/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9457391
>> Can't accelerate at more than 4G if you don't want to kill everyone in it.
don't send people
>> Would require something akin to hoover dam to power it.
that's what energy storage is for

>>9457393
in the rocket equation, the amount of fuel you need increases exponentially with delta V. Meaning even adding a little bit of speed helps. I don't feel like calculating how much this helps, could someone else do this?

>>8386827
>thats how you sound right now.

Nice argument, are you feeling well?

>IF ROAACKEETS DIDDNTT HAVE TO CARRY THEEIRR OWN FUEL THEIIY WOULD BE MUUCH BETTTEERRRR


That there's a strawman.

and I hope you feel bad about posting it.

>>7192876
>Altitude is also expensive.
Not nearly as expensive. A small sounding rocket can reach hundreds of kilometers altitude with ease.

>it's going to lose a lot of speed to drag before it can get out of that thick stratosphere
At 26km the atmosphere can hardly be described as thick.

>and it's going to have to pay for that loss with rocket power.
So just like every other rocket out there then.

> the rocket equation is exponential.
Which is why shaving off 1.7km/s deltaV with an air-breathing high-ISP engine is enormously beneficial to the launch mass profile.

> you're carrying all of this excess tank mass, and you're carrying these heavy air-breathing engines, and you're going to take them to orbit, instead of payload... why?
They're not particularly heavy and they're also your rocket engines.
Also because they are expensive as fuck to produce compared to the fuel you burn.

The estimated launch/LEO mass ratio is comparable to regular rockets too which should make it very competitive to rockets given the savings from the SSTO design.