3 ms·
Am I wrong for thinking this is lame for being suborbital? Would orbital designs based on the same principle be feasible?
by dmoney 17y ago
Am I wrong for thinking this is lame for being suborbital? Would orbital designs based on the same principle be feasible?
- wlievens 17y agoThere's been some confusing communication about SS3 being (or not being) a suborbital design.
- yters 17y agoNah, orbital is yet another major leap. Right now it's mainly a gee-whiz dealy.
- decadentcactus 17y agoYou aren't wrong, I think the same. I obviously think it is a huge step, and am definitely not saying I could do any better, but I'm more excited for (at the moment) SpaceX to do bigger things to actually get us into a "space age", not just suborbital hops.
- RiderOfGiraffes 17y agoGetting 100 miles up is one thing, getting 100 miles up and then also travelling at 18000 mph is another. You need an extra mv^2/2 energy, which is quite a lot. To get to 160km ~ 100 miles you need about 1.6 MJ/kg. To travel at 8km/s you need about 32 MJ/kg. There's your main difference.
- tybris 17y ago> Am I wrong for thinking this is lame for being suborbital? I think you know as well as anyone that this is a crucial step.