
pound of payload.

> Airplanes draw air from their environment to accelerate backwards for
> thrust; rockets contain and lift all the mass they eject for thrust.

That must mean that a spacecraft must eject more fuel to make up for
not ejecting environmental air. That fuel is expensive - $10 per pound
of payload.

> If you want an airplane comparison, picture a Boeing 747 flying on
> afterburners that can lift it vertically, and fill the interior
> with LOX. Sounds like a rocket, doesn't it?

Yeah, and sounds like it would use a lot of fuel. Interesting that the
fuel still ends up costing only $10 per pound of payload.

Of course, we all know it costs tens of thousands of dollars to put a
pound of payload into orbit. I wonder where the rest of that money
goes. Electronics are cheap. Fuel is cheap. Legal and political issues
are negligible. It must be some kind of technical challenge - I just
don't see how.

> There's an astoundingly fantastic rocket primer at:
>
> http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/index.html

It doesn't seem to explain anything about lobbying or permits. Oh,
wait... artificial gravity... that explains why the technical
challenges are so daunting. As if natural gravity wasn't troublesome
enough :-D


--
There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult.

                    - C.A.R. Hoare -

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.UFL.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager