/sci/ - Science & Math

The obvious problem I smell: if in-atmosphere flight with the best theoretical engines can only achieve 2km/s of the almost 8km/s required to enter LEO, wouldn't it be more mass-efficient to just eat the inefficiencies of boosting vertically from the ground and cut out all the complexity and weight? The only way I can see around this is by developing a pulse-detonation engine that can either utilize external atmospheric air, OR switch to an oxidizer pumped in from internal storage tanks, making it capable of operating in vacuum. This would greatly aid the mass budget by keeping the pulse-detonation engines as "usable" mass for the entire flight, instead of dead weight most of the time. The engineering feasibility of such a fancy engine is one thing; my story's limitation is "possible in the next 50 years," but simple physics puts limits on how much thrust/weight efficiency an engine like that could ever theoretically achieve. Enough to be useful? Fuck if I know. And sadly I can't find much on the specific impulse of theoretical and planned pulse-detonation engines for comparison purposes.

So, any rocket scientists in /sci/ that can tell me just how bad I'm raping basic orbital physics?

you've just hit the puberty

we made tools and harnessed power of nature
wiped all potential competition in the process

What's the quickest natural way to get an adrenaline rush and focus your mind? I'm working to a deadline, and I haven't slept in 2 days.

feels bad man