Big sucker. Gonna be a heck of a ride.
On Sat, 16 May 2026 18:17:16 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
Big sucker. Gonna be a heck of a ride.
Why do we need bigass monster rockets?
Because the rocket equation is a bitch, that?s why.
If only you could use low-thrust, long-running engines from deep in a
gravity well, basically taking your time (hours, days) to reach escape >velocity ...
On Sat, 16 May 2026 18:17:16 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
Big sucker. Gonna be a heck of a ride.
Why do we need bigass monster rockets?
Because the rocket equation is a bitch, that?s why.
If only you could use low-thrust, long-running engines from deep in a
gravity well, basically taking your time (hours, days) to reach escape velocity ...
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JP_Aerospace>
Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?= <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2026 18:17:16 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
Big sucker. Gonna be a heck of a ride.
Why do we need bigass monster rockets?
Because the rocket equation is a bitch, that?s why.
If only you could use low-thrust, long-running engines from deep in a
gravity well, basically taking your time (hours, days) to reach escape
velocity ...
You don't mean "escape velocity," you mean "escape the gravity well."
Escape velocity has no meaning here.
But, the bad news is that if you take the slow and steady method, when
you integrate over time, the total amount of emergy used is greater.
So to do this, you'd need to have a lot of energy to throw away.
On 5/16/2026 10:59 PM, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
If only you could use low-thrust, long-running engines from deep in a
gravity well, basically taking your time (hours, days) to reach escape
velocity ...
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JP_Aerospace>
Well, that's a new one for me.
Interesting, but very ambitious.
On Sun, 17 May 2026 02:59:32 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
Why do we need bigass monster rockets?
Because the rocket equation is a bitch, that?s why.
If only you could use low-thrust, long-running engines from deep in
a gravity well, basically taking your time (hours, days) to reach
escape velocity ...
You don't mean "escape velocity," you mean "escape the gravity well."
Escape velocity has no meaning here.
On Sat, 16 May 2026 18:17:16 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
Big sucker. Gonna be a heck of a ride.
Why do we need bigass monster rockets?
Because the rocket equation is a bitch, that?s why.
If only you could use low-thrust, long-running engines from deep in a
gravity well, basically taking your time (hours, days) to reach escape velocity ...
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JP_Aerospace>
On Sun, 17 May 2026 08:31:18 -0400 (EDT), Scott Dorsey wrote:
On Sun, 17 May 2026 02:59:32 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
Why do we need bigass monster rockets?
Because the rocket equation is a bitch, that?s why.
If only you could use low-thrust, long-running engines from deep in
a gravity well, basically taking your time (hours, days) to reach
escape velocity ...
You don't mean "escape velocity," you mean "escape the gravity well."
Escape velocity has no meaning here.
Misunderstanding of physics, much?
On 5/16/2026 9:59 PM, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:There are some VERY nice California Reds that might do the job. I have a
On Sat, 16 May 2026 18:17:16 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
Big sucker.ÿ Gonna be a heck of a ride.
Why do we need bigass monster rockets?
Because the rocket equation is a bitch, that?s why.
If only you could use low-thrust, long-running engines from deep in a
gravity well, basically taking your time (hours, days) to reach escape
velocity ...
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JP_Aerospace>
Really, all we need to do is find the right wine.
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote or quoted:
humungous to supply lift up into near-space. Finally, a
smallish rocket gives the push to get into orbit.
I'm skeptical, since a spacecraft will have to be
accelerated to orbital velocity regardless if it starts
on the ground or stationary at a high altitude.
For a 10,000 kg payload, the potential energy difference to be
overcome to get to a height of 400 kilometers is in the ballpark
of 10^10 Joules and the kinetic energy needed for the orbit then
is like 10^11 Joules. Due to the limited efficiency of rockets you
mentioned this translates to 10^12 Joules for getting up vertically
with a rocket and again about 10^12 Joules to get up to orbit speed.
So, as a very rough first estimate, a balloon lift to 400 kilometers
would save about half the propellant or less, given that real
rockets already start early to get their tangential speed so as to
be more efficient (it is more efficient to accelerate diagonally).
This gives me an idea. You can save on delta vee by launching from
the equator. Now, that only gets a bit less than half a kilometre per
second. All we need to do is spin up the Earth so the equatorial
velocity is a bit less than orbital velocity. Huge mass ratio savings!
On 5/17/2026 8:31 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
But, the bad news is that if you take the slow and steady method, when
you integrate over time, the total amount of emergy used is greater.
So to do this, you'd need to have a lot of energy to throw away.
Or, a method of making your vehicle less dense than the surrounding
air. Which is what they propose.
James Nicoll <jdnicoll@panix.com> wrote:
[...]
This gives me an idea. You can save on delta vee by launching from
the equator. Now, that only gets a bit less than half a kilometre per
second. All we need to do is spin up the Earth so the equatorial
velocity is a bit less than orbital velocity. Huge mass ratio savings!
If you want to lose weight there's no need to diet,
just take a trip to the equator.
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/17/2026 8:31 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
But, the bad news is that if you take the slow and steady method, when
you integrate over time, the total amount of emergy used is greater.
So to do this, you'd need to have a lot of energy to throw away.
Or, a method of making your vehicle less dense than the surrounding
air. Which is what they propose.
That works for a while but gets useless fast as the air density drops.
But I'd be interested to see their math.
--scott
I'm skeptical, since a spacecraft will have to be accelerated to
orbital velocity regardless if it starts on the ground or stationary
at a high altitude.
It doesn't break physics, but would be extremely difficult to
implement.
James Nicoll <jdnicoll@panix.com> wrote:
[...]
This gives me an idea. You can save on delta vee by launching from
the equator. Now, that only gets a bit less than half a kilometre per
second. All we need to do is spin up the Earth so the equatorial
velocity is a bit less than orbital velocity. Huge mass ratio savings!
If you want to lose weight there's no need to diet,
just take a trip to the equator.
| Sysop: | Tetrazocine |
|---|---|
| Location: | Melbourne, VIC, Australia |
| Users: | 14 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 227:06:27 |
| Calls: | 218 |
| Files: | 21,503 |
| Messages: | 82,858 |