4 ms·
Point 1 is a good one, point 2 is not. Yes, liquid engines like the sort used on Antares, Soyuz (most reliable rocket ever built), Falcon, Proton, Atlas, Shuttl
by dandelany 12y ago
Point 1 is a good one, point 2 is not. Yes, liquid engines like the sort used on Antares, Soyuz (most reliable rocket ever built), Falcon, Proton, Atlas, Shuttle, Delta, Ariane, Saturn, and nearly every other orbital launch platform ever. Liquid/liquid engines, by any measure, are orders of magnitude more stable and well proven than hybrid rocket engines.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- termain 12y agoMy point is that they still fail. Both liquid and solid boosters are a lot more mature than hybrids, no doubt. But I'm not so sure that either is fundamentally more reliable. And for hybrids to mature, somebody has to use them. "Liquid/liquid engines, by any measure, are orders of magnitude more stable." What do you mean by stable? A reason to go with hybrids, at least on paper, is that they are mechanically simple but throttlable, hopefully combining the simplicity of a solid booster with the ability to throttle and shutdown of a liquid. Of course, much of that also applies to blowdown liquid systems, and I personally find a blowdown methane/lox system particularly compelling. I figure Virgin wanted to avoid cryogens, though.