• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

A Fascinating Development in Space Travel


He's gotten away from using internal combustion engines for his cars. If he's going to be really successful in his space venture, he needs to do the same with his spacecraft. He needs another form of propulsion besides rocket power.
Totally agree. The fuel:useful payload ratio is all wrong.

The saturn V was essentially, what, 4% payload? Whereas a modern plane is 50% payload?

Payload fraction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In short, using classical physics, you'd have to go to a nerva or other nuclear rocket to get gobs of mass into orbit or beyond. Chemical isn't going to cut it in any major capacity. Because burning 100T of fuel to get 4T into LEO just aint gonna cut it.
 
or one of these:
Project_Harp.jpg


Space gun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
If I had bazillions of dollars, I'd use gauss rifles for the equipment launches and spaceplanes for people.

Gauss rifles are proven technology that should work as long as the gear can withstand extreme acceleration.

Spaceplanes should be vastly more efficient for human cargo - energetically an intercontinental flight and an LEO launch aren't that different.

Or even blimps to the edge of space and rockets from there.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top