4 ms·
That's what I've been thinking as well. This might be an unintended consequence if SpaceX is able to reliably deploy the reusable rockets they are drawing today
by marvin 14y ago
That's what I've been thinking as well. This might be an unintended consequence if SpaceX is able to reliably deploy the reusable rockets they are drawing today. It might actually require less energy to launch a passenger vehicle above the atmosphere and let it glide/freefall all the way to the destination than it does to push the same vehicle through the atmosphere. I haven't actually done any calculations, though. It would be interesting to see how much energy it would require per passenger to get such a vehicle to a suitable altitude and speed for intercontinental flight. For instance an aircraft powered with combustion engines, with booster rockets attached.
- moystard 14y agoThe disadvantage of your solution is the environment impact of such a transportation system. An electricity based solution seems to be much cleaner (especially if we imagine the same kind of traffic as the plane one today).
- rogerbinns 14y agoCouldn't you use electricity to separate hydrogen and oxygen from water, and then "burn" that in the rockets to produce water again?
- anamax 14y ago> Couldn't you use electricity to separate hydrogen and oxygen from water, and then "burn" that in the rockets to produce water again? How does the energy/pound and energy/CC compare to decent rocket fuel?
- marvin 14y agoLiquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen is the most efficient chemical rocket fuel possible. Most famously used by the Space Shuttle Main Engines.
- lmm 14y agoYou can, but under current technology this is a lot less efficient (I remember hearing a 12% figure somewhere) than direct-drive electric motors.