Re: Recent Advances in Science <g>
- From: jdnicoll@xxxxxxxxx (James Nicoll)
- Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 13:35:47 +0000 (UTC)
In article <hwg5z9c7h678.ti2d6ewd91aq.dlg@xxxxxxxxxx>,
Ric Locke <warlocke@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Shuttles and space stations are a
bit elitist -- it will always be expensive to throw that much energy away.
Antigravity can be whatever you design it to be.
The chemicals fuels that go into orbital rockets are surprisingly
inexpensive, compared to the cost of employing one ground technician per
kilogram of rocket (which is close to the standard practice). If you
can make do with kerosene and LOX, the first is around 0.50/kg and the
second very nearly too cheap to meter, if you use enough to justify a
LOX plant (NASA does not, fwiw, and I think they pay 4 cents/kg). That
kind of rocket could have an exhaust velovity of about 3 km/s, making
orbit a matter of an e^2.7 mass ratio, or about 15. You're probably
talking fuel costs much less than $10.00/kg, thanks to the low cost
of LOX.
--
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
.
- References:
- Recent Advances in Science <g>
- From: Brian M. Scott
- Re: Recent Advances in Science <g>
- From: Quaestor
- Re: Recent Advances in Science <g>
- From: Michelle Bottorff
- Re: Recent Advances in Science <g>
- From: Ric Locke
- Recent Advances in Science <g>
- Prev by Date: Re: radio station call letters
- Next by Date: Re: Could someone please read this?
- Previous by thread: Re: Recent Advances in Science <g>
- Next by thread: Re: Recent Advances in Science <g>
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
