On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 11:53:55 PM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,

says...



Reducing the cost of rocket lift and the cost of energy changes economics. 3D print technology combined with personal supercomputers that accurately model complex systems, make sophisticated systems routinely available.



Low cost solar power, making cryogenic hydrogen and oxygen from any available source of water, make energy low-cost.



A 5730 nautical mile ballistic hop requires 95% orbital velocity and a 20 degree burnout angle. This takes you from New York City to Tokyo in 20 minutes. A hydrogen oxygen single stage rocket requires an 81.7% propellant fraction.



With an 8% structure fraction this leaves 10.3% payload fraction. So, a 129 passenger ship, capable of carrying 29 tonnes of cargo or 129 passengers in two class arrangement, or 48 passengers in superior class arrangement, would have the following description;



29.0 tonne - payload (51.0 m3)

281.6 tonne - Take off weight

22.5 tonne - inert structure

35.4 tonnes - LH2 (505.7 m3)

194.7 tonnes - LOX (170.8 m3)



And if we go for a Horizontal Take off and Horizontal Landing, we have something like this;



http://www.warbirdforum.com/paxwing.htm



Filled with hydrogen and oxygen propellant in the wing, a linear aerospike engine on either side of the observation platform in the tail.



371.6 square meters of wing area. Looking from above, 64 square meters of cabin space in the centre. 39 sq meters on either side dedicated to LOX. 115 sq meters on either side dedicated to LH2.



The linear aerospike is blended into the trailing edge of the flying wing so that it produces through laser action, external combustion supersonic propulsion. Riding the shock wave once you get to supersonic speeds. Very similar to squeezing a pumpkin seed between your fingers to cause it to jet out.



http://www.warbirdforum.com/paxwing.htm



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0Y0FS8Z1Qk



Four J2 turbopump systems are required with 80 combustors of the type described here, with 20 on each side, above and below the trailing edge of the wing at the centre of the wing. Varying flow in each combustor provides thrust vectoring.



The rocket is used to get up to Mach 0.8 and then external combustion ramjet, riding the shock wave over the wing, from Mach 0.8 to Mach 6, climbing all the while.



The video shows an enclosed scramjet, which is wasteful of structure. An external scramjet that carries out the same process with an aerospike arrangement is superior in many respects. However, no videos are available for public viewing of this process.



Its basically an aerospike rocket nozzle that runs hydrogen rich, and has the ability to detonate air fuel mixture flowing over well defined regions of the flow shock regions;



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxwMNWrvttU



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yq1JohSaI3g



Then, as altitude and speed are gained, run up LOX flow rate again to accelerate to terminal velocity at 80 km altitude maintaining a 2 gee acceleration achieving terminal speed in 6 minutes 17.2 seconds.



You are in zero gee for the 20 minute ride. Then, you slow down, aerobraking, at a high angle of attack slowing at 2 gee and come in for a horizontal landing at your destination using your engine to fly optimally through your flight regime.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ub6U9CL0K_A



Then refuel at your destination and return 129 passengers the other way in two hours.



Over the course of 24 hours you make 6 flights each way, carrying 1548 passengers each day. You have a 12 hour service period every 7 days - 10,062 passengers per week. Designed for 26,000 flight cycles.



More b.s. "math" which ignores economics.

Economic analysis seeks to gain an understanding of the processes that govern the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services in an exchange economy through the use of math. One must use math if they are to have any understanding whatever of economics.

You're nothing if not
consistent. Too bad you're consistently wrong.

More name calling - if you actually had something relevant to say, it would go here.


Jeff

--

"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would

magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper

than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in

and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer