On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 19:32:48 -0600, Damon Hill
wrote:

Some sort of air-augmented combined cycle rocket engine might have
some possibilities (think of a rocket engine firing into a ramjet
duct, with a variable fuel/oxidizer ratio).

But when you look at the complexities involved, the basic simple
rocket still makes a lot more sense. And it's off-the-shelf.

--Damon

Yeah. Went though all of this in scrapping scram.
I have noted many people seem doubtful if much is saved by
using the oxygen in the atmosphere.
My stand was to wait for more solid experimental data as I find
that theoretical models often miss crucial points.
Remember that 15 years ago bumble bees couldn't fly in our aerodynamic
models.
It has been pointed out that a rocket needs to accelerate continuously
and that a scram-jet for atmosphere usage only need to maintain
constant speed and that these are different problems.
As I said I need a optimal scamjet tranjectory and a optimal
rocket tranjectory to get the numbers.
I would also want to allow for advances in both scram-jets
and rockets. Remember that another exciting NASA project
is testing out a revolutionary Russian rocket engine developed
for the scrapped Russian moon program. As far as I understood
(no I am not a rocket scientist) used a turbine to power the fuel
pumps and feed it into the thrust of the engine developing 20-30% more
thrust for the same amount of fuel.
Exciting times!
I am a bit disappointed that we have not yet seen a successful
single stage to orbit rocket this decade.
But I am hopeful that we will see one in the next.
We are so close..

--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/